2010-12-03

Government Orders
Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-22 at third reading. 
As always, it is important that we recognize the support for the bill, throughout many years actually. All parties are supportive of the bill, so it clearly will go through. With the opportunity we have for the short amount of debate we will have on it, probably finishing today, we need to set, in context, how it has come to be this far into the process, why it has taken so long and the usefulness of the procedures that we mandate will have.
There is a big component here, I would hope, both in this debate, as Canadians listen to it and have up to this point, and on an ongoing basis, and that is the public educational aspect to the bill. If it is to be useful, we need greater co-operation from individuals who use the Internet on a regular basis.
To set the context, the bill requires companies that provide servers for the Internet to report what they consider to be child pornography to a specific agency, yet to be established. It will be identified and all service providers will be made aware of the agency. That is the first element.
Second, companies will have to report to the agency and if they are then, either by the agency or by a police forces, advised that they believe it is child pornography and that an investigation will take place, they will have to retain the material for a 21 day period. That will give police and prosecutors sufficient time to get a warrant to access the data and to trace back this material to its source. Our prosecutors need the 21 days to get a judicial warrant to get access to that information.
The bill is essentially about that.
 To set it in its context of why this is so important, the first thing I would point out is an NDP member had a private member's bill dealing with these aspects, and a couple more, way back in the late 1990s. The subsequent Liberal governments did nothing to move on this, and I think I am accurate in that. If they did, they introduced a bill really late, in 2004, 2005. The Conservative government picked it up in 2006, but we are now in almost 2011. In fact, this clearly will not likely become law until 2011 by the time it gets through the Senate and royal assent. That is a full five years. 
What has happened in that period of time is more children have been abused. Our police officers, prosecutors and judges have all been hamstrung, to a significant degree, in dealing with child pornography on the Internet because they have not had these tools. In that period of time, as much as the justice minister in particular and the Prime Minister stand regularly in the House and in public and accuse the opposition parties of slowing down bills, this one included, the reality is the government went to an election. Even though it said it would go to a fixed date election, it broke that promise and stalled the bill. We had two prorogations and both times this bill or its predecessors were stalled as well. In effect we have lost a full five years when we could have had this law. In fact, we should have had it as much as 10 years ago, and that is a real shame.
 In terms of the ability of our police forces in particular, the bill would allow our police enforcement agencies to get at this material.
It is important to understand something else that happened in Canada. Paul Gillespie, a police officer in Toronto, was trying to deal with child pornography and child sexual abuse generally. He became really frustrated by the lack of technology. On his own initiative, and he is really a Canadian hero in this regard, he sent a letter to Bill Gates of Microsoft and said that police officers needed help, that they could not trace the material, which has exploded on the Internet. 
 We have always had child pornography. We could go back to ancient Greece, ancient Egypt and find child pornography. However, with the advent of the Internet and easy access by billions of people around the Globe, child pornographers put this material on to the Internet in huge volume.
Paul Gillespie found that the police could not trace this material back. Most of this material does not come out of Canada. A chunk of it comes out of the United States, and we can disagree on how much, and a large chunk of it comes out of eastern Europe and parts of Asia. Mr. Gillespie was trying to trace this back to the source, but this material, at times, will go through as many as 50 different servers. 
He said to Bill Gates that the police did not have the technology to trace this back, that there were all kinds of walls built into the Internet that the police could not break through and he asked for help. To their great credit, Mr. Gates and his corporation provided resources to the tune of about $10 million in both actual dollars and in his staff. They built a software program with which we are now able to trace back, quite successfully, this material to its very source.
We have the problem, and I will be quite frank on this. When we have traced it back to various countries, there is no ability or, in some cases, no willingness on their part to shut these servers down and to prosecute the people who put it up originally. That is an ongoing problem. We need international co-operation. However, Canada has now become known as the country that developed, with the help of Mr. Gates and his company, the technology to trace it back.
Back to the bill and why it is so important. The service providers now have a legislated mandate that if they identify child pornography, they pass that information on to the new agency that will be created. One of the agencies we believe will be in competition for this role is the Cybertip.ca in Manitoba. Cybertip.ca was modelled after a program that started in the U.K. A centre was established in Winnipeg that regularly searches the Internet to try to find these sources and then passes that on to police agencies to try to track it down. I believe the federal funding for Cybertip.ca came in 2004, 2005 under the then Liberal government. I remember at the time criticizing the government for not giving it enough money.
We heard from the members of Cybertip.ca. They testified before the committee on this bill. They acknowledged that there was a good deal of additional work they would like to do to identify and trace this material and help the police in that regard.
Essentially people call Cybertip.ca to say that they have found a site with child pornography. Cybertip.ca then looks at it and identifies it to determine if it is prosecutable. It is passed on to the Canadian police forces that then pass it on to international ones.
Cybertip.ca has been very successful, but again, it is not properly funded. There is a lot of work it would like to do. When the director came to committee, she made it quite clear that it could easily double its work force to cope with that huge volume of child pornography on the Internet.
This is one of the potential agencies that may be identified under the regulations of the legislation as the agency to report to. I expect there may be other agencies that would bid in once the criteria and mandate for the agency is set up under the regulations.
 This is a very positive development in terms of fighting child pornography. There is not an individual in the House, and very few Canadians, who are not totally revolted by this material. In a previous bill that dealt with the issue of child luring, some material was shown to the committee in camera. I have also had exposure to this through my practice while doing some criminal work. It is absolutely revolting to see, especially when it is very young children, babies who cannot even walk yet, involved with adults sexually abusing them. 
It is absolutely crucial that we move on this. I am very critical of the current government and the previous government that it has taken us this long to get to this stage.
Our police officers can significantly move forward because of the ability to now gather this material through the service providers. They see, as much as everybody else does, that they will have an effect. There will be a greater number of people reporting on the existence of this material and where it exists. A secondary part of this bill will be the ability to get a quick search warrant to access the address. Through the website, which would already have been identified, they will be able to trace it back because of the software program developed through Microsoft. This will make it much more effective in fighting this scourge.
We cannot downplay the huge volume. It is speculated that not only child pornography but pornography overall takes up as much as 50% of all the material that is on the Internet internationally, and child pornography forms a significant part of that.
When the bill is passed, the government and the country will be able to move very dramatically. We will continue to take a leadership role on this. That leadership role is recognized internationally. At the international level, we need to continue to press other governments that have not been willing, or that may not have the capacity to go after these service providers to get to the sites from where the child pornography comes. We have to be as forceful as we can.
The estimate I have seen, and this is reasonably accurate, is less than 1% or 2% of this material is produced in Canada because of some previous legislation we passed and because of the technology Microsoft developed for us. Since that technology came online, it has been available to people like Mr. Gillespie. I refer to him as Mr. Gillespie because he has left the police force and has set up a non-profit agency to continue to fight child pornography. 
From the time that technology became available, we have identified a few sites in Canada where child pornography is produced and we have shut them down. 
In terms of advocating at the international level, we need to pressure governments, particularly in eastern Europe and Asia, to be more proactive at investigating these sites in their countries, shutting them down and prosecuting the producers.
A significant element has developed, again mostly out of eastern Europe and Asia, of organized crime producing this material and making millions if not billions of dollars off it. In all cases we are seeing children, sometimes at a very young age being abused because of the pornographers.
I want to mention a couple of concerns that I have about the legislation, and I would urge the government to monitor this. 
One of the provisions in the legislation is that, if the service providers do not comply with those two responsibilities, one, to report when they identify it and, two, to save the material for that 21-day period, they can be prosecuted.
I must say that the penalties contained in the bill seem to be quite mild when compared with other penalties that the government has imposed in the child pornography area. There seems to be some deference on the part of the government because these are corporate criminals. I have some difficulty with that and we will have to monitor it.
The other problem with it is that I do not understand the rationale behind this. The government put a maximum, a two-year limit, on the time when providers can be charged. It is certainly not beyond the pale that we would identify a number of service providers after two years who knew this type of material was on their sites and did not report it, or they did report it but did not keep the material.
In the secondary case, we will know and we will be able to charge them within that two-year time limit. But for those service providers who identify material and do not report it, it is quite conceivable, almost a certainty I would think, that we will find that some of them have done it for more than two years and we will not be able to prosecute them. I heard no argument from the government as to why it picked the arbitrary period of two years. Other sections in the Criminal Code do not have a two-year time limit in terms of the right to prosecute.
I raised another concern when I spoke to this bill at second reading, and that was that small service providers would not be able to comply. I just want to assure the House and Canadians generally that they are a small percentage of the overall market. The large service providers take up as much as 90% to 95% of the market. 
We asked the association representing small service providers to attend committee and tell us if it had any concerns about the bill. The association said there was no need for it to appear because it was satisfied that small service providers could comply with the law. That has been taken care of, as far as we can tell. 
This is a very good bill, with the exception of our one concern over the length of time to charge and prosecute. We will have to monitor that.
It is clear, from the evidence we heard on the bill and on other legislation we worked on with regard to child pornography and child sexual abuse more generally, that we have a responsibility because of the leadership role we have taken up to this point. Slow as it has been on some occasions, we are still further ahead than a lot of other countries. We have to continue at the international level to press governments to build a capacity to fight this scourge and, if they do identify it, have the political will to prosecute vigorously to shut the sites down and prosecute the producers of the material.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister has announced that she will be putting $42 million more toward police efforts to essentially play cat and mouse with a bunch of criminals who will simply move to a different jurisdiction.
The question has been raised as to whether or not the government has looked at best practices in other jurisdictions. For example, Sweden evidently just simply blocks pornography sites, as does Germany. Other countries have other types of rules.
If we have that as an option, if we can simply block it, why do we not just stop torturing ourselves and spending all sorts of taxpayers' money chasing these people, when the odds are against our catching them in the first place because they move between sites and between countries. Why would we not simply block the sites if that option is available?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. I cannot say that it came up much in the discussion on this bill. On a prior bill, again dealing with child luring over the Internet, in particular, there was discussion of that.
The only answer that I have had of any merit, and I do not want to sound as if I am defending the government's position, was again the problem of identifying the sites. We obviously cannot block them unless we know where they are. So, this bill would move forward on that. I would hope, based on all of the indications we have and what is happening in countries like Sweden, that we would move to that.
In that regard, I would like to just take another minute. I did a lot of work on public safety for a period of time. Within our CSE agency, we have some very advanced technology. If this were shared with our police forces, we would be able to do this blocking as effectively as any government that I have been able to identify, including the United States. We have technology, sort of in our spy agencies, that is as effective as any. The Chinese may be ahead of us on this because they are doing a great deal of blocking in China right now. However, we have the technology in Canada and we can do the blocking.
As I said, though, we would have to make that available, from our spy agencies and those services, to our regular police forces.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, my second question deals with the issue of offences.
 For example, in the case of individuals, we are talking about $1,000 for a first offence, $5,000 for a second offence and a maximum of $10,000 or six months for a third offence. For corporations, we are talking about $10,000 for the first offence, $50,000 for the second offence and $100,000 for the third offence. 
I would expect that at the end of the day, if we strip away the veils, we would find that these pornographic sites are largely owned and run by criminal enterprises. I wonder whether or not these fines would be high enough, because they could be seen by criminal organizations as nothing more than the cost of doing business. They do not seem high enough to stop people who are making millions of dollars on these types of sites.
I would like to ask the member what he personally thinks about that. I recognize that we can always increase them in the future if, after a certain period of time, we find out that they are not high enough. However, it just seemed to me at the beginning that, if we are dealing with organized crime, perhaps these would not be high enough penalities here.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be careful in recognizing who those fines would be applied against, because we have other laws that can do that. They would not be applied against people who are producing the child pornography. They are obviously the ones we want to get at.
These fines would apply to individuals or companies who are service providers who have not co-operated and have not submitted, in effect, to the requirements of this legislation. 
This goes back to the point I made earlier about my concern over the limit of two years. If we have a large corporation that provides a large amount of the service in this country that consistently has not complied with the legislation and we identify that, we could find ourselves only identifying it after the two-year period and not being able to prosecute. 
If it is within the two-year period, but they have consistently done this and we finally identify that, it seems to me the fines would be too low, in that setting. What we would want is some relationship to the amount of revenue they have generated from those sites during that period of time before we got a chance to shut them down. That would be a more appropriate system for fining them. 
However, with regard to organized crime and the other individuals or small groups who are producing this material, we have other penalties for them, most of which include fairly substantial periods of incarceration.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I did pay attention to the member's concern about the two-year limit not being long enough.
I would ask the member to explain that a little further. When we looked into this whole issue, we found that Canada was a large producer and host of this type of activity, with 9% of the worldwide number of sites. As a matter of fact, the United States was the largest at 49% of the total sites. Russia had 20%, Japan had 4.3% and South Korea had 3.6%.
We recognize that when efforts are being made to stamp these sites out, they will simply move on to other jurisdictions. This is a long-term effort here that is going to have be waged by jurisdictions. It just seems to me that we should be looking at best practices. We should be looking at the Swedish situation.
I do not know whether anyone at committee dealt with that particular issue. I would ask the member to deal with the issue of two-year limits and also the question of whether or not any witnesses were brought in who could give us some inside information about how the system is working in Sweden and other countries, including China.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to best practices elsewhere, no witnesses were called on this bill in this regard because we see this bill as one that transits us as a society into those next steps, which hopefully will be coming. We have had some of that evidence on previous bills.
With regard to the time limit, I have looked at some other jurisdictions and no one else has placed this time limit on it. I really could not understand the position. It was almost to the point of asking the government to take it out and let the general time limits in the code apply. I have had no sense from the government that it was prepared to make any compromise and withdraw this section, or if not withdraw it, then extend the period of time when prosecution could be brought against the service providers if they breached the legislation.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, back in June 2008 when I was in the Manitoba legislature we dealt with whole issue of Cybertip.ca.
At that time it seemed to have been a good idea. We supported it. I think the history of Cybertip.ca has been rather positive. The member is actually fairly knowledgeable in this area, so I would ask him to give us an update on that.
It is interesting that we have gotten more answers out of this member today than we have been able to get from any government member on this issue throughout the entire debate. As a matter of fact, we rarely see any government—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has the floor for a very brief response.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, Cybertip.ca is an excellent agency. It is very committed to the work its doing.
Again, as I said in my speech, the director who was here and gave evidence made it very clear that it could be doing a heck of a lot more. There is public education it would like to do. That is why it needs the additional resources.
The Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried. 
 (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 
Protecting Children from Sexual Predators ActHon. Bev Oda:  moved that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to commence second reading debate on Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the protecting children from sexual predators act.
Bill C-54 fulfills the 2010 Speech from the Throne commitment to increase the penalties for child sexual offences. It builds on other concrete measures already taken by this government to tackle violent crime and in particular safeguard children against sexual offenders.
For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act of 2008 raised the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. This same act also provided all Canadians with better protection against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts which much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals at very high risk to reoffend sexually and violently.
In addition to reflecting the government's unwavering commitment to tackle violent crime, Bill C-54 addresses something that is near and dear to the hearts of all Canadians, namely the protection of our children against sexual predators.
There are many issues on which parliamentarians may disagree but the protection of children against sexual exploitation should never be one of them.
The proposals in Bill C-54 have two objectives: one, to ensure that all forms of child sexual abuse irrespective of how they are charged are always treated as serious offences for sentencing purposes; and two, to prevent the commission of sexual offences against a child.
Currently an individual who commits sexual abuse and exploitation of a child victim can be charged and prosecuted under either child specific sexual offences or under general sexual offences that apply equally to adult and child victims. In deciding how to proceed, police and crown prosecutors take many factors into consideration, including the facts and circumstances of the case and which offence best applies to those facts and circumstances, including the intended penalty for the possible offences.
The penalties that are imposed for child specific sexual offences differ significantly from those imposed for the general sexual offences in one key respect. Twelve of the child sexual offences carry mandatory minimum penalties, whereas none of the general offences impose any mandatory minimum penalties. No less troubling, not all child specific sexual offences carry minimum penalties.
Bill C-54 proposes to change this to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties apply in all sexual assaults where the victim is a child. Some may think that this discrepancy is relevant in practice, perhaps thinking that the majority of child sexual assaults are charged under the child specific offences and therefore are subject to mandatory minimum penalties. Sadly, this is not the case.
In 2008, 80% of all sexual assaults of children reported to police were charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271 of the Criminal Code, sometimes referred to as a level one sexual assault; 19% were charged under one of the child specific or other sexual offences, such as for example section 151, sexual interference; and the remaining 1% were charged under the two most serious general sexual assault offences, levels two and three sexual assault, namely sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm under section 272, and aggravated sexual assault under section 273.
From a sentencing perspective, this means in 81% all sexual assault cases involving child victims in 2008, there was no mandatory minimum sentence.
I recognize there are some who will say that this does not matter because irrespective of the starting point, the sentence ultimately imposed must reflect the facts and circumstances of each case and must always denounce and deter child sexual abuse.
