2013-05-10

Nuclear Terrorism Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed. 
Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party believes that we must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with our international obligation in order to better co-operate with other countries on a counterterrorism strategy.
The bill before us is unique inasmuch as we usually oppose the introduction of a government bill through the Senate, because an unelected chamber is not the place to begin the legislative process. However, for Bill S-9, one can see a helpful use of Senate time to do the first vetting of legislation that is intended merely to be technical to create compliance with international obligations.
This bill fulfills Canada's treaty obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, CPPNM, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, ICSANT. This includes extending international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to now include the protection of nuclear facilities. It reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council resolution 1540, from 2004, to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.
In this case, the implementation of the treaty requires amendments to Canadian legislation. The treaty is ratified only when such amendments or new legislation have been passed. To date, Canada has not ratified either the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendments. This is because Canada does not have legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in the ICSANT or some of the offences outlined in the CPPNM.
The amendments Bill S-9 introduces into the code represent Canada's efforts to align its domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions. If these amendments become law, Canada will presumably be in a position to ratify both the conventions, something Canada, and other countries, committed to work toward at both the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit, held in Washington, D.C., and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Korea.
New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern, such as nuclear terrorism. We thus need to work with other leading countries that are ratifying these conventions. Moreover, Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. It is important to fulfill our international obligations and ratify these conventions through the domestic implementation that Bill S-9 undertakes.
To emphasize the seriousness of nuclear terrorism, I wish to quote from Professor Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
Dr. Bunn testified before the Senate committee on this particular bill. He said:
 The danger of nuclear terrorism remains very real. Government studies in the United States and in other countries have concluded that if terrorists manage to get enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium, they might very well be able to make a crude nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of a major city. 
 In the case of highly enriched uranium, making such a bomb is basically a matter of slamming two pieces together at high speed. The amounts required are small, and smuggling them is frighteningly easy. 
 The core of al Qaeda is, as President Obama mentioned the other night, a shadow of its former self, but regional affiliates are metastasizing and some of the key nuclear operatives of al Qaeda remain free today. With at least two terrorist groups having pursued nuclear weapons seriously in the last 20 years, we cannot expect that they will be the last. Moreover, some terrorists have seriously considered sabotaging nuclear power plants, perhaps causing something like what we saw at Fukushima in Japan, or dispersing highly radioactive materials in a so-called “dirty bomb”. 
 Should terrorists succeed in detonating a nuclear bomb in a major city, the political, economic, and social effects would reverberate throughout the world. Kofi Annan, when he was secretary-general of the United Nations, warned that the economic effects would drive millions of people into poverty and create a second [terrifyingly significant] death toll in the developing world. Fears that terrorists might have another bomb that they might set off somewhere else would be acute. The world would be transformed, and not for the better. 
 Hence, insecure nuclear material anywhere is really a threat to everyone, everywhere. This is not just an American judgment. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned that nuclear terrorism is one of the most serious threats of our time. Mohamed ElBaradei, while he was head of the IAEA, called it the greatest threat to the world. 
 Russia's counterterrorism czar, Anatoly Safonov, has warned that they have “firm knowledge” that terrorists have been given specific tasks to acquire nuclear weapons and their components.... 
 Fortunately, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we've made tremendous progress around the world in improving security for both nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them. No longer are there sites where the essential ingredients of a nuclear bomb are sitting in what you and I would consider the equivalent of a high school gym locker with a padlock that could be snapped with a bolt cutter.... 
 At scores of sites around the world, dramatically improved nuclear security has been put in place. At scores of other sites the weapons-usable nuclear material has been removed entirely, reducing the threat of nuclear theft from those sites to zero. More than 20 countries have eliminated all weapons-usable nuclear material on their soil, and the nuclear security summits have provided new high-level political impetus, which has accelerated this progress. 
Mr. Safonov stressed a few more dangerous areas that still exist. 
 In Pakistan, a small but rapidly growing nuclear stockpile, which is under heavy security, I believe, faces more extreme threats than any other nuclear stockpile in the world, both from heavily armed extremists who might attack from outside and from potential insiders who might help them. 
 In Russia, which has the world's largest stockpiles of both nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material dispersed in the largest numbers of buildings and bunkers, the nuclear security measures have dramatically improved, but there are still important weaknesses that a sophisticated theft conspiracy might exploit. And sustainability remains a major concern, as Russia still has neither the strong nuclear security rules effectively in force nor sufficient funds allocated from the federal government to sustain security for the long haul. 
 At more than 100 research reactors around the world, you still have highly enriched uranium used as fuel or as targets for the production of medical isotopes, and in many of these reactors, security is very minimal. Some of them are on university campuses. 
 At the moment, unfortunately, the mechanisms for global governance of nuclear security remain weak. No global rules specify how secure a nuclear weapon or a chunk of plutonium or highly enriched uranium ought to be. There are no mechanisms in place to verify that every country that has these materials is securing them responsibly. 
Without a doubt, Canada strongly supports the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Canada was, in fact, one of the architects of the CPPNM amendment and the ICSANT, and we are encouraged by the adoption of these two conventions by a significant number of countries. We actively encourage others to follow through on the their commitment to become parties, as Canada is doing.
Bill S-9, once passed and followed by the ratification of the CPPNM amendment as well as the ICSANT, would give credence to Canada's commitment to the strengthening of the global national security architecture. It would provide Canada with additional tools to counter this threat as well as enhance our ability to work with partners to mitigate the consequences, should this threat ever materialize. 
We must be vigilant. We must work toward disarmament. We must ensure the safety of our world, our country and our families.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech. I am sure the government finds it disconcerting to know that it cannot always say one thing and do another. Could the member talk some more about how the government should change its view on international treaties, so that we can do more and move faster to crack down on these dangerous devices?
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, certainly moving expeditiously on this particular piece of legislation is a first step. 
However, it is not just nuclear security and the threat of potentially dangerous scenarios we should be cognizant of. Canada has signed a lot of international conventions and a lot of UN conventions. We signed a convention to protect women against inequality, to protect first nations women, to protect first nations rights and to protect children against hunger and poverty, and we have not followed through. It is not just this convention, it is all conventions. I would like to see this Parliament move expeditiously to honour all of our international agreements.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent speech. She identified a number of essential components of this bill.
However, I would like to hear her thoughts on our role and the influence we used to have on the international stage. We seem to have lost that influence. According to the United Nations charter, the principle of international co-operation is a chief obligation for member states. This government is currently ignoring that obligation.
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct. In terms of Canada's lost reputation internationally, we have become something of a pariah in the world community. Our failure to move ahead on our responsibility regarding climate change is just one example. We pulled out of the agreement to address climate change, the Kyoto accord.
Beyond that international reputation is the reality that Canada is a key producer of uranium, the kind of material used for nuclear weapons. We have to show leadership on this. We have benefited from uranium production. In fact, we are a key producer of nuclear reactors. We have to show some positive and responsible, and I think important, leadership in this regard.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the wonderful speech.
Why does the party opposite have the terrible habit of using the Senate—which is full of unelected members—to launch the legislative process?
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, it is a troublesome kind of reality that the current government is so busy losing money, $3.1 billion, and covering up scandals that it does not seem to have the time to do the positive international and domestic work we very much want to happen in this place.
This is an important bill. I am very sorry that it did not come from the government, that it did not come through the House of Commons, because we, as elected members, have an obligation, as I said, to our families, to our country and to the world community. No Senate can do that work.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, ever since September 11, the international community has been worried about international terrorism.
The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council have been trying to establish international co-operation to eliminate terrorism. They have paid particular attention to nuclear terrorism.
The UN General Assembly and Security Council passed resolutions that resulted in treaties on nuclear terrorism, calling upon member states to pass laws and adopt policies to keep up with the constant evolution of the terrorist threat.
Canada has been involved in this international co-operation for a long time. Canada ratified the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which encourages countries to create measures to prevent, detect and punish crimes involving nuclear materials.
In 2005, that convention was amended to improve physical protection for nuclear materials and nuclear facilities. These changes will increase the scope of the convention and cover nuclear materials used for peaceful purposes while in domestic use, storage and transport, as well as domestic nuclear facilities. 
 Also in 2005, Canada signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, but that convention has not yet been ratified. A treaty can be ratified only when national legislative amendments have been made.
 The ICSANT calls upon countries to create new criminal offences for acts of nuclear terrorism. That is the purpose of Bill S-9. The bill will amend Canada's laws to bring them into line with the two conventions I have just mentioned.
 Once this bill has been passed, Canada will be able to ratify both international conventions and thus we will fulfill our obligations.
We are in favour of multilateral approaches that encourage co-operation between countries. Such co-operation is important in so-called transnational areas of concern, such as terrorism.
 International co-operation is the only way we can protect ourselves from such threats. When a problem goes beyond our borders, our national laws cannot eliminate transnational activities or protect us from them.
 That is why it is important to establish good co-operation that leads to international conventions that make it possible to extend the limited coverage provided by our own legislation. We support co-operation among the countries that have ratified these conventions. 
 That is why we will support this bill. Its content meets the requirements of the convention very well.
This bill was introduced in the Senate in March. It has 10 clauses that create four new crimes to be added to the Criminal Code. The bill would make it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. 
 It would also make it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything.
 I would like to emphasize the word "compel". It is important because the prime objective of terrorism is to force a government or organization to do something, and that can include not doing certain things as well.
How many attacks or kidnappings have been committed by terrorist organizations in order to discourage countries from taking part in the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? Terrorist groups use threats and retribution to force governments to give in to their political demands.
The bill also makes it illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access to or control of a nuclear facility.
Protecting against someone obtaining a nuclear device may be problematic. Quite often, people who try to make a nuclear device will try to find the parts individually and, often, the parts may seem harmless because they could be used for many things. One of the biggest difficulties for the RCMP and the security service is identifying how the parts will be used.
The bill also makes it illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.
This bill makes other important amendments to the Criminal Code, for instance, to add definitions for the terms used for these new offences.
The bill also adds a new section to the Criminal Code to ensure that individuals who commit or attempt to commit any of these offences overseas can be prosecuted in Canada. This provision contains specific criteria, however. The offence must be committed on a ship that is registered or licensed or on an aircraft registered in Canada, by a Canadian citizen or someone who is present in Canada after the commission of the act.
This bill will amend Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance and the taking of bodily substances. The Anti-Terrorism Act amended the code provisions on electronic surveillance.
Therefore, the four new offences were added to section 183 of the Criminal Code to justify the use of electronic surveillance for these offences. This provision was included to allow peace officers to apply for a warrant for the seizure of bodily substances when they are investigating individuals for these offences. It will also be mandatory to collect bodily substances from those convicted of these offences.
These two tools are important for our front-line public safety officers. However, these provisions will have to be used in accordance with Canadian legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When new powers are granted, limits must be set to prevent any abuse on the part of our public safety officers who, I would like to stress, have my full confidence.
Finally, the bill amends the Canadian rule regarding double jeopardy. That rule does not apply if a trial abroad does not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In such cases, a Canadian court may retry the person for the same crime for which he was convicted abroad.
This Senate bill enables the government to meet its international obligations by creating new Criminal Code offences, but that is just one side of the coin. The other side, which is just as important, has to do with prevention and security.
Mr. Jamieson, from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, made a presentation before the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act on June 4. He gave a brief outline of the prevention provisions adopted by the commission. He explained that the requirements relating to physical protection are gradual and reflect the level of risk and its consequences. He presented a partial list of security measures in nuclear facilities. The requirements range from controlling access to sites to providing an on-site response force. Employees and supervisors must meet security protocol awareness and training requirements, and they must undergo background checks.
Licensees must develop and maintain contingency plans as well as practise regular emergency drills. The transport of nuclear materials requires a licence. In order to obtain it, the licensee must submit a detailed security plan including a threat assessment, the proposed security measures, the route and other arrangements along the route. Security plans are required for all shipments, including those in transit through Canada.
Canada is a model for the world when it comes to nuclear safety, but the government must continue to invest the necessary funds in order to maximize the safety of Canadians, while minimizing the likelihood of a crime or a terrorist attack being committed in Canada or elsewhere in the world.
The International Atomic Energy Agency documented nearly 2,000 incidents related to the unauthorized use, transport or possession of nuclear and radioactive materials between 1993 and 2011. Government agencies with anti-terrorism responsibilities must work in an integrated manner in order for these organizations to be able to properly protect Canadians.
It is not just a matter of creating indictable terrorist offences. It is also a question of investing the necessary funds to allow these organizations and their front-line officers to carry out their mission and the mandate assigned to them, which is to protect the safety of Canadians.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his heartfelt speech. I would like to ask him why the manufacture of nuclear or radioactive devices was not included in Bill S-9 when it was introduced in the Senate, since this eventually led to the Senate amendment. This speaks volumes about the lack of prudence and preparation on the government's part.
I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on this lack of prudence and preparation.
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Obviously, the initial bill did not include the provisions that my colleague mentioned. Was it a lack of foresight or a lack of planning? I really cannot say, but it obviously was an oversight.
The Liberal senator proposed the amendments needed to add these provisions to the bill so that it fulfills our obligations and the treaties we have signed. These amendments were accepted unanimously and are now an integral part of Bill S-9, making it consistent with our international obligations.
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The bill allows us to honour international conventions. However, it did take quite some time to deliver a relatively simple piece of legislation to align our domestic laws with international agreements.
I would like to hear what the member has to say about how slowly Canada has moved to ensure compliance with the international conventions it signed. 
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his question. Our domestic legislation and international obligations should have been aligned 10 years ago. It has taken a fairly long time. However, I must mention that Canada is not the slowest country because, if I am not mistaken, the United States has yet to amend its legislation.
On a number of occasions, Canada has been slow to align its legislation with its international obligations. However, it is important to mention that at least this time, it is going to fulfill its international obligations. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. In fact, on a number of occasions, Canada has ratified agreements and not met its commitments, which is deplorable. This time around, things moved very slowly, but at least Canada will meet its commitments.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I am taking part in the debate at third reading on Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, or the Nuclear Terrorism Act. 
I have a keen interest in this bill. In fact, I can identify with a number of aspects of the nuclear issue as they are related to various stages in my life. My speech might be called “slices of life”.
 After an innocent childhood light years away from such concerns, it was in my teen years that I realized the incredible potential of nuclear energy, although I did not immediately become aware that there were major disadvantages hidden behind its advantages.
 I lived in Trois-Rivières my whole life, and in the 1970s I saw the first nuclear power plant built. Gentilly-1 was an experimental plant if ever there was one, and it was the pride of Canadian technology. It promised an incredible energy future and garnered international renown for Canada’s CANDU reactors. In addition, a friend's father, who worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at the time, was sent to Korea to take part in the building and start-up of nuclear power stations using Canadian technology. To my mind, nothing but good could come of this, because I knew him.
 Remember, it was the early 1970s, a time when we thought that, by the end of the century, we would have a four-day workweek and a leisure society and floating cars, just like in the Star Wars films. Of course, at the time we also thought finding a solution to the problem of radioactive waste would be child’s play. During my first visit to Gentilly-1, the storage ponds for uranium fuel bundles and the use of robots in the handling procedures left me feeling confident in our ability to succeed. Life is so simple when you are young.
 This idyllic view of the world was shattered by my first 20th-century history courses, when films of the fallout of the Hiroshima bombing made me realize that a major scientific breakthrough could be either beneficial or destructive, depending on whose hands it fell into.
 During my university years in Quebec City, while travelling along the 138 by the St. Lawrence River, I noticed the construction of Gentilly-2, which was in service from 1983 until 2012, and which produced a great deal of radioactive waste that is still stored on site. All the tourists who enjoyed a cruise on the St. Lawrence at Trois-Rivières were invariably told all about these two nuclear power stations during their trip.
 It was not until much later, not until the disasters at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, that I began to be more concerned about the issue of security at these facilities. Although terrorism was not a factor in these two disasters, I found that, while security of access to the Gentilly plants by land was adequate, access by the St. Lawrence River was significantly more problematic. In fact, my fears in this regard have not yet entirely dissipated, and my opinion is the same as it was back then. 
 Today, however, we cannot deny the possibility of a terrorist attack. While its former international reputation made a Canadian passport the best calling card for travel throughout the world and gave us the impression that we would never be targeted by terrorist movements, since this government came to power, the global community's ideas about Canada have changed radically, and there is very little to suggest that we are still sheltered from attacks or reprisals.
I am somewhat encouraged to see that we are discussing a bill today that could enable Canada to meet some of its international obligations, including under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The latter would extend the application of international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to include protection of nuclear facilities. I live next to Gentilly, and our region is the only one at risk in Quebec and will be for years because even though the power plant was shut down in December, it still needs to be decommissioned and dismantled.
This bill could help reassure millions of Canadians like me who live near a nuclear facility. Despite the complexity of the matter and the situation, the bill is relatively easy to understand.
The bill on nuclear terrorism includes 10 clauses that create four new offences.
This bill makes it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. 
It made me chuckle to see a Conservative bill that even bothers to mention the environment.
The bill also makes it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything.
It also makes it illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access to or control of a nuclear facility.
Finally, it makes it illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.
With these four new offences, this bill also makes major amendments to the code.
For example, one amendment would ensure that the four offences be considered primary designated offences for the purposes of issuing warrants. One provision regarding wiretapping would allow for the rules to be applied to these new offences. 
If Bill S-9 is passed, Canada would have legislation enabling it to ratify the two international conventions I mentioned a few minutes ago. Although such a bill is necessary, we cannot ignore the fact that it raises some concerns.
As a result, we must ensure that the scope of these new sections will not lead to excessive criminalization and will not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We will continue to oppose the fact that the government is introducing bills through the Senate, because we do not think that this unelected chamber should be the starting point of our legislative process.
However, as New Democrats, we are determined to support multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, particularly in areas of shared concern. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill at third reading. 
Terrorism is certainly a shared concern. Many people associate nuclear terrorism with plots from action movies such as James Bond or Die Hard. However, between 1993 and 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency identified close to 2,000 incidents related to the use, transportation and possession of nuclear and radioactive material.
Canada must take a leadership role to ensure that at the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit, the participants implement the amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was amended in 2005.
