2014-10-10

Government Orders
Protecting Canadians from Online Crime ActHon. Denis Lebel:  moved that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. 
Bill C-13 has received wide media attention, and almost every Canadian who has heard about it has had an opinion on it. Unfortunately, much of what has been reported in the media has disregarded the spirit of this legislation, and this has hampered an informed debate on this important piece of legislation.
Bill C-13, in simple terms, would do three very important things that would help make the world safer for Canadians. 
First, it proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, or what some refer to as “revenge porn”. Bill C-13 would also update existing offences, such as the harassing telephone call provision, to make them relevant in the Internet age. Some of these amendments would be particularly useful for police in relation to cyberbullying cases.
The second important component of Bill C-13 is the proposed enhancement of the investigative toolkit police use to deal with cybercrimes and electronic evidence. These amendments, which comprise the modernization of existing investigative powers as well as the creation of new production orders for specific information, would provide Canadian police with the tools that many other police in other countries have been using for over 10 years. The modernization of the toolkit would ensure that police could access the information they need, and only the information they need, to advance an investigation into an offence. 
By providing police with these modern tools, Parliament would not only be facilitating the investigation of crimes involving electronic evidence in Canada but would be enhancing privacy protection for Canadians generally by requiring the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny for all information in relation to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Finally, Bill C-13 will allow Canada to access and provide greater international cooperation in criminal matters. This is of vital importance because so much evidence in relation to cybercrimes, such as that related to cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, is stored and located outside of Canada. In many cases, where there is no international cooperation, no investigation can proceed.
As was previously pointed out at the report stage, Bill C-13 was thoroughly reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The review involved 10 committee meetings and appearances by over 40 witnesses. While there were appearances by witnesses who opposed aspects of the bill, primarily the investigative tools, many of the witnesses were supportive of the entire legislation package. However, it should be noted that the new intimate images offence received almost universal support, including from members of the opposition.
During his testimony before the justice committee, the Minister of Justice explained that the proposed non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence would prohibit the sharing of sexual or nude images without the consent of the person depicted. It is most important to respond in this manner to cyberbullying that involves this activity, which can cruelly humiliate and shame its target and cause irreparable emotional and psychological harm to the victim, particularly Canadian youth. The minister explained how this would remedy a gap in the criminal law. 
The minister also noted that Bill C-13 reflects recommendations made in June 2013 in a federal-provincial-territorial report on cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which recommended both the creation of a new offence and updates to the existing offences and investigative tools. The report was unanimously supported by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety.
The committee also heard from a number of victims of cyberbullying and parents of deceased victims of cyberbullying, many of whom have become advocates for change to better address cyberbullying. Many of these witnesses expressed support for the proposals in Bill C-13. Mr. Glen Canning, the father of Rehtaeh Parsons, expressed concern about the challenge faced by police in trying to respond to modern crimes using antiquated tools. He also believes that had Bill C-13 been law at the time of his daughter's harassment, it would have made a positive difference. 
The Committee also heard from police, including the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the CACP, and the chief of the Vancouver Police Department, Jim Chu.
The CACP represents over 90% of the Canadian police community, including federal, first nations, provincial, regional and municipal agencies.
Chief Chu clearly stated that the CACP fully supports Bill C-13. He offered the committee compelling testimony on the challenges of crime in the online environment and on its growth in areas of traditional crime, such as harassment, fraud, and kidnapping, as well as in relation to new crimes more closely linked to technological advances. He also explained to the committee the challenges police face because of the international nature of cyber activity.
Chief Chu articulated how technology can facilitate traditional bullying and make it more persuasive and painful. He also expressed concern about the lack of a safe haven and the difficulty of erasing anything from the online environment once it has been distributed. He said rapid intervention is needed before things get worse for victims, who may suffer consequences of this behaviour for the rest of their lives. He explained to the committee that the modernized tools in Bill C-13 are essential for this response.
Chief Chu explained that the bill does not create authority for police to obtain information without judicial warrant and that the police support Bill C-13's proposed judicial oversight as a good way to balance investigative needs and privacy protection. He also noted, however, that these tools need to allow police to respond quickly, which is essential in the online environment. 
He also responded to the inaccurate portrayals of Bill C-13, in some instances, as creating authority for police to wiretap without authority. Bill C-13 does not provide police with this power, and they will continue to require prior authorization by the courts to intercept any private communications. Nothing in Bill C-13 changes this. 
The committee also heard from Greg Gilhooly, a lawyer who was a victim of an Internet predator when he was in his youth. 
Mr. Gilhooly expressed his strong support for the proposals in Bill C-13 and provided the committee with personal insight into the urgency and importance of acting precipitously to enhance the law in this area because, as he put it, “there are monsters among us,” and police need tools to enable them to act and protect Canadians.
The committee also heard from Mr. David Butt, legal counsel for the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance and a front-line criminal lawyer who commended the government for striking the right balance between investigative needs and privacy protections with the proposals in Bill C-13.
I would like to share with members this quote from his testimony to the committee:
 ...let's have vibrant police powers to investigate digitally, coupled with significant judicial oversight to control those police powers independently. That's the sweet spot that I say this bill hits. That's my measure of success in a bill: does it enable the police to act effectively, but does it also give another branch of government, the judiciary, the appropriate tools to oversee? If you've got both of those, you've got the right mix, and I say you've got the right mix here. 
While other witnesses expressed similar views to the committee, I found this a particularly eloquent statement of what Bill C-13 accomplishes.
I would like to continue by citing the support for Bill C-13 expressed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. Lianna McDonald, the executive director of this organization, appeared before the committee and explained that her organization is a registered charity providing national programs and services related to the personal safety of all children.
Ms. McDonald explained at the committee that her goal in appearing was to provide both insight and support for Bill C-13. After over 30 years of working for child protection, she considered the bill to be something that would address the challenges her organization is very familiar with as first-hand witnesses to what she described as the collision between sexual exploitation, technology, and bullying. She explained to the committee that Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children, has received more than 100,000 reports of sexual abuse and exploitation of children, which has resulted in more than 500 arrests and in removing numerous children from abusive environments. 
Ms. McDonald expressed concern that technology has become a powerful weapon and tool in the hands of those who wish to hide their criminal behaviour behind a cloak of anonymity, making it easier to engage in reprehensible harassment behaviour. She urged the committee not to fail in understanding the role of technology in the commission of offences and to be conscious of the importance of modernizing the law. She also expressed concern that the privacy rights of victims have been neglected in the focus on privacy issue discussions, and she indicated that Bill C-13 would be fully supported by her organization. Ms. McDonald also expressed support for having the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of images apply to victims of all ages, as the impact of this behaviour is significant regardless of age.
I hope that I have succeeded in conveying the reality of the broader witness testimony, which is that while there were some dissenting voices, many informed and engaged witnesses considered the proposals in Bill C-13 as necessary and advisable. Unfortunately, media coverage focused primarily on those who expressed criticisms of the bill. Some of those criticisms demonstrated a lack of understanding of the proposals.
Another aspect of the proposals that has not reached much attention but that may be of interest to note, given the prevalence of online crime, is the amendments to the Competition Act proposed in Bill C-13. 
We know that there are complex forms of white collar crime, and sometimes there are businesses that push the envelope too far and break the law. 
The Competition Act is a federal law governing most business conduct in Canada. The Competition Bureau, headed by the Commissioner of Competition, is an independent law enforcement agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of the act. The Competition Act includes both criminal and civil provisions aimed at preventing anti-competitive practices and other harmful conduct in the marketplace. It is designed to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive, innovative marketplace. In particular, the Competition Act sets out certain criminal offences, including, among other things, price fixing, bid rigging, deceptive telemarketing, pyramid selling, and false or misleading representations that are knowingly made recklessly. It also includes civil provisions that deal with false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices, mergers, abuse of dominance, agreements between competitors, price maintenance, exclusive dealing, tied selling, and market restriction.
Bill C-13 would amend certain definitions found within the Competition Act to ensure that they are clear and technology neutral and that they align with those in the Criminal Code, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, and Canada's anti-spam legislation. This bill would also incorporate in the Competition Act, by reference, the new powers in the Criminal Code regarding preservation demands, preservation orders, and production orders for historical transmission data so that they could be used in investigations of all conduct under the Competition Act, both criminal and civil. As is the case throughout the bill, preservation and production orders sought by the bureau would be subject to judicial oversight.
 In closing, I strongly support Bill C-13, and I encourage all members to vote in support of this important piece of legislation and to send it for further consideration to that other place.
Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice's speech. I am concerned about two of his comments.
He said that the bill is enhancing “privacy protection”. He also said, “Nothing in Bill C-13 changes this”.
I am very surprised because there is a specific clause in the bill that would grant legal immunity to any Internet service providers that choose to share their clients' personal information when asked by any government agency.
What the government is doing is quite separate from the judicial oversight system and the process for obtaining warrants. I am very curious to know how the member can think that does not violate privacy protection.
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains an immunity clause pertaining to the submission of documents. As I mentioned in my speech, one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was Mr. Gilhooly. He is a corporate lawyer who used to work for Global. Mr. Gilhooly was a victim of Graham James, I believe, and he had the courage to come testify.
In his testimony, he said, as a corporate lawyer, that the immunity would allay any doubt corporate lawyers might have about what is already enshrined in law. There is already immunity. Immunity was granted on a statutory basis, which confirms the state of law, before this was done. Nothing has changed. 
Mr. Gilhooly said that the immunity set out in the bill would remove any doubts corporate lawyers might have so that they could immediately hand the information over to police. That would allow the police to preserve the evidence. In such situations, the evidence disappears very quickly. Once it has disappeared, an investigation is impossible and it also becomes impossible to protect the victims, who are mostly young children.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of cyberbullying and the phenomenal amount of exploitation that has taken place on the Internet and through technology has been a significant issue over the last number of years, an issue colleagues of mine within the Liberal Party have brought forth in the form of other pieces of legislation, private member's bills in particular. It is an issue Canadians are concerned about no matter what region of the country we look at.
Given the level of interest and the amount of potential legislative changes opposition parties have brought forward, such as my colleague from Vancouver who represents the Liberal Party, why does the member believe that the government has not really responded? Given the high level of interest in this issue, a keen sense of co-operation among all political parties to do more on the issue, why does he feel that the government has not acted on private members' initiatives that would have gone a long way in addressing some of the concerns he talked about in his speech. 
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the justice committee struck a very good balance in considering the concerns of the opposition parties. There were 10 meetings. Every single witness requested to appear did appear, and we believe the bill that has come forth has struck a good balance between the privacy rights of those who commit the offences and the protection of those most vulnerable people whom they attack, the children of Canada.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice a question because, as a young mother, I feel more and more concerned about cyberbullying and all that it entails, particularly when I think about my daughter's future. I am very concerned when I see what can happen to children all across Canada.
What worries me even more about Bill C-13 is that we were unable to reach an agreement with the Conservative government to divide the bill. The official opposition completely agrees with a large portion of the bill. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservative government is acting in such bad faith when it knows full well that all of the members on this side of the House completely agree with such a large portion of the bill?
The government could split the bill in two and very quickly pass the portion we all agree on so that it could become law as quickly as possible. We could then discuss the part that we still have issues with and come up with amendments or another way to move forward with that part of the bill.
Why is the Conservative government acting in such bad faith and why is it refusing to split Bill C-13 into two separate bills?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder what would have been the point of splitting a bill when all of the witnesses invited by the parties appeared and there were 10 meetings. I am not convinced that the outcome would have been any different.
We believe that this bill truly strikes a balance. It protects the privacy of the victims and the accused, as well as the young and the vulnerable. That is the purpose of this bill, and we believe we have achieved it.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what we put forward makes a lot of sense, because even the Minister of Justice agreed to one of our amendments, but the government refused it. Basically, the member is telling us that all of the witnesses appeared, but he is not telling us that all of them were in favour of this.