In our view, that is simply not good enough. This government and the majority of Canadians take the position that the deterrence and denunciation of the sexual exploitation of children must be strong and it must be consistently reflected in the sentences imposed in all of these cases. This means that the starting point for any sentence calculation must be a sentence of imprisonment and not a conditional sentence of imprisonment or house arrest as it is sometimes called.
This is the first thing that Bill C-54 proposes to do to ensure consistency. It proposes to impose a mandatory minimum penalty in all sexual offences where the victim is a child. Bill C-54 proposes to add mandatory minimum penalties to seven offences that do not currently impose mandatory minimum penalties. 
I apologize to those who are listening, but the content is not the type of thing that anyone really wants to talk about. These offences are: section 155, incest; subsection 160(3), bestiality in the presence of or by a child; section 172.1, Internet luring of a child; section 173(2), exposure to a person under 16 years; section 271, sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age; section 272, sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm where the victim is under 16 years of age; and section 273, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age. It is unfortunate that we even have to contemplate these things. 
The second thing that Bill C-54 sentencing reforms would do is ensure that the mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs, imposed are commensurate for each offence and consistent with other offences. 
Take for example the child-specific offence of invitation to sexual touching in section 152 of the Criminal Code. It is a hybrid or dual procedure offence. When proceeded with summarily, the offence carries an MMP of 14 days and a maximum of 18 months. On indictment it carries an MMP of 45 days and a maximum of 10 years. Clearly, these MMPs do not adequately reflect the correct starting point for calculating the sentence for that offence. 
The MMPs for sexual touching are also inconsistent with those provided in other offences, such as making child pornography in section 163.1(2), which carries an MMP of 90 days and a maximum of 18 months on summary conviction, and an MMP of one year and a maximum of 10 years on indictment.
Accordingly, Bill C-54 would impose higher MMPs for seven existing child-specific sexual offences: section 151, sexual interference; section 152, invitation to sexual touching; section 153, sexual exploitation; subsection 163.1(4), possession of child pornography; subsection 163.1(4.1), accessing child pornography; paragraph 170(b), parent or guardian procuring unlawful sexual activity with a child under 16 or 17 years; and paragraph 171(b), householder permitting unlawful sexual activity with a child age 16 or 17 years.
As an example, for the offence of sexual interference in section 151, where the maximum penalty on indictment is 10 years, the proposed MMP would be increased from 45 days to one year of imprisonment. For the offence of possessing child pornography under subsection 163.1(4) where the maximum penalty on indictment is five years, the proposed MMP would be increased from 45 days to six months' imprisonment. On summary conviction for the same offences and for which the maximum penalty is 18 months' imprisonment, the proposed MMP would be increased from 14 to 90 days.
Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent the commission of a sexual assault against a child. It does so through two types of reforms: through the creation of two new offences and by requiring courts to consider imposing conditions prohibiting convicted or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that may facilitate their offending.
Many child sex offenders engage in practices that will facilitate their offending. For example, they may seek out occupations or recreational activities that put them in close contact with children. They may befriend children who they perceive to be in need of friendship or even financial help and then exploit that friendship by engaging in unlawful sexual activity with the child. They may provide the child with aids, such as sexually explicit materials to lower their sexual inhibitions, or they may make arrangements with another person that will result in the commission of a sexual offence against a child.
Bill C-54 proposes to better address this preparatory conduct by creating two new offences. The first offence would prohibit a person from making sexually explicit material available to a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual or abduction offence against the young person. Child sex offenders often give such material to their victims to lower their sexual inhibitions and/or to show them the conduct they want the child victim to engage in, or to make the child believe that other children do this too.
It is already an offence to provide such material for any purpose where it constitutes child pornography. Bill C-54 would make it an offence to provide other sexually explicit material to a young person for this purpose. The offence would apply to transmitting, making available, distributing or selling such material to a young person for this purpose and would apply whether it is provided directly in a face-to-face encounter or over the Internet.
Bill C-54 proposes a clear definition of “sexually explicit material”, a definition that is consistent with its use and interpretation in the child pornography section 163.1 of the code, and voyeurism section 162 offences. The proposed new offence would clearly only apply when the material is provided for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an enumerated sexual or abduction offence against that child. 
This “for the purpose” criteria is used in the existing Internet luring of a child offence in section 172.1, and was recently interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the R. v. Legare decision of 2009 as applying to preparatory conduct that helps to bring about, or make it easier or more probable for the young person to participate in the prohibited conduct. The proposed new offence would be subject to mandatory minimum penalties and a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment on summary conviction, and two years' imprisonment on indictment.
The second new offence proposed by Bill C-54 would prohibit using telecommunications, such as the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with another person to commit one of the enumerated sexual or abduction offences against a child. This offence was previously included in Bill C-46, the investigative powers for the 21st century bill, that the Minister of Justice had introduced in the previous session of Parliament and that died on the order paper on prorogation.
In addition to the new MMP and a more accurate marginal note or title for this proposed offence, it has also been modified from the former Bill C-46 version to ensure consistency with the other new offence being proposed by Bill C-54, and with the existing luring a child offence of section 172.1, all of which follow a similar approach.
For example, the listing of offences in each of these three offences will now all be consistent. Similarly, all three offences would be added to the child sex tourism provision in subsection 7(4.1), which would provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for a Canadian prosecution of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who engages in one of the enumerated child sexual offences while abroad.
Coordinating amendments with Bill S-2, the protecting victims from sex offenders bill, are also proposed to ensure consistent treatment of these offences for the purposes of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, and DNA provisions in the Criminal Code. 
This proposed new offence would fill a gap in our existing law. Currently the existing prohibition against the Internet luring of a child, in section 172.1, applies to communications between the offender and the child. This new offence would apply to communications between, for example, two adults who arrange or make an agreement that would in essence result in the sexual assault of a child. The new offence would better address this preparatory conduct and help to prevent the commission of the actual sexual assault against a child.
Bill C-54 also seeks to prevent convicted or suspected child sex offenders from having the opportunity to facilitate their offending. Finding access to a child or the opportunity to be alone with a child is a key for many child sex offenders. An increasing number of child sex offenders also use the Internet and other new technologies to facilitate the grooming of victims or to commit other child sex offences.
Currently, section 161 of the Criminal Code requires a sentencing court, at the time of sentencing a person convicted of committing one of the enumerated child sexual or abduction offences, to consider imposing a prohibition against the offender from frequenting places where children can reasonably be expected to be found, such as a playground or schoolyard, or from seeking or holding paid or volunteer positions of trust or authority over children, or from using a computer system for the purposes of communicating with a young person.
Section 810.1 of the code provides a comparable direction vis-à-vis conditions that could be imposed as part of a recognizance or peace bond against a person who is reasonably believed to be at risk of committing one of the enumerated child sex or abduction offences. 
Bill C-54 proposes to expand the list of enumerated child sex offences to include four procuring offences. It would also broaden the list of prohibitions by directing a court to consider prohibiting the person from having any unsupervised access to a child under the age of 16 years, or from having any unsupervised use of the Internet. The objective of these conditions is to prevent the suspected or convicted child sex offender from being provided with the opportunity to sexually offend against a child or to use the Internet to facilitate such offending.
In summary, Bill C-54 builds upon numerous past and current legislative reforms and initiatives to better protect all children against sexual abuse and exploitation.
 It proposes sentencing reforms to ensure that all sexual assaults against a child victim are equally and strongly denounced and deterred through consistent and coherent mandatory minimum sentences. It also proposes reforms to prevent the commission of sexual assault against children.
I hope that all hon. members will support the expeditious enactment of these reforms to provide children with the protection they need and deserve.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I have one major concern with the bill, and that is the provision of the sexually explicit material. I understand the Supreme Court of Canada made reference to this. It is common knowledge, and anybody, whether psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker, who has worked on cases involving child sexual abuse is well aware of the technique that pedophiles use to engage younger children as well as teenagers by using sexually explicit material. 
I have a question for the parliamentary secretary and my colleague on the justice committee. I am concerned by the way the bill has been drafted. I am asking if the justice department in particular has analysed it from this perspective: whether, by the way this section has been drafted, it will be seen by the courts as a way of getting around the definition of child pornography as it exists in this country now and as the courts have found in a repeated number of cases. Is it a technique to get around the definition so that if this material that is shown to a young person does not amount to child pornography, will the courts say that it does not fit into the definition of child pornography, it is way beyond the scope of child pornography, and strike the charges down because of that, under the charter, because it would be a charter argument? 
I am just asking if the department has looked at it from that perspective. I hope I have made my question clear enough. I rambled a bit there.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and the statement he made earlier today on Bill C-22 that all hon. members agree and have an interest in making our laws more restrictive to ensure that no child is ever sexually abused in Canada.
With respect to his specific question, I can assure him that the department did look at the way the definitions of child pornography mesh with the provisions of material to a child for the purposes of grooming the child for sexual abuse. It is the view of the government and the department that both will withstand any charter challenge.
Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on the bill. As a father of two young girls, there is no bill we are currently looking at that has more for parents like me to be concerned about than the safety of our own children, so the bill goes a long way to address some of the concerns that we have.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would address a point. My understand is that house arrest would no longer be one of the provisions that would be allowed for those people who have been convicted of some of these horrific crimes. I am wondering if he could express to me an assurance that the bill does address the fact that these people who have been convicted of these horrific crimes will not be let back into the communities, many times the same communities in which they committed their crimes.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, for his concern and the good work he does to protect children in all of the matters he does, working on behalf of his constituents. I can assure him that the provisions of Bill C-54 will remove the possibility of a conditional sentence for a child sexual offender, and will replace it with a series of mandatory minimum penalties ranging from six months to 18 months of incarceration.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, while I certainly support the intent of this bill, I wonder whether we will see a move on the part of some of these people to engage in sex tourism in other countries. We have had that problem for many years, and the countries change over the years. Thailand was a big source for this activity and I am sure there are other countries.
 Does the government have any plans, or is it making any effort, to make certain that we are enforcing our own sex tourism laws? What efforts are being made to deal with other countries to toughen up their laws?
If all we do is export the problem somewhere else, we are not really getting ahead on a worldwide basis.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice very frequently bring these issues up at international conferences, as do our ambassadors and foreign affairs officials around the world. They continually make the case that other jurisdictions must pass the same kinds of legislation that we have here in Canada against child sexual offences and they must enforce them.
In that regard, as the member will know because I know he listened intently to my speech, I said earlier today that Bill C-54 includes a provision, which will be in subsection 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, that will provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for Canadian prosecution of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who engages in one of the enumerated child sexual offences while abroad.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member whether the government has any plans for a criminal injuries compensation fund similar to the fund we have in Manitoba that was set up under the NDP government of Ed Schreyer in 1969 or 1970.
 There is a lot of damage caused to people on a long-term basis. Does the government have any way for these victims of crime to receive compensation? Are there any plans afoot to have a federal victims' compensation fund or provisions like that?
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that this government has recently appointed a new victims' ombudsman, Ms. Susan O'Sullivan, who is a lifelong career police officer. She has an incredible amount of experience in law enforcement and brings all of that experience to bear in advocating on behalf of victims to make sure that victims' interests are taken care of by our justice system.
The member will also know that our government has spent more than any other government on victims' services. As well, it has increased the victims' services budget this year. 
We encourage all police officers, current prosecutors and law enforcement officials to bring these services to the attention of all victims. Of course, victims are the number one priority of this government.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the criminal injuries compensation fund idea that was started in Manitoba some 40 years ago is something that his government should look at. It has certainly fulfilled a very valuable function in my home province. 
If the government is as concerned as it says it is, and we believe it is, with the plight of victims in society, then it should not only talk about it, but actually do something about it. Certainly the experience with the previous holder of the office was that he was not happy with the lack of commitment to victims.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government is in close consultation with the victims' ombudsman to enhance all services to victims. We will take his suggestions and consider them in all seriousness.
The Speaker: That concludes the time for debate at this stage. I am going to move now to statements by members since it is almost 11 o'clock.

Statements By Members
Gow's Home HardwareMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the achievement of Peter Gow and Gow's Home Hardware in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's.
Gow's Home Hardware serves Bridgewater and the surrounding community and has a long history that can be traced back to a hardware store originally started by Robert Dawson in 1848.
For the second time, Gow's Home Hardware has been given the singular honour of being recognized as the country's most outstanding hardware store.
Peter Gow, the third-generation owner of Gow's Home Hardware, was awarded Hardware Merchandising magazine's Store of the Year Award.
Gow's Home Hardware is active in its community and always there to assist and co-operate. Congratulations to Peter Gow and his team at Gow's Home Hardware. His hard work, service and accomplishments are recognized by his community and his peers.
International Day of Persons with DisabilitiesHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year on December 3, we celebrate the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
The International Day of Persons with Disabilities aims to promote a better understanding of disability issues with a focus on equal enjoyment of human rights, as well as ensuring integration into all aspects of political, social, economic and cultural life.
The recent report by the HRSDC committee on the federal contribution to reducing poverty contains excellent recommendations to improve the lives of those living with disabilities, and I encourage the government to implement those recommendations.
The Liberal Party is a proud supporter of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We believe that together we can help the 650 million people worldwide and the 4.4 million people in Canada living with disabilities today enjoy their full human rights.
Jean-Léon DesmeulesMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the hard work of a volunteer who has never hesitated to get involved in a good cause. I want to speak about Jean-Léon Desmeules, who agreed to help create the Fondation de l'Hôpital de La Baie in 1987. He became the founding president in 1988 and held that position until 2009.
Mr. Desmeules has spent countless hours working tirelessly to recruit volunteers, structure the foundation and organize fundraising activities to get the hospital much-needed equipment. Mr. Desmeules has made a huge impact on the La Baie and Lower Saguenay region.
In his view, this foundation represents the understanding, commitment and generosity of each administrator, donor, collaborator, volunteer, association and social club that is involved in helping to develop and improve the Centre de santé et de services sociaux Cléophas-Claveau.
Sparky's Toy DriveJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant contributions the Windsor firefighters and the Salvation Army make in creating a more joyful Christmas for children in our community.
Through the annual Sparky's Toy Drive, Windsor firefighters gather over 35,000 toys for more than 3,600 children. Those toys are then distributed by the Salvation Army to families in need across the Windsor-Essex region.
Many of the toys that are given are purchased through the Windsor firefighters benefit fund. The annual kickoff dinner is one of the biggest fundraising events for the toy drive, but money is also raised through the Santa Claus parade, Spitfires hockey games, and the generous support of our community. However, as the price of gifts continues to rise, so does the need for continued and increased financial support.
The 2010 toy drive will soon come to an end, but the charitable work of the Windsor firefighters and the Salvation Army will continue throughout the year. Their compassionate efforts will help make Christmas a more memorable and joyful occasion for all children in our community.
Climate ChangeHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the manufactured controversy known as “Climategate” has now been debunked by five reviews, including Britain's Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. All concluded that scientists had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence about global warming.
A major assessment earlier this year from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities. It also warned of growing risks from rising sea levels, drought and disease that can only be addressed by quick action to reduce emissions.
That is why I encourage our government to accelerate its efforts through the clean energy dialogue with the United States and at the climate change talks in Cancun, Mexico.
As with the acid rain treaty of the 1980s, Canada can lead the United States and negotiate a Canada-U.S. climate change treaty that would allow us, as North Americans, to combat climate change and increase the likelihood of an international deal before the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.
We need to act quickly and we need to act now.
Atlantic Beef ProductsHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to congratulate the Atlantic Beef Products plant in Albany, P.E.I. for its recent culinary achievements. 
Atlantic Beef Products processes beef from the Maritimes and it does so with “from the farm to the plate” in mind. Its product is getting rave reviews. 
As headlined in the local press, “Like a fine wine allowed to age, a group of national food experts has declared P.E.I. beef as some of the finest in North America”. 
The National Post meat lessons expert Sam Gundy and his team from Olliffe visited farms, toured the plant and sampled the excellence of P.E.I. beef. Emphasizing the P.E.I. production method, Mr. Gundy's article stated, “All of this serves to explain why the beef tastes differently and, why we think better. With its greater age before kill and unique diet, to us the beef has a more beefy taste–resembling what beef used to taste like”.
Congratulations to Atlantic Beef Plant and P.E.I. producers for their superior product.
Elections in Côte d'IvoireMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government strongly condemns the violence which occurred during the elections in Côte d'Ivoire. On behalf of the Government of Canada, we call on both parties to respect the decision of the people of Côte d'Ivoire. Canada remains committed to ensuring a transparent electoral process.
Yesterday the Independent Electoral Commission announced that Alassane Ouattara had won the presidential election. Since then, the military has sealed all air, land and sea borders into Côte d'Ivoire and blocked international media broadcasts. These are very troubling developments.
Any dispute with the announced result must be dealt with in a legal and peaceful manner. Our government repeats its call for all stakeholders to remain calm and respect the democratic will of the citizens of Côte d'Ivoire.