Canada, as well as the United States, could play an important role in making sure that happens. However, 2014 is not far off, and that is one reason why my party is supporting this bill at third reading.
Since the September 11 attacks, Canada and the United States have tightened up security protocols surrounding their own nuclear material, to convince other countries to adopt a responsible approach to reducing the risk of theft of nuclear material and nuclear terrorism. As a result, these two countries should set an example by implementing responsible measures at home. 
A total of 97 of the 145 countries have to ratify this treaty for it to be enforceable. Fifty-six countries have already ratified it in their parliaments. The call was put out during the Seoul summit, and we need to step up.
The threat is real; according to Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary-General, nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats we face today.
We do not have the right to allow incidents to happen because we did not try to guard against a terrorist attack.
I will conclude by saying that it would be wrong not to anticipate events as tragic as those in Fukushima, which were caused by natural forces beyond our control. We cannot assume that they will not happen as a result of situations that we could have avoided.
There are two fundamental reasons why I am voting for this bill. For one, it is designed to fight potential nuclear terrorists before they strike and, two, it will help Canada regain some of the credibility it has lost internationally.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, who is also president of the NDP's Quebec caucus, for his excellent speech on a bill that is important to us. This bill proves that the NDP is not just here to oppose government proposals. Even if it takes the government a long time to introduce bills that make sense or that fulfill our international obligations, once it does, the NDP will answer the call.
I would like to know if my colleague sees a link between the government saying that it is against terrorism and is doing everything it can to fight it, and the fact that it lost $3.1 billion in funding for public security and anti-terrorism activities. We do not know where that money is. 
I would like to hear his opinion on that.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gatineau for her question.
I must admit that you have to have certain ideals if you want a career in politics. Voting for Bill S-9 is much more than a leap of faith, given the government in power. I think that, in the matter before us this morning, it is completely unavoidable.
As I said at the end of my speech, there are two critical elements that contribute to making me say yes. Once again, I am putting my faith in the Conservatives for a few weeks, for a few years, until 2015 at the latest. In any case, democracy prevents me from doing otherwise.
This is one of the few times that the different parties of the House are working together on this issue, and I hope we will get results internationally. Again, the two objectives are to have the government and Canada regain credibility on the international scene and to protect ourselves against possible terrorist acts.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his inspiring presentation.
I would like to respond to the last point he raised. International co-operation is an important aspect for Canada. Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter, in particular, sets out this principle and this obligation to co-operate with other countries around the world.
International co-operation is important when ratifying international agreements, like the one we just discussed, that result in shared concerns. We have lost that in recent years under the Conservatives' leadership.
I would like to know whether my colleague is as concerned as I am about Canada's reputation on the world scene.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and for mentioning the UN convention.
Such a convention would never have been possible if international co-operation had not become a necessity, as it has today, in 2013. The planet is now a small village. Indeed, the potential fallout of such major issues as climate change or nuclear terrorism does not recognize state lines. Radiation does not stop at the border, and neither do the climate disruptions that we are currently experiencing. Therefore, it is our duty to work with every international body. 
Unfortunately, since the arrival of the Conservative majority, we have gradually been distancing ourselves from these relationships that countries must build with others in order to deal with global issues on a local level, in the hopes of finding a global solution.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his very compelling speech.
I agree with him about the government's credibility, as it has clearly grown complacent on that front and rarely chooses to be a part of the global community.
My colleague spoke not only of international obligations, but also of the need to honour national charters.
I would like the member for Trois-Rivières to explain why it is important for us to do so.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, simply put, honouring international commitments and national charters is the international equivalent of keeping one's word, as an individual.
That said, I will leave it up to Canadians to draw their own conclusions about our leaders.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, first, I think it unfortunate that the nuclear terrorism bill has come from the Senate, a chamber where the occupants have not been democratically elected, but, rather, appointed for partisan reasons. Bills should be debated first and foremost in the House of Commons, where the elected representatives sit. That is the very principle of a parliamentary system.
The government was already beating all records for time allocation and closure. Now it is bringing its bills in by the back door, by way of the Senate. It is really sad.
Let us discuss Bill S-9, which will enable Canada to fulfill its commitments under two international conventions. These conventions are intended to go beyond the limits of nuclear non-proliferation and will now include protective measures for nuclear facilities. Bill S-9 would reinforce Canada's obligation under the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1540 to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons. 
According to Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy at Harvard University, there have been a number of cases of trafficking in since the 1990s. For example, there have been 20 seizures of highly enriched uranium since 1992. There is also a black market for less radioactive materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, has reported nearly 2,000 incidents of unauthorized use, transport, and possession of nuclear and other radioactive material between 1993 and 2011. 
 We must remain watchful and aware of the danger. Canada is one of the world's major producers and exporters of uranium. That means we must stockpile a great deal of radioactive and nuclear waste. That is an enormous problem, especially with the lax enforcement of regulations and prevention seen in the field. It is very difficult to contain this kind of waste. When a potential black market in radioactive material is added to this problem, we must see that the potential for nuclear terrorism is right here in Canada, under our noses.
My hon. colleague the member for Manicouagan told a story the other day here about L. Bélanger Métal, a large scrapyard in Trois-Rivières, that detected a very high level of radiation in certain metal beams it had received in 2012. Tests were done and they were able to determine that the metal came from Gentilly. How did this radioactive metal end up there? It is a very disturbing situation that shows how far-reaching the problem is. The greatest nuclear terrorism threat lies in the waste from Canada's nuclear reactors, which are unprotected from theft or simple negligence.
 Nuclear terrorism does not occur in isolation but has an impact on the entire world. New Democrats agree that we must co-operate with our international partners. Historically, Canada has always had a reputation as an international leader. It is sad to see that our reputation has been quite tarnished since 2006, for example, with the new environmental policies. If we want to be serious about preventing nuclear terrorism, the first thing is to strengthen our procedures governing environmental assessment and the way we stockpile nuclear waste.
Still, I hope that Bill S-9 will help build Canada's credibility in the fight against nuclear terrorism. I also hope that, when they see us implementing this legislation here, our international partners will be inspired to follow suit.
The Senate committee provided many interesting comments during the long process the bill went through. First, with the development of new technologies, Canada will no longer need to use nuclear reactors and enriched uranium to produce medical isotopes.
The committee also believes that Canada should be a leader in nuclear safety, by committing to stop the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes as soon as possible.
Second, Canada must show greater care in its safety arrangements. Malicious people are always looking for ways to bypass existing safety features. As a result, we must remain vigilant and move to new methods focused on prevention rather than repression.
Another issue was raised during consideration of the bill. The justice department's intention was to stick as closely as possible to the provisions of the international convention. However, some of the new offences in the Criminal Code have a broader scope than the offences found in the international agreements. We must ensure that the overly broad scope of these new sections will not lead to excessive criminalization and will not violate the charters of rights.
Lastly, Canada is legally bound by these international conventions, which means that we have obligations to fulfill. However, we cannot ratify the conventions until the domestic implementation process is complete. That is why I support Bill S-9, while hoping that it will not turn out to be just something passed to court votes.
We need to do more in terms of securing sites, creating protocols and implementing storage solutions that will not become a burden for future generations.
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. 
He mentioned some important aspects of life in the nuclear era, his primary focus being the safe storage of nuclear materials. I agree that safe storage is not the main purpose of the bill; however, if we want to reduce the risk, then safe storage is a key component of all the actions taken by countries that want to restrict access to nuclear materials for malicious purposes.
I would like the hon. member to elaborate on what he thinks about safe storage, which is a part of prevention. We cannot just implement repressive measures. We must also promote prevention. 
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
[Interjection]
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that very relevant question.
Prevention is indeed very important in this and many other areas. When it comes to crime, it is very important. Prevention as well as securing sites and storing nuclear materials are all very important when it comes to countering nuclear terrorism.
Prevention is also very important when it comes to environmental issues. It is a must and it pays off in the long term, since it prevents many future problems.

Statements By Members
Conservative Party VolunteersMs. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Canada, anyone, regardless of political stripe, can become engaged in the political process and make a difference. This is why some people make political activism their core volunteer commitment. While it should be a goal for all of us to encourage more Canadians to become active this way, we should also celebrate those who are already doing so.
As the Conservative Party heads into its national convention at the end of next month in Calgary, I would like to thank Menno Froese, Marshall Neufeld, Gord Elliott, Sam Magnus, Simon Chapelle, Cecil Taylor, Kara Johnson and Sophie Allard, who are finishing their volunteer service as national councillors, and our party president, John Walsh, for the incredible amount of work and heart that they give to our country.
On behalf of all of my Conservative colleagues here, to them and to the tens of thousands of other Conservative volunteers who for years have worked to ensure that Canada has a government that has vision and that is focused on the long-term health and prosperity of our country, we are thankful. They do make a difference, and it is because of them that we stand here today.
International Day Against Homophobia and TransphobiaMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, May 17 marks International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. Created in 2003 in Quebec, this initiative is now commemorated throughout the world.
Even today, homosexuality is still a crime in many countries. Cyberhomophobia is a growing problem. Transgendered people are being refused access to medical care and denied marriage and family rights. Violence and murder are still tragically frequent in this community.
In Canada and throughout the world, from Russia to Cameroon, from Lebanon to Vietnam, LGBT activists are fighting with passion and conviction for their safety, integrity and equality.
With the largest LGBT caucus in the history of this House, and the staunch solidarity of the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP is standing up for and standing proud with our diverse, vibrant and determined lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities.
Successfully passing the gender identity bill was just one more step on the way to the dream and the goal of a society free of homophobia and of transphobia.
South Shore OrganizationsMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margaret's, I rise to recognize the new and inspiring partnership between organizer Al Sullivan's David Atkinson Memorial Bonspiel for Cancer and the Health Services Foundation of the South Shore.
Together, the memorial bonspiel and the foundation will raise funds dedicated exclusively to helping South Shore cancer patients. I am proud to stand in the House to recognize them today.
I would also like to acknowledge the South Shore's own Admiral Desmond Piers Naval Association. The association meets on a monthly basis as a place for people who have served at sea. It is 130 members strong and growing. Whether their legacy was with the navy, the merchant marines, the Canadian Coast Guard or the RCMP's marine division, members of the Admiral Desmond Piers Naval Association are all united by their love of the sea, their honourable service and, as any of them would put it, the salt water in their veins.
These Nova Scotians and the organizations they represent honour both their communities and all of Canada.
Governor General's Caring Canadian AwardHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Carolyn Francis, who was recently presented with the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award. The award recognizes individuals who volunteer their time to help others and to build a smarter, more caring nation.
Carolyn, a resident of Kensington, P.E.I., is just so much the right person to be recognized. She is a dedicated educator and has a passion for teaching within the island community. She has carried that passion beyond Canada's borders. As an educator, she has been closely involved in teacher exchanges between Canada and Uganda that help girls stay in school, as well as a twinning program that links schools in Kenya with those in P.E.I., connecting her province with people in developing countries.
This volunteer work has made her truly one of the unsung heroes of our communities whose passion is so much a part of the Canadian character.
Congratulations go to Carolyn, and we thank her. The world needs more people like her.
MasterCard Memorial CupMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the MP for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, I take great pride in Saskatoon's hosting of the 2013 MasterCard Memorial Cup for major junior hockey next week. The host team, the Saskatoon Blades, has united our city's hockey-passionate community since 1966, when it joined the Western Hockey League. Next year, the Saskatoon Blades organization will celebrate its 50th year in the league.
I want to commend Blades owner Jack Brodsky, the host organizing committee and all the volunteers who are working so hard to make this year's MasterCard Memorial Cup an unforgettable event. I want to welcome all the many tourists who will be visiting our fair city of Saskatoon. The time has never been better to visit our city and to be a part of the 2013 MasterCard Memorial Cup celebration. We look forward to welcoming them.
I want to wish everyone, and especially all the hockey players, a safe, successful tournament, with best wishes for our host team, the Saskatoon Blades.
Francophone Association for KnowledgeMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week, I had the pleasure of taking part in the 81st convention of the Association francophone pour le savoir.
Nearly 5,000 researchers exchanged ideas on the role of science in our society and the importance of French-language research, unified in the belief that science will help us build a better world.
Meanwhile, the Conservative government is attacking basic research, muzzling its scientists and dismantling Canada's only oceanography library serving the French-speaking scientific community. 
Furthermore, it seems that the research priorities of the National Research Council of Canada will be dictated by industry from now on, based on immediate commercial interests. No more basic research or research for the public interest.
Canadians have had enough of this backward-thinking government. 
Passport to UnityMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Passport to Unity festival, hosted by the Sault Community Career Centre and held in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie this past weekend. 
For the past seven years, the Passport to Unity festival has had a direct impact in creating Sault Ste. Marie's cultural mosaic. This year, the festival touched nearly 5,000 people in just three days, setting the stage to learn and embrace the ever-growing multiculturalism that is present in our northern Ontario city. Through various entertainment acts, dance and food exhibitions, my constituents were able to celebrate their ethnicity and values, while being united with other Canadians of different race, religion and creed.
I am proud to represent a riding that embraces cultural participation. Special appreciation goes out to all participants, volunteers and our community for making Sault Ste. Marie's signature multiculturalism festival possible.
Pro-Am Face Off for Alzheimer'sMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a wonderful fundraising hockey tournament that recently took place in my riding, the Pro-Am Face Off for Alzheimer's. 
Approximately 747,000 Canadians are currently living with dementia. This event raised critical research dollars for the Alzheimer's Society of Alberta and Northwest Territories. From April 26 to 28, local amateur hockey players teamed up with some of the NHL's all-time greats, like my weekend teammate, Theo Fleury, as we took to the ice in the battle against Alzheimer's and other types of dementia. There were many highlights in the weekend, including a luncheon with the one and only Mr. Hockey, Gordie Howe, where we heard some very heartfelt stories of people touched by this disease.
Through fundraising efforts, we raised over $2 million for the Alzheimer's Society. Currently, Alzheimer's disease has no known cause or cure. Until a cure is found, the society is there to help and provide support to those impacted by this terrible disease.
I would like to recognize and thank the local organizing committee and the volunteers in Edmonton and Leduc for putting together such a wonderful event.
By-election in LabradorMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was recently in the magnificent big land of Labrador. Meeting Harry Borlase reminds me of what it has been like to work with the young, new members of Parliament in the official opposition caucus. Like them, he is bright, energetic, eloquent and passionate about our country.
Harry Borlase understands that politics are about the people of Labrador. He is no climate change denier. His education covers polar law and climate adaptation policy. His work on northern resource development and sustainable environment technology will serve our future well. He is a fresh wind blowing across the old school of politics, with its backrooms and no accountability. Steelworkers at the Wabush mines support him because he is fighting for working people. Labrador will enjoy a new generation of honest, accountable, grassroots representation.
I look forward to working with Harry Borlase here in the House of Commons.
Oil and Gas IndustryMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, half a million people work in Canada's energy sector. Most are blue-collar folk, the backbone of our middle class. They have quietly reduced greenhouse gases by 26% per barrel since 1990.
Al Gore recently insulted these people, when he accused them of using our atmosphere as an "open sewer". Look who is talking. Gore recently stuffed his pockets with $70 million of oil money when he sold his low-rated television network to dictators in petro-state Qatar. Human Rights Watch says that low-paid migrant workers have their passports confiscated there so that they cannot escape Qatar's overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, which lack potable water. 
These abuses paid Al Gore his millions. Far from environmental profit, he is a foreign oil profiteer. That is the inconvenient truth of Al Gore.
Papineau RegionMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with summer fast approaching, I want to invite all my colleagues and all Canadians to come and see, taste and hear all the wonderful things life has to offer in the Papineau region in the Outaouais. It is an outstanding part of my riding.
In fact, I just want to name some of the local winners of the 2013 Grands Prix du tourisme de l'Outaouais: Outaouais Rock, in Montebello; Fromagerie les Folies bergères, in Saint-Sixte; Jardins d'Emmarocalles, in Ripon; and Auberge Petite-Nation, in Saint-André-Avellin. Those last three are finalists in the national grand finale of the Canadian Tourism Awards.
On May 18 and 19, the Route 148 festival and its huge garage sale kick off the summer season in Papineau. This event celebrates the highway that links neighbouring municipalities together. During the first weekend of June, the Jours J-BMR outdoor festival will attract hundreds of cyclists to the region.
Papineau's volunteers, local businesses and local officials all deserve a big round of applause for their hard work in making “la Petite-Nation” a region not to be missed.
UkraineMr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to lend support to the Ukrainian-Canadian community in my riding, which has expressed its shock and outrage to me regarding the recent statement issued by the Liberal Party celebrating the Soviet Victory Day in Ukraine.
This holiday was created by the Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev, but it was certainly not celebrated by Ukrainians, as the end of World War II set off the Soviet reign of terror and domination.
The Soviets tried to crush Ukrainian culture, historical memory and aspirations of self-determination and subjected Ukrainians to starvation, mass arrest, execution and deportation to the Gulag. This was certainly no victory.
I ask that my parliamentary colleagues join me in demanding that the leader of the Liberal Party apologize for his party's deeply insensitive statement, which is still online. I call on the Liberal critic for multiculturalism to apologize for his profoundly ignorant comments in the House yesterday, referring to Ukraine as “the Ukraine” as if it were a Russian province.
Constable Alain DaguerreHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, family and friends will bid a final farewell to Constable Alain Daguerre at his funeral tomorrow.
All of us who work on Parliament Hill—MPs, cooks, technicians, drivers, pages and constables—are like one big family. We are all here to help one another serve the people of Canada. We therefore recognize Alain's 12 years of service as a member of the House of Commons security services, and express our appreciation for his dedication and his friendliness.
The Liberal caucus took up a collection for Alain's family. We wanted to give his wife Vicky and their two children, Nadia and Sébastien, a tangible sign of our affection and gratitude, and of the profound sadness we feel because a man of his character has left us far too soon.
May your soul rest in peace, Constable Daguerre.
VeteransMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to the NDP: 
 A war of the bourgeois who always wanted more money. A purely capitalist war... The only ones...who rejected [this war] were the communist activists. 
