2013-11-29

Government Orders
Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13 today, November 29.
There are various reasons why it is important that we sit here today and discuss Bill C-13. The most important reason is the respect that we all have for the fight against bullying, especially bullying directed at our youth.
No one in the House is against virtue or the idea that we must identify all the means and tools that could be used in the fight against cyberbullying.
I will be using my 20 minutes to talk about cyberbullying specifically. That is what the title of the bill makes us think it is about. However, Bill C-13 unfortunately covers more than just cyberbullying. It talks about numerous other ways and means to address a number of aspects of online crime, in addition to other things that have nothing to do with cyberbullying.
Allow me to explain. If members take the time to really read what is in Bill C-13, they will see that the section on bullying is only two pages long. This bill is more than 50 pages long, and it is clear upon reading it that it is yet another Conservative omnibus bill.
I will not hide my disappointment today at having to rise to speak once again to an omnibus bill. This is unfortunately not the first time one has been introduced in the House. We have had several omnibus bills in the past two parliaments—indeed, since this government won a majority. This is a sorry state of affairs, for many reasons. 
The latest budget bills introduced by the Conservatives are examples of such omnibus legislation. We had bills comprising hundreds of pages that affected thousands of our laws totally unrelated to the budget. We had to deal with those. They were shoved down our throats. We tried to divide the bills into different parts, so they could be studied in the appropriate committees, but we did not succeed.
As an example, one of the budget bills contained a measure, introduced by the Conservatives, providing for the removal of protections for lakes and rivers in Canada. 
Someone on the other side of the House will have to explain to me how removing the protections for our lakes and rivers relates to the budget. We tried to divide this section of the bill to send it to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where it should have been studied. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused. 
Every time we have tried to introduce amendments to omnibus bills or divide them by seeking the unanimous consent of the House, the Conservatives have flatly refused.
I am extremely disappointed that Bill C-13 does not go deeper into cyberbullying, which is a sensitive issue that requires so much attention. It does not just affect young people, as we have seen in the high-profile media stories in recent years. Cyberbullying affects a large segment of the population. I will come back to this later in my speech.
It is extremely disappointing to see the Conservatives playing cheap political games in the House with legislation that should be passed unanimously. They are trying to add items and make us say yes to things that are in no way related to cyberbullying. It is incredibly disappointing to see the other side of the House engaging in petty politics.
In Bill C-13, the part on cyberbullying is a pretty close copy of what my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced last June. That was a private member's bill, and everyone agreed with the principle of the bill. However, instead of examining it together and passing it quickly, the Conservatives decided to take part of what my colleague was proposing in Bill C-540 and add it to Bill C-13, along with some other elements.
Instead of concentrating on a bill on cyberbullying that was properly divided, the Conservatives opened up the floodgates and added some other things. They have made Bill C-13 into quite the concoction.
I also wanted to talk about another bill today. A few months ago, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved a very interesting motion on cyberbullying. I cannot elaborate on it too much, because the motion had to do with more than just cyberbullying. However, I know my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord worked very hard on that motion. Almost all experts and public interest groups agreed that it was a very important motion. Unfortunately, the only party that voted against the motion was the Conservative Party. It is so sad that the Conservatives are refusing to discuss the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which focused solely on cyberbullying, and that they so easily dismissed the idea of debating and adopting the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
Cyberbullying boggles my mind. Honestly, it is so sad. No one can claim they have never encountered bullying. It is impossible. When I was attending Horizon Jeunesse secondary school in Laval, we had pagers. Cellphones did not exist yet. I am lucky because I was never bullied in high school. I was more of a social butterfly. I had all sorts of friends. I was never directly affected by bullying at school. However, I have friends who were bullied at school. It is serious. My brother was bullied. He would often have his lunch stolen. He was embarrassed and did not want to talk about it with my parents. Today, my brother is six feet tall and as strong as an ox, but, unfortunately for him, that was not the case when he was in high school. He was very cute and very nice. Perhaps he was bullied because he was too cute and too nice.
Those were the early days of the Internet. We did not have a computer at home. We had to do our research on the computers at the library. We could not afford a computer. We did not have to deal with cyberbullying, but bullying was all around me and part of my daily life. I saw what an impact bullying could have. Unfortunately, some students who were bullied at Horizon Jeunesse committed suicide. 
Bullying at school is one thing, but when we are at home, we are protected. We are in a bubble. However, cyberbullying follows us 24 hours a day. We go home and use social media. Almost everyone has an iPhone or a BlackBerry in their pockets. We have access to Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. We can access a host of social media very quickly. The impact is immediate and it follows us day and night. There is no break from it. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a victim of cyberbullying when there is no getting away from it. It is very serious.
My colleague from Gatineau raised an extremely important point this week. She asked for the unanimous consent of the House to split the bill. I think this would be a way to show respect for people who are victims of bullying and cyberbullying. As far as cyberbullying is concerned, the consent is practically unanimous. As parliamentarians, we have to be respectful of the people we represent. We must split the bill. I sincerely believe that all members of the House want what is best. 
The best thing to do in this case would be to split the bill, since there is unanimous consent on one part of the bill and because this is an omnibus bill with several parts that have nothing to do with each other. Let us focus on cyberbullying and fix that problem. Let us make sure that the authorities have the tools they need to address this problem. We can then come back to the rest of the bill the government has handed us—a rehash of the former Bill C-30—which addresses the completely different topic of privacy.
Let us focus on the two pages on cyberbullying out of the 50-some pages in Bill C-13. Let us pass these measures so that the authorities can make use of them as quickly as possible. That is how we can combat cyberbullying together.
Before I talk about privacy in more detail, I want to say that Laval does a lot of good things and I like to brag about them. A Laval organization called Volteface has found a unique way to address bullying and especially cyberbullying in Quebec. I cannot speak for the other provinces, regions or territories in Canada, but this is the only program of its kind in Quebec. Volteface is an alternative justice organization that finds ways to help build harmonious relationships by offering preventive activities and alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. It works with teenagers, victims, the general public, parents, schools and the community. 
Volteface created an innovative tool as part of its “Ultimatum &lt; Échap &gt; LA CYBER INTIMIDATION” project. The organization is actually based in Shawinigan, but it operates in Laval. It has developed a partnership and focuses on high schools. The guide is intended for high school students, their parents and school staff. It offers information on how to prevent cyberbullying and talks about what kind of action is appropriate. This project focuses especially on youth and has been operating in Laval since Volteface created it. It is a very worthwhile program.
They are targeting young people because a number of studies indicate that, although people of all ages can be affected by cyberbullying, youth 12 to 14 are at greater risk. My daughter is seven months old, and I am already worried about the tween years. I do not know what social media will be like then, but I say to myself every day that time is flying by, and it seems as though she will be 12 or 14 so soon. The research also shows that girls are at greater risk of cyberbullying than boys, as proven by some studies. I can name them: there was Sengupta and Chaudhuri in 2011 and Tokunaga in 2010. Unlike traditional bullying, boys are more likely than girls to be involved in acts of bullying. We have the facts. This is extremely important.
I applaud a Quebec organization that is finding tools to fight cyberbullying and that is trying to engage groups most at risk of being bullied or bullying. We must educate both sides, those who are bullied and those who bully. It is extremely important.
With respect to the protection of privacy, which we have to talk about, this bill deals almost exclusively with that issue. Many experts believe that Bill C-30 is being brought back to Parliament disguised as Bill C-13. I will quickly talk about that.
Bill C-30 contained measures that were considered extremely serious infringements of privacy.
I remember that the public safety minister at the time, Vic Toews, who is no longer in the House, said that if we did not side with him, then we were siding with pedophiles. That was absolutely ridiculous because Bill C-30 was another omnibus bill. Come on. At some point, we must call a spade a spade. We are therefore concerned about the protection of privacy.
Oddly enough, the Privacy Commissioner was not consulted on any of the privacy-related measures contained in Bill C-13. There was no consultation. Moreover, the commissioner is saying that she is very concerned about the measures in Bill C-13.
The commissioner is most concerned about the new powers that will make it possible to obtain information about people's private lives and the high number of government employees who will have access to that information. This is a direct attack on privacy. However, I think we all agree that privacy is a fundamental right. 
I would also like to take some time to speak about OpenMedia.ca, a digital media lobby, which: 
 ...welcomed the measures on cyberbullying but expressed concern that the new legislation makes it easier for the government to spy on the activities of law-abiding Canadians. After reviewing the bill, OpenMedia.ca indicated that the bill contains only 2.5 pages about cyberbullying and 65 pages about online spying. 
It is unbelievable, particularly since, yesterday, extremely serious allegations were made in the House against the Canadian government. Let me explain.
Yesterday, we learned that, while on Canadian soil, the Americans allegedly spied on all the heads of state who attended the G20 summit in Toronto, with the consent of the Prime Minister and this Conservative government. The Conservatives were therefore aware that this espionage was taking place and they approved of it. However, now they are saying that these are allegations and that they were not aware that this was happening.
Espionage is already being carried out with the Conservative government's approval, and now this bill will give the government even more ways to spy on law-abiding Canadians.
I know that many of my colleagues opposite really like to say that we have to respect Canadians' privacy, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. The right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Why are these measures reappearing in Bill C-13? Why is the government looking to put them back in when every group said that they were a terrible part of Bill C-30?
We also spoke about Bill C-13 yesterday. The Conservatives told us that they deleted the worst parts of Bill C-30 and put the least objectionable parts into Bill C-13. It is frightening to hear such things.
These measures are yet another attack on peoples' privacy. What has the government done? As usual, no one was consulted. The worst part is that the Privacy Commissioner is raising some extremely important points and some were already raised in relation to Bill C-30. The Conservatives wanted to stop talking about it. They said that it was over, that things had gone too far. However, those measures are resurfacing in Bill C-13. I am extremely disappointed.
I do not have much time left, so I will wrap up.
I am disappointed that the government did not decide to split this bill in two and focus specifically on cyberbullying. If the government insists on bringing back measures from Bill C-30, it should create another bill that does not address cyberbullying. Then we would have two separate bills.
The government has come up with another omnibus bill. This demonstrates a lack of respect for victims of cyberbullying.
I believe that our work as parliamentarians is extremely important. The committee study must be non-partisan. I look forward to seeing what will happen when this bill is studied in committee, but I am not overly confident.
I want the government to take the time to think about all those who have been affected by cyberbullying, reverse its decision and split this bill in two.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know it is rather unusual for me to ask a question when it comes to anything regarding the Internet and computers because I do not use them. However, many of my colleagues and friends and my two daughters use them on a regular basis as well, and there is no question that cyberbullying is a very serious issue.
I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the NDP, who is a long-term future prospect of the New Democratic Party and should be a long-term MP in the House of Commons with the great speech that she has just given. Now, as a new mom, having a beautiful daughter herself, what type of conversations does she anticipate that she and her partner will have with her daughter when she starts using the computer for a variety of things? What types of conversations should parents and legal guardians be having with their children in regard to this very serious discussion we are having today?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his excellent question. 
When I was a student at the Horizon Jeunesse high school, in Laval, my family had no computer and no cell phone. Today, 15 years later, everyone has a pocket computer, except for my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, who does not carry one. I am sure, however, that his daughters, his family and his colleagues all have pocket computers.
Things change very rapidly. Twenty years ago, we had no computers or smart phones. They did not exist. Movies from that era show long telephones that practically had parabolic antennae. Things change very rapidly. What will it be like when my daughter is 12 or 14 and most likely to fall victim to cyberbullying? I have no idea, and that scares me.
I fear that we are not addressing the real problem. My colleague raises a very important point. It is the duty of parents and guardians to raise children, a very important task. I have the same responsibility towards my daughter. We have a duty to teach our children how to use the Internet properly, to avoid any unintentional bullying. Indeed, some of these events start by accident and quickly snowball.
Photos and messages go back and forth at the speed of light. It is mind-blowing. People do not always realize how their online behaviour can impact others. They think everyone will just forget what they have done, but some actions can really hurt others. We have seen serious cases, including in Nova Scotia, where Rehtaeh Parsons took her own life because of cyberbullying, and in British Columbia, where Amanda Todd's story received extensive media coverage.
These are serious events. Young people end up killing themselves because of cyberbullying. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to provide the authorities with the tools they need to take action.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her speech.
She mentioned the fact that this is another one of those omnibus bills that, in some ways, ends up drowning out the central issue, in this case cyberbullying, by including a number of other measures the Conservatives want to bring forward. She underscored the need to address the issue head on and to enact this cyberbullying bill as swiftly as possible.
I would like to know her thoughts on the link she made between the bill and the motion introduced by our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to establish a national anti-bullying plan.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for her excellent question, which covered several issues. It is important to go back and discuss those points.
First, the bill should focus primarily on the fight against bullying. This is in the title of the bill, but only two out of over fifty pages deal with this issue. Obviously, bullying is not being taken seriously.
My colleague talked about how the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord asked that we develop a national anti-bullying plan including not only cyberbullying, but also any type of bullying targeting our young people. 
In addition, young people are not the only victims of bullying. The groups most at risk of being bullied or bullying someone are women, young women and teenagers. We must therefore focus not only on young people, but also on all victims of bullying.
It is shameful that the members on the other side of the House did not support this motion and that they again introduced an omnibus bill that contains only two pages dedicated to cyberbullying. That does not even represent 10% of the bill, although cyberbullying is part of its title.
It is frightening that the Conservatives are seeking to pass such things. As my colleague from Saint-Lambert knows, this is not the first time they have done this. Indeed, this is not the first time they have introduced a bill and practically forced us to vote for it. If we do not do so, they will say that we are refusing to fight cyberbullying. They often say that we voted against such and such a measure. However, these are small-scale measures included in gigantic omnibus bills with hundreds of pages. We cannot agree to everything they contain.
Since we seek to properly represent Canadians, we have asked that these bills be divided and studied in committee, and that amendments be proposed. We do everything in our power to ensure that these bills make sense, but the Conservatives reject everything. For example, we have previously introduced amendments to correct the punctuation of a bill, specifically commas and periods, but the Conservatives rejected our amendments. There are many more stories like these. It is difficult to keep our faith in government, to have hope and remain optimistic, when all our efforts are rejected. We were elected to make the best possible legislation.
Like my colleague from Saint-Lambert, I am extremely disappointed with how the Conservatives are handling the cyberbullying problem.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, Mr. Speaker.
There are several points I would like her to expand on. I am the father of three preteens. Understandably, cyberbullying is of great concern to me. Like all kids their age, my children are very comfortable with technology. Unlike us at their age, kids today can be bullied even in their bedrooms. They have computers and access to the Internet. They can therefore be bullied at home as well as in school.
It is of the utmost importance that we take measures to address cyberbullying. Like my colleague said, not many provisions in the bill actually deal with cyberbullying. When the government introduced Bill C-13, it said it wanted to address the issue of cyberbullying. However, few of the bill's provisions actually do so.
I would like my colleague to comment on the attitude of the government—I am really trying to use parliamentary language here—that often puts on a dog and pony show about bills that, ultimately, are pretty hollow.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his question.
As the father of three preteens, he is undoubtedly very concerned about the bullying that many children face on the Internet and in school. It must be very worrisome for parents to watch as their children get to that age. It is no secret that adolescence is a rough time for everyone. It is a difficult stage in life, yet it is perfectly natural. That is why I cannot imagine what it must be like to be the victim of bullying.
The Speaker: We will suspend to the call of the Chair.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:34 a.m.) 
[Stage Direction]
(The House resumed at 11:12 a.m.)
The Speaker: We will move on to statements by members.

Statements By Members
Taite Boomer Memorial Brain Tumour FoundationMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible young man from my constituency, who was taken far too soon, and the legacy that lives on in his name.
On September 2, 2012, Taite Boomer passed away when he was only 20 years old, after a short but courageous battle with a very aggressive and rare form of brain tumour. Taite was a smart and caring individual who is deeply missed by his family and friends. After his passing, his family established the Taite Boomer Memorial Brain Tumour Foundation. 
It is estimated that 55,000 Canadians are living with over 120 different types of brain tumours, making effective treatment very complicated. The foundation raises funds for awareness of brain tumours in honour and memory of Taite. In its first year, the foundation succeeded in raising enough money to fund a two-year brain tumour research studentship. It is their sincere hope that the funds raised will lead one day to a cure for such a debilitating condition.
I ask all parliamentarians to commend Taite's family for increasing awareness about brain tumours in response to his tragic passing.
Veterans AffairsPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, January 31 of next year will be very sad day for veterans and their families from across this country. That is the day the government announced for the closure of all eight district affairs offices for veterans and their families across the country.
However, the government has a plan, and I love this. It will take one person from each office and will put them in a Service Canada office. In Sydney, Cape Breton, for example, which Mr. Ron Clarke pointed out, an honoured veteran from Cape Breton, what took 13 officers to do the job will now be done by one person in a Service Canada office.
That is simply unconscionable. We ask the government to reverse these hazardous cuts and to reopen those offices to ensure that all our veterans and their families, and RCMP members and their families, get the one-on-one service they so rightfully deserve.
Robbie's RainbowMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Robbie's Rainbow, a charity founded by a brave and courageous 11-year-old boy living with Crohn's disease.
After witnessing another child suffering from this terrible disease, Robbie Murray, of Oakville, founded a charity dedicated to raising money to support children with Crohn's disease and their families, when he was just eight years old. In two short years, Robbie's Rainbow has raised nearly $30,000 and has helped over 60 families live stronger and healthier lives. Robbie's Rainbow is an example of what can be done when people care. They have been raising money through hockey tournaments and by reaching out to our community.
Robbie's generosity and inspiring story should give us all pause to reflect on the important role and tremendous value charitable organizations play across the country. During this holiday season, I encourage all members to generously support and recognize local charities like Robbie's Rainbow in our communities.
Montreal Council of WomenHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this evening, the Montreal Council of Women will celebrate its 120th anniversary. Since 1893, the council has brought together organizations and individuals from the Montreal region to improve the quality of life of women, their families,and communities.
The Montreal Council of Women has 30,000 members from diverse backgrounds who work together in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect.
In the last few months alone the council has advocated for improved public transit, raised awareness about bullying in schools, and honoured the important contributions of women to the field of journalism, while as an affiliate of the International Council of Women, it has continued to concern itself with the plight of women worldwide.
As a proud member of the Liberal women's caucus, I congratulate the Montreal Council of Women on 120 years of activism, advocacy, and good works that have benefited all Montrealers, and I wish them every success for the next 120 years.