Les Tournesols Vocal EnsembleMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Les Tournesols vocal ensemble from Boucherville is celebrating its 20th anniversary. Its members span the generations, ranging in age from 20 to 75. This group is made up of some 70 singers who share their talents to the delight of their audience. 
This choir has become a real musical institution in the Boucherville community. Organizations like the Les Tournesols vocal ensemble have helped make Boucherville a cultural city, and I am very proud of that.
I am looking forward to attending their next show, entitled Noël à travers nos 20 ans, in which they will revisit well-known Christmas songs in different languages from various countries. I wish Les Tournesols a happy 20th anniversary and many more to come.
EgyptMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada strongly condemns recent violence in Egypt targeted at the Coptic Christian minority. Media reports note that the clashes erupted last week between police and hundreds of people protesting after authorities halted the construction of a church in Cairo. It was also reported that several people died and many more were injured.
We also condemn the attacks of the Nag Hammadi, which singled out Christians for persecution in that country.
We impress upon the government of Egypt to take a strong leadership role in protecting all religious freedom and religious tolerance within its borders. Canada is a strong supporter of religious freedom for believers of all faiths.
 We encourage the House and the Egyptian government to respect the rights of the Coptic Christians, who have an ancient history in that country and we hope a bright future of freedom and security.
VolunteerismMrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the men and women who voluntarily contribute to society at local, national and international levels.
Established in 1985 by the United Nations, International Volunteer Day is celebrated every December 5 as a way of highlighting the true contributions of volunteers in our society and to also thank the countless volunteers who donate their time and energy.
As advocates, activists, board members, mentors, coaches, disaster relief workers and firefighters, to name a few, Canada's 12.5 million volunteers help their communities grow.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I would like to thank volunteers across the country for their commitment to public service. I encourage Canadians to get involved in their community.
Violence Against WomenMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week, many of my colleagues have talked about the key role that men play in working to end violence against women.
This morning, I would like to talk about a project funded by Status of Women Canada in Quebec, the Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, a network of shelters and transition houses for women who are victims of domestic violence.
This project will involve 900 girls and 900 boys in high school. A series of workshops for students and anyone who plays a role in schools will build their capacity to recognize abusive relationships and report them, and improve their ability to react appropriately. 
And it will not stop there. Committees will be convened to promote the initiative in schools and encourage young people to speak out against violence and be leaders among their peers.
This initiative is another example of how women, men, girls and boys can work together to end violence against women.
Harmonized Sales TaxMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the call by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for tax fairness.
 In a letter to the Minister of Finance, our school trustees are calling for a full rebate of the HST payable by school boards. As members know, the HST has increased the costs in Ontario. Money that should be going to our students' education is being clawed back through the HST. Our school board in Ottawa estimates that a full rebate of the HST will mean $2.3 million in savings. That is a 25% increase in the funds available for upgrading our schools. It means new textbooks, new educational assistants and new learning staff for students. It means new ESL teachers and multi-cultural liaison officers to support Ottawa's growing new-Canadian population.
This is a simple solution to ensure we leave more money in the hands of our school boards to address our students' educational needs. I urge the government to listen to this school board's plea for immediate action.
International Day of Persons with DisabilitiesMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. No government has done more for Canadians with disabilities than our Conservative government.
We introduced the historic registered disability savings plan to help parents and others save for the long-term financial security of a child. Having a child with those concerns and needs, we personally, as a couple, have benefited from that. As a government, we also created the enabling accessibility fund, which is making buildings in communities across the country more accessible. We ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
Just listen to what Al Etmanski from the PLAN Institute had to say. He said, “I believe [this] Government is hands down the most effective Federal champion people with disabilities and their families have ever had.” 
Our government's initiatives are making a positive difference and we will continue to support the full participation of Canadians with disabilities.
Infrastructure ProgramMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois's insistence finally paid off. The government changed its mind, finally saw reason and announced that it would extend the infrastructure program.
Municipalities will have until October 31, 2011, an extra seven months, to complete projects undertaken as part of the program. Quebec's municipal affairs department and the Fédération des municipalités du Québec estimated that nearly a third of the projects would likely not be completed. The Bloc Québécois's victory represents $220 million for Quebec. Let us not forget that the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion urging the federal government to see reason on this matter.
This is another concrete example of how the Bloc Québécois is useful and relevant in the House of Commons. We take a stand and get things done for Quebec. 
Forest Fire in Northern IsraelHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the forest fire in northern Israel has cost dozens of lives and come close to the city of Haifa and many of its people and institutions, including Haifa university which has just been evacuated. Canada and Canadians will respond to this tragedy. Israel's request for assistance in fighting this fire needs a speedy and firm “yes” from federal and provincial governments, including sending fire retardant agents and water bombers.
Our own country knows only too well the devastating impact such fires can have. We can all imagine the impact on a much smaller country and its people. This transcends politics and parties. It is about people helping people and doing so as quickly and effectively as we can.
The EconomyMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning Statistics Canada reported that 15,200 jobs were created in November and unemployment dropped to 7.6%. November's job growth once again shows that Canada's economic action plan is creating jobs and keeping our economic recovery on track.
The Canadian economy has experienced growth in the last five quarters. Since July of last year, more than 441,000 jobs have been created in Canada. But the global economic recovery remains fragile. And so, jobs and the economy are still our top priority as we implement our action plan for job creation while keeping taxes low.
While Canada's economic action plan continues to produce results for Canadians, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is planning to increase job creators' taxes, which would put the brakes on our recovery and kill nearly 400,000 jobs.

Oral Questions
PensionsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the unelected, unaccountable, Conservative-dominated Senate killed the long-term disability pensions, and again the government laughs, of more than 400 Nortel employees. These people are suffering from Parkinson's Disease and similar disabilities. Without their pensions, they will be destitute just 28 days from today.
At a time when Conservatives have a lot of money for jets and jails, corporate tax giveaways and bloated ministerial offices, why can the government not help 408 innocent, hard-working but now disabled Canadians?
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Party would like to reform the Senate, I would encourage it to get behind this government's agenda. 
We have legislation before Parliament with respect to elections of senators and with respect to the term limits going from 45 years to 8 years. We think that is incredibly important. 
However, the issue involving Nortel pensioners and LTD recipients is obviously a very serious one. Regrettably, the reality is we cannot legally and constitutionally make laws that apply retroactively. I think the member opposite knows that.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the minister is plainly wrong. 
Since coming to office, the Conservatives have wasted a billion dollars in extra spending on partisan advertising, outside consultants and other excesses. The Prime Minister's personal political expenses are up by more than 30% in just the last two years. The political spending of the Minister of Justice is up by nearly 20%. The Minister of Transport, is up 100%. The chief government whip is up 235%. Yet disgraceful Conservative senators are hacking the pensions of the long-term disabled.
How can the Conservatives look themselves in the mirror?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. If we want to look at the basket of political expenses by this government, let us look at the expenses in the offices of the ministers. The use of government aircraft, particularly the use of Challenger aircraft, travel and other associated expenses, hospitality and polling expenses are dramatically reduced under this government. The member opposite, I suspect, knows that.
We are following the issue incredibly closely with respect to the situation involving Nortel LTD recipients. The reality is we cannot make laws retroactive. If the member opposite believed in this, he had 13 years to change the Bankruptcy Act and failed to do so.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is not just the disabled at Nortel. Two-thirds of Canadians do not have decent retirement savings at all. Under the current government, poverty for senior citizens has jumped 25%. Family household debt has skyrocketed. It is 50% higher than disposable incomes. The well-being of children is dropping.
Why does the government lavish $6 million in personal benefits on one Conservative senator, Senator Brazeau and his used Porsche, when it has nothing for pensions, family caregivers or better access to education?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has made great noises about wanting to raise the decorum in the House and talk about issues that are relevant to Canadians.
For the member for Wascana, talking about what kind of automobile a parliamentarian drives is not really—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.
Government SpendingMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on one hand, the Conservatives are telling us that times are tough and that we need to tighten our belts. On the other hand, they are getting carried away and spending without restraint. Imagine, $1.3 million for taxis, and that does not include limousines. It is not their pocket money, it is Canadians' money.
I think I understand what the Conservatives are saying to Canadians. It is quite simple: Do as I say, not as I do. Is that it?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Federal Accountability Act is the blueprint for more accountable, open and ethical government. It represents this government's contract with Canadians to clean up government and ensure that the disastrous financial scandals of the Liberal years are never repeated.
As a government, our focus is always on accountability and ensuring value for money. Taxi vouchers are only used for official government business.
SeniorsPablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives are doing is disgusting. They are shamelessly wasting our money. Meanwhile, the poverty rate among seniors has increased by 25%. Has that become a priority for them? No, not at all. Worse still, they are changing the rules to make it even harder to access the guaranteed income supplement. This will force even more seniors into poverty.
I know they are very busy gallivanting around in taxis, eating canapés, building prisons and buying airplanes, but when they have finished all of that, will they finally find some time to look after our seniors?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are certainly concerned with seniors and we have therefore taken a number of actions to be sure they have extra income in their pockets. 
We have taken action specifically with respect to the guaranteed income supplement to be sure that they are entitled to receive that. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement twice.
We would ask the member and the Liberal Party to get behind us when we are taking initiatives that are helping our seniors in this difficult time.
The EnvironmentMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to a study released in conjunction with the Cancun conference, the past decade was the warmest since 1850. One of the greatest temperature increases was recorded right here in Canada, where 2010 is expected to be the warmest year in history. Global warming is having a devastating effect not only on the environment, of course, but also on public health, food security and economic development.
Given this disturbing reality—to say the least—how can the Conservative government still refuse to implement a binding plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague, being so concerned about the economy, was going to talk to us about the 441,000 new jobs created in Canada since our economic action plan was introduced. 
I would simply remind the member that Canada is a signatory to the Copenhagen accord. We are working very hard with the 148 countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, many more jobs would be created in Quebec by reducing our dependency on oil than with the measures that have been put in place. The Conservative government, as clearly demonstrated by the minister, looks for every excuse to justify its lack of action on climate change. Sometimes it is the Americans who are the problem, sometimes the Chinese. There is always something.
Instead of playing hide and seek, what is the government waiting for to listen to Quebec, environmental groups and business people who all want a coherent greenhouse gas reduction plan in order to look to the future?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, our government has committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 17% compared to 2005 levels by 2020. These are firm commitments and not empty promises. These are very firm commitments that the government has promised to honour. And we are convinced that we can reach this target.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives was urging the Conservative government to stop following in the wake of the United States and to develop a consistent policy to address climate change. These 150 business leaders want to move forward on environmental and energy innovation.
Now that the Cancun conference is under way, why does the government not make amends and table a coherent plan to fight global warming? What is the government waiting for?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to reduce greenhouse gases. In Cancun, we will work with the other countries to encourage the world's major economies to participate in reducing greenhouse gases. We have already established regulations on automobile emissions and we want to do the same for emissions from trains, planes and ships. We will continue to work with the other countries to this end. We agreed to reduce our greenhouse gases by 17%, which is exactly the same objective as that set by President Barack Obama.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, here is a concrete example of how the economy and the environment go hand in hand: Enerkem is producing a new type of ethanol using old utility poles. The company claims that its growth is constrained by the lack of federal regulations promoting clean energy and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the company's vice-president, the government's inaction will detract from Canada's ability to compete, particularly with the United States.
Do the Conservatives understand that entire sectors of Quebec's economy are suffering because they sided with the oil companies?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is our government that created the regulations to add biofuels to gasoline, which was something very important.
We are world leaders. We have put biofuel regulations in place and that is leading to a huge amount of economic development and growth. We know that the environment can be a huge enabler of a growing economy. 
We are very pleased today that there were 15,000 net new jobs created in this country. That is more than one more step forward. We remain focused on jobs and the economy.
AfghanistanJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Crosbie's comments about the situation in Afghanistan stand in stark contrast to the rosy views of the Conservatives. He referred to mass corruption, election fraud, narcotics trafficking and a system of patronage that should make even the Conservatives blush. On the Afghan election our ambassador said, “We can't be seen to collude with it”.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs still stand by his endorsement of that election which his own ambassador said was rigged?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility obviously of Canada's ambassadors and high commissioners is to represent Canada. Ambassador Crosbie does not represent the Government of Afghanistan. He represents the Government of Canada. Our government has been, and will continue to be, outspoken about certain of our concerns related to governance in Afghanistan.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan has been quoted as saying:
 “The international community must stand up for the silent majority or be blamed for letting Karzai and his family establish across the country the system of patronage and control that exists in Kandahar.”
Are the Conservatives going to continue to help the Karzai family get rich on the backs of the people of Afghanistan?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said a few moments ago. The responsibility of our ambassadors and our high commissioners around the world is to represent Canada's interests abroad. They are not ambassadors of one country or another, they are ambassadors who represent our interests. 
With respect to the comments that have been made, I will just say that our government continues to be outspoken about a number of our concerns and will continue to do so, especially when it comes to Afghanistan. 
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, those are empty words coming from the government. It has to back the assessment of the ambassador. It is not doing that. The ambassador described Mr. Karzai's chief of staff as a “corrupt, Iranian-backed éminence grise whose influence appears to increase daily”. This is a man who has been accepting bags of money from the Iranians at a time when Afghans desperately need help.
Why are the Conservatives cutting back on the kind of assistance that Afghanistan would be able to use to counter corruption? 
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague who sits on the committee that reviews the quarterly reports will know full well that among the six objectives and priorities we have, one indeed is to take care of institution building. Obviously the member did not read that report and he does not know what we are doing in Afghanistan. He might start reading the report.
CensusHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a year ago a briefing note was prepared for Industry Canada detailing the concerns of numerous federal departments. Replacing the mandatory long form census with a voluntary survey would significantly compromise their ability to develop and evaluate public policy relevant to issues like EI, aboriginal health, housing, education, as well as the settling of immigrants. 
Despite this crystal clear advice, the Prime Minister decided unilaterally to press ahead. When will the government do the right thing and restore the mandatory long form census?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberals and their coalition partners, we do not believe it is fair or reasonable to threaten Canadians with jail time or massive fines, or both of these, to fill out a long form for those who want the data. We have a fair and reasonable compromise which acquires useful and usable data, and at the same time better protects the rights and interests of citizens. 
I just wonder what hidden interest the coalition has on that side and why they want to trample on Canadians' rights.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the government picks the questions and picks the penalties, but cutting the long form census is just reckless spending and reckless policy. In what the government describes as tough economic times, how do Conservatives find it prudent to spend $30 million more to get less reliable information? 
Why will the Minister of Finance not discipline the Minister of Industry, get this risky spending under control, do the right thing and restore the long form census?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, it is very regrettable that the Liberal Party and its coalition partners are so unfair and unbalanced on this particular issue. 
We have a fair and reasonable balanced objective here. We want to protect the rights of Canadians. We do not want to threaten them with jail time or massive fines, or both. 
We think we have a reasonable solution. It is just unfortunate that those members are concentrating on this issue when we got 15,000 net new jobs in November. That is what Canadians care about.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, 900 beef and hog farmers attended an urgent meeting in Stratford entitled “Farmers Matter”. Farmer after farmer stated that the government's farm safety nets are not working. Farmers made it clear that they cannot pay back the targeted advance loans under the terms the minister announced.
Why does the government impose loans on farmers while wasting billions of dollars elsewhere: waste on fancy photo ops, waste on cabinet ministers' expenses, waste on planes and prisons? Do farmers just not matter to this government?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, our government puts farmers first. We have taken action for livestock producers by giving them more time to pay their loans. Livestock producers now have breathing room to seize market opportunities and to get black ink on the bottom line. We have given tax deferrals for producers in these areas to help them manage their breeding stock.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, this government puts farmers first only when it comes to debt. That is when it puts them first.
A headline in The Globe and Mail reads in part, “Canada slips from agricultural superpower status”. It is no wonder. While the United States supports farmers with billions, Canadian farmers are being forced to live off loans. While the government is squandering billions of borrowed money on fake lakes and billboards, Ontario farmers' incomes fall.
When will the government get its priorities straight and support farmers in Canada?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member agrees that we put farmers first. 
We are delivering significant programming to our farmers. Since 2007, we have delivered $6.8 billion to our farm sector through key and critical programs such as agri-invest, agri-stability, agri-insurance and agri-recovery. Just to give an example, when we speak about agri-invest, $650 million has been paid out. This is in addition to $600 million that has gone into farmers' bank accounts.
National DefenceMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada’s military ombudsman is extremely frustrated. He is troubled that grieving families often do not get the support needed and that the federal government does not have a policy to take care of these families. The ombudsman is very disappointed by the Minister of National Defence's evasive answers and refusal to act.
When will the government take concrete action for the well-being of military personnel, starting by giving family members standing at boards of inquiry convened into the death of a military loved one?