 I don't understand why this government puts so much emphasis on our military past, on everything related to military history. 
Incredibly, these are comments made by senior members of the NDP caucus. The Leader of the Opposition stands firm: no retraction for Canadian veterans, no apology for such reckless comments. The Leader of the Opposition has shown that he is incapable of reigning in his party's extremist positions.
How many more days must our brave veterans wait for the Leader of the Opposition to make this right?
Conservative Government AccountsMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how on earth did the government manage to lose $3.1 billion?
If I lose $100, I search my accounts, check my credit cards. I do something. I would think that the Conservatives would do something about $3.1 billion. There must be one or two invoices lying around. I would do something, but not them.
Since the Conservatives are not giving us an answer, all we can do is assume. Perhaps the $3.1 billion was spent on combatting terrorism or on border services. Perhaps it was sent to the coffers of the then-ruling party Union Montréal—no one knows. Or worse yet, perhaps it ended up on Accurso's yacht 
I say “yacht”, but does that mean it is a yacht? No one knows. The worst is that the government's only solution to prevent this from happening again is to stop following up on spending after 2010. It is not silly if you think about it. It is rather brilliant, since if you do not track how money is spent, it is technically impossible to lose it.
Canadians deserve better—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
The hon. member for London North Centre.
The EconomyMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy gained 12,500 new jobs this month. Our government has created over 900,000 net new jobs. Our strong and steady leadership has ensured that Canada has remained one of the strongest economies in the world, acting as an example for other countries.
By contrast, the NDP is determined to kill jobs through its $20 billion carbon tax. With its $20 billion carbon tax, month after month, year after year, job numbers would be in the red. The contrast is simple. Under our government job numbers have grown by 900,000. Under the NDP, with its reckless $20 billion carbon tax, job numbers would plummet.
Canadian workers and businesses alike know that they simply cannot afford the reckless tax-and-spend agenda of the NDP.

Oral Questions
EthicsMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Senate is in the news again today, for all the wrong reasons. An audit has found that a number of senators have to pay back thousands of dollars. The audit also found that some senators were spending most of their lives in Ottawa while not paying taxes in their home provinces and filing false expense claims. If average Canadians did this, they would have to face real consequences under the law for fraud.
Will the government urge their senators to refer this matter to the police?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when this issue first arose, of course we did what we thought was the responsible thing, which was to bring in an outside independent audit of the Senate. That happened. Senator Duffy has repaid the money. We asked that Senator Mac Harb repay the money. Senator Brazeau should repay the money as well.
 Right now, today, the only thing that is standing between serious comprehensive reform about the way that the Senate operates with taxpayers' money is the Liberal Party of Canada.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, only an RCMP investigation will reveal the full scope of the fraud that has taken place.
In the Auditor General's report released a year ago, he confirmed that the Senate operates on an honour system. Senators do not have to produce any receipts or provide any proof. It was only yesterday that an end was put to this honour system, after years of abuse and fraud.
Do the Conservatives really think it is okay to spend taxpayers' money based on an honour system?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, as we have underscored, senators will have to pay back any amount of money that is found to be in their pockets in an inappropriate manner, today and in the future. We are asking Senator Harb and Senator Brazeau to repay that money.
We have proposed some changes for the future. Conservative senators have proposed 11 substantial amendments to reform how the Senate conducts its business. However, the Liberal Party is standing in the way of those much-needed reforms.
Government ExpendituresMegan Leslie: Let us get this straight, Mr. Speaker. Senators are still using the honour system for expenses while Conservatives are spying on their own backbenchers.
Moving on to another Conservative failure of accountability, the Prime Minister claimed that the Auditor General raised no red flags on the missing billions, but when asked if there were risks with the way this money was spent, the Auditor General said, “I guess I would have to say that there would be a risk because there is not enough information to answer the question completely”. 
Why does this not match the government's definition of a red flag?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, we do not claim that is what the Auditor General said; that is what the Auditor General said. The Auditor General said, “We didn't see anything in what we were looking at that put any red flags in front of us”. He also said “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money...was used in any way that it should not have been”. That is what the Auditor General said; it is not a claim of what the Auditor General said. 
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how many billions of dollars will they have to lose track of before it becomes a problem?
When the Liberals lost $1 billion, it was a scandal. But when the Conservatives lose $3 billion, it is not a problem. Is that how it works? If the money was not lost, can someone here explain how it was spent? My understanding is that when something is lost, that means nobody knows where it is.
The Auditor General reported that the information required to trace this $3.1 billion is not in the public accounts.
They should stop making excuses and tell us clearly where the money went.
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite simply has it wrong. The Auditor General clearly stated, “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money...was used in any way that it should not have been”. Let me repeat, “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money...was used in any way that it should not have been”. Those are the facts.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, he does not need to repeat it. We have heard enough from him already and it is not at all convincing.
The Conservatives claim that they are going to follow the Auditor General’s recommendations and that we need not worry about it. However, oversight problems were identified by the Auditor General in 2004, and nothing has changed. 
Worse still, the Conservatives have simply stopped tracking expenditures. A broken promise is precisely what led to the disappearance of the $3.1 billion.
If the Conservatives really want to implement the Auditor General’s recommendations, then they should release all program expenditure records.
The NDP moved a motion to do just that. Will they adopt it?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite still has it wrong. Departments have always been, and are still, responsible to report to Parliament through the normal processes. The Auditor General reaffirmed this to the committee when he said, “We didn't identify anything that would cause us to say that we felt that anything was going on outside of those processes”. Those are the facts. 
EmploymentMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as summer students are out there looking for work, we know that this is going to be the toughest summer ever, and it is because of the government's twisted list of priorities.
As we watch the hockey game tonight, know that every time one of those mind-numbing action plan ads comes on, it is $95,000 of taxpayer dollars being wasted. That equates to 32 summer jobs.
Why does the government not stop with the snow job and create a summer job?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Human Resources who announced this week our plan, a robust plan, to create 36,000 student summer jobs this year.
If the Liberals think government advertising is something the government should cut back on, they should know our government has reduced spending from when the Liberals had government advertising. We are spending less, and because we are spending less, we are creating jobs, not only in the summer but year-long full-time jobs. This year it was reported that 36,000 full-time jobs were created in Canada in the month of April. We are getting results for all Canadians, including young Canadians.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are applauding over there. They are applauding failure because there are 40,000 fewer summer jobs this year than when they took over. Four hundred thousand young Canadians are looking for work, and they have turned their backs on them. Last year was the worst year recorded for summer work in our country, and they are on their way to beat their own record. 
Why do the Conservatives not shut down the backbench peep show and the Conservative infomercials and invest in our young people?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, indeed we are investing in young people. That is why, if we look at the jobs, we are not only investing in young people, we have the best job numbers of any country in the G7. 
The job numbers today point that out. They point out that Canada has created 36,000 full-time jobs and 20,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. We are delivering for all Canadians, for young Canadians, for middle-class Canadians in all regions of the country. We are better off because the Conservatives are governing Canada. 
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 411,000 young Canadians out of work and 173,000 who have just given up.
 We learned that 19,000 fewer students were working this month than last month. Every time we see another ad for the economic action plan on TV, it means 30 fewer jobs for our young students. That is one job per second of partisan advertising.
 How can this government imagine that partisan advertising is more important than jobs for our young people?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, this is completely ridiculous. First, the amount of advertising that the Government of Canada was allowed to run was reduced when the Liberals were in power. Second, a review of the figures for the month of April shows that Canada created 36,000 new full-time jobs. We also have 20,000 new manufacturing sector jobs across Canada. These results are for all Canadians, for our young people and for every region of the country.
That is what you get when you elect a Conservative government.
The BudgetMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first Conservatives shut down debate in the House on their omnibus budget bill. Now they have refused to allow for a proper study at committees. From meddling in collective bargaining to raising taxes on small businesses, the bill is full of damaging measures. It is no wonder the Conservatives are trying to avoid proper scrutiny. 
Why are they forcing through this sham committee study? Why will the Conservatives not allow for a proper study of each and every component of the bill?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud to talk about budget 2013 and all that it contains for Canadians. I know my good friend the chair of the finance committee, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, is one of the finest committee chairs that our country has ever seen. 
In budget 2013, we have the manufacturing fund. We have the Canada jobs grant. We lowered taxes on Canadians. We create jobs in every region of the country. Budget 2013 is something that we are proud to celebrate at committee, in the House and across the country. Let us talk about it as much as we can. 
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that last year when we had a similar process every committee only had one or, at most, two meetings to study every component of the bill.
 This sham of a process is simply inadequate. The government's omnibus bill will amend 49 acts, and only one committee will be entitled to amend it, even though the bill covers everything from international aid to labour relations. Canadians deserve better. These changes will have a real impact on their lives.
 Why are the Conservatives avoiding every form of transparency? Why are they not requiring an in-depth study of every part of the bill?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, this is from the New Democrats, pretending they actually cared what was in the budget when they declared publicly they would vote against it before they even had read it. Members will excuse me if I do not buy into the false sincerity of the New Democrats. They said that they would vote against the budget no matter what.
Canadians know better. They know that this government has delivered for the Canadian economy. They see it in our job numbers. In the month of April, 36,000 new full-time jobs were created and 20,000 new jobs in the manufacturing sector have been created in our country. We are going in the right direction and we are going to continue to because of budget 2013.
Government ExpendituresPhilip Toone: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that they do not want the process to be transparent. They seem to have a hard time with basic accounting principles.
Earlier this week, the Conservatives avoided the issue when we asked them to explain the part of the Auditor General's report detailing money that was tracked. Part of the money went to “services of a security expert to advise a host country on security matters related to the staging of an international sporting event”.
My question is simple. What event was this? Who was the expert? Who approved the spending?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed that reporting on matters such as this was a purely internal to government reporting process and its shortcomings did not prevent parliamentarians or Canadians from scrutinizing spending.
The Auditor General clearly stated, “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money was used in any way that it should not have been”. These are the facts.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, those are strange facts. It is always a pleasure to quote the Auditor General, but he needs to be quoted in full. I will read the part that follows the bit that was already quoted. The Conservatives always forget to read this part.
 It’s important for there to be a way for people to understand how this money was spent. [This next part is important.] And that summary reporting was not done. 
The Conservatives continue to deny that they lost track of $3.1 billion, but they cannot tell us where the money is. They say that it is all in the public accounts, but anyone with access to the Internet and Google knows that is not true.
Why do they continue to make things up about their serious mistake?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is misleading the House. Departments have always been, and still are, responsible to report to Parliament through the normal processes, public accounts, main estimates and quarterly financial reports. The Auditor General reaffirmed this fact in committee when he said, “We didn't identify anything that would cause us to say that we felt that anything was going on outside of those processes.” These are the facts.
Françoise Boivin: Well, there we go again, Mr. Speaker, misquoting the Auditor General and no clue where the money went.
The Auditor General gave three options for where the money would have gone. That is not complicated. First, it may have lapsed. Second, it might have been spent on security. Third, it might have gone to other programs. 
Will the member again just throw back an out-of-context quote from the AG, or are the Conservatives now ready to tell us where the $3 billion was actually spent?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite still has it wrong. Departments are responsible to report to Parliament. She does not have to take my word for it, but she should take the Auditor General's word that departments “are responsible for accounting and reporting their spending through the Public Accounts of Canada”. 
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cannot find $3.1 billion, but they can find $2.4 million to track their own MPs. Now that is Conservative priorities. 
If I told Conservatives that my question today was going to be on a scandal, they would need to ask me, which one? That is where we are. The Conservative government is so entangled in its own spending scandals it can barely keep track. When $3.1 billion of taxpayer money gets spent without any public scrutiny, well, the Conservatives shrug. When did they stop caring about good financial management?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, again, the member opposite has it wrong. The Auditor General was very clear on this, and I will say it very slowly and clearly for the member opposite to hear this time, “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that money was used in any way that it should not have been”. These are the facts. 
AgricultureMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment to talk about their spending.
At Agriculture Canada, 665 have employees received job notices. These are just more cuts to essential services for Canadians.
Employees in the department’s science and technology and market and industry services branches are the ones who will be losing their jobs.
Walking away from Canada's breakthroughs in agriculture is akin to turning back the clock.
Why are the Conservatives cutting services that help farmers carve out a place in our markets?
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it all wrong. What the agricultural department is doing is looking to reduce costs in IT, human resources, asset management, policy and a lot of things that are duplications of what are done by industry and by the provinces. We are looking at an efficient, effective system that builds the strength of the farm gate. That is exactly what we are delivering.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: the changes the Conservative government is making in the departments are not based on science or fact.
The Conservatives are making cuts to a branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that helps keep farming profitable.
They have also changed the National Research Council's mandate. It will now serve industry instead of conducting basic research.
What is the point of these ideological changes that do nothing for agriculture or the economy?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the National Research Council of Canada has the capacity to align its research with the needs of the market and industry in order to enhance productivity and competitiveness. This then generates demand and creates high-quality jobs, which translates into economic growth and job creation.
That is what we are doing. We are being falsely accused of cutting research, when this government has invested more than $9 billion of new money since 2007.
Those members over there voted against that, and that is a scientific fact. The math is very easy to understand. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Government ExpendituresLaurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about math for a second. If they would stop misquoting the Auditor General, Conservatives would realize that every rationale they give is drowned out by the $3.1 billion they cannot account for. They are simply bad managers. 
 This is verified by the $2.4 billion in secret consulting contracts. When the government spends billions on services, Canadians should be provided with an explanation of what those services are. Why are the Conservatives not following their own rules and hiding these contracts from the public?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible. In some cases, the government contracts with private sector companies to deliver or improve services without maintaining an expensive government bureaucracy. These include contracts with nurses in rural and remote first nation communities, experts to identify $5 billion in savings and world-leading shipbuilding experts to help build Canada's shipbuilding industry. 
Our government recently took steps to provide taxpayers with even more transparency by requiring public disclosure of any contract with former public servants receiving pensions.
Government AdvertisingMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each time Canadians see an economic action plan ad during a hockey game, they should know that it is costing them $95,000. What a waste of public funds.
Why not use those peak audience periods to promote tourism, since the Conservatives have cut the tourism budget by 23% in the past two years?
Instead of running partisan ads, would it not be more appropriate to promote Canada to the world and create jobs here?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the number of tourists in Canada has increased. Since we are talking about the 2013 economic action plan, I would like to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:
 Overall, this is a good budget for small business…. [The minister] has done a solid job by remaining on course to eliminate the deficit while announcing some important measures for Canada's entrepreneurs. 
That means that, overall, people see the potential for tourism. Spending is targeted. Since the number of tourists continues to increase, the government must be efficient in all areas.
Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have all seen those awesome Newfoundland and Labrador tourism ads promoting our great province around the world and across Canada. They are paid for by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is money well spent.
Pathetically, the Conservative government spends $95,000 on 30-second economic action plan ads during the playoffs.
Why would the Conservative government rather spend money on advertising for self-promotion than for promoting Canada? Why do the Conservatives not stop this domestic propaganda campaign and start promoting Canada and Canadian tourism?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as I just stated in French, Canadians gave us a strong mandate to stay focused on what matters, which is creating jobs and economic growth. That is the first thing. To do that we need to keep an eye on Canada's bottom line. We are taking action to find savings across governments, including the CTC.
The Canadian Tourism Commission will continue to promote Canada as a welcoming four-season destination in the world's most promising tourism markets.
By finding savings across government, we can continue to help create jobs and growth and keep taxes low for Canadians. This is how we create economic growth.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister stand there and reads those words—“the Canadian Tourism Commission will continue to promote Canada”—when he knows full well that is wrong? The headlines in the paper state:
 Tourism Commission Axes U.S. Advertising 
 The Canadian Tourism Commission confirms it has eliminated all general advertising in the U.S.... 
 International tourism is the fastest growing market in the world, and Canada has dropped from 7th place as the most visited country to 18th.
 Why is the government spending money on its own propaganda rather than creating jobs for the tourism business?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, that is total nonsense. It is a typical Liberal way to badly manage the economy.
When we talk about tourism, we have to look at where the potential is. That is what the CTC is doing. It has refocused its resources to places such as India and China, where tourism has a high potential. What we have seen in the last quarter is a growth in tourists coming to Canada.
We are proud of Canada. We will promote Canada correctly. We will not do it as badly as the Liberals suggest.
EthicsIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, Senator Mike Duffy was tipped off about his inappropriate expenses by the senator overseeing the investigation; then when he was caught, there were no consequences for breaking the rules. Those are more reasons that the Senate cannot be trusted to investigate itself.
Does the government agree that it was inappropriate for the head of the investigation to tip off Senator Duffy, and if so, what will it do about this leak?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looked at the facts a bit, she would see that Mr. Duffy paid back inappropriate funds well before any discussion that she is referring to took place. In fact, he showed the kind of leadership that we would like to see from Liberal Senator Mac Harb, who instead is taking up arms against the Senate by saying that he should not have to pay back inappropriate funds.
We are bringing in tough rules. Conservative senators have proposed tough rules on expenses. Can members guess who is blocking that? It is the Liberal senators. That is typical of the opposition members. Not only are they blocking tougher rules for accountability, they are blocking accountability through electing senators and they are blocking term limits for senators. 
We can see who wants to defend the status quo. It is the opposition.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, where are those old-time Reformers?
When Canadians break the law, they get charged, so why are Conservatives giving their senators a free ride?
Last spring, the Auditor General reported that senators still operate under the honour system. Now, there is an oxymoron. Senators can bill Canadian taxpayers for expenses without ever submitting a receipt.
Does the government not agree that it was wrong to allow senators to duck accountability and to operate for so long on the honour system? Does it not have better respect for taxpayers' money?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it is our respect for taxpayers' money that led to an independent outside audit of the Senate and it is the respect of Conservative senators for taxpayers' money that led to their initiative to change those very lax rules by introducing tougher rules.
However, can members guess what happened yesterday when they tried to introduce those tougher rules? Can members guess who stood in the way of them? It was the leader of the third party's Liberal senators. They are the ones who are blocking changes to the Senate. They are the ones who are blocking the kind of financial accountability that all Canadians want to see. 
