2012-10-19

Government Orders
Combating Terrorism Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. I want to state at the outset that New Democrats will be opposing the bill.
Since 2001, we have had an opportunity to revise the bill, which was adopted in reaction to a particular event that sent people into a state of panic. We have learned that there is actually no evidence to support such legislation. When these provisions expired in 2007, we found that there had been no investigative hearing and no situation that required a recognizance with conditions. Since 2007, the investigative hearing has only been used once as part of the Air India inquiry, but that led to no conclusive results. I am going to talk more about that later.
Bill S-7 has four objectives. The first is to amend the Criminal Code to authorize investigative hearings and authorize the imposition of the recognizance with conditions or preventative arrest. Second is to amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information on a trial or an accused, once the appeal period has ended. The third is to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for those who have left the country or tried to leave the country to commit a terrorist act, and finally, to amend the security of information to increase maximum sentences incurred for harbouring a person who committed or intended to commit a terrorist act.
I am going to focus on the investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. I want to give some context here. New Democrats oppose the bill because it is an ineffective way of combatting terrorism and because it is an unnecessary and inappropriate infringement on Canadians' civil liberties. New Democrats believe that Bill S-7 violates the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.
According to these principles, the power of the state should never be used against an individual to force a person to testify against himself or herself. However, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of hearings. We believe that the Criminal Code already contains the necessary provisions for investigating those who are involved in criminal activity and for detaining anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians.
We believe that terrorism should not be fought with legislative measures, but rather with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action. In that context one must ensure that the intelligence services and the police forces have the appropriate resources to do their jobs.
I want to quote from Denis Barrette, a spokesperson from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, at the review by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on former Bill C-17, which was an earlier version of Bill S-7. Mr. Barrette said:
 —the provisions dealing with investigative hearings and preventative arrests, which are intended to impose recognizances with conditions, are both dangerous and misleading. Debate in Parliament on these issues must draw on a rational and enlightened review of the anti-terrorism law. As we know, that legislation was rushed through Parliament after 9/11 in a climate of fear and under very considerable pressure from the United States.... 
 At this point in time, what is the real objective need for these two provisions? From the time of their introduction in 2001 until their repeal in 2007, the only time they were used was in relation to the Air India case which, as you all know turned out, sadly, to be a total fiasco. 
 Since 2007, police investigations have succeeded in dismantling terrorist conspiracies using neither one of the provisions we are talking about today. Furthermore, since 2001—in other words, in the last 10 years—none of the investigations that resulted in charges or convictions required the use of these extraordinary powers, whether we're talking about the Khawaja affair, the Toronto 18 or, more recently, the four individuals in the Toronto region.... 
 We know as well that these provisions could, as we see it, be abused. I am thinking here of the Air India case. We believe that Canadians will be better served and better protected under the usual provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than others that are completely unnecessary. Reliance on arbitrary powers and a lower standard of evidence can never replace good, effective police work. On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice and a greater probability that the reputation of innocent individuals...will be tarnished. 
There are a number of concerns that have been raised with particular aspects of the legislation. It is important to note that sometimes it also gives Canadians a false sense of security. Again, what we need is appropriate resources to ensure that these activities are monitored and prosecuted where appropriate.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada on national security from 2002.
The Supreme Court stated:
 On the one hand stands the manifest evil of terrorism and the random and arbitrary taking of innocent lives, rippling out in an ever-widening spiral of loss and fear. Governments, expressing the will of the governed, need the legal tools to...meet this challenge. 
It goes on to say, however:
 On the other hand stands the need to ensure that those legal tools do not undermine values that are fundamental to our democratic society — liberty, the rule of law, and the principles of fundamental justice — values that lie at the heart of the Canadian constitutional order and the international instruments that Canada has signed. In the end, it would be a Pyrrhic victory if terrorism were defeated at the cost of sacrificing our commitment to those values. Parliament’s challenge is to draft laws that effectively combat terrorism and conform to the requirements of our Constitution and our international commitments. 
Again, I think it is important that we balance the safety of Canadians and the need for Canada to play its role in combatting terrorism, domestically and internationally, with those civil liberty rights.
In an op-ed referring to Canada and 9/11, which was originally published on September 6, 2011, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated:
 Prior to the attacks, we demonstrated a high level of commitment to certain core values -- rule of law, due process, equality, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, and the absolute prohibition against torture. These values lay at the heart of our Constitutional and international law obligations. 
 We knew, from contemporary history, that the absence of such legal protections resulted in societies where exceptional measures became the norm. Such societies could devolve into accepting presumptions of guilt, secret trials, secret evidence, extrajudicial execution, arbitrary detention, torture, even ethnic cleansing and massacres. To prevent such devolution, Canadians knew that any incursion into civil liberties must be legally and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society; unjustifiable incursions must be remedied. 
It goes on to do an analysis about whether or not we, in Canada, can make that same claim today, and I will only read the sections that are actually applicable to this act. It states:
 Our national security actions since 9/11 require our attention: 
 It talks about a number of things, including Afghan detainees and using immigrant and administrative processes and counter-terror initiatives.
 However, the piece that I want to highlight is:
 Canada seeks to re-introduce post 9/11 amendments to our Criminal Code that will enable interrogation and preventive detention without criminal charge. Civil liberties concerns include the undermining of due process, fair trial, and lower evidentiary thresholds to trigger proceedings. 
These concerns are being raised on a number of fronts about the lack of due process.
Later on in its article, it acknowledges that:
 ...Canada has not taken the extreme legislative or administrative measures seen in other countries, including the United States, following 9/11. 
 However, it goes on to state:
 But we have not always got it right. And when we fail to take timely action to provide accountability, transparency, and redress, we risk morphing from a state anchored on the rule of law and democratic guarantees, to a state that condones illegal actions and disregards human dignity. 
 Terrorists have little regard for human dignity, human life, human rights, or the rule of law. We cannot effectively fight terrorism and protect our national security if we operate from a paradigm that also disregards these objectives. If, as Canadians, we no longer shrink from the injustices of wrongful conviction; torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; racial profiling; arbitrary detention; impunity; then what exactly are we protecting? 
I think that is a very good question, one that we need to ask ourselves as parliamentarians and as Canadians. I think that most Canadians would want to continue saying that we in Canada do protect those civil liberties, that right to due process.
I want to put into context where the Conservative government has missed an opportunity because the review of the Anti-terrorism Act was conducted over a number of years. Someone who did the analysis on it pointed out that the review that was supposed to happen at three years became the three-year review.
In 2007, the subcommittee on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act submitted a report. I want to quote from the minority report that was put forward by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I do not have time to read the whole report but many Canadians probably have not read that report and I just want to highlight a couple of the points that come back to the challenges we are facing with this bill before us. 
In that report, the members noted:
 Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation; it must be fought through the efforts of intelligence services combined with appropriate police action. 
 There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for pre-meditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures. 
 Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists’ motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future. 
 We must also consider that, when it comes to terrorism, deterrence has limitations. First, it will have very little impact on someone considering a suicide bombing. Second, those who decide to join a terrorist group generally believe that they are taking part in an historic movement that will have a triumphant outcome in the near future and that will see them emerge as heroes. 
 Therefore, one cannot expect that new legislation will provide the tools needed to effectively fight terrorism. 
 Legislation can, however, be amended if police do not seem to have the legal means needed to deal with the new threat of terrorism. 
 Consequently we must ensure that the proposed measure does not unduly disturb the balance that must exist between respect for the values of fairness, justice and respect for human rights, which are characteristic of our societies, while also ensuring better protection for Canadians and for the entire world community. 
This is an important point. We have had the Supreme Court point this out and we have had civil liberties organizations point this out. It is the continuing need to balance the right to protect Canadians in terms of due process with our role domestically and on the world stage.
This dissenting report goes on to say that the Criminal Code already contains this solid arsenal of provisions for combatting terrorism. The Anti-terrorism Act has simply added two more that no police force has yet seen the need to use. Further in the report, it states:
 But the ATA is also dangerous, because it is a frontal attack on a number of fundamental principles that underpin our system of law, the system that distinguishes us most sharply from the ideology motivating the terrorists who confront us. 
The report continues: 
 The Civil Liberties Union and the Canadian Association of University Teachers drew up a long list of such principles, including: the presumption of innocence; the right to privacy and to be secure against searches and any kind of invasion of privacy; the right not to be stopped, questioned, arrested or detained based on mere suspicion or on racial, religious or ethnic profiling; the right of every individual to a public, just and fair trial, and the right to appeal; the right to make full answer and defence; the right to be secure against arbitrary imprisonment and torture; the right to bail while awaiting trial, and to have the validity of detention reviewed by way of habeas corpus; the right of asylum; the right to information and to freedom of the press. 
 We must also learn from our overreactions in the past when faced with danger. As the danger recedes, we feel obligated to compensate the innocent victims of useless measures taken out of fright. 
 Not only did these measures do nothing to increase our security, but we devoted a great deal of energy to them that could have been better employed in fighting the real danger more effectively. 
Sadly, Canada does have a history of reacting to something that ended up not being a threat to Canadians' security at all. The report cites:
 One example is the way we treated Canadians of Japanese origin during the Second World War. In 1942, 22,000 people of Japanese origin were arrested and detained, and their property confiscated. 75% of them had been born in Canada. And yet, government documents finally made public in 1970 revealed that both the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were convinced that Japanese-Canadians in no way threatened the country’s security. 
I want to repeat that. It states, “...in no way threatened the country's security”. As a result of that, of course, the federal government eventually made an official apology and some financial restitution and put some money toward creating educational, social and cultural programs and activities.
However, it is an example of a response to a frightening world situation that unjustly penalized many Canadians. 
 During the First World War, some 5,000 Ukrainians were interned and 80,000 others were required to report regularly to the police. A number were forced to endure harsh living and working conditions and more than a hundred died during their internment. 
There are other examples of how Canada has behaved in a way that many of us would argue did not respect due process and the liberties that many men and women in this country have fought so hard for.
Later in the report, it states: 
 Respect for our values is an important element in the war against terrorism. At the plenary closing session of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security in Madrid on March 10, 2005, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan declared once again, “[T]errorism is a threat to all states, to all peoples.” He added, 
 [Terrorism] is a direct attack on the core values the United Nations stands for: the rule of law; the protection of civilians; mutual respect between people of different faiths and cultures; and peaceful resolution of conflicts. 
 But he then went on to say, 
 [T]errorism is in itself a direct attack on human rights and the rule of law. If we sacrifice them in our response, we will be handing victory to the terrorists… I regret to say that international human rights experts, including those of the UN system, are unanimous in finding that many measures which States are currently adopting to counter terrorism infringe on human rights and fundamental freedoms… Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with successful counter-terrorism strategy. It is an essential element. 
In the conclusion of the report, one of the things that was recommended was a parliamentary oversight committee. This report was back in 2007. It states:
 Canada is unique among western nations in its lack of a Security oversight committee. Over the course of the review we heard testimony from individuals and organizations who stressed the importance of creating a mechanism for overseeing disparate national security activities. In 2004 an Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security was set up to make recommendations to the government of the day, it presented a report to Parliament in April of 2005 and on November 24, 2005, the government tabled a bill (C-81) to establish a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians. 
This dissenting report goes on to say:
 We would support recommendation 58 in the majority report. We would, however, further strengthen the recommendation to ensure that any Committee has authority to oversee all security agencies. In the examination of the Air India tragedy and the events surrounding the deportation and torture of Maher Arar, to cite but two examples, we have seen and heard of too many problems created when information is improperly shared or withheld from one agency to another. 
 The National Security Committee must in addition to providing a review function, be empowered to oversee current polices and conduct to ensure their adequacies. We have throughout the course of the review heard that vast amounts of information are deemed of national security interest and therefore inaccessible to the public or judiciary. Therefore, the proposed National Security Committee must be able to examine this information and where appropriate provide a graduated scale for the release of previously classified information. 
Of course, over the years we have increasingly seen a government that withholds information. This is not part of this bill, but we recently we saw a very public feud between the government and the Parliamentary Budget Officer because of the government's refusal to release information and there were threats of court action in order to get information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to do his job.
The same can be said to be true of many of the government departments. One almost needs a full battery of people working on access to information and analysis of the different ways this information is presented because when information is available, it is not presented in such a way that it is easily understandable and many times there are huge difficulties even accessing information which should rightfully be available to parliamentarians in order for them to do due diligence in doing their jobs.
This minority report went on to make a couple of recommendations. I will not read them all, but it states in part:
 While the purpose of the ATA review was to examine the existing legislation and, while we cannot write an entirely new law, we would recommend that the existing ATA be terminated. However, if a new law were to be drafted, the following considerations should guide the process: 
 That new legislation seek to provide the utmost protection to, and not oppression of, our citizens; 
 That the new legislation be guided by the spirit and principles of the Charter; 
 That new legislation would prohibit “evidence” garnered from torture domestic or international, in our courts or tribunal; 
 That there be an absolute ban on sending people back to their country of origin or any other country where there is a reasonable risk of torture or death. 
The reason I raised that report from 2007 in the context of the legislation that is now before us, Bill S-7, is that we can see that Bill S-7 largely disregards some of the recommendations that were made, principally around due process. We have a re-introduction of the clauses that were sunsetted around preventative detention and investigative hearings.
It is on those grounds that the New Democrats will be opposing the legislation.
[Interjection]
Hon. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations concerning the provisions of the second budget bill dealing with members' pensions. I hope to receive the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. It is a slightly edited version of what was proposed by the Liberal House leader yesterday.
I move that the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible and passed without further debate; that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures; and Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and that Bill C-46 be composed of: (a) clauses 475 to 553 of Bill C-45 as it is presently composed; (b) a clause inserted before all of the other clauses to provide that this act may be cited as the pension reform act and; (c) a clause inserted after all of the other clauses to provide this act comes into force or is deemed to have come into force on January 1, 2013; that Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed; that Bill C-45 be composed of the remaining clauses; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior the adoption of this order; that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and that Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 be reprinted. 
The Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of this House for this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her very comprehensive overview of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. She has given us a very good history on why this bill is so problematic.
I was actually in the House in 2001 when the original anti-terrorism bill was passed. It is correct that there were the sunset clauses concerning preventative arrest and interrogation. Those were put in because they were such serious elements in that bill. That bill was rushed through. I really appreciate the comments the member made today about why this bill should not be supported.
One of the concerns that we in the NDP have is that every response by the Conservative government is a legislative response, such as new legislation, new clauses to the Criminal Code, as opposed to relying on what we believe is the Criminal Code that already has existing provisions and the fact that we should also be relying on and supporting resources for intelligence efforts and appropriate police action, not a new legislative agenda.
I wonder if the member might comment on that in terms of where we are now with this bill and the fact that we do not actually need new clauses, that the existing Criminal Code is sufficient, and that we should be supporting intelligence resources and law enforcement action as something that is more appropriate to this situation.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, one does question why those clauses are back in the legislation because we have known since the review of the act was put in place that there are measures in the Criminal Code to deal with some of these matters. Except in one botched case with the Air India inquiry, these measures have not been used. We do wonder what the government's intention is by reinserting these two clauses in this legislation. Is it to cover its lack of inaction in terms of providing adequate resources to police and intelligence forces in order for them to do their job? 
I did point out that we sometimes indicate to Canadians that we are passing legislation that will keep them safe but then we do not put resources into it to ensure that the people who are responsible for enacting the legislation are able to do their job. Arguably, this case is another example of the kind of smoke and mirrors that the Conservatives have become very good at when it comes to passing legislation but not putting the resources in place.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent speech included reference to quite a few members of the community who articulated clear positions. 