Teaching ExcellenceMr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mrs. Colleen Yoshida of Assumption junior high in Cold Lake, Alberta for receiving a certificate of achievement from the Prime Minister. It is no surprise that a teacher from northeast Alberta would receive such high praise, as we have so many dedicated educators in the Lakeland region. Whether it be a younger teacher in Ashmont, such as Jeninne Poirier, who thrives on learning and teaching new methods; the dedication and experience of Corey deMoissac, at St. Paul Regional; or the work ethic and skill of Ryan Morey, at the new Mennonite school in Two Hills.
The Lakeland is truly blessed with talented educators who care. On behalf of our community, I would like to thank each and every one of them. The extra hours they put in truly make a difference. The development and future success of our children is truly their legacy.
Canada Labour CodeMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate when it takes a tragic event to bring attention to a deficiency in legislation or public policy.
On November 1, 2011, Andy Ferguson was killed in a head-on collision while returning home following two consecutive 16-hour workdays. Andy was completing a broadcast diploma at NAIT, and as part of that program was completing an unpaid internship at Astral Media. In addition, Astral radio paid Andy to do location spots, contest promotions and various other assignments.
It was the accumulation of the paid and unpaid hours at the radio station that led to his fatigued condition, and ultimately this tragic accident.
When Labour Canada did its investigation, it rightly concluded that his paid hours of work were within the allowable limits and it had no authority to investigate the unpaid hours because Andy was a post-secondary student and therefore that matter fell under provincial jurisdiction.
This tragedy highlights the regulatory gap that exists with respect to unpaid interns and the need to amend the Canada Labour Code to account for the combined hours, paid and unpaid, to protect these vulnerable and young workers.
I ask the federal government to act.
Maryse DrouinMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Maryse Drouin, the director general of the Corporation de développement communautaire de Longueuil, the CDC.
After more than 20 years of doing community-based work, including 12 years at the head of the CDC, Maryse is retiring today. In Longueuil, her hard work battling glaring problems associated with poverty, social exclusion and inequality will continue to serve as an example of dedication and conviction for the team at the CDC, everyone in the community, and me and my team.
Without a community network, our society would suffer. It is people like Maryse Drouin who have the vision and perseverance to campaign and fight for social justice in order to ensure that our community is stronger and the less fortunate have a decent life.
See you soon, Maryse. Now you can take some time for yourself. I wish you a happy retirement and, on behalf of everyone in Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, thank you.
Canadian Constitution FoundationMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on several previous occasions I have reported to the House regarding a website administered by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which I have been helping to build.
The website, PrimaryDocuments.ca, is intended to be a fully searchable repository of all primary documents relating to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.
Today I can report that this repository includes 277,000 PDF images of pages from 2,162 distinct primary historical documents. A team of 11 full-time and part-time individuals are presently working on the project.
Because I coordinate these efforts out of my office, there is reason to be concerned that if care were not taken that parliamentary funds might be expended on what is not a parliamentary project. That is why I have been in regular contact with the Speaker and his staff to ensure that no government funds are used on this project.
All of us must take care to be good stewards of the public funds.
I am grateful for the co-operation that I have had from the House staff in this matter.
Collateral Damage ProjectMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and thank a great Canadian who is visiting Ottawa today, Scott Chisholm.
Scott is the founder of the Collateral Damage Project, training the front line to deal with suicidal behaviours.
I have often said in this House that preventing suicide requires an entire community. I am proud of the work that Scott has done in training teachers, nurses, and members of first nations to recognize and treat suicidal ideation.
While society still struggles to talk about suicide and mental health, Scott is one of thousands of Canadian heroes struggling to protect the most vulnerable.
One of the hidden costs of suicide is the damage to survivors. Their pain is often beyond their ability to express; they suffer in silence. The Collateral Damage Project shatters that barrier with positive stories of how those who have struggled with the loss of loved ones to suicide have channelled their pain into something positive.
Canadians struggling with suicidal thoughts or coping with its aftermath should visit the Collateral Damage Project, at www.leftbehindbysuicide.org.
Do not lose hope.
Carolanne LeblancMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to congratulate Carolanne Leblanc, a woman who has been working very hard to set up a multi-service shelter in Mirabel. 
The centre that she hopes to set up would support homeless people and other disadvantaged individuals, providing them with food, shelter and a place to wash up. This would be the first such place in Mirabel, which is larger in area than the city of Montreal.
We need to address all aspects of homelessness. Although homelessness and poverty are less obvious outside large urban centres, the needs are just as pressing in rural areas.
It is time to recognize those needs and support the organizations and stakeholders that are working so hard to provide front-line services.
I wish to thank Carolanne for her initiative and her efforts to get this centre off the ground. She has my admiration and full support.
The EconomyMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about how proud I am, as a Quebecker, to have a Minister of Finance who will be able to balance Canada's budget. That is what it means for a government to act responsibly and be fair to future generations.
Today, Statistics Canada reported that the Canadian economy grew for the ninth consecutive quarter, another sign that the Canadian economy is on the right track.
Although we are not immune to struggles elsewhere in the world, we can count on our Conservative government to take us in the right direction and stay focused on the priorities of Canadian families.
World AIDS DaySadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize World AIDS Day, which will be held on Saturday, December 1. It is a day to take stock of a serious situation in Canada.
The number of people in Canada living with this virus continues to grow. More than 71,000 people are affected. The spread of HIV knows no socio-economic or geographic boundaries. HIV has a serious impact on homosexuals, heterosexuals, aboriginal peoples, rich, poor, women, men, young and old. The fact remains that those affected by HIV suffer a great deal of stigma and prejudice.
World AIDS Day is also an opportunity to learn about Canadian initiatives to raise awareness about AIDS and fight this disease. Organizations such as the Canadian AIDS Society are doing a lot for our society. The decline in the number of new infections in Canada attests to the education and prevention efforts made by these organizations. 
This world day also gives us an opportunity to remember those who have died as a result of AIDS and reminds us that the fight is not over and that many people are working hard to stamp it out.
Veterans AffairsMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Veterans Transition Advisory Council met in Toronto. I would like to thank the members of the council for their commitment and dedication to assisting veterans to connect with organizations that can benefit from their skills. Our government understands the importance and the challenges that veterans face in making successful transitions from military to civilian life. The Veterans Transition Advisory Council provides an important opportunity to work together with the private sector and corporate Canada so that we may support veterans and their families through this important phase in their lives.
We will continue to reach out and collaborate with veterans and stakeholders who share our goals of helping veterans transition to find meaningful secondary careers following their service.
Luc BaronetteMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, day in and day out, members of Parliament benefit from the hard work of many people who work for the House of Commons and the Senate. Constable Luc Baronette was one such person.
 Constable Baronette had worked on Parliament Hill since 2001, both in the security service and as a fire prevention officer. He was a well-known and well-liked individual. He was also known for his humour, his laughter and for his loyalty to friends and family.
This week, Constable Baronette passed away, succumbing to brain cancer at the very young age of 33. We mourn the loss of this very young man with a full life still ahead of him.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and my leader, I wish to extend our sympathies to all those who knew him and worked with him on Parliament Hill. In particular, we extend our thoughts and prayers to his wife Nicole, and Luc's young daughters, Adèle, age four, and Danika, who is just two years old. May they find comfort and peace in the difficult days and months ahead.
Sri LankaHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our government's principled stand on human rights, the rule of law and freedom of religion, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. I represented Canada.
Sri Lanka has gone through years of terrible civil war, culminating in the defeat of the terrorist Tamil Tigers. Since then, Canada has been calling on the Sri Lankan government to initiate steps toward reconciliation and accountability on human rights.
 My trips to Jaffna and Colombo unfortunately painted not only the lack of reconciliation, but an increasing disregard for Commonwealth principles. I met with key players of the Sri Lankan society, including the chief minister of Jaffna, all of whom reaffirmed this disturbing trend. Canada will continue to call upon the Sri Lankan government to uphold key Commonwealth principles.
While I was in the northern Jaffna peninsula, I laid a wreath at the Elephant Pass, on behalf of Canadians, in memory of all innocent Sri Lankans who were killed in the conflict.
EthicsMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there was not one political observer, regardless of his affiliation, who did not criticize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's sorry spectacle. That speaks volumes about the judgment of the Prime Minister, who chose this member as a parliamentary secretary. You know things are bad when you starting missing the member for Nepean—Carleton's antics.
The party in power is facing serious criminal allegations. People could go to prison, and he is clowning around. He is mocking the very idea of accountability and transparency. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister  is insulting the intelligence of his constituents, Canadians and his colleagues. This has become clear in the House. Members who have not yet sold their souls to the amateur wheeler-dealers in the Prime Minister's Office are not very comfortable with the idea of applauding their colleague.
I encourage my colleagues who still have some respect for the House, for our institution, to join me in telling the parliamentary secretary to stop his antics and answer the questions.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices make clear that:
 To ensure we maintain our independence, we do not pay for information from a source in a story. 
When CBC's The National aired a report about U.S. activities during the G8 and G20, neither Peter Mansbridge nor Greg Weston disclosed that they had paid their source, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is a Brazilian-based former porn industry executive, now assisting Edward Snowden to leak national security information.
CBC only admitted to its cash for news scheme after The Wall Street Journal forced it out. CBC is trying to justify the violation of its own ethical standards by claiming that Greenwald is a freelancer.
Greenwald has strong and controversial opinions about national security. Of course, that is his right. However, when CBC pays for news, we have to ask why furthering Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than maintaining the public broadcaster's journalistic integrity?

Oral Questions
EthicsMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister share with the Canadian public how much it will cost taxpayers to have three high-priced, Bay Street-linked law firms defending the PMO?
Why does the Prime Minister need experts in courtroom litigation? Is that where the Prime Minister expects to find himself soon?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, a clear answer is that the article the hon. member refers to is actually inaccurate. 
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, the week began with the PMO accusing itself of a cover-up and ended with Conservative senators blocking an investigation into whether Conservative senators tried to cover up an expense scandal involving yet other Conservative senators. No wonder the member has so much trouble explaining his government's actions.
Yesterday, Deloitte claimed there was no interference with their audit, so how did a PMO staffer know on March 21 what the audit said about Mike Duffy weeks before it was released?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as Deloitte said yesterday, quite correctly, that the utmost in confidentiality was maintained as this audit was undertaken.
I trust Deloitte. It has a fabulous reputation for the work it does, and as Deloitte said, full confidentiality was maintained at all times.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, PMO staffer Patrick Rogers sent an email on March 21 saying that the Deloitte audit will “...state that Duffy's lawyer did not provide information when requested. They were asked to complete the work by the end of March....”
How can the Conservatives claim the PMO did not know anything when a staffer was emailing about the contents of the audit in March?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the audit was actually undertaken by Deloitte and not by the Prime Minister's Office. Deloitte has maintained that the audit was done with the utmost in confidentiality, and Deloitte supports that audit.
Canadians can have full confidence that the work that was done with respect to the audit was done confidentially and is an appropriate report.
Based on that, of course, that is why this government and the Conservative senators moved to have these three senators expelled from the Senate without pay.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, how much is the Prime Minister's Office planning to spend to hire three expensive law firms to defend itself in the Senate affair?
Are the Conservatives hiring litigation experts with taxpayers' money because they expect they will soon have to defend themselves before the courts?
Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, the headline is completely inaccurate.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Deloitte claimed that there was no interference or collusion in its audit of Mr. Duffy's expenses.
If that is the case, why did one—
The Speaker: There is a translation problem.
It has been fixed, it is working now.
The hon. member for Saint-Lambert has the floor.
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Deloitte claimed that there was no interference or collusion in its audit of Mr. Duffy's expenses.
If this is the case, why did one of the staffers in the Prime Minister's Office know about the report's findings on March 21, several weeks before the report was released? 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, Deloitte was in front of the Senate committee just yesterday. From what I understand, the three auditors who undertook this audit on behalf of the Senate maintain that full confidentiality was maintained at all times and that Canadians could have, and should have, confidence in the work that they did.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the RCMP to investigate a serious infringement of the Parliament of Canada Act. 
The role played by Senator Gerstein and the Prime Minister's Office concerning the repayment of money to a senator contravenes this act. 
When, and not if, the RCMP begins its investigation, will the government finally stop protecting Senator Gerstein and remove him from his position as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, Senator Gerstein is not the subject of any investigation right now. The RCMP documents clearly outline that it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are being investigated by the RCMP for a number of infractions. As we have said constantly, we will continue to assist the RCMP as they move forward with this investigation. 
The Prime Minister, as I have said also on a number of occasions, went back to his office and to ensure that the Prime Minister's Office co-operates and assists with the RCMP in this investigation and will continue to do so. I think that is the standard that Canadians expect, and that is the standard that they will continue to see from our government. l
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary maintains that there are only two people under investigation, and he disputes how many law firms have been hired by the Conservatives to defend. 
My question for the Parliamentary Secretary is this: how many law firms have been hired, and which one is going to defend Senator Gerstein for his role in the cover-up in the PMO?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. On a daily basis, I am asked to get up in the House and I am asked a lot of questions. When I answer, on occasion the opposition gets all upset and some in the press get all upset with the way I answer questions. However, when there is a question like that, how can one answer a question like that, a question that is so completely disrespectful of this place? 
There are two options: I could answer it back just as disrespectfully, or I could do what I am about to do and ignore it. 
JusticeSean Casey: Mr. Speaker, there we have a model of respect for the institution. 
Under section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is an offence to offer or promise compensation to a senator “for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House”.
In light of this, could the Attorney General explain why he has not asked the RCMP to investigate the actions of Senator Gerstein and certain former PMO staffers, as I have? Why do I have to do his job for him, and what are they hiding over there?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, that is an odd question. The RCMP have been investigating this for a number of months. The RCMP have put in a number of documents, which have been referred to by the opposition on a number of occasions. Those same documents show that the RCMP is investigating Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy, Nigel Wright for repaying expenses that Senator Duffy accepted but did not incur. 
Those are the people who are under investigation at this time. The documents quite clearly indicate that, and they also indicate the RCMP has been at this for a bit. 
EthicsMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday testimony at the Senate confirmed that Irving Gerstein contacted Michael Runia about changing the Duffy audit, and then, yes, Michael Runia contacted the auditors, asking them to alter it. That makes Michael Runia perhaps the most important witness to the allegations of interference with the Duffy audit. 
What possible justification could the Conservatives have for blocking the attempt to have Michael Runia testify under oath what he knows about blocking the Duffy audit?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, of course, that is not what the senators heard yesterday in front of the committee. The senators heard from the three Deloitte auditors who confirmed that the audit was done with the utmost confidentiality, that no rules were broken, and that Canadians could have confidence in the work that they did. 
I can only assume that the Senate decided, after hearing that from the people who actually did the audit, that nothing further was required to confirm the veracity of what was done by Deloitte.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, Michael Runia contacted the Deloitte auditors, presumably to strong-arm them on behalf of the PMO into changing the Duffy audit. 
How can they claim that because of the so-called Chinese wall that Deloitte held, there is no harm, no foul, in attempting to interfere with the investigation into wrongdoing, the improper expense claims, and then the audit into them? How low have their ethics sunk if they do not see what is fundamentally wrong with picking up the phone and trying to interfere with the work of an independent auditor into investigation of Senate claims?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, he is referring to the Senate committee yesterday. The Senate brought Deloitte in front of it to ensure that there was no interference, that the work that it did was kept in the utmost confidentiality, and that Canadians and the Senate in particular could also have trust in the work that Deloitte did. 
Those three auditors went before the Senate yesterday. My understanding is that they confirmed that no information was given to anybody, that the work they did was done in full confidentiality, and, again, that the Senate could have confidence in the work that they did. I suspect that is why they decided that no further action was taken.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, does the government believe that Senator Irving Gerstein was wrong to try and change the findings of the Deloitte report on Mike Duffy's illegal expense claims, with internal help from Michael Runia?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, what is very important, first and foremost, is that the audit that was done was not compromised in any way. We heard yesterday from Deloitte that was in fact the case.
On Senator Gerstein, I know Senator Gerstein, as a number of us do. I know him to be a very hard-working senator, someone who takes his job very seriously. I am very proud to serve in caucus with Senator Gerstein, and I hope I do so for many years to come.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, talk about inconsistent
Senator Mike Duffy was thrown out of the Conservative caucus, yet there have been no consequences for his fellow senators who were complicit in this scheme to repay his illegal expense claims.
Why have Senators Gerstein and Stewart Olsen still not been disciplined? Why have they not accepted any responsibility whatsoever for their involvement in this scandal? 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau were removed from the Senate or suspended from the Senate without pay because they accepted expenses that they did not incur. As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions in this place, that is not a standard that we accept on this side of the House. That is why Senator Duffy was removed from the Conservative caucus and that is why the Senate then voted to have Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau suspended without pay from the Senate.
Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that he was informed on May 15 of the initial plan concerning the Conservative Party payment to Mike Duffy.
Why did he not bother to tell the House before Mike Duffy spoke about it in the Senate five months later, on October 28?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, he is quite correct that the Prime Minister did say on May 15 that he found out about this. The RCMP documents confirm that the Prime Minister did not know about this. The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that had he known, he would have put a stop to it. 
Nigel Wright himself stated quite clearly the people he brought into his confidence with respect to the fact that he was repaying Senator Duffy's expenses. I think that is all very clear in the documents that were deposited by the RCMP with respect to affidavits filed by Nigel Wright and, of course, the documents recently filed by the RCMP.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was informed of the Conservative Party cheque to Mike Duffy on May 15.
Despite all of the questions we asked him, the Prime Minister never bothered to tell the House.
We want to give them another chance at being transparent.
What other similar information that they may or may not have shared with the RCMP have the Conservatives decided to keep to themselves?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct the hon. member. The Conservative Party did not pay Mr. Duffy's expenses that he did not incur. As we know, it was Nigel Wright who repaid those expenses. I think that should have been clear by the number of questions that the opposition has asked on this. I just wanted to make sure that she was correct on that.
Of course, the Prime Minister's Office will continue to assist the RCMP in this investigation going forward.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, according to the RCMP, there is an email that clearly shows that the Prime Minister's lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, was involved in the deal between Duffy and Wright, but that email was deleted along with hundreds of others.
Who deleted those emails? Who gave the order to delete them? Does the RCMP have that information?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, there are Treasury Board guidelines that are in place which outline how emails are managed by employees when they leave offices. 