It is no surprise that the Liberal Party continues to defend its entitlements.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is simply absurd that a senator can get away with such a thing. The Senate's so-called honour system is not working.
 It certainly never prevented Mike Duffy from playing his shell game over and over without any consequences. A system that allows such shenanigans to go on until someone is finally caught—that has to go.
 Do the Conservatives think it is acceptable that Senator Duffy did not have to file his income tax return in the region he was supposed to be representing?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, Conservative senators have introduced 11 substantial changes to the rules so that senators will be accountable to the taxpayers, as they should be.
But what is happening now is that the Liberal Party is blocking the creation of tougher rules in the Senate. Liberal senators have blocked the reforms we have proposed regarding Senate accountability.
 We are asking the Liberals to accept these important changes to accountability.
Élaine Michaud:  Mr. Speaker, once again we see that the government is prepared to move heaven and earth to protect its dishonest senators.
We in the NDP do not think it right that Senator Duffy received privileged information, while he was under investigation, from the senator who was conducting the investigation.
We can see that when senators investigate other senators, accountability gets lost in the fog, rather like that $3.1 billion.
Will the Conservatives do the honourable thing and ask the RCMP to investigate?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is, again, not following the facts closely. The fact is that Senator Duffy did the right thing and actually repaid inappropriate sums months ago, well before any report from the auditors.
The difference is, of course, with Liberal Senator Mac Harb, who is taking an entirely different position and saying that no, he should not have to pay back inappropriate sums, and it his colleagues, the Liberal senators, who are blocking efforts by the Conservative senators to bring in tough new rules to ensure financial accountability and the protection of taxpayers' interests. 
Our Conservative government, including our senators, will continue to advance efforts to bring in tough rules to protect taxpayers' interests. It is time the Liberal Party stopped blocking that measure.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a remote aboriginal community, when it is the middle of the night and it is 30° below zero and a woman has been violently assaulted, it is absolutely necessary for her to receive the same protection as all other Canadians.
That is exactly why our government introduced Bill S-2, which would allow the enforcement of emergency protection orders.
Shamefully, however, the Liberal leader whipped his caucus to vote against that bill.
Would the parliamentary secretary please update the House on our position versus their position?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader, we are not afraid to say that violence against women is exactly what it is: barbaric. Unlike the Liberal leader, we believe that aboriginal women deserve the same matrimonial rights and protections as all other Canadians. Unlike the Liberal leader, we support the bill.
We are not in way over our heads. Our female members, our aboriginal members and all members of our Conservative government are united. We are proud to stand up for the protection of aboriginal women.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's aboriginal population is young, dynamic and growing, but it has been abandoned by the Conservatives. 
Thirty per cent of the aboriginal population is younger than 14, but the high school graduation rate is under 40%. 
Yesterday, when we asked the minister about this, he was unable to answer.
He was not able to explain why his department systematically underfunds first nations education. 
Let us try again today. Can the minister explain why 48 aboriginal communities are still waiting for their schools to be built?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first we can clearly state that the issues surrounding first nations education are not a new phenomenon. They have been going on for many years. That, specifically, is why this Conservative government has begun consultations to draft a first nations education act.
He is crowing about the rights of Canada's aboriginal youth to education, but in this House, every time we have tried to invest money in aboriginal education, he has voted against it, just like his party.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not just have a terrible track record when it comes to education. They have also been dragging their feet when it comes to preventing violence against aboriginal women. 
We now know that the minister has no intention of launching an action plan on violence or a national inquiry into the hundreds of missing and murdered women.
Instead, he gave us half-baked answers such as this one, and I quote: “some [shelters] are operating at full capacity; others at less than full capacity.”
Honestly, is the minister familiar with the statistics related to his own portfolio or not?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astounding to see an NDP member rise in the House and complain about violence against women and then turn around and vote against Bill S-2, which seeks to give women living on reserves rights equal to those of other Canadian women. 
The NDP should change its position. If they are truly in favour of protecting aboriginal women living on reserves, then they should simply vote for Bill S-2.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, my goodness, it was a long evening.
The question was about violence against women and the action plan required to solve this problem.
The minister told us yesterday that there are only 41 emergency shelters for 329 aboriginal communities. In actual fact, there are over 600 communities.
Does the minister need to do his homework before speaking and implementing the necessary action plan?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, will the NDP stop playing petty politics at the expense of aboriginal women and children throughout the country?
NDP members like to rise and spout wonderful theories, but when it comes time to vote on a bill that will really improve the situation of aboriginal women living on reserves, they vote against that bill.
If the hon. member is truly concerned about aboriginal women, then I urge him to convince the leader of his party to reverse course and vote in favour of Bill S-2.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, my leader is a great one, and he is going in the right direction.
Last night at the committee of the whole, we did not see a minister who seemed to know much or care much about aboriginal people. 
From 2006, the government promised reconciliation with aboriginal peoples. Last January, in the face of nation-wide protests, the Prime Minister promised to provide direct oversight to put the relationship between our peoples back on track. Yesterday it was obvious that he had placed this responsibility with someone who is not taking it very seriously. 
Is this the new relationship that was promised?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the big difference between those who like to talk and those who like to act is that on this side of the House we have chosen to act. 
As a matter of fact, for anyone who cares to look at what we have undertaken on the project of reconciliation of aboriginal interests with Canada and the interests of Canadians with aboriginal people in this country, it is no better shown and exemplified than by the apology that the Prime Minister made on behalf of all Canadians and all the steps we are taking to work co-operatively. 
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Paul's.
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, Stats Canada revealed the shocking data that 48% of children in foster care are aboriginal. The response from this Prime Minister is a child advocacy photo op.
Can the minister tell us why the government is spending millions of tax dollars on lawyers to drag first nations child advocates through the court system instead of spending it on protecting aboriginal children?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member does not know what she is talking about. If she looked at the investments that are being made, it is obvious that this government is concerned about the health and safety of aboriginal children on reserve and in urban settings. That is why we have a host of programs, in partnership with first nations. We have programs in place to improve the situation and hopefully eliminate the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal kids.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government handed out upwards of 600 pink slips to scientists, researchers and other vital staff at Ag Canada's farms and labs yesterday, showing once again that it takes farmers for granted.
Having already pillaged the National Research Council, Conservatives are now stripping the innovative ability of the second-largest research department. They cut business risk management, allegedly to make farmers more innovative. Now they cannot even rely on the department for science.
Why is this minister vandalizing the department, crippling its research ability and again leaving farmers out in the cold?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. The member for Guelph constantly leaves farmers in the cold himself. They did that for years, in their 13 years, in a decade of darkness.
 Of course, what we are looking for is the effective, efficient use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars. Farmers are taxpayers as well. They expect us at Agriculture Canada, and across the government, for that matter, to make efficient use of those tax dollars. We continue to analyze our programming and put the right foot forward to build a strong farm gate in this country.
HousingRobert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, in Mauricie, over 1,200 people are grappling with pyrrhotite attacking the foundations of their homes and businesses. Even the local sportsplex, which the federal government invested in, has to be repaired.
A coalition of municipal, provincial and federal elected officials in my region are calling on the federal government to set up an assistance fund for victims. The federal government helped the victims of pyrite damage in the past and is the only one responsible for standards for the aggregates in concrete that is causing the problem. 
Can the minister responsible for the CMHC assure this House that she will seriously consider this request from the coalition and that she will help a region that is in crisis?
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec announced that it plans to introduce a program to provide financial assistance to property owners dealing with problems related to pyrrhotite. These problems will be examined and overseen by the Société d'habitation du Québec.
All requests for information regarding that provincial program should be addressed to the SHQ.
LabourClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, the government has been nasty with science and statistical evidence. Now it is mistreating the people collecting the evidence.
I have 200 statistical survey operations staff in Sturgeon Falls, part of 1,500 across Canada who have been without a contract for over a year. These workers are important to our local economics. Their hours are cut. They lose their jobs, and they lose income, benefits and pensions. Why is the government so dug in and so unfair to these workers?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government bargains in good faith. We will continue to respect the confidentiality and legal obligations of the collective bargaining process.
EmploymentMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government stands up for manufacturing workers in southern Ontario and across Canada with tax breaks to buy new equipment, support for the automotive and aerospace industries, and much more. 
While we are standing up for manufacturing, the NDP is selling them out, voting against those new tax breaks and support. Instead, the NDP defends special breaks for Chinese companies competing with Canadian manufacturers. Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons please inform the House about manufacturing jobs in Canada?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party wants to saddle our manufacturers with a carbon tax and hike their income taxes to drive them and the jobs in manufacturing out of Canada. In contrast, our Conservative government is supporting Canada's manufacturing sector, particularly important to the hard-working people of southern Ontario. 
Our strong record of tax relief and support is getting results. Today Stats Canada reported that over 20,000 net new jobs were created in the manufacturing sector in April. That is 20,000 more reasons not to vote for NDP job-killing taxes, 20,000 more reasons to support this government.
InfrastructureHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that the build Canada fund's true infrastructure numbers have been crunched, municipalities are concerned, because $1.5 billion has been cut. The Cape Breton Regional Municipality is faced with a huge obligation for waste water and other infrastructure needs.
 Mayor Clarke and council have come up with their money on the table. The province is on side with its portion. When will the Conservatives come to the table with their share of infrastructure money for CBRM?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party was in office, the average piece of infrastructure in this country had reached a record age of 17 years. It was older and more decrepit than ever. Under us, that has come down to 14 years, which means it is newer than it has been in three decades.
We have now provided a plan that will allow Canada to build up its infrastructure with private sector investment and deliver more infrastructure for existing dollars. This is about results and delivering for the Canadian people, not just fattened union contracts, as the opposition would wish.
The EnvironmentMr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people have been shaking their heads in disbelief at the news that the source of an ongoing oil spill off Newfoundland's northeast coast was a ship that sank in the 1980s. For decades, successive federal governments knew this ship was below the waves, a potential environmental hazard, and they did nothing to clean up the oil. Now slicks are appearing as the ship's tanks begin to leak. What a surprise.
Where is the government's plan to clean up this environmental hazard permanently?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment from ships or spills. The Canadian Coast Guard continues to work closely with its federal partners to address the threat of marine pollution from this wreck. The Coast Guard has been working with its partners to respond to this spill since it was reported on March 31. The government has conducted several overflights and deployed several vessels and a remote-operated vehicle, and we will remediate the situation as soon as possible.
LabourMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when our government brought common sense reforms to public sector benefits to align them with the private sector, the NDP chose to stand with their big union bosses against the interests of Canadian taxpayers. Now that our government is looking at ways to protect taxpayers' investments in crown corporations, the NDP is once again taking its orders from its union bosses.
Can the parliamentary secretary please tell this House what our government is doing to protect their interests?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, when there is a negotiation that benefits crown corporations, the union bosses sit on one side of the table, make demands, and take. We would expect that on the other side of the table, taxpayers, who have to pay the bills, would be represented.
 The NDP and the Liberals suggest that taxpayers should be removed from the bargaining room and that government bureaucrats should be in a position to negotiate away billions of dollars in losses and liabilities to big union bosses. This is arm's length, they say, but the arms are long enough to reach into taxpayers' pockets. Not with us. 
HealthMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not renew funding to Canada Health Infoway this year.
This is despite the fact that electronic health records are one of the best ways to improve our health care system and reduce costs. A new study found that Canada Health Infoway has helped save over $1.3 billion since 2006.
Many provinces cannot afford to make the transition to electronic health records.
Will the government provide some financial support?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has supported Infoway, and we plan to continue to support Infoway in the important work it is carrying out with the provinces and territories.
Passport CanadaMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has obtained a copy of an internal memorandum in which the government informs Passport Canada employees that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Service Canada will be responsible for issuing passports effective July 2. More and more responsibilities are being handed over to Service Canada, which, because of the cuts, is already unable to adequately meet the needs of the unemployed and seniors, and which, in some cases, only provides a voice mail message as support.
How can the government ensure that access to passport services and the quality of those services will be maintained if it gives Service Canada more work to do?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is all about improving services for Canadians and making them more convenient and more accessible. In fact, the ministry already determines and issues citizenships, so it only makes sense that the passport program would actually come under the same portfolio. 
Over time, we are actually going to be able to improve the service. At service kiosks across this country, Canadians will be able to apply for their passports in a much more timely and broader manner.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the facts contradict the parliamentary secretary. A meeting was held yesterday for employees of the Jonquière passport office. The reorganization and possible closure of their office was on the agenda. That is a far cry from the promised improvement that the parliamentary secretary spoke about.
I imagine that employees at the Quebec City, Montreal and Gatineau offices were told the same thing. Publicly, the government talks about increasing the number of passport offices, but in its internal memorandum, it talks about administrative savings, attrition and job cuts. Canadians and employees are entitled to the truth. 
Does the government plan on closing the Jonquière, Quebec City, Montreal and Gatineau passport offices?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that Canadians are not going to experience any service interruptions whatsoever during this time frame. They will continue to have access to passport services at all of the same locations currently available in the country, and as I indicated, we are actually going to be able to expand those services in the near future.

Routine Proceedings
Public SafetyMs. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2012 annual report on the RCMP's use of the law enforcement justifications provisions.
This report addresses the RCMP's use of specified provisions within the law enforcement justification regime, which is set out in sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code. The report also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.
Supplementary Estimates (A), 2013-14[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) of sums required to defray expenses of the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2014, was presented by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and read by the Speaker to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the message recommends those estimates to the House of Commons. It is dated May 2, 2013, and it is executed by the Hon. Richard Wagner, Deputy of the Governor General.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table the estimates and I look forward to their consideration.
Government Response to PetitionsKellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to a petition.
Committees of the HouseMr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Canada and the Arctic Council: An Agenda for Regional Leadership”. 
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, it is the view of the official opposition members of the committee that primary consideration of the Arctic Council under two years of Canada's chairmanship should remain on the issues related to the mitigation and impacts of climate change on the Arctic environment, which are international and global in implication and can be more effectively tackled by multinational means and social development.
Economic development, while increasing in its importance, will only benefit from international agreement and understanding of these issues. 
With regard to the third recommendation, the members of the official opposition who sit on the committee would prefer that the permanent aboriginal participants be funded by the Arctic Council rather than having to count on their respective countries for the funding.
Finally, the official opposition members of the committee regret that the minister responsible for the Arctic Council was unable to appear before the committee during the preparation of this report. 
Given the importance of the minister's role as incoming council chair, and we congratulate her for it, and in the interest of all members for the successful Canadian chairmanship, we ask that the minister make an annual report to Parliament in each of the two years of the Canadian chairmanship.
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to Bill S-213, an act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendments.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
The report is entitled “Main Estimates 2013-14”.
Criminal CodeMarc Garneau:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-510, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).
Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present my bill, which was previously supported by all parties at second reading but which died on the order paper when the last election was called. I am also pleased to have the bill seconded by my colleague from St. Paul's. 
The proposed bill would modify section 430 of the Criminal Code and more specifically subsection 4.1 dealing with mischief caused to property. Previously subsection 4.1 dealt with mischief or vandalism to a building or structure primarily used for religious worship, “including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple”, or an object associated with religious worship and located on the property of the institution in question providing the mischief was motivated “by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.
The bill I am presenting would broaden the applicability of subsection 4.1 to include property used exclusively or principally by the same groups, such as an educational institution, including a school, daycare centre, college or university. It will also include property such as a community centre, playground, arena, sports centre or any institution with an administrative social, cultural, educational or sports function that is used by those same groups.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this bill will be unanimously approved by all parties. I look forward to debating it at second reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Business of the HouseHon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I offer the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, May 21, 2013, the House shall follow the schedule prescribed in the Standing Orders for a Monday, provided that the bells to call in the members, for any recorded division deferred to the end of the time provided for government orders, shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions. The first one will go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is about Bill C-452, which amends the Criminal Code as it relates to human trafficking and exploitation.
According to 2007 figures released by the UN, the annual proceeds from criminal activities involving human trafficking are estimated at $32 billion. That is why many people have signed the petition to support Bill C-452.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the Canada Revenue Agency to send a printed copy of the tax return and benefits package through the mail. Many seniors in my riding have difficulty obtaining these documents, which they need to fulfill the legal obligations that Canadian citizens gladly comply with, with the possible exception of some senators. 
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition asking the House of Commons to formally condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination. The petitioners draw to our attention the fact that in Canada ultrasounds are being used to tell the sex of unborn children and parents are choosing to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. They ask all parties to condemn that. 
Petitioners point to the fact that 92% of Canadians believe sex selective pregnancy termination should be illegal. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada vehemently opposes sex selection. Millions of girls have been lost through sex selective abortion, creating a global gender imbalance and causing girls to be trafficked into prostitution. Petitioners reiterate that Parliament should condemn this worst form of discrimination against females by condemning sex-selective abortions. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to submit four petitions, representing hundreds of British Columbians. The petitioners acknowledge that current impaired driving laws are too lenient, and in the interest of public safety they want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to present a petition from dozens and dozens of people from Gogama and Sturgeon Falls in my riding. The petition asks the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356, an act respecting a national dementia strategy.
As baby boomers are getting older and older, dementia is becoming a bigger problem in Canada. Petitioners are asking the government to do something about what is happening with dementia patients right now. 
While I am on my feet, I would like to congratulate the member for Edmonton—Leduc for his statement today on dementia. 
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present three petitions in the House. The first one is from growers of organic foods and farmers in my riding, calling on the Government of Canada to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow for a proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada. 
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to deal with the underlying regimes of the Communist Party of China and prevent the systematic murdering of Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, and to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. 
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, the final petition is from citizens of Nunavut and across Canada who are calling on parliamentarians to recognize the right of law-abiding seal hunters to participate in the Canadian seal hunt. The hunt provides subsistence and economic opportunities to coastal and indigenous communities across Canada. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject the European Union's application for observer status on the Arctic Council until such time as the European Union recognizes the right of Canadian seal hunters to participate in a lawful industry by completely lifting the seal product ban currently in place. 
Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a handful of petitions with hundreds and hundreds of names on them, asking the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination carried out because ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of unborn children. They point out that sex selection has been condemned by all national political parties and that 92% of Canadians believe that-sex selective pregnancy termination should be illegal, and therefore Parliament needs to condemn this worst form of discrimination against females. 