I, myself, do not see how it makes sense to reintroduce provisions into legislation that have basically proven ineffective because they have never been used. What does my colleague think the government is trying to achieve by reintroducing such harsh provisions into our legislation, f measures that have never been used since the legislation was created?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, Paul Copeland, a lawyer with the Law Union of Ontario, said, “First of all, I would like to make a comment with respect to the Air India case because it is the only time when provisions of the anti-terrorism law were invoked, and the circumstances surrounding it were quite strange. We characterize this episode as a fiasco and this description seems perfectly appropriate to me. In my opinion, the provisions that you are examining here in committee will unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. We must not adopt them, and in my opinion, they are not necessary. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals”.
It is a good question and one that we would hope the government is prepared to answer. What is the government's motivation? Many witnesses from across this country have talked about the fact that those particular measures, preventative detention and investigative hearings, either have not been used or, when they have been used, they have been used to no particular effect. Why is the government continuing with this kind of agenda?
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the question I have is about the general taking of civil liberties by the government. This is not the first occasion we have seen civil liberties being attacked and they are being attacked by the other side. In this particular case, we have the right to habeas corpus and the right to investigative hearings suddenly being thrown back on us as though this is the most important thing facing Canadians, and I doubt that most Canadians will believe that.
I wonder if my colleague could comment about the civil liberties aspect of this and how this is just another symbol of a government that does not seem to care a whole lot about civil liberties.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to put this into a broader context. This is an analysis from “The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared”, from February 15, 2012. 
I mentioned the review process that took place, and now we have a piece of legislation that disregards all of the concerns that were raised around civil liberties. There is a bit of a context, and what the review says is that: 
 Governments seem all too vulnerable to the pressure to react to terrorist violence with fresh legislation and they frequently try to ensure that the legislation is given as little opportunity as possible to impede the swiftness of that response. The fact that legislators are at a distinct disadvantage in this scenario from the outset due to their very limited access to security intelligence assessments means that the deliberation over the government's measures hardly ever occurs on an even playing field. 
This is a review that took a look at a number of different jurisdictions and talked about Canada's lack of ability to actually review the effectiveness of its legislations and problems with that review process. 
When this original piece of legislation, Bill C-36, was first enacted, it was in response to a very horrific incident that took many lives. Therefore, the government of the day reacted swiftly, but with an omnibus bill that did not allow the kind of oversight that is required on very serious measures that start to infringe on Canadians' civil liberties. 
We then had the review process that gave the Conservative government of the day an opportunity to bring forward a piece of legislation that reflected these concerns from Canadians. However, once again, there was disregard for those concerns that had been raised around due process and civil liberties. Why is it that the Conservatives are continuing to disregard the concerns that are raised around due process and civil liberties?
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to that same point that my hon. colleague just ended on. We know these provisions were created right after September 11, 2001. In February of 2007, these provisions came up for review. They were brought to the House, were voted on and rejected by the duly elected officials of the House of the day. Is this another example of the government not having the ability to respect decisions that are made by elected officials in the House?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What we saw happening in minority governments, where members were expressing the will of the people, has now been disregarded. The Conservatives will often talk about having a strong stable majority, but the reality is that they got 39.8% of the vote. That is hardly a majority of Canadians who are reflecting their point of view. 
One of the things the report says about fixing the deficiencies in parliamentary review of anti-terrorism laws is, “Anti-terrorism provisions are too radical to be left unscrutinized. Independent reporting may also serve to galvanize more regular and transparent policy thinking within executive governments, as it appears to have done in the United Kingdom.”
The government often touts that it is a leader in transparency and accountability. If that were actually the case, then there would be the kind of reporting and oversight that is very important for this kind of legislation.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan could provide the source of that report that she is quoting from? I just want see how those comments might be leaning.
The Speaker: It is not really a point of order, but the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan may wish to respond.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, there are two reports. The first is the IRPP's Choices, “Fixing the Deficiencies in Parliamentary Review of Anti-Terrorism Laws: Lessons From the United Kingdom and Australia”. The other report is from the Journal of Legislative Studies entitled “The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared”. This is the version of the record that was first published on February 15, 2012.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
We talked a few seconds ago about transparency and accountability. However, I think that the bill is yet another example of smoke and mirrors. It is intended to deflect Canadians from the things that are really important toward things that are not pressing or urgent. It is intended to scare and strike fear into the hearts of Canadians. Apparently, the Conservative government intends to govern this country through fear. 
The bill would reintroduce measures that all parties agreed in 2007 should disappear, and they did. Those measures were severe incursions into civil liberties. As it turned out, the measures never were necessary to be used to combat any kind of terrorism that went on this country, and that is both for the terrorism we heard about and the threats I am sure the public did not hear about because the police were able to find it and stop it before it happened.
Why is this being reintroduced now? Why is the bill the single most important thing facing Canadians now and on the top of the agenda for the Conservative government to carry forward? I think the answer is because it would deflect Canadians from thinking about some of the more serious problems that are going on.
Apparently, the anti-terrorism bill turned out to be unnecessary in 2007, but the Conservatives are introducing it anyway. NDP members will not be supporting the bill, as we believe it is an unnecessary incursion into civil liberties. 
I believe the government is perhaps being a little two-faced on the whole notion of civil liberties. Members will recall the rancour and rhetoric over the gun registry. During the past several months of the Conservative's term in office, the use of a gun registry was a huge incursion into a person's individual private right to own a firearm, which is, of course, an American right and not a Canadian one. Nevertheless, the Conservative government was saying we had to protect civil liberties. However, here it is saying that it wants to diminish civil liberties. I do not think it should go unnoticed that the government is two-faced about this.
As a union representative in my previous life, I often had to be on guard against employers and others who were attempting to create incursions into civil liberties under the guise of protecting their investments and public safety, and their profits ultimately. For example, although it was ruled by the Supreme Court to be in violation of Canadian law, employers often wanted to have the right to test the urine, saliva and blood of their employees. It was for no apparent reason but just because they wanted to. Unlike the United States, the courts in this country have determined that it is an unreasonable incursion into our civil liberties; yet, employers keep trying to do it. They keep trying to find ways to get around these laws.
 One has to wonder what would happen if, as a result of these pressures by employers, insurance companies started to take these kinds of incursions into our civil liberties. I fear that if the insurance companies looking after our health and well-being were able to accomplish these civil liberty incursions, they would be able to refuse to insure people on the basis of something they discovered as a result of a saliva test or blood test that took place long before. We have to be ever vigilant against that. 
On this side of the House, we are ever vigilant against incursions of our civil liberties. However, the Conservative government believes that it needs to rule through a climate of fear. It needs to create a sense of fear in the public of Canada so that Canadians will be cowed into being appreciative of the few good things the government might happen to do. If there is anything the government has proven over the past year and half, it is that it is single-mindedly using a law and order agenda as its entire raison d'être.
There is no reason that this particular piece of legislation should be top of mind. There are far more important things that we should be doing and that we should be afraid of. However, the government would rather distract us with threats that there are imminent terrorist attacks and we must therefore change the law to allow the forces of justice in this country to have access to things that it turns out they do not need.
We believe that as a result of the application of the original Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, that $92 billion has been spent, over and above what would normally have been spent, to combat terrorism in this country. Is that a just way of spending our money? I do not think anybody would be able to tell. However, if what we are doing is creating this climate of removal of civil liberties and spending money to do it, then we must be vigilant against that, and in turn perhaps save some taxpayer dollars.
The government wants us to be afraid of terrorism, economic turmoil in other countries and environmental groups, but it forgets that Canadians are afraid of more important things that are closer to home. We should be afraid of carbon dioxide emissions and what that is doing to the planet. The government has apparently turned a blind eye to that. It has decided that there will not be a reaction from the government to implement the Kyoto Accord, or any other method of restricting the use of CO2 emissions to change our climate. 
The other thing that is alarming Canadians is the ever-escalating price of energy, particularly in the east part of the country, and the imbalance that is created between the government's determination to ship our energy supply to other countries while starving other parts of the country of energy. We do not have a national energy strategy from the government. We do not have a security of energy, and people are starting to feel it. The government is clearly reacting in a way that is not in keeping with what Canadians are fearing.
There is a twisting of democracy going on. Canadians should be afraid of that. With the implementation of time limits, of prorogation, and with these giant omnibus bills that are coming forward to Parliament, we have a twisting of the democratic process, in such a way that Canadians ought to be afraid. The government would rather distract them with talk of terrorism than to actually get at the real problems that face Canadians.
It is also an example of the weird priorities of the government. We are the only ones talking about this because the government has not put up any speakers on this particular act. The government appears to think this is the most important thing facing Canadians. However, in terms of public safety, there are more important things that are closer to home that we should be talking about.
In my riding, there are gun crimes almost every month. In Toronto, six Somali youth were killed by handguns. We are not doing anything to combat the proliferation of handguns into our cities in this country. We would do something to take away some civil liberties and combat terrorism, but that is not what is killing people in this country. Handguns are killing people in this country, and certainly in the city of Toronto.
We also have the spectre of tainted meat. People are more afraid of tainted meat right now than they are of terrorism. Yet, the government's response is to say Canadians should pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, that things will be fine and this company will resurrect itself.
We have the very real problem of jobs. There are not enough jobs to go around. There is only one job for every five people who are unemployed, and we have no indication from the government of any strategy to deal with that, other than to suggest that more temporary foreign workers are necessary. We now have something like 300,000 temporary foreign workers who have come into this country. 
The people in my riding are more afraid of losing their jobs than they are of terrorism. Yet the government's approach has been to bring forward an anti-terrorist bill as the most important measure that needs to be faced by Canadians and the most important fear that Canadians should have.
Therefore, the NDP will be rejecting the bill on the basis of the lack of accountability, transparency and the incursion into civil liberties that is going on in the bill.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and concur with many of his thoughts, especially when he talked about the issue of priorities and the fact that there were many other things with which we could deal. 
I must admit that I am a little surprised. He made reference to the omnibus bill, saying that it should have been broken down. I thought it was interesting that just yesterday the Liberal Party suggested that the omnibus bill in fact be broken down and the pension portion be taken out, yet the New Democrats said no to that. He made reference to priorities for the government. We would have thought that would be a priority for the NDP also, as opposed to wanting to protect our pensions possibly. Who knows?
Why did the NDP say no to allowing the omnibus bill to broken down to take out the pension issue? I agree with him that maybe the government is using this bill as a diversion. Would the member mind answering that specific question? Why did the NDP say no?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to the conversations that went on behind the scenes on that, but I am aware that the omnibus bill is yet another example of the twisting of democracy by the government, creating systems of enormity that force the members on this side to vote against their consciences, even though there are things they may agree with in the bill.
 The Prime Minister himself has expressed reservations about the use of omnibus bills as a method of getting many pieces of legislation done at the same time that have a wide variety of topics that need to be studied by different committees. Instead, this one will be studied by the finance committee. It is wrong, it should stop and we should watch out for it, as should Canadians.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his brilliant speech, in which he pointed out that the NDP supports the fight against terrorism and that Bill S-7 gives Canadians a false sense of security. 
The bill does not provide police and intelligence services with the resources they need. We have the legal tools needed—in international treaties and the Criminal Code, for instance—to combat illegal terrorism activities.
What stood out for me was when my distinguished colleague said that the Conservative Party had spent $92 billion and had therefore poorly managed this project. Furthermore, in terms of people's quality of life, it completely ignored any notion of respecting human rights. 
This bill acts as a smoke screen and avoids talking about the real problems. As for quality of life, Canadians care a great deal about their health and safety. Canadians want a national energy strategy and a national transit strategy. These are priorities and they would help tackle the real problems that the Conservative government refuses to talk about.
My questions, therefore, are as follows: will Bill S-7 take away the freedom of expression of Canadians who wish to demonstrate or engage in acts of dissent that have nothing to do with terrorism? Will it eventually lead to social profiling or labeling someone an environmental extremist for asserting their rights?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, the member has hit the nail on the head. This bill is a diversion. It is really not the most important thing facing Canadians. The most important things facing Canadians now are the economy, jobs and the ecology. Those things the Conservative government has refused to talk about or introduce matters dealing with those things and, instead, is giving us increased penalties for terrorism. I doubt there are terrorists who would read the bill and say, “I'd better not do that because the penalty went up”. It does not work that way. Increasing jail sentences for certain terrorist-related offences is not a deterrent. It does not stop terrorists from doing their jobs.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-7, which originated in the Senate. I have a question. Why did it originate in the Senate and not in the House of Commons? The Senate is less democratically elected than the House of Commons. It is very important that it is the representatives of the public, not the people appointed by the Prime Minister, who debate these important bills.
Bill S-7 has four main objectives, which I will summarize here. First, it amends the Criminal Code in order to provide for investigative hearings and to allow for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions—the so-called preventive arrest; second, it amends the Canada Evidence Act to allow judges to order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a trial or an accused once the appeal period has expired; third, it amends the Criminal Code to create new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to commit a terrorist act; and fourth, it amends the Security of Information Act to increase the maximum penalty for harbouring a person who has committed or is likely to commit a terrorist act.
Again, the government is cracking down on imaginary terrorists. In 2001, the Chrétien government had similar provisions passed in the House. None of those provisions have been in effect since December 31, 2006. Since then, given the very small number of terrorist acts or presumed terrorists acts in Canada, the laws that were in effect between 2001 and 2006 have not been necessary.
Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? What motivated the government to introduce it? Let us not forget that it was the government that introduced this bill in the Senate. It was not a senator who did this on his or her own initiative. It was truly the government that introduced it and that is telling us that it is important.
What is motivating the government? What exactly should we be cracking down on? This bill will have serious repercussions for human rights in Canada. Canada has always been a world leader when it comes to human rights. They are enshrined in our Constitution.
Bill C-45—Jobs and Growth Act, 2012Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: 
 That the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible, and passed without further debate; 
 That Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and Bill C-46, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and 
 That Bill C-46 be composed of 
 (a) clauses 475 to 514 of Bill C-45, as it is presently composed, 
 (b) a clause, inserted before all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act may be cited as the Pension Reform Act”, and 
 (c) a clause, inserted after all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act comes into force, or is deemed to have come into force, on January 1, 2013”; 
 That Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed; 
 That Bill C-46 be composed of its remaining clauses; 
 That Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; 
 That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and 
 That Bills C-45 and C-46 be reprinted. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of State 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:  Accordingly Bill C-46, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, is deemed read a second time, deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, Bill C-46 read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
Combating Terrorism Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has about two minutes before question period will start and then he will have about four minutes after question period to conclude his remarks.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.
I will be voting against the bill under consideration today, essentially because it will violate rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must not take away basic human rights in Canada unless there are real, substantial, indisputable reasons to so do. There must be fundamental criteria to justify trampling on human rights. Quite frankly, I have not heard any in our debate on this bill. Furthermore, the Senate said quite the opposite.
We do not see why this bill should proceed.

Statements by Members
The PillarsMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize six remarkable physicians who have dedicated their lives to the thousands of Canadians in the Markham Stouffville area.
Tonight our community will be celebrating “The Pillars”, which is an event to recognize these physicians. It will take place, as I said, in my hometown of Stouffville. It has been with their unwavering devotion, compassion and quality care that these doctors have advanced their field and gained their outstanding reputation in our community.
I would like to congratulate Dr. John Button, Dr. Douglas Brodie, Dr. Donald Petrie, Dr. Donald Smith, Dr. Glenn Graham and Dr. Jack White, and thank them for their services to our community and for the integral role they have played in our community.