With respect to the amount of emails that were turned over, the RCMP, in its filing, quite clearly identified that thousands of emails were turned over. There were about 2,600 that were of interest to the RCMP and being reviewed as part of this investigation. The Prime Minister has said that he will continue to ensure that his office assists going forward.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians really need the truth about this issue. For weeks we have been getting farcical answers about lemonade stands and pizza delivery. I will ask a question and I hope I can get a straight answer.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister told the House that he first became aware of the Conservative Party's Mike Duffy payoff on May 15. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister not tell the House about the payoff until five months later when Mike Duffy brought it up in the Senate on October 28? 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, again, the question defies some form of logic because what the member suggested was that the Conservative Party paid off Senator Duffy's expenses and, of course, we did not. I think it is quite clear that it was Nigel Wright who paid off the expenses of Senator Duffy. We know that was not right. That is why the Prime Minister, as soon as he found out, ordered his office to assist the RCMP.
 Let us be clear. It is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are being investigated by the RCMP right now.
Democratic ReformMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is word today that several members of the Conservative caucus will be bringing forward legislation to limit the power of the Prime Minister's Office. These MPs are joining others with growing concern about the conduct of the Prime Minister's Office. A recent access to information disclosure has even revealed that there may have been inappropriate political interference with RCMP operations during emergency response. 
When will the Prime Minister start addressing these concerns and rein in his office?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been great to have been missed by my friends across the floor, but I am not sure it will last more than 30 seconds.
The Prime Minister is the most democratic in Canadian history. Let me state the facts.
This is the first prime minister to reinstate the practice of a mandatory vote in Parliament before committing our troops into harms way. The Prime Minister is the first ever to have created a parliamentary process so members of Parliament, including opposition, can vet Supreme Court appointments. We have had more private members' bills passed than any government in the last 40 years. The Globe and Mail did a study and found that of all the votes that happened on the floor of the House of Commons, Conservative members were far more likely to vote independently from their party.
EthicsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in its cover-up scheme, the fraud squad in the PMO tried to corrupt a forensic audit that Deloitte was conducting on Mike Duffy: Wright instructed Rogers; Rogers enlisted Gerstein; Gerstein pressured Runia, the senior partner in a venerable firm. 
Runia should have told Gerstein to get stuffed, but instead he meddled with auditors actually doing the work and attempted to breach the ethical walls. 
Does the Prime Minister want to know how this corruption came about on his watch? Why does he not?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, what Deloitte said yesterday in front of the Senate was that its audit was in no way compromised at all, that the utmost in confidentiality was maintained and that the Senate could have confidence in the work that Deloitte had done. That is actually what Deloitte said.
Now, the hon. member can say whatever he wants and cast all kinds of aspersions on all kinds of people, but the facts are that Deloitte maintained confidentiality and the Canadian people and the Senate, more important, can also be confident in the work it did.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in an email on March 8, Patrick Rogers in the PMO wrote this about Senator Gerstein, “The stage we're at now is waiting for the Senator's Contact”, that would be Mike Runia, “to get the actual Deloitte auditor on the file to agree. The Senator will call back once we have Deloitte locked in”. That is attempted tampering.
Before Mr. Runia has to face the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario on a professional complaint, will the Prime Minister give him the chance to testify to this Parliament under oath?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Prime Minister to decide; it is up to committees to make that decision.
 I note that yesterday the Senate brought forward the three Deloitte auditors who participated in and undertook the audit. The auditors said that their work was done with the utmost and strictest confidentiality and that all the rules were followed. Upon hearing that, I suspect that is why the senators decided that no additional witnesses were required.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, corruption in the PMO is destroying a great many people. Former business leaders like Wright and Gerstein, lawyers like Perrin, Hamilton and others, now auditors like Runia, are all bending to the will of one man, the Prime Minister, who demands cult-like obedience.
The fraud squad in the PMO drank the Kool-Aid, it broke every rule in the book and the police are closing in. Will the Prime Minister show some respect for the office he holds and allow Runia and Gerstein to testify to this Parliament under oath?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, there is another question from the opposition that brings the value of this Parliament down. I am sure the members opposite will complain about my answer. I know the good people in the press gallery will get all upset with me because I refuse to answer such a ridiculous question.
National DefenceRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is avoiding answering questions about spying on Canadian soil during the G20 summit, which only raises more concerns.
We know that Communications Security Establishment Canada cannot legally spy on Canadians. We also know that it cannot ask its partners to violate Canadian laws.
The question that the Conservatives refuse to answer is simple. Did they allow the United States to conduct surveillance operations in Canada, yes or no?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we cannot comment on specific foreign intelligence activities or capabilities. However, what I can say is that all of this organization's activities, as was already alluded to by the member, are reviewed by an independent watchdog, the Commissioner of Communications Security Establishment, who has access to all the documents related to the operations of this agency and also its personnel. For 16 years, the commissioner has reported that CSEC continues to act lawfully and conduct all of its current activities under the law.
This organization is prohibited from targeting Canadians at home and abroad. Furthermore, CSEC cannot ask our international partners to act in any way that circumvents Canadian law.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is ducking the most obvious and important question here. The issue is whether Canadian intelligence agencies, or anyone in the government, authorized or assisted the United States National Security Agency to spy on Canadian soil during the G8 and G20.
It is pretty simple. The question is this. Did the government allow a foreign agency to spy within Canada's borders? We need an intelligent answer on intelligence. Could it provide us that at least?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, under the law, this organization is prohibited from targeting Canadians. All of this organization's activities are reviewed by the independent watchdog, the Commissioner for CSEC, who has access to all the documents and who, for 16 years now, has reported that it is operating underneath all Canadian laws. CSEC cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.
International TradeMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, trans-Pacific partnership negotiations are ongoing, but the intellectual property chapter has recently been leaked to the public. We now know that countries, including the U.S., Australia and Japan, are pushing aggressively for measures that would restrict open access to the Internet and raise the price of prescription medicines in Canada.
Canadians deserve to know what their government is putting on the table on their behalf. Could the minister update us on the government's position on these important TPP issues?
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is at the table to show that we are a trading nation. We did that in opening up a 500 million person market with the Canada-Europe trade deal. We are at the table with the trans-Pacific partnership talks where a potential market of 800 million consumers will be to create jobs and economic opportunity in Canada. All important sectors, including intellectual property principles, are part of our strategic negotiations. As the Prime Minister and minister have said, Canada will only make a deal if it is in our national interest.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, in the United States, lawmakers of both parties are being allowed to read the actual TPP negotiating text. However, in Canada, parliamentarians have to rely on WikiLeaks for information. Accountability and transparency are not just words; they are essential, and Canadians have a right to know what Conservatives are putting on the table on their behalf.
The U.S. government is allowing the legislators from Congress to see the TPP text. Why will Conservatives not do the same in Canada?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the trade committee for his participation in our discussions in Halifax this week, talking about job creation and the billions of dollars that the Canada-Europe deal will bring for Canadians. 
It is inappropriate to comment on leaked documents, much like the collective bargaining process that my friends from the other side will understand. A lot of these discussions are taken in secret, but I have to reiterate, we are there to build opportunity for Canadian job creators. We are there to sell our goods and services to a growing market in Canada and we will make a deal that is a winner for Canada.
Foreign AffairsMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, our government and our High Commissioner in London, Gordon Campbell, announced an exciting plan to consolidate Canada's diplomatic presence in London by revitalizing and renovating historic Canada House in the heart of London, Trafalgar Square.
At the same time, in order to finance this revitalization, we announced a plan to sell the Macdonald House at Grosvenor Square and move all of Canada's team in London to Canada House.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on this development?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are very excited. We have been in Macdonald House for only 50 years. Canada House has been sitting vacant, by and large, since we left more than 50 years ago. We have an exciting plan to revitalize Canada House in Trafalgar Square to make it the face of Canada in one of the most exciting places in the world. 
Through the leadership of Gordon Campbell, our High Commissioner, we have obtained more than half a billion dollars for this property. We have bought another building right beside Canada House and we will be able to integrate the two, get the entire Canadian team working together. It is a good deal for taxpayers and a great face in Trafalgar Square for Canada.
Intergovernmental RelationsMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week we learned about the lavish lifestyle led by the president of Tourism Montreal and a former Liberal minister, Charles Lapointe. Limousines, an outrageous severance package and inflated salaries: nothing was too good for Mr. Lapointe.
Ottawa provides funding to Tourism Montreal every year.
Will the federal government hold Tourism Montreal accountable for this mismanagement by a notable Liberal?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we support this organization's marketing efforts abroad in order to attract international tourists to Canada, as we do for many other organizations. 
However, we do not finance the organization's operating costs or salaries.
Economic development is a top priority here on this side of the House. We take the management of public funds very seriously, and we will be watching this issue closely.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, $2 million in federal subsidies go to Tourism Montreal. 
This matter must be taken seriously. Mismanagement problems are increasing in organizations under federal responsibility. Today it is Tourism Montreal, but a few months ago, it was the Old Port.
Instead of simply reacting after each problem occurs, what measures will the Conservatives bring in to prevent such problems?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we support this organization's marketing efforts abroad to attract tourists to Canada.
However, we do not finance the organization's operating costs or salaries, and we will be watching this issue closely.
Quebec BridgeMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like the people of the greater Montreal area, the people of Quebec City have concerns about their bridge.
The last report was published in 2008. It indicated that this national historic infrastructure was deteriorating at an accelerated pace. Nevertheless, Transport Canada refuses to answer any questions about this.
What is the government doing to ensure that CN does its part and that the bridge is properly maintained to keep the people who use it safe?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Quebec Bridge does not belong to the Government of Canada.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe it.
Are the Conservatives going to wait until they are in same situation that Montreal is in with the Champlain Bridge before they start taking this seriously? Using the dispute over paint with CN as an excuse to refuse to answer questions is not a good attitude. The Minister of Transport has to reassure the people of Quebec City.
Does the minister have any documents on the state of the Quebec Bridge that are more recent than the 2008 Delcan report? If so, when will she share those with the rest of us?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Quebec Bridge does not belong to the Government of Canada.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the AFN national chief has rejected the government's education proposal and highlighted the absolute need for a funding guarantee for first nations children.
However, the government has refused to talk about it. Shockingly, the PMO memo in the RCMP Duffy-Wright scandal complained about investing heavily in aboriginal education, saying it contradicted the government's messaging.
I ask the minister to do the right thing today and commit to equitable funding for children of first nations.
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, she is obviously dreaming in colour and believing her own dreams.
The fact of the matter is that the Government of Canada funds elementary and secondary education on reserve and has been doing so for years under a policy framework. Now we are proposing that this be statutory based, that there be a statute casting an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada, on the minister, to pay those costs to first nations, which will have control over their education systems.
I hope that we can continue our dialogue with first nations and move forward on this file positively.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is failing farmers.
The Auditor General's report says over one-third of farmers are forced to wait for months to receive their disaster assistance. This money helps farmers get back on their feet and back to business quickly after they are hit by drought, disease or other unforseeable events.
The Auditor General directly contradicts the government's boasting about supporting farmers. Is it the government's position that the Auditor General is lying?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since the implementation of the agrirecovery program by the government, producers know that when a disaster strikes, we will be there for them.
Agrirecovery is jointly administered by both the federal government and the provinces, and requires agreement by all levels of government to respond to disasters in a timely fashion.
The member should recognize that two-thirds of producers surveyed by the Auditor General said that agrirecovery was delivered in a timely fashion. Under growing forward 2, the agrirecovery program continues to be an effective tool to help farmers during times of unforeseen market volatility or natural disaster.
VeteransSylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, too many of our valiant veterans have to fight for the benefits and the services they are entitled to.
The Conservatives have closed nine regional offices and slashed hundreds of thousands of dollars from Veterans Affairs' budget, thus forcing veterans to use online services instead of being given the personal help they deserve.
How can the Conservatives be so indifferent towards our veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, our government has made substantial investments to support Canada's veterans, including almost $5 billion in new additional dollars since taking office.
This funding has been put towards improved financial benefits, world-class rehabilitation and tuition costs to help veterans transition to civilian life. While our government is making improvements to veterans' benefits, the Liberals and the NDP voted against this new funding for mental health treatment, financial support and home care services.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to tell Kim and Blair Davis of Lawrencetown, Nova Scotia that, because they have sent us all a very disturbing email about what is going on in the Veterans Affairs office in Halifax.
For weeks and weeks, they have tried to get assistance but to no avail. Mr. Davis is in a very precarious situation. His wife Kim is very worried about her husband. In fact, she even fears going back to work when she does not know the state of mind he may be in.
The parliamentary secretary is fully aware of this file. Can he please advise the House exactly what the government is going to do to assist this family and this hero of our country to immediately get the help he needs?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for bringing this issue to my attention. Veterans Affairs officials were immediately directed to undertake a review of the circumstances. I can assure the House that, today, directions have been given to the Veterans Affairs officials to reach out to the veteran and his family. 
We will continue to ensure that veterans have the programs and services that they need, even if the member opposite and his party continue to vote against every measure.
Sealing IndustryMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some confusion in the Liberal ranks. This week, the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte wrote in a Newfoundland newspaper that he does not believe Ottawa should appeal the World Trade Organization's decision to uphold the seal ban. Apparently, he did not consult with the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, who earlier this week said the Liberals would in fact support the government initiative.
It is disappointing that a member from a province where the sealing industry is so vital would suggest that our government not take action. Could the minister please update the House on the government's intention to appeal the WTO decision?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the WTO decision was not based on scientific evidence, rather on what the WTO calls “moral grounds”. This sets a dangerous precedent and essentially sets up one culture to be morally superior to another. This in unacceptable.
The Liberal member's attitude of “just because we are not guaranteed success, we will not try” is appalling. On this side of the House, we will continue to stand with aboriginals and Canadian coastal communities to defend their traditional practices and livelihoods.
The Liberals will not hold the WTO to account, but northerners and Canadian sealers can be assured that—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
International DevelopmentMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, World AIDS Day is at hand and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is holding its replenishment conference on Tuesday to continue the fight against these dangerous infectious diseases. 
The United States has promised to contribute $1.6 billion to the Global Fund, and Great Britain has doubled its contribution. Our government, however, has remained silent.
The lives of the most vulnerable around the world are at stake. Will the government commit today to increasing its contribution to the Global Fund?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, indeed, the refunding conference is taking place in Washington on Monday and Tuesday, and Canada will have a representative there. It is a little bit like Christmas, though; we have to wait until the day comes before we make that announcement.
While I have the floor, I would like to take a moment to thank Canadians for the incredible generosity that they have given to the Typhoon Haiyan relief fund. That matching fund has been extended by our Conservative government until December 23. I urge Canadians to continue to generously contribute.
TaxationMr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at a time when its public service cuts are forcing more and more Canadians to rely on charitable organizations, the government continues to refuse to acknowledge the importance of this sector to our economy. Charities account for more than 7% of our GDP, generate more than $100 billion in economic activity every year and create thousands of jobs.
Will the government commit to making it easier for the charitable sector to access assistance for businesses?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is alluding to the charities and we should be clear that the rules regarding charities and political activities are long-standing. Our Conservative government has always supported charities and their ability to exist within the tax rules in Canada.
Economic action plan 2012 provided the CRA with additional tools and resources to increase transparency in the charitable sector.
MulticulturalismMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we enter the Christmas season, I hear a lot about political correctness and wishing someone merry Christmas. There are those who will say, “do not say merry Christmas; say happy holidays”. 
Political correctness is deluding Christmas in a well-intentioned but unnecessary attempt to be inclusive. After all, we deck the halls of Parliament with Christmas trees, not holiday trees.
As we spread holiday cheer this Christmas season, I ask the Minister of State for Multiculturalism if he considers it an offence to wish someone merry Christmas during the holiday season?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a non-Christian myself, I do not find this offensive at all. 
Canada has a long tradition of pluralism and it is truly wonderful that people of all faiths are able to practice and celebrate their traditions openly in Canada.
During this season of Hanukkah, we wish our Jewish friends, Chag Hanukkah Sameach.
During Vaisakhi, we wish Sikhs, Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh Vadhaiyan.
True diversity means respecting the traditions of all Canadians, including those of Christian Canadians. I ask all members during this Christmas season to wish our Christian friends a very merry Christmas.
International TradeMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's milk and cheese producers protested yesterday. They are demanding that the federal government deliver on its promise to compensate them for the huge losses they will incur as a result of the European free trade agreement.
Under this agreement, 17,770 additional tonnes of European cheese will be imported. As the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec said, “The concession represents more than the total production in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, which is huge”.
When will Quebec's cheese producers be compensated?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, the Dairy Farmers of Canada appeared before our trade committee. With a riding with dairy farmers, I have been talking about the opportunity CETA holds to open up the entire cheese market of 500 million Europeans to our cheese manufacturers. 
With cheese growing at 6,000 tonnes per year, the phase-in of this agreement means that it will likely have no impact on production levels for our top level dairy farms in Quebec and Ontario. It will be a win for all sectors, a win for Canada.
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, cheese producers are still waiting for compensation, but exactly one month ago, the federal government gave $280 million in compensation to Newfoundland fishermen, who were also affected by the free trade agreement.
Why is it so easy to find millions of dollars for Newfoundland, but not so easy to find money for Quebec's cheese producers?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about fishermen. Our trade committee was just in Halifax this week, where we talked about the tremendous opportunity the European deal has for the seafood industry in all of Atlantic Canada. In fact, lobster has a tariff rate of 8% for fresh lobster, but in the 20% range for processed seafood.
This will be a win, not only for the fishers on our oceans, but the processing industries in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will be huge winners when these tariff walls come down.
Government AccountabilityBrent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, last spring the Auditor General showed that the government was unable to account for some $3.1 billion allocated to combat terrorism.
Then the AG stated that the opaqueness of the entire system was making the tracking of the money virtually impossible. However, after six months, it appears that the Treasury Board now believes that it can account for all of the money. Some of it was improperly tagged or labelled in wrong envelopes. Some of it had apparently lapsed or was not spent and was returned to the general revenue fund.
My question for the President of the Treasury Board is this. What has the government, elected on a promise of accountability, done to promote transparency and to prevent such accounting debacles in the future?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the money the hon. member is speaking of was money that was allocated between 2001 and 2009 and was dedicated to combatting terrorism and making sure that Canadians were safe from terrorism, so it was money well spent. 
He is absolutely correct, the Treasury Board did undertake a process to reconcile all of the money that was spent, $12.9 billion over that nine year period, and to ensure that this was accounted for. In fact, it was accounted for.
In terms of his question, I would only say that we now have online budget accounts, by department, by program, available to parliamentarians and available to citizens.
Points of OrderHon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to table a document with respect to the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative, consequent to an item that came up in yesterday's question period.
The Speaker: Can I ask the hon. minister if the document he wishes to table is in both official languages?
[Interjection]
Jason Kenney: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 30 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to the study of supplementary estimates (B) 2013-14.
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent for the following motions.