Mr. David Fraser said:
 Even though the definition excludes content, just the transmission data tells you a lot more about really what's going on. 
 I would suggest this can be fixed by either raising the standard from reasonable grounds to suspect to reasonable grounds to believe with respect to this data, or re-crafting the definition of transmission data.... 
He added a little bit more, but the whole idea here is that although the government allows witnesses to appear, it does not listen to what the witnesses are saying. Again, we see a government that continues to victimize the victims and makes it legal to do illegal things.
Can the minister indicate whether or not the government is absolutely sure that this will not constitute a constitutional debate?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, each and every law, before it is adopted, goes through very rigid scrutiny as to its constitutionality. This is a procedure that we have followed. We believe that it has struck the right balance.
Certainly, there are witnesses who were not in favour of the bill, as there were many who were in favour of it. However, the key issue is that in intercepting information to protect the most vulnerable, the children, there is always a level of judicial oversight. The courts are the protectors of the charter. The courts intervene in each instance to make sure that the privacy rights of the accused are protected, as are the rights of those who are being victimized.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, which I found very enlightening, especially with respect to the Conservatives' usual tactic: pretending to be the victims of the mean old media that focus heavily on their bill's shortcomings.
The parliamentary secretary's affirmation that every single government bill goes through rigid scrutiny before making its way to the House of Commons is not reassuring at all. Both the parliamentary secretary and I know very well that, over the past nine years, several of the bills that the Conservative government pushed through have had parts struck down by court rulings, even by the Supreme Court.
In Spencer, for example, the Supreme Court prohibited Internet service providers from disclosing their clients' names and contact information to law enforcement officials who simply ask for it. 
Is the parliamentary secretary not worried about yet another fiasco resulting from his obstinacy?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, the Supreme Court has ruled on constitutionality in a number of cases. That is the beauty of our democracy. Bills are passed and analyzed, and then the brightest legal minds of the Supreme Court get us back on the right track when we stray.
Investigations will always be subject to judicial review. The court determines the value of a request to protect victims.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that we are once again being forced to debate a very important bill under a time allocation motion. I have lost track somewhat, but I think this is the 80th time allocation motion. It has happened so many times under this government that there have been many complex, important bills that we have not had a chance to debate.
On top of that, the government decided to hold the third reading debate on this extremely important bill on a Friday, when everyone knows that most members are not present in the House on Fridays. I think that is appalling.
I would also like to talk about the vote at second reading. There was a vote at report stage and another one on this part of the bill, and it was revised in committee. That said, I must denounce the fact that the Liberal Party voted in favour of the bill, even though it had criticized the bill repeatedly. It boggles my mind. I am not normally a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I was there when this bill was being studied.
When they were asking the parliamentary secretary questions, some members said that the bill's first aim was to address bullying. On that issue, at least, we agree 100% with the Conservatives. All members on all sides of the House agree that cyberbullying must be stopped, for it is a very serious issue.
New technology has completely changed the problem of bullying. In the past, once you were home, nasty people at school could no longer bother you, since you were in a safe place. These days, new technology and social networks allow bullies to follow us everywhere.
If someone does not like what you wore to school, it will be shared on Facebook or in an email. Disturbing images can also follow us. Unfortunately, that is what happened in a couple of highly publicized cases, such as the Amanda Todd case. No matter what she did, that image followed her. I agree completely that this must be stopped.
That is why we asked that the bill be split. That way, we could pass the essential elements and make positive changes to combat cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of images. It is too bad that the government did not have the good sense to get this part passed quickly. We agreed to do so. This part of the bill could have been at the other place by now. Unfortunately, the government did not want to go ahead. 
It is a real shame because cyberbullying is a very important issue to me. I would like to use my 20 minutes to talk about only the parts of the bill that have to do with cyberbullying. Unfortunately, I cannot because we also have to talk about the problematic parts of this bill that could have very serious consequences for Canadians' privacy.
Victims of cyberbullying deserve better. The families of cyberbullying victims came to committee to share their stories. They were very courageous. Nonetheless, there are thousands of other cases that are not in the media, unfortunately or fortunately, I am not sure which. These victims deserve a debate on this issue alone. Unfortunately, we must debate both because this government is incapable of co-operating.
 Some of my constituents are working very hard to combat cyberbullying. Someone even developed a website to create a safer social network where people cannot be anonymous. It is very interesting.
I want to point out all the daily efforts these people are making. Some are forming groups to combat cyberbullying. These are truly exceptional Canadians, and I want to thank them. 
We have to talk about the other aspects because, unfortunately, very few pages and clauses of this bill really have anything to do with cyberbullying. The vast majority are on changes to the Criminal Code. Some parts of the bill are just fine, but others will seriously jeopardize Canadians' privacy. 
The government keeps talking about the judicial oversight system for obtaining warrants to get personal information. Indeed, some parts of the bill call for a warrant. I will talk about the problems with warrants later.
However, what the government did not say in its speech and what it seems to have completely forgotten about is that a parallel system is being created, and that it completely bypasses all the mechanisms for obtaining warrants. That was part of the government's own bill. We are completely setting aside judicial oversight, which is the basis for our legal systems. We are creating a parallel system where someone can pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and make an urgent request, and the service provider will send the information. The Liberals created this loophole in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Conservative government is taking advantage of it. 
We know that there have been abuses. The acting information and privacy commissioner announced that in one year, government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests for information from Internet providers. That is huge. I have trouble believing that there are 1.2 million terrorists, for example, or 1.2 million criminals running around in the streets and that we need to obtain information about them.
Furthermore, it was the Internet service providers that informed us about the 1.2 million requests, not the government, which has shown an appalling lack of transparency. It does not want to give us that information. 
Also, there was no explanation as to why these requests were made. There is no oversight system for these types of requests that could guarantee to Canadians that they were made in extraordinary cases. I believe that Canadians are prepared to accept extraordinary cases. There are urgent situations where we cannot turn to the regular processes and where we must obtain a warrant after the fact. However, in light of the 1.2 million requests, I find it hard to believe that Canadians would not think that there had been abuses and that there is a flaw somewhere.
I actually asked the government a question on the order paper about how many times it requested this kind of information from Internet service providers. That was just for one year, 2012-13. The Canada Border Services Agency said that it had made over 13,000 requests in one year. I asked the agency what kinds of cases or situations would result in such requests being made. Only two of the 13,000 requests were made for national security reasons. Can we honestly say that these are exceptional cases or national security cases? I think not. The question was asked, but the answer did not cut it.
I asked the government another question because it was not going to share that information. I asked how many times government agencies had made such requests for 2001, which is when the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, was passed. Here is something very disturbing: they did not have the data. We were told that there was no system to keep track of those kinds of requests and that the information could not be provided.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  For crying out loud.
Charmaine Borg:  For crying out loud. The member behind me said that because it is true. For crying out loud. They would have us believe that they can use this back door to ask Internet service providers for personal information, such as a person's IP address, but that they cannot track this stuff.
The government is saying that it cannot go back to determine, for example, how many requests were made and how many of those cases had to do with cyberbullying, child exploitation, national security or anti-terrorism. It claims that it does not have that data. How are we supposed to make sure that this is not being abused? Exploiting loopholes has become the norm, and that poses tremendous problems.
This bill grants legal immunity to Internet service providers that choose to share their clients' personal information when requested to do so by any government agency or on their own initiative. However, most of the time, it is government agencies that make a request.
A parallel system ensured that an Internet service provider that shared data it had no right sharing could be sued if it abused the process. That is the one and only aspect that gave people any sense of security.
In certain cases, Internet service providers refused to respond to a request because they did not want to take the risk of being sued. Bill C-13 takes away this one thing that made Internet service providers think twice. That is a major problem.
When the Conservative and Liberal members—since they voted together—say they want to ensure that there is balance and a warrant system, that is false, for they seem to be forgetting that they gave Internet service providers legal immunity in this bill.
Furthermore, the IP address reveals a great deal of information about users, including their conversations and where they go. Contrary to what the Conservatives like to say, it is not the same information that can be found in the phone book.
I talked a lot about the shortcomings created by PIPEDA. Rather than correcting the situation, the provisions in Bill C-13 make matters worse. In addition to providing legal immunity, Bill C-13 also reduces the threshold for intercepting communications—that is, the content of an email or text message—to reasonable suspicion.
There already was a threshold for obtaining a warrant, which was good. We should respect existing thresholds for being able to access personal information or communications. However, that threshold has been reduced to “reasonable suspicion”, which opens the door to abuse.
I would like to point out another very specific aspect of this bill. If government agencies can ask Internet service providers to hand over personal information, public servants will have access to that information with a simple phone call. Here is how “public officer” is defined in Bill C-13:
 “Public officer” means a public officer who is appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament. 
I can think of many positions that would be included in this definition, including mayors. There are good mayors and bad mayors. Can they all be trusted? Are there any provisions to prevent abuse? No. This just opens the door wider.
When this bill was examined in committee, the NDP proposed 37 amendments, which were all rejected. We heard from a number of witnesses, and contrary to what the parliamentary secretary just said, the witnesses did not all agree.
Here is what Carol Todd, Amanda Todd's mother, had to say:
 I do not want my privacy invaded. I do not want young people's privacy compromised. I do not want personal information being exploited without a protection order that would support individuals. I do not want any Canadian hurt in my daughter's name. I want her legacy to continue to promote hope, celebrate our differences, and give strength to other young people everywhere. 
I think she would have been pleased to see us split this bill. She does not want anyone's privacy to be invaded, or the threshold for obtaining communications to be lowered, or for government agencies to be given access to personal information without a warrant. That is what she wants for her daughter's legacy. It is really quite clear.
There is another aspect that the committee was unable to assess because it happened after review in committee and that is the Supreme Court ruling in Spencer. It is an extremely important ruling that brought certainty to something that may have been rather vague before. In Spencer, the Supreme Court ruled that no one could have access to clients' names, addresses, telephone numbers and IP addresses without a warrant. Nonetheless, in Bill C-13 we just included statutory immunity for Internet service providers who share information without a warrant.
There is some serious and legitimate uncertainty as to whether these parts of the bill are constitutional and whether they will be blocked.
That being said, why could we not have sat down together and sorted this out? We know that the Conservative government seems to be short on respect for the Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings, as we saw during the process for appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that every bill, every law it wants to enforce respects the Canadian Constitution. It is the government's fundamental duty. When the Conservatives say that there was a review, that legal experts assessed the bill to ensure it was consistent with the Constitution, that is great, but the Spencer ruling was handed down after the bill was drafted.
I am puzzled by something else. As we know, the government is refusing to respond to this decision. It claims that everything is in order and that the bill is constitutional even though many experts doubt that it will pass the test of the Constitution in light of the Spencer ruling. What is interesting is that we expected the government to respond, but it was actually the Internet service providers that did so. Now Rogers and TELUS will no longer respond to requests for information about their clients made by government agencies. Why is the government not taking its responsibilities seriously by declining to make these requests? That would be the responsible thing for the government to do. Instead, it is the other side doing this. That really bothers me.
I agree completely that we must amend the law. It must keep pace with new technologies and the new problems that society faces. Many new things are happening, and we have to keep up to date. However, we cannot and should not put the protection of people ahead of the protection of privacy. We can find a balance. No matter what the Conservative MPs would like to think, this is not a balanced bill. Furthermore, there is a high probability that it is unconstitutional. It is therefore very problematic.
The government says that it is opening the door, that it is all right in certain situations. Yes, there are exceptional cases. However, I am afraid that the government is violating privacy and that once it opens the door, it will open it wider. Where will that take our society?
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and acknowledge her contribution to this debate.
Why did the government not split the bill in two as the NDP asked in committee? That would have made it easier to meet the growing needs regarding cyberbullying and the protection of personal information. Those are two very different things. As my colleague said earlier, this bill will allow for the invasion of privacy and we do not know how far it will go. The bill does not set any limits in that regard.