Moreover, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Dr. John Button who is also the recipient of a Diamond Jubilee Medal, which was awarded in our community on June 16.
These doctors have performed extraordinarily well in our community, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
VeteransMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment today to sincerely thank Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Morency from Branch 265 of the Royal Canadian Legion. On October 14 in Loretteville, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert and I attended the unveiling of a monument to honour our fallen soldiers in Afghanistan.
It is with great humility that I join the members of the legion in paying tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom and peace. Legion members are devoted individuals with an unwavering sense of duty. They are a source of inspiration for me and for many people in their communities.
As a member of Parliament, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to use my time, my energy and all other available resources to listen to them, support them and represent them, but above all, to meet with them. Being there for them is the most important way that we can show our respect for them. That is my duty. That is my philosophy, and I have been happy to allow it to guide me in my mandate so far and will continue to do so.
Our veterans can count on the NDP.
Science and TechnologyMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is National Science and Technology Week. In that vein, I am proud that the two university campuses in my constituency, as well as nearby Mohawk College, are hubs of innovation and technology in this country.
In a global economy, we must continue to attract and retain young talent. That is why I am particularly pleased that this government continues to invest in the Canada research chairs program, including two chairs at McMaster University in Hamilton, which the minister announced last week were to be renewed, one in stem cell signalling and another in human cancer stem cell biology. Plus, we will now be adding a new Canada research chair in perinatal programming at McMaster.
McMaster University has an international reputation for research and innovation in engineering and the medical sciences, providing young people with lab experience and opportunities for careers in their given field.
This is a great example of what National Science and Technology Week is all about.
Public TransitMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is now easier for people in need in Shawinigan to access public transit services.
Transport solidaire, an initiative of Shawinigan's community development corporation and food security committee, gives underprivileged individuals free access to public transit in the city. The founding organizations of Transport solidaire provide bus passes to those in need, to help these people access to the things they need, such as food, health care or employment agencies. Transport solidaire tries to help the poorest members of society participate more fully in society by offering free transportation so they can go about their everyday activities.
I would like to celebrate the initiative of the people of Shawinigan who are working tirelessly to eradicate social disparities.
Suicide PreventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention met for its national conference and the theme was “Stepping Out of the Darkness: Awareness, Attention, Action”.
Over 600 volunteers, experts and advocates joined together to learn from new research, share experiences and best practices, including new approaches in suicide prevention, all with the end goal of providing hope and saving lives.
Many of the organizations that attended operate on shoestring budgets. Many are driven by the goodwill of volunteers and patrons. It is a sad truth that if a person is at risk of suicide and is seeking help, the quality of the help they receive will depend on that person's postal code.
Canada's youth suicide rate is the third highest in the world. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among our young people. Among aboriginal and Inuit youth, the rate is five to seven times higher.
I thank all CASP members for the work they do, particularly their support in developing Bill C-300. I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting these heroes.
Homelessness Awareness NightMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this evening thousands of people across Quebec will take part in the 23rd Nuit des sans-abri. In Laval, we will gather at 7 p.m. in the Collège Montmorency parking lot. We will all spend the night together under the stars in order to break the silence and remember that, every night, one of our own sleeps in the streets.
I would like to sincerely thank the Réseau des organismes et des intervenants en itinérance de Laval, which has organized this event for the seventh consecutive year. Laval is not alone in facing the challenge of homelessness. Although perceived as a well-heeled city, Laval does have homeless people.
A number of organizations working in this field receive federal funding under the current homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS. The region receives an annual amount that is not nearly enough to meet real needs, but our main concern is ensuring that the HPS will be renewed, period.
I sincerely hope that the government will renew the budget allocation for the HPS as quickly as possible. We have an opportunity to change our world for the better and the power to do so right now.
London North CentreMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has continued to deliver for the city of London, Ontario. 
Last week, I was pleased to make two landmark announcements that will create jobs and strengthen economic growth in London. The first is a $1.46 million investment, thanks to the federal gas tax fund, toward road improvements and new bike lanes to make commuting safer and more time efficient for drivers and cyclists. Officials from the city of London said that this co-operative effort between governments illustrated how forward thinking and well played funding benefited us all. 
Moreover, sixteen new jobs are set to be created at Cyborg Trading Systems, thanks to a FedDev investment of over $380,000. Cyborg founder and CEO James McInnes said: “The FedDev Ontario investment will allow us to rapidly scale our global growth strategy by allowing us to accelerate our plans to hire top Canadian talent”. 
Our government is proud to support the efforts of southern Ontario companies that want to grow and compete in the global marketplace. I am proud to represent the people of London North Centre.
Fall Fair and Corn RoastMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I had the great pleasure of hosting my neighbours at my community fall fair and corn roast. We hosted a hotly contested pie-eating contest, where we saw Uzair Khan edging just ahead of the competition to come out the winner. The pie-baking contest was judged by our community's heroes: a chief firefighter, a police constable and a paramedic. The highlight of the day was the chubby bunny marshmallow-eating contest, where we saw little Clayton edging out all of the competition. It really was a fun day and I would like to thank all of the volunteers who came together to help make it such as a success and to create some wonderful community memories.
By the way, I can say categorically that my neighbours do not want to see the price of their groceries, gasoline and electricity go up. They are categorically against the NDP's carbon tax that would bring in $21 billion of new revenue.
Persons with DisabilitiesMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as we speak, too many people with disabilities are being excluded from income support programs.
I receive a huge number of complaints in this regard from Canadians who tell me about the obstacles they face when attempting to get the disability tax credit or open a registered disability savings plan.
Given that Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the government must take its responsibilities and obligations seriously. This must be accomplished in a context where the rate of unemployment for people with disabilities tends to be 25% higher than the Canadian average, where Canadians with a disability are twice as likely to live in poverty and where young people with disabilities are only half as likely to pursue post-secondary education. 
People with functional limitations have the right to a decent standard of living and access to the labour market. I therefore urge the government to take the required corrective action as quickly as possible in order to ensure that these individuals can fully exercise these rights.
UkraineMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 28 Ukrainians will have a chance to exercise their deeply cherished democratic rights by participating in parliamentary elections. Ensuring that these elections are fair, free and reflective of the people's will is an important test at a critical juncture in Ukraine's journey toward true democracy and greater prosperity. Canada is providing some 500 election observers to monitor this vote.
Given mounting concerns over the deterioration of democratic conditions in Ukraine in the lead up to these elections, Canada is joining other freedom-loving nations to assess the fairness and transparency of the elections on the ground. Our Conservative government is committed to doing its part to help strengthen democracy in Ukraine and will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people as they exercise their will. 
Canadians can count on our government to continue championing the Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world.
Village of La MotteMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about a hidden gem in my corner of the country.
Nestled in a corner of Malartic Lake, the village of La Motte radiates its warmth across the Abitibi region. The area of La Motte is as big as the Island of Montreal, and we could say the same for the hearts of its 429 residents.
After just one visit to this picturesque village you will see what I mean. Go visit and bask in the warmth of the people of La Motte. Ask them to tell you the legend of the fairy stones. Go feed some sweet apples to Ti-Gars the pony, buy some penny candy and drink in the natural beauty of this little bit of paradise.
We could all learn a little something from the refreshing energy and quiet strength of the people of La Motte. 
Today, I have the pleasure of informing the House that La Motte was named best village by the magazine Vivre à la campagne. I hope this achievement will put a spotlight on this gem.
Randell MorrisMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of an extraordinary man, Mr. Randell Morris, who died unexpectedly this Tuesday at the age of 47.
Randell was the president of the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology and worked at the institution for over 20 years.
His legacy was that of pulling all levels of government and industry toward a common goal, ensuring that first nation students achieve their full career potential. Randell and his colleague, Ray Ahenikew, have been working closely with our government on this front.
Randell's reputation extended far beyond his role at SIIT. He was a proud member of the George Gordon First Nation and had an immense circle of friends. 
His wife of 22 years recalls true love and a husband with whom she never had an argument. His 18-year-old daughter remembers him as the best father she could have had.
Randell will be laid to rest today in Saskatoon. It is expected that more than a thousand people will be in attendance. Our thoughts are with Randell's family and friends, and with the SIIT.
Employment InsuranceMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, changes to employment insurance are threatening a program that is supposed to be there for workers when they need it.
We believe that government must ensure that all regions of the country have equal access to opportunity and prosperity. Therefore, any changes to employment insurance must be done with sensitivity to regional realities, including the impact on local economies.
However, the Conservative changes to employment insurance are hurting real people, hurting our communities and hurting our businesses. When coupled with the disproportionate civil service cuts, these changes will result in more poverty and hardship for the people of Prince Edward Island.
We believe, even if the Conservatives do not, that helping one another is still part of our collective history. The Liberal Party will not give up on our workers and our local communities.
Please join us for a Public Service Alliance of Canada rally on Saturday, October 27 on Water Street in Summerside, a rally that will call for a halt to the changes to EI that are hurting our communities, and a rally calling for fair treatment—
Lincoln AlexanderMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the hon. Lincoln Alexander, who passed away. Born in Ontario to West Indian immigrants, Lincoln Alexander proudly served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the second world war.
In 1968, he became the first black Canadian to win a seat in the House of commons as a Progressive Conservative. He represented the riding of Hamilton West, where he served for 12 years. After leaving Parliament, Lincoln Alexander became Lieutenant Governor of Ontario in 1985, becoming the first black Canadian to serve in a vice-regal position in Canada.
He was also awarded the Order of Ontario and became a Companion of the Order of Canada. He truly believed in public service and giving back to his country, and in this role he was a model for all Canadians.
On this sad day, I offer my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Lincoln Alexander, one of Canada's greatest citizens. Our thoughts and prayers are with them today.
Member for Moncton—Riverview—DieppeMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Salon du livre de Dieppe is in full swing, but no one would know this because the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe decided not to talk about it.
His last statement in the House was dedicated instead to telling lies concocted by employees of the Prime Minister's Office. And yet, this year, a record number of authors—80, to be precise— 
The Speaker: The words “lie” or “liars” or words to that effect are very clearly spelled out as unparliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw that term and he will have about 30 seconds to finish his S. O. 31.
[Interjection]
Jamie Nicholls: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker.
Yet this year, a record number of authors—80, to be precise—are attending the event.
The member also could have congratulated the many artists from Moncton who were just honoured during Music New Brunswick Week.
Or he could have congratulated the organizers of the Take Back the Night March held yesterday in support of women's right to be safe walking around in their communities.
But, no, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe instead chose the stories made up by the Prime Minister's Office—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member is out of time.
The hon. member for Don Valley West.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this weekend, Conservative MPs will return to our ridings and we will proudly tell our constituents that we will stand up for their interests and against the NDP's $20 billion carbon tax.
On page 4 of its election platform, the NDP clearly laid out its new tax, which would raise the price of everything and raise billions in new revenues from Canadians.
Earlier this year, the NDP leader said that his new carbon tax plan “will produce billions”.
As we travel throughout our ridings to various events this weekend, and in my riding of Don Valley West I will be listening to my local constituents' concerns over the NDP leader's $20 billion carbon tax plan.

Oral Questions
Budget ImplementationMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have still not learned their lesson. They have introduced another monstrous 450-page bill. Despite what the Minister of Finance claims, his bill is full of surprises that were not in his budget.
Will the minister agree to split the bill so that we may study the surprises separately?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our economic plan for jobs, growth and opportunity that was tabled in March has been debated in the House for many days and over many months. The Minister of Finance has already split the budget bill into one in the spring and one in the fall. Its goals and its objectives are all about creating jobs. We have seen more than 800,000 net new jobs created. That is good news for Canada and good news for Canadian families. 
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, they were lying in the spring and they are lying again this fall. That might work for the Conservatives, but it does not work for Canadians.
This bill threatens Canada's wetlands, lakes and rivers, and it is generous to those who want to install pipelines without assessing the risk.
If they were proud of these changes, they would split the bill and allow the Standing Committee on the Environment to do its job. The government has to be flexible. It was open to taking out the part on MP pensions. Why not study other parts of the bill separately?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we presented a budget that was debated in the House for a good number of days. We presented legislation and spent an unprecedented amount of time debating it and voting on it this spring. The minister has divided it up. We will have a second budget bill this fall with more debate and more opportunity for discussion. 
However, it is all about jobs, investment and opportunity. It is all about creating economic growth so Canadians can get back into the workforce and be able to provide for themselves and their families.
What we need is the NDP to get off its bench and get on to the job creation train instead of its carbon tax train. 
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance promised no surprises but then tabled a bill full of things never mentioned in his budget document. Navigable waters was not in the budget but that did not save it from being gutted. Labour Code changes were never raised, but surprise, there they were in the bill. 
A few minutes ago, we negotiated to split MPs' and senators' pensions from the omnibus bill. Apparently, splitting the bill is possible after all. Why will the Conservatives not do it for the other surprises: for research and development and for navigable waters? Why will they not do it for the environment? 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the NDP trying to take credit for the good work of the government House leader who worked with the Liberal Party to try to split the bill. 
The member talked about the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This was contained on page 282 of the budget. Let us look at what the municipal leaders said, those people who are closest to the people they govern:
 The Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes the federal government's commitment to make the Navigable Waters Protection Act work better.... The changes announced today will allow local governments to spend less time processing paperwork for small, low-risk public works projects by removing redundancies, red tape and project delays— 

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Food SafetyLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, conditions at the XL Foods plant in Brooks are shocking: fecal matter found on carcasses, raw blood dripping on meat and duct tape holding parts of the plant together. What is so troubling, though, is that this information is coming from American audits, not Canadian authorities. When pressed, the CFIA called these reports “a snapshot in time”, nothing for Canadians to be worried about. 
Well, Canadians are worried. When will the Conservatives take responsibility for these real concerns that Canadians have? 
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course we take consumer confidence seriously. That is why with the integrated nature of the North American beef market and process market, as trading partners, Canada and the U.S. regularly audit each other's food safety systems. The next U.S. audit will be in Canada coming up at the end of this month. 
The U.S. audit she is talking about clearly stated that upon finding food safety issues, “The CFIA and the establishment took immediate and appropriate corrective actions”. They did the right thing.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, why are we leaving it to the Americans to tell us what is wrong at the plant? The fact is that the only documentation we are getting on the XL Foods operation is from the Americans, and it paints a very bleak picture. 
Canadians are concerned about the integrity of the food safety system and they are concerned about the health and safety of their families. However, the minister dismisses these concerns and ignores safety failures. When will he start telling the truth about what is going on at the XL Foods plant?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite were actually concerned about the truth, they would reveal the fact that most of the information that is being bandied about in the media is from a 2003 audit in a different plant.
The EnvironmentHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are imperilling the health of our lakes and rivers without due parliamentary process.
Buried in yesterday's 443 page budget bill is a complete re-write of Canada's Navigable Waters Protection Act. There is nothing in the March budget that talks about gutting the federal protection of our waterways.
Why are the Conservatives pushing this through in a massive budget bill and ignoring the legitimate concerns of Canadians? Why are they putting Canada's world-famous lakes and rivers at risk?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the government is doing no such thing.
What we are doing is modernizing legislation that was passed in 1882, whose entire purpose is to ensure that some waterways are navigable by shipping and other transport. What we are doing is responding to concerns by municipal leaders from coast to coast to coast. We are responding to one former Liberal leader who said, “...the federal Navigable Waters Act is a huge impediment to investments and to jobs. ...it should be repealed and replaced by legislation that meets the needs of the 21st century”.