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister appreciates the ombudsman's ongoing advocacy on behalf of the families of deceased Canadian Forces members. We share those concerns and consider the care and compassionate treatment of CF personnel and families to be of the utmost importance.
The minister has met with the ombudsman. He has responded to him several times. He responded to the ombudsman's letter of December 1 yesterday and provided a status report on the number of initiatives that we are considering for the families of fallen members. In addition, he has designated a senior officer to be a direct point of contact with the families. 
We will continue to do everything we can to treat the family members in the best way possible. If we can find a way to do it better, we will.
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, we do hope that this ombudsman will keep his job.
While the government is telling us that it is allocating all possible resources to veterans, Pascal Lacoste, a soldier who served in the Royal 22nd Regiment, testified in committee that he was treated condescendingly and that his requests for care were refused repeatedly.
Does the minister think it is normal that this former soldier is still waiting for services he is entitled to?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I cannot speak about a specific case here in the House. But the Minister of Veterans Affairs is making all sorts of changes in order to be able to fully respond to our veterans as quickly as possible. By introducing a new bill, we are in the process of granting additional services to our veterans, particularly injured soldiers returning from Afghanistan, our modern-era veterans.
Government SpendingMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Public Accounts of Canada for 2010, the federal government has spent nearly $8.2 billion on external professional services. The use of such services has grown by 132% over the past decade. The use of private companies has several negative effects. In addition to being more expensive, this phenomenon compounds the shortage of specialized labour within the government and, in many sectors, it ultimately reduces competition. 
Before asking Canadians to tighten their belts, should the government not start by limiting its use of consulting services, which will give taxpayers value for their money?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, since 2006, spending on temporary workers has been consistently below 1% of personnel costs. It was even lower in 2009 and 2010.
The majority of temporary workers are hired for contracts of less than 36 weeks, and only 78 extensions were given to contracts beyond 48 weeks.
Quebec Construction IndustryMeili Faille: Mr. Speaker, the government should read another sheet.
The federal government is a key player in the construction industry in Quebec. Consider for example the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited and the ports of Montreal and Quebec City. However, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars it has spent, the federal government has not developed a strategy to address collusion and corruption since the litany of revelations were made concerning the ties between the construction industry and organized crime.
How can the government turn a blind eye to the corruption?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous.
We have bills before Parliament right now that would get rid of house arrest for very serious crimes and would crack down on white collar crime.
 The problem is that, as soon as one of these bills is introduced, about 10 seconds later people in the Bloc say they are going to oppose it. The members should keep their concern to themselves.
 We are taking action on these issues over on this side of the House.
Air IndiaBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Judge Major, in his report on the Air India bombing, found two things: first of all, that there was substantial negligence on the part of several government agencies with respect to the investigation; and second of all, that the families signed waivers with respect to that without the government disclosing to them the full extent of the government's own negligence.
I wonder if the minister can give us an assurance, a real assurance that in fact the government, in reaching a settlement with the families with respect to the compensation issue, will take those two points, which are really quite critical, fully into account?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, meaningful solutions to complex problems take time and great effort.
This government has done what no previous government has done, recognizing this as an attack on Canadians that should never have happened. We are committed to fixing the security gaps that allowed this terrible act of terror to occur in the first place.
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. These recommendations have not just been made by Justice Major for six months, they have been made over five years, ranging from O'Connor to Brown to Iacobucci to Kennedy to the public safety committee, and yet the government continually, again and again, ignores those recommendations.
Whether or not it is Mr. Almalki, Mr. Nureddin, Mr. El Maati, Mr. Arar or Canadian citizens tortured abroad, whether or not it is the families of Air India or the family of Mr. Dziekanski, why is the government doing nothing? Why is it refusing to act on these recommendations?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, because of the low priority justice issues have within the Liberal Party, I can understand how the hon. member would have missed this.
However, we have introduced a bill that specifically targets mega-trials, which was one of the major recommendations of that particular inquiry.
It is interesting that the member raises this question on the Air India inquiry, and I want to know why he did not do it, why did his party not do it? We are the only ones who took action on this. We are proud of that. Why did they not do anything about it when they had the chance?
Public SafetyMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has enacted the Bioterrorism Act to protect that country's drinking water systems from terrorist attack. The act requires water utilities to conduct assessments of their vulnerability to attack.
 A British security expert has confirmed that Canada's drinking water systems are not protected from the threat of attack. What is more, the RCMP lacks the money to apply the suspicious incident reporting system to the water sector.
Why has the government fallen down on such a vital issue?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, obviously we take these issues incredibly seriously. This government has worked very hard with respect to combatting terrorism.
 Domestically we have been fortunate that we have not had a major incident since Air India. Obviously, we want to ensure that the health and safety of Canadians are protected, not just in terms of setting high standards, but in terms of being concerned about what people might do to cause harm to Canadians.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that it has been almost a decade since 9/11. Since then, the U.S. has passed the Bioterrorism Act and the British have protected their entire drinking water network with sophisticated 21st century technology. Canadian municipalities, on the other hand, do not have safe water plans. Most have not even done risk assessments for their drinking water systems.
Does the government know which municipalities have protected their systems from terrorist attack, yes or no?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this government has continued to follow the strong policies that the previous Liberal government followed from 2001 to 2006.
The EconomyMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are growing more and more concerned with the Liberal leader's plan to attack Canadian job creators with a punishing new tax increase that would kill jobs and kill economic growth. Experts have noted that the Liberal tax hike plan would kill over 400,000 new jobs, and people in my community are worried about the Liberal plan too. 
The Cornwall and Area Chamber of Commerce has stated that it is gravely concerned, noting that it would have a negative impact on many of our local businesses. 
Can the parliamentary secretary please update this House on our government's record on jobs and on taxes?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right. In fact, the Liberals want to dramatically hike taxes on job creators. It is a proven fact that it would kill almost 400,000 jobs in this country. 
Our government is focused on keeping taxes low and creating jobs. November's job growth gains prove that, once again, our economic action plan is working, with five straight quarters of steady economic growth. Since July 2009, this country has created 440,000 net new jobs. That is good news.
Air TransportationMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this government is driving billions of dollars in business away from Canadian airports to the United States. The government is charging millions in rent and excessive security charges. 
We can go to any American airport on the border, like Buffalo or Plattsburg, and find a parking lot full of Canadian licence plates. Millions of Canadians flew out of American airports last year. That is business that should have been going to Canadian airports.
 Why will this government not help the Canadian aviation industry? Why is it content to drive away business from Canada to the United States?
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know exactly what the NDP wants to do with this country. It wants to close our borders, shut down Canada and stop Canada's government from creating jobs. Airports are no different.
We have one of the most competitive airport industries in the world. As far as airports and the economy go, we are going to take no lessons from the NDP.
Let me be clear, Canada has created 441,000 new jobs over the past five straight quarters. Canada is one of the world leaders as far as economies go, and we are going to take no lessons from the NDP.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I do not think those guys take lessons from anyone, but they should.
Our airports should not be used as cash cows. The government's taxes now account for up to 70% of the total fare. The Conservative government is taking $3 billion more out of airports than it is putting into them. Canadian travellers deserve better. 
The government should be standing up for Canadian travellers, our local economies and our aviation industry. Instead, because of high taxes, levies and security charges, it is driving business south of the border.
Why does the government not get on board and help the Canadian aviation industry compete?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to ensuring that our airports stay viable and the industry continues to be that way. The industry has been deregulated at our airports from an economic point of view. The users should make certain that they have the appropriate airport security in place as they go through our airports and that the rents are appropriate so that the taxpayer is not overly burdened by this. 
We have a system in place that is actually doing that and is in the best interests of the Canadian passenger and the public.
CensusMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the government decided to make changes to the census, a number of departments expressed their concerns. In a memo addressed to the Deputy Minister of Industry, one of the main concerns was the possible confusion between the voluntary nature of the long form census and the mandatory nature of the short form census.
In light of this warning by his own officials, how could the Minister of Industry eliminate the mandatory long form unless he was trying to promote his ideology instead of science?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we do not think it is appropriate to require Canadians to provide private information under the threat of sanctions. Our approach is balanced, reasonable and fair to all Canadians. We are acquiring very important information while protecting the rights of Canadians.
That is our position and we are proud of it.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that we cannot improve what we cannot measure.
Is the minister aware that eliminating the long form census will have harmful effects in a host of areas, such as transfer payments to the provinces, employment insurance, labour mobility, health programs, housing and economic development?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not true. We are protecting the information that the departments need while respecting the privacy of Canadians.
The hon. member's leader, though, had another position. He wanted to take away people's passports or their EI if they did not fill out the census. That is not reasonable; that is not fair for Canadians. We will oppose the Liberal, Bloc and NDP coalition on this issue.
Canadian ForcesMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada's military ombudsman revealed some disturbing facts. 
Pierre Daigle has uncovered multiple cases where families of loved ones who have died while in the military have been unable or seemingly blocked from getting information about those deaths.
No doubt the Conservatives have known about this for months, if not years, and yet they did very little.
Why does it take a public shaming for this government to walk the talk when it comes to treating our veterans' and soldiers' families fairly?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in respect to the Bloc member, the minister takes this very seriously as does the leadership of the Canadian Forces. They do everything they can to treat families with fairness and compassion at a time that is obviously very difficult for families.
The minister has responded to the ombudsman in great detail. He has responded to the ombudsman in the past.
Yesterday he tabled with the ombudsman about 13 different measures that will go to making the situation better. We will continue to do everything we can within the constraints that we are faced with. We will do everything we can that is possible to make the situation better and to treat those families with the care and compassion they deserve.
Scott Simms: The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we have certainly seen this before. The veterans ombudsman, Pat Stogran, came out publicly and scolded the Conservatives for ignoring the plight of injured and disabled veterans. What happened to him? He was indeed fired.
Pierre Daigle in simply doing his job has now exposed the government's further lack of action toward the families of soldiers who have lost their lives while in uniform.
Can we anticipate that Mr. Daigle will be fired for doing his job, like other brave critics before him, or will the Conservatives work with him and these families and do what is right?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the member is simply wrong. The previous veterans ombudsman finished out his term and we appointed a replacement.
The minister appreciates the advocacy that Mr. Daigle has brought to the job of defence ombudsman. He will continue to work with him. The minister has been working with him all along and will continue to do that into the future.
We will do everything we can, as we have done in the past, to make things better for the families of deceased members of the Canadian Forces. If there is a way to do it better, we will find it and we will implement it.
Harmonized Sales TaxMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's harmonized sales tax will mean whopping home heating costs for families in northern Ontario this winter. Home heating is not a luxury. Up north of Superior, it is a necessity. We should not be raising taxes on necessities.
Will the minister adopt our policy to scrap the HST on home heating, or will he leave northern families out in the cold again this winter?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the only policy that we have seen from the NDP is to support raising taxes. When we decided to lower the GST from 7% to 6%, NDP members voted against that, and from 6% to 5%, they voted against that. The tax reductions that we have put in place leave more than $3,000 in the pockets of the average family of four.
 I would remind the hon. member that he should talk to his provincial colleagues if he wants to talk about a provincial issue, and that is the harmonized sales tax in Ontario.
PensionsMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about the high cost of living and their retirement income. In northern Ontario the price of gas went up 10¢ last night. Home heating costs are skyrocketing, thanks to the government's HST scheme.
A poll of Canadian CEOs on my pension protection bill, Bill C-501, found that a majority believe the bill is fair and that Parliament should pass the bill.
Will the government respect the wishes of Canadian CEOs and pensioners and support Bill C-501 and protect six million Canadians?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we are protecting 34 million Canadians by reducing their taxes. That is what Canadians have asked us to do and we have delivered on that through our economic action plan. 
We have created over 441,000 net new jobs since July 2009. That is what Canadians wanted. They wanted assurances that their government was listening to what they wanted. They wanted to ensure they had jobs so they could help support their families. That is what is important.
Foreign InvestmentMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is more economic good news. According to an analysis released yesterday by the OECD, Canada was the leading investment recipient in the first half of this year. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade outline to the House the measures that have been taken and how the government is working to make Canada an attractive destination for investment.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni for his knowledge, interest and expertise on this file.
I, too, read the report, unlike the members opposite. I am pleased to say it is another example of the results produced by our government's commitment to make Canada a top destination for foreign investment. 
That is why we push for such things as the lowest taxes on new business investments of any major economy. In addition to this, Canada has weathered the global economic downturn, with the lowest debt of any major economy, the lowest deficit-—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.
Foreign AffairsMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rumours have been going around for weeks that a number of Canadian embassies in African countries, many of them members of la Francophonie, are set to close. Cameroon is one of those countries. Obviously, the Conservative government does not care about the diplomatic repercussions of that decision or about its reputation within the French-speaking world.
Can the minister clarify the status of Canadian embassies in francophone African countries?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, since coming to power, our government has doubled aid to Africa. We have fulfilled our obligations by providing $2 billion in aid. In addition, we are participating in an initiative developed at the G8 summit to help women and children.
The government's actions are appropriate and, in my opinion, better than those of any preceding government with respect to Africa's needs. We will pursue this course of action.
Post-secondary EducationMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities, Quebec universities are underfunded to the tune of $620 million compared to the Canadian average. Quebec is still waiting for the federal government to correct the fiscal imbalance, which would restore over $800 million to Quebec to return funding to 1994-95 indexed levels.
When will the federal government correct this unfair situation for Quebec university students? 
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Bloc would have us believe, our government is working with the Government of Quebec. Just this morning, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion thanking the Government of Canada for its decision to extend the deadline for infrastructure projects under the economic action plan to October 31, 2011. That is a sure sign of open federalism.
HealthJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, in the Manitoba first nations community of Garden Hill two people recently died and a third is sick, and influenza seems to be the cause. 
Last year, during the H1N1 crisis, two-thirds of the flu victims were aboriginal. Because of poor living conditions and a lack of medical care, people living on reserves are especially vulnerable.
Health care on reserves is a federal responsibility. Will the government act now to prevent more deaths and illness?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our condolences go to the families that are affected.
The health and safety of all Canadians is a priority for our government. We continue to work closely with the community leadership and the provinces.
In the island lake region we are adjusting nursing staff levels and providing support for additional immunization activities and ensuring access to essential medical supplies at the health facilities.
We are encouraging all Canadians to get their flu shot and to use preventive methods, such as handwashing and coughing into their sleeve.
Democratic ReformMr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to democratic representation and to Bill C-12. That is why we support giving B.C., Alberta and Ontario their fair representation in Parliament. Canadians in these fastest growing provinces deserve more representation.
Could the government House leader update this place on the status of Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has been clear and unequivocal in restating our government's commitment to move forward with Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill. We believe that each Canadian vote, to the greatest extent possible, should carry equal weight. That is why we are taking a very principled approach in striking a balance between ensuring fairer representation for the faster growing provinces, while keeping the seat count constant for the remaining provinces.
We ask all coalition partners to support this very important initiative.
Foreign AffairsRaymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government wants to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Canadian corporations, but it would appear that it does not have the money to maintain a Canadian presence in Africa. 
Once again, can this government tell us how many embassies it will be closing and, in particular, why it is targeting the African countries of la Francophonie? We are talking about embassies.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the member initially spoke about cuts. It is a well known fact that our government is recognized and identified with cutting taxes, whereas a Liberal-led government would essentially be inclined to increase taxes.
Once again, on this issue, these are just rumours. We will manage the interests of Canadians in the best possible way.
HealthMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health continues to state that the federal government is open to the idea of compensating the provinces for the additional expenses caused by the medical isotope shortage that resulted from the closure of the Chalk River reactor in the spring of 2009.
Can the Minister of Health tell us if she intends to compensate Quebec before the next Bachand budget?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, from the discussions at the last health ministers meeting, our understanding was that most provinces and territories did not incur additional costs, and we were able to cover by adding testing requirements.
 Over the last year of this global shortage, we have seen incredible resourcefulness in managing the existing supply. For example, the medical community has shown great flexibility during this time by maximizing the use of available TC-99 and using alternative isotopes for certain tests.
Canadian ForcesMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no parent should ever have to bury a child. However, when that child unfortunately does succumb to his or her injuries, the family should have a right to know what happened.
 When it comes to military families, Pierre Daigle, the DND ombudsman, has repeatedly said that the government gives us repeated promises and, for the military families, repeated disappointments.
Why should it take the media to address these concerns with the government? Why is it not more proactive to ensure, in the death of one of our heroes of Canada, that his or her family immediately—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, we have covered that a number of times today and we will continue to do everything we can to make the system better for those folks.
I have spent a lot of time in the last few years with the Minister of National Defence and with the Chief of the Defence Staff at events with families of the fallen. No one takes it more seriously than those two men.
 We will continue to do everything we can. We recognize the very difficult circumstances in which families find themselves. We grieve with them. Where the system has limitations, we will make that better. We will always try to do the best we possibly can for the families of our fallen.

Routine Proceedings
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 responses to four petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in relation to the certificate of nomination of Jennifer Stoddart, the nominee for the position of Privacy Commissioner.