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We asked for the bill to be divided. The provisions pertaining to cyberbullying, namely the specific clauses that deal with the distribution of images without consent, could already be law and could already be protecting children.
The government decided to run television ads to announce the fight against cyberbullying when a law to that effect has not yet been passed. Things could be different if we could work together properly. I have already mentioned this, but I find it very disappointing that I had to spend about 15 of the 20 minutes of my speech talking about privacy. I really would have liked to speak on behalf of the victims of cyberbullying in my riding and across Canada and let them know that we are going to take action and work together. Unfortunately, the government put these two parts of the bill together and the debate is about both of them.
What is more, as a result of the Spencer ruling, some provisions of the bill will likely be deemed unconstitutional, which will block the entire bill. If we could have had a bill that included only the provisions about cyberbullying, this would not have been a problem, and we could have considered whether some of the provisions were constitutionally legitimate.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing our opposition to the bill. As someone who also deals with issues surrounding cyber-misogyny in particular and the attack on women of all ages online, which is especially vitriolic, could she speak to the way in which the bill would do nothing to deal with that kind of cyberbullying?
 The government's agenda, when it comes to women and discrimination against them, is left wanting. The Conservatives use examples of cyber-misogyny and tragic examples to drive this egregious agenda. Could my colleague speak to that?
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, some women are particularly vulnerable targets for misogynist comments on the Internet. The case of Amanda Todd is a good example. A sexual image of her was distributed because sometimes, people unfortunately see women as sexual objects.
The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved a motion that we work on prevention. I think that prevention is very important, but it is nowhere to be found in this bill. If we work together, we can get to the root of the issue and figure out why cyberbullying happens and why people distribute sexual images without consent. We need to get to the root of the problem.
We can impose sanctions on people all we want, but if there is no means of preventing this crime, we cannot attack the problem on all fronts. Prevention is important, especially in the case of women who are the victims of these types of attacks. To combat this problem, we need to get to the root of this problem.
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you know and as all members on both sides of this House know, cyberbullying causes a lot of pain for the young women—and also young men—who fall victim to this crime. In most cases, the victims are young people who are still in high school and who do not have much power in society. 
I would like to clarify something with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. If I am not mistaken, the member thinks that the government is mismanaging this issue by associating cyberbullying with intrusive provisions regarding Internet spying. From what I understand, she demonstrated that these two topics should be separated. Could she explain why?
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, this is something we have said over and over. We should be able to split this bill in two. Cyberbullying victims deserve a debate on these problems. They deserve that we tackle the issue of cyberbullying and debate provisions that would help fix these problems. I repeat that we also need to address prevention. Unfortunately, these two issues are being dealt with at the same time.
I would like to talk about what Carol Todd said during her testimony in committee. She said that she did not want people's privacy to be invaded in her daughter's name. That is fundamental.
Why could we not adopt only the parts of the bill on cyberbullying and the sharing of non-consensual images, and then examine the other parts later, especially in light of the Spencer decision, which changes everything?
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one concern I have expressed in the past is that the amount of exploitation that takes place on the Internet is exceptionally high, and has been for a number of years. Cyberbullying takes place every day and the need for legislation has existed for a number of years. The opposition, whether the Liberals or the New Democrats, has brought forward legislation to try to deal with some of these problems. In recognition of just how badly we need some legislation, the Liberals will support this. 
Would the member comment on the lost opportunities in not passing more progressive legislation earlier? Certain aspects of this legislation received overwhelming support from all political parties and had the government acted on those portions, cyberbullying and exploitation over the Internet could have been dealt with a few years ago. Would she not agree?
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his excellent work and for introducing a bill with provisions that were very similar to those in the first few pages of the bill we are debating today.
We could have acted very quickly. We could have passed the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which would have allowed us to examine the issue of cyberbullying and find ways to prevent it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, despite claiming that they are committed to combatting cyberbullying. That is extremely disconcerting.
In response to my Liberal colleague's question, I am extremely disappointed to hear that they are supporting this bill and that they are supporting this government's desire to violate the privacy of Canadians.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much like at second reading, I am pleased but also troubled to speak to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
I am pleased that Parliament and the government are moving forward with measures to combat cyberbullying. It is, as many others have said, a scourge on our society and is especially troublesome, creating stress, strain and in some cases a loss of self-worth, among our youth.
 As my colleagues, the critic for justice and the critic for rights and freedoms, have stated, we support very strongly that aspect of the bill. Support measures that would provide law enforcement with additional tools to combat cyberbullying is an area where the Criminal Code needs to be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies and these times. Bill C-13 would do a reasonable job in bringing the Criminal Code up to date.
I will speak a little further on other measures we believe, beyond the Criminal Code, that must happen to really deal effectively with cyberbullying. The Criminal Code can only be one aspect. We need to take many more measures in prevention and awareness, et cetera, beyond the Criminal Code.
However, at the beginning I said I am pleased, but I am also troubled. I am troubled because tagged onto the bill were measures of the old Bill C-30 on lawful access that so many Canadians spoke out against. Efforts were made to split the bill at committee and yet, despite the urging of the new Privacy Commissioner and many other witnesses, including Carol Todd, the bill was not split.
I will complete my remarks after question period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Malpeque will have seventeen and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

Statements By Members
Second World War National TributeMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to recognize James Noddle, of Newmarket, Canada's first recipient of the 75th anniversary Second World War national tribute.
James answered the call of his country to serve as a driver and mechanic with the Ontario tank regiment. His job was to retrofit Sherman tanks into recovery vehicles, and find and repair major pieces of artillery damaged in battle.
He wrote in his memoirs:
 Our skills were mightily tested as we kept the meager equipment operational on the battlefield, on the sides of mountains, through railway tunnels, across mine-infested roads, while under constant enemy fire, for the final push through Italy, into France and finally Germany. 
It was my privilege to present this special tribute to James Noddle at his 100th birthday party last Sunday.
A grateful nation thanks James for his service. We will never forget.
VeteransMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, October 10, is World Mental Health Day. It is an excellent opportunity to promote healthy living and remind everyone of the importance of mental health to our overall health. 
It is also an opportunity to remind people that no one is immune to psychological stress, and this is especially true of the brave men and women who have proudly served their country in the Canadian Forces and who often come back with psychological injuries that never fully heal.
The rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among members of the Canadian Forces has nearly doubled since 2002. The suffering experienced by our soldiers and their families is a real problem. Unfortunately, the resources available to help them are woefully inadequate. Worse still, those who are considered no longer fit for duty under the universality of service policy are being squeezed out, often with almost no resources and sometimes even no pension.
This situation is unacceptable. It is time for the government to show our soldiers and our veterans the respect they deserve, and for the government to ensure that they have all the assistance and all the resources they need.
Islamic StateMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, 100,000 Christians have fled their homes, humanitarian aid workers and journalists are being decapitated, women and girls are being forced to suffer horrific abuse, and anyone who disagrees with these things becomes a target of violence.
What are the root causes of these problems? What are the root causes of this violence and misery?
It is clear that the root causes of these problems are terrorists from ISIL, and I am proud that this House voted to do something about it.
ISIL is a serious threat. ISIL has explicitly threatened Canadians. ISIL has robbed, raped, and murdered thousands of innocent people. Canadians across the country agree that someone should do something about it. 
So What are we going to do? We cannot just hope that ISIL goes away. We cannot just hope that someone else will fix the problem.
I commend members of this House who voted to allow our troops to conduct air strikes against ISIL. The world needs Canada to take action, to defend the defenceless victims of ISIL, and to stop these terrorists.
International Summit of CooperativesHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first International Summit of Cooperatives was held in October 2012, in Quebec City. The second summit, which I was pleased to attend this week, from October 6 to 9, again in Quebec City, was another success. There were more than 3,000 participants from 93 countries.
Major themes were addressed, including the role of the co-operative movement in ensuring our capacity to feed humanity, keep people healthy and contribute to sustainable development. The great thing is that the summit ends on the eve of Co-op Week, which will be celebrated across Canada from October 13 to 19. 
A good way for us to celebrate co-op week would be for MPs to visit co-operatives in their riding during that week.
The co-operative model has been a proven structure for more than 100 years in Canada. They greatly empower each member, resulting in a wonderful combination of business success and social responsibility, which plays an important role in the economy and in the betterment of our communities.
ThanksgivingMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are getting ready for family gatherings over this Thanksgiving weekend, and I believe this is a good opportunity for us to humbly give thanks.
We give thanks for this opportunity we have of living in Canada, the best country in the world.
We give thanks for our brave airmen and women and humanitarian workers who are leaving for Iraq, risking their lives to help create a safer future for the Iraqi people and to protect us all from terrorists.
We give thanks for the farmers who make sure we have healthy food to eat.
We give thanks for the strong community spirit that exists in Canada and for Canadians’ willingness from coast to coast to work as volunteers to better people’s lives and help those who need it most.
In this spirit of giving, let us not forget the less fortunate or those who are left alone.
World Food DayMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, October 16 is World Food Day. The 2014 theme, “Feeding the world, caring for the earth”, was chosen by the UN General Assembly to increase the visibility of family farming and smallholder farmers.
Small farms in Canada feed entire cities and are at the heart of our rural economy. Unfortunately, 8,000 family farms have disappeared under the Conservatives, and two million Canadians run the risk of malnutrition. The UN has even expressed concerns about food security in Canada's aboriginal communities.
The NDP has developed a pan-Canadian food strategy to strengthen the system that takes food from the farm to the fork by way of our processors. Canadians deserve policies that help everyone eat well. Canadians deserve an NDP government that will stand up for family farms.
International Day of the GirlMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, I would like to invite all Canadians to celebrate International Day of the Girl on October 11. 
Each year, on this special day, we celebrate the hope and inspiration that girls and young women represent for our families, our communities, and our country.
 This day also brings attention to the needs of girls throughout the world, who so often face violence and poverty, as well as inadequate education and health care. 
That is why I am proud of the Government of Canada's leadership role in having the United Nations declare the International Day of the Girl.
On October 11, I hope that all Canadians will find ways to support and celebrate girls and young women on this unique and very special day.
Dunbarton High SchoolMr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Green Building Council has named Dunbarton High School of Pickering, in my riding, as the greenest school in Canada for 2014. 
Of the many schools invited to participate, Dunbarton High displayed exceptional progress in reducing its impact on the earth and raising necessary environmental awareness.
The school has started an enviroclub, geared towards helping the school community become more environmentally friendly.
It has worked on an on-campus biodiversity program, in which they planted 70 trees and 22 native species in an effort to reduce the school's reliance on air conditioning, and they have participated in rehabilitation efforts in local parks.
This achievement did not come easily to the school; it is the result of hard work, commitment, and passion from students and staff. They have made their school proud.
I am honoured to share with this House that I am part of a community and a city, Pickering, which has one of the greenest schools in Canada.
Citizenship WeekMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be talking about Citizenship Week today. I would like to congratulate the new Canadians in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert once again. In September, 74 people in Saint-Hubert and Saint-Bruno were granted Canadian citizenship. Canada has built a reputation as a country of broad cultural diversity, and it has maintained that reputation on the international stage.
Despite our obvious wealth, there are still too many people waiting for Canadian citizenship. Processing delays for sponsorship and family reunification applications are still too often preventing people like you and me from starting a life in Canada. The government needs to know that by working together we can enhance Canada's reputation as a country that welcomes newcomers. Let us build our history together.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, next week Canadians are invited to join together to celebrate Citizenship Week. This is an opportunity to reflect on the many freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that we enjoy as citizens of this great country. It is also an ideal time for all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to Canada, our values and traditions.
Since 2006, more than 1.5 million new citizens have made a permanent connection to Canada. We are proud of this record, and we continue to ensure that we welcome even more new citizens to the Canadian family. With our government's recent changes to the Citizenship Act, connections to Canada are being strengthened and newcomers are seeing their applications being processed more quickly.