Why will that Liberal member of Parliament not agree with the respected former Liberal leader?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are endangering our lakes and rivers with their changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2009, they changed the act by adding a five-year review clause.
Why are the Conservatives making these changes before getting the results of their own review?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it was our government that proposed the changes. We worked with the municipalities in every region of Canada. We got the opinions of the municipalities regarding Canada's infrastructure. That is why we proposed the changes in the budget. We are keeping our promises in this bill. 
Our goal is to protect water transport on our rivers and lakes across Canada and to encourage economic growth. That is our goal. We have already created 800,000 new jobs, which is good for all Canadians.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal Party proposed a plan to separate the cuts to MPs' pensions from the budget bill and to fast-track these cuts into law. We are pleased that the Conservatives have supported our proposal.
 Will the Conservatives now agree that changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act should be separated from the 443 page budget bill and put into their own separate bill? They agreed to fast-track the cuts to MPs' pensions, a Liberal plan. Will they agree to the Liberal plan for separate legislation?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it was this government that presented a budget this past March where we envisaged change on page 282 to Transport Canada regulations with respect to shipping.
We worked with municipal leaders from coast to coast to coast who came forward with a useful suggestion. What municipal leaders said was that we could make government more sensible and efficient while also protecting our waterways and natural environment.
That is exactly what the government is doing. When we want to cut red tape and ensure that navigable waters and shipping are protected, why is the Liberal Party of Canada always standing up against measures to create more jobs, more hope and more opportunity?
Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last spring, the Conservatives gutted the Environmental Assessment Act. They cancelled more than 3,000 environmental assessments. Now. this fall, their second budget implementation bill is set to shred the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Out of 32,000 Canadian lakes, only 97 will now be protected.
Why is the Conservative government determined to dismantle laws to protect Canada's environment?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has never been a law to protect the environment because it is not an environmental law.
We do have strong environmental laws in this country, like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act would not touch any of those acts. They deal with changes to navigation protections, in essence, they protect navigation not the environment. The member should get it straight.
Budget Implementation LegislationRobert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, day after day that member puts on a cute performance, but the reality is that the Conservatives are dismantling Canadian environmental laws to help their well-connected friends, but sadly they are not willing to stand up for middle-class families.
 The Conservative budget bill would allow employers to deny new employees statutory holidays for 30 days after they were hired. This budget would tax Canadians' health care benefits. The Conservatives are literally stealing Christmas. Could it—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that was absolute nonsense. All Canadians know that what this bill will do is help create jobs, maintain our long-term prosperity for years to come and help Canada to continue on the path to economic development.
When we look at what is in this bill, in fact, we have the hiring credit for small businesses, which the NDP is hell bent on voting against. I do not know why, during Small Business Week, they are doing this to small businesses, but we on this side are going to support small businesses to increase the economy and we are going to do it proudly.
The EnvironmentRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our country. The government has decided that the vast majority of our waterways no longer require the protection of one of our oldest environmental laws. This move to emasculate the Navigable Waters Protection Act is another irresponsible measure in the Conservatives' monster bill. Our waterways are one of our greatest natural resources, underpinning future generations' quality of life. Now, only 97 of the 32,000 lakes in Canada will be protected.
Why is this government putting our waters at risk just to please its friends in the oil sector?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not understand that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not about environmental protection but about navigation.
It is not an environmental law and it has never been an environmental law. It is a law for navigation. When we change a law that is not related to the environment, it has no effect on the environment. We will continue to have all these environmental laws in place.
The Speaker: I caution the parliamentary secretary not to use props during his answer.
Health of WorkersRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, as if things were not bad enough, there is more. The Conservatives are eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. The commission was necessary to ensure that employers and workers have all the information they need when handling hazardous materials. One of the government's primary responsibilities is to protect the public.
Why are the Conservatives putting the safety of workers at risk?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission's role will continue to be performed by Health Canada and this change will prevent duplication of back office duties and allow the department to focus on its role of protecting the safety of Canadians and serving businesses.
Budget ImplementationAlexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are once again going after workers by attacking their working conditions. Employees of companies under federal jurisdiction must now wait twice as long before being eligible for pay on statutory holidays, such as Christmas Day. Existing employees could see their benefits reduced. This measure is nothing short of a direct attack on workers and should not be in a budget.
Do they really think that they will help the economy by taking money out of workers' pockets?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are actually committed to a safe working place. There are changes that will help prevent accidents and injuries and let the employees cope appropriately.
Election SpendingMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the first time I ran for office in one of the country's biggest ridings, I stayed within the spending limits set out in the Canada Elections Act. However, the Conservatives are so used to not abiding by the Canada Elections Act that the hon. member for Labrador was rewarded with a ministerial appointment. 
When will the Conservatives realize that they do not have the right to violate Elections Canada's rules, even if it is the first time a member is running for office?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member ran for office, part of her campaign was paid for using illegal union money. Her party illegally accepted over $300,000 in funding that was stolen from workers and put into the NDP coffers.
She should rise in her place and announce that to compensate for this law-breaking, she will support the union financial transparency bill before the House of Commons.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a party that actually respects Elections Canada.
It was the Conservatives raided by the RCMP and Conservative senators convicted of breaking spending rules in the in-and-out scandal that the member knows quite well. In the latest example, we have a Conservative minister caught $20,000 over his spending limit. 
Lame excuses are piling up. The minister is hiding from the public and refusing to take responsibility. Why do they claim that his official agent was too incompetent to run a campaign, but then was appointed to a plum patronage position overseeing a billion dollar offshore—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member stands in the House and makes a $20,000 allegation with unproven claims. She is part of a party that accepted almost ten times that amount in illegal union money. That is not an allegation. That is a confession that the party was forced to make after it was caught red-handed accepting that illegal money. It was money that was forcefully taken from workers and it broke the law.
 We have a union transparency bill before the House of Commons. I encourage the NDP to show some integrity on this issue and support that bill
EthicsRathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, there are disturbing reports from the London Free Press today concerning former member of Parliament and now mayor of London, Joe Fontana. Apparently he used taxpayer money through the House of Commons budget to pay for his son's wedding reception. This included paying for a venue deposit of $1,700 and fees of $18,900. 
Could the Conservatives tell us what, if anything, they are doing to get this taxpayer money back?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, we trust the experienced officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to get to the bottom of this very serious matter and determine whether any taxpayer money was abused by the former senior Liberal cabinet minister.
Foreign AffairsRathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, finally a question on ethics that the Conservatives are willing to actually answer. 
Here is another one, but this time it is on Conservatives and Liberals fighting over their entitlements. 
The election for Etobicoke Centre is currently before the Supreme Court in a case that, among other things, involves allegations of voter suppression. Meanwhile, the current member for Etobicoke Centre is getting squeezed onto an election monitoring team.
Do the Conservatives not see that there could be negative views of this in Ukraine?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, for my friend opposite, people are entitled to be innocent until proven guilty.
Let me tell the member opposite that I know the member for Etobicoke Centre and he is a man of great integrity. He is a man who works tremendously hard for his constituents.
 We are tremendously proud that he will join members such as in her own caucus, the member for Parkdale—High Park, in observing elections in Ukraine. That is great for Canada and we should all be very proud that such distinguished Canadians are prepared to do that. 
Food SafetyHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are bombarded with endless self-promoting government ads about a four-year-old program. What Canadians are not seeing is a trusted Public Health voice during the ongoing E. coli outbreak. Once bacteria has entered the food chain, it is clearly a Public Health issue.
Will the government redirect the millions of public dollars it is spending on self-promoting advertising to provide Canadians with the information they need to keep their families safe?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, Public Health was fully involved with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency from the early days of this outbreak. It continues to be engaged, working with our provincial counterparts and giving information back through CFIA as well as to the public. We have had a number of technical briefings that it has taken a fulsome part in and we continue to do that. I am not sure where the member has been.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there are now concerns that it was a retailer's steak tenderizing process responsible for four people getting sick from E. coli. Canadians continue to be confused and worried, but the government refuses to provide a trusted Public Health voice to speak to them directly with the facts.
Will the government accept that an E. coli outbreak is a health issue and allow the Public Health Agency to take the lead on this critical issue for Canadians?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what it has done. It was Alberta public health that first identified the needling process at the Costco that created this outbreak. It has since shut down the mechanization, the tenderizing of beef, and continues to do that. Alberta public health, working on its initiative in a provincially centred plant, certainly has done its job.
Again, I am not sure where the member has been.
Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that XL is trying to fix its problems, but the CFIA is still unable to properly move forward without having a clear picture of its entire human and other resource needs everywhere, not just at XL, and how best to use them.
For weeks, we have called on the government to request the necessary immediate comprehensive third party CFIA resource audit recommended by the Weatherill report on the listeriosis outbreak. 
With Bill S-11 finally before the House, will the minister consent to an amendment that would guarantee an independent audit immediately and then every five years thereafter?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in Bill S-11 that would allow this type of thing to happen. It is not against anything in Bill S-11. 
We also have the independent expert panel, which was put together out of the Weatherhill report, that has been waiting for this type of an issue to move forward on. The panel will do an independent audit which will become public.
The Liberals keep gnashing their teeth over the fact that the Auditor General should be called in. He already has those powers.
CRTCMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in delivering its landmark decision on the proposed Bell takeover of Astral Media, the CRTC underscored the vital importance of media diversity in Canada. The reality is that the number of voices in Canada's media market has been shrinking in recent years, impacting consumer choice and competition. As the CRTC put it, this is not in the interests of Canadians.
Does the minister agree that media concentration is a serious concern? Will he stand up for the public interest?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, the CRTC made a decision yesterday after holding public hearings. The CRTC is an arm's-length agency of the government and, as such, the government has no legal ability to overturn this decision.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, recognition of the problems surrounding media concentration in Quebec and Canada is good news in terms of both the quality of information and the choices offered to consumers.
In the decision it delivered yesterday, the CRTC emphasized the vital importance of media competition and diversity for Canadian consumers. However, Bell is now asking the Conservative cabinet to intervene in this process.
Will the government respect the CRTC's decision against the concentration of media ownership?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the CRTC held public hearings on this. It heard from over 9,000 people. It made its decision yesterday. This is an independent agency of the government and, as such, cabinet has no legal ability to overturn this decision.
Foreign AffairsChristine Moore: Mr. Speaker, nearly a month ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly committed to helping Turkey, which opened its borders to nearly 100,000 Syrian refugees. Yesterday, however, Turkey’s chargé d’affaires to Canada revealed that Canada has not yet kept its promise. Winter is fast approaching, which is not good news for the Syrian refugees, whose health is jeopardized by precarious living conditions.
Why is the government not doing anything to respond to such an urgent situation? When will the minister follow through on his promise to Turkey? 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. We have provided substantial assistance. I believe we are number five in providing humanitarian assistance. We have put a lot of those resources into the United Nations World Food Programme and the United Nations refugees program, where the UN is on the ground providing a substantial amount of assistance. 
These respected agencies do good work. They are among the best vehicles so we can provide support to our friends in Turkey as they deal with this refugee crisis.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's words, but we need more action right now. Turkey is spending more than $400 million to host the Syrian refugees. We are talking about 100,000 Syrian refugees right now in the country and many more who want to get in. Winter is coming, these are harsh conditions. Turkey has asked all countries and other countries have said yes.
 Will Canada say yes? Will we support Turkey in hosting the refugees? Not only will we, but when will we?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a rich country. We can afford to do our part to provide support for this humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding, not just in Turkey but also in Jordan, Lebanon and other parts of the region. I think we are the world's fifth or sixth largest contributor to humanitarian aid. 
As this crisis goes on, Canada is prepared to step up to the plate and do even more to provide for humanitarian assistance. We are tremendously concerned about the cold winter coming and the huge humanitarian catastrophe that could unfold and we will be there to provide more assistance as needed.
Ted Opitz: Mr. Speaker, in nine days, Ukrainians will have a chance to exercise their deeply cherished democratic rights by participating in parliamentary elections. As we know, there have been mounting concerns over the deterioration of democratic conditions in Ukraine in the lead up to these elections. Ensuring that these elections are fair, free and reflective of the people's will is an important test at a critical juncture in Ukraine's journey toward true democracy and greater prosperity.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please share with the House our government's commitment in the upcoming parliamentary election?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Etobicoke Centre who has been a key advocate for the Government of Canada in playing a strong role in the upcoming elections. He and the Ukrainian community have worked hard to pressure Canada to provide some 500 election observers to monitor this vote. Our observer mission will be joined by other freedom-loving nations to ensure that the vote is fair and transparent and that these elections are conducted appropriately and fairly.
I am very pleased—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Kings—Hants should respect the rules of decorum and allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to finish his response.
[Interjection]
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the member for Etobicoke Centre himself will be one of the election observers, as will my friend from Parkdale—High Park. They will do Canada proud.
Public SafetyMr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to some troubling reports, over 300 people have entered Canada illegally at the Stanstead border crossing in my riding. There were 11 more illegal entries just last night. Yet yesterday in the House, the Minister of Public Safety said there was no problem, that everything was fine and that they had tightened up border controls. The truth is that the minister has cut $146 million from the Canada Border Services Agency's budget. Those cuts cost 260 jobs in Quebec alone.
Will the minister acknowledge that therein lies the problem? What does he plan to do to solve it, particularly the troubling situation in Stanstead?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, whenever we have brought forward initiatives that would increase funding to the CBSA and to increase the number of officers, that member and his party have consistently voted against it. For him to be grandstanding for his constituents now when he is in fact the cause of any problems in terms of getting things done that our government is getting done is shameful. In fact, we have increased front-line officers by 26%.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot continue to deny the problem. Just last night, 11 people crossed the border illegally. This shows the direct impact the Conservative cuts are having. The Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP are in desperate need of resources. This is making it easier for hundreds of people to enter Canada illegally, and the Magog police service in my riding is being forced to deal with these asylum seekers.
And what about drug and weapons trafficking? Does the minister realize that these cuts are endangering the lives of Canadians?
Vic Toews: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a member who has consistently opposed our efforts to bring in reforms to deter bogus refugee claimants and other abuses of the refugee system. He has consistently opposed strong laws to combat human smuggling. He has consistently opposed a crackdown on immigration fraud through our efforts to strengthen these laws and reform the system. We have increased front-line officers by 26%. That member has voted against those measures on every occasion he could.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my constituency office is overloaded with immigration work after the closure of the Edmonton immigration desk, this after the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has left northern Albertans in legal limbo with no citizenship judge for 10 long months.
I wrote to the minister demanding that he appoint a new citizenship judge for northern Alberta last June. He found one for his home town of Calgary months ago. Why has he left the rest of Alberta out in the cold for so long? Will he immediately appoint a citizenship judge?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): No, I will not, Mr. Speaker, because the cabinet approved one two weeks ago.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in Sudbury, the closure of the immigration office means small business owners now need to drive four hours to Toronto for meetings with immigration officials in order to hire the foreign workers they need to continue to operate.
Instead of waiting two weeks for labour market opinions, small businesses will have to wait 14 weeks. Some of Sudbury's small business owners are now foregoing expansion because of the extra, unneeded hassle.
Why is the government stifling economic growth with reckless cuts?
Jason Kenney: I have two points, Mr. Speaker. First, the NDP calls on us to shut down the temporary foreign worker program, except for when the NDP members ask us to provide temporary foreign workers for employers. I would ask them to pick a position.
Second, employers do not need to meet with officials to access work permits. Work permits are processed from abroad. Service Canada does the labour market opinion and then CIC does the work permits from abroad. It would be helpful if the member would inform himself about how our system actually works.