First:
 That, in relation to its study of care of ill and injured Canadian Armed Forces members, twelve members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Petawawa, Ontario, in the Fall-Winter of 2013, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 
(Motion agreed to)
John Duncan: Second:
 That, in relation to its studies on the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Benefits for Canada of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), twelve members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, in the Winter of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I table a petition from the residents of Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Tofield, Alberta. The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that many out-of-work tradespeople currently have to finance their own travel and accommodation if they have to move to another region to obtain a job, which is, of course, what the government is trying to encourage.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to support private member's Bill C-201, tabled by the member for Hamilton Mountain, which would allow tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they could secure and maintain employment at construction sites more than 80 kilometres from their homes.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I table today a petition from many residents in Winnipeg North who are calling upon the government to recognize the importance of our old age pension. 
In particular, the petitioners say that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65 and that the government should not, in any way, diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major seniors' programs: OAS, GIS, and CPP.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is signed by dozens of citizens from my riding concerning genetically modified alfalfa.
The petitioners note that contamination from genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-201 regarding the right of tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income.
I have many friends in the building trades who I know would support this petition, and I really urge the government to take it seriously.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of Quebeckers who are calling for the creation of an extractive sector ombudsman.
While much of Canada's extractive sector demonstrates exemplary corporate citizenship, the international activities of certain Canadian companies are deeply troubling from a human rights perspective.
The ombudsman called for by this petition would help ensure the corporate accountability of Canada's extractive industry at home and abroad.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5, 6, 12, 21, 29, 42, 44 and 60.
Paul Dewar:  With regard to residency questionnaires for citizenship applications: (a) what is the total number of questionnaires sent out by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for each of the last five years; (b) what is the total number of questionnaires sent to citizenship applicants living in the riding of Ottawa Centre for each of the last five years; (c) what is the total number of questionnaires sent out by province for each of the last five years; (d) if the use of questionnaires has increased, what is the rationale; and (e) what are the names of all documents describing the criteria of assessment used to determine whether a residency questionnaire will be administered to an applicant?
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), prior to May 2012, the issuance of residency questionnaires, RQs, was not systematically tracked by the department; therefore, data are unavailable for the last five years. 
With regard to (b), Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, does not compile statistics by constituency and therefore cannot identify the total number of RQs sent to citizenship applicants living in the riding of Ottawa Centre. 
With regard to (c), prior to May 2012, the issuance of RQs was not systematically tracked by the department; therefore, data are unavailable for the last five 5 years. 
With regard to (d), prior to May 2012, the issuance of RQs was not systematically tracked by the department. In May 2012, CIC introduced a new version of the RQ. The RQ is issued in cases where additional information and documents are needed in order to assist in determining whether or not an applicant meets the residence requirement for citizenship. The RQ is not a new feature of the citizenship application process. It has been used in one form or another for several decades. CIC takes the issue of fraud in the immigration and citizenship programs very seriously. Our intent is to apply the full strength of Canadian law, and where evidence permits, to strip permanent resident status or citizenship, seek removal, and/or refer the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, for a criminal investigation. It is a much simpler process to be able to prevent those who are involved in residence fraud from becoming citizens in the first place than to try to revoke citizenship after they have already acquired it. 
With regard to (e), the RQ is issued at various stages of the processing of applications in cases in which additional information and documents are needed in order to assist in determining whether an applicant meets the residence requirement for citizenship. The tools used to decide whether an RQ is issued are investigative tools, and as such cannot be released by CIC. 
Paul Dewar:  With regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa: (a) is the property designated as surplus; (b) if so, is the property designated as surplus strategic or surplus routine; (c) does PWGSC intend to dispose of the property; (d) if so, what is the planned timeframe for the disposal of the property; (e) how is the green space at the property currently being used; (f) what are the reasons for restricting public access to the green space at the property?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the property owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, at 250 Lanark Avenue in Ottawa, with regard to (a), yes, the property is designated as surplus. 
With regard to (b), the property is designated as surplus strategic. 
With regard to (c), yes, PWGSC intends to sell the property. 
With regard to (d), PWGSC plans to sell 250 Lanark Avenue to Canada Lands Company in 2014 for strategic disposal. 
With regard to (e), although the federal occupants of the site do not actively use the green space at 250 Lanark Avenue, the green space is managed as grounds associated with an occupied office building. 
With regard to (f), public access to the green space remains restricted, as the grounds are associated with an office building that continues to be used for office accommodation. Furthermore, as the department continues to move towards the disposal of the property, PWGSC does not wish to further encumber the property and impact the disposal negotiations with Canada Lands Company. 
Sean Casey:  Regarding the measures “totaling two billion dollars” contained in the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, tabled by the government in November 2010: (a) over what time frame is this money to be spent; and (b) how much of the $2 billion has already been spent?
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the enhancements to the new veterans charter, in regard to (a), the $2 billion is the accrual cost estimate of the additional amount that will be paid to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans because the approved program changes over the life of the program--i.e., it is defined as the period up until the last eligible program recipient dies. 
In regard to (b),it is not possible to calculate how much of the $2 billion has already been spent because a portion of the $2 billion liability is paid down each year as benefits and services are paid to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. Because the funding announced in November 2010 was incremental funding for previously established programs, it is not possible to identify separately how much of the $2 billion has already been spent. 
Confirmation can be provided as of August 31, 2013 that 2,717 veterans now have access to increased monthly financial compensation through the earnings loss benefit, 590 veterans have increased access to the Permanent Incapacity Allowance, and 202 veterans have access to Exceptional Incapacity Allowance. 
Ms. Laurin Liu:  With regard to the Indirect Costs Program: (a) what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005; and (b) in the case of McGill University and l'Université Laval, what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with regard to the indirect costs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council does not require universities to differentiate between indirect and direct costs when reporting expenditures to Industry Canada. 
Mr. Peter Julian:  With regard to the 267,000 cubic meters of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes that are stored above ground in concrete containers at the Chalk River Laboratories: (a) what is the long-term plan for the containment and safe storage of these wastes; (b) how has the safety of these containers been demonstrated and what is their design life; (c) how has their long term performance been (i) evaluated, (ii) verified; (d) is there an update on the proposed deep geological repository at the Chalk River property and what is (i) the project description, (ii) the project scope; (e) how much will the deep geological repository cost; (f) how has the long term performance been evaluated for the proposed deep geological repository; (g) has a post-closure safety assessment been done; (h) what has been the process for public participation in this project’s development to date; (i) what are the future plans for public participation; and (j) what is the peer review process for this proposed deep geological repository? 
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, CRL, is safely and securely stored and managed in a number of above-ground and in-ground waste management structures and areas at the site. Several options are being considered for the long-term management of these wastes. The range of options being considered includes surface, near-surface, and deep geologic facilities. The investigations are currently in the option assessment stage. Feasibility studies are under way or planned to inform decision-making on the types of long-term waste management facilities required to safely manage these wastes over the long term. 
With regard to (b), all low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at CRL, including that stored in above ground concrete structures, is maintained in a safe and secure condition, as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, licence conditions. The integrity of this storage is verified on an ongoing basis through appropriate monitoring of the containment and the surrounding environment. This waste will be maintained in secure storage until permanent disposal facilities are available. The design life for the above-ground concrete storage structures, commonly referred to as shielded modular above-ground storage, or SMAGS, is 50 years. 
With regard to (c), long-term performance is evaluated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, via monitoring to confirm that the wastes continue to be stored safely, and the results are reported to the CNSC. The first Canadian SMAGS was constructed in 1982 by Ontario Hydro on the Bruce nuclear site and has been in service, without issue, since that time. AECL has two such facilities in service at CRL, as well as an earlier-generation facility with less shielding, which is for low-level radioactive waste only. 
With regard to (d), a number of long-term management options are being considered for AECL’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, including the possibility of a deep geologic facility. AECL is currently conducting a site suitability assessment of the CRL site for a deep geologic facility for its intermediate-level radioactive waste. The study is part of AECL’s efforts to define the infrastructure required for the long-term management of radioactive waste at CRL. The site suitability assessment is not yet complete and, as such, neither a project description nor a project scope has been developed. 
With regard to (e), the cost assessments completed to date have been high-level estimates for possible deep geologic facility concepts and are not sufficiently developed for public release. The high-level estimates are, however, in line with estimates for other similar proposed facilities. 
With regard to (f), a long-term performance assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a long-term performance assessment has not yet been completed. Such an assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility. 
With regard to (g), a post closure safety assessment would be part of a formal plan. As there is no decision to proceed with a deep geologic facility, a post-closure safety assessment has not yet been completed. This assessment would be an integral part of the safety case that would be required to license such a facility. 
With regard to (h), public awareness of the feasibility study has been promoted through interaction with the local environmental stewardship council for CRL and presentation of results at conferences. 
With regard to (i), should the site suitability study indicate that a deep geologic facility would be feasible for the Chalk River site, directed public consultations would proceed on the options for managing Chalk River’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste over the long term. This would include the possibility of a deep geologic repository. The process would involve the local community, aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and the broader public. If a decision was made to proceed with a deep geologic facility, an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, would be required, providing further opportunities for public involvement. 
With regard to (j), as no decision has been made on whether to proceed with a deep geologic facility, no peer review process is in place. It would be important to include a peer review process if the project moves ahead. 
Mr. Scott Simms:  With respect to interactions between the government and any citizens or residents of Canada, what interactions have taken place since January 1, 2010, broken down by (a) government department; (b) number of interactions by type per month; (c) minimum time between initial request and closure of the file; (d) maximum time between initial request and closure of the file; (e) average time between initial request and closure of the file; (f) number of the interactions that were satisfactorily resolved; (g) number of interactions that were closed without being resolved; (h) number of interactions that remain open and unresolved; and (i) what policy or policies govern these interactions? 
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in order to produce information on all interactions with citizens and residents of Canada to the level of detail requested, organizations would be required to manually verify each and every file they maintain. Organizations do not necessarily maintain records on interactions employees may have had with citizens or residents of Canada. For these reasons, as well as because of the extraordinary volume involved, it is not possible to produce the information requested.
Ms. Judy Foote: With regard to search and rescue and Canadian Coast Guard ships (CCGS) in Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (a) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo, N.L., (i) if so, how many new lifeboats will be allocated to each town, (ii) is the replacement of lifeboats in Burin and Burgeo part of the $488 million announcement by the Honourable Peter Mackay, P.C., M.P. on June 26, 2013, (iii) was the announcement scheduled to take place prior to the date referred to in (ii) at any time, (iv) what was the reason for changing the day of the announcement, (v) when will the boats be delivered, (vi) are there any delays in the delivery of the boats, (vii) if so, why are there delays in the delivery of the boats, (viii) does the government plan to replace or provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin—St. George’s, (ix) if so, which communities will have their lifeboats replaced or be provided with additional lifeboats, (x) when will the announcements for other communities take place, (xi) when will the lifeboats in these communities be delivered; and (b) what is the reason for placing the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell on lay-up, (i) has the government consulted stakeholders on the impact to search and rescue of this measure, (ii) if so, which stakeholders were consulted, (iii) what were the positions of each stakeholder group on this measure, (iv) how many hours will it take for the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell to return to operational status in the event of an emergency, (v) does the government intend to decommission the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vi) has there been any discussion about decommissioning the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell, (vii) what tasks did the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell perform, (viii) what is the government’s plan to replace this performance, (ix) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to an oil spill while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up, (x) which vessels will be equipped to immediately respond to major oil installation fires or fires on coastal and transatlantic vessels operating in water adjacent to the coast of N.L. while the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is in lay-up?
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), yes, the government is planning to replace the existing search and rescue lifeboats in Burin, NL, and Burgeo, NL. Each will be replaced by a newly built search and rescue lifeboat of a more modern design. 
With regard to (a)(i), one search and rescue lifeboat is planned for each location.
 With regard to (a)(ii), yes, the replacement of the Burin and Burgeo search and rescue lifeboats will be financed as part of the $488 million announced by Minister MacKay. 
With regard to (a)(iii), the answer is no. In spring 2013 different scenarios and dates were contemplated, and the Mari-Tech 2013 Conference was chosen as the optimum time and place. 
With regard to (a)(iv), question (a)(iv) is not applicable. 
With regard to (a)(v), delivery of the vessels is forecast from 2015 through 2018. However, this preliminary forecast will be updated through consultations and contracting with industry. 
With regard to (a)(vi), no, there are no delays in the delivery of the vessels. 
With regard to (a)(vii), question (a)(vii) is not applicable. 
With regard to (a)(viii), no, there is no plan to provide additional search and rescue lifeboats in other communities in Random—Burin--St. George’s. 
With regard to (a)(ix), (a)(x), and (a)(xi), the questions are not applicable. 
With regard to (b), the department realigned resources with current fishing efforts and compliance rates, which reduced the overall requirement for CCG ship time. Two new vessels, CCGS G. Peddle S.C. and CCGS Corporal McLaren M.M.V., will conduct six months of midshore fisheries patrol. Other vessels will be assigned to deliver Coast Guard programs. 
With regard to (b)(i), there is no impact to search and rescue. All CCG vessels are search and rescue vessels, and will be assigned tasks according to program needs. 
With regard to (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), the questions are not applicable. 
With regard to (b)(iv), it will take approximately three weeks to reactivate the vessel. 
With regard to (b)(v), the vessel is in cold lay-up and may be reactivated to cover off duties of other vessels as they are taken out of service for extended periods of time. 
With regard to (b)(vi), no decision has been made at this time.
 With regard to (b)(vii), the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell is a patrol vessel that is used to carry out various Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries and Oceans programs. 
With regard to (b)(viii), other vessels will be assigned to carry out Coast Guard Services, such as the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, the CCGS Cygnus, or the CCGS Earl Grey. 
With regard to (b)(ix), all Coast Guard vessels can respond to oil spills. CCGS Ann Harvey and CCGS George R. Pearkes have capacity similar to CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell. 
With regard to (b)(x), firefighting is not part of the Coast Guard’s mandate. 
Mr. Ryan Cleary:  With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area: (a) has the government been informed of any penalties or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries; (b) has the government inquired about any penalties of fines imposed by vessels' home countries; and (c) were the fines or penalties paid by the vessels that were fined? 
Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 2007 citations issued by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, inspectors to vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada has in some cases been informed of penalties and/or fines imposed by the vessels’ home countries. In other instances, the cases are currently pending or under investigation or have been closed. 
With regard to (b), no formal inquiries were made, as this information is reported to NAFO members on an annual basis. 
With regard to (c), when fines or penalties were imposed after conviction, information related to whether they were paid or not was not made available to NAFO members until subsequent years. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Questions Nos. 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37 and 43 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault:  With regard to the importation of consumer electronic products and devices, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-2007: (a) what is the total value of consumer electronic devices and other products imported into Canada under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00; and (b) how much was paid in tariffs for the importation into Canada of consumer electronic devices and other products under tariff codes (i) 8519.81.29, (ii) 8521.90.90, (iii) 9948.00.00?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) how many words were translated from French to English and from English to French for the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013; and (b) what was the Bureau’s baseline budget, how many permanent, term and contract employees did it have, and what amount did the various federal institutions allocate for translation in the years (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011, (iv) 2012, (v) 2013?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Geoff Regan: )With regard to the government's September 2007 announcement of a “one-time, tax-free, ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick during the summers of 1966 and 1967”: (a) how much money was budgeted for these payments; (b) how many payments were issued; (c) how much of the money budgeted was not paid out in ex gratia payments; and (d) what was done with the money that was not paid out?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Élaine Michaud:  With regard to the Translation Bureau: (a) what was the total number of translator, interpreter and editor positions at the Bureau, per year, since 2005-2006; (b) what is the Bureau's total number of client institutions; (c) what was the total number of client institutions, per year, since 2005-2006; and (d) what is the total amount invoiced to these institutions for (i) translation or editing services, (ii) interpretation services?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Peter Stoffer:  With regard to Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans who have exhausted all their redress options at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) and pursue their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the decision: (a) how many veterans pursued their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (b) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, including all costs associated with the work of the Department of Justice, for judicial reviews of VRAB decisions from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (c) what is the average cost to the Crown and government for a judicial review case, including a breakdown of average costs including salaries, court transcription services, courier fees, witnesses, and other items; (d) what was the cost for each judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; and (e) what is the average amount of time it takes for a judicial review decision from start to finish?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:  With regard to the Department of National Defence: between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012, how many investigations were initiated by the National Investigation Service (NIS), which the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff (VCDS) ordered, directed, requested, enjoined, required, instructed, commanded charged, told or requisitioned the Provost Marshal or the Commanding Officer of the NIS to (i) conduct such an investigation and (ii) to report back or keep the Office of the CDS or the VCDS generally appraised of the conduct or outcome of the said investigation, and for each investigation, what was the date the NIS investigation was initiated, the rank of the Canadian Forces member being investigated, the general nature of the investigation and the date upon which the NIS investigation was concluded? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Massimo Pacetti:  With regard to Canadian Forces (CF) health issues: (a) how many CF members reported suffering from symptoms of Lyme disease for each of 2006-2012 inclusive; and (b) for each reported case, what is (i) the date of the suspected occurrence, (ii) the location of each occurrence, (iii) the rank of the injured CF member, (iv) whether the member was treated and returned to full duty?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Peter Julian:  With regard to the 23,000 liters of highly enriched uranium (HEU) waste that will be transported from Chalk River to the United States: (a) will the government subject this plan to outside scrutiny to discuss the environmental and safety concerns; (b) how much highly enriched uranium waste is currently being stored at Chalk River; (c) how has the safety of the HEU waste been evaluated, including current and proposed waste management approaches; (d) what are the containers and transportation aspects; and (e) what is the government’s plan for the remainder of this HEU and the waste in the future? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Peter Julian:  With regard to the government’s pledge to end the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce medical isotopes by 2016: (a) what is the progress of producing medical isotopes without HEU; (b) what is the cost and plan for decommissioning the National Research University reactor at Chalk River and what is the management plan for decommissioning wastes; (c) how much money will the government save through the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL); (d) does the government have a plan if it does not meet its 2016 pledge to stop using HEU to produce medical isotopes; (e) how will the government handle cost runs related to the short, medium and long term management of nuclear wastes?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Judy Foote:  With regard to the closure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) library in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (a) what are the anticipated costs, both (i) broken down by individual expense, (ii) in total, of closing the library; (b) does the space that housed the library belong to the government, (i) if so, what are the plans for the space, (ii) if not, how long does the government plan to continue to rent the space and for what purpose; (c) how many total items were housed in the library, and of these (i) how many are digitized, (ii) how many are not digitized, (iii) how many will be transferred to the DFO library in Nova Scotia, (iv) how many will be given away, (v) how many are going to be destroyed; (d) what criteria were used in selecting which DFO libraries to close; (e) was there a consultation period preceding the decision to close, and if so, what were the results of the consultation; (f) how many people were employed at the library in each calendar year from fiscal year 2005 until the present, broken down by (i) part-time workers, (ii) full-time workers, (iii) contract workers; (g) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the library closure; (h) will employees be given the option to relocate to the Nova Scotia library; (i) what is the plan to ensure that all resources, physical and digital, remain available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, (i) how much does the government expect this process to cost, (ii) will any of these costs be downloaded to the library user, (iii) how will library users return physical items, (iv) who will pay for the return of items mentioned in sub-question (iii), (v) what is the expected individual cost per each physical item borrowed by people located in N.L., (vi) how is the individual cost calculated; (j) what is the plan to digitize items in cases of copyright conflict, and how much does the government expect this plan to cost; (k) what is the anticipated cost, both (i) broken down by individual expense, (ii) in total, to maintain the online portal “WAVES” system annually; (l) how many items are included in DFO’s collection of “grey material”, (i) how many of these will be digitized, (ii) what will happen to the balance of these materials; (m) what is the average elapsed time between the moment a request to make departmental publications available on WAVES is received, and the moment when the departmental publication is received; and (n) what is the anticipated time it will take for a physical item to be received in N.L. after being requested?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Judy Foote: With regard to the $65 million dollars provided to Veterans Affairs Canada’s funeral and burial program, managed by The Last Post Fund, over two years as indicated on page 254 of Budget 2013: (a) why did the government choose to provide $63 million in fiscal year 2013-2014 and only $2 million in fiscal year 2014-2015; (b) what happens to the balance of the $65 million if The Last Post Fund fails to spend the allotment corresponding to each fiscal year; (c) which organizations or stakeholders were consulted with regard to this specific funding measure; (d) how much was this program allotted in each year since 2005; (e) how much did this program spend in each year since 2005; and (f) how much does the government expect to spend in each of fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Scott Simms:  With respect to the Manolis L. shipwreck and subsequent oil leak in the Change Islands and all events and circumstances related to this incident, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to this incident?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
In order to support an empirical assessment of this bill on online crime, my speech will focus on identifying how the notions we are examining apply to the work of a criminal defence lawyer.