Next week, thousands of newcomers will become Canadians at poignant ceremonies from coast to coast to coast. I invite all Canadians to take part in Citizenship Week activities across Canada to celebrate all that it means to be Canadian and to show the world that we are Canada proud.
Municipality of StokeJean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some good news about my riding. 
However, first, I would like to recognize a great Canadian. Germain Nault, a veteran who took part in the Normandy landing, was introduced in the House in June. He passed away on Tuesday, September 23, several days after receiving the prestigious French Legion of Honour. I remember him as a man who said, “let there never be another war”. We will remember him.
Meanwhile, the small municipality of Stoke is celebrating its 150th anniversary. Stoke is one of those places where it is good to live. It has beautiful mountains that can be seen for miles around. It is home to the Canadian cross-country ski and biathlon training centre. The agricultural industry in the area is booming, with companies such as Mario Côté, Ferme Lieutenant, Miellerie Lune de miel, Boulangerie Bertrand and Charcuteries et Salaison Aurèle Théberge, just to name a few. Tomorrow, on Saturday, I will be sampling local products at Oktoberfest.
 For 150 years, generations of people have been rolling up their sleeves to build a region that is proud, united in tough times, courageous, prosperous, fertile and faithful to the traditions of hard work, equality and justice. Congratulations to the people of Stoke.
The EconomyMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the anti-trade NDP is at it again. Yesterday, the NDP attempted to gut the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. It tried to remove the investor protection provision from that agreement. This is something that is contained in almost every modern free trade agreement worldwide.
Not surprisingly, the Liberal trade critic did not show up to help stop the NDP's anti-trade agenda. Then, again, she has not attended a trade meeting in the ten months since she was appointed as the critic.
While the Liberals and the NDP are playing hooky, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, which is growing the economy and helping to create jobs. Since coming to office, our Conservative government has created almost 20% more jobs on a per capita basis than its closest competitor. In fact, Statistics Canada just announced today an increase of 74,000 net new jobs in September. The majority of those jobs are full-time jobs.
Only the Conservative Prime Minister and the Conservative government will stand up for the economy of this country.
Religious IntoleranceHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Office of Religious Freedom was notified of a possible plan to target and kill Ahmadis in Lahore, Pakistan, by the country's largest terrorist group, known as the SSP. Local sources have said that the SSP is vowing to teach the Ahmadis a lesson.
Threats like this are not to be ignored by anyone. We will all remember May 2010, when an attack in Lahore, Pakistan, killed 90 and wounded another 120 Ahmadis. These brazen attacks were carried out in two Ahmadiyya mosques during prayers, against men, women, and children who simply wanted to worship in peace.
Canada needs to move quickly to engage with Pakistan in a way that ensures the safety of all Ahmadis. Religious freedom and security are not just notions for Canadians; they are basic human rights. Canada must do what it can to protect those freedoms around the world.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, who is really in charge of the Liberal Party of Canada? We have good reason to wonder if high-level people other than the leader are pulling the strings. From one day to the next, nobody in the Liberal Party seems to have the same opinion. 
When the Liberal leader says that he will not support the decision to participate in a mission in Iraq against the Islamic State, is he conveying the views of high-level puppet masters? When the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie says that the Liberal Party supports the troops, is he conveying the views of the Liberal leader?
Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to know who is making the decisions within the Liberal Party, who is developing its policies and who is telling the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada how to lead. 
EthicsMr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development is once again using his office for political party purposes. Just before the last election, the NDP obtained Conservative Party plans to campaign in “very ethnic” ridings, a partisan plan drawn up on ministerial letterhead.
Now, the minister is spending his days on Twitter, sending out crudely drawn attacks on opposition politicians. However, it is not the minister himself who is firing up Microsoft Paint to put block letters on opposition faces. No, it is his staff who are putting this together.
Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has had enough of his antics. 
Who could forget this very same minister last year tweeting out how he thought it was a “good thing” that his staff were not unionized.
While the mess he has made of the temporary foreign worker program spirals out of control, the minister and his staff were devoted to the one thing they really know how to do well, which is coming up with Lolcats. Canadians deserve better.
Child Fitness Tax CreditMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour to welcome the Prime Minister to the Durham region and to an exciting announcement at the Abilities Centre in Whitby, where he said the child fitness tax credit will be doubled. All families know the rising cost of enrolling their kids in hockey, soccer, or dance. These are real needs for each family. Over 1.4 million families benefit each year from this tax credit, including mine, with my children Mollie and Jack. 
Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that we are doubling the child fitness tax credit and making it fully refundable, allowing more low-income families to benefit directly.
On top of this, we have the universal child care credit, the child tax credit, and the children's arts tax credit. In total, each Canadian family is saving approximately $3,400 a year under our government. 
I want to thank the Prime Minister for putting families first more than any other leader, and I wish Canadian families a happy Thanksgiving. 

Oral Questions
National DefenceMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are ending this week with as many questions about the government's ill-defined combat mission in Iraq as they had at the beginning of the week. 
One thing has become clear: the Conservatives are forcing Canada into this combat mission with little planning and no real answers about our goals or exit strategy. This sets up an impossible situation.
How can the Department of National Defence produce a plan for a mission that has no clear direction from the government?
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear what the direction is. Under the leadership of President Obama, 60 countries have joined a coalition to oppose ISIL, and Canada is determined to do its part to stop this terrorist organization of extreme views, unlike any we have seen before, from continuing its rampage against civilians, from continuing to kill civilians without discrimination.
That includes a military component. That includes the Royal Canadian Air Force, and we are proud of the part that they are preparing to play.
Public SafetyPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, let us take a simple example: the government boasts about protecting Canadians from the Islamic State armed group, but we saw in committee that that is not true. The government showed that it was unable to combat the radicalization of some individuals.
How come 130 individuals were able to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities without triggering any action by this government? Why did this government not do anything?
Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we take terrorist threats very seriously in Canada. That is why we brought in the Combating Terrorism Act, which allows us to lay criminal charges against individuals who travel to commit terrorist attacks. Why did the member and his party oppose this law, which is essential to protecting the safety of Canadians?
National DefencePeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the plan to combat the Islamic State armed group here in Canada is not the only problem. For the past few days, we have been asking questions in the House about whether the Conservatives plan on engaging in combat operations in Syria. The government refuses to answer simple questions.
The Conservatives did not have to include Syria in their motion, but they did nonetheless.
Why does the Conservatives' proposed combat mission include Syria if they have no intention of going there? Why this total lack of clarity?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, Canada's combat mission is very clear. We are not undertaking any military action against any state. We are carrying out a military combat mission against the Islamic State terrorist group, and we will carry out this mission in Iraq, with the permission of the Iraqi authorities. The real question for Canadians is why the NDP insists that Canada not get involved in supporting the international military effort.
International DevelopmentMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Malala Yousafzai received the Nobel Peace Prize for the work she has done for girls' education, and I offer her my warmest congratulations. Meanwhile, the Conservative government is still refusing to reinvest in the Global Partnership for Education, which is doing so much for girls' education.
Will the government finally renew its commitment to education for all by contributing to the Global Partnership for Education?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, education, and particularly education of girls, has been one of the focus points for Canada's development dollars. 
I look at what we were able to accomplish in Afghanistan, where millions of girls are now able to go to school.
We have a great reputation on that. We will be considering the Global Partnership for Education as its replenishment conference comes forward.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, the replenishment conference in fact took place last June. 
I am sure I speak for all members in this House when I congratulate Malala Yousafzai, who has been recognized for her courageous work on behalf of girls' education with a Nobel Prize. It is truly deserved.
Malala asked Canada to make a pledge to the Global Partnership for Education, which held its replenishment conference last June, but the government made no pledge at that conference and none since.
When will the government renew Canada's commitment to education for all?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, indeed the replenishment conference did take place last June, but there are ongoing calls for replenishment, and we are considering that.
I have met with Alice Albright on several occasions. I know that she has had conversation with our Minister of International Development.
As I said, education is of particular interest to our government. We particularly wish to see the success of young girls as we move forward in our development issues, and we will be considering our contribution.
CopyrightMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has already said that copyright matters to Canadian businesses that drive our economy. It seems that will not apply if the businesses are news organizations and the Conservative Party wants to steal their content for its ads. It is a tactic that we only see in banana republics.
Will the government drop this mean-spirited, unfair plan?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we are not going to comment on rumours and speculation within the Liberal Party.
However, we will certainly make our position clear. It is that there is public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings, and major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and what cannot be broadcast to Canadians.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry once said copyright matters to Canadian businesses that drive our economy.
It seems that will not apply if the businesses are news organizations and the Conservative Party wants to steal their content for its ads. It is a tactic that we only see in banana republics.
Will the government back off and drop this ill-conceived plan?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, David Lametti, who is a property and IP law professor at McGill and an aspiring Liberal candidate, said of this issue, “...protecting political discourse or speech ought to be a priority in a democracy, even if we don't like or agree with the speaker or the content.”
He went on to say, “And relying on copyright rights to do the work of restricting this kind of speech distorts the purpose of copyright and the balanced view that our Supreme Court has consistently articulated over the years.”
We agree with him, and so should the opposition.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to concoct a ridiculous excuse involving free speech. It is seems the government means “free” in the sense that it will not cost the Conservative Party one red cent for all the footage it steals. It is hardly free when the exemption would apply only to political parties and no one else.
Would the government please announce that it is dropping this hare-brained scheme?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I know the opposition member well and I understand why he is so adamant about this issue. I certainly would not want his leader's quotes to be used over and over again against him as well.
However, at the end of the day, we believe that this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary, we are prepared to provide it.
National DefenceMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, former Canadian ambassador David Mulroney said it best. We have learned hard lessons from Afghanistan, one of which is that clear objectives are critical to avoid quagmires. The government's combat mission in Iraq does not have those.
Last weekend, Mr. Mulroney was asked how to measure something like degrading ISIL, and he said, “You can't.”
We need a clear, measurable definition of success, which the government has so far been unable to provide.
What are the objective standards of success for this combat mission?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. We, and this Prime Minister, have learned a lesson from Afghanistan that is very important: it requires military effort to prevent a terrorist safe haven from emerging across the length and breadth of an entire country.
That is why we are supporting this military mission. It is six months in length. It is a very limited number of aircraft. It is to degrade the capacity of Islamic State to deliver terrorism against the people of Iraq and around the world.
Those objectives are very precise.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I did not know delivering terrorism was one of the objectives. This is exactly why we are worried about this mission creeping.
 Instead of saying, “Here are clear time limitations on our combat participation” or “Here are the military developments that will signal to us our mission has ended”, we get nothing but evasiveness and rhetoric from the government.
How can the Conservatives press ahead with a combat mission in Iraq—and possibly, by the way, in Syria—with no clear plan and objectives?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, this time the hon. member is completely wrong. This is a counterterrorism mission with a military component. In Canada's case, it will involve air strikes against ISIL targets so that they are no longer able to attack innocent Iraqi civilians or attack us here in Canada or other allies and partners.
What is different on the NDP side, what is scandalous with this opposition, is that it is unwilling to do anything of a military nature against a deadly terrorist threat.
International DevelopmentCarol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the president of the World Bank is chastizing the international community for failing miserably in its response to the Ebola pandemic. The World Bank estimates that the crisis may cost $32 billion by the end of next year. Our contributions have not reflected the scope of the emergency, yet our government is attempting to pat itself on the back saying, “Job well done”.
 Where is the sense of urgency? Will the government increase Canada's contributions to the World Health Organization?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since day one of the Ebola outbreak in western Africa, Canada has shown international leadership. We have been one of the top 10 contributors. In fact, Canada has contributed $35 million to leading international humanitarian organizations like the World Health Organization, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Red Cross. We have dispatched two mobile lab units. We are contributing 800 to 1,000 doses of some of the most promising vaccines. Canada is a leader.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, last month, the government announced that it would contribute $2.5 million for personal protective gear to help deal with the Ebola crisis.