Your committee has considered the proposed appointment of Jennifer Stoddart as Privacy Commissioner and reports its support for her appointment.
Privacy CommissionerJohn Baird: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to move the following motion. I move:
 That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Privacy Act, chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approve the reappointment of Jennifer Stoddart as Privacy Commissioner. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to support Bill C-510, which would help protect vulnerable women from being aggressively coerced against their will to have abortions.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by dozens of Canadians. It is a call to end Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.
In May 2008, Parliament passed a resolution to withdraw Canadian Forces by July 2011. The Prime Minister, with agreement from the Liberal Party, broke his oft-repeated promise to honour the parliamentary motion, and furthermore, refused to put it to a vote in this House. Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a lot of danger for our troops and unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. 
The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been spent to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada. Polls show a clear majority does not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to honour the will of Parliament and bring the troops home now.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House to present a petition from Canadians asking members in the House to support Roxanne's law, also known as Bill C-510, which would allow women to press charges if they were coerced into an unwanted abortion.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6), I rise today to table a petition signed by many people, mostly in my riding of Ottawa South but also throughout southern Ontario.
The petition, addressed to the Minister of Health, is on the subject of CCSVI treatment for multiple sclerosis. I would like to thank my constituent, Mr. Arvy Znotinas, for submitting this petition for presentation.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from some 118 constituents. They are drawing attention to the fact that Canada is a country which respects human rights. 
They note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes that everyone has a right to life. They note that it has been 40 years, since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion, and that since January 20, 1980, Canada has no law to protect the lives of unborn children. Therefore, these petitioners are calling upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception to the time of natural death.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 445 will be answered today.
Mr. Bernard Bigras:  With respect to the diesel spill that occurred on September 28, 2010, from Suncor’s refinery facilities at the Port of Montreal, namely quays 109 and 110: (a) have inspections of the infrastructure at the source of the leak been carried out since June 2008; (b) for each inspection carried out after June 2008, (i) what was the department, corporation or agency responsible for the inspection, (ii) at what date was the inspection done, (iii) what was the name of the person responsible for the inspection, (iv) what were the characteristics of the infrastructure inspected, (v) what was the state of the infrastructure inspected, (vi) what was the type of test performed, (vii) what was the result of the tests performed; and (c) what is the age of the infrastructure at the source of the leak?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, since June 2008, four inspections were conducted by the Enforcement Branch of the Department of Environment. Two of these inspections were conducted under the environmental emergencies regulations. On December 16, 2009, enforcement officer Jason Gilead conducted an inspection under this regulation. The other one was conducted October 18, 2010, by law enforcement officer Stéphane Bolduc. 
With respect to subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, inspections were conducted by enforcement officer Jason Gilead, on September 28, 2010 and emergency officer Julie Davignon on September 29, 2010. 
Regarding answers to questions (b) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (c), this information is part of an ongoing inspection file and would be inappropriate to comment at this time. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 446, 448, 451, 452, 453, 454 and 487 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Luc Malo:  With regard to the Ontario-Quebec gateway issue, since the 2004–2005 fiscal year: (a) how much money has been invested, broken down by project; (b) which projects have received funding; (c) which projects have been completed; (d) at what stage of completion are the unfinished projects; (e) what have been the yearly budgets, up to and including the present fiscal year; (f) were all the funds allocated in the budgets spent; (g) what are the projected budgets for the coming years; (h) what factors explain why the budgets were not fully spent; and (i) what criteria needed to be met for a project to receive funding?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Bruce Hyer:  With regard to the cruise ship industry since 2005: (a) what federal departments have provided support to the cruise ship industry across Canada, to date; (b) how much was spent on each project by each federal department, agency, board and commission in support of the cruise ship industry, to date; (c) what is the annual total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff in each federal agency, board, or commission working on implementation of projects related to the cruise ship industry; (d) what specific federal programs support the development of the cruise ship industry in Canada; (e) what were the discharge incidents of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or solid waste by cruise ships in Canadian waters, distributed by date, location, ship, and type of discharge; (f) how many charges, warnings or penalties were issued against cruise ship operators for all sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges in contradiction of regulations, including date, operator, location, offence and amount; (g) how much was spent by each federal agency, commission, department or organization in enforcement of regulations related to discharge of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges; (h) what is the annual total number of FTEs working in each federal agency, commission, department or organization on enforcement of regulations related to discharge of sewage, bilge, grey water, or other discharges; (i) what onboard observation has been performed by each federal agency, commission, department or organization with respect to discharge of sewage, bilge, ballast, grey water, or other discharges, distributed by year and location; (j) what reports, studies, investigations, conclusions, regulatory changes, warnings, or penalties were issued or undertaken by any federal government body related to the cruise ship Queen Elizabeth II’s September 2005 discharge incident off the coast of Cape Breton; (k) how much was spent by each federal organization for port upgrades in support of the cruise ship industry; (l) how many agreements were signed between federal organizations and private cruise companies for docking in Canadian ports; and (m) what companies signed agreements with the government for access to Canadian waters and on what conditions?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie:  With regard to the government's Economic Action Plan, for each of the project announcements in the electoral district of Mississauga—Streetsville: (a) what was (i) the date of the announcement, (ii) the amount of stimulus spending announced, (iii) the department which made the announcement; (b) was there a public event associated with the announcement and, if so, what was the cost of that event; (c) how many projects submitted by the City of Mississauga did not qualify for or were denied infrastructure or Recreational Infrastructure Canada program funding; (d) what were the details and locations of the projects that did not qualify or were denied funding; and (e) for each project that was denied funding, what is the detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Bonnie Crombie:  With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Settlement Agencies: (a) how many agencies were opened per calendar year since January 1, 2006 to present; (b) what was the total amount of transfer funding provided for the opening of agencies per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; (c) how many agencies have been opened since February 7, 2006; (d) what is the location of each new agency since February 7, 2006; (e) how many agencies have had their funding reduced or abolished since February 7, 2006; (f) how many agencies have had to close because of reduced or abolished federal funding; (g) what is the exact location of each closure since February 7, 2006; (h) what is the amount of funding provided to agencies in the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, broken down by province, per calendar year from February 7, 2006 to present; and (i) has CIC begun negotiating a new Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement as promised and, if not, why not and when will it begin these negotiations?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Wayne Marston:  With respect to Canada's Economic Action Plan: (a) under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (b) under the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (c) under the Building Canada Fund — Communities Component top-up in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (d) under the Building Canada Fund — Major Infrastructure Component in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; (e) under the Recreational Infrastructure program in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved; and (f) under the Green Infrastructure Fund in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, (i) what applications for projects have been approved for funding to date, (ii) who are the partners involved, (iii) what is the federal contribution, (iv) what is each partner's contribution, (v) how much of the funding has flowed and to whom, (vi) what were the criteria used to determine which projects were approved?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Wayne Marston:  With respect to the New Horizons for Seniors program: (a) how much funding has been allocated annually since the program began; (b) what is the breakdown of that funding (i) by province, (ii) by federal riding; (c) how was the funding allocated among the three funding types (Community Participation and Leadership, Capital Assistance, and Elder Abuse Awareness); (d) what was the criteria for funding these programs; (e) how many applications were rejected; (f) what criteria are used to ascertain project success; (g) who is on the review committee that approves projects; (h) how were the members of the project review committee selected; (i) what consultations took place to ensure the program has been running properly; (j) beyond the Human Resources and Skills Development Web site, what communications products were produced; and (k) what community facilities and equipment have been upgraded as a result of funding and how much did they each receive?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Mario Silva: With regard to the government’s aid funding for Afghanistan in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country of destination; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; and (d) the department where the funding originated?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderThe Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on November 5, 2010, concerning the requirements for a royal recommendation for Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census), standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's.
I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House as well as the member for York South—Weston for his comments.
In raising this issue, the parliamentary secretary explained that Bill C-568 would add two requirements to the Statistics Act. First, it would prescribe that in 20% of the cases, the long form census questionnaire be used and second, that the questions in the long form questionnaire be similar in length and scope to the ones contained in the 1971 census. He stated that in his view, this would constitute a new obligation for Statistics Canada given that even though the statutory authority for including a long form census questionnaire already exists, Bill C-568 would make its use mandatory instead of discretionary. He also argued that this requirement would compel the government to spend a minimum of $50 million. He concluded that since Bill C-568 would alter the conditions and qualifications of Statistics Canada's existing mandate in addition to imposing a new statutory obligation, a royal recommendation is required.
In support of his view, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a series of precedents involving bills that were found by the Chair to require a royal recommendation because they were either changing the purpose of a spending authority or adding a new function to an existing mandate.
In his intervention, the member for York South—Weston argued that Bill C-568 does not change the current mandate of Statistics Canada, nor does it add a new responsibility or a new function to the department. He contended that the bill only requires Statistics Canada to fulfill its existing mandate. He also argued that, contrary to the arguments raised by the parliamentary secretary, Bill C-568 would not entail additional expenses; in fact, he claimed that it would actually cost less.
The Chair has examined carefully the provisions of Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census) as well as the Statistics Act and the precedents enumerated by the parliamentary secretary.
The precedents cited by the parliamentary secretary involved bills that required a royal recommendation because they were proposing new purposes or new functions not currently authorized. Such is not the case for Bill C-568 since it does not appear to be adding to or expanding the current mandate of Statistics Canada.
This mandate may be found in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 3 of the Statistics Act, which reads as follows:
 3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are 
 (a) to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people;... 
 (c) to take the census of population of Canada and the census of agriculture of Canada as provided in this Act; 
With regard to the issue of costs associated with the mandatory use of the long form as prescribed by Bill C-568, the key question for the Chair is whether what the bill proposes constitutes a new appropriation of public funds.
Section 19 of the Statistics Act states:
 A census of population of Canada shall be taken by Statistics Canada in the month of June in the year 1971, and every fifth year thereafter in a month to be fixed by the Governor in Council. 
In my view, this section, along with section 3 cited earlier, constitutes the statutory spending authority for Statistics Canada to conduct the census using either the short or the long form questionnaire.
Bill C-568 would require the Chief Statistician to include a long form questionnaire in 20% of the cases whenever a population census is conducted.
Even though there is now no such requirement in the Statistics Act, the Chief Statistician is currently authorized to include a long form questionnaire.
Therefore, it is my view that this would not constitute a new spending authority, nor would it alter the terms and conditions of Statistic Canada's mandate.
Consequently, from a strictly procedural point of view, the Chair cannot find that Bill C-568 requires the expenditure of public funds for a new and distinct purpose. I therefore rule that there is no requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation and that the House may continue to consider it in accordance with the rules governing private members' business.
 I thank the hon. members for their attention. 

Government Orders
Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are continuing debate on this quite new statute. It was only introduced a month ago.
It is another of the government's many amendments to the Criminal Code, which for some reason it has not been able to package in one bill. I do not mind that if perhaps carving up these Criminal Code amendments into smaller pieces will make it easier for colleagues in the House, and maybe for the cabinet. Maybe the cabinet is not able to handle a big Criminal Code omnibus bill all at once. It is quite possible the members of the cabinet have limited capacity to handle those kinds of volumes.
I can assure the House that I have seen bills that are longer, larger, thicker, more complex than each of these Criminal Code amendments. Something tells me the procedure would go a lot faster and more efficiently if the government had chosen the route of larger bills.
Right now, I did a count on this, there are somewhere around 15 separate Criminal Code amendments in the House and in the Senate. It has dragged on from the previous session into this session, and in some cases from the previous Parliament into this Parliament.
In any event, let us say that we are catching up. We are trying to accommodate the volume, keeping in mind that every bill must be debated in the House. The bills have to go committee. Almost all bills do go to committee for study after second reading, then come back here for possible amendment or concurrence or third reading, and then off to the Senate for analogous procedures.
All of that takes time, no matter how we cut it. I am merely saying this because with the addition of this new bill, it will simply add to the list that the Minister of Justice will, from time to time, refer to and pretend that the House is taking excessive or inordinate amounts of time to pass.
 He has made the same complaint with the Senate, although I do notice that since the Conservatives achieved a working majority in the Senate, the other place, he does not seem to criticize the Senate quite as often as he used to. Indeed, that Senate has to do the same kind of work we do. It has to pass these bills.
If there is anyone to blame for the lengthy investment of procedural time on these bills, it must be the government itself because it is the one that decided that instead of having two or three separate bills, it wanted to have roughly 15 bills. That is simply the state of art as it is now.
This particular bill focuses on the area of sexual offences in relation to children. It is a three or four part rework of a number of sections of the Criminal Code, sentencing provisions and prohibition orders. There is an insertion of one, two or three new provisions, and I will make reference to those in my remarks.
The concept of adding some mandatory minimum sentences to the code is not new. We have been doing this in Parliament for 10, 20 or 30 years, but not doing it on a wholesale basis. It seems to me that every time the government moves around now it includes mandatory minimum sentences in whatever it does in relation to the Criminal Code. I do not think that is good public policy. There are a whole lot of people who do not think that is good public policy.
That is not to say that we do not need minimum sentences. There are situations and circumstances where they are appropriate and useful, and should be there. In this particular bill, while there are a whole lot of mandatory minimums added, I would have to accept that in some cases the mandatory minimum is appropriate with one proviso.
As I read the bill, and as I said it has only been on the order paper for a month, I compared the new provision to the old provision. I found that the old provision already had a mandatory minimum sentence built into it. I wondered what was happening here. 
This is like a bidding war such that “I can legislate a bigger mandatory minimum sentence than they can”. I hope that is not what is going on here. I hope that the mandatory minimum sentence provisions that have been chosen and inserted into some of these new bills have been thought about and canvassed among people who understand how the sentencing system works. I hope this is not just a political reaction of “look how big of a sentence I can propose in my legislation”.
The bill also expands the list of conditions and coordinates the conditions with convictions. For example, on a type of offence involving children there may be a condition during or post sentence that the individual is prohibited from doing certain things or being in certain places. That is usually involving children.
There are a couple of other new arrangements in there that we should take a look at, and I will in my remarks if I have time.
One of the newer interventions in the Criminal Code in dealing with children is the arrival of the Internet and computer. At one point in our legislation we actually used the term “computer”. About 15 or 20 years ago we defined what a computer was and the types of offences that would involve a computer and other people, or a computer and children. 
Now, of course, we have convergence in the technology universe. The basic hand-held telephone is the equivalent of a computer. We now have to reinvent the terminology we use because a cellphone is not a computer, yet it is capable of being part of a series of actions involving a criminal offence.
 I can see there is a reversion in the definitions here to go back and reincorporate telephones and telecommunications in addition to the computer. We may have to abandon the concept of “computer”, there may be some other concept of technology that we have to refer to. 
Of course, we will be forever revising and amending our Criminal Code as we go into the future because these things will happen. Our society will change, technology will change, and we have to keep updating our codes. I do not object to the concept at all.
I have mentioned mandatory minimum sentencing as a concept and it has been inserted into many sections in the bill. I have to ask the question again: Do mandatory minimum sentences work?
The answer is not clear. There is not a simple yes or no answer to this. It appears that a mandatory minimum sentence can work as a deterrent if it is associated with public education and good enforcement. We learned this with reference to the drunk driving and the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code. 
It appears to us that the mandatory minimum sentences provided for in the impaired driving sections have had a deterrent impact. Keep in mind that the mandatory minimums there are associated with other penalties, escalating penalties and good enforcement by police who are out there stopping drivers, using breathalyzers, and doing a very good job of enforcement. 
Did it get rid of impaired driving? No. 
Has it diminished it? The statistics show that it has.
We accept that a mandatory minimum penalty will work. We have evidence that it does not work. The mandatory minimum penalty for murder is life in prison, 25 years before parole. Does that deter murder? Let us accept that it does but we still have a lot of murders. Obviously the toughest sentence we have does not deter. 
Lurking behind this issue of mandatory minimum sentencing is the problem that most people who commit criminal offences do not even think about deterrence in the first place. When they commit the offence, they actually do not believe they will be caught. If they do not believe they are going to get caught, then they could hardly be expected to turn their mind to a mandatory minimum sentence if caught. If the mandatory minimum sentence is going to deter an individual, that individual has to think he or she will get caught.
I also have to accept that mandatory minimum sentences are not there only for deterrence. Mandatory minimums can also be used for what is called societal denunciation, meaning society says the individual has done a bad thing so that no matter what he or she has to go to jail.
We have had a lot of litigation on this. There has been a lot of sociology on this. As Canadians, we are entitled to put a firm penalty into a Criminal Code offence. We are entitled to say that someone who has done a bad thing must serve some time so that the person knows and everyone knows it was a bad thing. 
Denunciation is a part of this but it cannot be the rock bottom foundation. For public safety purposes we need deterrents and a whole range of other factors in sentencing. They are all listed in the Criminal Code in one of the sections revised about 15 years ago.