Employment InsuranceMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. 
Still within my riding and many ridings throughout the Atlantic coast, many fishermen are worried about fishermen's EI. It is a special program and it is extremely beneficial to the economy but locally people are still hearing from multiple sources in Service Canada that there will be changes within fishermen's EI.
Could the minister please clear the air on this. Will she stand in the House and say, “No, there will be no changes whatsoever”, and, if there are changes, could she please outline some of them?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant change to be asked by that particular member to provide some facts. Unfortunately, he, among others, have actually been providing Canadians with information that is totally inaccurate.
There have been no changes to the fishers' EI program. We have made that clear on numerous occasions. What we are doing with EI is ensuring that those who are on claim have the opportunity and support to look for a job while they are on claim, with the help of Service Canada.
Small BusinessMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is turning the small business tax credit into a firing credit.
A company that pays more than $10,000 in employment insurance premiums will lose its tax credit. If a company comes close to the limit and hires people, it will be penalized; if it fires someone, it will qualify for a $1,000 tax credit.
Why establish a tax credit that will penalize hiring and encourage firing?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question because it gives me the opportunity to repeat that our plan will encourage the growth of small and medium-sized businesses. But, at every turn, the Liberals and the NDP vote against our plan.
If my colleague truly wants to encourage the growth of small businesses, she should vote with us.
Canada PostJean Crowder: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are taking away the services that Canadians want.
In Honeymoon Bay in my riding, they are cutting the post office services on Saturdays. With the post office already closing at three o'clock on weekdays, Saturday was the only day working people had to get any kind of postal service. Now what will they do?
We know that the Conservatives want to privatize the post office but this is ridiculous. Why is the government making the lives of working people in Honeymoon Bay more difficult?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a crown corporation that makes its operational decisions independently of the government. However, It does guarantee prompt service to every Canadian, regardless of where they live.
I would also note that the business of moving mail involves transportation, which burns fossil fuels. A carbon tax would increase the cost of moving mail across the country and therefore reduce its accessibility for Canadians.
If the hon. member wants to support accessible mail, she should oppose her party's carbon tax.
Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing to use strong-arm tactics at Canada Post. Once again, rural areas are losing out. If hours of operation are not reduced, the post office is closed, as is the case with the Jonquière post office on Saint-François Boulevard.
The minister does not seem to understand that people depend on Canada Post services, especially in rural areas.
Why do the Conservatives continue to attack rural post offices?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a crown corporation at arm's length from our government. Its operations are managed by the corporation and not by cabinet ministers. Operational decisions are affected by the cost of hydrocarbons, including gasoline.
The NDP plan to impose a carbon tax will make these operations more expensive and postal services less accessible to Canadians.
EthicsMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, Canadians learned of reports that former senior Liberal cabinet minister, Joe Fontana, is under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for using $20,000 of taxpayer money to pay for his son's wedding. Canadians have not seen this kind of disrespect for their hard-earned tax dollars since the days of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
Would the parliamentary secretary inform the House if government departments are co-operating fully with the appropriate authorities' reported investigation into the abuse of this former senior Liberal cabinet minister?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, I know families in London and, in fact, all Canadians are worried about the very serious allegations that have been made against their former Liberal MP.
We will trust the experienced officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to get to the bottom of this very serious matter and determine whether any taxpayer money was abused by the former senior Liberal cabinet minister. It is up to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to determine whether any criminal charges will be required.
The Liberals have not been in government since 2005 and, if these allegations are true, then they are still stealing.
Foreign AffairsHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's record at the UN is a disaster. It claims that we failed to win a seat at the Security Council because of a principled foreign policy.
We have found out, now, that Rwanda has won a seat. Rwanda's government has been accused of supporting and arming rebels in eastern Congo.
How did Canada vote at the General Assembly? Did it use its principled foreign policy to register Canada's disapproval? Did Canada vote for Rwanda, yes or no?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Rwanda was acclaimed. No one was running against it.
Human ResourcesMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a new report suggests unscrupulous agencies are charging thousands of dollars to recruit lower wage, temporary foreign workers to work in B.C. coal mines. It is no wonder companies are turning to foreign workers when the Conservatives allow them to pay them 15% less than Canadian workers.
Why is the government undermining Canadian workers? Will the minister stop this abuse of temporary foreign workers and start focusing on creating jobs for Canadians?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we believe that Canadians should always have first crack at every job opportunity. In fact, there is a requirement that if a company is bringing in workers from offshore, the company must first prove that it has done extensive advertising and attempts to recruit Canadian workers unsuccessfully.
We are concerned that Canadians do get first crack at every job. We have enhanced the employment insurance system in order to provide them with information about new jobs and we have ensured that any wages paid must be competitive with what--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yellowhead.
InfrastructureHon. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government continues to focus on what is really important for Canadians and that is creating jobs and ensuring that we grow our economies and have long-term prosperity right across the country.
To help with that, our government recently launched the community infrastructure improvement fund. Our communities and the communities in my riding are ecstatic about that. In fact, they really appreciate the support they are getting for community spaces and buildings.
Would the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification update the House on this important program and just how it is in such contrast to the high-tax NDP?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead, a member of our team, the Conservative team, remaining committed to creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
 I am proud to say that we are moving full steam ahead on the community infrastructure improvement fund. Our government will provide funding for dozens of projects that will help strengthen communities while creating jobs and growth.
Yes, this is a sharp contrast to the high-tax NDP that voted against this program. The NDP's 2011 election platform planned to raise over $21 billion in tax revenue from carbon tax, a job-killing carbon tax, increasing the price of everything from gas, groceries--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Montcalm.
Official LanguagesManon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, in addition to refusing to set up the committees that they said they would, the Conservatives are not setting up the committees required by law. According to the Act to Amend the Criminal Code, a committee should have been created already to review the provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to the language of the accused.
Why is the government still dragging its feet when it comes to official languages?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are working on Canada's linguistic duality. We are promoting it, and we will continue to do so. 
CRTCMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the CRTC refused to authorize Bell's purchase of Astral Media. The organization based its decision in part on the Bloc Québécois's arguments that such a transaction would not be good for consumers, creators or the diversity of voices needed to promote Quebec's cultural vitality. The takeover would also have meant the loss of a large Quebec company to a Toronto telecommunications giant.
Despite this legitimate refusal, Bell directors have indicated that they disagree with the decision and that they are going to appeal to the minister.
We want a clear answer. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us here in this House that he will not intervene to overturn the CRTC's decision?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on two occasions already, this is a decision made by the CRTC, an independent agency of the government, and therefore there is no legal opportunity for cabinet to overturn this decision.
Foreign InvestmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, giving away control of our key strategic resources to foreign state-controlled multinationals is reckless. Oil and gas and other Canadian energy resources should be controlled by Canada and Canadian companies. Communist China must not be allowed to control Canadian oil production. 
Malaysia has one of the worst environmental records worldwide. Will the minister say no today to the Petronas natural gas bid and stand up for Canadian energy security?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course, our government will always act in the best interests of Canadians in this regard and these transactions will be scrutinized very closely.
My question for the hon. member is that in 2009 when we introduced changes to the Investment Canada Act and added provisions to protect national security, why did he vote against them?

Routine Proceedings
Interparliamentary DelegationsDean Allison: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing 34(1), I have the honour to present to this House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly respecting its participation at the time of the 21st annual session.
PetitionsLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise in the House today to present three petitions. The first concerns the proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline that would bring more than 225 supertankers to the pristine north coast of B.C. each year. The petitioners point out that the current government has refused to acknowledge the 1972 moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the B.C. coast and calls on the Government of Canada to immediately legislate the moratorium on offshore drilling and oil tanker traffic off B.C.'s cost.
The second petition brings to our attention the fact that tens of thousands of chemicals, many of which are cancer causing, have been used in industrial processes in the production of consumer goods. The petitioners call upon the government to appoint a royal commission on the environment and health with a mandate to examine and make recommendations, using the precautionary principle.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have yet again more petitions to add to the many petitions I have presented in the House on this issue from people who are very concerned about the fact that every year hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur in a number of Asian regions and that these animals live in deplorable conditions. The petitioners say that we should join the U.S.A., Australia and the EU in banning the import of cat and dog fur. They call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-296.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition from my constituents in Winnipeg North, indicating very clearly that they believe that OAS, GIS and CPP make up a critical part of Canada's social safety net, in providing for the basic needs of hundreds of thousands of residents of Canada every year. The petitioners are calling upon the government to reinforce the importance of these programs and, in particular, with regard to the old age supplement, that we allow people the ability to retire at age 65, not age 67 as proposed by the government.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition by Saskatoon constituents, the majority of them women with names like Muriel, Maria, Suzanne, Celine and Madeleine. They are asking for a review of the 400-year-old definition of a human being, which says that a child does not become a human being until complete birth. Being that it is Parliament's solemn duty, the petitioners are asking that we look at that to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human, by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
I have a second petition, again mostly from women, some 475 who are also mostly from Saskatoon. Along that same line, they are asking for a review of Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being. 
As well, I have one from another 50 constituents from Saskatoon, the majority again being women, on the same topic.
Last, I have from the communities of Warman, Canwood and Sherbrooke, et cetera, petitioners with names like Susan, Shirley, Linda, Christine, Susan, Nora, Myrna, Jacqueline, Ruth and so on. They are also asking for a review of that 400-year-old law and suggesting that it should be changed so that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as a human, by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to present a petition that calls on the Government of Canada to save Canada's Experimental Lakes Area and to recognize the importance of the ELA to the Government of Canada's mandate to study, preserve and protect the aquatic system, reverse the decision to close the ELA research station and continue to staff and provide financial resources to the ELA at the current or a higher level of commitment.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first is on Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (derelict vessels and wreck).
The petitioners are pointing out that derelict and abandoned vessels pose an environmental risk and a navigation hazard, and that regulations must be made to establish measures to be taken for their removal, disposition or destruction by the appropriate authority. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (derelict vessels and wreck).
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one to protect old age security. The petitioners call for maintained funding for old age security and for making requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the final petition calls for an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act. The petitioners point out that Canadians have a right to make informed choices about the food they eat by having adequate information provided on food labels. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to introduce two petitions. The first is on behalf of many residents from my great riding of Sudbury and the surrounding ridings of Nickel Belt and Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. The petitioners call on the government to ensure swift passage of Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada. The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House of Commons the fact that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities and youth and children.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House to strengthen the Criminal Code provisions to prevent animal cruelty. The petitioners from my riding of Sudbury believe that the current laws are inadequate to prevent animal cruelty and that the Criminal Code provisions on animal cruelty have not changed since 1892.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a petition from the ridings of Kenora and Thunder Bay—Superior North, including the towns of Thunder Bay and Dryden, on the topic of the Experimental Lakes Area. The government decided to close the ELA, one of the world's leading freshwater research stations, depriving Canadians of groundbreaking scientific advancements that it provides. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to reverse the decision to close the ELA, as well as to continue to provide staff and financial support for this important Canadian institution.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 819, 823 and 825.
Joyce Murray:  With regard to temporary foreign workers, for each Labour Market Opinion conducted by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or Service Canada since January 1, 2006, what is the (i) date, (ii) file number, (iii) subject matter, (iv) result?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require significant resources, resulting in a report of approximately 18,400 pages. Therefore, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is unable to answer this question in the time allotted. 
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s labour market opinion, LMO, statistics include annual and quarterly data on the number of temporary foreign worker positions on LMO confirmations. 
Reporting is based on the number of positions rather than the number of LMOs, since several positions can be requested on a single LMO. For further details and statistics from the temporary foreign worker program, please refer to the following website: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/stats/index.shtml. 
Ms. Olivia Chow: With regard to rail freight services in Canada, what is the government and its institutions measuring on a yearly basis in terms of: (a) percentage of rail cars picking up freight on time; (b) percentage of rail cars delivering freight on time; (c) percentage of fulfilled service commitments for the agreed-upon number of rail cars; (d) dollar value of economic damages from delays and service disruptions; (e) dollar value of compensation extended to customers by rail companies; (f) number of complaints received by CN and CP; (g) number of rail freight customers served broken down by industry sectors, including but not limited to (i) agriculture, (ii) logging, (iii) mining, (iv) chemicals, (v) automotive?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada, TC, does not measure or keep records on matters identified in the question. The recent rail freight service review, RFSR, conducted from 2008 to 2010 includes independent studies on the performance of the railway supply chain. A summary of the RFSR is available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acg-rfs-review-examen-sfm-rvw-eng-442.htm. 
A summary of the independent studies is available at: http://www.qgiconsulting.ca/pdf/FulfillmentofShipperDemandandTransitTimeExecutiveSummary.pdf. 
Olivia Chow:  With regard to air safety in Canada, what is: (a) the government’s process for implementing Transportation Safety Board (TSB) recommendations; (b) the current status of outstanding implementations of TSB recommendations; (c) the rationale behind any existing delays and non-implementations detailed for each recommendation; (d) the approximate timeline for fully implementing the outstanding recommendations; and (e) the government’s yearly assessment of its effectiveness and speediness in implementing TSB recommendations for the past six years? 
Denis Lebel:  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Minister of Transport must respond to the Transportation Safety Board, TSB, recommendations within 90 days. When the Minister of Transport receives a recommendation from the TSB, Transport Canada conducts a preliminary analysis of each recommendation and safety deficiency identified by the TSB. Based upon the findings of the technical analysis, the minister may accept and implement the recommendation as received; not support the recommendation because of various other considerations that may not have been addressed in the TSB investigation; or acknowledge that the safety deficiency identified by the TSB is valid, but can be addressed by an alternative means that achieves the same intent. 
With regard to (b), the current status of outstanding TSB recommendations can be found on the TSB website: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/aviation/index.asp. 
With regard to (c), recommendations associated with watchlist items receive the highest priority. However, not all recommendations are feasible or achievable. For example, technologies may not exist or the intent may be achieved by alternative means. Recommendations that result in regulatory change may also require international harmonization, which could incur delays. Additionally, priorities must be established, resulting in some safety initiatives advancing ahead of others. 
With regard to (d), each recommendation is on a separate timeline and the proposed solution varies depending on the complexity of the recommendation, the safety risk assessment, the level of industry acceptance, international considerations and the level of consultation required. 