This equipment is necessary to prevent the spread of Ebola and protect the teams on site. However, there have been delays in sending this equipment, and the epidemic is spreading.
Why is the government not responding in a timely manner to the urgent requests from the World Health Organization?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, Canada is contributing $2.5 million worth of protective gear. In fact, the first shipments have already gone out and we are working with the World Health Organization to prioritize the remaining shipments.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization has urgently asked Canada to send 300,000 face shields to protect those working on the ground to contain the Ebola virus.
So far, only 128,000 of those face shields have been sent to West Africa because the Conservative government is unable to find an aircraft to transport the equipment.
How can the Conservatives justify not being able to find an airplane to transport this equipment and save lives?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, obviously the response in western Africa is evolving, so I am pleased to update the House. In fact, the gear that was specifically mentioned has all now shipped, in part using the Hercules. As for the remaining equipment that needs to go out, again, we are working with the World Health Organization to prioritize. However, those protective gear items have already now been shipped.
IndustryLaurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. 
Ten years ago, the government negotiated with drug companies to extend the monopoly period on new drugs. In exchange, the companies were supposed to invest 10% of their revenue in research and development in Canada. The reality is that only 4.5% of that revenue was invested in 2013. 
Why does the minister not implement measures to make sure these companies keep their promises?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, this is a vital industry to Canada. Certainly in my home area of Mississauga—Brampton, and across Peel, this is a very vital industry. Canada is showing global leadership on this file.
CopyrightMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to change the law so that Conservatives can use media content without asking broadcasters' permission.
When asked whether any experts at all supported their initiative, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said that Michael Geist agreed with them. Once again, they are trying to mislead us by quoting an academic out of context.
Is the minister aware that Michael Geist himself criticized the government on this file?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely untrue that Mr. Geist was quoted out of context. In fact, I have the quote right here. It states:
 ...copyright law should not be used to stifle legitimate speech.... 
 ...attempts to use copyright to claim absolute rights over the use of a portion of a video clip is surely counter to basic principles of fair dealing (in Canada) or fair use. 
That is a quote and it is pretty clear.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Michael Geist also condemned the minister's stunt and said that the Conservative government is creating a misguided exception in its own interest.
As it turns out, even the only person the minister could find does not agree at all. In general, when people misquote, it is because they have something to hide.
Why does the government want to change the law to serve the Conservative Party's partisan interests, like it recently did with the unfair elections act? 
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is this party that is trying to hide anything. We are actually trying to make it usable by parties when expressions are made by individuals that should be allowed to be seen by the public. 
If members did not like my first quote, I have another one from David Lametti, property and IT law professor at McGill University, the aspiring Liberal candidate, who said: 
 ...relying on copyright rights to do the work of restricting this kind of speech distorts the purpose of copyright and the balanced view that our Supreme Court has consistently articulated over the years. 
I do not know if members want “yes” for an answer.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you are twisting the words of experts like Michael Geist—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Craig Scott:  Mr. Speaker, he is twisting the words. The fact is, if this proposed change is an innocent one, why not make sure that they are fully honest and open about it? 
I asked yesterday and I will ask again. Will the minister for democratic reform ensure the full and fair debate on this, or will we yet again see an omnibus budget bill as a way to cloak a reform that has nothing to do with the budget?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I feel bad this morning for the abuse that you are taking from the members of the opposition on these questions. It is just unacceptable. 
We certainly know who is twisting in the wind this morning, but we are certainly not going to comment on rumours and speculation. Our position has always been clear. There is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions, accountable for what they say in public settings. Why would the opposition not want to be held accountable?
Rail TransportationHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, when the member for Wascana asked whether the latest train derailment in Saskatchewan involved DOT-111 cars—the same kind of cars that exploded in Lac-Mégantic and are not shock resistant enough—the Minister of Transport refused to answer.
Yesterday we learned that many of those tanker cars were indeed DOT-111. Can the minister assure us that none of those cars was one of the 5,000 most dangerous DOT-111 cars that she promised, on April 23, to pull out of service within one month? 
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said, and we share that, we are relieved to learn there were no injuries involved in this particular incident. Transport Canada, of course, will co-operate fully with the Transportation Safety Board, which is responsible for investigating the causes of this accident. What is clear is that our government has taken very strong action in response to the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations on DOT-111s to remove the least crash-resistant and also to have an aggressive, more aggressive than the United States, three-year phase-out on the DOT-111s. We are taking action to ensure the safety of Canadians, workers and our communities.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again there was no precise answer. To repeat, last April, the minister said the most dangerous DOT-111 cars would be gone within one month. Were they or were they not involved in the train wreck this week in Saskatchewan? The railway is saying these particular DOT-111s were not their cars, indeed they were supplied by the shipper of the highly flammable distillate. I am sure that is a great comfort to the people of Clair, Saskatchewan, and Lac-Mégantic. How is the government requiring shippers, not just railways but shippers too, to get these dangerous cars out of service?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, this from a member whose government was lax when it came to railway safety. We instead have been taking very strong actions. We are talking about prohibiting the least crash-resistant DOT-111s and a three-year phase-out or retrofit with respect to the remaining to bring them up to standard. We are also in discussions with American partners in terms of a new, tougher standard for these cars. 
What did the Transportation Safety Board say about that? Ms. Tadros said, “I am encouraged by the Minister of Transport's strong response to the Board's recommendations”.
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the UN International Day of the Girl and inspired by the fearless advocacy of Nobel laureate Malala, we must reflect on the action needed here in Canada regarding indigenous girls. Twenty-three per cent of female murder victims in Canada are indigenous even though they are only 4% of the population.
Will the Prime Minister finally accept that this ongoing tragedy reflects complex sociological issues, such as racism, sexism, poverty, foster care, education, and call an inquiry to keep indigenous girls in Canada safe?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, our action plan brings together many measures to combat violence against aboriginal women and girls, and we on this side of the House are proud of it.
I am also proud that on October 11, Canada and the world is celebrating the International Day of the Girl. On this day, our government recognizes girls as powerful agents of change and leaders of today and tomorrow. This government, with the help of Plan Canada, has worked tirelessly to make the International Day of the Girl a reality and Canada led the international community of the United Nations in building support for establishing this day, which is now celebrated both domestically and internationally.
We on this side of the House are proud of the International Day of the Girl.
InfrastructureRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, a survey conducted by the Quebec urban transit association reveals that most Quebeckers believe that the federal government should contribute more to public transit.
On the provincial side, the Quebec transport minister has said that despite the need for austerity, the province's contribution to public transit will not be lowered.
Will the Conservatives heed this call and increase investments in public transit?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, never before has a government in Canada invested more in public transit. We are investing in partnership with the provinces and municipalities, while respecting their respective jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the NDP wants to centralize everything in Ottawa.
Another interesting thing that came out of this poll, is that the users prefer to pay a toll. The NDP members have never understood how that works.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the envelope that transportation companies receive, the users contribute the most to cover costs by paying 36% of the bill. The Government of Quebec contributes 21%, while the federal government, which claims to do so much, contributes only 1%.
The NDP has long been saying that the federal government can and must do more when it comes to public transit.
Will the government commit to increasing its contribution to public transit?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, with the transfer of the excise tax on gasoline alone, the federal government has transferred $600 million to the Province of Quebec to be divvied up among the public transit organizations. The figure the hon. member gave is therefore incorrect.
What is more, CUTA, a public transit organization, acknowledged that no government has ever done as much for the country as ours.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, transit infrastructure is urgently needed in the Lower Mainland to protect and develop the region's economy. TransLink is pushed to its limits and has resorted to telling commuters frustrated with service delays to lower their expectations and simply go for a coffee.
When will the government come to the table with long-term solutions to address chronic underfunding and when will it finally agree with New Democrats that Canada needs a national transit strategy?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, the solution for the NDP is to centralize everything in Ottawa. That is its solution.
I have a list. The Evergreen Line in Vancouver was $350 million. The Surrey maintenance facility was $2.5 million. The Kamloops transit maintenance facility was $4 million. Kelowna transit maintenance was $2 million. SkyTrain security was $30 million. That is a long list, which has never been done before.
HousingMr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister tried to brag about investments in housing. The trouble is only a fraction of the money is federal for Ontario, it is over five years, and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation is specifically excluded. 
This week's Vital Signs report found that 90% of residents in Toronto's apartment blocks are inadequately housed. The waiting list for assisted housing has climbed to 77,000 families. Toronto Community Housing has specifically asked the feds for help. 
Why is the government refusing to address the housing crisis in Toronto?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, this government is making record investments in low-income housing across the country. We have initiated a new policy called housing first. Just imagine, now people who are homeless can get a home and when they then apply for jobs and have to fill in their addresses, they can fill in actual addresses. Imagine how much stronger that is going to make those applications.
We are supporting people who get jobs. That is the best social program. We are supporting housing in this country. We are getting the job done.
Foreign AffairsCorneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to see that Canada remains among the strongest international supporters of Ukraine's efforts to restore stability, and implement democratic and economic reform.
 Canada continues to call on Russia to follow through on its commitments to de-escalate the crisis and cease its aggressive tactics in Ukraine. Ukraine sovereign territory must be respected and the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future.
 Could the parliamentary secretary please update the House of Commons on Canada's latest moves to isolate Putin's autocratic regime?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, as members may know, my family suffered under Soviet tyranny for decades.
 While Canada is a global leader on tobacco control, in fact, a founding member of the World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control, I am pleased to inform the House that Canada will boycott the next meeting in Moscow.
 We stand with the people of Ukraine and we will offer no legitimacy to the Putin regime's actions in Ukraine when it comes to these farcical international conferences on which it tries to pull out some legitimacy. Putin's Soviet-style oppression techniques—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
The EnvironmentCharmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, a government report indicates that the former Saint-Maurice shooting range was contaminated as a result of National Defence activities. The land consists primarily of 169 hectares of wetlands, which is rare on Montreal's north shore. The people of Terrebonne and surrounding areas are concerned that there is no plan to quickly decontaminate this site.
Can the government guarantee that the land will be decontaminated within a reasonable time and that the wetlands will be protected when the land is transferred in future?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of our men and women in uniform is the first priority of this Department of National Defence and of this Minister of National Defence. We have made record investments in infrastructure in order to protect the environment and clean up land in several Canadian regions. We will continue to work on that.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow hundreds of people will protest in Cacouna against the oil port project. The Liberals agree that the Conservatives have completely discredited the project's environmental assessment, but they refuse to oppose it and give the Conservatives time to carry out an environmental assessment. That is the epitome of inconsistency for the Liberals and their leader.
For their part, the Conservatives go so far as to show contempt for the Superior Court's injunction on drilling. Social acceptance of the oil port by the people of eastern Quebec is now impossible.
Does the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservatives understand this and can he help clean up this mess?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in this issue. I can assure him that projects will only go forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
 However, the fact is that TransCanada has not yet submitted an application for the construction of a marine terminal. If it does, it will be carefully reviewed by the National Energy Board.
At this stage, the only work being done is exploratory in nature. That work was carefully reviewed and authorized by departmental experts contingent on very strict conditions.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the work that should have been done was at Fisheries and Oceans, and it was not done. It was supposed to come out with a scientific advisement, and it did not.
Obviously, there is no consensus on the oil port. The promoter has not been able to demonstrate the social acceptability of his project because it will only be used to export unprocessed Canadian oil. It will cause the loss of well-paid jobs and, above all, it will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem.
Why does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans insist on defending a project that is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the member is a lawyer not a fish biologist. However, I can assure him that DFO allowed this exploratory work to go ahead because it was clear that it would not result in harm to marine life.
 DFO has scientists who are specifically devoted to marine mammals, including the St. Lawrence belugas. They were involved in this file. One of DFO's key priorities is the protection of marine life, and that has been the priority in this case as well.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the parliamentary secretary to read the judgment, where it clearly states that Fisheries and Oceans did not do its job.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government are responsible for the current mess in Cacouna. The Conservatives failed to be transparent when they muzzled scientists. They gutted the environmental assessment process so badly that it has lost all credibility. What is more, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities when they let proponents drill right in the middle of a threatened species' habitat.