A lot of us in the House come from urban areas or urban-rural areas close to big cities. A few of us come from rural and remote areas with a lot of very small communities. Not every small community has a court and a jail. When we enact in here a provision that says there must be a mandatory minimum sentence and a crime takes place in a remote community that requires that mandatory minimum sentence, the individual has to be picked up and taken to a court somewhere. Even if there is a courthouse in the community there may not be a jail. If the individual is convicted, he or she has to be moved another 500 miles or kilometres, or whatever it is, to a detention facility. That is pretty costly. I ask the question and I leave it unanswered: Is that the most appropriate type of sentence for an offender in a remote community, to lift him or her up and take them away from where they are? 
We have to do that because there is a mandatory minimum sentence. It is not like we could resort to some other form of appropriate sentencing. Even if everybody in the village believes the sentencing is appropriate if it does not involve mandatory detention, it would not matter because we are passing a law that says there must be a mandatory sentence attached to it. The person would have to be taken away. In any event, that is a fact of life in Canada. 
This is really unfortunate if a crime happens in a rural area. I am thinking of first nations communities. I really wish that we and our first nations communities could handle some of these justice matters ourselves and not have the boys and girls in Ottawa imposing mandatory minimum sentences.
One of the sentences in relation to which the government is proposing a mandatory minimum does not involve a few months. A five-year minimum sentence applies to incest involving a child. This is a serious offence. Unfortunately, incest reflects a serious social problem. I question whether a mandatory five-year minimum sentence in every instance, every scenario, every case is appropriate. Five years would be mandated by this new section. 
I think we see that in some circumstances the sociology of drug addition, the sociology of alcoholism, the sociology of mental illness, all are factors in some of these cases. Just presuming that we appropriately respond and solve that problem by imposing a mandatory five year minimum sentence, without even know the facts, seems backhanded. It someone's view of denunciation. 
I do not for a moment condone this type of criminal activity. It is reprehensible, but I am not so sure that the government's knee-jerk five year minimum is what is appropriate in our system of justice.
Members will have an opportunity to look at this in the committee and we will see what the justifications are.
Another proposed section of the bill seemed like it was concocted in a crime novel, and that is new section 15. It creates a new offence under section 172.2. This is one of these sections where we have to reach back and add in the word “telecommunications”. It states:
 Every person commits an offence who, by a means of telecommunication, agrees with a person, or makes an arrangement with a person, to commit an offence... 
A whole raft of sexual offences are there. However, the essential part of that is making an arrangement by telephone. By the way, it sounds like the Criminal Code to commit an attempt type offence because the offence actually does not have to happen. The sexual act or sexual encounter does not have to happen for the offence to take place.
In creating the new sentence, the bill removes the defence of whether we knew the person was under or over 18. Some people would say that if we did not know, it would be our own fault. However, do not forget, this offence happens on the telephone.
Then there is another section that takes away defences. It is no defence that the person on the telephone was a police officer or was put up to it by a police officer. That is not a defence, so a police officer can do that. Then it says that it is not even an offence if the person who the arrangement was made with did not even exist if there was a peace officer involved on the other end of this. It is an entrapment machine. We need to have a very good look at this. 
I am happy to see this concept of setting up an arrangement or a rendezvous with a young person under 18, then under 16 and under 14, as set out in the section, as a potential criminal offence. I am not happy to see the defences removed. A person might not even know the age of the person. It says that one is still guilty unless one took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person. I am not so sure that in a telephone conversation like that, someone will ask for a driver's licence and ask for age. Therefore, this has to be looked at very carefully.
Police officers may feel this will enhance their ability to snare predators and that may well be the case. I do not mind if it does, but, as always, we have to ensure that our Criminal Code provides procedural fairness for everyone, not just the bad guy. There but for the grace of God sometimes go all of us. We never know when we will get caught in a trap, when someone sets us up. I think most of us have seen enough television or read enough novels to know about that.
The last thing I want to refer to is section 26. Again, we are using and reusing terminology—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I could not get his attention. Perhaps he can finish his speech in response to questions and comment.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to listen to the comments of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River on Bill C-54. 
I was intrigued by his observations that the government had introduced perhaps 15 Criminal Code amendments, which are fairly simple. The suggestion he has made, being a well-regarded lawyer who has been around the House for many years, is that perhaps the government could have proceeded by way of an omnibus bill. It certainly managed to that with the 980 page budget bill, which was not appropriate for that case. However, in this case, a revamp of the Criminal Code, putting all these amendments into one bill, would not only be appropriate, but would probably be the preferred way to do. 
The other aspect of it is that the Criminal Code is 100 years old and is probably in need of a very large revamp as it is. Does the hon. member agree that perhaps the federal government should have engaged in consultation with the provinces and had a series of road show type hearings across the country about what should be involved in a total rewrite of the Criminal Code? The Conservatives could start by involving the opposition parties. By doing that, they would have a better possibility of having a productive Parliament and actually achieving something during the government's tenure in office.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made the point about the non-omnibus bill. It would have been a lot more efficient to have one. 
In terms of reworking the Criminal Code in a big way, yes it needs it. The statute is very old. There are some pretty old sections in it. However, there are right ways and wrong ways to do that. Most jurisdictions have found that if they do not lay the groundwork properly, they do not seek the political consensus and they do not get the new rework through quickly, they get stoned to death. They get nickeled and dimed to oblivion.
I recall about 25 years ago when the state of Indiana did a rework of its Criminal Code. It was reputed that it did it the right way. We could do it here with the right kind of collaboration and laying the right groundwork. However, we should all agree that with these short parliaments we have now and minority governments, this would be very difficult to do, but some day we will get around to it.
Chris Warkentin: Madam Speaker, this legislation, the protecting children from sexual predators act, is supported by me as well as members of the House because so many of us have children, grandchildren and people in our families who we want to protect. I know the legislation would go a long day to doing that.
The hon. member talked about remote communities. I represent many remote communities, communities that do not have, as he described, access to court and jail institutions. However, removing these people from remote communities is absolutely essential. First, it would ensure the protection of the community. It would also allow the children against whom these crimes have been perpetrated some ability to heal by not having to see the perpetrator on a daily basis. In many of these remote communities, there are only several hundred people. There is a good chance that if the perpetrator is not removed, the children would continue to see this person on an ongoing basis. I am a strong promoter and believer that these people should be removed from those communities.
 The member talked about whether five years was an appropriate sentence. I have met with victims of incest. We might find that people, especially victims of these horrible crimes, would agree five years is not long enough. In fact, it should be much longer, and I appreciate that.
In his description of mandatory minimum sentences, the member described the fact that they were deterrents as well as denunciations. However, he did not comment on the fact that these are good protections. We know sexual predators who are in the practice of victimizing children have a very high propensity to reoffend. If these people are put under house arrest and are sent back to the communities where they perpetrated their crimes, there is a very good chance they will continue to victimize children.
Would the hon. member agree with me that mandatory minimum sentences would do what he describes, act as deterrents and denunciations, but, more important, would provide additional protection of the community and children because these people would be unable to continue to perpetrate and victimize children?
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I can agree in many cases that the member is accurate. My comments about mandatory minimums were not with respect only to sexual offence, but across the whole range of the Criminal Code.
He spoke about perpetrators committing sexual offences against children. If the perpetrator is convicted of some other criminal offence, not a sexual offence in relation to children, the mandatory minimum would removed that person from the family and put the individual in another jail in another place. That would be another impact on children. This has nothing to do with sexual offences. 
The focus on the bill is sexual offences, protecting children against sexual offences. I think this has pretty wide support in the House. As we go forward on mandatory minimums, I want to ensure we target properly and get it right.
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments about the mandatory minimums and the common expression for mandatory minimums being “deterrents”, in a general sense. 
Let us look at the murder rates and how the mandatory minimum talks about 25 years imprisonment. Let us compare Houston to Toronto. One has the death penalty, one does not and one has a higher murder rate, which would be Houston.
Could he comment briefly on that?
The member mentioned section 26, but did not have time to talk about it in his speech. Perhaps he could start by making his comments on that section known to the House and to the public.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, the point I wanted to raise in relation to section 26, for which I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to do so, is the section refers to one of these prohibitions during and post-sentence where a person is convicted. It states:
 prohibit the defendant from using the Internet or other digital network, unless the defendant does so in accordance with conditions set by the judge; 
What is a digital network? We are fishing around in the new age of technology. A digital network could involve a hearing aid that a person is wearing. It could involve a telephone. Even when we watch T.V., we are watching something that is a part of a digital network. 
 I want to ensure we have our terminology right. The intent is clear and I support it. I want to ensure when we use these terms, we use the right ones.
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, the member suggested that the government should have introduced perhaps one bill instead of 15 separate bills. I would simply like to remind the hon. member that the government has extreme difficulty pursuing any one of the 15 bills.
He is a member of the justice committee and he will know that his party objected to Bill S-6, the faint hope clause bill. The Liberals claimed that they were going to reintroduce it in a future government, if they were ever to form a government.
Can members imagine what would happen if all those bills were combined into one bill? It would never get through Parliament.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I did not say one bill; I said a few. I think I mentioned the number three, or perhaps four. We have to get 15 down.
The member has partly made my point. He says they have trouble getting one bill through. Then they have trouble getting 15 bills through. If they would reduce it to three or four bills, they would only have trouble getting three or four bills through and we would get through this stuff a whole lot more quickly.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-54, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice on November 4 and which amends the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children), also known as the protecting children from sexual predators act.
It is important for the people listening to us to understand the scope of this bill, which I will summarize in five points. The bill increases or imposes mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children; prohibits anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child; prohibits anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child; ensures consistency among those two new offences and the existing offence of luring a child; and expands the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or other digital network, and to expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions. 
New technologies are forcing us to rethink the offences set out in the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois believes that the all-important fight against crime—especially when the victims are children—must be realistic. Crime rates in Quebec have been dropping over the past 15 years, as they have in Canada.
Some of the measures proposed in this bill definitely warrant attention, such as the creation of new offences or new restrictions imposed on delinquents. But, once again, this bill contains minimum sentences. That is not a surprise, but the Bloc Québécois has always maintained here in the House that minimum sentences are ineffective and unfair by nature.
It is important that those watching us understand. We have inherited our justice system from our ancestors. The Criminal Code has always been based on maximum sentences. Judges use case law and the circumstances of each case—in criminal law, each case is unique—to determine the most appropriate sentence for the individual before them and for the crime committed. That is how our ancestors founded criminal law and passed it on to Quebec and Canadian society.
In recent years, with increasing media involvement, there has been a strong tendency to use the Criminal Code as a substitute for judges through the imposition of minimum sentences. This has been even more evident since the Conservatives took power. The trend is to not let the judge determine the penalty but to set fixed sentences in the Criminal Code. This trend is purely a matter of partisan opportunism. When something is reported in the media, it is amplified, tempers flare and people think that the sentence is never stiff enough for the crime committed, especially when the media get involved.
Our ancestors left us a justice system that was sheltered from such impulsive public reactions. As our societies evolved, things have changed. When I came into politics in 2000, the Internet was around, but it was not as efficient as it is today. With social networking, some situations end up online so quickly that the public finds out even before the media can report on it.
What does this mean? It means that the public develops an opinion before the police even start handling a case or before it can even be reported on properly. 
You may say that our ancestors did not have that, which is true, but they still left us a historic form of logic. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the justice system allows the judge to determine what sentence is appropriate for the crime committed, in light of all kinds of factors. For example, the judge must consider whether it is a first or second offence, and so on. This is what has developed from what our ancestors left us. The case law or jurisprudence changes and evolves, and judges adapt.
The government wants to introduce minimum sentences because it thinks that the system is not fast enough. It thinks that our legal system is slower than people want it to be. However, once again, it seems to me that popular opinion is being artificially manipulated by the media, by all media. Some of them have completely different interpretations. That is important. When something happens and we hear about it at home via the Internet, Facebook, Twitter or some other channel, initial versions of events may differ from those conveyed by the media. Then, once all the facts are laid before the court, there is often a huge difference between people's first impression of events and the court's interpretation in handing down a verdict. The courts analyze each case, review the evidence and get to know every little detail about the crime, how it was committed and the person who committed it.
Once again, I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois wants to study this bill in committee. The new offences seem appropriate to us because technology has evolved. People make contact through the Internet, not necessarily physical contact. But some virtual contact may become physical, and that should be condemned. We have to create new sentences. 
Once again, the Bloc Québécois has some serious reservations about minimum sentences. During the committee's study of this bill, we will call the necessary witnesses to help the Conservatives understand that minimum sentences are not necessarily the best solution.
I will review the new jail sentences included in this bill. It covers sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, incest where the victim is under 16 years of age, luring a child through the use of a computer, and exposure. There are provisions that create two new offences. I want to take the time to mention these because I find them interesting.
The first is to prohibit anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against that child. This hybrid offence would carry a mandatory prison sentence of 30 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence—and a maximum penalty of 6 months when proceeded on summary conviction, and a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is the minimum sentence. 
The second is to prohibit anyone from using any means of telecommunications, including a computer system, to agree or make arrangements with another person for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against a child. This new offence was previously proposed as part of former Bill C-46 in the previous session of Parliament. This proposed hybrid offence would now carry a mandatory prison sentence of 90 days—once again, this is a minimum sentence. 
I would like to reiterate that we concur with the new offences that have been added. However, we question the idea of mandatory prison sentences that even a judge cannot interpret or adjust based on the seriousness of the situation.
At first glance, we need to make sure in committee that the measures related to these two offences will facilitate the work of police, since that is the goal. The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly in this House and, in particular, it was the first party to fight organized crime, among other things, by requiring the reversal of the onus of proof for members of organized crime groups. 
Before the Bloc Québecois intervened, the state had to prove that goods in the possession of organized criminals were not acquired legally. The onus of proof is now reversed thanks to the Bloc Québecois, which succeeded in convincing Parliament that such should be the case. Now, when a crime is committed by members of an organized crime group, these individuals must prove that the goods were acquired using money earned doing legal activities. If they are not able to prove that such is the case, the goods are automatically considered to have been obtained illegally.
Inevitably, this has had a considerable impact on the seizure of assets belonging to criminals who are members of organized crime groups. I think this has, among other things, made the job of police officers in Quebec a little easier. There was Opération Printemps 2001, the Carcajou squad and the whole fight against organized crime led by the Parti Québécois government of the day, which practically guaranteed the disbandment of organized biker gangs like the Hells Angels and other groups. They have been practically obliterated. Authorities were able to arrest their leaders, because they could not prove that their assets had been lawfully acquired.
Once again, the Bloc Québécois's approach has always been responsible and effective. Our approach puts faith in the justice system. We learned this approach and this trust in the judicial system from our predecessors. Judges are supposed to be the most competent individuals in the legal community. They are the best qualified to determine the appropriate sentence based on the crime committed and the criminal history of the person on trial. 
We even demonstrated our sense of responsibility in this House with our plan to deal with economic crime. During the recent economic crisis, several white collar criminals profited from the largesse of many people who were not very knowledgeable.
When the economy is doing well, everyone makes money and the hope is to make more than everyone else. That has always made me laugh, especially when it comes to our bankers. There are organizations that were even paying bankers to give talks. The major bank presidents of this world were giving talks and getting paid to do so. 
Then, like sheep, they were all fleeced. They all lost money. No one saw the financial crisis coming. They relied on their junior staff and passed themselves off as geniuses when everything was going well. The worst part is that in the wake of this crisis, they continue to earn their big fat salaries. That is just wrong.
The Bloc Québécois has its own way of fighting economic crime. First, we have always maintained that parole after one-sixth of a sentence needs to be abolished. One of the reasons for public cynicism is the fact that a person sentenced to six years can be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence.
In other words, that person can be released after one year. When someone spends months behind bars before the trial, that time counts for double. We have always wanted to abolish this two-for-one rule. In my example, the six-year sentence would be reduced to one year because the offender is eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of the sentence. Having already spent two months in prison, the offender would get a four-month credit. Even though the offender gets a six-year sentence, he will have only eight months left to serve before being released. 
This is out of the hands of the judiciary. Politicians are the ones who decided on parole and the two-for-one rule. Judges apply sentences, and if the person is deemed eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of the sentence, then he will be paroled. In the case of economic crimes, we are saying in no uncertain terms that there should not be any parole after one-sixth of the sentence. If the person was sentenced to six years, he must serve six years, period. Nor should any time count for double. 
We wanted to amend the Criminal Code provisions on confiscating the proceeds of crime in order to include measures covering fraud over $5,000, reorganize police forces, and require that banks report irregularities in trust accounts. All these responsible measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois were not accepted or took some time to be acknowledged by the Conservative Party.
All that to say that we have always anticipated what the people want, while respecting the legacy our ancestors left us. The legal system is a legacy. The Bloc Québécois's position will not change and it will always hold the same opinion about Bill C-54. The new offences to be added, which are often made necessary by new technologies, are a no-brainer. They have to be created, especially when children are concerned.