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one has come about as a result of CBC revealing that in Canada ultrasound is being used to determine the gender of an unborn baby, and in many cases the female babies are being aborted. Petitioners are calling on the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through gender selection abortion.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the second petition notes that Canada is the only western country in the world that has no law restricting abortion. Petitioners call upon Parliament to do as the Supreme Court has recommended, which is to put in place a law restricting abortion. 
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present petitions on behalf of hundreds of Canadians who call upon the government and Parliament to enact tougher laws and implement new mandatory minimum sentences for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners would also like to see the Criminal Code of Canada changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.
Questions on the Order PaperKellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1276, 1280 and 1281.
Frank Valeriote:  With regard to the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2008, how many Access to Information Requests have had a deadline extension because the request was deemed to “unreasonably interfere with operations”?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with subsection 9(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act, the Privy Council Office extended 467 access to information requests for operational reasons between January 1, 2008, and March 26, 2013. 
Mr. David McGuinty:  With regard to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism’s visit to Iraq: (a) what is the complete list of everyone who accompanied the Minister; (b) what was the time, date, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; and (c) what was the total cost of this trip, including but not limited to, airline tickets, accommodations, meals and security for the Minister and everyone who accompanied him?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the delegation that accompanied the Hon. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism throughout his visit to Iraq included Christopher Mahon, minister’s office, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Canada; Dominic Roszak, minister’s office, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Canada; and John Milner, security officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 
With regard to (b), the time, date, location, and nature of all government business conducted by the minister were as follows: Wednesday, March 6: 08:30, arrive at British Embassy, breakfast and informal briefing by head of mission and Iraq program manager; 10:30, installation ceremony of new Chaldean Patriarch, Louis Raphael I Sako; 12:00, depart for lunch reception at Palestine Hotel; 14:00 , depart lunch reception for meeting with Vice-President Kudhair al-Khuzaie; 14:30, call on Vice-President Kudhair al-Khuzaie; 15:10, call on Speaker of Iraqi Council of Representatives, Osama al-Nujaifi; 16:10, visit to Our Lady of Salvation Syriac Catholic Cathedral, where officials were met by Bishop Afram Yousif Abba; 17:00, delivery of Sako’s first divine liturgy at St. Joseph’s Cathedral Church; 19:15, dinner with Dindar Najman Duski, Minister of Displacement and Migration, at Rasheed Hotel. 
Other meetings occurred, for which no information is available in the department about time, date, location and nature. They include meetings with Mohammed al-Doreky, Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs, Government of Iraq, and Dr. Ali Allq, Secretary General, Council of Ministers Secretariat, Government of Iraq. 
With regard to (c), we do not have the final cost. Total cost will be available via proactive disclosure as per Treasury Board guidelines.
The security officer travelled directly from Ottawa. The RCMP assumes this cost. Any additional information cannot be provided owing to security-related issues. 
David McGuinty:  With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and all Canadian missions since January 1, 2008: (a) has there been a gap of more than two months between the departure of an existing Ambassador and the arrival of the replacement; (b) in how many cases has the department had to send departmental officers or former officers hired on contract to fill in these gaps; (c) what has been the cost of these temporary deployments; and (d) what was the cause of each of these gaps?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with an international network of more than 171 offices in 104 countries, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade regularly manages the movement of people to best protect and promote Canada’s interests and values around the world. This includes, of course, heads of mission, or HoMs--ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general. Due to several complexities, some beyond our control, there are from time to time short-term gaps between the departure of a HoM and the arrival of his or her replacement. 
During these periods, we put in place contingency plans to ensure that mission business can continue as normal. Often chargés d’affaires--people already posted at missions--assume the duties of a HoM. Since January 1, 2008, there were 31 instances in which it took two months or more for a departing HoM to be fully replaced. Of these, 18 were covered by departmental staff and 13 were filled by short-term contract officers. The total cost of these 31 temporary assignments, including travel, accommodation, per diems and contract salaries, is estimated at $857,385.77.
As mentioned, there are various complexities in posting HoMs abroad. While a detailed breakdown on the cause of each gap cannot be released for privacy reasons, some of the reasons in the above-mentioned cases include, but are not limited to, internal strife or civil war, health or other personal reasons forcing early or unforeseen departures, changes to the network of missions and delays in receiving agrément from host countries. 
Mr. Ted Hsu:  With regard to the Property Value Protection Program associated with the low-level radioactive waste clean-up in the Port Hope area, as of March 15, 2013, what are the total legal costs incurred by the government for all claims that have entered into arbitration?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as of March 15, 2013, the total legal costs incurred by the Government of Canada through the Department of Justice for property value protection program claims that have entered into arbitration under the Port Hope area initiative is $170,545.
Hon. Ralph Goodale: With regard to government communications: (a) for each news release containing the phrase “Harper government” issued by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions since February 6, 2006, what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code number, (iv) subject matter; (b) for each news release mentioned in (a), was it distributed (i) on the website of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which service; and (c) for each news release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of that service?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), links to all Canadian Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CED-Q, press releases can be found by doing a search on the following websites: for CED-Q, http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/media-room/media.html; for Marketwire, http://www.marketwire.com/?lang=en-US. 
With regard to (c), CED-Q has a contract with Marketwire. Rates vary depending on the distribution.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:  With regard to the response to Order Paper question Q-1125 in which it is stated that, “the Department of Finance has conducted a costing analysis of Bill C-463”, what details can the Department of Finance provide regarding the full version of this costing analysis, including the methodology used to conduct the costing analysis?
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance Canada has estimated the cost of Bill C-463 using the public use micro-data files of Statistics Canada’s 2010 travel survey of residents of Canada. The data contain information on the number of non-business person-trips taken across three provincial boundaries by mode of transportation, as well as information on travel expenditures. 
Using these data, the Department of Finance’s cost estimate for the proposal in Bill C-463 was based on the following information for bus, train and airplane modes of transportation: the estimated number of domestic travellers whose travel expenses would qualify for the deduction proposed in Bill C-463; the estimated cost of domestic travel, which was estimated for 2017 using projections of the Consumer Price Index; the average marginal federal personal income tax rate; and the percentage of expenses eligible for the deduction as proposed in Bill C-463. 
As indicated in the response to Question No. Q-1125, these calculations result in an estimated cost for the proposal in Bill C-463 of about $215 million in 2017. It is unclear to what degree the proposal would induce individuals to travel more or change their travel plans, but any increase in eligible travel would increase this cost.
Massimo Pacetti:  With respect to Bill C-463, what is the Department of Finance’s estimate of the amount of increased economic activity that would be generated if the number of eligible travellers increased by (i) 5%, (ii) 10%, (iii) 15%, (iv) 20%, (v) 25%?
Shelly Glover:  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance is not in a position to estimate any potential increase in economic activity that would result from this proposal.
 As noted in the Department of Finance’s response to Question No. Q-1125, it is estimated that the cost of the proposal would be about $215 million in 2017. It is unclear to what degree the proposal would induce individuals to travel more or change their travel plans, but any increase in eligible travel would increase the cost of the proposal. As an example, if the number of eligible travelers would increase by 25% as a result of the proposal, the cost would increase to about $270 million. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsKellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1260, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1273 and 1290 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Scott Simms:  With respect to requests made by the government to Library and Archives Canada (LAC): (a) since 2006, what information and services have been requested of LAC in any way, broken down by department or Crown corporation and (i) date of inquiry, (ii) date of response, (iii) purpose of inquiry, (iv) nature of response, (v) relevant programs at LAC used to provide response; (b) for services enumerated in (a) that have been provided by LAC and that are no longer available, what alternatives is the government using or considering to fulfill those needs in their absence, broken down by department or Crown corporation and (i) date of inquiry, (ii) date of response, (iii) purpose of inquiry, (iv) nature of response, (v) service supplier, (vi) total cost; (c) what internal correspondence discussing alternative solutions or service providers exists; and (d) what contracts have been put to tender or signed relating to these alternative solutions or service providers? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ted Hsu:  With regard to the Transport Canada announcement on Tanker Safety Systems on March 18, 2013 in Vancouver, British Columbia: (a) what were the costs for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, his staff and departmental staff to travel to the announcement, including air and ground transportation; (b) what were the costs for the Minister of Natural Resources, his staff and departmental staff to travel to the announcement, including air and ground transportation; and (c) which bases in British Columbia keep major oil spill response ships? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Scott Andrews:  With regard to air, highway, rail, or marine transportation in Labrador, for each fiscal year since 2000-2001, what are the details of all (i) direct expenditures, (ii) contributions to third parties, (iii) transfers to other orders of government, (iv) cost-sharing agreements with the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador, specifying the amount, source, purpose, and recipient of each such expenditure, contribution, transfer or agreement?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Frank Valeriote:  With regard to the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office: (a) what is the source of its funding; (b) how much has it spent each year since 2008; (c) how much has it spent on communications each year since 2008; (d) how much has it spent on travel and hospitality each year since 2008; (e) how much has it spent on sponsorship of events each year since 2008; (f) how much has it spent on promotional materials each year since 2008; and (g) what is the annual salary of the Project Director?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rodger Cuzner:  With respect to the Employment Insurance Stewardship Pilot (Pilot) and information on ineligible Employment Insurance (EI) payments referred to by the government in relation to the Pilot: (a) how many regular and self-employed EI claimants have been reviewed under this Pilot, broken down by geographic location and EI region; (b) how were each of the claimants in (a) selected for inclusion in the Pilot; (c) how many of the EI claimants were in receipt of Special Benefits, broken down by type of Special Benefit; (d) how many of the claims belonging to claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase one of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (e) how many of the claims belonging to claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase two of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (f) how many of the claims belonging to the claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase three of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (g) how many of the claims belonging to the claimants identified in (a) were withheld or halted as a result of reviews conducted at phase four of the Pilot, broken down by region, namely (i) Newfoundland and Labrador, (ii) Nova Scotia, (iii) Prince Edward Island, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Quebec, (vi) Ontario, (vii) Manitoba, (viii) Saskatchewan, (ix) Alberta, (x) British Colombia, (xi) Yukon, (xii) Northwest Territories, (xiii) Nunavut; (h) what techniques and tools are Integrity Service Officers allowed to use in client interviews conducted under this Pilot; (i) were any techniques and tools, other than those identified in existing ISB Policy and Procedures, authorized for use in this Pilot and, if so, what were those techniques and the rationale for their use; (j) how many Direction to Report notices were provided by Integrity Service Investigators under this Pilot, broken down by (i) the date each notice was served, (ii) the time between the serving of said notice and the date of the scheduled in-person interview with the claimant, (iii) the region each notice was served in; (k) how many Reports of Investigation were prepared and sent to the Processing and Payment Services Branch; (l) what were the results and findings of the StreetSweeper Review regarding the Pilot; (m) what documents, tools, manuals, instructions, presentations, and other materials were used to conduct orientation and training for all persons employed by the federal government who have or are currently taking part in the Employment Insurance Service Review (EISR) pilot; (n) did the EISR pilot Business Expertise Consultant receive any questions or observations from those working on the pilot and, if so, what were these questions and observations; (o) what are the details of (i) EISR Working Group meeting and conference call agendas and minutes, (ii) EISR Working Group project discussion and findings, including anomalies, problems encountered during the project, additional techniques and situations encountered, potential weaknesses in investigative tools, or any other factors of concern expressed regarding the Pilot; (p) in how many cases were unannounced home visits performed by investigators in the course of the Pilot; (q) what was the rationale for unannounced home visits; (r) in how many of the cases was fraud or wrongdoing suspected prior to unannounced home visits; (s) are unannounced home visits to EI recipients department policy when there is no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing, (i) if so when did it take effect, (ii) if not, is it anticipated to become policy; (t) how many unannounced home visits were conducted by investigators to EI claimants who were not suspected of any fraud or wrongdoing in fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; (u) was a legal opinion sought prior to the implementation of the EI Stewardship Pilot regarding interview techniques with EI claimants who were not suspected of fraud or wrongdoing and, if so, what were the legal concerns and problem issues raised by the opinion; (v) under what legislative authority did investigators conduct unannounced home visits to EI claimants under no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing; (w) was a legal opinion sought to determine by what authority investigators could conduct unannounced home visits to EI claimants under no suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing (i) if so, did the opinion present concerns, (ii) if so what were they; (x) on what other issues other than those raised in (u) and (w) did the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development seek a legal opinion on and why; (y) what was the cost of the EI Stewardship Pilot project; (z) what was the cost per home visit and the total cost for all home visits; (aa) what are the details of each type of ineligible EI payment that is tracked by the government; (bb) for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, what is the breakdown of ineligible EI payments by (i) number of cases, (ii) amount, (iii) EI economic region, (iv) province; (cc) in how many cases was the ineligible payment the result of a government error, (i) what is the dollar value of these types of errors for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (dd) for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, what was the amount of (i) total EI benefits paid to EI claimants, (ii) original EI fraud loss, (iii) amount of EI fraud recovered to date, (iv) amount of EI fraud expected to be recovered in future years, (v) amount of EI fraud not expected to be recovered, (vi) amount of EI fraud recovered and expected to be recovered as a percentage of EI benefits paid and (vii) amount of EI fraud not expected to be recovered as a percentage of EI benefits paid; (ee) is the automation of EI processing leading to ineligible payments by incorrectly processing a claim and, if so, how many cases of this problem were found during fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and what was the dollar amount for each case; (ff) if the answer in (ee) is yes, what studies has the government undertaken to examine this, specifying the (i) name, (ii) date completed, (iii) document reference number; (gg) how does the EI system calculate Direct EI saving and Indirect EI saving for each type of ineligible EI payment; (hh) how many cases resulted in Direct EI saving and Indirect EI saving for each type of ineligible EI payment, broken down by fiscal year for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and what is the dollar value for each case; (ii) what was the ratio of Direct EI Savings to Indirect EI Savings for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and what are the reasons for any variance in the ratio throughout this period; (jj) what was the indirect EI savings and the number of cases of EI claim disentitlements for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (kk) of the claim disentitlements referred to in question (jj), in how many cases was the disentitlement (i) subsequently rescinded, (ii) rescinded within thirty days of the original disentitlement for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; (ll) what were the reasons for claim disentitlements referred to in question (kk) being subsequently rescinded; (mm) are the indirect EI savings that are calculated form a claim disentitlement subsequently reduced if the disentitlement is rescinded and if not, why not; and (nn) for claim disentitlements that were subsequently rescinded as referred to in question (kk), what was the expected indirect EI savings that was expected to not be realized as a result for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Megan Leslie:  With regard to federal tax expenditures from 2006-2012: (a) what is the government’s estimate of the annual forgone revenue for the sectors of oil and gas, mining, and where applicable, clean energy, attributed to the following federal tax expenditures, (i) accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, (ii) transitional arrangement for the Alberta royalty tax credit, (iii) reclassification of expenses under flow-through shares, (iv) flow-through share deductions, (v) earned depletion, (vi) net impact of resource allowance, (vii) deductibility of contributions to a qualifying environmental trust, (viii) accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, (ix) canadian exploration expense, (x) canadian development expense for oil sands resource properties; and (b) if the Department of Finance is unable to provide estimates for any of the above tax expenditures, (i) what is the reason for the data gap, (ii) what steps does the Department of Finance plans on taking in future years to close the data gap?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. 
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Nuclear Terrorism Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising once again to speak to Bill S-9, which aims to implement two international treaties to fight terrorism, namely, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
I spoke to the bill at second reading, at which time I supported the bill in principle. Essentially, the bill was not amended in committee and several witnesses reminded us of the importance of its swift passage.
Before quoting some very enlightening testimony heard at committee, I would like to remind the House what Bill S-9 is all about. Quite simply, it amends the Criminal Code to create new offences allowing us to better foil certain activities related to nuclear terrorism.
Among other things, the bill makes it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; to use or alter a nuclear or radioactive device or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything; to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, or access to a nuclear facility; and to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.
The bill also has a prevention component to it. As Terry Jamieson, vice-president of the Technical Support Branch of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, told the committee:
 ...if Bill S-9 is enacted and Canada ratifies the CPPNM as well as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, there is no additional work necessary to implement the physical protection measures among Canada's nuclear facility operators. These measures in fact have already been in place for years. 
This bill is vital to Canada's credibility in the fight against terrorism. Professor Matthew Bunn, from Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said the following in committee:
 Since the September 11 attacks in the United States, both [Canada and the United States] have improved security for their own nuclear materials, helped others to do the same, helped to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts, and worked to strengthen other elements of the global response. But if the United States and Canada are to succeed in convincing other countries to take a responsible approach to reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands in 2014 and beyond, then our two countries have to take the lead in taking responsible action ourselves. 
It is time to walk the walk. Canada cannot just pay lip service to this issue. We must put our words into action and deliver a clear message to the international community. Speaking of sending a clear message, our neighbours to the south have yet to approve similar legislation. Hopefully, between now and nuclear safety week in 2014, they will be inspired by our example to ratify the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM amendment and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
Although Bill S-9 and those conventions seem to have limited content, they at least promote international consistency. Again, according to Matthew Bunn:
 I think the domestic steps, such as passing this legislation, are crucial to being able to build this global framework. The reality is that we won't get everybody participating in this global framework. You're not going to see North Korea ratifying these treaties any time soon. 
 On the other hand, I think that through the international cooperation that we have managed to achieve...we've managed to get many countries where radioactive materials or even nuclear materials were quite vulnerable to take action by improving the security of those items or by getting rid of them entirely from particular places. I think that has reduced the risk to all of us. 
That being said, it is essential that Canada recognize nuclear terrorism as a real threat to security and live up to its responsibilities to the international community.
Again, I am quoting Professor Matthew Bunn, on the current dangers of nuclear terrorism:
 Government studies in the United States and in other countries have concluded that if terrorists manage to get enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium, they might very well be able to make a crude nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of a major city. In the case of highly enriched uranium, making such a bomb is basically a matter of slamming two pieces together at high speed. The amounts required are small, and smuggling them is frighteningly easy. 