Will the minister finally admit that the oil port project in Cacouna is a huge mess and that it must be stopped?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the court case to which he referred regarded provincial laws and provincial officials. It had nothing to do with DFO, DFO officials or DFO processes.
We are confident that the DFO process is diligent, thorough and based on the best available science.
Public SafetyWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on a set-up question, the government used the chair of the public safety committee to ask the minister about an alarming American news story with respect to a threatened attack on a Canadian mall.
The security agency under the minister's authority had to know that this was old information, not accurate and misleading. Such inaccuracies can only undermine the confidence of Canadians in the minister.
For what purpose was the Minister of Public Safety using such misleading misinformation? Will he come clean with Canadians today?
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rely on our national security intelligence and the great work of our law enforcement agency.
Let me quote the director of CSIS, Michel Coulombe, who said to Parliament, to the people of Canada, this very Wednesday, “The threat is real”, but not imminent.
I invite the member and all parliamentarians to support this government in moving forward to provide tools to our law enforcement agency, to our national security intelligence, so they can do their work, track the terrorists and keep our country safe.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer my question.
However, let us turn to what was said at the public safety committee two days ago. CSIS confirmed there were 80 individuals who returned to Canada after being involved in terrorist activities abroad. The RCMP said that a number of individuals were under risk investigation. Yet the minister, speaking from written notes and referring to the 80, stated that they had, “violated Canadian law”. 
How many have ben charged? Are the remainder being tracked?
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, why try to defend the indefensible? We are talking here about political leaders who condone terrorist acts. The public safety critic had the opportunity to ask this question in committee and he got his answers.
The policy that we have put in place to combat terrorism is working because the RCMP is conducting investigations. Charges are pending against over 100 individuals. 
Why are these individuals under investigation? Because our government fulfilled its responsibilities by implementing laws to protect our country.
Foreign AffairsMs. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Judith Brassard, a Canadian citizen convicted of murder, is serving her sixth year in prison in Colombia. Last week, the television show Enquête pointed out numerous irregularities in her case.
Can the minister tell us what the government has done to ensure that Ms. Brassard is being treated fairly and equitably?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, while the law does not allow me to comment on specific cases, I will take that up with the member after question period is over and ensure that the minister has all of the information for her.
Paulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Colombian ombudsman himself condemned the irregularities in Ms. Brassard's trial, but that does not seem to have motivated the office of the minster responsible for consular affairs to do anything at the time. We also need to think about Judith Brassard's two children, who want to have contact with their mother's family here, in Quebec.
What is the minister doing to ensure the well-being of these children and to uphold the right of their Canadian grandparents to see their grandchildren grow up close by?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that we are providing consular services in this situation. The Government of Canada cannot exempt Canadians from legal processes. The consular's role is to advocate for the well-being and fair treatment. We will continue to do so. 
Intergovernmental AffairsMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government announced support for four new research projects that will highlight the benefits of internal free trade to Canadian consumers. 
As we complete trade agreements abroad, our government has taken concrete action to free Canadians from the internal barriers that limit their success, movement and choice.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please update us on this announcement and the benefit it is to Canadian consumers?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, eliminating internal trade barriers will create jobs, boost economic growth and lead to more choices for Canadian consumers. While we are encouraged by the progress to date, there is still work to be done to strengthen our national economy and global competitiveness. 
As Canada signs on to more international agreements, we must ensure that Canadian companies have the same opportunities right here at home.
Yesterday's announcement will support essential work to show how free trade within Canada will directly benefit Canadians and our families.
Citizenship and ImmigrationKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians all across our country are waiting to get their citizenship. They are waiting in excess of three years quite often because the Conservative government has created a crisis of paperwork in which it often takes over three years to process a simple citizenship.
When will the Conservative government take the issue of processing times to the degree in which it will reduce it to under 12 months? When will that happen?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that lob question. It gives us a chance to talk about the progress we have made this year in only the first seven months, creating 150,000 new citizens. That is a great success which was never seen under the Liberals.
Processing times are coming down, and they will be under one year by early 2016. The number of years the hon. member mentioned is completely false. He has a tendency to mislead the House on that front. 
The Liberals voted against the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Pontiac.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the government closed citizenship and immigration offices, we knew full well that there would be major delays, but we never would have thought that more than two years later there would still be many cases left unprocessed. There are many such cases in my riding. Some immigrants are even having to resubmit their applications for permanent residence because their original application has expired. Come on. That makes no sense.
What is the government doing, right now, to speed up the process?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the Liberals and NDP keep giving us the opportunity to talk about the progress we are making with our citizenship and immigration programs.
Processing times for permanent residents and new citizens have dropped dramatically thanks to the work done by this government and the investments made by this Prime Minister.
We are still cleaning up the huge backlog that was created by the Liberals, and we will continue working at it.
Government ProgramsMr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, later today the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the minister responsible for employment will be making an important announcement in Winnipeg on the Canada job grant.
Already this year, the Minister of Employment and Social Development has signed the Canada job grant agreements with all the provinces and territories. This is an excellent record.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development update the House on the status of the Canada job grant?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Social Development announced that the Canada job grant applications were now available in Alberta, and the same thing was occurring in the Northwest Territories. We are getting the job done. This is a terrific program.
Over the next 10 years, we will need over 300,000 new construction workers in Canada, 150,000 new workers in the petroleum sector and 145,000 in the mining sector. 
The Canada job grants can deliver guaranteed jobs at the end of this training. It is a good program. Those members should be on board. 
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister relates to the joint review panel on the proposed Site C development in British Columbia. The panel review is very clear that there will be significant effects, that cannot be mitigated, affecting the hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of Treaty 8, Saulteau, and Blueberry River First Nations. Their decision came down even before the Tsilhquot'in Supreme Court decision. 
Will the government commit to saying “no” to Site C in deference to the established rights of first nations in the area?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am carefully reviewing and considering the panel's findings, and at this point in time, it would be inappropriate to comment any further. 
Employment InsuranceMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have raised EI premiums for years, at a huge cost to small-business owners and workers. Now there is a job-killing tax.
The PBO says this wrong-headed approach would cost 9,000 jobs. Many workers in Thunder Bay—Superior North have been cheated out of their EI benefits, and now even more will lose their jobs. Will the Minister of Finance reverse his foolhardy approach on EI? 
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us hear from the people who actually create the jobs. CFIB says the small business job credit will create 25,000 person years of employment and called it, and I quote, “fantastic news for Canada's entrepreneurs and their employees”, and as such “can only be a positive for the Canadian economy”. 
We are lowering EI payroll taxes by 15% and saving small businesses over $550 million. In contrast, the Liberals and the NDP are supporting a 45-day work year that would drastically increase premiums by a whopping 35%. 
I have great news. More than 74,000 jobs were created in the month of September.
Foreign AffairsMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, this week, my constituency office was inundated with calls following the government's decision in favour of military involvement in the armed conflict raging in Iraq and Syria.
The people of Montcalm are furious that our government is breaking with the traditional Canadian approach to international conflict.
Can the government explain to the people of Montcalm how bombings will bring about peace without creating new Islamic State sympathizers?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, a member who represents a riding by the name of Montcalm should have a better understanding of Canada's military traditions.
The NDP is the party breaking with Canadian tradition. Canada has done its part in several international efforts against terrorism, just as it did during the world wars. We will do our part this time too.

Routine Proceedings
Federal Ombudsman for Victims of CrimeRobert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the 2013-14 annual report of the Federal Ombudsman for the Victims of Crime and the government's response.
Ways and MeansHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Committees of the HouseMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-41, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
Ryan Cleary:  moved that the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Monday, February 10, 2014, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  I declare the motion carried
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsRoyal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the International Day of the Girl, we are reminded of the important role that girls and women play in our lives and in our society.
I am honoured to present to the House a petition signed by Canadians across the country condemning sex-selective abortion.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that the people of Laval are currently joining forces to save home mail delivery.
I have here a petition signed by hundreds of people from Vimont, Auteuil, Duvernay, Saint-François and Saint-Vincent-de-Paul who definitely want to keep home mail delivery services. They are calling on the government to look at new ways of modernizing the crown corporation, among other things.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. Two of them condemn the discrimination against females that occurs through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
The issue of abortion is very divisive in this hall, but I hope that everyone could agree and support that this is a practice about which we are concerned.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from a number of constituents who want reassurance that Bill C-18 will not impact the ability of our farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell their seeds.
I have had an opportunity to chat with them and reassure them that Bill C-18 does not intend to do that.
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by hundreds of people who are imploring the government and Transport Canada to give the Sherbrooke airport the necessary security screening services to operate an air service by adding this airport to the list. 
This would allow the City of Sherbrooke to continue using this airport and especially to develop the region, which is badly in need of air service. The petitioners are asking for Transport Canada's support with regard to the review of this decision.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one has nearly 200 signatures from residents of Denman Island and Vancouver Island. The petitioners are calling for support for Motion No.501, a national strategy for innovation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness in sustainable health care.
This motion calls for establishing regional centres for innovation, bringing together integrated medicine and allied professionals to collaborate, research, and document low-cost, low-risk health care options.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from some 150 residents of Vancouver Island asking Parliament to review the Elections Act and to devise some form of proportional representation.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. The first petition is with respect to the subsidies the government had cut for the ACR line. The petitioners are from Sault Ste. Marie, Richards Landing, Goulais River, Aweres Township, and Echo Bay in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie. The petitioners want to make sure their voices are heard.
It is important to note that there is not one passenger rail transportation system in the world that is not supported by a government, so for it to be successful, the government needs to come to the table on this.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling today is with respect to the increase in CPP. It is one of the most pressing economic issues Canadian families face, especially seniors, of course. The fact that the government would be taking $11 billion from seniors' income is quite concerning.
The petitioners are asking that the government reinstate the retirement age of 65. I am pleased to say that we would actually do that when we form government in 2015.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I have just a note to hon. members. There have been a couple of instances today. When presenting petitions, one usually avoids any sort of editorial commentary. There have been a couple of references on both sides of the House during the presentation of petitions. It is just something to avoid.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition is with respect to the fact that our law in Canada has been declared unconstitutional with respect to the current prostitution laws. 
Because a lot of women are forced into the sex trade and trafficked, the petitioners do not want our country to be without a law in this respect, so they are asking that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the second important petition I present is with respect to the fact that in Canada, a lot of people are now using ultrasound so they can tell the sex of a child, and if the unborn child is a girl, they abort that little girl.
Most Canadians are against this abhorrent practice. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is as well. It is also the official policy of the Conservative Party of Canada to condemn discrimination of this sort. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through gender-selective abortion.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, residents in my riding are continuing to sign petitions protesting the loss of home mail delivery by Canada Post.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject the plan of Canada Post to reduce services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, given that tomorrow is the International Day of the Girl, I am pleased today to present a petition signed by British Columbians that calls upon the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions signed by people in the Ottawa area asking the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to support Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia, tabled by the member for Nickel Belt.
The petitioners are asking also for a national strategy to be designed for the health care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's and other dementia-related diseases.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if revised responses to Questions Nos. 642, 643 and 644, originally tabled on September 15, 2014, could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Carolyn Bennett:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Yukon, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Carolyn Bennett:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Nunavut, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Carolyn Bennett: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the Northwest Territories, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, be read the third time and passed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Malpeque had seventeen and a half minutes remaining in the time for his remarks.
The hon. member for Malpeque.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I have about seventeen minutes left. I expect I will not use that, just to warn the next speaker who may be on the list, as I have spoken to this bill before.
Before question period, I was outlining that I was pleased but also troubled to speak to Bill C-13. I outlined that the Liberal Party is very supportive of the cyberbullying aspects of the bill, but troubled over the parts that are measures in the old Bill C-30 on lawful access, which so many Canadians spoke out against. 