My beautiful little grandson is just 14 months old. If anything at all were to happen to him, I would be tempted to take the law into my own hands and I would have to restrain myself. It is our job, as decision-makers, to protect these beautiful children. It is awful that new technologies can corrupt our children and even subject them to sexual crimes. We must support these new sentences and this means of fighting crime that targets children.
But do we need a system of minimum penalties that goes against the justice system left to us by our ancestors? According to that system, judges are the best able to decide, not journalists or members of Parliament, because they are subject to public pressure and want to establish a fair system to be passed on to future generations. We need a proper debate on this, and that is what will happen when this bill is sent to committee. We will have to hear from expert witnesses to find out how minimum penalties have been used in other societies. The Americans have used them. There are examples from other parts of the world that can show whether minimum penalties have prevented, reduced or solved the problem of crime.
The Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading to ensure that it can be studied in committee and that it meets everyone's expectations.
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and I am pleased to hear that his party will at least support sending this very important bill to committee. 
He raised the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. Of course, we have heard this from the Bloc before, but I am a little confused because a few weeks ago when we were debating Bill S-9, the bill on auto theft, there was a mandatory minimum penalty of six months for a third conviction offence of auto theft. In the House a member of his party, in fact I think it was the justice critic for his party, said that the Bloc was not rigidly ideologically against mandatory minimum penalties, and as an example, the Bloc was going to vote in favour of the bill because those members think six months is reasonable. Then when the bill went through committee, the Bloc moved a motion to have that deleted because the Bloc members decided they were in fact ideologically opposed to mandatory minimum penalties.
Perhaps the member would like to explain why including a mandatory minimum penalty for accessing child pornography and sexual exploitation of children and moving the minimum on summary conviction up from 14 days to 90 days, and on indictment from 45 days to six months is outrageous. Perhaps he could also comment on the impact on people's faith and confidence in the justice system when they see child sexual predators spend a minimum of 15 days in jail.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, the Bloc's position has not changed. As I said in my speech, it is based on Quebec and Canada's legal history, on the legacy that we inherited from our ancestors. Our version of justice puts trust in the judiciary. In contrast, we see that the Conservatives do not trust the judiciary, which is quite disturbing. The Conservatives' unfortunate approach is like that of the Republicans in the United States—replace judges with people who think as they do. We have been quick here, and they have not dared do the same in Canada. Their other option is to amend the Criminal Code and add minimum sentences wherever possible.
I understand the hon. member. We can look at an offence and have witnesses testify, and see justice has been done. The judiciary should still be trusted. That has always been our approach. And it will be the same with the bill before us: it will go to committee, we will bring witnesses forward and we will study how the bill can contribute to our society's evolution.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, earlier today when the member for Scarborough—Rouge River was making his presentation, he indicated that he had added up all the amendments to the Criminal Code and found that the government has 15 amendments to the Criminal Code. He stated that the government could have simply created one omnibus bill and brought it before the House, in much the same way the government seemed to be able to do with the last two budgets. 
That brings us to the next suggestion. The Criminal Code is now 100 years old and is in serious need of a complete revamp. Perhaps the government should come clean with the citizens of Canada and approach the provinces and look at public hearings on a complete rewrite of the Criminal Code. 
Is that a reasonable suggestion for the government to follow, or does the member think the government is simply interested in bringing amendments out one at a time for short-term political gain?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I believe that we should at least consider what the hon. member is suggesting because the harsh reality behind the 15 bills introduced by the Conservative Party—the real and most troublesome reason for the bills—is that the Conservatives are taking advantage of events that get a lot of media attention. They have many other bills to work on, but they wait for newsworthy events in order to score political points. They want to use public outcry and disapproval, stirred up by the media, to make political gains. It is all the sadder because, often, once the event is over and new polls are taken, everything settles down. Everything returns to normal.
As I was saying, we cannot sweep away the legal philosophy we have inherited from our ancestors just because something happens and causes a public outcry. I believe this philosophy is deeply rooted and that things tend to calm down afterwards. What is dangerous is allowing a party such as the Conservative Party to take advantage of single events that are sensationalized by the media, especially since the government is in a minority position. The Conservatives have a great deal of difficulty being accepted all across Canada and it is even worse in Quebec, where disapproval of this government is evident. It is even more terrible because it is as though they were using the public, without its knowledge, to try to win an election. That is hard to take. As for our colleague's proposal, completely overhauling the Criminal Code, I believe it is worth at least a look.
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I wonder about the hon. member's reaction to the question from the parliamentary secretary from Mississauga—Erindale who asked how one would feel if a person who assaulted a child got only the minimum 15 days.
I would be willing to bet the parliamentary secretary my personally autographed copy of Bill C-54 that he does not even know the average sentence that has been given out to offenders who have committed offences against children. He does not even know, yet in our debate he is challenging with the question of how one feels about a 15-day sentence, without any facts or statistical data at all. That is not a good way to debate public policy.
 How does the member feel about that?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I think my Liberal colleague understands perfectly. I know he is an eminent legal expert. The justice system is far too important for us to leave it in the hands of political predators, for that is what the Conservatives are. They exploit events and crimes committed in society that are sensationalized by the media, and use them to play politics. It is political predation. Maybe one day that will be added to the Criminal Code and become a crime.
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, the member for Scarborough raised a point. He said that he did not think I knew the statistics for average penalties imposed on sexual predators. He probably missed the speech I made earlier this morning. Had he been here he would have heard that, in fact, in 2008, 80% of the people convicted of sexual offences against children in this country got no minimum sentence whatsoever, because they were charged under provisions of the act that do not even have minimum penalties.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I would say that I think my Liberal colleague was quite right to suggest that the Conservative member autographed the bill without even knowing what was in it.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-54.
I want to say at the outset that the NDP caucus will be supporting this bill and will be encouraged to see it make its way in due course to committee. I think there is potential for an amendment or two along the way.
 There is a possibility of a charter issue. We would not want to pass a bill through and then see it successfully knocked down by a charter challenge. I believe there are ways to deal with that at committee. The member knows that our critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, is certainly on top of that issue and will be bringing that up at the committee stage.
The bill creates mandatory sentences for seven existing offences related to child exploitation, including sexual assault where the victim is under the age of 16 years, section 271; aggravated sexual assault where the victim is under 16 years of age, section 273; incest where the victim is under 16 years age, section 155; luring a child through the use of a computer, section 172.1; and exposure, subsection 173(2).
Bill C-54 also creates two new offences of making sexual explicit materials available to a child and agreeing to or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child. As well, the bill expands the list of conditions that may be added to prohibitions and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with persons under 16 and the use of the Internet.
By way of explanation for past history, the substance of this bill has in fact been introduced by former and current colleagues of mine in the House. As a matter of fact, on May 13 of this year, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam reintroduced legislation to strengthen laws to protect children against child luring and abuse. That was just a few months ago. That was a rework of bills previously introduced by Dawn Black, a former member of this House. So the NDP has a history of concern for this issue, and more than concern but actually doing something about it by introducing legislation in this House.
I know my time is limited today and I do want to follow up on several points. 
A very important point was made by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. Not only today but on previous occasions, not only that member but another member of his caucus, also a lawyer, have noted that the Criminal Code has been around now for over 100 years. It is basically being held together by sticky tape. We simply keep amending the Criminal Code, with little bits and pieces here and there over many years and many decades. Even the language is out of date.
It is way overdue that a government, and maybe not this government but perhaps a future government, will have to pull out the Criminal Code and sit down and start working on a revamp. The revamp can happen by the government announcing it, and in co-operation with the provinces, having hearings across the country and getting many groups involved. In many ways I think that would have been a more sensible way for the government to proceed overall on crime and perhaps it would have done better with the public as result.
By way of an example, I once again want to mention what happened in a similar minority government in Manitoba with Gary Filmon. Gary Filmon was a very smart premier who knew early on that the way to get legislation through the legislature was not to bully, fight, cajole and threaten like this government does. His approach on any controversial issue, such as Meech Lake and Charlottetown, was to call in the leaders.
The leaders were Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party who is now a senator; and Gary Doer, who is now a Conservative appointment as ambassador to the United States. Those leaders worked together very well. They dealt with the smoking ban. As a matter of fact, the smoking ban was actually introduced by a Conservative member who was in opposition under an NDP government.
I am just pointing out that the practice set up by Mr. Filmon not only followed through his government in a minority situation, but because it worked so well, he continued doing it for the rest of his tenure as a majority Conservative premier. When former premier Doer took over, he had a majority government and ultimately did not have to listen to the opposition, but he kept doing what had been working in the past.
I have not had the time to go back and look at the minority government of Lester Pearson, but we are getting dangerously close to the current government being in office almost as long as the Liberal government of Lester Pearson. The difference is that while this government has accomplished almost nothing because of its antagonistic views toward the opposition, the Lester Pearson government actually accomplished many things. It got medicare, it unified the forces, and it brought in a new Canadian flag. These were not just simple issues that it had to deal with. These were very controversial, divisive issues in the country at the time. Yet after six years, the Lester B. Pearson government was able to show a lot. It was actually a beacon.
My question always to the government is this: why can it not learn from best practices? It does not have to go overseas to check this one out. It is right here in its backyard. There is its own Gary Filmon in Manitoba and it can check out what happened there. There is also the Lester B. Pearson experience.
I know that when premiers and prime ministers become elected to office, the game changes for them. They start thinking in terms of legacy and what they are going to show for their time here. I have no idea why the Prime Minister would have frittered away literally five years. The member opposite is trying to bring in some changes to question period and things like that, which he has to fight his own members to get through.
However, just to get back to the bill at hand, the fact of the matter is that Bill C-54 recognizes that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. The government committed in March of this year, during its Speech from the Throne, to better protect children by increasing penalties for sexual offences against children. The proposed bill, which would be called the “Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act”, supports this commitment in two ways: it ensures that the penalties imposed for sexual offences against children better reflect the extremely serious nature of these acts and are consistent with each other; and it seeks to prevent child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that would facilitate their sexual offending or reoffending.
The legislation would amend the Criminal Code, and I want to say that there has been a sea change in our attitudes towards these sorts of offences over the years. Many years ago, these offences were happening probably at the same rates as right now, but it was swept under the carpet and it was hidden. We have to thank people such as Theo Fleury and certainly Sheldon Kennedy, two hockey players who have come forward with their previous experiences.
Even before that, I recall Senator Sharon Carstairs, who was leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party at the time, appearing before the legislature in a very emotional manner and telling us how she was abused as a child. There was not a dry eye in the house. It probably made some people uncomfortable. It was certainly groundbreaking. Up until that point, I do not think any politician would have done something like that. She explained her situation and people were very happy that she did.
My example of the case of hockey coach Graham James, Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy just masks part of the problem. Graham James abused dozens if not hundreds of boys who are still afraid to come forward. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg here. It is important to have role models, people to come forward and talk about their experiences. Hiding the abuse leads to more problems for the individual along the way. 
We have gone through the whole residential schools issue in the native communities and all the abuse that was involved there. We know about the abuse that has gone on in church organizations. Up until the 1970s it was probably whispered about. There was no openness about the whole issue. However, people who were abused are now coming forward and are finding that they are being embraced by society. They are not being rejected and vilified the way many thought they would be. They have come forward.
This is a very good bill. 
I do want to make some observations on the sex tourism issue. It is important for the government to get tough on criminals in this country. Having said that, we do not want to be exporting our problems somewhere else. We have laws against sex tourism, and it is debatable. Some people say they are not being enforced properly, that they are not tough enough. The laws have to be enforced and have to be toughened if necessary. The government has to show a clear example here that this type of activity will not be tolerated and will be punished. 
We have to do work throughout the world to try to influence governments in some of these areas like Thailand and other countries where sex tourism is flourishing, to have them bring in similar laws and enforcement in their jurisdictions. I recognize that it is a never-ending game because, like the Internet issue, the problem gets solved in one place but simply goes somewhere else. That does not mean we should not try to work on this issue.
With the few minutes I have left I want to talk about the role of the victims and why we should be supporting victims, particularly in situations like this.
In 1970-71, among many initiatives, for example, the guaranteed annual income program and state-run auto insurance, the Manitoba government under Ed Schreyer, the very first NDP government in Canada, set up what is known as the criminal injuries compensation act. That act has been operating as a fund for the last 40 years, providing compensation to victims of crime, so that if someone is a victim of being attacked and beaten up, for example, he or she receives compensation from this criminal injuries act. Ontario has one as well.
It is incumbent upon the Conservative government to set up a national fund. The federal government should set up a national fund if it really believes in helping victims of crime, which it certainly talks about a lot.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Statistics Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion 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.
John Rafferty: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the bill today. Let me say right off the top that the rural parts of this country very much need a long form census. We need to know who lives here. We need to know where they live. We need to ensure that services like health care, education, employment assistance and so on are provided fairly and equally right across this country.
For urban areas of course the long form census is just as important, but I am going to keep my remarks mostly to my riding and to the issues that we face and why the long form census is so important to my part of northern Ontario.
Therefore I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-568. It is an act to amend the Statistics Act in which we are dealing with the long form census.
The New Democratic Party is generally supportive of the bill because it seeks to reverse the ideologically based decision of the Conservative government to cancel the long form census. The bill also removes the punishment of imprisonment for a person convicted of providing false or misleading information.
While I am supportive of the bill and while my party is supportive of the bill, it is also important to note that I do not think it goes 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 manoeuvring, the likes of which we have seen with the Conservative 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 or her job in an environment free of political meddling by an ideological government intent on suppressing evidence and information that contradicts, in this case, the narrow Conservative agenda.
We can just imagine the outrage from the national and international community if the government were to meddle in the independence of the Bank of Canada, for example. It would not be tolerated. 
Therefore why should we accept the government's heavy-handedness when it comes to interfering with our Chief Statistician in his or her ability to do the job?
Hundreds of individuals, organizations, businesses and governments 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 about the intrusiveness of the long form census, we know that the majority of citizens support and understand the need for the long form census.
Losing the long form census will have a detrimental impact on our communities in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Let us just look at the first nations communities for example. There are 10 first nations in Thunder Bay—Rainy River. While they are connected by the road system, some are very far away from the main road, and it is important to have an accurate picture.
If we do not have a long form census that asks the kinds of questions that it does, we may not know what is going on in these isolated communities. 
For example, without a long form census we would not know that the Couchiching First Nation, as of this past September, had 22 students who had graduated from high school but did not have the ability to go on to post-secondary education because the funding was not there.
We would also not know that in that same community last year it sent its very first student to medical school. It had its first PhD. return to the community.
Here we are making advances right across my riding and I would suggest that is duplicated right across the country.
Just when first nations are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, particularly as far as education is concerned, the taps get turned off. Without a long form census, we do not know and we will not know that is happening. It is important for all of our communities to have the input into the long form census to protect them and to let all Canadians know, to give all Canadians a snapshot of what is going on in those communities.
When we see the importance of the long form census, is it any wonder that the government was taken to court on the issue? It seems as if the government is trying everything, making relentless efforts to shut down any source of credible data that provides any sort of objective evidence necessary for developing good public policy. 
A short while ago on Parliament Hill, parliamentarians and members of Canada's very professional public service were invited to a special panel discussion on a very timely topic, evidence versus ideology of Canadian public policy. The 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. There were a number of distinguished speakers on the panel, and the discussion was fascinating because these 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 give it policy recommendations that did not fit into its ideologically driven agenda. 
Second, the government cancelled surveys and the long form census to ensure that statisticians, economists, academics and other professionals did not have access to objective data that provided damning evidence of the government's policy failures.
I am just guessing, but I suppose the object is to put it all into the private domain and let private companies do the work of the long form census. They do sometimes. For example earlier this week there was a BDO Dunwoody study about my pension protection bill, Bill C-501. BDO Dunwoody asked CEOs from across Canada what they thought of the bill. More than half of the CEOs who replied said it is a good bill and Parliament should move it ahead. Those are the kinds of things that the government should be finding out about legislation that happens in this place.
I fear that the Conservative government is dragging the country backward, and a clear majority of Canadians are saying, “No, you cannot drag us backward”. A majority of parliamentarians in the House support restoring the long form census, protecting the professional role of Canada's Chief Statistician and removing the threat of imprisonment in the act. Yet the minority continues to thumb its nose at the majority will of Parliament, an insult to democracy, an insult to this place itself. 
Bill C-568 is specific to the government's decision to cancel the long form census. I believe the House needs to have a wider debate about the government's treatment of public servants; its setting of 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 so are Canadians.
I offer my party's support for the 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. We need to end this trend and we need to do it quickly before we are dragged any—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Resuming date, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to address this matter. I had the pleasure of seconding Bill C-568 when my colleague from St. Paul's introduced it in the House. The bill follows up on a decision that the government first announced in June, and that was we would no longer have a mandatory long form census distributed, that it would become some sort of a survey that would be on a voluntary basis. Even though the decision was announced in June, it had been taken months before.