With regard to (e), Transport Canada’s responses and ongoing activities towards TSB recommendations are assessed annually by the TSB. These assessments are posted on the TSB website, usually in June for the previous year’s activities. These can be found at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/aviation/index.asp. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 820, 826, 830, 831, 832, 833, 838, 841, 842, 843 and 844 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Joyce Murray: With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard Kitsilano Search and Rescue base, for each of the years from 2005-2006 until present: (a) to how many and to what type of search and rescue emergencies has the base responded; (b) what was the outcome of each; (c) what was the overall budget for the base, broken down in all applicable categories; and (d) how many full-time, part-time, and contract employees worked at or for the base, and what were their roles and responsibilities?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Olivia Chow: With regard to government resources allocated to research into sideguards on trucks: (a) listed annually for fiscal years 2006 to 2012, what are the resources allocated for researching, collecting, analyzing and evaluating data, broken down by (i) hours allocated, (ii) expenditures, including but not limited to personnel costs, fees, and research investments; (b) what are the (i) rationale, (ii) costs, (iii) planning and exact timelines for Phase II and Phase III of the National Research Council-conducted research work, with specific details about completion dates of the research work for each phase, draft completion dates, report approval and planned and actual publication dates; (c) what are the planned and budgeted time and resource allocation for truck-sideguard-related research work for the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, including information on the funding source(s) or, in the case of an absence of detailed planning, the rationale and decision-making process; (d) what are the planning and decision-making processes for truck-sideguard-related research and policy work in terms of (i) involved entities, including but not limited to Transport Canada, internal and external government institutions, departments, groups, sub-groups, and individuals, (ii) projected and actual timelines, (iii) involvement of external entities including consultants, experts, research organizations, lawyers, lobbyists, industry associations, companies and civic groups and individuals, broken down by name, dates of involvement, duration of involvement, nature and scope of involvement, involvement in outcomes and results; and (e) from 2006 to the present, who are the external entities involved in any part of the research or decision-making process, including consultants, experts, research organizations, lawyers, lobbyists, industry associations, companies and civic groups and other individuals, broken down by (i) name, (ii) dates of involvement, (iii) duration of involvement, (iv) nature and scope of involvement, (v) involvement in outcomes and results? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine:  With regard to the Department of National Defence: (a) how many Members of Parliament wrote to the Minister with respect to the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) unfair deduction of Pension Act Payments from 2007 to 2012 inclusive; (b) how many Conservative MPs wrote the Minister with respect to SISIP from 2007 to 2012 inclusive; (c) what was the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the SISIP class action lawsuit including outside legal counsel; (d) what is the estimated cost for settling the SISIP class action lawsuit; and (e) has the government determined how far back it will apply retroactivity to veterans who were part of the SISIP class action lawsuit?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Sylvain Chicoine:  With regard to support for operational stress injuries affecting Canadian Forces (CF) members, veterans and their families: (a) what percentage of CF members and CF veterans suffer from an Operational Stress Injury; (b) what percentage suffer from (i) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, (ii) anxiety, (iii) depression, (iv) substance abuse; (c) what is the location of each Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) clinic, broken down by province; (d) what is the number of soldiers accessing each OSISS clinic each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusively; (e) what is the number of family members accessing each OSISS clinic each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusively; (f) what is the annual amount of funding provided for the OSISS clinics each year from 2006 inclusive to 2012; (g) what is the breakdown of funding for each OSISS clinic; (h) what is the annual breakdown of staff costs, and full-time and part-time staff for each OSISS clinic from 2006 inclusive to 2012; (i) how many clients have been admitted to the Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries from 2010 to 2012; (j) how many days did clients have to wait for admittance to the Residential Treatment Clinic in 2010, 2011 and 2012; (k) how many days did CF members or veterans have to wait for assistance from regular OSISS clinics or OSISS support listing from 2006 to 2012, broken down by year; (l) how many days did family members have to wait for assistance from regular OSISS clinics or OSISS support listing from 2006 to 2012, broken down by year; (m) how many clients have been denied admittance to the Residential Treatment Clinic for Operational Stress Injuries; (n) what is the estimated emotional cost of deployment to the Afghanistan mission; (o) what are the statistics on the number of CF members suicides each year for the last twenty years, broken down by gender; and (p) how are suicides tracked for currently serving CF and CF veterans?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Sylvain Chicoine:  With respect to services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs: (a) what is the location of all district offices, broken down by province; (b) what are the operating costs of each office; (c) what is the number of part-time and full-time positions at each district office; (d) what is the number of clients served at each district office from 2007 to 2012 inclusive; (e) what is the average number of calls received by the Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) toll-free line per day; (f) what is the cost of operating the VAC toll-free line per day; (g) what is the cost of shared-service delivery with Service Canada with respect to answering calls on the VAC toll-free line; (h) what are the annual fees for pastoral care each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive; and (i) what are the annual costs for commemorative events each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Sylvain Chicoine:  With regard to contracts and consulting services within the Department of Veterans Affairs: (a) what is the annual cost of the third-party contract with Quantum; (b) how much did the department pay Keith Coulter for consultant services in 2010, 2011 2012; (c) what are the details of the report produced by Keith Coulter; (d) what is the amount spent by the department on other private consultant fees each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive; (e) what are the names of businesses or individuals across the country who provide consultant services for the department and what types of services do they provide; and (f) what is the cost of the contract to third party Medavaie Blue Cross from 2006 to 2012 inclusive?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rathika Sitsabaiesan:  With regard to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) funding in the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River for the last five fiscal years: (a) what is the total amount of spending by (i) year, (ii) program; (b) what is the amount of each spending item by (i) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership (ASEP), (ii) Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, (iii) Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund, (iv) Adult Learning Literacy and Essential Skills Program, (v) Apprenticeship Completion Grant, (vi) Apprenticeship Incentive Grant, (vii) Career Development Services Research (Employment Programs), (viii) Canada-European Union Program for Cooperation in Higher Education, Training and Youth (International Academic Mobility Program), (ix) Canada Summer Jobs (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (x) Career Focus (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (xi) Children and Families (Social Development Partnerships Program), (xii) Contributions for Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities (International Trade and Labour Program), (xiii) Disability Component (Social Development Partnerships Program), (xiv) Employment Programs-Career Development Services Research, (xv) Enabling Accessibility Fund, (xvi) Enabling Fund for Official Language Minority Communities, (xvii) Federal Public Service Youth Internship Program (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (xviii) Fire Prevention Grants, (xviv) Fire Safety Organizations, (xx) Foreign Credential Recognition Program, (xxi) Homelessness Partnering Strategy, (xxii) International Academic Mobility-Canada-European Union Program for Cooperation in Higher Education, Training and Youth, (xxiii) International Academic Mobility-North American Mobility in Higher Education, (xxiv) International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates Grants (International Trade and Labour Program), (xxv) International Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) Contributions for Consultation and Partnership-Building and Canadian-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxvi) International Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) Grants for Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities, (xxvii) International Trade and Labour Program (ITLP) International Labour Institutions in which Canada Participates Grants, (xxviii) Labour-Management Partnership Program, (xxix) Labour Market Agreements, (xxx) Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities, (xxxi) Labour Market Development Agreements, (xxxii) Labour Mobility, (xxxiii) New Horizons for Seniors Program, (xxxiv) Occupational Health and Safety, (xxxv) Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, (xxxvi) Organizations that Write Occupational Health and Safety Standards, (xxxvii) Sector Council Program, (xxxviii) Skills and Partnership Fund-Aboriginal, (xxxix) Skills Link (Youth Employment Strategy Program), (xl) Small Project Component (Enabling Accessibility Fund), (xli) Social Development Partnerships Program-Children and Families, (xlii) Social Development Partnerships Program-Disability Component, (xliii) Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative, (xliv) Targeted Initiative for Older Workers, (xlv) Technical Assistance and Foreign-Based Cooperative Activities Grants (International Trade and Labour Program), (xlvi) Work-Sharing, (xlvii) Youth Awareness, (xlviii) Youth Employment Strategy-Canada Summer Jobs, (xlix) Youth Employment Strategy-Career Focus, (l) Youth Employment Strategy-Federal Public Service Youth Internship Program, (li) Youth Employment Strategy-Skills Link?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rathika Sitsabaiesan:  With regard to applications received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) since December 2011: (a) broken down by visa office, (i) how many Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applications have been received, (ii) how many applications for the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa have been denied, (iii) how many applications for the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa have been approved; (b) broken down by visa office, (i) how many family class Permanent Residency applications have been withdrawn, (ii) how many family class Permanent Residency applications have been finalized; (c) broken down by visa office, how many officers work on Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applications; (d) since December 2011, (i) how much money has been spent on advertising and promotion of the Super Visa program abroad, (ii) in which countries is the Super Visa being promoted; (e) has Citizenship and Immigration Canada encountered any problems or complaints concerning the Super Visa and, if so, what were these complaints and where were they located; (f) has Citizenship and Immigration Canada received any complaints concerning the exclusion of the dependent children of parents and grandparents from the Super Visa; and (g) does Citizenship and Immigration Canada foresee the inclusion of dependent children in the Parent and Grandparent Super Visa?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Chris Charlton:  With regard to Service Canada Old Age Security and Canadian Pension Plan call centres for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of calls broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the number of calls that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) what were the national Service Level standards for calls answered by an agent broken down by year; (d) what were the actual Service Level standards achieved for calls answered by an agent broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what were the service standards for call backs broken down by year; (f) what were the service standards achieved for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (g) what was the average number of days for a call back by an agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (h) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Chris Charlton:  With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres broken down by year; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs by EI call centre agents broken down by year; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (k) for EI processing centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (l) for EI call centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (m) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (n) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (o) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:  With respect to the increase in the age eligibility for Old Age security (OAS) and the government's contention that it was necessary for the long-term sustainability of the program: (a) what is the measure that the government uses to determine the sustainability level for OAS; (b) what does the government consider OAS sustainability in terms of (i) maximum dollar figure per year expended on OAS, (ii) maximum percentage of the government's annual budget expended on OAS, (iii) maximum percentage of annual GDP spent on OAS; (c) what are the details, including dates and file numbers, of all studies the government has undertaken in determining that the OAS age of eligibility needed to be raised; (d) what is the expected saving in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility, detailing the assumptions included in these calculations, including annual inflation rate; (e) were any other options studied to ensure sustainability of OAS, and if so, what are the details, including dates and file numbers of these options and or studies and why they were not chosen; (f) how many individuals will not be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) Guaranteed Income Support (GIS) in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (g) how many individuals will be eligible for (i) OAS, (ii) GIS, in each year from 2023 to 2029 as a result of the increase in age of eligibility; (h) given OAS and GIS are fully funded from general revenues, was the government anticipating deficits in years 2023 to 2029 and beyond as a reason to decrease OAS and GIS costs, and if so, how large were the anticipated deficits for these years and will the change in age of eligibility eliminate these deficits; (i) what is rationale for choosing 2023 as the year to start implementing the age eligibility increase; and (j) who was consulted, including public and private stakeholder groups, and when on the age of eligibility change? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski:  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Combating Terrorism Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has five minutes.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I will resume where we left off before question period today.
The bill before us today could violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I am opposed to the bill. 
With respect to investigative hearings, the bill would allow for someone who is charged to be required to attend an examination and present evidence. This is certainly not a court in the traditional sense. The answers given during such a hearing cannot be used against the individual. However, the individual must attend and answer questions.
It is not standard practice for a judge to examine the so-called accused. This goes against Canada's legal principles. The judge must not play this role. Why would we create such a situation and force the judge to do so?
We must avoid violating the fundamental principles of justice. That is exactly why we insist that the judge remain neutral. But this bill would have the judge play the role of prosecutor. That goes completely against legal principles that have existed for hundreds of years.
I would also like to talk about recognizance with conditions. We are talking about preventive detention, without any charges. In other words, a person can be detained for up to one year without ever being charged. Once again, we need to really ask ourselves whether we live in a free and democratic society. Can someone really be detained for one year without any charges? Frankly, this is an outrage that violates the fundamental rights upheld in this country. It is completely unacceptable. In a free and democratic society, I would like to think that any reasonable judge would ignore this legislation.
Unfortunately, a bill that is simply nonsense and unconstitutional is being introduced in the House. This is a waste of our time and an insult to Canadians.
We already have legislative measures to deal with terrorist activities in Canada. I invite the members of the House to read the Criminal Code, which includes many items already dedicated to the matter, including for instance, section 83 onward.
Once again, I will ask the same question I asked earlier this morning: what has changed in Canada to justify this crackdown regarding charges of terrorism?
Parts of the Criminal Code already deal with this issue. The government is creating new parts that, in my opinion, will be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why not start with prevention?
Again, the government's approach is to deal with things after the fact. However, prevention would help avoid a situation or circumstances in which terrorism could threaten Canada.
In its 2012 budget, the Government of Canada cut $688 million from Public Safety Canada's budget, or 10% of its budget, which affected 1,300 Canada Border Services Agency officers. In total, 1,300 jobs were lost.
Again, it is a matter of prevention. In this case, prevention eliminates the need to get tough later.
That being said, there is no evidence of there ever having been any need to invoke our country's anti-terrorism laws. There have been very few opportunities to invoke our anti-terrorism laws that are currently in the Criminal Code, let alone the laws that were quickly passed following the events of September 11, 2001, which were in effect from 2001 to 2006. We do not need these laws because we already have all the tools we need. In the same breath, the Conservatives insist on cutting budgets and thereby putting the Canadian public at risk. 
Why not focus on prevention? I would truly like to understand the Conservatives. Often, they come up with bills for the optics of it all, when in reality they are making such extensive budget cuts that it is becoming impossible to protect the Canadian public. Let them introduce a meaningful bill that truly addresses the problem instead of this farce from the Senate. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to get a better understanding of the bill. The most significant changes in it are the increased penalties and fines and so forth. This is not going to prevent terrorist acts. Some would-be terrorist is not going to stop participating in or committing a terrorist act because the fine has substantially increased.
Given the fact that we have a limited amount of time to debate a wide variety of issues and the government has now brought forward another huge omnibus bill that needs to be debated, could the member tell us whether he believes the government's priorities are right when it comes to dealing with the legislative agenda of the House.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.
In my opinion, the government is not on the right track. Once again, the government wants to crack down. The Conservatives are introducing bills in the House to solve problems that, frankly, do not actually seem to exist. 
I would like to remind members that when this bill was debated in the Senate before it arrived in the House, the testimony showed that there were no examples of actual cases where this legislation could have been used. Let us think about the Toronto 18. In that case, the measures already set out in the Criminal Code were more than sufficient to deal with the situation, this dreaded risk of terrorism.
Since then, we have seen that the existing and available laws in this country are completely sufficient. Is the government on the right track with Bill S-7? 
It seems that the government is selling a product to Canadians. It is trying to lead Canadians to believe that they should be afraid, that they should hide and that only the Government of Canada can defend them. That is not the case. 
We already have before us all the tools we need—tools that were debated in minority parliaments and agreed upon by all the parties across Canada. It is really unfortunate to be in a position where a single party is trying to run everything, because that leads to absurd measures such as Bill S-7, which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine a fundamental question about practices in this Parliament. We have two Houses in this Parliament. This substantive legislation would change laws that will affect civil liberties and human rights in this country. 
Could my hon. colleague explain to me why the government felt that the bill should be introduced in the unelected House, the House that is full of government appointees, its friends, rather than the House that has representatives from across the country who were duly elected by Canadians? 
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has 50 seconds.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.
I thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for the excellent job she does. She works very hard for her constituents. I think we should applaud her for everything she has done since being elected.
It is true that introducing a bill in the Senate means introducing it in a chamber that is full of unelected people who, in my opinion, do not adequately represent the Canadian people.
Bills, especially ones that are so fundamental they change an accused's right to defend himself, should be the prerogative of this country's elected members, who are able to debate, make amendments, testify and invite witnesses.
The Senate should not be the chamber to introduce this kind of bill. That is undemocratic. The Senate does not really have a place in a modern state like Canada. The Conservative government should be ashamed of trying to bypass the House of Commons. The debate should be held here.
If this bill passes second reading, it will be sent to committee. This bill should have been sent to the House of Commons committee from the beginning. That is where the debates should be held. Canada's elected members should debate this fundamental bill. I would like—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member was out of time two or three minutes ago.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. 
Today I rise alongside my colleagues, to speak against Bill S-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. The bill goes against the values of Canadians. It infringes upon civil liberties and human rights, a repeated theme among the actions of the government, I must add. It has measures that have been proven to be unnecessary and ineffective.