I want to emphasize the concept of empiricism, because the practice of criminal law is primarily something you learn on the job. Although there is theory associated with it, criminal law is primarily something that you learn on the job. In fact, that is one of the first things you learn, that criminal lawyers learn on the job. These are the principles that I applied and that were taught to me when I trained as a legal aid lawyer in Sept-Îles.
My speech will focus on those notions that pertain to common practice and the considerable latitude that judges and crown prosecutors have when it comes to judgments and sentencing. We will see that this has an effect and that this bill encompasses notions pertaining to the practice of criminal law.
I will also talk about the gradual rise in computer crime.
Cyberbullying already existed in 2005 or 2006, if I am not mistaken, when I started working as a legal aid lawyer. I think it was even called cyberbullying at the time. The term was already starting to be used and the phenomenon was growing. 
It was highly specialized at one time. In one specific case, a young woman told me that her photo had been taken by a webcam and ended up on other computers and that people were blackmailing her. When I was defending this case before the crown attorneys, they told me that the people best equipped to investigate and act on this were in the RCMP computer crime unit. I would say that in 2006, this type of thing was systematically handed over to the RCMP, who were best equipped to deal with it.
Over the years, I noticed that many incidents were called cyberbullying. Incidents included complaints made in cyberspace and in chat rooms or in the media about people who were making threats on the Internet. Some cases had to do with child prostitution. These things happened more frequently over the years.
I also noted that the judge had the discretion to impose conditions of release, which made reference to the use of means of communication or, at least, means of connecting to the Internet. 
In some cases, I even saw judges impose conditions of release on individuals charged with cybercrime or transmitting pornographic photographs involving minors. The conditions of release imposed on these individuals might include banning them from being in possession of a cellphone that could give them access to the Internet.
 I mention this experience and practice on the ground to point out that the courts, the judges and the crown attorneys were already introducing ways to limit the use of the Internet for unsavoury purposes.
This specific bill codifies practices that were already being used, depending on the judicial district, since practices can differ from one district to another. These practices were already being used by a number of legal practitioners and judges provincially and nationally too, I am sure. 
New offences are being created because we have been seeing new types of crimes against the person as a result of the rise of social media. As I said, those crimes have gradually become more frequent with the increasing popularity of Facebook and other social media.
Legislation is adaptable and that, in combination with public opinion, has allowed for the development of a wide variety of sanctions and limitations designed to reduce the range of virtual threats to an individual's moral integrity.
When I say virtual threats, I am talking about online threats, or cyberbullying, not hypothetical threats.
It is important to understand that cyberbullying is a crime against the person. If you physically hurt someone by breaking his nose, you can be charged with assault and bodily harm. It is a crime against the person. In my opinion, cyberbullying also fits into that category because it is a question of a person's moral and psychological integrity. That is my point.
The media has paid close attention to certain issues in recent years. That is why we are here in the House today, to talk about cybercrime and how it is getting worse, and about cyberbullying.
I want to talk about adjusting orders in order to respond to new illegal practices such as cyberbullying. We have seen people use the Internet for good and for evil.
The issues I used to work on were usually related to death threats targeting specific ethnic groups. Orders and parole conditions have been developed over the years.
Given that practising criminal law requires ongoing exchanges with crown prosecutors, quite often, judges and crown prosecutors develop their own code of practice. That is how relatively flexible sanctions and measures have come to be imposed.
I will repeat an example from earlier. When it comes to conditions of release at the bail hearing stage, when a client decides to exercise his right to a bail hearing and wants to be released, the judge can always issue personalized conditions of release that do not appear in other cases. 
These conditions can limit an individual's access to cyberspace if he has shown certain kinds of deviant behaviour, even if it is a question of charges only and the individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Any time there are allegations of inappropriate use of cyberspace, the judge usually limits the person's ability to use the Internet. I believe that is entirely commendable, although that is another debate. If we were to look at the advantages and disadvantages, one could raise arguments related to human rights and individual freedoms set out in the Canadian charter.
However, based on my rather informed opinion as a lawyer regarding the advantages and disadvantages, there is a very good chance that a court would stipulate that the rights and integrity of the victim are much more important than an individual's access to cyberspace. This will be debated by lawyers in due course.
Based on the evolving nature of measures aimed at restricting access to cyberspace, special attention must be paid to the clauses of the bill before us that have to do with preservation or production orders, in order to ensure respect for charter principles regarding privacy. That is what I was saying.
There are even some groups advocating for unrestricted Internet access who will challenge the measures proposed in the bill. However, I believe that if you weigh the pros and cons, there is a good chance that a court would conclude that it is reasonable for our society to limit Internet access for individuals who demonstrate a lack of good judgment in their comments or use cyberspace for dubious or criminal purposes.
I will also argue for the need to divide and reread Bill C-13 to conduct separate reviews of its stated objectives. It should be noted in passing that most of this bill has nothing to do with the protection of psychological integrity and should be placed in a separate bill. 
True to form, the Conservatives decided to make this a catch-all bill, if I may say so, and to sneak highly contentious issues into a bill whose stated purpose and title would have unanimous support. This is a reprehensible practice and I want to make sure everyone knows that.
The New Democratic Party feels that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bob Zimmer): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech on this matter. I know that he has considerable experience in his constituency representing his constituents in the courts. I take very seriously the issues he raises, which are of concern to the bar associations across the country.
There have been concerns that by again bundling matters together inappropriately, the government has not really given appropriate opportunity for discussion and debate. We are supporting moving forward expeditiously to address cyberbullying and the distribution of any inappropriate information or information of a sexual nature, particularly about children. We would love to expedite those provisions, but we have waited long and hard for the government to act. 
Could the member speak to the matters relating to the issuance of warrants and so forth that arose in the previous bill, and comment on whether he thinks they are appropriately addressed or if they merit considerably more debate? 
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
As she said in her question, this is an omnibus bill, similar to what we have seen in the past; in other words, many items have been quietly slipped in. 
The Conservatives are well aware that certain items that they sought public approval for simply did not pass that test. I am referring to specific measures aimed at limiting certain users' access to the Internet, and monitoring them as well. In short, some of these ideas now appear in this bill. From my admittedly brief study of the bill, I see that some rather unpopular and controversial ideas were rehashed and reintroduced in this very specific bill; that is highly objectionable.
Otherwise, in terms of the form and content of the bill, we will agree on the basic and key aspects of its wording. However, it would be advisable to review it carefully and split up certain components in committee.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the residents I represent in Winnipeg North recognize the degree to which cyberbullying is so harmful to society as a whole. 
Today we have legislation before us. However, if the government were genuine in wanting to pass legislation to deal with the issue, I believe it could be done in a fashion that would receive all-party support. 
In terms of expediting this issue so that we could have legislation passed through all the different levels before Christmas, the key is that we have to be able to take the issue of cyberbullying out of the bill that is being proposed and bring it forward as a stand-alone bill. All members of this House could accurately represent their constituents and see this type of legislation pass to become the law of the land if we recognize cyberbullying for what it is.
Cyberbullying is a horrific crime that needs to be dealt with through all-party support. Would the member not agree that singling out that issue and passing it would be the most effective way to get something done between now and the end of this year?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I agree with him that cyberbullying is serious enough to warrant being examined separately and should have its own bill. From the title, you would think that the bill before us is just about cyberbullying. However, when you look at the bill more closely, you see that it addresses many other fairly contentious issues. I wanted to point that out.
The NDP's position is that we must study many issues set out in this bill individually.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and to his answer to the previous question. I think he said splitting the bill into two pieces, one with just the Criminal Code offence of cyberbullying and another with the investigative powers in it, would be a good idea.
I wonder if he could tell us if he has had an opportunity to read the federal-provincial-territorial report on cyberbullying, and in particular recommendation 4 that report, which talks about the investigative tools that are absolutely necessary to allow the police to gather evidence so that they could actually lay the charge and convict someone of cyberbullying. If it were simply stripped down to the offence itself, obviously there would not be. 
I wonder if he could explain the comment by his colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, when he said they know a number of investigations that have gone on and have failed and of a number of charges that have been laid and have failed simply because the terminology in the code was not up to modern-day standards. I wonder if he could tell us which of the recommendations in recommendation 4 of the Cybercrime Working Group report he would not include in the cyberbullying bill.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
The only problem is that this specific bill includes measures that are fairly invasive of people's privacy. These measures have been introduced before. Given that the Conservative government is very right-leaning, this bill could lead to government interference and people being monitored a bit too closely. The only concerns there could be are about surveillance because the Conservatives introduced these measures in the past with very little success. Now, they are trying again, despite the fact that Canadians oppose these measures.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-13.
The first part of the bill is very clearly a critical issue that we have been dealing with in Canada. I would hope that every member in this House would support expedited action, across the board, to prevent cyberbullying and the inappropriate, illegal, non-consensual distribution of sexual information, in particular related to children.
I welcome the fact, as do my colleagues, that the government is finally coming forward with a more reasonable bill, and that we do not have the slinging of insults. We appreciate the respect being given to this matter and the more respectful bill, and perhaps it is because the bill is now being tabled by the Minister of Justice. We hope we will have a better balancing of rights to privacy and the rights of children, and other people who are harmed by inappropriate acts through the Internet.
I do wish to bring to the attention of the House that this is not the first time that members of the House have sought action on the issue of cyberbullying and action, particularly where youth have been harmed, and in some cases have committed suicide, because of extensive bullying.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the motion M-385, tabled by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in October 2012. It was debated in this House. The member recommended that there be a broad-based strategy on dealing with cyberbullying.
It is noteworthy that just before I rose to speak a member across the way referenced the report on cyberbullying that was put together by federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety. The very first recommendation is that the working group acknowledged the benefits of a multi-pronged, multi-sectoral approach to the issue of cyberbullying and called for action in a comprehensive manner.
That is very appreciated. Obviously, the justice ministers and the public safety ministers across this country recognize that we need to have clarification in criminal law. However, we need a lot more than that.
The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord recommended that. He recommended a broad-based strategy that all members of the House could develop together and, heavens forbid, reach a consensus on the measures we need to move forward on. Very sadly, the Conservative members all voted down that motion.
Also, members on this side brought forward Bill C-540, a private member's bill, from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. In that bill, he recommended the creation of an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of an individual without their consent. That was the response to the tragic suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons in his province.
In addition, another member on this side, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, tabled Bill C-213, which very succinctly addressed the matter of communication for the purposes of child luring.
Very clearly, the members of the official opposition strongly support action by the government to address child luring and to address and punish any cyber crime that would lead to bullying and could cause serious harm or suicide of our children.
Canadian families would clearly be grateful for expedited action, certainly the families of the victims of previous bullying incidents would. Most importantly, we would like to prevent any such incident from ever occurring again. I think all members of the House would concur with that.
What we want to do is to protect our families from harm. I concur. I join with my colleagues in strongly supporting the first provisions of this bill, which deal with and address cyberbullying. I am certain that we did our best to try to suggest to the government that it would be wise to expedite these measures by dividing the bill.
We may need to strengthen the investigative powers but, as I will speak to later on, we need a lot more than stronger criminal law; we need to make sure that our enforcement officers are fully capable of actually taking action on these matters.
However, as I mentioned at the outset, the most important measures we need are ones to prevent these acts from occurring at all, not simply taking enforcement action after the fact.
Why do we have these issues? Why are Canadians, in particular legal experts and privacy experts, raising concerns with the majority of the provisions of this bill? I am informed that 37 of the 47 clauses of the bill do not directly relate to cyberbullying. Therefore, it appears eminently reasonable that we would have further debate on those provisions to expedite the cyber crime provisions.
One of the matters that was of deep concern to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in particular legal scholars, was the previous provision of a bill that was tabled in the previous Parliament. It would have allowed for intervention into accessing Internet material without a warrant. When objections were raised, the then minister of public safety accused anybody who had raised any concerns or had proposed amendments to the bill of being pro child pornography. That caused the government to ultimately withdraw its bill, and I think appropriately.
We are encouraged that the government has moved forward now with a more reasonable bill. However, legal experts are raising some concerns with the direction the bill is taking on the way it is imposing conditions on warrants. Those are critical matters. 
We have long-standing legal precedents on when it is appropriate to allow for the seizing of material and where it might be a violation of a charter right. The prerequisites to obtain a warrant have been long debated in the courts. If we are to move in any way on shifting the burden on having to show cause before obtaining a warrant, it justifiably merits a good discussion in committee over those matters. However, the government has decided that it does not want to divide the bill, so unfortunately all matters will be going to committee.
I previously mentioned the matter of the warrantless disclosure. An equally concerning matter is the possibility for Internet providers to voluntarily disclose information. I would suggest that is a matter that also needs to be looked at closely. People exchange information of a private matter day in and day out. There should be some level of protection when there is an exchange of that information.
As I only have a few minutes left, I would like to speak to a matter that comes from my personal experience. I was involved for many years in the field of environmental enforcement. One of the lessons I learned from that is that the best way to deter a crime is to have a high probability of detection and punishment. 
In order to make that happen, most agencies now, when they are developing legislation, are simultaneously taking a look at the capacities of their enforcement agencies to deliver. They ask whether they have enough personnel and whether they are appropriately qualified. This is an area that police and enforcement officers have been identifying for quite some time, that it takes very special skills and training. 
I have not seen the government come forward with a parallel skills, training and capabilities strategy. I would encourage it to move expeditiously on that, so that the moment the bill becomes law, the government is immediately capable of enforcing that law.
In closing, the bill is going in the right direction, generally speaking. However, it will be important for particular matters, including the changing of the burden of proof and warrants, to be explored at committee with the appropriate experts.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some very interesting points in her speech. 
I want to ask whether she is aware that there is a significant difference between Bill C-13 and the previous Bill C-30. For instance, all production orders, all search warrants, for retention of any of this information that would be important for the police and prosecutors in order to properly prosecute a case for cyberbullying, is subject to prior judicial oversight. I wonder if she could tell us whether she knows that or if she has a comment on that.
Also, I wonder if she could take a look at recommendation four of the Cybercrime Working Group report, which she referred to in her speech, and tell us which of those investigative powers she thinks is valid. The Cybercrime Working Group report said that all of those investigative powers were needed in order to support an offence of cyberbullying. 
Could she take a look at those to see if she is prepared to accept them as part of the cyberbullying bill, or does she still want those separated into two different bills?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is a very fair question. I spoke to those matters, but I am happy to address them again.
We are hearing the government state that it has majorly shifted and that the bill now requires warrants. The issue that is still outstanding is what the burden of proof is for those warrants and whether the government is inventing a different burden of proof in these matters. That is a matter that merits legal expertise and discussion at committee, to give reassurances to Canadians.
On the matter of recommendation four from the intergovernmental report, I will note specifically that it recommends improved judicial oversight. That is exactly the matter that we wish to discuss. Is it in fact the same level of judicial oversight that we would normally anticipate in the judicial process, or is it being varied? If we can be reassured on that, then I think there would be fewer objections to the bill.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, through lines of questioning I have been able to emphasize how important it is that we have legislation. 
It could be a private member's bill. I made reference to the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre. Members of the Liberal Party have been very clear that cyberbullying is a horrific crime and we need to take action and bring in legislation that will deal with the issue.
I want to pick up on the point that the member referenced in terms of deterring crime. This is something we are not necessarily seeing from the government. To use the example of schools, if we want to prevent cyberbullying from taking place in the first place, taking a proactive approach within the school system, the curriculum and so forth, could go a long way to preventing some of these horrific crimes. That is not to mention the workforce and so on, but just to focus on the school boards.
I would ask the member to comment further. She made reference to deterring crime and that not only is government responsible for bringing in legislation where it is necessary but also for providing good solid programming to prevent some of these crimes from taking place.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, another of my colleagues is going to address the question about the need for more educational programs. 
However, the issue of deterrence is different. Prevention means there are education programs in schools and communities, in the government, on websites and so forth. Deterrence means there are provisions and penalties in law that will deter. 
However, the most critical piece is that there has to be some kind of reasonable probability that the crime will be detected. That means there needs to be some kind of strategic risk-based strategy on how the government is going to focus its resources on enforcing this bill. That is what we have not heard from the government. Frankly, we have not heard that from the government in every bill it has brought forward and that I have spoken to. A law is fine, but if the appropriate resources and a strategic plan are not in place to target the crime and provide a deterrent, then it is all for naught.