As soon as the decision was announced, after Parliament had conveniently shut down for the summer, reactions started. We had very strong reaction from Canada's partners in this federation, the provinces and the territories, indicating, in a great majority, that they thought the decision was wrong. Municipalities across the country said that they thought the decision was a wrong one, that we should not scrap the mandatory long form census. We had the same thing from universities and colleges across the country and various departments of universities involved with the science of statistics also decrying the decision, that this was not the way to go.
People representing churches throughout the country have also said that this is not the thing to do. Businesses, starting with the Bank of Canada, said that the decision would affect its ability to deliver programs. When it starts getting like that, we have to wonder what was behind such a decision. 
A number of scientists came forward. Even the chief statistician felt that it was best to tender his resignation because of some of the statements from the government, which he could not support.
We have had reactions from across the world from statisticians and from organizations wondering what is going on. This flies in the face of an international agreement on the use of statistics and census that Canada is a party to, yet the government seems intent on not changing its mind.
The industry committee had two full days of hearings this summer, of which I was privileged to be part. An overwhelming number of the witnesses said that they wished the government would rescind the decision and that it would maintain the long form census in a mandatory manner.
Now we even have comments from federal government departments. As of yesterday, in a publication in the Canadian Press, Ms. Jennifer Ditchburn, through access to information, obtained some of the comments given to the government by various departments. The article stated: 
 Statistics Canada scrambled to assemble research last December on “the prime minister’s decision” and consulted data users across government. A briefing note drafted for the deputy minister at Industry Canada detailed the “specific consequences” of replacing the long questionnaire with a voluntary survey. And with the number of Canadians filling out the forms potentially decreasing by as much as 40 per cent, according to the memo, a number of other federal activities would feel the loss of data. 
Here are some specific concerns of the departments. The Human Resources and Skills Development Canada commented: 
 Less reliable data would “compromise their ability” to determine EI eligibility, assess skills development and retraining, and apply the federal-provincial agreement on labour mobility. 
 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada commented:
 Absence of reliable long-form data will not allow them to effectively manage, evaluate, and measure performance of programs in areas of aboriginal health, housing, education, and economic development. 
Citizenship and Immigration Canada commented:
 A broad range of programs dealing with selecting and settling immigrants, including a pan-Canadian agreement on foreign credentials would be hit. “A question in the long form on country of educational attainment specifically provides information to support this program”. 
The conclusion that seems to come from the bureaucrats of our federal government service is:
 It cannot be anticipated at this time if a successful resolution of these issues is even feasible to provide reasonable quality data at affordable cost. 
The question remains, why did we do this if everybody and their brother were arguing that this was the wrong decision?
We initially thought it might be a matter of concern with privacy, so we asked the Privacy Commissioner. The answer was no, that there had never been a leak of any data collected through the long form census. Obviously that is not the concern.
We keep hearing that it was to ensure that Canadians did not go to jail. No Canadian has gone to jail over this in the history of the census taking. Obviously that is not the reason either.
We then started to hear the experts. The experts confirmed that if we were to have a voluntary form, as opposed to a mandatory one, the information collected would be biased and of a lesser quality, especially within small communities. The argument they put forward was that if it were a voluntary format, those earning more money, the very well to do, would seek anonymity and would not fill it out. Also, those who felt more vulnerable in our society would not fill it out for fear or whatever. We now will have a reading of our society that is appropriate, not equal and not accurate. The inequities of our society will no longer be measured appropriately.
By the way, this is not a theory. The U.S. tried scrapping the mandatory long form census, or the equivalent, under the George Bush administration. The U.S. reversed itself because it realized that the information it was gathering was not as accurate or as reliable as before. 
One would think the Conservatives are doing this to save money, as that would be in line with their philosophy. However, no, the government is going to spend $30 million more. 
We have to wonder why the government is doing this. It has been proven wrong, according to what the U.S. has done. Almost everybody in Canada is saying not to do this. We will be spending $30 million more to get information that is less reliable.
One conclusion that many of us are forced to arrive at, and we have heard it before, is that to facilitate a shift from evidence-based decision making, which has traditionally been the way governments in our country have reached their decisions, the government wants to ensure that it does not have as high-quality information in order to have ideologically driven decision making. That is where the rubber hits the road. We cannot allow that.
This is why we have members of Parliament in the House saying no. We have had a motion in the House where the majority of the elected representatives of the people of the country have said no to this. However, the government has said that it will stick to its guns. 
We now have a bill in the House and I suspect and I hope that the government will respect the will of the House when the bill passes, as I believe it will next Wednesday when it will be read in at second reading. 
We are doing this because to move from evidence-based decision making to ideologically-based decision making scrambles the ability of government to have accurate information. The impact of this on municipalities, universities, provinces and business is untold. It is a shameful decision. I hope the government accepts the fact that the country wants it to reverse itself on this.
However, if the government does not, then we will have to force it to. If we cannot do it that way, when the Liberal Party forms government, we will ensure the census reverts back to a long form mandatory method to accurately read the snapshot of Canada in order to design programs to address the inequities in our society.
Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Madam Speaker, let me begin my remarks by quoting someone who has been much quoted in the ongoing debate about the 2011 census, the former chief statistician, Ivan Fellegi. In an address to the International Statistical Institute in 2003, he said, “Privacy was generally defined as the right to be left alone, to be free from interference, from surveillance and from intrusion”. He went on to say:
 Information privacy involves the right to control information about oneself. At its heart lies informed consent: the right to give or deny consent for the use of information about oneself. In this sense all compulsory household surveys are clearly privacy intrusions. 
This is one point on which Ivan Fellegi and I can agree. Perhaps we also agree that there has been a growing concern in official statistics in Canada and internationally about the use of coercion in government data collection. Many countries have removed imprisonment from the penalties imposed on individuals and businesses refusing to participate in government surveys that are conducted on a mandatory basis. Some countries, where their administrative data systems permit, have chosen to dispense with surveys.
 In the 1980s, Canada showed international leadership by introducing the notion into the Statistics Act that surveys could be conducted on a voluntary basis. Statistics Canada then showed leadership by making the vast majority of its household surveys voluntary.
For over 20 years now, Statistics Canada has been releasing useful and usable data and information from those voluntary surveys. For over 20 years, governments, organizations, businesses and individual Canadians have been using that information to help them make informed decisions on everything ranging from new programs to new products.
A few countries have made specific questions, such as questions on religion, voluntary, even in their censuses. This government has taken the next logical step in this progression by looking into the census itself and recognizing that some questions are sufficiently intrusive that Canadians should not be legally compelled to answer them.
The bill we are debating today is regressive. It seeks to restore legal compulsion for all census questions, however intrusive. For this reason, it must be rejected.
The Parliament of 1970, which adopted the current Statistics Act, showed wisdom in crafting its terms. It recognized in section 21 that questions that would be asked in a census of an entire population on a mandatory basis with severe legal penalities for non-compliance should be approved not by civil servants but by elected officials.
In reviewing proposals for the 2011 census, this government has taken its responsibilities very seriously. We do not believe the government's role in the approval of census questions should be to rubber-stamp proposals from the chief statistician. This is not what Parliament intended. We reviewed the proposals carefully in coming to our decision.
 Let us be clear on what our government decided. We concluded that some of the questions proposed for the 2011 census of population were sufficiently important that they should continue to be asked on a mandatory basis. These are the questions necessary to establish the population of the country, information that is needed for the definition of electoral districts and to determine inter-governmental transfer payments involving billions of dollars. They are also the questions that will provide the information necessary to provide government services to local communities in the official language of their choice.
 We similarly decided that all questions proposed to the 2011 census of agriculture should be asked on a mandatory basis in order to support extensive government programs and policy interventions in this sector.
The government also decided, as a matter of fundamental principle, that the remaining questions proposed for the 2011 census of population were too intrusive to be asked of Canadians on a mandatory basis. The government recognized the utility for all governments and many other organizations of the information that would have been derived from the remaining questions.
It is for this reason that the government asked Statistics Canada to develop options to collect this information through a voluntary survey. It is for this reason the government then selected, approved and funded one of these options.
We understood also that there would be consequences for data quality, but we have worked, and will continue to work, with Statistics Canada to ensure that we will obtain the best possible results from the voluntary national household survey. We have great faith in our world-leading statistical agency to find the means that will ensure this new survey will meet the needs of the greatest possible number of users. We will of course learn from 2011 to improve future cycles of the census and the survey.
This bill seeks to turn back the hands of the clock. It fails to respect the privacy of Canadians and their right to refuse to participate in a survey when they cannot be persuaded that the public purpose of the inquiry justifies the surrender of their personal information. It seeks to transfer to a public servant decisions that clearly belong to elected officials. The government cannot support these aspects of the bill.
There is one point on which the government can concur with the bill, however, and that is with respect to the removal of imprisonment as a penalty for Canadians who refuse to participate in surveys that are mandatory under the Statistics Act.
Other developed countries around the world have already taken this step and it is time for Canada to join them. We are pleased to see that other members of the House have rallied to the government's view on this issue. Unfortunately, the bill is incomplete in removing the sanction of imprisonment. Other sections of the act also contain this penalty. The government will be bringing forward legislation of its own to completely remove this penalty for non-compliance with mandatory surveys conducted under the Statistics Act.
I urge my hon. colleagues to do the right thing for Canadians and reject this bill.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census).
 I will read the summary of the bill so that the viewing public can understand it:
 This enactment amends the Statistics Act to provide that the census of population taken under section 19 of the Act must be taken using a long-form census questionnaire that conforms substantially, in length and substantive scope, to the census starting in 1971 and at intervals thereafter to meet the requirements of that section. This enactment also removes the punishment of imprisonment for a person convicted of the offence of providing false or misleading information. 
I congratulate the member, who is a long-standing member of the House, for introducing this bill.
When the government announced its initiative many months ago, I got the impression that most people, even Conservatives that I talked to among members of the public, felt it was the most boneheaded move the government had made since the killing of the prison farms.
Generally speaking, the public settles down based on ideology and their voting patterns. When the government of their choice introduces something, they try to understand what the government is doing. By and large, they find a way to accept, if they are Conservatives, what their government is doing and work out a rationale for it. 
However, these are two issues, which I find from talking to Conservatives, that just leave them puzzled. They cannot explain why the government has done it and they do not agree that the prison farms should have been eliminated. They certainly do not agree that the census should be changed.
That aside, many organizations have the same view on this matter. There are business organizations across the country that require the statistics provided by the census in order to conduct proper business operations. 
As the Liberal member mentioned previously, in his attempt to find out why the government was doing this, he looked at the cost of it and said that the government is spending $30 million more to get less reliable data. It does not make sense.
Then I looked back to a question that I asked on September 28. We were looking at best practices. I like to talk about best practices. That is the hallmark of Conservatives. Whatever line of business we are talking about, computers, IT issues, it is always best practices and they are lined up with Conservatives.
Well, the best practices here would seem to be the United States. The Conservatives seem to want to follow where the United States is going, and they are always six months or six years behind. I do not know whether the member has checked this out or not, but back in 2003 when George Bush was the president, the Americans tried this experiment. The U.S. Census Bureau conducted an experiment and found that the data was degraded so much that fixing it would be too expensive and it abandoned the idea.
What sort of planning is the government involved in and what sort of planning did it do to develop this approach?
We know what the approach was. It was a knee-jerk ideological approach to the problem. The Conservatives had a preconceived notion. Their Conservative ideology tells them that this census is an irritant to a certain number of their supporters, and they probably heard from a few of them over the years.
I am sure it is the libertarian part of the party that is flexing its muscles at this point. The libertarians have not had a lot of support from the government over the last four or five years as it races to recoup as much of the centre ground from the Liberals that it could get its hands on. Every once in a while the Conservatives throw some red meat at the libertarians in their group.
That is the only reason the Conservatives would have taken this measure. The public does not support what they are doing. 
The Joe Clark government seemed to have suicidal tendencies from day one. That was the government that started sending pension cheques to federal prisoners. We have not seen that suicidal tendency in the Conservative Party over the years, but we are certainly seeing it now. 
Practically every business organization in the country is opposed to the government's approach on the census. School boards are opposed to the idea. Pretty much each and every province is opposed to the idea. Members over there might be able to tell me that one province is onside with respect to this issue. My home province of Manitoba is not in favour of this approach to the census. If the government is trying to get allies, if it is trying to build support, then it does not make any sense to torch its relationships.
We support this bill because it seeks to reverse the ideologically-based decision of the Conservative government to cancel the long form census. It would remove imprisonment of a person convicted of providing false and misleading information. That is an issue. Nobody has ever spent time in jail for failing to provide information with respect to the census, but the idea that it was possible may have weighed heavily on some people when they were asked to provide information.
While we support the bill, it really does not go far enough. Bill C-583 put forward by our colleague from Windsor West goes one step further. It would enshrine in law the primacy of evidence-based decision making over political manoeuvring of the likes we have seen with the government. We have seen political manoeuvring by the government not only with respect to this issue but with respect to a whole range of other areas. The Conservatives have fired people, sometimes people that they hired, who do not see things their way. They hired the victims' advocate three years ago and when he did not act the way he promised on victims' support, they simply fired him. They will get somebody who sees things their way.
As I have indicated, no Canadian has been imprisoned for failing to fill out the long form census. That would be removed if this bill were to pass. We have to remove political interference in the process. The chief statistician has to be able to do his or her job in an environment free of political meddling by an ideological government, certainly one like the Conservative government which is intent on suppressing evidence and information that contradicts its own narrow agenda.
Imagine the outrage from Canadians and the international community if the finance minister had interfered with the independence of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to set monetary policy. Why should we accept the government's heavy-handedness by interfering with our chief statistician's capacity to do his or her job?
As I have indicated, hundreds of individuals, organizations, businesses, governments from coast to coast, certainly an apolitical group of people have raised alarm bells about the terrible decision to cancel the long form census--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Paul's for her reply.
Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I thank all hon. members for speaking to the bill. I also thank the Speaker for his excellent ruling that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and therefore we hope to be voting on it and getting it to committee as quickly as possible so that we can get this bill into law.
The bill speaks to the government's failure in two ways. What it is doing is harmful and unthinkable. How it has done it is the absolute worst of what we are seeing in the government in terms of its undemocratic approach and its approach to the citizens of this country.
It is the ultimate, top-down, misguided, father-knows-best paternalism that we have seen since coming to this place. This seems to have been on the bucket list of the Prime Minister, who does not want to measure things, does not want to know where there is inequality, does not want to have to remedy things that are wrong, because in some ways that is just what the census is. It is a report card on how we are doing in our country and how we are dealing with inequalities in our country.
The members opposite show audacity trying to prove that it does not really matter and that this is an issue of privacy. I would think the former Chief Statistician would be appalled that the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar would be using his name and a quote from him to defend something that he is so vehemently opposed to. It is a disgrace. She is switching the words about privacy in a way that is dishonest and misleading to Canadians.
 The thing about the census is that it is anonymous data. If people do not want the government to know what religion they are, the government will not know what religion they are after they have filled out the census. It is the continued use of the words “intrusive” and “coercive” that have been so destructive. As we learned this morning in the access to information, because of this ongoing litany of “coercive” and “intrusive” from the minister and the members opposite, there is serious concern, and there was serious concern expressed last year, that this ongoing disrespect for the need for a mandatory census will actually do a disservice to the short form census and even that will end up having less accurate data.
As was said this morning by The Canadian Press:
 One of the key worries was that people might think that the basic census form, which asks Canadians where they live, their ages, sexes and the language they speak, was also voluntary. 
 “Many Canadians may interpret the voluntary long form as applying as well to the mandatory short form,” reads the briefing note, released under the Access to Information Act. 
 “This would, in Statistics Canada's view, create an unacceptable risk to the credibility of the population count derived from the short-form census.” 
 If fewer people fill out the short form, the statistics agency warned it would affect federal transfers to the provinces and the distribution of Commons seats 
That is what the government seems to be trying to confuse us with in terms that even Bill C-12 would not work without a proper response to the census, and it is time that it brought Bill C-12 back to the House as well. 
The article goes on to say that the number of Canadians filling out the forms potentially could decrease by as much as 40%.
The word “mandatory” also places an obligation on the government to follow up. I think the most poignant testimony we had at the industry committee this summer was from ITK's Elisapee Sheutiapik, who said there was an amazing partnership that had developed in the Arctic communities, and about how, even though they are a community intimidated by forms, particularly because some of the elders do not speak English, that having someone who has been trained through Stats Canada going house to house, they are very comfortable having that person come and help fill out those forms, and they want to Canadians to know that there is an average of 16 people living in that house and that is unacceptable.
So as we go forward, it is a matter of saying that the government has refused to honour the opposition day motion. We hope that it will, for once, as the Prime Minister said so many times before, honour the will of the House and do the right thing, enshrine it in the Statistics Act and get on with the 2011 census that we all need.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The time provided for debate has expired. 
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 8, 2010, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
 (The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)