 The core of al Qaeda is, as President Obama mentioned the other night, a shadow of its former self, but regional affiliates are metastasizing and some of the key nuclear operatives of al Qaeda remain free today. With at least two terrorist groups having pursued nuclear weapons seriously in the last 20 years, we cannot expect that they will be the last. Moreover, some terrorists have seriously considered sabotaging nuclear power plants, perhaps causing something like what we saw at Fukushima in Japan, or dispersing highly radioactive materials in a so-called “dirty bomb”. 
It is vital to keep in mind that Canada is a major uranium producer and has a number of nuclear reactors. What is more, nuclear substances are delivered in Canada hundreds of times daily. An example that springs to mind is the medical isotopes delivered to Canadian hospitals.
 These facts remind us that we must be vigilant. It is important to know, for example, that a person was successfully prosecuted in 2010 for trying to send Iran dual-use nuclear devices, which might have been used for uranium enrichment.
 To have an idea of the extent of these realities at the international level, we must remember that the International Atomic Energy Agency official responsible for non-proliferation and risk reduction reported 2000 incidents relating to the unauthorized possession and transportation of nuclear and radioactive material between 1993 and 2011.
 Furthermore, as I pointed out in my speech at second reading, the Conservative government should also recognize that Canada will not be able to reduce nuclear terrorism threats unless it implements an action framework that it conceived and endowed with sufficient resources to support the implementation of these conventions.
 We in the NDP are determined to promote multilateral diplomacy and international cooperation, particularly in areas of shared concern, such as nuclear terrorism.
 I look forward to my colleagues' questions.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent speech.
My question is very brief. I liked her comments, because they throw light on a particularly important issue, especially given the modern context in which we now live.
Could she say a little more about the provisions in these treaties that concern transportation and storage of nuclear materials, whether waste materials or some other kind?
In the context of Quebec, if we think of the shutting down of Gentilly-2 or other events of this nature, this issue is of particular interest. I would therefore like to hear a little bit more about this facet of the issue.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is a matter that is of concern to Quebeckers and Canadians from all parts of the country. It concerns the health and safety of Canadians throughout the country, and also in Quebec, as my honourable colleague pointed out. 
 We are asking the Conservative government to be vigilant and allocate the necessary resources to ensure these materials are safely stored. I should also point out that Canada is committed to providing $367 million over five years to the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. It is also committed to taking part in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Proliferation Security Initiative.
 As I mentioned in my speech, these are praiseworthy initiatives, but we must go further still. I expect the Conservative government to take action in this regard. 
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.
 I would like to point out that this is not the first time she has spoken on this matter in the House. She has been monitoring the progress of this bill to some extent.
 Does she know whether any amendments were made to the bill when it was being studied in committee or in the House?
 Before giving her the floor, I would like to say that I found her reminder of how important it is to walk the talk very interesting. For example, as the critic for seniors, I have seen bills introduced in the House without any resources for prevention and intervention, even though these bills were supposed to help combat elder abuse. This often happens in the House.
 That is all I have to say, and I will now give her the opportunity to answer my question.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the question from my hon. colleague is most appropriate.
In fact, no amendments to this bill were adopted in committee. Nevertheless, we believe that the bill is commendable. However, the Conservative government ought to come up with some other measures to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands.
I would remind the House that the bill is basically punitive. It increases the length of sentences and the number of criminal offences in the Criminal Code. We therefore expect the Conservative government to provide adequate resources to protect Canadians and ensure that the goals of this bill are achieved.
My colleague raised another interesting point. The parliamentary committees do indeed do essential work. Witnesses and experts therefore need to come and give evidence, something that the Conservatives have refused to allow in other committees.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Nuclear Terrorism Act. This bill puts in place legislative measures to comply with the criminal law requirements contained in two international counterterrorism treaties: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, amended in 2005, and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
The NDP and I myself believe that we must seriously address the issue of nuclear safety and comply with our international obligations, in order to better cooperate with other countries on a nuclear counterterrorism strategy.
The danger remains very real. It is therefore very important that we implement these UN treaties. Even though we normally oppose a government bill that is introduced through the Senate, Bill S-9 is important enough that we can understand that it is worthwhile for the Senate to do the first vetting of legislation that is intended merely to be technical in order to create compliance with international legislation. It is very important for me as a member of the NDP that we comply with our obligations in the international arena. We are determined to promote multilateral diplomacy and international cooperation, particularly in areas of shared concern, such as nuclear terrorism.
 Because Canada has already agreed to be legally bound by these conventions, it is important to fulfill our international obligations. 
 It is good to see that the government is taking action to comply with these international treaties and conventions. We must of course note that the elements in the bill are in response to these 2005 treaties. It is a bit late in the day to be doing this, but we are used to it.
 This bill was tabled in the Senate on March 27, and moved very slowly. The government brought it before the House sporadically, and only in order to fill gaps in its program. This is unfortunate.
 As I was saying, the intent of Bill S-9 is to comply with Canada’s international obligations, but it is still a breath of fresh air in the House. 
 I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of this House to Canada’s other international responsibilities that are still waiting to be dealt with by this government. 
 It is very relevant, in fact, given that the United Nations Universal Periodic Review was just tabled in late April 2013. The report points out that the Committee against Torture has urged Canada to incorporate the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in its law, so that its provisions can be invoked directly before a court of law and so that the Convention be given precedence.
 Unfortunately, Canada has not been moving on this file. It is nevertheless part of the same process to amend our statutes to fulfill our international responsibilities.
 Torturing human beings ought not to be allowed here or anywhere else. Even so, we have not yet ratified the treaty here in the House, despite our international agreements.
 Moreover, the Committee Against Torture remains concerned by the fact that Canadian law, particularly subsection 115(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, continues to provide exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement. 
 Are the Conservatives moving this file forward? No. Instead, they are pushing their bits and pieces of legislation through the back door in the form of private member’s bills.
 These bills runs completely counter to what the international community is asking of us. By possibly endangering these people—whether by returning them without review, imprisoning and sometimes separating them from their children, or even by making them stateless—this government is once again violating international obligations and its obligations to its own citizens.
 Unfortunately, that is not all. The Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Canada find a constitutional way of providing a comprehensive national legal framework that fully integrates the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols.
 Once again, we are at a standstill on this matter. All Canadians are very unhappy about it. It is yet another convention left for dead by the people on the other side of the house. Yet, children are our future, and the rights of children need to be protected unconditionally.
 On that note, I would also like to point out that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination strongly urged Canada, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to consider adopting a national action plan to enforce the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
 Many allied countries have questioned Canada on this matter, including New Zealand, Australia and Sweden. Unfortunately, as we heard yesterday in the committee of the whole with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Conservatives' approach to aboriginal rights is paternalistic, improvised and partisan.
 Owing to the absence of any real consultations with aboriginal communities, to use the language of the minister himself, and of course their cavalier way of handling claims by aboriginal peoples, it is impossible to believe that the Conservatives want a harmonious relationship. They also do not really want to comply with international laws in this area.
 The community of Kanesatake, which I represent, is suffering seriously from this lack of vision. Whether because of its lack of openness and consultation, its chronic underfunding of education and other areas, or its abysmal management of land claims, the Conservative government gives the appearance of really working against Kanesatake.
 I would like to know whether my government colleagues are aware that the Committee on the Rights of the Child has urged Canada to pass laws that would bring it into compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and to amend its legislation to ensure that information on the date and place of birth of adopted children and their biological parents is retained.
 This is a short list of important actions Canada needs to take with respect to the federal government's international obligations, whether in terms of co-operating with other countries and the UN or developing laws, in order to continue to be a world leader. Only then would we be in a position to leave a legacy.
 We saw this already with Bill S-9, on which action was very slow indeed. Action should really have been much faster.
 Unfortunately, as I just mentioned, it was introduced in the Senate, but we are going to support it because it is extremely important.
 I would nevertheless like to point to the government's lack of motivation to implement international agreements. I would certainly never say that one is less important than the other, but in this instance, the bill on nuclear terrorism was of course chosen.
 For many years, the process to eliminate discrimination against aboriginal peoples and to provide genuine assistance for aboriginal women was delayed. That process is stalled now.
 To conclude, I would like to reiterate that I will support this bill, which brings in legislative measures to comply with the criminal law requirements in the two international treaties on combatting terrorism.
 I sincerely hope that the government will comply with the treaty requirements in those areas I spoke about today.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I really liked the connection that my colleague made with the situation of aboriginal women. In fact, I too would like to make a connection between their situation and the bill that is before us.
My colleague said that she had concerns and expectations but that she still planned to support the bill. This is a good example that shows that, sometimes, we do not agree with all the measures or provisions of a bill but we are still prepared to support that bill because we think that it does not necessarily cause significant damage or because our concerns may not be so serious.
Bill S-2, which deals with the matrimonial rights of women living on reserves, is currently being examined in committee. This is an example of a bill that we are not necessarily prepared to support. Although its objective is very commendable, the way that it is written and the negative impacts it may have could be enough to stop us from supporting it.
The fact that the purpose of a bill is commendable does not mean that we are necessarily going to support it. We must go much further than that before making a decision. My colleague is very involved in women's issues. I commend her for that, and I commend her for her speech.
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. She is absolutely right.
Bill S-9 implements measures consistent with international commitments that we support. This is therefore very important. Even if we have concerns, it is more important to co-operate at the international level so that we can advance within the international community. Canada is a very important player on the international scene. What we do here with our laws can reflect these agreements, and it is very important to set an example for other countries.
The case of Bill S-2 is completely different. As I mentioned, many countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Sweden, are calling for us to do something for aboriginal women. None of them have told us that Bill S-2 is a step in the right direction, since the bill creates more problems than it solves.
Countries around the world are trying to help us and encourage us to prevent violence and racial discrimination against aboriginal women, and it is sad that our government has been ignoring these issues because it wants to play petty politics. Unfortunately, that is what the Conservatives are doing.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her excellent speech on something that is not always an easy subject.
I have to say that bills amending the Criminal Code or dealing with nuclear terrorism, like Bill S-9, are not the best topic of conversation around the dinner table. 
The member was able to highlight the important role Canada plays with respect to the international treaties we have signed. I would like to quote Matthew Bunn, an associate professor of public policy at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He said:
 At the moment, unfortunately, the mechanisms for global governance of nuclear security remain weak. No global rules specify how secure a nuclear weapon...ought to be. There are no mechanisms in place to verify that every country that has these materials is securing them responsibly. 
Does my colleague agree that this is a step towards complying with our international conventions, but that we cannot stop there?
[Interjection]
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau, for the excellent job she does on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As justice critic, she lends a voice of reason in the House. I agree and I want to share something else that Matthew Bunn said in committee:
 But if the United States and Canada are to succeed in convincing other countries to take a responsible approach to reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands in 2014 and beyond, then our two countries have to take the lead in taking responsible action ourselves. Hence, it is important for both of our countries to ratify the main conventions in this area... 
We cannot stop there, however. As with any international agreement, this is only the first step. This is something we must do as a member of the international community, and we must move forward.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all my colleagues who participated in the debate on Bill S-9 before us today. This bill is about a very important issue on which all parties in the House agree. 
Recently we have seen many examples of the dangers of terrorism throughout the world and even close to home. These incidents remind us that the world is much smaller that it used to be, and that we cannot ensure our security by retreating behind our own borders. To truly protect ourselves in today's world, we have to be engaged citizens of the planet, reach out and work with other countries in order to find solutions and help one another.
We, the New Democrats, have always favoured multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in common areas of great concern, like nuclear terrorism. I have worked in international law for my entire adult life and at the United Nations with people from all over the world. This has allowed me to see for myself what can be achieved through international co-operation. I saw this when, in 2007, after 23 years of negotiations, we finalized the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I often put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of international co-operation because it is one of the pillars—I would even say the cornerstone—of international law with respect to relations among countries. In fact, it is a principle and an obligation that is set out in article 1 of the United Nations charter. Nothing can be achieved without international co-operation. 
Canada has a history of being a force for good in the world when we take a multilateral approach, but, sadly, over time we have seen the Conservative government go in a different direction most of the time. However, Bill S-9 is an exception to that trend.
Bill S-9 would amend the Criminal Code to implement criminal law requirements found in two international counterterrorism treaties: the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. By passing the bill, Canada will fulfill its international obligations under these treaties and will be legally bound by them. Passing the bill will allow Canada to finally ratify these conventions, putting us in line with our international partners. We need to be working with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions, and passing Bill S-9 will go a long way in doing that.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for the past years, I have had a front-row seat to witness the Conservatives' view of the world and how they choose to deal with other countries. They have taken an abrasive approach to diplomacy, while calling it “principled”, but act more like a confused bull in a fine China shop than diplomats or simply fellow citizens of the earth.
We have seen the Conservatives pull out of the UN's desertification conventions for reasons, to be polite, that were questionable.
 We have seen them send out ministers of the Crown to berate one of the UN's special rapporteurs for pointing out the fact that we have a food security problem in many parts of our country.
We then saw the Minister of Foreign Affairs ignore multiple requests from three other UN special rapporteurs for 15 months before finally answering while presenting at the UN's Universal Periodic Review on Human Rights. I am sure that the timing of that announcement was the purest of pure coincidences.
Then, for the final coup de grâce, we heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Canada would not even attempt to win a seat on the UN Security Council because our defeat was so certain. To put that into perspective, under the Conservative government we have gone from never losing an election for a Security Council seat to not even trying because we are so sure to lose that election.
This is a serious decline in our international standing in a very short period of time. We need to ask ourselves why this is happening, because this is not the Canada I knew.
That is not the Canada I knew, a Canada that had a definite role and definite influence on the international scene. That is not the Canada we have now under the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will try to tell us that none of that really matters and that their approach will not have any serious consequences. I challenge the Conservative members who serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to go to Montreal and meet the thousands of people who work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and whose jobs are threatened because of the Conservatives' lack of diplomacy.
In light of our recent past and the government's failed attempts at international diplomacy, I hope that this bill marks a shift towards genuine, respectful multilateral diplomacy.
Simply passing Bill S-9 will not repair the damage this government has done to our international reputation, but it could be a first step towards regaining our place in the world, which is so important to Canadians.
I sincerely hope that the Conservatives will seize this chance as an opportunity to do just that, because we have a great deal of expertise in the field of nuclear science. Canada has long been a leader in this field, and an engaged Canada on this file can be a large force for good for the world.
We need to remember how the world has changed around us in the past 30 years when it comes to nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the number of nations with these weapons or the capacity to make them was small, with the United States and Russia by far holding the largest arsenals of these weapons. These two superpowers had strong control over their stockpiles, but after the fall of the Iron Curtain, into the 1990s and beyond, we saw that control weaken in Russia. We also saw more countries gain nuclear facilities, either for energy production or for research.
 Also, as I mentioned earlier, the world is a much smaller place today and the ability to move people and items around this planet has increased immensely. These conditions make it all the more important to work with other nations and bring ourselves into compliance with conventions like these.
Between 1993 and 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency identified close to 2,000 incidents related to the use, transportation and unauthorized possession of nuclear and radioactive material. That is a lot, considering the destruction and damage that a single nuclear attack could do.
In light of the danger these materials and weapons pose, we need to ensure that we have the necessary laws in place to stop those who could use them during terrorist attacks. We need to work together with the rest of the world to meet this challenge. We need to work with other countries to protect our safety here, at home, in light of the threat that nuclear materials pose.
We can protect our own safety, but not by barricading ourselves behind our borders and hoping that the problem will go away on its own. It is time to take action. I encourage my colleagues to join us and support this legislation.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful speech on Bill S-9.
Why does he think the government waited so long? The government was in power for over five years before this issue became a priority for it.
I have some suggestions. Is it because this government has a hidden political agenda, and standing up for the needs of all Canadians is just not a priority?
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. I think he touched on something we seem to forget far too often.
Since this government came to power in 2006, our international reputation has suffered greatly because the Conservatives have changed their stance, ideologically speaking.
I remember that, for years, we worked with the government during negotiations for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the government had to respect its constitutional obligations. In 2006, the Canadian delegation came to see the aboriginal representatives at the United Nations—I was one of them—to tell them that the government's approach had changed and that it wanted to obstruct the United Nations in its multilateral negotiations.
That is one reason why this is taking longer now.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, obviously this makes sense. Today is practically a day of celebration, since we are all going to vote the same way.
We want to protect ourselves against a possible nuclear terrorist attack, but has my colleague seen anything in the Conservatives' many pieces of legislation that would reduce the number of potential targets in Canada by giving scientists the means to come up with good solutions for the disposal of all the nuclear waste we have been stockpiling for years?
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. The short answer is no.
He also raised one aspect of this debate that we often seem to forget, because nuclear and other kinds of waste are a concern for our country. They are often found in isolated areas, like in my riding and in many northern ridings.
The Conservatives seem to be saying that the Prime Minister travels to the Arctic every year because that region matters to him, when, really, he shows up for a photo-op. There is absolutely nothing concrete on the ground for the environment or the people who live in the far north.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my esteemed colleague, whose work I admire tremendously.
Since September 11, 2001, the United States, Canada and other countries have joined forces to try to improve security protocols. Furthermore, two countries, the United States and Canada, have not yet ratified the conventions, because they have not passed the kind of legislation were are about to pass.
My question is similar to that of my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on the delay, but it is a little strange that it is those who were on the front lines in North America who are dragging their feet on signing the treaties in question.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Gatineau for the question.
I am not surprised, and for several reasons. As a keen observer of what is going on internationally and especially regarding international co-operation, I am noticing more and more that we seem to have lost the role and the influence that we once had.
Barack Obama said something interesting regarding this debate, but it also applies to other contexts. He said that we cannot invite others down a path that we are not willing to follow ourselves. That is problem here, in terms of our role on the international scene.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am rising in the House in support of Bill S-9 on nuclear terrorism.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to add the criminal law requirements found in two international treaties designed to combat nuclear terrorism around the world.
The two treaties in question are the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
These international conventions require the signatory states to improve the physical protection of their nuclear facilities as well as the use, storage and transport of nuclear materials. The states are also required to create new criminal offences for acts of terrorism, among other things.