One of the things that the government might consider adding is innovative sentencing. That occurs in regulatory offences, and maybe it would be appropriate in this case as well.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the terrific member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. It is a great honour to share my time with him.
We have been talking a lot about the bill. At the end of my comments, I will talk about some of the concerns I have about how this bill has been put together by the government and the concerns that we have heard from my colleagues about other aspects of the bill that have been included.
What I would like to talk about is what most of us have shared in the House: our concerns about cyberbullying and the influence of the Internet as a tool used by those who want to frighten, abuse and intimidate people. 
Three names come to mind in recent past. We have lost the lives of some very vulnerable young people. Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and, in Ottawa and indirectly related to the issue we are talking about, Jamie Hubley. These are names that brought this issue to the forefront and I want to mention their names because it was really quite something when we lost these young people. There was an outpouring of sentiment, but it also caused legislators like us to reflect on what we could do. That is very profound, because, as we know, that does not always happen. It was a moment where we saw members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures try to look at how we could deal with this issue. 
I would like to take it and relate it to what my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona was talking about. Let us take another look at this, beyond the scope of this law, and talk about the issue a bit more. We need to look at the fact that it is not just the Internet. 
Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. On many occasions, I had to deal with young people who were very isolated. They were people who came to me because they were feeling vulnerable. There were a number of cases where I had students who were contemplating suicide. Because they had no one else to turn to, as a teacher, I ended up being the person who they dealt with. 
It always took me by surprise how few resources there were for young people to turn and get help. That is something we can work on with the provincial governments, providing people with assistance. It is not just about the Internet. It is about the fact that people are isolated. When I was teaching, there was certainly a concern about how the Internet was being used. Now we have social networking, which is part of the issue we are talking about now. It is interesting. There is a paradox. This young generation is the most connected generation in the history of the world. My sons can Skype with someone on the other side of the world and connect with people. The paradox is that we have the most connected generation, but we also see some of the most isolated young people ever. 
As we have heard many times, the technology is such that people can go inward if they are in a cycle of depression, if they feel isolated, or if people are intimidating or bullying them. They can just go into the virtual world. Mr. Speaker, you are a parent. You know that the virtual world is fraught with all sorts of danger and concerns. We need to address that. As others have said, and we agree with them, the bill is about making some changes in the Criminal Code, but it does not solve the problem. We have to look at prevention as well.
When I was teaching, I worked with the Media Awareness Network. It is a fantastic not-for-profit group that deals with media literacy. I was able to avail myself of its resources when I was in the classroom. What we did was talk with young people about the messages they were getting in the media, now on the Internet and social networking sites, with which they were bombarded. 
They are being bombarded with messages about how they should behave, what they should do and what they should buy. For young women, in particular, it is about how they should look. They are being pushed to consume things or buy things to somehow become a better person, when we know that the essence of someone's personality is about the values they carry and the influences they have to make them better people, not how they look, what they buy or what they consume.
I look at the curriculum in our schools, the resources for young people and it is not enough. We can do our jobs as parents, but let us be frank about this. When kids reach adolescence, they actually turn away from their parents and are more influenced by their peers. In this virtual world that has been created through the Internet and technology, with Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, there are obvious temptations for people to reach out to others to essentially give them confidence in who they are. This is where we saw the problems for the people I mentioned, like Amanda Todd. 
Just recently, we heard from Amanda Todd's mother, who was speaking about media awareness, I believe it was last week in Winnipeg. What she was saying to parents, educators and everyone was that we needed to connect with each other to help our young people. Yes, we need to ensure we know what our young people are accessing on the Internet, on Facebook, et cetera, but we also need to have that human dimension. That is where we need to see our schools and our communities reaching out to people to bring them in and for those who are feeling vulnerable, to offer opportunities for them to share with us what their anxieties are.
I have talked to numerous educators. My wife is a teacher as well. What we have noticed lately is that there is much more anxiety among young people now than there ever was. Again, it is connected to how people are connected. They are feeling bombarded by Facebook, with Twitter and texting, where people who want to lash out or isolate someone can do it without really facing someone. That is the whole problem here. It is the anonymity.
 Therefore, there are a lot of anxious young people. We see this in the skyrocketing number of them who are being identified with anxiety disorder. This is, frankly, what we should be looking at because once people are feeling anxious and they turn to social media to find friends and community in a virtual world, we then see where they can really descend into chaos. We see luring happening there. We see people who try to pretend to be friends draw people in and then abuse them. 
If we are going to understand the issue that we are talking about today, we need to go beyond just changes to the Criminal Code, which of course we support.
 Let us see the federal government work with our partners at the provincial level to come up with really smart media awareness programs that are well resourced, and I mentioned the Media Awareness Network is a terrific resource, if we are to help young people be aware and be literate when it comes to what they are confronted with on line. 
This is not about the government doing it for them. Let me be clear about that. This is about the government resourcing groups that are already working on these issues. It means that we all take this issue with a lot more depth than just saying we will change the Criminal Code and that will somehow fix it. It means we have to look to those who are victimized. 
I will just underline a couple of groups that are obviously important here. I think of trans-youth and gay and lesbian youth. I think of those who are different because of the way they look, or the fact that they may be introverted. We need to reach out to them. 
 I wish Bill C-13  was just about that. I wish the government had not brought in these other measures, which we have some concerns with about privacy that have been noted. 
What I want to finish off with is, let this not be the end of this issue. Let us look at how we can better reach out to young people. Finally, a smart suggestion would be to reach out and listen to young people, because they will have as many ideas as we have on how to help young people who are so isolated. 
My final recommendation would be for the government to work with the provinces to actually create spaces to hear from young people, for them to make recommendations on how to combat cyberbullying, as we call it, but deep isolation. Therefore, at the end of the day, we can say that we have been able to help prevent these horrific, tragic deaths we have seen, in the names of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and Jamie Hubley.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right: bullying and cyberbullying are about more than just Criminal Code provisions. They are a social issue that needs to be addressed by schools, by non-governmental organizations and by community groups. In fact, he is probably aware that the government has supported for over two years several programs developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection on just the issue of bullying and cyberbullying. The government has provided over $10 million for these programs. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection operates two websites: cybertip.ca and needhelpnow.ca. They provide counselling and preventative information to young people about the threat of social and consequences of social media.
The member mentioned the sad case of Jamie Hubley. Has he heard these words from his father, Allan Hubley, about Bill C-13? On November 20, he said:
 When we were younger, you always knew who your bully was, you could do something about it. Now, up until the time this legislation gets enacted, they can hide behind that. Not only does it start to take the mask off of them, through this legislation there is serious consequences for their actions. 

[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the resources that exist, and obviously I support those initiatives. Mr. Hubley is a local councillor and I have joined with many in our community to go public and talk about the issues within our community. Many of the students within Jamie's school were responsible for either being bystanders or participating in the deep isolation for a young gay man. We need to address that.
I would finally point out that, along with some of the resources that my colleague mentioned, there is also a terrific group called “Digital Voices”. It is another group that is working together to give strategies to young people. What it talks about is “stop, think, connect”: stop and think about what they are saying, what they are doing online to young people; then connect with people if they are feeling deeply isolated. These are the kinds of things we need to continue to talk about.
Finally, I will just underline that I had a youth summit just two weeks ago to hear from young people about what they thought we should be doing, not just on this issue but on the economy. If we start really listening to young people and having them as part of the decision making, we will go a long way further than we have already.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of individuals and advocates who really want to see action being taken on the cyberbullying issue. I suspect all members of Parliament would love and welcome the opportunity to see legislation put into place as early as before the end of this year. That would be most helpful.
My question for the member is this, and we have heard this suggestion in the House over the last couple of days, whether it is the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, who have said it. Could we not take out certain aspects of the current legislation and then allow that to ultimately pass through so we are dealing specifically with the issue of cyberbullying in which all Canadians want to see some action? Would the member expand on that point of how quickly we could pass something through all levels that are required to be passed in order to have something effective for cyberbullying before even Christmas time of this year?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, yes, that is why we have moved to split the bill and then to get it passed at all stages as quickly as possible. 
I want to leave with these words from Carol Todd, Amanda Todd's mother, about what happened. She said, “She got trapped in the Internet.…Someone convinced her she was beautiful…that she should be her friend…and it turned out to be someone quite evil. 
That really stuck with me. What I am saying is that yes we can put those provisions in and yes we should support them. However, at the end of the day, we have to look at what this young woman was going through and ask ourselves what we were doing as a community. What were we doing as a society to allow someone to become so isolated? Our work has to continue on helping people who are isolated. That is why we should set up ways for young people to inform us and the government and give them the space to effect what goes on. We should do that in all our communities and that is the challenge I put out to all my colleagues, as well as to the government formally.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for a very respectful speech in regard to this very serious issue of cyberbullying. A couple of our NDP colleagues have already moved legislation forward in this regard in order to discuss and combat the scourge of cyberbullying that is affecting our country.
When I was a little kid growing up, we always heard the expression “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. Now it is “gigs and bytes you may not like”. That is what I heard the other day.
The reality is that this is a new era now, one in which our young people are communicating back and forth at lightning speed, in many cases with people they do not even know. In many cases, these are people who prey upon them.
For years now, I have had legislation on the books that came from former MP Chris Axworthy on Internet child pornography. In it we were basically trying to get the Internet service providers to have some responsibility to monitor the sites and, when something of that nature came forward, to inform the police and make sure that appropriate action was being taken.
There is no question that this legislation is a good start. We hope to get it to committee in order to get it split and be able to move it very quickly, as my colleagues on both sides have said very clearly.
However, I want to focus on something that is a little more personal in terms of the family. 
We can have all the legislation that we want. We can have all the enforcement, punishment, and everything else that we could have in terms of this issue, and yes, it would deter and possibly stop some people from doing it, but it will not be the end of it all.
If we look at drunk driving, we see tough measures against it across the country, but people still drink and drive. The United States has the death penalty in certain states, but the reality is that murders are still happening. The reality is that we can have the toughest cyberbullying legislation in the world, but it will not eliminate it completely. It would deter it and reduce it, but it would not eliminate it. 
However, what may assist these young men and women when they feel the effects of cyberbullying is the conversation with their parents and their peers.
 I have two daughters, aged 25 and 22, who grew up with the Internet and all of that kind of technology, but my wife was very clear and careful to ensure that a conversation took place on a regular basis about being very careful of what they typed into computer and being very careful about what they looked at on Facebook, and now the tweets and so on. 
That conversation has to take place. The government or opposition members cannot be the sole source of remedying this situation. This has to be a national conversation across the country. I encourage all families, all legal guardians, and everyone else to have that national conversation with their children so that they understand the dangers and the threats of the Internet and what happens on Facebook when they post pictures or say certain things that can be interpreted in the wrong way.
When I grew up in Vancouver, I grew up in a group home. My parents had over 400 children come to our home over 23 years. Some stayed with us for a few hours, some for a few weeks, a few days, or a few months. Some even stayed for a couple of years. 
The one thread that connected each and every one of those kids was love and respect. All these kids did not feel the love and they did not feel they had any respect. They did not feel they were contributing members to our society. They all felt that it was their fault. They all felt that it was a burden. When a 10-year-old tells my parents, “I can make more money on Davie Street in 20 minutes than I can working at home for a week”, there is a serious problem.
These kids are vulnerable and subject to anyone out there that will prey upon them. This is how cyberbullying works. Just as it was in the old days, they prey upon those who may be vulnerable. They prey upon those who may be a bit curious as to what is going on. Then the children get into that vortex or trap, and the next thing is they become victims.
 Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons from Nova Scotia, and Jamie Hubley in Ottawa were three beautiful young people who had a tremendous amount to offer. They had the opportunity to become great citizens of our country. Who know what they may have been able to have done with their lives? Unfortunately, with the pressures they felt, they felt they had no other way out, for lack of a better term, than to end their own lives.
When a young child commits suicide, it affects not just their own family, and again my condolences and thoughts and prayers go out to all those families and friends; when a young child commits suicide, it should affect every single Canadian citizen. As my colleague from Ottawa Centre said so clearly, “What were we all doing?” What responsibility did we have when these kids were starting to look for help? What responsibility do we have, not just as politicians but as friends, as neighbours, as family members?
We cannot just avoid it and say that it is the school's responsibility or the government's responsibility. It is our collective community responsibility to reach out to the disenfranchised in our society.
The LGBT society, for years and years, has advocated just to have normal relationships with the rest of society. For years, society has put them down because they were different. 
I represent one the largest Black communities in Canada, the original Black community of Preston. For years and years, the racism that community had to face was unconscionable. In many cases, in certain areas, it still exists.
We have a long way to go. I go to many schools, and we always hear the word “tolerant”. We hear that we are tolerant of each other. I am asking all parliamentarians and all Canadians to throw that word out. We should get the Webster dictionary to throw that word away. We should be celebrating our diversity. Whether someone is from Asia, Africa, Europe, or elsewhere, and whether someone is aboriginal, gay, straight, lesbian, or transgender, it should not matter.
We should all be equal under God's eyes. We, as parliamentarians, should set the example of equality for all. Whether one is disabled, young, man or woman, child or senior, it does not matter: we should all be treated equally in this regard. We should respect one another. We can disagree, but we do not have to be disagreeable.
I am hoping that that national conversation will take place so that no more Amanda Todds and no more Rehteah Parsons have to happen, and that when these young children feel they are under a tremendous amount of pressure, they can not only go to their parents but should be able to reach out to the general society, and we should be there with open arms, saying “We know you have a concern and a problem, and we are going to help you walk through this.”
This legislation is important. It is critical that we get it done right. Apparently there are 37 provisions in this bill that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, so I am hopeful that when the bill gets to committee, the committee members can agree with expert advice to ensure that we get it right the first time.
I am sure not one parliamentarian in this House wants to make a mistake on this one. It is too critical to get it right. However, even if it is the gold-plated model and it gets sent through and it is done, it may not prevent future cyberbullying. What may do it is going back to the personal responsibility that we all have in our community, right across this country and for that matter internationally, to ensure that when someone feels pressure and feels there is no other way out except to commit suicide, we are able to help them.
A friend of mine works at the Kids Help Phone. Even though she is not permitted to tell me the specific nature of the call or the names, when these kids call that number, I know that my friend goes home literally a changed person every night because of some of the calls she takes. She volunteers for that. These kids are reaching out for help. 
I am hopeful that we get the legislation right. The government will have our support when it is done correctly, and we will get it to the committee, but on top of that, we need to ensure that all of us—family, friends, parents, and community members right across this country—work together collectively to ensure that we all take responsibility in the raising and the future and the care of our children.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is certainly one of the gentlemen of this place. I had the pleasure of working very closely with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on the veterans committee and it was a pleasant experience indeed, even though we are in different parties.
The hon. member referenced the fact that 37 of the 47 clauses in the bill are taken from the e-snooping bill of Vic Toews, which we were promised would not come back. The clause that is most troubling, frankly, is the one that would give immunity to holders of electronic records if they voluntarily disclose them. This would include telephone companies and Internet service providers. However, that disclosure is not limited to investigations around cyberbullying; it is wide open. 
My question to my hon. colleague is on the breadth of the legislation. Does he have any concerns with respect to the e-snooping and online surveillance capacity of the legislation?
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct.
We have to make sure that we get the legislation correct and that it deals with what we are talking about in terms of cyberbullying. The legislation contains other components that are not related to cyberbullying. We are hoping that the government will understand that, take those provisions out and have them discussed in a separate piece of legislation. That would enable us to focus strictly on the matter at hand, which is cyberbullying. 
We should not muddy the waters on this one. We owe it to the memories of Jamie Hubley, Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons to get this right, and especially for their families.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his speech.
There are a couple of quotes that I remember from his speech. He said that all parents need to have a conversation with their children about cyberbullying and about bullying in general. We absolutely agree with that. I think everyone here agrees with that. He also said that it is our collective community responsibility to give young people the tools they need to protect themselves against any form of bullying. I commend him for that, and I think we all agree with that as well.
Earlier we talked about the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and the things it is doing with NeedHelpNow.ca. The member for Ottawa Centre mentioned Digital Voices. These are all tools that are available now to help people. 
The member also mentioned 37 clauses that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, but I do not think he is correct. If he looks at recommendation 4 of the working group report he would see that they require data preservation demands and orders, new production orders to trace a specified communication, new warrants of production orders for transmission data, improved judicial oversight while enhancing efficiencies in relation to authorizations, as well as warrants and orders and other amendments to existing offences to give the police the investigative power they need to in fact make the cyberbullying provisions work.
I submit to the member that if we were to take out many of the provisions he is highlighting in that number, the cyberbullying bill that we are all here to debate today would be toothless and unenforceable.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would confess to is having a legal mind, but I do know that when the bill gets to committee we will be inviting those experts who understand the legal technicalities of the warrants, the search premises and all the stuff within the parameters of the bill.
It is rather ironic that I am talking about cyberbullying when I myself do not even use a computer, smart phone or BlackBerry in any way, shape or form. However, the reality is that many of my colleagues and friends do, as do their families and kids. 
Whatever provisions are added or deleted, at the end of the day what is most critical, and I am sure the hon. member would agree, is that the bill is done right, that there are no court challenges, that the Supreme Court years down the road will not strike it down because of some technicality. 
We have to make sure of that collectively. It would not just be the government's fault. It would be all of our faults if we do not get it done right the first time.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by applauding my many colleagues who have worked tirelessly to address cyberbullying. The hon. members for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour both feel strongly about that issue and have shown admirable dedication. The member for Gatineau also spoke on this issue on Wednesday. In her eloquent, nuanced and compassionate speech, she explained that politicians have a duty to take action on this issue.
I would like to touch on two topics today. First of all, this cyberbullying bill does talk about cyberbullying, as one would expect. However, it also touches on a wide variety of issues that have nothing, or very little, to do with cyberbullying. As these issues are covered in the bill, they must be discussed, although we would have preferred to stay focused on the most pressing issue.
The most pressing issue, of course, is cyberbullying. The traditional bullying that used to happen face to face in schoolyards has now become an after-school, underhanded and often anonymous activity. By its very nature, this type of bullying can occur at any time rather than only during the school day. There is no refuge; victims know that the violence will keep on going even if they try to ignore or escape from it. 
Everybody can be a victim and it can happen anywhere. We know, however, that the victims are most often our children. With the current technology, it is all too easy to conduct heinous and malevolent attacks, a behaviour that likely reflects a more generalized malaise, as well as a lack of goals and optimism in our society. This new and violent phenomenon has a long-term impact on the lives of thousands of young people, as well as other individuals and families.