I would like to be clear. The New Democratic Party believes that it must seriously address the issue of terrorism. Keeping Canadians safe is of the utmost priority. However, we also must ensure respect for our rights and freedoms. The provisions in the bill fail to balance our need for security and our basic fundamental rights. Both are equally important to Canadians and espouse Canadian values. 
Bill S-7 is the most recent iteration and measure of a series of anti-terrorism laws that began with Bill C-36, tabled in 2001. The Anti-Terrorism Act, tabled in 2001, was enacted to update Canadian legislation and respond to international standards, specifically the requirements of the United Nations, as well as to actually present a legislative response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
 The provisions of the act remain in place today, except for two of the troubling provisions: the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions. The bill was adopted in response to a horrific event on September 11, 2001, which we all know too well. It left people in a state of panic and fear. 
The excessive provisions in the act expired four years ago. A sunset clause was rightly added to these provisions back in 2001, with certain provisions to expire in 2007. This was following concerns that were raised during the legislative process in 2001 that these measures, without any precedent in Canada, could have been used inappropriately. 
In order to extend these provisions, both Houses of Parliament must adopt a resolution to that effect. In February of 2007, when they expired, such a resolution was rejected by the House of Commons, with a vote of 159 to 124, because the controversial provisions had not even been used. We now have learned that there is no empirical evidence to support such legislation. When the provisions expired in 2007, there had been no investigative hearing and no situations that required a recognizance with conditions. Actually, I must add that the investigative hearing has been used once since it was created in 2001, as part of the Air India inquiry, but that led to no conclusive results. 
New Democrats oppose the bill because it is ineffective in combatting terrorism. In a parliamentary review of the bill, committees heard over and over from stakeholders and experts that the current Canadian legislation was sufficient. It begs the question, why is the government choosing to ignore experts? We all know this will not be the first time that the government chooses to ignore experts in the field and writes erroneous legislation based on its own ideology.
The committee heard that the Criminal Code has sufficient provisions to investigate those involved in criminal activity and detaining anyone who might be an immediate threat to Canadians. In a 2011 review by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-17, the former version of Bill S-7, a spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said that between 2007 and today, police investigations have successfully dismantled terrorist plots without having to resort to any of the provisions discussed here. Also, even since 2001, or for 10 years, among the investigations leading to accusations or convictions, none required the use of these extraordinary powers, including the Khawaja case, the Toronto 18 case, or more recently, the case involving four people from the Toronto region.
In addition to the fact that the bill will be ineffective in combatting terrorism, I want to stress the point that Bill S-7 stomps on basic civil liberties and human rights.
Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to Canada and to Canadians. We cherish the charter. Yet over and over again, we see legislation from the government that tramples upon Canadian values. 
What is even more alarming is that, as experts have indicated, this infringement on rights and freedoms is completely unnecessary and utterly ineffective. Yet, the government goes ahead anyway.
A spokesperson from the International Civil Liberals Monitoring Group said the use of arbitrary power and “a lower level of evidence” cannot replace the properly carried out work of the police. “On the contrary, these powers open the door to a denial of justice” and the substantial likelihood of ruining the reputation of innocent individuals, as was the case for Mr. Arar.
These kinds of decisions reveal a government that does not respect Canadians or Canadian values. We believe on this side of the House that Bill S-7 violates the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically the right to remain silent, the right to not incriminate oneself and the right to not be imprisoned without first having a fair trial.
Experts have warned that Bill S-7 would make it punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months, or impose strict conditions on the release of individuals who have never been charged with a criminal offence. We believe this goes against the core values of our Canadian justice system.
Moreover, the provisions in the bill could be used to target individuals participating in activities, such as active protest, dissent, which has absolutely nothing to do with the reasonable definition of terrorism.
Canadians take their rights and responsibilities to protest to heart and use them to make their voices heard. The arbitrary nature of the provisions in the bill could certainly lead to an abuse of power, and we have seen that happen many times by the government.
Canadians would not be better protected by legislation that infringes upon their rights and freedoms, but rather they will be better protected with intelligence efforts and appropriate police action.
Canadians are tired of seeing actions and legislation that show such a lack of respect for our Canadian values. Let me conclude by reminding the members opposite that actions and legislation that show such a lack of respect for Canadian values creates a disconnect between policy-makers and the needs of the people they represent.
The Criminal Code contains all of the provisions necessary to fight terrorism. Yet here we are, discussing a bill that shamefully infringes on our civil liberties and human rights. 
Sadly, the bill is yet another example of the government missing the mark on writing sound legislation. The bill, as it stands, has no balance between the need for security and the protection of the fundamental rights of Canadians. Therefore, I cannot support the bill. 
As many experts in the field have said, it is quite unnecessary and full of holes. It introduces concepts that are foreign to our Canadian values and it risks causing many more problems than those that it actually solves. 
Canadians expect the government to prioritize tangible job creation in our communities across the country, measurable environment protection and real action for community safety, not the infringement of our basic human rights and freedoms.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech. She touched on some extremely important points in this bill.
I noted several of the things she said, including her comment about the lack of respect the Conservatives have for Canadians by introducing a bill that will violate our fundamental rights.
Can the hon. member elaborate on the fundamental rights that are being totally violated with Bill S-7?
[Interjection]
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, there are many Canadian values and rights that are being violated with this bill. I outlined a few in my speech earlier, and they are the right to remain silent and the right to not imprison or convict oneself. Recognizance with conditions actually requires people to pledge that they understand there is something wrong in their cases, before they even have an opportunity to have a trial or appear before a judge. That is not a Canadian value. In Canada, our justice system says that one is innocent until proven guilty. The recognizance with conditions says a person agrees that he or she may have done something. If people want to get out on bail, they would be signing something saying they may have done something. That is really not how we act in Canada.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ethnic communities in my colleague's riding. Many communities fear that this will lead to racial profiling.
I would like to know whether any of the communities in her riding have commented on this bill.
[Interjection]
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, with regard to recognition and understanding of some of the other ridings in the country, she is very right. She is bang on when she says there is an extremely high population of newer immigrants in my riding, and we are already concerned. Before Bill S-7 was introduced, we were already concerned about racial profiling. If we look at our prison populations, we see mostly racialized youth being detained. 
We know racial profiling is a serious concern for many organizations and members in the community, and when we look at some of these bills, it seems it is an underhanded way of achieving some of the goals the government was not able to achieve in previous Parliaments. Now that the government has the majority of seats in the House, it wants to push anything and everything through that it could not achieve before.
We know that the House voted down the special provisions that were not needed and not used from 2001 to 2007 when they were in effect. The investigative hearing was used once, and the recognizance of conditions was never used. 
Officers and legal experts in this country are saying they are not necessary, yet the government, of course, says it is very necessary for the protection of Canadians. I am going to side with the experts on this and not the government.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-7 today because it is a bill that comes to us from that wonderful other place. That other place is the gift that keeps on giving. This is one of those rare and special opportunities to see the senators at work during their very, very long mandate. We might forget they exist sometimes. Alas, Eppur si muove, and yet it moves, as Galileo said.
I would like read the title of Bill S-7 to put things into context. The title is: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. Behind this rather banal title lies a series of measures that seek to amend our anti-terrorism laws. All these changes originate in the panic that followed the events of September 11, 2001, and for good reason. The west woke up one morning with a very real threat at its doorstep. Our American neighbours were hit hard, and we all came to realize that the North American fortress might be much more vulnerable than we ever thought.
Since then, we have been trying as best we can to balance our fear, our lack of understanding and our ability to defend ourselves. It is quite normal to want to protect one's country against terrorism. It is also quite normal to want to help one's neighbour and closest ally. In spite of their great expertise, Americans have had to face terrorism in the worst possible way: their country was attacked and their citizens killed without warning.
However, Canada has little experience with terrorism. Our country has practically never been attacked by a foreign power, other than the United States, and it is probably not a top target for anyone. That does not mean that we must not be prudent. Just the same, I want to remind everyone that the threat, although possible, is really a perceived threat.
For Canadians, acts of violence and terror over the years have amounted to the occasional shooting, except for the Air India incident in 1987. The destruction of the Air India Boeing by a bomb off the coast of Ireland was a brutal wake-up call for our security services. It is a shameful tragedy that laid bare our weaknesses. One year later, there was the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. Air safety is no longer what it used to be before that.
Shootings in Canada—I am thinking of École Polytechnique and Dawson College—are not acts of terrorism. We were all shocked and alarmed by these horrific incidents, but they were isolated attacks and not politically motivated. To prevent these desperate acts of violence, we created the long gun registry, which the Conservatives are trying to abolish as quickly as possible. Bill S-7 would not have prevented these isolated acts of terror that took place in Canada on a number of occasions.
I lived in a country where terrorism is an everyday threat. People always have to be on their guard in Moscow. Before getting onto the subway, they glance suspiciously at the other passengers. In very busy public places, people are always gripped by the fear that something could happen. There are often serious attacks in Russia. 
Simply sending a parcel through the Russian postal service is quite an undertaking. People have to wrap their parcel in front of the postal worker, who then seals the package with special tape. It can easily take 30 minutes. It is a simple act of everyday life that has become very complicated by the fear of fear. I am not criticizing the Russians; they manage this situation the best they can within their means.
No matter what anybody says, Canada has never known such a climate of fear. Although some members of this House like to describe certain current political parties in Quebec as extremist, I would like to remind everyone that Québec solidaire has nothing to do with the Front de libération du Québec. Really, people can rest easy. 
We could also talk about domestic terrorism, which is a much more insidious threat, because no one wants to imagine that it is possible. Two years ago, who could have predicted a terrorist attack right in the middle of Oslo, Norway, the most peaceful, most prosperous, most educated and nicest country in the world? No one could have. 
What does Bill S-7 propose to combat terrorism and better protect Canadians? I would not say nothing at all, but almost nothing. The original aim of the Anti-terrorism Act was to update Canadian laws to meet international standards, particularly UN requirements, and to provide a legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001. 
Since 2001, we have had an opportunity to review that legislation, which was passed in response to a specific event that threw people into a state of panic. We have since learned that there is actually nothing to justify such a law. When those provisions expired in 2007, there had never been any investigative hearing required or any situation that called for recognizance with conditions.
Canada's Anti-terrorism Act was brought in line with similar legislation passed by our traditional allies. Furthermore, the Criminal Code contains plenty of provisions to deal with such matters efficiently and quickly, and without violating anyone's basic human rights.
Bill S-7 would also take away fundamental civil rights. We understand that the threat of terrorism is elusive, unpredictable and can easily escape our vigilance. But we must not become completely paranoid. As I said earlier, although it is always possible, Canada is not a target for anyone.
The whole spirit of Bill S-7 is much more about the need to protect the United States. It is as though we were implicitly accepting that Canada itself is not threatened, but could be used as a conduit. We are afraid of being a waiting room for the United States, where jihadists come to prepare their bombs. Is that it? We have to wonder whether this is simply a request from the United States, as was the case in 2001, but I doubt it. It is definitely no longer 2001, and the United States has turned a page and is no longer putting the same kind of pressure on Canada.
So why insist on bringing back clauses that expired in 2007? Why the urgency? Why is the Senate sending us this uninspired legislation that is 10 years old? What are we to make of this unforeseen development? 
I can think of two explanations. First, this bill has come to Parliament to distract Canadians from the government's paltry legislative agenda. The government also has to show that it uses its Senate caucus from time to time. If it is going to serve us legislative leftovers, it might as well send them out from the Senate kitchen. Canadians do not know where the senators are coming from. Maybe they are stuck in some kind of parliamentary twilight zone. The senators have nothing to worry about because they are not accountable to the Canadian public and will not have to answer to voters in three years. We might as well say they are accountable only to God himself.
The other possible explanation is that the Conservative government wants to get rid of these sunset clauses once and for all, since they are no longer applicable because they were never used. I think that the government does not even want them and is debating Bill S-7 without really believing in it. I cannot wait to see the results of the vote at second reading, because I think that Bill S-7 is nothing more than an attempt to show that the senators do work. That is too bad; there were bills from the other place that were much more relevant and substantial. The Senate is filled with talented, intelligent, accomplished people. It is time to make use of them.
One of the things that bothers me the most about this Senate bill is that this is not the first time we have debated this issue. Witnesses have come and told us in no uncertain terms that some provisions of this bill create glaring problems. The legislation that is being introduced again has never been used and may never be. People explained that to us in great detail. Clearly, no one is thrilled about these provisions. They are not of interest to anyone and do not serve anyone. In fact, they create more problems than they solve, which is somewhat counterproductive.
I have also lived in a country where the police had too much arbitrary authority and where almost anyone could be arrested anywhere, at any time and for any reason. There are not 75 different ways to become a police state. The first step is to give too much discretionary power to security services on the pretext of all sorts of potential and invented threats. We must not take that step.
Why start compromising our civil liberties now, 11 years after the events of September 11, when the days of the war on terrorism started by President Bush are pretty much over? Why?
I would like to quote one of the witnesses, Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations. He said:
 Some legal commentators have argued that there is a narrow gap within the Canadian context in which preventive detention has utility. However, there are significant risks associated with overreaching state powers, such as the ability to detain someone for up to 72 hours. To jeopardize civil liberties for a potential yet unrealized circumstance pushes the boundaries between civil rights and concrete national security concerns. 
In other words, it is like getting on a train when we do not know exactly where it is going to take us. We have never acted this way in this country. We will not do it now, and we will never do it. We are more intelligent than that, and if ever there are threats that need to be dealt with, I am convinced that our existing laws will be sufficient to get the job done. 
In conclusion, I would like to remind the hon. members that this bill is a rather sad collection of provisions that do not amount to much of anything. These issues have already been debated. The bill goes against what everyone agreed upon and is extremely disappointing. I have the right to expect that, when the other chamber thinks it is appropriate to send a bill to the House of Commons, it will make the effort to suggest relevant solutions. That is not the case here, and I am very disappointed.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for her very rational, fact-based arguments about the bill and why we should be opposing it. 
I want to tell her that I was in Parliament in 2001, when the original anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, was basically rushed through Parliament. There was very little examination and the one thing we were able to do was to get those sunset clauses included so that there would be a review on the two key issues of interrogation and preventative detention. This is what is coming back to us now, after so many years of various attempts to have this legislation come back. 
I am very glad that she has given an overview of what this legislation is about.
I guess the thing that really bothers me is that what we see from the Conservative government is a pattern, that for every problem it defines, and it is not necessarily a problem, the only answer it can come up with is some new piece of criminal legislation. This is exactly what is happening here.
We know, for example, that the sunsetted clauses were only used once. It really begs the question as to why these provisions are needed. I think it is probably more important that we provide support to law enforcement agencies for enforcement, for intelligence gathering, rather than saying, “Well, the answer is another new law”.
I wonder if the member would comment on that.
 I liked her analogy that we are getting on a train with no idea where it is going. I think she was right on when she said that.
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for her question. It had not occurred to me, but yes, she was here in 2001 when this legislation was first passed and she therefore has a unique perspective to offer.
I completely agree with her regarding the fact that there is something really twisted about how the Conservatives always seem to find new ways to bring the Criminal Code into every piece of legislation. Their response to any situation that arises is always to introduce a new bill that creates another offence, when in fact, many other things could be done. Other measures could be much more useful and effective than this kind of legislation.
I would like to say a huge thank you for all of her hard work on this matter.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for her excellent speech. 
Following from the previous question, I would like to ask a supplementary to that.
We know that the government is introducing provisions that have already been voted down by the House in 2007 and that these provisions were introduced just after September 11, 2001.