Efforts were made, and I am disappointed that the government did not accept those efforts by both opposition parties, to split the bill. It was not only the opposition members who wanted to split the bill; it was the new Privacy Commissioner and many others, including Carol Todd, who knows very well about the difficult and troubling aspect of cyberbullying. 
The bill was not split. However, regardless, we do feel within the Liberal Party that cyberbullying is such a scourge on society that we are going to have to put not only a little water in our wine, but a fair bit, in fact, because we are very seriously troubled over aspects of the bill. This tends to be what the current government does. The Conservatives will put a couple of good points in the bill and add a whole lot of other material that should not be in that particular bill.
The Liberals believe that a balance must be struck between civil liberties and public safety, particularly when it comes to warrants that may be intrusive and overboard. We do not support the measures that were in Bill C-30, which the government had to withdraw because of Canadians' outrage. The problem is that some of those points are back in this bill. Some of this bill duplicates the rejected Bill C-30, such as word-for-word reproductions of the changes to subsection 487(c.1) of the Criminal Code; and all but one-word changes to subsection 492.1 and section 492 regarding warrants.
We are very concerned about efforts to reintroduce “lawful access”, which the Conservatives promised was dead.
Though the title is the “protecting Canadians from online crime act”, nobody would be protected under this act. In typical government fashion, this is all about punishment rather than prevention. Complex problems like cyberbullying require more than blunt additions to the Criminal Code. This omnibus bill touches everything from terrorism to telemarketing, and cable stealing to hate speech. It is an affront to both democracy and the legislative process in the way it was handled.
 If it had been split, what could have been a bill on cyberbullying, which probably would have had the unanimous support of the House, is no longer possible. What is seen from us is reluctant support because we have to, regardless of the consequences, deal with the cyberbullying side. That is certainly why I am troubled.
I want to turn to a couple of quotes that outline the extent of the problem in terms of the way that the government has dealt with this bill. 
There was an editorial in The Globe and Mail, on November 22, entitled “Not Without a Warrant”, from which I will quote:
 Under current law, a wiretapping authorization will only be issued by a judge if police can show a “reasonable ground to believe that an offence has been or will be committed.” But under Bill C-13, wireless wiretaps can be authorized on the looser standards of “reasonable ground to suspect.” 
The editorial goes on:
 Why not make police applications for a wireless wiretap clear the same, high legal hurdle as a traditional wiretap? And why is the government burying all of this inside an unrelated piece of legislation covering the highly emotional topic of cyberbullying? Parliament should be debating and voting on each measure separately, on its merits. Once again, the Conservative government is engaging in unnecessary legislative acrobatics. Time to cease and desist. 
I will read one more. This is an editorial, also on November 22, from the Ottawa Citizen, entitled “More than 'cyberbullying'”. I will just read a piece of it:
 If the government wants to make cable theft a criminal offence, or increase police powers to track online communication, it is perfectly within its rights to propose those things. There is no reason to bundle it in with a bill that has an entirely different purpose. The announcement about the bill calls it “legislation to crack down on cyberbullying.” This suggests the Conservatives never learned the main lesson from the Toews' debacle, and are still trying to bundle and brand their legislation instead of simply defending it on its merits. 
We are certainly not the only ones who are troubled about how the government approaches these bills, rams stuff through committee, and fails to give proper legitimate debate to each item on its own merits, so that at the end of the day this place can be proud, on all sides, of what we have passed.
However, as I said, the cyberbullying issue is of such an urgency that we cannot deep-six, if I could put it that way, that aspect of the bill that we do not like. We are forced to vote on a bill that we are troubled over, and, reluctantly, we will.
However, we will put a red flag on all areas infringing upon privacy that we are concerned about, and hopefully in a future Parliament we will see democracy break out in this place, where committees can do their job, as the founders of this country envisioned it would be done.
Let me close by saying that on the cyberbullying aspect, the Criminal Code is not the only instrument that needs to be embellished, if I could put it that way, in order to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. We believe that these legislative measures alone are insufficient to combat cyberbullying, and we urge the government to commit to a broader, more holistic strategy to deal with cyberbullying. 
It would also include public awareness resources for parents and kids. In other words, there has to be an education campaign, a publicity campaign, whether it is police forces, or community leaders, or whatever, who go into our school system to talk about the problem of cyberbullying and how this new technological world that we live in can haunt us, and, in fact, is used to haunt certain individuals in society.
In order to save time, I will close my remarks. I appreciate having had the opportunity to speak at third reading of this bill.
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about a broader and more holistic approach to dealing with online crime and cyberbullying, and I would not disagree.
However, the member speaks as though that is not occurring. Our government has made significant investments at the community and local level as well as at the provincial and territorial level in support of victims of crime. 
I would remind the member that every time we do that, in all the budgets we have put forward that bring important programs through that holistic and broad approach he is talking about, the Liberal members vote against those measures.
Is the member able to look at this bill as though it is not in a vacuum but is one more measure in a broad suite of things that our government is doing to protect victims of crime, to stop online bullying, to stop bullying generally, to stop assaults, and to stop victimization?
Will the member commit that when our government brings the monetary measures forward, the legislative measures forward, and the policy measures forward, he will finally support those measures?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I get such a kick out of backbench members in the governing party. They are always on their feet saying “Well, my golly, you voted against that and you voted against this.” What foolishness.
In what happens at committee and in this place, there are always certain aspects that members may or may not like. Just because a member votes against a particular piece of legislation does not mean they dislike the whole of it.
The strategy of the government is such that their members and others can get up and say, “Oh, my goodness; you voted against that”, trying to use it politically.
Political business takes place during election times. Between elections, we should be doing good debate in here and respecting each other, instead of getting that kind of malarkey from the government side all the time.
Let me get to the member's point. 
There are measures that the government has undertaken in terms of other aspects of dealing with cyberbullying beyond the Criminal Code, but a lot more needs to be done. That is what I am expressing in terms of this bill.
I would say to the member in conclusion that if the government had split the bill, as we asked it to do, then I think there would have been great support in this place on the cyberbullying side. The government could have then said that all parties supported what it was doing.
However, the strategy of the government is that it really does not want the opposition parties to support it. It likes to use the excuse that they voted the other way.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for his speech, but his reluctant support of this bill, which is riddled with highly questionable—or even dangerous—provisions, required such an intellectual contortion that I must admit that I am a bit worried about his back and other parts of his body.
For example, the bill opens the door to arbitrary, extrajudicial decisions that would put personal information into all kinds of hands.
How can the member justify this reluctant support, in light of these excessive provisions? 
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to justify. We cannot wait around. If the legislation had been split, it would have been easy, but the reality out there is that people are falling prey to cyberbullying every day. The risk is there. 
The member is right that there are some terrible aspects to this bill, and hopefully a future Parliament can deal with them, but cyberbullying, in and of itself, is an urgent concern. Therefore, we feel obligated to support that particular part of the bill, knowing full well that we really do not support other aspects of it. However, we need to deal with that serious issue in Canadian society.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for a good speech. I know he made it low key.
With his experience, I want to give him a chance to explain. Since the current government has been in place, has he seen other examples of bills, whether we call them omnibus, Trojan horses, or any of the other words we have used, that have been totally unacceptable and have only succeeded in dividing the House instead of trying to work for Canadians?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member is suggesting that a low key for me is unusual. I do not know.
In any event, no, this is not the only bill. In fact, most of the government's bills are that way. The budget bill was a particular example. In it there were endless pieces of legislation that had no relation to the budget. 
I expect we are going to see that the next budget has copyright in it. The real strategy of the government is to find a TV clip of someone to use as an attack ad. That is why it is going to be in the next budget bill. It is not going to be debated in its own right; it is likely going to be thrown into the budget bill.
The government is always up to those kinds of tricks. This is a government that believes in creating division and in wedge politics, and that is kind of sad to see in this country, because it is importing the kind of debate that we see south of the border, which is really divisive and often unproductive.
I know it would take a lot, but I would encourage the government to come to its senses and put legislation forward on the specifics of what the bill is supposed to deal with.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that we have the Liberal opposition saying that it is reluctant to support the bill. If Liberals are reluctant, then they should know that they should not be supporting this bill.
The member knows full well that there was a court decision on language similar to what is in this bill. The court decision was made in light of the Spencer case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, the day after the adoption of the bill by the Conservatives at committee, that Canadians have a right to be anonymous on the Internet and that police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities. This bill would actually prevent that from occurring.
The Liberals attempted to do something similar when they were in power. They tried to pass a bill that would have amended the Criminal Code to allow police services to carry out lawful access on their networks. 
My question to my colleague is this: why are Liberals supporting a bill that they say they are reluctantly supporting? Do they actually firmly believe that it is proper for people's privacy to be infringed on, as this law would do, knowing full well that the government continues to put bills forward that are very controversial in nature?
The government knows that people are supportive of addressing and fixing the cyberbullying situation, but in the meantime it keeps putting in a poison pill by throwing the whole kitchen sink into the bill. The government knows Canadians will not be in favour of these other measures, but by making the opposition look like they are against a situation such as cyberbullying, which is not the truth, it can gain points.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I guess the simple answer to that question is that Liberals are hopeful that within a year's time we will be able to get rid of the people who are putting those poison pills in the bottle. In that way, there will not be poison pills in the future, and there will be a government in this place that would be able to correct some of the concerns that I know the member has, as we do.
The fact of the matter is that those who are impacted by cyberbullying right now cannot wait a year. It is a difficult call, but it is a judgment call that we in the Liberal Party believe has to be made. We tried and fought hard to split the bill so that we could vote against those aspects, but we see the need for the cyberbullying part. It is a judgment call, and it is all about taking the right kind of leadership position. 
I can assure everyone that the Liberal Party is up for providing leadership to Canada and Canadians, and we are going to vote in support of the cyberbullying side.
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.
It is great to follow on the heels of the member for Malpeque. We certainly appreciate his reluctant support, far more than we appreciate their responsible neutrality on other issues in this place. 
It is a great opportunity to stand and be part of a government that understands the needs and challenges of Canadians. That government gives us lowly backbenchers an opportunity to speak in the House, which I know the member for Malpeque also has a tremendous amount of disdain for.
I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which proposes key amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in order to bring them up to date with 21st century technologies. 
The bill is both timely and vitally important. We so frequently remark that the world is getting smaller and smaller by the day that it is just a cliché. The barriers that distance used to create between people are becoming less and less relevant as technology advances.
The advent of the Internet, e-mail, web addresses, and all this technology has meant that we can stay connected from almost anywhere in the world. These technologies have obviously brought about incredible opportunities for Canadians. It is increasingly possible for Canadians to conduct business easily and efficiently on a global scale. We can keep in touch with our loved ones while pursuing opportunities in distant lands. We can learn about the world we live in by using the vast resources available on the Internet today.
It is not an understatement to say that these new technologies have changed the way we live. Unfortunately, some of them have also changed the way crimes are being committed and the kinds of evidence that are left behind. These technologies have made it possible to commit crimes that transcend geographical borders. Existing methods of investigating just will not work in this environment, and no country can conduct these kinds of cross-border investigations without co-operation from other countries.
That is why Bill C-13 is so important. It would provide police with the tools they need to investigate not only crimes committed here in Canada but also transnational crimes. Crucially, Bill C-13 would allow Canada to ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime. 
This convention is the only international treaty that is specifically designed to provide a standard set of legal tools to help in the investigation and prosecution of computer and Internet-based crime as well as more general crimes involving electronic devices. It would also assist parties to the convention by providing them with a mechanism for international co-operation. Canadian police will be able to access the Criminal Code's new investigative tools in appropriate cases and coordinate with other countries for transnational investigations.
I would like to focus my remarks on the convention. 
The convention facilitates national and transnational investigations by requiring three principal things. It will require a minimum standard of offences, it will require a minimum standard of investigative tools, and it will require a point of contact in each country that is available 24 hours a day and seven days a week. 