As is the case for any phenomenon that affects the health, safety and well-being of Canadians, elected officials must recognize the problem and take action. It is no longer a question of this being a good initiative, it is a question of our responsibility as elected officials. It is our duty to work together to identify the most effective legislative response as quickly as possible to help those who are persecuted and are suffering even today. It is our duty to not create distractions that could delay the implementation of measures, or even worse, undermine this objective.
Therefore, I wish to salute the people in this chamber who have tackled this issue, recognized the importance of this problem and listened to parents and those working in the schools. I am referring to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in particular, who channelled his long-standing passion for this issue into Motion No. 385 to create a national bullying prevention strategy. Unfortunately, in spite of my colleague's motion, we still do not have a strategy. I continue to hope that the government will move forward on this issue.
My colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, made a point of meeting with the families and stakeholders following the death of a young girl whose name we are unfortunately all familiar with. This is a human tragedy that has been given a great deal of media coverage in recent months. We must also recognize the good intentions of our colleague from Vancouver Centre, who has also worked on this issue. We should also note this government's good intentions, because it is consulting the provinces and territories in order to find solutions. Everyone here agrees that we have a responsibility towards those who are victims of cyberbullying.
Bill C-540 illustrated the urgent need for action and, to that end, sought a consensus among parliamentarians devoid of any partisanship. The Conservatives told us that we had to be patient because there was work to be done, with the provinces and territories in particular, before such a bill could be passed. In the case of such crucial issues, it is good to hear about co-operation rather than confrontation.
In the end, the government introduced a bill very similar to the one brought forward by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Bill C-13 would make it an offence under the Criminal Code to publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available or advertise an intimate image of a person, knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent. The bill also allows courts to make an order to seize and electronically destroy the images and mentions the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images.
It becomes apparent that these clauses, in large part taken from Bill C-540, actually make up a small portion of Bill C-13. They account for roughly six or seven of the bill's 47 clauses. According to this Tuesday's Le Devoir, only three of the bill's 65 pages actually deal with cyberbullying.
I get the urge to end my speech right there, to sit back down and to rise again on a completely different subject, so that I can address the 40 or so other clauses in the bill that deal with completely different issues.
It is not a single bill we have before us, but two, three or even four bills.
It is as if, in response to the SARS crisis of 2003, the government had insisted on abolishing VIA Rail before moving to establish the Public Health Agency of Canada. It makes no sense. It is like holding an urgent public issue hostage.
The second part of Bill C-13 amends not only the Criminal Code, but also the Competition Act and the Terrorist Financing Act. It deals with banks' financial data, the theft of telecommunication services and telemarketing.
The Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the hon. member, as it is now time to move on to private members' business.
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.
The hon. member will have about 15 minutes remaining to conclude his remarks the next time the bill is before the House.

Private Members' Business
Financial Administration ActAnne-Marie Day:  moved that Bill C-473, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, the government recently prorogued, so here we are once again, debating my bill, Bill C-473. I am pleased to speak to this bill today and to speak on behalf of the thousands of Canadian women who aspire to a high-level career.
I would like to begin by saying that I would have preferred to see this issue settled sooner. I would have preferred that its legislative course had not been interrupted by prorogation. That way, today we would be taking action, not still debating.
The issue of equality between women and men in a fair and equitable Canadian society was always at the heart of my previous professional life and now, today, as a politician, I am truly proud to be able to contribute to this cause.
As introduced in the House last February, Bill C-473 proposes a simple but effective improvement to the current legislation governing our public financial administration.
Specifically, the bill would give Canadians balanced representation on the boards of directors of crown corporations. It is a corrective measure to help us reach our goal of parity on the boards of directors of Canadian crown corporations.
The question of gender equity in the management of our crown corporations is not unknown to Canada's Parliament. In the House, the Senate and committees, the fact that still too few women are involved in the management of our political institutions and Canadian businesses remains an important problem that we must consider if we want to be able to say we live in a society with equal rights.
I remind members that this bill has to do with equality of representation and affects only crown corporations, not private companies. Since Canadian women are taxpayers just like men, it is as though they are shareholders of crown corporations, just like men.
Their taxes go towards crown corporations, so it makes since that, as shareholders, they should have the right to be heard, considered and represented in proportion to their demographic weight in society.
In spite of this, and while Canadian society has made many strides toward women's rights in recent decades, the figures show that the government lacks the vision and will to make this issue a priority.
The most recent data show that over 2,000 Canadians occupy positions in more than 200 crown corporations, organizations, boards of directors and commissions across the country. 
Of all the positions available on the boards of directors of these organizations, only 27% of senior management positions are occupied by women. The situation is even worse for presidents of boards of directors. The most recent figures show that only 16 of the 84 presidents are women.
Sadly, we are a long way from the equal representation that would reflect Canada's demographic makeup and offer professional growth and development opportunities to our talented women.
With women as 27% of directors of crown corporations, we are far behind the 40% reached in most Scandinavian countries. Other countries such as Spain, France and the Netherlands have introduced incentives for other kinds of institutions.
As our country has evolved, it has established a robust democratic process for appointments to fill available positions on the boards of our crown corporations.
Ministers manage the appointments within their own portfolios, and submit their nominations to the Governor in Council.
As part of the selection process, criteria are established to define the essential qualifications for a given position. A number of mechanisms are used to attract a large number of potential candidates, such as the Governor-in-Council appointments website, executive recruiting agencies, newspapers and specialized publications. Canadians who express an interest are evaluated according to the requirements of the position they apply for.
In regard to the balanced representation issue, one of the problems our society had to address was that, in the past, there were not enough women with the necessary qualifications to meet the requirements of the position. This problem disappeared over the years, with mass education for Canadians and women's access to post-secondary studies.
These days, according to a number of experts who have looked at the issue, one stubborn problem that persists is that we are still looking for candidates in traditional recruitment pools, where men are still in the majority. Two factors we thought had almost disappeared from contemporary society are still very much in place: the “old boys' club”—the traditional recruiting network for executive positions—and the familiar “glass ceiling”, which, unfortunately, is still hard to crack for women aspiring to professional careers at the highest levels.
My bill proposes an indirect approach to eliminating these two stereotypes. Once the boards of our crown corporations have to comply with gradual gender representation quotas, those responsible for recommending appointments will have to show their creativity and willingness to expand the limits of their recruiting methods and broaden their search for candidates with the required skills to non-traditional recruitment pools.
Canada has a highly qualified female workforce, and we can be proud of that. Our working women include more than 60,000 professional accountants, 20,000 lawyers, over 16,000 engineers, thousands of university professors and hundreds of actuaries. There are therefore plenty of women with the talents and skills required to fill these positions. All we need is to be given the resources, as a society, to go out and recruit them.
Now, the question is why the government would create quotas rather than voluntary incentives. It must be said that some groups and organizations have come out against this kind of mandatory reinforcement measure. The justification that is usually given is the fact that the government should not become involved in the choices of outside organizations, like businesses.
First, let us remember that my bill does not affect any organizations other than crown corporations. I would like to remind hon. members of this again because, unfortunately, the Conservatives tend to want to discredit my bill based on the fact that they took action by setting up an advisory committee in 2012 in order to find ways of increasing the number of women on company boards of directors.
However, my bill has nothing to do with corporate governance. What is more, the committee was supposed to provide the government with clear recommendations in the fall of 2013 and still has not done so.
In short, I would like to point out that the problem of unbalanced representation on the boards of crown corporations will not be resolved through proposed solutions that deal with corporate governance. Let us not confuse the two subjects. Let us work together to find appropriate solutions that will show the government's real desire to change things by taking action to achieve more balanced representation, meaning more women, on boards of crown corporations.
Members should also understand that the proposed choice of quotas is based on the results of careful reflection by experts, published studies and consultations with professional organizations. That reflection also took place in the light of results observed in other countries, where the problem of balanced representation has been addressed in one way or another.
On this point, I would like to share with my colleagues some more enlightening remarks by Anne Golden, chair of the Conference Board of Canada from 2001 to 2012, who noted that at the current pace, [the way things are going,] it will take 151 years to achieve equity at the top of the organizational ladder if the government does not step in with a mandatory measure.
Another clear example that justifies the establishment of quotas rather than voluntary measures is Norway's failure in this area. In 2003, Norway was the first country to pass legislation providing for gender equality on the board of directors of public limited companies. The legislation extended to crown corporations and came into force in January 2004.
To get to this point, it is important to know that the government had originally tried to negotiate voluntary quotas with the private sector to reach 40% representation of women on boards, with an ultimatum that restrictive legislative measures would be introduced should the desired gender representation not be attained by July 2005. A survey by Statistics Norway showed that by the deadline, only 13% of companies complied with the voluntary quotas, with women representing only 16% of board members.
As a result, legislation was applied to public limited companies. That legislation came into force in January 2006. This example shows that voluntary measures simply do not work.
Quebec, an example from our own backyard, is worth mentioning, since it has been very successful. Quebec is the only province to have passed legislation aimed at achieving gender equality on crown corporation board of directors since 2006. Efforts in this regard have proven successful, to say the least.
In December 2011, the deadline by which crown corporations were to have achieved gender equality within the five-year period, 141 women and 128 men held positions on the board of directors of 22 Quebec crown corporations. Women made up the majority, or 52.4%, of directors appointed. Unfortunately, balanced representation in the number of women and men appointed to the board of each crown corporation subject to the act still needs to be achieved.
In the case of both Norway and Quebec, the legislation did not cause any problems or result in any additional paperwork. Needless to say, crown corporations are obviously very well managed.
Imposing quotas, which could be temporary, could prove to be an effective tool in making our public institutions more democratic. Given how hard it is to achieve gender equality without corrective action, it is the government's duty to bring in effective methods to correct this injustice. Things will not simply change over time.
I would like to share with my colleagues some other important things I have thought about. I hope that they will consider this when we vote in the next few weeks. A 50/50 quota is the most neutral gender-based measure. It avoids all discrimination. Quotas do not discriminate. They compensate for the current barriers that prevent women from exercising their fair share of representation. 
Women, as citizens, have the right to balanced representation, especially when the taxes they pay are used to finance the crown corporations. Women who sit on boards of directors add different points of view, diverse knowledge and a change in the dynamic. It is good for business.
These days, Canadian women are just as qualified as Canadian men. It is very important that the government hire outside of traditional, male-dominated recruitment circles. Imposing quotas has not caused any confusion, injustice or problem whatsoever in the jurisdictions where they have been applied. That is why I think using quotas is the best solution for the boards of directors at crown corporations, when we have such a success story in our own backyard. 
I may have focused till now on the legislative measure proposed in my bill, but I would now like to discuss the time it is taking to achieve equality between the sexes when it comes to our financial administration. Various approaches have been adopted by countries that have implemented similar measures and, in the case of Quebec, the provincial government gave itself a five-year timeframe.
In light of the examples we are familiar with and in order to maximize the chances of success, Bill C-473 proposes a realistic six-year timeframe. The current figures have female representation hovering around 27%, so it would be realistic to put in place the tools necessary to reach 30% in the next two years, 40% in four years and, ultimately, parity in six years.
Obviously, if a board of directors were composed of an uneven number of members, it would stand to reason that there would be an imbalance in the female-male representation.
Before concluding my speech and moving on to questions and comments, I would like to take the few minutes remaining to invite my colleagues from all parties to take advantage of this unique opportunity to showcase the skills and aptitudes of female professionals across Canada.
It is my profound belief that, with this bill, Canada has an opportunity to emerge from the stone age, position itself as a global leader in gender equality, and catch up with many other G20 countries.
Giving competent women an opportunity to realize their full potential and contribute to the development of their community is a question of fairness, rights, democracy and economic prosperity. Everyone wins, and I do hope my colleagues here today will come to the same conclusions as I have on the matter.
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would just like to mention that crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government and that we on this side of the House believe in having women on boards.
Statistics show that companies that have women on their boards are more profitable, but that does not mean that we have to legislate quotas. Women have earned the right to be appointed based on their hard work and their experience, not simply because they are women.
As Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, I am proud to say that since 2007, more than $46 million has been approved through the women's program at Status of Women Canada for projects that promote women's economic security and prosperity. We believe that a more competitive, corporate Canada requires appointments based on merit and excellence. 
There are many very qualified women across Canada. I have had the privilege of meeting many very talented women in my riding of London North Centre. For example, there are three female presidents of our hospitals, but there are many more just like them. I know that they would not want to sit on a board simply because they are female and someone needed to fill a quota. It is an insult to women.
I would like to ask the member opposite why she thinks women are not qualified enough to sit on their own merit when they sit on a board.
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's arguments quite offensive. First off, a great number of Canadian women are qualified, overqualified even. The number of female graduates of public administration programs has risen since 1988. These women are ready to head crown corporations. No one is forcing them to do so. We merely need to give them the right to.
I would remind the minister that these are ministerial appointments. Until now, the Conservatives have done very little to advance the status of women. They made drastic cuts to Status of Women Canada and have reopened the abortion debate. I do not believe we need any lessons from the Conservative Party.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her bill and her speech. There is no doubt that we have made some progress toward greater gender balance and equality. Much remains to be done, however. What my colleague's bill proposes are quotas.
I would like to point out that quotas are in place in countries like Norway, Spain and France, just to name a few. My colleague has aptly defended the idea of establishing quotas to achieve gender parity on corporate boards.
In her opinion, what still needs to be done to achieve gender parity?
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention. She is always a strong advocate of women's issues.
We suggest gradually introducing quotas over many years because we want to help crown corporations fulfill their mandates. The percentage increases very gradually from 30% to 40% to 50%. Corporations will have six years to comply.
As we know, the Conference Board of Canada said it would take 151 years to reach the goal if we just let things happen. I do not believe we should let things happen. These rules are not meant for private companies. They apply to crown corporations, which are completely different. I believe we have an opportunity to be an inspiration to all Canadians and businesses by showing the way forward.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a comment from the other side. We commonly hear that the crown corporations are at arm's length. What is not at arm's length is who gets to make the appointments to boards. It is cabinet. It is the Conservative government that makes the appointments to boards.
We have had the Conservatives in power for quite some time, and we still see women being stalled and not being appointed. I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned that the old boys' clubs have a tradition of getting close to the government and being close at hand when appointments are made. Appointments are made by ministers and approved by the Governor General. There is no reason not to appoint women to sit on crown corporations' boards. After all, crown corporations are really part of our jurisdiction. We have a responsibility to take action, as does the minister.
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns about Bill C-473. Before I start, I want to correct the record and indicate that funds at Status of Women are actually at their highest level ever.
The bill put forward by the hon. member opposite would use legislated quotas to force the government to balance the representation of women and men on the boards of directors of crown corporations. 
The government agrees that the presence of women on corporate boards brings a different perspective and an important voice to crown corporations. However, legislated quotas come with many potential problems, and that is why we cannot support the bill. For example, there are rigid and arbitrary thresholds that could get in the way of appointing people who reflect Canada's diversity in terms of linguistic, regional and employment equity representation, including women.
Legislated quotas could also result in the potential disruption of commercial operations and good corporate governance. For instance, gender quotas could restrict or limit the pool of potential candidates for a vacant position, leaving the board unable to meet quorum while the minister searches for an appropriate person. In short, the problems with imposed quotas far outweigh the benefits.
However, no one should doubt our government's commitment to women having a voice in Canada's public and private sector boardrooms. We know that women contribute in every respect to corporate enterprises throughout Canada, but we believe that a more competitive corporate Canada requires that appointments to boards are based on merit and excellence. That is why we support a voluntary approach. The voluntary approach is a more flexible way of meeting the government's objectives of appointing the most suitable candidate, based on a number of requirements and competencies. 
At the same time, we believe in taking concrete action to advance more women into leadership roles across the country and our economy. For example, working in partnership with private sector firms, we supported the work of the Canadian Board Diversity Council. This group is educating the business community on the value of board diversity. It is also equipping a diversity of board-ready, high-potential candidates, including women, with the tools to pursue board positions. 
In addition, in economic action plan 2012, we announced the creation of an advisory council to increase opportunities for women's leadership on corporate boards and to keep our economy strong. Its members were announced by the Minister of Status of Women in April.
The advisory council is comprised of women and men representing a wide range of experience within the corporate sector. All have distinguished themselves as inspired, forward-thinking leaders and decision-makers, committed to the principles of equality, diversity and excellence in our country's boardrooms. These prominent Canadians include John Manley, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Monique Leroux, head of Desjardins; and Charles Winograd, chair of the TMX Group.
The role of the advisory council is to advise the minister on how businesses in the private sector can increase the number of women on their corporate boards. The council is also being asked to suggest how industry and government can track and measure progress under this initiative, and what tools, if any, the government should employ to achieve this goal. It will suggest ways of recognizing or rewarding companies that meet their targets for increasing the representation of women on their boards. Finally, the advisory council will report back with its recommendations this fall, and we look forward to its input and ideas. 
Another example of actions that our government has taken to empower women is in economic action plan 2013. Economic action plan 2013 includes a number of measures to better connect Canadians with job opportunities, which will help increase the representation of women in all types of careers.
In addition, since 2007, more than $46 million has been approved through the women's program at Status of Women Canada for projects that promote women's economic security and prosperity. This past July we announced that, through Status of Women Canada, we were providing $266,630 in funding for a 36-month project called Roots/Routes to Women's Leadership and Empowerment: Best Practices.
The project promotes leadership through economic empowerment for women in Toronto. Participants receive leadership training and mentorship to help strengthen their skills and confidence and assist them in taking on leadership roles in their communities. Our support for this project reflects our government's desire to empower women, by putting in place the building blocks of success for more women and girls to prosper in their own lives.
We understand that Canada is better off when the talents and skills of women and girls are represented in every sector of society, in government at every level, and from the grassroots all the way to the boardroom. We know that the more we break down barriers and inspire young women and girls to pursue a wide variety of career options, the stronger Canada will be.
Where we differ from the hon. member opposite is that we believe in creating sustainable pathways to success rather than legislating them. That is why we do not support Bill C-473 with its legislated quotas as the best way to achieve gender balance on the boards of crown corporations.
The voluntary way is the more effective way, and we believe it is the better way for Canadian women, crown corporations and Canada's economy to succeed.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address Bill C-473, legislation that would amend the Financial Administration Act to achieve balanced representation in the number of women and men serving as directors on boards of parent crown corporations by establishing the minimum proportion of each sex on those boards. I want to commend my colleague for her initiative and her remarks in debate today.
Before I discuss the merits of the legislation, I would like to note the context in which this debate occurs. November 25 was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. It marked the first of 16 days of activism against gender violence, which will conclude on December 10, international Human Rights Day. During this period, as members know, we will observe, on December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, marking the anniversary of the 1989 murders of 14 young women at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal. The truth of this tragedy should not be ignored, marginalized, or otherwise sanitized. Simply put, these 14 women were murdered simply because they were women, a fact that finds expression in global violence against women both domestically and internationally.