The government's response to everything is, “Let's change the Criminal Code and add something else”. We know that it writes legislation for anything that is happening in the country, saying, “Let's change the Criminal Code”.
Is this because the government thinks that there are more criminals in this country than there are good-quality Canadian citizens? I do not understand. We should be writing legislation and making policy for the norm in the country, for the majority of the people in the country, not for the exceptions. We know that these provisions were not used when they were put into place.
Would my colleague please comment?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River for her question, because I know she really understands these issues. As we can see from her question, she has a good grasp of a big part of the problem.
These provisions have never been used, as the member just said and as I said in my speech, and yet the Conservatives want to reintroduce them. This is simply paranoia. Instead of looking at what can really be done to improve the lives of Canadians, the Conservatives are imagining catastrophic scenarios in which nasty criminals pose a serious threat, when that is not at all the case.
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak against the legislation.
 Bill S-7 would amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act. These are weighty matters when we are talking about the security of the country. Opposing the bill is not a position that we take lightly. Whenever we move legislation and develop new statutes, we always need to carefully weigh whether they are effective tools. If they are effective tools, we need to know how they will be used and what the costs will be? I would argue that this legislation would not be an effective tool to either stop or deter actions of terrorism.
Elements of the legislation, which are being brought back after the sunset clause expired, were brought in at a time when the world was gripped with the incident on 9/11. I do not think I need to ask if people remember where they were on that particular date. We all remember where we were as we watched with horror that whole scene play out before us.
In response to the terrible act of terrorism that occurred on that day, there was a quick reaction around the globe to look for a quick fix, that one thing that would fix it and ensure such an event would never occur again. However, we know from our history that there is no magic pill.
When these particular clauses were in effect, the ones that have now expired and the government is trying to bring back, they were only invoked once and that was during the Air India investigation. I do not think anyone would disagree when that was characterized as being one of our biggest fiascos. We have statutes, laws and systems in place to tackle the issues that this legislation purports to tackle. 
What we need to look at is the broader scourge of terrorism. If there is no magic pill, what are some of the effective tools that we should be utilizing? Intelligence would be one of them and enforcement would be another. The government should be looking at investing in these areas and ensuring that enforcement has the resources it needs in order to utilize the tools it has right now.
We must oppose the bill because it would be so ineffective at combatting terrorism. It also would unnecessarily infringe on our civil liberties, which we value. We live in a country where we have a parliamentary democracy, we live by the rule of law and we value our freedoms. Bill S-7 would violate one of the most basic civil liberties and human rights, specifically, the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial. We need take time to reflect on that because, when we start moving away from those Canadian values, we need to ask ourselves what we are putting at risk.
The Criminal Code currently contains all the necessary provisions for investigating those who are engaged in criminal activity and law enforcement has the ability to detain anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians. We can look at this and ask why we are debating this in the House today. I would say that we are debating it in the House today because the government is trying to deflect from its lack of action on key issues that are very important to Canadians and important to the security of our communities. It is a way to distract from the massive changes that are being made to our immigration policies. It is a way to distract from the fact that many Canadians are without work. It is a way to distract from the budget, or, I should say, the telephone book, that will be before the House in the next few days.
We have all this talk about terrorism. After 9/11, it was not a good time to be joking about terrorism, but the world was engaged in trying to find out where Osama bin Laden was. I can remember wondering where we were looking. I will always remember something that was said to me by a dear friend of mine. She said that he was probably sitting in a New York cafe drinking lattes, wearing an Armani suit, while everybody else was running around. 
At that time, there was this fear around the globe, and I would say especially in North America and Europe. We were looking for ways to take control of terrorism. the one thing we have learned over the years is that this is a scourge that is not that easy to take on. Terrorists do not go around wearing signs saying that they are terrorists and that they should be picked up and taken in for questioning. 
When we create new legislation, we need to create legislation that will be effective, useful and do what it purports to do. There is no way that this legislation would achieve what it claims to achieve. There is definitely a huge imbalance in this bill between security and the basic rights that we value as Canadians.
I wish I could get the opposition to focus on tackling some of the real issues facing communities around the country. I will talk a little bit about my riding of Newton—North Delta. We are very concerned about the safety of our communities in Surrey and North Delta. One of the reasons we are really concerned is that we are very worried about the high level of gun violence we have seen over the last number of years.
What we are looking for is some action, some support, some strategies and some commitment of resources to combat that kind of gun violence that is taking place on our streets and having an impact on our youth in a huge way. I do not have enough fingers on both my hands to count the number of young people we have lost due to gun violence.
When it comes to gun violence, all we get is the government saying that it will do away with the gun registry. That really did not help to tackle that problem. Then we hear about firmer sentences. I want to remind everyone that the U.S. has what I would consider one of the firmest sentences, and that is the death penalty. I am so pleased that we do not have that. It has the death penalty and, despite that, gun violence and violent crime have not declined. It also has the highest level of people in prisons. That also has not led to crime or gun violence being reduced.
What is it that we as government should be looking at? I think it is time for all levels of government to invest in a serious way in education. It is time we take seriously that we need to tackle the issues that drive our youth toward violence, the drug trade and gang activity. We need to tackle issues such as poverty, homelessness, mental illness and economic insecurity, that feeling of not belonging. There are so many things we need to tackle and yet what do we have in front of us?
We have a bill in front of us that actually attacks two of our most valued basic rights: the right not to be imprisoned without first having a fair trial and the right to remain silent. In a way, those measures would do absolutely nothing to tackle terrorism. If we are really talking about the security of the nation, we should look at our communities across Canada and ask ourselves what we can do to tackle the root causes of our young and not so young getting engaged in a world of crime and being enticed by that kind of lifestyle.
Our focus should be fully on that issue but I see very little of that from across the way. We hear a lot about more prisons, higher sentences and sentences for minor infractions, almost as if sending people to prison and punishing people will solve our problems. 
One of the things I have learned as a teacher is that positive reinforcement and preventive measures are far better tools and much cheaper, meaning not so hard on us emotionally or financially, than going down the punitive road, especially with legislation that will do nothing, but on paper it will give the PMO another opportunity to write speaking notes to say that the government is tackling terrorism.
Our legislation should not be there just for the purpose of giving the PMO an opportunity to make more speaking notes, especially when the legislation will not achieve the results it purports it is trying to tackle. Instead, we need to ask parliamentarians to start tackling the facts that tell the federal government that we need a national strategy on affordable housing. We need to seriously tackle the child poverty rate in this country. Some people will ask what that has to do with safety and security. I cannot imagine anything more critical to our safety and security than ensuring our children are fed, housed and educated. That is what we are all about.
It does not matter where we have come from, what we value as Canadians right across this country is living in safe communities. However, we also know that punitive measures do not necessarily achieve safe communities. As a teacher, I realize and recognize, and I am sure others do as well, the value of putting money into preventative measures.
 For the youth in our cities who are struggling, let us invest some money into some prevention programs. A lot of those community programs that used to keep our kids off the street and used to help them develop the skills to integrate into society and to be productive members of our communities have been cut. The funding to those programs is gone. 
This is just so it looks as if we are doing something. We are spending hours debating this piece of legislation, while people in our communities are asking us what we are doing to tackle the issues that are hurting them right there at home.
Over the last number of years, when the Liberals were in power, my community saw a task force on gang violence. It led nowhere. People getting together just to talk is not going to solve the problem. We need the funding to put action and programs into place. I appeal to my colleagues across the way to take a look at the security of our communities and work together to develop strategies and action plans. Then, let us apply the resources so that our communities can feel safe and we can tackle this disconnect that our youth are feeling and therefore being enticed into drug-related gangs that do a lot of harm in our communities. It would probably take a lot less money than some of the measures purported in the bill, which would actually lead to no change at all and would probably hardly ever be used.
To put somebody in prison for a year, I believe, the cost is now over $80,000. Yet right across this country, we are not willing to spend more than $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 or for some about $12,000 a year to educate our children. We have to look at investment in education but also investment in the early years, because we know how important those years are to young people as they proceed through life.
We should also talk about other areas we could be investing in. I was quite taken aback when I read some of the staggering figures in here. The Rideau Institute released a report that said that the various branches of government that are involved in the fight against terrorism in Canada received $92 billion more than they would have normally received. That is quite a staggering figure. Obviously, money is not the issue here. It is about where we want to allocate our resources. If we really want to tackle security for our communities, let us deal with issues that can make a real difference.
Let us not fake it with a bill that purports to bring back a couple of clauses that were used only once, which was a disaster, and have not really been missed. The police and intelligence officers already have the resources and statutes they need to keep us safe and secure. Instead, let us look at how we can support the structures we have and how we can invest in prevention and rehabilitation programs. One thing I have learned is that when looking at rehabilitation, hitting somebody on the head is not how to get them to reform their ways. It usually takes a lot more than that and that is where we have to make our investment, because our children deserve nothing less.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite clearly knows there is a difference between combatting terrorism, which is worldwide, and trying to prevent it from coming to Canada or occurring in Canada, and fighting domestic crime in our streets. The member somehow equates them as being one and the same. Of course, they are not.
She talked about providing more education programs for our youth and investing more money in education, but there is one thing I never heard her say, unfortunately, and maybe it is because she does not think that parents have a responsibility to give good guidance to their children. I think the NDP believes that the government should bring up our kids and not their parents. She knows that the household environment that kids are brought up in is led by the parents. If the parents are not responsible and do not provide a meaningful household environment to bring their kids up in, the children are going to look elsewhere for comfort. It may be a street gang or they may quit school early because they are not being encouraged by their parents to stay in school.
Simply throwing money at the problem and not getting to the root of the problem of irresponsible parents is not an answer, as New Democrats would have us believe.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, introducing a bill that reintroduces clauses that were never used and add no value is also not a way to tackle serious terrorism issues. I understand the difference and I find it outrageous, standing here as a mother, a grandmother and a teacher who has dealt with hundreds, if not thousands, of students during my career, to hear a parliamentarian put the blame squarely on families when children get into difficulties.
I believe that raising a child is the job of the whole village or community. Parents absolutely play a critical role, but not every parent has the resources, skills or tools to spend time with their children. Not every parent has affordable housing. Not every parent has an income that allows them to feed their children. Not every parent in this country has the luxury of spending more time with their children, because they have to work two or three jobs in order to make ends meet. 
I would say that this is a societal problem and we, as a society, have to address it. Parents play a critical role but so do governments. Let us not blame the very people who are the victims and tell them to fix it themselves.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge right upfront that Bill S-7 does make some changes. It is important to note that it does create some additional offences that would help in certain situations. For example, where there is planning to commit a terrorist attack outside of Canada, our law enforcement agencies would have a little more to go on to potentially prevent a terrorist attack in another country by individuals who might be attempting to leave Canada to commit that offence. I suspect the vast majority of the public would not question the validity and need to have those offences brought into the legislation.
I believe it was a Conservative senator who talked about the bill as being a deterrent. This type of thing I have a difficult time with. This is yet another piece of legislation that the government has brought in and has said that it will be a deterrent.
 I would ask my colleague to provide comment on this type of legislation not deterring or preventing someone from committing a crime. It would not cause a person to think twice in terms of committing a terrorist attack. It might enable the police to act or be better equipped to act, but it would not prevent one from committing an attack.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope my colleague can see the wisdom in opposing this legislation. After all, he is from a party that introduced the charter, which gives us many of our rights. 
To respond to the member's question, there is very little in the bill that would deter terrorists. We have learned, both domestically and internationally, that it would be simplistic to think that changing a few lines in legislation in Parliament would make a terrorist think twice. We just have to think about the acts of terrorism that have horrified us. These people are willing to not only risk their lives, but give up their lives. They are not going to be deterred by the fact that they can be questioned.
However, the bill does attack our basic Canadian rights, our right to freedom of speech and our right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech. I agree with her that Bill S-7 creates a false sense of security.
The NDP supports the fight against terrorism. However, if I understand correctly, the government is not investing the necessary resources in our police forces, intelligence agencies, and so on. This bill will thus only serve to camouflage the Conservatives' inaction and pull the wool over Canadians' eyes. What is more, this bill does not respect human rights.
I am a criminologist by training, and I must say that I found it refreshing to hear talk of things like prevention, enhancing Canadians' quality of life, strengthening the social fabric, working on the dropout rate, and investing in education, social services, affordable housing. I liked that.
I would like the hon. member to talk about the real problems that are of concern to Canadians, whether it be the economy, ethics or the environment, In her opinion, what are the real problems that are of concern to Canadians?
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, we can sit here and keep debating Bill S-7 and make very little difference, if any, in people's lives and we can keep saying that we have now tackled terrorism, when we know this is not going tackle terrorism, or we could be dealing with issues that really matter to Canadians.
I have had the privilege of travelling across the country and going to different communities. As much as people are concerned about a huge number of issues, there are some basic issues that they get down to. They care about having a universal health care system that is functional and that meets their needs. They care about having an economy that is sustainable and that grows decent paying jobs here instead of sending our resources overseas or instead of bringing in temporary foreign workers to whom we pay a lot less without making those jobs available to Canadians.
They also care very deeply about education. They are very concerned about our youth. I do not know if it is because I am teacher and that is why they always talk to me about education, but wherever I go, people always to talk about what we will do to invest in our children. The best way to invest in our children is through education and developing preventive programs.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by thanking my NDP colleagues who have given excellent speeches before me today about Bill S-7.
I was not very familiar with this bill and so I took the time to do some in-depth research yesterday in order to better understand its objective. I spent some time learning about the UN counter-terrorism committee and researched its activities. We are a member of this committee and work a great deal with it. On its Internet site, I found the Technical Guide to the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001 following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. This guide was prepared by the counter-terrorism committee executive directorate. It is an extremely interesting and substantial document that contains a number of suggestions for member countries on how to effectively fight terrorism throughout the world. 
I examined the most effective means of fighting terrorism. I am repeating this term because it stands out the most in this document. 
In reviewing chapter 2, I was struck by two points which I found to be very important and which the government has unfortunately not addressed. I am referring to section 2 on eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists and section 10 on effective border controls. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi will probably agree with me that we currently have a serious problem with border control.
This week there was a very serious incident in British Columbia during which a border services officer was shot at our border. That is very serious. In Brome—Missisquoi, Compton—Stanstead and Montreal's entire south shore, which borders the United States, there have been reports of many illegal crossings lately. I heard that last night, 11 people crossed this border illegally. This is a rather glaring problem that could be very serious for our national security. Refugees enter our country. We are here to welcome them and we must treat them in accordance with the international treaties we have signed.
There is something that worries me more—my colleagues have talked about this at length—and that is the smuggling of drugs, tobacco products and illegal firearms. This is very serious. Like many of my colleagues, I have met with border services officers, including those near Sherbrooke. They told me things that are extremely difficult to hear. They told me that they do not have time to search everyone and that they have to work quite quickly sometimes because they are understaffed and do not have enough resources to do their jobs properly.
That is sad to hear. We are currently debating a bill to combat terrorism when, according to the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee's technical guide, we have other problems that require our immediate attention. If our border is porous, then we face a very serious threat of terrorism. 
I would suggest to the government across the way that it re-examine its priorities and address the existing problem with our border security. That is my first point. A number of my colleagues could elaborate on what is happening on the ground.
The government across the way cut the border services' budget by $146 million. That is extremely serious for our national security. The union said that 260 front-line jobs would be cut in Quebec alone. That is extremely serious because it has a direct impact on our national security and our fight against terrorism.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have about 15 minutes to finish her speech when debate resumes.
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
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant is not present in the House to move the motion for second reading of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems), as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1:31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)