These treaties show that the international community is willing to work together to combat the threats against countries all around the world.
Unfortunately, we are seeing an increasing number of nuclear threats around the world, whether we are talking about Canada, the United States or other countries.
In the past, for example, at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in 2010 and in Seoul in 2012, Canada committed to be legally bound by these conventions and to ratify them.
In 2005, Canada signed the two United Nations treaties, but since then, the Conservatives have unfortunately done nothing.
Bill S-9 would pop up on the order paper from time to time, when they were trying to fill some holes to avoid prorogation. Now, as we approach the end of the session and there are still a few weeks to fill, Bill S-9 is back.
This is an extremely important issue, but Canada has dragged its feet when it comes to honouring the promises and commitments we made to the international community.
Despite everything, I am happy that we are having this debate in the House and that we can maybe move forward with legislation to better protect Canadians and people in other countries, as well as have better relations with the rest of the international community.
At present, we are still unable to keep our promise to ratify those treaties because we do not have a legislative provision in the Criminal Code that criminalizes the offences contained in the two treaties we are discussing today.
If Bill S-9 were passed, it would allow Canada to finally fulfill its international obligations by amending the Criminal Code, which in turn would then meet the requirements of international conventions that the Prime Minister has clearly said he wants Canada to endorse. It is time to keep that promise and to finally achieve the desired result of ensuring everyone's security.
The bill on nuclear terrorism we are debating today includes 10 clauses that would create four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code, as well as other amendments that are consequential to these four offences.
They have already been described at length in the House. I will not go over all the legislative provisions contained in this bill. However, it is extremely important that we make these amendments to the Criminal Code.
The NDP firmly believes in the importance of promoting multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially on such an important issue as nuclear terrorism. This is not the kind of file that we can shove into a drawer and come back to when we have more time or at a more opportune moment. It is something that must be dealt with fairly quickly.
Canada signed these treaties back in 2005. A number of years passed before some measures were taken in order to get the wheels turning. That is what I find disappointing about the whole process. 
There is something else that I find quite unfortunate. Once again, the Senate was given the responsibility of introducing a bill that is of vital importance.
It should not be the role of the unelected chamber. Still, I have to say that I appreciate the technical work that was done here. It was painstaking and detailed work. The senators even managed to correct at least one shortcoming in the bill. That effort is appreciated. However, I still believe that this bill should have been introduced initially in the House of Commons, which is where we should have been debating it from the start. Of course, we have the opportunity to do so now, but it is getting to us a bit late.
Despite the procedural shortcomings, Canada still has a responsibility to the international community, and we really need to take action. We have to get serious about domestic and international nuclear security, and we have to co-operate more with other countries on strategies to fight nuclear terrorism.
Unfortunately, threats in today's world are increasing in number and diversity. It can be difficult to predict what tragedy may happen if radioactive or nuclear material were to fall into the wrong hands. Small amounts of this material can cause absolutely unbelievable damage. That is why it is so important to pass Bill S-9 and ensure that the steps we are taking here, in Canada, truly meet our needs.
Aside from creating new offences for nuclear terrorism, threats and so on, what I find interesting and important is that the treaties address various aspects of transporting and storing nuclear material, be it nuclear waste or something else. Canada is a significant producer of medical isotopes. We still use nuclear material that is highly enriched, which creates large quantities of waste that must be disposed of safely.
There are ways to deal with that. I do not think that the materials currently used to make our medical isotopes should still be used. There are alternatives that would produce good results. In the meantime, we need to commit to reducing the quantity of waste we produce from medical isotopes and find better ways to store it. Canada already does this relatively well, but we can always do better and ensure even better protection for the people within our borders.
Some of my colleagues also mentioned the closure of the Gentilly-2 reactor in Quebec, which highlights the importance of proper storage of nuclear materials and proper disposal of waste. Given the closure of that reactor, we need to ensure that we really can dispose of radioactive materials safely when they can no longer be used, in order to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands and do not affect the health of Canadians.
I am sure everyone remembers what happened with Bruce Power, an Ontario company, in 2011. It wanted to transport 16 nuclear reactors down the St. Lawrence River and then on to Sweden to decontaminate them, bring them back here and then bury them. It stirred up a great deal of controversy at the time. Mayors of the cities and towns along the river opposed it, and the company had to change its plans. In fact, people were worried about the precedent it would set, about the transportation of this kind of waste increasing considerably on the river, thereby potentially putting our health at risk. Once again, we cannot always predict what will happen with this kind of transportation.
These are all issues that we need to address as parliamentarians. We had the opportunity to do so with Bill S-9. It is critically important that we pass this bill and I hope it receives unanimous support.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments. Resuming debate.
 Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 21 at the ordinary hour of adjournment. 
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members’ Business
An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent OffendersMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC):  moved that Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be standing here to speak to important amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that I proposed in Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders.
I would first like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Senator Boisvenu for their public show of support this week for this legislation. I appreciate their commitment and I am encouraged by their ongoing leadership to help bring about the fairness we are seeking for victims.
Strengthening the voice of victims of violent crimes and the proposed increased time between parole hearings are two aspects of this bill that act on the changes that victims, their families and advocates like the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime have urged for many years. It is time to bring these to fruition.
Let us be clear. We are talking about instances of violent crime. I do not think words can ever adequately describe the repulsiveness of these crimes. They are heinous, are often calculated and always senseless.
It is an honour for me to be speaking to this bill today. I do so on behalf of my constituents and, tragically, thousands of Canadians like them, as well as the sacred memory of their loved ones. From the time I was elected in 2006, I have had many constituents share their concerns about the imbalance between the victims and the perpetrators in our justice system. However, my dedication to pursue this kind of legislation was galvanized when my constituents asked me to attend a Parole Board hearing with them in 2010. They wanted their federal representative to see first-hand what the process was like and the voice given to the victims, primarily through the victim impact statement.
When I agreed to attend, I knew it would be an emotional experience. I was hoping it would also be an educational experience. It was for sure. However, I do not think I could ever have begun to prepare myself for the raw emotion in that room that day. As long as I live, I will never forget it. Before even uttering a word, my constituent started to weep. The memories of a crime committed over 30 years previously came flooding back and the tears were endless. It was a grisly triple murder: her sister, niece and nephew had been brutally murdered by her sister's husband. After killing his wife, this violent criminal suffocated his two young children, a six-year old and a five-year old. The murderer meticulously concealed the bodies in the waterways of Hamilton, Ontario.
My constituent wrote her first victim impact statement on the eve of the funeral. Over the years, she and her family insisted on attending the Parole Board hearings to ensure the voice of victims was heard. They felt an incredible burden, a duty as a family. It was the least they could do to honour the victims: their sister, their daughter, their grandchildren, their niece, their nephew.
What struck me like a ton of bricks was the re-victimization of having to deliver the statement over and over, year after year. It was so cruel, so frustrating and so unnecessary. I watched the family endure the same process again in 2011. Again, the triple murderer was denied parole.
This experience inspired Bill C-479. I set about talking to victims, advocates, law enforcement officials, lawyers and others to ask what could be done.
Beyond the whole issue of re-victimization, I discovered that provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that may have made sense in the 1970s no longer reflected modern technology and the respect and dignity our system ought to afford victims.
From the work my office and I have done in preparation for the introduction of this bill, and the experts we have consulted, this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation. I believe it will have broad support as well.
In tabling Bill C-479 in February, I proposed nine changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. They include: extend mandatory review periods for parole whereby if a violent offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would have to review the case within five years, rather than the current two years; increase the period to within five years in which the Parole Board of Canada must review parole following the cancellation or termination of parole; emphasize that the Parole Board of Canada must take into consideration the victims and the needs of the victim's family to attend hearings and witness the proceedings; and, require that the Parole Board of Canada consider any victim impact statement presented by victims.
One would think that this is already the case, that it is a bit of a no-brainer. However, the bill is necessary to enshrine in law the victim's voice.
Other straightforward changes proposed in Bill C-479 to protect and support victims include requiring the Parole Board of Canada to provide the victim, if requested, with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release or temporary absence, and to provide victims with information about their offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.
This is one of the things that Constable Michael Sweet's family, after 30 years of silence, requested.
 I would like to remind members of Michael Sweet's story so that they can understand the family's depth of feeling with regard to these changes.
In the early morning hours of March 14, 1980, brothers Craig and Jamie Munro entered what was then George's Bourbon St. Bistro in downtown Toronto for the purpose of committing a robbery. 
Both men were high on drugs and armed with guns. At the time, Craig Munro was on mandatory supervision from a penitentiary sentence for a previous gun-related offence.
 The brothers gathered all of the people inside into one place. However, one of the victims managed to successfully flee. Once out on the street, he flagged down a passing police cruiser. 
Constable Sweet—who, by the way, is no relation to me—who was 30 at the time, entered the restaurant and was immediately shot twice.
Then began a 90-minute standoff between the Munro brothers, with their hostages, and police.
The police later stormed the restaurant, and both brothers were shot and captured.
During the standoff, Sweet was conscious and slowly bleeding to death. He begged his captors to let him go to the hospital. He had three young daughters and he wanted to be with them at home. While Sweet pleaded for his life, they laughed and taunted him.
All three men were transported to the hospital after the police broke in. Craig and Jamie made full recoveries; Sweet died a few hours later.
I should note that many of the changes I am proposing in Bill C-479 have been enacted by our Commonwealth colleagues, such as Australia, New Zealand and the U.K.
I believe one of the fundamental responsibilities of the state is to keep our citizens safe. Violent offenders have committed unspeakable crimes. Families have suffered losses that are forever.
I hope these changes will help bring a measure of comfort to my constituents and thousands of other Canadian families who have been victimized in this way, people who have had their loved ones taken during the prime of their lives and who have lived with that pain day after day. The last thing they need is another gut-wrenching re-victimization through a parole system.
In closing, please allow me to read a few public comments from people impacted directly by violent crime.
Quoted in The Toronto Star is what a victim had to say about extending the review period:
 Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice. We are asking the federal government to increase the time to five years, for a parole review instead of two years. 
She also said:
 We're asking the federal government to increase the time to five years [for a parole review], instead of two years. 
Writing about Clifford Olson, a journalist in the Vancouver  Province noted a few years ago: 
 Olson, 70, who seems to take pleasure revictimizing the families of those he killed, is automatically eligible for parole every two years until the day he dies. 
A victim in a Toronto murder case commented that as difficult as it was to write the victim impact statement, it was also frustrating that she was required to submit the statement 30 days in advance so that the convicted murderer could read it, because the victims are not allowed to see the murderer's material in advance to find out what he wants to say. 
Finally, an editorial on March 2, 2012, in my own hometown newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, stated:
 But the PBC has a responsibility to victims of crime. For those victims, the parole board is virtually the only source of information about the status of the person who committed the crime against them. Some local victims of crime don't feel well-served by the board. That must change. 
Bill C-479 would give the Parole Board of Canada the tools it needs to do just that.
I look forward to the discussion with all members of this House on Bill C-479, this act to bring fairness for victims of violent offenders.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for introducing Bill C-479. This bill seems to address many of the recommendations made by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.
The hon. member touched on the analysis he had done of his bill before introducing it. When it comes to private members' bills, more so than with government bills, I am always a bit concerned when they are introduced that they may not be consistent with the charter. Mind you, we should also be concerned about the bills introduced by the government, considering its approach to things.
I would like the hon. member to elaborate on the type of research he conducted or the analyses he had done of his bill, specifically with regard to the provision on the cancellation of a parole review hearing if an offender has repeatedly refused to attend previous hearings.
Did he really determine whether this was consistent with the charter, to see if there is a problem on that level? Is the hon. member reasonably sure about that?
[Interjection]
David Sweet: Mr. Speaker, all of us here in Parliament have access to the lawyers who are drafting these bills. I actually tabled a bill in the last Parliament that died on the order paper. We spent the last couple of years making sure that these bills were constitutionally sound, were legally sound and were reasonable, as well.
 I believe that the member is talking about the vexatious habit of scheduling them and then cancelling them.
 Again, I want to make sure members know that this just gives the Parole Board of Canada discretion. I think there are very good people on the Parole Board of Canada, and they need the tools to have that discretion. Whether it is the case the member asked about or a case of it being within five years, it does not mean that a review will not happen before then. It just means that they have up to five years to schedule such a review. It gives them the discretion. Many of them have great experience, which I have witnessed myself at a Parole Board hearing, and are able to determine what the best course of action is.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill and for being the kind of member of Parliament who stands up for his constituents and does not just talk about it. He really has put action to his words.
I want to follow up on my colleague's question on the issue of offenders cancelling their hearings. Could my colleague address how his bill would deal with that and what the problem has been? I think many Canadians do not know that offenders can cancel their parole hearings on very short notice and that it can have a horrible effect on victims. I wonder if my hon. colleague can explain that situation and why his bill is going to address that.
[Interjection]
David Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I half spoke to the answer. 
When a victim is going to go to one of these Parole Board hearings, it is months of getting the emotional fortitude it is going to take to go there. People review their victim impact statements, often with the entire family that was affected. As they get ready to do this, sometimes it is communicated to them that the whole thing has been cancelled, which is another huge emotional trauma for them, only to be scheduled at a later date and cancelled again. 
It is painful enough for the victims to have to endure this process. They do this because they have a duty to the victim who was either killed or dealt with violently in some other way. They should not be re-victimized because someone wants to use the system in a way it was never intended to be used. The system is really a rehabilitative process for the convict and for ensuring the security of Canadian citizens.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for introducing Bill C-479, which the NDP will support at second reading. I must admit that we will support it without much reservation.
Not only does the bill talk about helping victims, but, in practical terms, it will achieve the desired effect. Sometimes in the House, we hear grand speeches, great oratorical rhetoric from the government benches. It gives the public the impression that the government is doing something, when in fact it is not. It does a little bit here and there, but does not necessarily achieve what we are looking for.
That cannot be said about this bill. Of course, we have to take a good look at it, because I rarely write a blank cheque, especially not when it comes to the Conservative government's bills. I would like for us to study the bills in committee, go over them in greater detail, and ensure that we come back to the House at third reading with bills that make sense.
We think it is safe to say that the bill is legal and consistent with the charter and the Constitution. Regardless of the political side of the matter, it achieves the desired effect and even if it does not achieve the desired political effect, it makes sense.
The bill finally truly addresses the issue of victims. Anyone who has practised law and who has been inside Canada's courthouses from coast to coast has noticed some very specific things, above and beyond the money that the justice system costs and the financial burden that many victims face.
According to the government, Bill C-37, with regard to the surcharge, will solve almost all of victims' financial problems. However, when we dig a little deeper, we realize that, once again, this is only a drop in the bucket when it comes to what victims need. What do victims tell us on a regular basis? What does the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime tell us? What recommendations did she make at the time?
In her 2010 report, among others, she recommended that the federal government shift the burden of responsibility to provide information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act from victims to the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.
The member opposite's bill addresses part of that recommendation. It responds to the recommendation to give victims the right to attend National Parole Board hearings through the use of available technologies such as video conferencing.
It also responds to the recommendation to take into account the needs of victims when it comes to the timing, frequency and scheduling of parole hearings. However, these are not the only things that the ombudsman asked the federal government to do.
The Minister of Justice is on a tour of Canada to try to talk to victims. I thought that he had done this quite awhile ago and that he had a good idea of victims' needs. I can give him some suggestions that could be included in a possible charter.
Clearly, this type of bill could set out fundamental principles that show the respect that Canadians and the Government of Canada have for victims' needs, including during court cases and trials.
The problems are not limited to parole. They are sometimes related to the trials themselves, which can often seem to go on forever. We can implement all the measures we like under Bill C-479, Bill C-489 or any other bill, but if we do not resolve the problems related to accessing justice and awaiting trial, then victims will remain victims for a long time yet.
Not only are they victimized during sentencing and at parole hearings, for instance, but they are also victimized in the very process of reaching a verdict. This is a fundamental problem.
Often they are not even fully aware of what is going on. Sentences are negotiated between Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. Victims—who may have been summoned three, four, five or even 10 times during some exceptionally long trials—could find themselves back at square one. On top of that, they are told they have to appear before the parole board, which also takes time, and they are asked to stand in front of the person who victimized them. Thus, they are victimized all over again.
With government bills, whether they come from the back benches, the government itself or the Senate, a piecemeal approach is often taken, when a comprehensive approach is required. It always breaks my heart a little, because I have so much respect for our justice system. I also have a very hard time seeing how the public perceives its judicial system. Yes, it definitely has some flaws, but we are trying to correct them. Basically, every time we correct just one little thing, we open up a new Pandora's box and create imbalances. That is the problem.
In the context of Bill C-479, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask my colleague to clarify these changes, like the one to revisit parole reviews for offenders serving a sentence of less than two years.
We need to keep in mind that these are vile offences, as he said. When it comes to violent offences, some victims and their families may prefer not to attend parole hearings. Some victims, for example rape victims, should not be called to appear at all, not even through videoconference. Some of them need to completely close themselves off from that part of their lives. We need to be very respectful of that, while giving those who want to speak the opportunity to do so, since that is what some people need. They want to face their aggressor. For them, it is a way to get over the events of their past. 
There is so much we can do to support victims if we really want to and if we go beyond talking. I believe that words revictimize these people, because words seem to promise solutions to their problems. In the end, however, five or 10 years later, they will realize that nothing has changed. 
As for the surcharges suggested in the bill, they are peanuts. They will only add a few tens of millions of dollars to our coffers. Let us look at the numbers. I did not come up with them; Senator Boisvenu did. He enjoys showing up everywhere to remind us of these numbers, and rightly so.
In 2003 alone, crime cost $70 billion. Victims assumed 70% of the cost of crime, or $47 billion.
Professor Irvin Waller appeared before the committee when we were studying Bill C-37, which the government bragged about at length as the solution, the way to do the right thing for victims. The government set aside about $16 million in the budget for victims.
Professor Waller said that it did not mean much. The government should work with the provinces and fund a study on the remaining gaps between services and needs. All these things have been recommended. All the government has to do is decide to act.