While I know the bill before us is not on the subject of gender violence, I believe that we must situate our debate on gender parity within the broader context of discussing women's rights. At the risk of repeating myself in the chamber, although it is a moment and a message that bear repeating, Canada should lead the way and heed the call, first affirmed 20 years ago at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, that women's right are human rights, and there are no human rights that do not include the rights of women. It is up to us to give expression to this message through concrete action, and it should be clear to all listening to this debate that the tools to promote the objectives of equality are within our own hands. We must commit ourselves to this cause without delay.
I have been inspired by the work of civil society and NGOs in this regard, but most of all, I have been inspired by young people who are leading the call for change. As many members are aware, McGill University held its annual women in House program last week, bringing McGill women students to Parliament to meet with MPs to discuss encouraging more participation among women in public life. I was privileged to participate in a panel, which included representation from all parties, as part of this inspiring gathering. I would like to publicly thank the organizers for their hard work in achieving this year's event success.
As I noted in my remarks to the visiting students, it is a shame that while women make up 50.9% of the Canadian population, 70 million-plus strong in the 2011 census, in the current House, women have barely one-quarter of the seats. This is a result of policy choices we have made and could change. While I will not go into the details here, we have seen in examples around the world, using, for instance, Norway and Sweden as examples, that if we remove obstacles such as financial barriers, the old boys' network, and the like, more women will run and more women will be elected, and we can improve gender parity in the Commons.
As an aside, I would be remiss if I did not note that in the wake of this week's by-elections, I look forward to welcoming the new member for Toronto Centre, Chrystia Freeland, who I have no doubt will make many important contributions to, among other things, women's rights and gender equality in her new role.
Beyond policy options to improve gender parity in Parliament, there are policy options with respect to parity more broadly, and this is what this bill is about. Bill C-473 is at second reading, and thus the question before Parliament is whether it should be sent to committee for further study and refinement. I believe this matter should, indeed, be referred to committee so that witnesses can help inform the discussion and debate. I support the spirit and principle of the bill, as I believe gender parity is a goal we should pursue. 
That said, there are some questions to be addressed in committee regarding the scope and implementation of this bill. One such question I think it important to raise is whether the legislation goes far enough in that the number of women on boards may not be an accurate indicator, in and of itself, of women's progress more broadly. In other words, to illustrate with an example, just because we have gender parity on a board heading a science agency does not mean we are doing enough to encourage women to enter and remain in the sciences or that women are equitably represented in decisions regarding science policy.
Certainly, I share the hope that if more women are on boards, these boards and agencies will adopt policies and perspectives that are inclusive and sensitive to the need for minority representation. However, we might wonder whether there are other metrics to be considered in this regard, such as compensation and the promotion of women relative to their male counterparts. 
It is interesting to note that the bill comes from the NDP, which generally takes very progressive stances in this regard. Another such question is that this bill seems not to contemplate how a transgendered individual may count or wish to be counted for gender-parity purposes. Simply put, there may be consequences to ambiguity in the legislation as it does reinforce a gender binary to which not all ascribe.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the bill seems to be silent on the matter of sanctions. That is, it does not outline penalties or remedial action for failure to adhere to the objectives outlined in the bill. It specifically states:
 An act of the board of directors of a parent Crown corporation...is not invalid on the sole ground that the composition of the board is not in compliance with that section. 
In other words, any decision made by a board without the designated gender representation is not invalid if the board does not meet the appropriate gender representation requirements. This clause would seem to lessen the strength of the bill. I think we will have to investigate whether we might have some sort of mechanism whereby we do not merely say, as this bill does, and importantly so, that failure to meet the required parity is “just business as usual” and “we're sorry”. Ultimately, without any consequence for failure to meet the quotas, this entire initiative may become an exercise in symbolism, which again is important but which I am sure the hon. member who introduced the bill did not intend to be the principal impact.
There are multiple approaches to this question. One which I believe ought to be considered, though again this perspective might be informed through debate and in committee, is whether we set a goal of 50% parity in the statute and mandate sanctions when a figure of less than 40% is achieved. While I agree that 40% is not parity, a requirement of 40% with a 50% goal is preferable to a goal set of 50% with a requirement of 0%, which is what the bill would appear to mandate in its current form. I want to be clear on this point because I know there will be some doubts as to what direction this ought to take and whether one should support quotas, affirmative action and the like, and whether this initiative can be effective.
In part, the discussions on this bill will be illuminated by expert witness testimony before the committee. I do hope we can send this bill to committee so that witnesses will provide the evidence that we as parliamentarians can then use to inform our perspectives and the subsequent debate.
Indeed, there is expertise and experience on this question, most notably from my own province of Quebec, as my colleague cited in her remarks. She stated:
As previously mentioned, in Quebec, An Act Respecting the Governance of State-owned Enterprises requires that the Government of Quebec establish a policy with the following objective: 
 ...that the boards of directors of the enterprises as a group include an equal number of women and men... 
Just before that line, there is a provision that states:
 ...that the boards of directors of the enterprises as a group be composed of members whose cultural identity reflects the various segments of Québec society; 
We might wonder if a similar provision on cultural community representation ought to be in Bill C-473 as well. From Quebec's experience and international experience in this regard we can better establish how effective such a law is at achieving parity and where the pitfalls are. For example, if it turned out that to comply with the guidelines, some board would simply reduce the overall number of members but that this would have a prejudicial impact on the work of such a board, we might want to reconsider if in some cases a ministerial exemption might be appropriate. This would be a matter in which hearing from Quebec's experience would greatly inform and assist parliamentarians as we address this issue.
Before concluding my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not note that all issues of gender parity are not solved by this bill, though it is certainly a step in the right direction.
For example, the recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada of Justice Marc Nadon, was critiqued in that his appointment did not preserve the previous 5:4 gender parity observed on our nation's highest tribunal. While I would agree that judicial excellence and merit ought to be the prime consideration in any appointment, it is troubling to note that under the current Conservative government there have been six justices appointed to the Supreme Court. They are the Honourable Justices Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Nadon, only one of whom is a woman. Surely, we can do a better job of achieving and maintaining gender parity at the Supreme Court and of addressing diversity in the judiciary overall, as there is room for improvement on this front. 
This bill would not address parity on a body such as the Supreme Court, though one would hope that in 2013 the Government of Canada would adopt a mindset of equality and not need a legislative reminder of what ought otherwise to be considered common sense, if not principle.
As I close, I want to applaud my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for addressing an issue of women's rights wherein the government's leadership has been wanting and wherein Parliament has a distinct role to play. 
There are many other concerns, both domestic and international, that time does not permit me to address, including women in armed conflict, pay equity, matrimonial real property, gender budgeting, access to comprehensive medical care, and the like, on which I would encourage the government to adopt a more progressive and inclusive approach. Until then, I hope more private members' bills such as this will seek to advance the equality cause that arguably the government has abandoned.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her leadership in tabling the bill in this place today. 
My colleague who spoke before me has raised a litany of issues on gender parity that have yet to be addressed by either Conservative or Liberal governments in the past. In a couple of years from now, when the New Democrats take control of government, I am looking forward to addressing these matters from the House of Commons. I would point out that given the large proportion of women in the chamber represented by our party, we can have full confidence that the government will also be represented by a lot of women, including in cabinet. 
It is important to point out that my colleague has tabled a bill addressing a clear power of the government—that is, its power to make appointments to crown corporations. The bill is very laudatory, because what she is saying is that government should lead by example. In a notation in budget 2012, the government simply encouraged private corporate boards to include more Canadian women, and that was good business sense, but it took no measures itself to increase the number of women on the boards to which it controls appointments. 
Of course, the members will remember that the government of the day made great promises for open, transparent, participatory government and tabled its accountability bill. What it has not delivered on, and what it struck down without striking down the payment is its appointments secretariat, which for many years continued to have millions of dollars budgeted when it in fact did no business.
 Therefore, there is no clear mechanism whereby members of Parliament can come forward on appointments to make recommendations to encourage more names of women to come forward. The only time members of Parliament can do that is when the speaker refers the matter of appointments to committees and if in the wisdom of the committee it decides that it will address that matter. It is always after the fact. It is after the government has already decided who it is bringing forward as appointments. 
Therefore, I fully congratulate my colleague for her very progressive step, which is very clearly based on the information she provided to the House today in keeping with other G8 nations. To represent the interests of all Canadians, we should of course turn to the G8 nations when they are taking more democratic measures. 
I think also that the bill is very wise, because it does not recommend that we immediately provide parity on all crown corporations for men and women. There is a very phased increase over time, which is reasonable. 
There was opposition by the government member speaking against quotas, saying that somehow women have to have quotas or they will never get appointed, which is an absurd statement. One of the reasons governments turn to quotas is that governments have not voluntarily gone in that direction. We note from past experience, whether it is a private corporate board or a crown corporation, that once someone is appointed to one board, that person is seen as credible and is then appointed to other boards. One merely needs to look at The Globe and Mail each day to see who is being appointed, and then see the long list of boards that the new appointee has been appointed to. 
At what point in time can women get an equal foot in the door? At some point in time, the governments have to take certain measures. The measure that my hon. colleague has brought forward is a very reasonable one, and it is in keeping with precedents set by other countries around the world.
Let us look at the record. My colleague was very fair and reasonable in doing an averaging of the number of women appointed to crown corporations. I believe she said it was 27%. I think what the Library of Parliament said was far less than that, less than 20%. 
However, let us look at the actual boards. How many women are on the board of Atomic Energy of Canada? The answer is zero. For the National Energy Board, it is 20%. For the Bank of Canada, it is 23% women. 
In Canada Post Corporation, we know a lot of posties are women. I think they probably have the direct experience. They could potentially sit on the board. They are good business managers: 18%.
There is the CBC. Both men and women listen to the radio. They can offer sage advice on what would make for good public programming: only 33% for women.
There is the Standards Council of Canada. Women nowadays have all kinds of backgrounds and credentials that they could offer for establishing common standards for the country: a mere 27% are women.
We might be able to defend that there is no necessity for quotas. We might be able to defend that there are so few women on our crown corporations because they are not educated or they do not have the credentials. In my alma mater, the University of Alberta, enrollment in the Alberta School of Business MBA program is 42% women. Maybe that is an indication that there are women of high calibre.
In the University of Alberta faculty of law, the percentage of women enrolled has been a consistent 48% to 51% since the year 2000. I can fully attest that each year the women graduated with the highest percentage of marks from those law schools. Therefore, it is clearly not a matter of women not having the credentials.
Maybe they graduate from university and they do not go on to have any practical experience. I took the time to look at the membership in the law societies across our country. What is the percentage of insured members of the bar in Alberta who are women? It is almost 50%. Almost 2,000 women are registered, practising, insured members of the bar society. In Ontario, almost 7,000 women are practising members of the bar.
 Let us look a bit deeper. Maybe they are just new entrants. Maybe this is a new phenomenon that women have decided to enter the professions. Maybe they have the qualifications to actually serve on crown corporations. We look at practising members of the bar in Alberta for 16 to 20 years: 573 women; in Ontario, 2,200 women. Let us look at 26 years and more of women who have practised at the bar: in Alberta, over 700 women; in Ontario, more than 2,400 women.
Therefore, is it a situation where women do not have the qualifications or do not have the experience? One simply raises the question of why the government, in its wisdom, cannot seem to find any qualified women to appoint to its crown corporations.
One of the mechanisms to use, which has been used around the world, is the use of establishing quotas. As my colleague very validly pointed out, around the world various countries have chose mechanisms to make appointments and many of them have chosen specific quotas.
 I am deeply troubled in hearing the comment across the way by the member responsible for the Status of Women in suggesting that because my colleague has tabled a bill recommending that there be quotas, that therefore the member does not believe women are qualified. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very reason she has stayed in the House and why she feels it is necessary to bring forward this bill is because there are so many qualified women in the country who are being given short shrift by the government.
In closing, the most important point is the comment made by the government member about the fact that these were stand-alone boards and that the government had nothing to do with them. It is the government that chooses whom to appoint to every federal crown corporation in the country. The members of the government are the ones who make those very choices. In their wisdom, they have decided that they will not look to our chambers of commerce, our places of business, our small businesses, large corporations or to women who are in management to find women who might be able to serve.
It was suggested in a review by the United Nations a few years back that it would serve democracy better around the world if governments would move to ensure greater gender parity in all institutions of government.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona touched on a lot of important issues in this debate, and I am pleased to be here to discuss them.
I want to congratulate and thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who worked very hard on this bill. She does an excellent job, not only for women in her riding and in Quebec, but also for all women. I am very proud to have her as a colleague.
The purpose of Bill C-473 is to achieve gender parity on boards of directors of crown corporations within six years, as my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned.
After so many years, gender parity is still an issue. It is important to acknowledge the gains and progress made on this issue, but we would be remiss to think that this issue is resolved and that there is nothing more to be done to work towards equality.
In the workforce and elsewhere, women realize that inequality is still deeply entrenched, whether it is in terms of pay or shared responsibilities. We know that women still earn about 70% of what men earn. As for the sharing of responsibilities, more often than not women still do more at home, take more time off to raise children and have more responsibilities. This has a huge impact on equality in our society.
Although women represent half the population, they are far from being equal to men in management, on boards of directors and in politics. We see this in the House of Commons, for example, where only about 25% of MPs are women. This is also the case in provincial and municipal politics. Although there are currently more women premiers than ever before, that does not mean that the number of women in charge of ministries has really increased that much. We really do have a lot of work to do.
For example, in 2012, only 32.8% of the members of Quebec's National Assembly were women. However, women represent 40% of the NDP caucus, something we are proud of. I am proud to chair the NDP women's caucus. There are some really fantastic women in my party on this side of the House. We have that 40% because we went out and recruited women specifically. We worked hard to find female candidates in Quebec, and we encouraged women to run for office. 
We must work on achieving better representation, as our party did. As my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned, when we form the government, I am certain that we will maintain this representation and that we will achieve parity. That will very much change the way Parliament works. 
The situation is even worse in Canada's 84 crown corporations, where 16, or 19%, of the presidents are women. The most recent data indicate that there are 2,000 Canadians who hold positions in more than 200 crown corporations, agencies, board of directors or commissions across the country, and that women are under-represented on boards of directors, where they currently hold 27% of senior management positions. In Quebec, women hold only 24% of management positions and 15% of the seats on boards of directors.
I dream of the day when we will have achieved perfect gender equality at work, in relationships, in politics and in every aspect of society and life, whether private or public. I also hope that this equity really makes a difference in the status of all women and all men, all Canadians and all Quebeckers.
As a woman in politics, I believe it is my duty to support other women, motivate them and, above all, encourage them to reach for the sky. Women in politics have a duty to show the women around them that nothing is impossible and that they can achieve anything they put their minds to.
We really need to support one another to truly understand that we can do anything, be it running a business, sitting on a corporate board or being in politics. We are in dire need of role models. As we can plainly see, women only account for roughly a quarter of people in politics and on corporate boards.
There are too few female role models to look up to, which is why we do not always see ourselves in these roles. We need to encourage one another, and women in politics need to lead by example.
By empowering women and girls, we can make a positive difference in the lives of everyone in the community. I would say that women have been working to achieve equity at least since the time my grandmother was my age.
A first step in that direction would be to support my colleague's bill. She is proposing the following parameters: a target of 30% women two years after the bill is implemented, 40% four years after the bill is implemented, and 50% six years after it is implemented. As the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona said, it will not happen in one fell swoop, but over a six-year period.
In addition, this legislative measure will indirectly force crown corporations to expand their search for qualified, effective candidates and to target non-traditional recruitment pools. One reason that it is more difficult to find women in positions of power is that recruiters do not look to traditionally female-dominated areas, such as nursing and education, for those skill sets.
They are wonderful, hard-working people. Nobody would suggest they are not qualified. We need to look at everyone who is active in the community, whether we are recruiting for a board or looking for political candidates. If we want to change the decision-making landscape, we need to widen our search parameters when we are looking for decision-makers.
I want to point out that this bill does not apply to businesses, companies, financial institutions or publicly traded companies. It only applies to crown corporations.
New Democrats firmly believe that supporting this bill means supporting women's equality, a government responsibility. Indeed, the government must lead by example and ensure a better gender balance among people managing public finances, to better reflect Canadian reality.
This will also inspire other institutions and businesses, and help them realize that having women on their board gives them a competitive edge. We will only achieve equality once 50% of board members are women. We must keep in mind that board diversity is key to good governance: its positive impact will extend not only to crown corporations, but to society as a whole.
In closing, I want to point out that many countries have adopted incentives, the same way Quebec did.
Quotas like these ones have a big impact because they highlight the importance of this issue. I will conclude by saying that New Democrats remain committed to fighting any type of discrimination against women. I believe this would be a good way to show that equality between men and women is really important.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-473, which was introduced by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. 
As she mentioned at the beginning of her speech, she had introduced her bill early this year, but had to reintroduce it because Parliament was prorogued.
I took the opportunity of putting Bill C-473 in one of the mail-outs. I wanted to talk about the fact that it was being introduced. I had an extremely positive response to this bill from the people of Laval.
People were pleased that we were addressing this issue, getting involved and trying to ensure we achieve equality between men and women on our boards. In my area, Laval, people view this bill very positively. I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for introducing it.
Since I was elected, like many of my female colleagues in the House, I have participated in a number of round tables. We go to see many community groups, particularly women's groups, that want to hear about our experience in politics. They want to know how it works and what it takes to get involved in politics. Does one need to have $100,000? Does one need to know the Prime Minister? Some people have no idea how the process works or how to run in a federal election. This surprised me, but I was very pleased to speak about my experience.
I have spoken about my experience many times with the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, or the TCLCF. When I spoke to these women's groups, they often told me that they did not know what they could do.
Mr. Speaker, if I told you to close your eyes and imagine what a politician looks like to you, you would likely imagine a white male between the ages of 50 and 60.
When I played that little game with groups of women, most said exactly the same thing. That is what we see in our heads. The image is etched in our minds. That needs to change. It is very hard to find women to enter politics. We have to seek them out. For every woman we try to reach, there are 10 men lining up to take the job, each saying we should choose him. It is very difficult. This is firmly entrenched.
Accordingly, I believe that Bill C-473 presents an excellent opportunity for us to come together and break the glass ceiling above our heads.
The Speaker:  The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan will have seven minutes left to conclude her remarks the next time the bill is before the House.
However, since it is 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)