I think victims deserve a little more respect from their government. The government should move from words to action. It should do more than just pretend and hold press conferences for the fun of it. We need to try to find lasting solutions that get to the heart of the issue of justice system accessibility, first and foremost. We need to ensure that trials take place much more quickly than they are now.
Some provinces, including Alberta, think the answer is more judges. Let us make that happen. We need to, if we believe in a system of justice, law and order that works and that respects victims.
I thank my colleague opposite for his bill. The NDP will study it carefully in committee, and we will be proud to support it at second reading.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a rule we must analyze legislation such as Bill C-479 through the prism of the important overriding objective of ensuring the long-term public safety of Canadian society, and that means being smart about crime. We must also measure such legislation against the criterion of whether it harms or helps victims or, if neutral, whether more could be done to support victims.
It is worth mentioning, and it has been mentioned before in the debate today, that private members' bills do not obtain charter scrutiny as do bills that originate in the Department of Justice; although doubts have recently been planted that even government bills may not be benefiting from rigorous vetting through the prism of adherence to charter principles.
Liberals support sending Bill C-479 to committee precisely to better understand how it meets the above criteria.
Bill C-479 would make changes to specific aspects of the conditional release system in Canada. However, first it might be wise to briefly enumerate the kinds of conditional release available in this country. They are escorted and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole and statutory release with supervision.
The bill deals more specifically with full parole for violent offenders, namely, for crimes cited under schedule 1 of the Criminal Code. In Canada, once an offender has served one-third of his or her sentence or seven years, whichever is less, he or she becomes eligible to apply for parole. Generally the offender's parole request is considered at a parole hearing before the Parole Board of Canada.
The bill, as I understand it, would not change the modalities and rules governing the initial parole request but rather the consequences that flow from being denied parole, which itself is seen as an indicator that the offender has not made progress toward rehabilitation. 
Currently, as I understand the system, an offender, even after being denied parole, can reapply for parole on an annual basis. However, the Parole Board is not obliged upon review of the case to grant the hearing for as long as two years after the initial parole refusal.
The goal of the bill is to spare victims and their families the nightmare of attending repeated parole hearings. It is no secret that there are offenders who definitely are not on the road to rehabilitation but who wish to trigger repeated parole hearings for no other reason than to torment victims. I believe it is at these types of offenders that the bill is aimed.
Offenders serving time for schedule 1 offences, the most serious and often violent offences, whose parole is refused because they are not progressing under their rehabilitation plan would no longer automatically be eligible for a hearing two years after their initial parole refusal, as at present; rather, under the bill, the Parole Board of Canada would be permitted to deny a hearing for as long as five years after the offender was initially denied parole, even if he or she applied annually.
The bill attempts to clarify and reinforce victims' rights in other ways. I understand the member has developed the bill as a result of attending a parole hearing for an offender who was serving a sentence for multiple murders. This must have been a life-changing experience for the member, and there are no doubt elements of the bill rooted in the wisdom gained from that experience.
Bill C-479 would codify a number of existing practices that assist victims in various ways. Bill C-479 adds a declaration that every effort must be made to allow victims or victims' families to attend parole hearings. Currently the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not contain a provision dealing with attendance by victims; they have to apply. However, I should mention that they are rarely, if ever, refused attendance at a hearing, as far as I understand.
Bill C-479 would also allow victims or their families to view a hearing via a one-way closed circuit connection, should they not be permitted to attend or they would prefer viewing from a distance where they would not need to be in the same room as the offender. Currently in a parole hearing victims may present a statement describing the harm done to them or loss suffered by them as a result of the offence, although this is not a right in law, as I understand it.
If they are not in attendance, the statement may be presented by way of audiotape or videotape, accompanied by a written copy of the statement. The bill seeks to entrench the consideration of victim impact statements in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The bill would also allow the victim impact statement to be submitted in writing only, rather than the current prescribed formats of videotape or audiotape accompanied by a written statement. 
The bill would also give victims the legislated right to access certain information about the offender. As I understand it, victims would be able to register to receive information automatically. Certain on-request information would be automatically provided if the bill is passed, such as the conditions attached to the conditional release. Also, the information that victims could request would include information relating to the offender's treatment plan and progress toward the plan's objective. 
Finally, it would be mandatory for the victim or family to be notified at least 14 days in advance of their offender receiving any form of conditional release, as well as being informed of the offender's destination upon release.
This bill appears to have many positive aspects, and I look forward, as do my other colleagues no doubt, to examining the bill in committee and also to examining the way the parole system works. It is very complicated, complex and technical. This would be an opportunity to better understand that system and to understand how it could be made fairer for victims. It looks like this bill would go a long way toward that.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to rise and speak in support of private member's Bill C-479, which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.
 I want to thank and commend my colleague for his strong commitment to placing the needs, rights and interests of victims ahead of criminals and for introducing this bill that would further strengthen victims' rights in this country. The bill includes measures that are in keeping with our government's strong commitment to support victims of crime and ensure that they have a strong voice in the justice system.
While we have made some very good progress over the past seven years to meet these commitments, we know that more work needs to be done. That is why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada recently outlined the next phase of the Government of Canada's plan for safe streets and communities. 
Through this plan, our government will take further action in the following areas:
 We will tackle crime by holding offenders accountable for their actions. This includes bringing forward legislation to further toughen penalties for child sexual offences and to better understand the risks posed by known child sex offenders. 
As well, we have introduced Bill C-54, not criminally responsible reform act, which would better protect the public from accused persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Such legislation would ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in these cases. 
We also moved ahead with further measures to enhance the rights of victims by introducing legislation to implement a victims' bill of rights. This legislation would serve to further enhance the government's commitment to victims of crime by entrenching their rights into law at the federal level.
 I want to again thank my colleague, because he mentioned this important piece. It is one thing to talk about victims' rights, but they need to be enshrined in federal law. My colleague's bill will move forward on this as will what our government is doing to support victims of crime.
Finally, we will increase the efficiency of our justice system by looking at measures to make our justice system more efficient through the “Economics of Policing” study. 
Members may recall that the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale introduced a similar bill in 2011. He has been very committed to this cause and continues to be. 
Since 2011, we have passed into law the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which included these important measures to enhance the participation of victims in the justice system and to increase offender accountability. As such, Bill C-479 proposes some important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, also known as the CCRA. 
I will now look at how Bill C-479 would amend the CCRA. First, private member's Bill C-479 proposes to extend mandatory review periods for parole. For example, if a violent offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would then be obligated to review the case within five years rather than the current two years. Again, we have heard today the impact that would have on victims. Rather than having to come back every two years and relive the horror and tragedy of what they or their families went through, the bill would extend that period to five years.
The bill also proposes to hold detention reviews every two years rather than annually. Again, this considers the rights and interests of victims and what they go through when they are unfortunately re-victimized every time they have to go through this. This would not only affect offenders who are not ready to be released into the community at their statutory release date, at two-thirds of the sentence, but would also put victims' interests into the equation.
The second set of changes to the CCRA proposed in Bill C-479 relates to the attendance of victims and members of their families at parole review hearings. 
There is no magic formula for healing from the traumatic experience of violent crime. There is no single set of counselling, time or things that can happen after one is victimized. There is no magic formula that can fix the pain and tragedy victims have gone through. Each victim, each family member, is affected differently and will cope in a unique way. With this in mind, Bill C-479 proposes to give more weight to the needs of victims in the justice system. 
Specifically, Bill C-479 proposes that if victims are denied the opportunity to observe the hearings in person, they could follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed, again another way that the government and the Parole Board could show victims that their voices matter. Currently, there can be distance and time and it can be very difficult for victims to attend hearings, yet they want to see it or be a part of it. This bill would give them the opportunity to follow hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed.
The bill would provide useful tools. However, we need to strike a balance between theory and practice. Therefore, there are some minor amendments to make it easier to implement this and we expect amendments would be required for this part of the bill.
Currently, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives victims the right to certain basic information about offenders and criminals. At the same time, it gives the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada discretion to provide additional information if the interests of the victims clearly outweigh the privacy concerns for the offenders. 
Bill C-479 proposes to expand the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals in order for information to be shared about offenders. Specifically, it would make the release of certain information mandatory rather than discretionary. This information would include the date, if any, when an offender would be released on either unescorted or escorted temporary absences. As well, a victim would be informed of any of the conditions attached to an offender's unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release and the reasons for any unescorted temporary absences. In addition, a victim would be informed of the destination of an offender when released on unescorted temporary absence or parole or statutory release. Again, one would assume this has already taken place, but it has not, and those are some of the provisions that the bill would provide.
Obviously, it is important for victims to have all this information well in advance of an offender's temporary release. Bill C-479 proposes that the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada discloses this information at least 14 days before an offender is released. The bill would further provide victims with information about offenders' correctional plans, including progress toward meeting their objectives and providing transcripts of parole hearings, if they are produced. Should the bill be referred to committee, we would again seek to move certain amendments to ensure that any necessary public safety safeguards would be in place for the sharing of this information.
Again, I would like to commend my colleague for his strong commitment to victims and for introducing this bill to further strengthen the rights of victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-479 bring greater fairness to the justice system for victims. This is in keeping with our government's commitments and I am proud to indicate that we will be supporting this important legislation.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-479, introduced by the member opposite. The NDP stands behind initiatives that promote fairness for victims of crime, as well as their families and their communities, which are often collateral victims. 
We will study this bill at length in committee to ensure that it meets their needs.
This bill amends Part II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C-479 seems to respond to some of the recommendations that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made in 2010.
In her report, the ombudsman suggests that we adopt some of the principles set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Declaration of Principle in the YCJA states that: 
 3(1)(d)(ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system, 
 (iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, 
The ombudsman found that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act must reflect the same principles. It remains to be seen, during our study in committee, whether Bill C-479 makes this law consistent with these principles in an effective and balanced manner.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act was enacted in 1992. It was the first federal statute governing corrections and conditional release that officially recognized the victims. Bill C-479 seems to respond to two things the ombudsman considered.
I would like to address the first aspect of the question. In her report, the ombudsman pointed out that victims do not automatically receive information on offenders during the release process. In order to access that information, victims have to figure out for themselves how to get the information and how to register with the National Parole Board. Just imagine how very difficult it must be for a victim who has been severely traumatized to navigate through this red tape.
The ombudsman indicated that the registered victim-to-offender ratio is still quite low. There are over 20,000 offenders currently in federal custody, approximately 70% of which are serving sentences for violent crimes. Yet just over 6,000 victims are registered to receive information on fewer than 4,000 offenders.
It is impossible to determine whether the victims who are not registered chose not to be or whether they were simply unaware of their rights. Representatives from the parole system and the ombudsman think one of the primary obstacles of getting victims to sign up is that there is a lack of information. 
The National Parole Board should take the initiative to give them this information and should automatically communicate with victims to inform them of their right to receive information. The proposed amendment in Bill C-479 would make it mandatory to provide transcripts of a parole review hearing to victims and members of their family and the offenders, and to provide victims with the information under consideration by the board during the offender's review.
I would like to talk about the second important aspect. In her report, the ombudsman pointed out that we must take the concerns of victims into account during decisions pertaining to the release and supervision of an offender.
Many victims have expressed concerns about an offender being released on parole when they live in the area. In some cases, this fear prevents victims from asking for information because they fear reprisals should the offender become aware that the victim is interested in the case.
Furthermore, according to the ombudsman, victims want to know that the information they provide will be considered. In light of that, Bill C-479 is designed to make it easier for victims or their family members to attend parole review hearings and for their statements to be taken into consideration in decisions regarding the offender's release. 
The amendment to the act would also ensure that victims are informed if an offender is to be released on temporary absence, parole or statutory release.
Bill C-479 would also allow for the cancellation of a parole review hearing if an offender has repeatedly refused to attend, or waived his or her right to attend, previous hearings.
We are sensitive to victims' concerns. We will examine Bill C-479 carefully to ensure that it addresses the demands made by the ombudsman for victims of crime.
However, we have some concerns. First, we want to ensure that the bill does not in any way violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Can my colleague opposite confirm that he has done his homework and that he has verified that Bill C-479 complies with the charter and the Constitution?
Second, Bill C-479 should have been a government bill. I wonder why the Conservatives are using a private member's bill to push the government's agenda, which has always been focused on victims' rights.
Why did the Minister of Justice not introduce Bill C-479 himself? Why did the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale take up this cause?
Third, private members' bills must assess and cost the changes they propose. They must assess the impact on the provinces and territories, especially with respect to parole boards. They must also provide proper compensation, if required.
Did my colleague opposite consult the provinces when drafting this bill? Can he tell what the bill will cost? Which level of government will pay these additional costs?
In closing, if our concerns are addressed in committee, and if there is clear proof that the bill respects the victim and judicial independence, I will be pleased to throw my full support behind this bill. 
For that reason, we support the bill at second reading and its referral to committee for more in-depth study.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to continue the debate on Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders, a bill which I support, with amendments proposed by the government. 
Let me begin by commending the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his tenacity in fighting for the rights of victims. The predecessor to this bill was introduced into the House of Commons during the previous Parliament and was debated for an hour prior to dissolution, yet the hon. member has held fast to his vision and deserves our admiration and respect for his hard work in bringing the bill forward.
Today's debate is an opportunity to reflect on the traumatic impact of violent crime on its victims and what our government is doing to support our victims and what more we can do. 
I will not pretend to fully understand the harm that violent crime inflicts on a victim. Only those who have survived such a terrible experience have the right to speak of it. However, I have met with victims of crime and I have seen the toll of emotional trauma and the desire for meaningful participation in the justice system. They spoke because they needed to be heard. Giving voice to their experience empowers them because they are determined to gain control over their lives. 
Our government is listening. Our government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe and supporting victims, which includes strengthening legislation, protecting victims rights, tackling crime and ensuring fair and efficient justice. All of these will have a positive impact on the victims of crime and their families.
When our government was elected in 2006, we pledged to Canadians that we would work hard to address the needs of victims of crime and their families. I am proud to say that we have made significant progress. The National Office for Victims, Public Safety Canada is helping victims gain a greater voice in the corrections and conditional release process. It is helping victims get access to the information and services they might need. 
Apart from the physical and emotional trauma of violent crime, victims may also carry a financial burden. Worries about money adds stress to families at the worst possible time. That is why, last November, our government announced a new income support program to ease the financial burden on parents who were struggling to cope with the death or disappearance of a child. 
Even as we are helping victims of crime, we are working hard to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. In our high speed culture it has never been easier for young people to go astray. If we can address the risk factors early, we may well prevent young people from falling in with the wrong crowd. One of the strategy's programs, for example, is the youth gang prevention fund. On the one hand, the fund helps communities develop programs to help youth at risk to make better choices and avoid criminal behaviour. On the other hand, it works with families that have been victimized. I am proud to note that in 2011 alone, our government funded 138 community-based crime prevention programs through this strategy. All told, these programs reached 16,000 youth at risk.
I have highlighted our government's support for victims of violent crime and our efforts to reduce the chance of violent crime occurring in the first place. We are also helping victims at the legislative level. Over the past seven years, our government has introduced and passed compelling and comprehensive changes to our legislation, changes that support crime prevention, that give police the tools they need to fight crime and increase offender accountability. 
The centrepiece of our approach is the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which received royal assent last March. As part of the significant overhaul of our justice system, the act provided greater support for victims of crime. Victims are entitled to be kept better informed about the behaviour and management of offenders. An act of violence can touch many people. That is why the Safe Streets and Communities Act expanded the definition of a registered victim. This definition now includes the guardians and caregivers of dependents of victims who are deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated. 
Our government has tilted the justice system back to where it should be. Through our steady approach, we are strengthening legislation, protecting the rights of victims, tackling crime and ensuring justice is fair and efficient.
 Private member's Bill C-479 would complement our drive toward making the justice system work better for victims of offenders. It proposes changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would complement the Safe Streets and Communities Act by: modifying parole and detention of review dates; facilitate victims observing hearings; and expanding the rights of victims to have access to information about the offender.
As we have heard, our government will seek to move minor amendments should the bill be referred to a committee for study.
 I believe private member's Bill C-479 is important legislation that would support the rights of victims. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting the bill before us today.
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to use these four minutes to speak to this bill we will be supporting.
I am always interested in speaking on issues related to public safety and victims' rights.
Today we are debating an important bill that seems to follow up on recommendations from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which tabled a report in 2010 in an effort to move towards greater respect for victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The recommendations contained in that report seem to be reflected in this bill. One recommendation was to shift the burden of responsibility to provide information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act from victims to the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.
Another recommendation was to give victims the right to attend National Parole Board hearings through the use of available technologies such as video conferencing.
In addition, it was recommended that victims be given a stronger voice in the timing, frequency and scheduling of parole hearings.
We support the initiatives set out in this bill, which promote fairness for victims. We will study the bill in detail to ensure that it addresses as many of their needs as possible.
I find it curious that this government often uses backbenchers to introduce these types of bills, instead of having the department do it, which is how it should be done. During this Parliament, we have noticed that a large number of public safety and justice bills have been introduced by backbenchers, which is not customary.
In 2007, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime organized a round table where participants identified the fact that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act did not contain any provisions on how victims of crime should be treated. This law dictates how offenders should be treated, but it does not include any provisions about how victims should be treated.
One participant remarked that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act embodies the principles that govern the treatment of offenders—that is, decisions concerning offenders must be clear and fair—but there is no law that sets out principles for the treatment of victims. The participants suggested that the same principles should apply to victims.
The observations of the round table participants corresponded to the findings of the National Consultation with Victims of Crime conducted by the Solicitor General of Canada in 2001. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act only mentions the release of information to victims and communications with them.
In her report, the ombudsman for victims of crime indicated that, in order to ensure that victims have legitimate rights within correctional and conditional release systems, the laws must clearly indicate how they are to be treated, and these laws must be applied.
That is what the hon. member wanted to do by introducing this bill, and I thank him for this initiative, which I still think should have gone through the Department of Public Safety. Still, it is an important step toward defending victims' rights, and we thank him for that. 
I will support his bill at second reading.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:22 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to the order adopted earlier today and Standing Order 28(2).
(The House adjourned at 2:22 p.m.)