The convention requires signatory states to adopt a minimum set of standard offences for computer-related crimes. For instance, the convention requires that countries criminalize certain illegal uses of computers, such as hacking. It also requires that all participating countries criminalize illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and, of course, child pornography. These measures will help to reduce the overall incidence of computer crime by deterring the use of the states parties to the convention as safe havens for criminal purposes.
It is important to note that Canada already has a great set of offences to combat cybercrime. However, Bill C-13 is designed to fill the gaps that remain, and I can assure members that those are very few. 
Ensuring that all state parties have laws that are similar would allow for better co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of crimes that have connections to multiple jurisdictions. To this end, the Convention on Cybercrime would assist to ensure that convention partners would have compatible cybercrime-related offences.
However, the convention does not just deal with crimes themselves. The convention also deals with the investigation of crime. Computer crimes that transcend national boundaries often leave behind digital evidence in multiple locations. The nature of investigations is changing, both in technique and in scope. The convention would ensure that participating countries would have the tools they need to combat cybercrime at home, and equally important, that they would be able to assist each other in the investigation and prosecution of crime at a multi-jurisdictional level.
For instance, participating nations would be required to adopt tools that would facilitate the tracing of communications and would be able to order the production of data related to the routing of telecommunications. 
The bill contains amendments that would provide for such things, including preservation orders and demands. These powers would require the computer data that would be vital to an investigation to be preserved from destruction so police would have the time to obtain the warrants or orders to obtain that data.
Importantly, the convention requires participating nations to have readily identifiable contacts to increase communication and co-operation on investigations. Specifically, it requires that each country designate a point of contact that would be available 24/7 to give immediate assistance to those kinds of investigations.
Knowing who to call in another country can make all the difference to an investigation involving electronic evidence where time is literally of the essence. For example, in the time it may take to identify the responsible foreign authority, information important to an investigation could be lost forever.
 Becoming a real party to the convention on cybercrime is all about that. It is about ensuring that Canadian investigators have all the tools they need at their disposal to conduct efficient and effective investigations, both in Canada and in the context of investigations that reach beyond our borders. It is about ensuring that we are not in the fight against cybercrime alone. It is about taking responsibility for our role as a nation in transnational crime, supporting transnational investigation and benefiting from the assistance of our international partners in return.
I hope all members will support this bill so Canada can join its partners in making the world a safer place.
Finally, it should be noted that Canada is the only G7 country that has not has not yet ratified the Convention on Cybercrime. Further, all countries, including Canada, publicly endorsed the convention for its substantive and procedural framework. It is a model for international co-operation. All of Canada's main partners recognize the convention as a foundation on which international co-operation can be facilitated. Canada's ratification of the convention would extend the reach of Canadian law enforcement across the globe and enhance our ability to better protect Canadians.
We need to do our part and encourage other countries to join us in rising to these important challenges. Ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime is a necessary step in that direction, and Bill C-13 would enable that. 
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, the bill has been a long time coming. I just do not understand why the Conservative government was so slow in moving it forward. We proposed amendments during the process, but they were rejected. That could have moved the bill forward much more quickly.
In the past as well, our member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour presented Bill C-540. A number of the elements that are in the beginning of Bill C-13 were in fact in his private member's bill, but the government side rejected it.
Why did the member vote against Bill C-540?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the speed at which this bill could have progressed through the House and the parliamentary process. While I indicated in my speech that we were the only country left to sign the convention, we encourage other nations to step up and do their part.
 It is also important that we ensure we get this legislation right, not only within the context of the convention but also within the context of a Canadian need, within the context of our realities and our own challenges, with the advent of cybercrime, with the evolution of technology and with the increasing complexity and complete and increasing sophistication that both the perpetrators of these crimes possess and demonstrate and the tools that our law enforcement community needs.
It was clearly important for our government to ensure we got this legislation right and that we were able to involve our stakeholders and our law enforcement partners in this decision. It was important to ensure that the tools we provided them in this legislation were the ones that would be effective and would work. 
I certainly hope the member opposite and his party will join us in moving this legislation forward now at the right pace, with the right tools and the right support services that will help end this problem.
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, this has been a huge and impactful issue for young people in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. As a former school principal, I have seen first hand the damage that cyberbullying can do, and continues to do, to our young people. Unfortunately, in my riding we have had over four young people commit suicide, in part or in full due to cyberbullying because they were being tortured online, sometimes by adults, sometimes by peers within their own school community.
 I had the opportunity to sit with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a couple of summers ago and with the parents of children who had committed suicide due to ongoing persecution online, many times by their peers.
 We absolutely have to take hold of this issue. I give credit to the minister for bringing this legislation forward. It is very needed. I am proud of the fact our government has stood in support of our young people across the country.
Would the hon. member inform the House why it is so important that we pass this legislation as quickly as possible so we can step up and protect our children?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, online cyberbullying and cyberbullying generally is prolific right across North America. In fact, reports and statistics are clear that the vast majority of bullying is going on over the Internet and with other forms of electronic tools. Unfortunately, the impact on our youth in our school system is the single greatest effect. It is affecting attendance rates, the health and well-being of our young people, and their self-esteem.
 As the parliamentary secretary indicated, in some cases it leads to very sad and tragic consequences. That cannot be overlooked by any member of the House of Commons. The seriousness of this cannot be overlooked by any party. It is one component of this legislation, but I think we would all argue in this place that probably the most important part of it is the cyberbullying component. 
I am grateful the parliamentary secretary raised that point. We need to get this through the House to ensure we protect Canadian young people from these types of crimes.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this important debate on a Friday before Thanksgiving. I would also like to wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving and a productive constituency week.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-13, which is the protecting Canadians from online crime act. This bill would give enforcement officials the tools to conduct their investigations in a world that has moved from old fashioned telephone calls and snail mail to a constantly evolving telecommunications environment. 
I might date myself a bit, but I remember in the late 1980s, early 1990s, learning about the Internet. If we look at what has happened since then, we had giant computers and now most of us sit here with our smartphones and small iPads. There has been an amazing change in the world, and to be quite frank, our tools have not kept up with these enormous changes.
Although the primary objective of Bill C-13 is to ensure that the criminal justice system is able to keep pace with this new environment, as well as changing the nature of how criminals operate, the government has to be attentive to the privacy intrusive character of investigative techniques. This is what I will focus my remarks on today.
The media, through some commentators, has characterized Bill C-13 as bad for the privacy of Canadians. To be quite frank, that is not accurate. Bill C-13 would enhance the privacy protections for Canadians.
 While a police investigative tool, such as a search warrant or production order will naturally impact upon a person's privacy, all the amendments included in Bill C-13 have been very carefully crafted to balance the pressing need to provide police forces with the effective investigative tools they need in the current environment with the constitutional imperative to protect the rights of Canadians to a reasonable expectation of privacy. A good term for that is “privacy with precision”.
The Criminal Code already contains several tools that allow police to obtain evidence of crimes. For example, there are judicial warrant provisions to allow police forces to collect evidence themselves in real time, such as through tracking of a person. There is also judicial production orders, which allow the police to ask a third party to produce certain types of historical data or documents, for example, a record of phone calls. 
These current tools were designed and implemented before the advent of much of the technology and social media that we rely on today, making them inefficient in today's world and too privacy invasive in some respects. Therefore, the approach we have taken with Bill C-13 is aimed at ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is adequately protected, while meeting the investigative requirements by providing police appropriate investigative tools that have been judicially authorized for specific investigative needs.
For example, C-13 would create new types of production orders to obtain specific information of a less personal nature, such as the path of a telecommunication, rather than relying on the current general production order, which allows access to all types of information, including those of a more personal nature, such as the content of the data that has been stored on a computer.
Police officers today basically have access to only one means of compelling the production of documents and data in relationship to the electronic evidence, and that is the general production order. Whether they want to attain a library full of information on a suspect or one single piece of information, such as an email address, police officers must use the same judicial protection order. To put it another way, and I think it is more illustrative, we can think of a general production order as a large net that authorizes police to catch everything within reach of that net. 
I am going to use a bit of an analogy here, coming from a family that loves to fish. If we think of the police as the fisher, the fisher would use this net to catch everything the net came into contact with, such as mackerel, cod and salmon. It would be appropriate for the fisher to use the net if he or she was authorized to catch all those fish and the fisher wanted to catch all those fish. In the same way, when police want all data and documents a third party has on a suspect, it would be appropriate to use the net, in this case, what we term the general production order. 
However, let us say the fisher is only authorized to catch a subsistence quantity of cod, so that he may be able to put food on the table for his family. If he were to use a net, the fisher runs the risk of not only catching the cod but also the mackerel and the salmon, which the fisher neither wants nor is he authorized to catch. For this purpose, the fisher should be using a more precise and more specific tool. A fishing line and a jigger is a good example. With the cod jigger, the fisher can catch his three or four fish and be on his way without fear of over-catching or taking fish that he does not want or need.
In this vein, the new privacy with precision production orders in Bill C-13 provide the police with tailored tools that grant access to specific and limited information. The specific judicial production orders are like the cod jigger, only capable of catching cod, for example.
 In the context of production orders, a specific production order would only give police access to a limited range of information that does not have an elevated expectation of privacy, such as historical data related to the tracing of a communication or historical data related to the tracking of a transaction.
The use of these specific tools provides police with the information they want and need to continue an investigation, while at the same ensuring that police are not over-obtaining the personal information of Canadians.
These new tools under the reasonable suspicion standard have been crafted to reflect the leading decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and mirror existing Criminal Code provisions, some of which date back to 1993. I mention this because these proposed new production orders have been criticized for introducing the reasonable suspicion standard to the Criminal Code.
Let me be clear, this standard is not new. It has been employed in Canadian criminal law since 1993. On this point, I am going to go back to my net analogy one more time in relation to judicial scrutiny. One could characterize this as a resource issue for police, because for police the difference between meeting the judicial standard of reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion is the amount of time and proof they need to meet each standard. In this regard, we could say that meeting the standard of reasonable belief is more resource intensive than meeting the standard of reasonable suspicion.
For the fisher, this would be the cost of his equipment or his tools. The fisher must decide whether he will spend $100 on a net or $5 for a line. While the net would give the fisher access to whatever is in the sea, the fisher may really only want a few cod for dinner. The net would be overkill and could catch things the fisher should not be catching. Again, the fisher, for this purpose, should be using the cod jigger.
I apologize for the analogy, but I think if there are Canadians watching, sometimes those analogies do help make a little sense out of what can be some very complicated legal issues.
Conversely, if the fisher is entitled to a commercial catch and authorized to catch a certain tonnage, he would probably prefer to use the net.
For the police, it is more appropriate for them to provide more proof to the courts and to spend more time preparing the application when they need all the data and documents related to a suspect for which there is a high expectation. Conversely, it is also appropriate that they meet a lower level of judicial oversight when the information they want is limited and less privacy invasive.
Before I conclude, I would like to emphasize that nothing in Bill C-13 would permit the police to compel the production of any personal data without a judicially authorized warrant or order. There are absolutely no provisions in the bill that would authorize the warrantless access of private personal data.
In addition to privacy with precision, the bill also includes other privacy enhancements. For example, Bill C-13 proposes to increase the threshold for obtaining a tracking warrant in situations involving the tracking of an individual's movements. 
While reasonable suspicion would remain the test for obtaining a warrant to track the movement or location of things, the government strongly believes that tracking an individual's movements is a much more serious infringement on the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence, the legislation proposes to provide a more stringent test, which the police would have to meet before they could obtain a warrant to track an individual.
The Government of Canada is strongly committed to maintaining the rule of law through all of its legislation. It will continue to ensure that such authority will be exercised, bearing in mind the privacy interests and human rights protected in Canadian laws, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. 
Bill C-13, protecting Canadians from online crime act, is a prime example of this commitment. Again, I would like to urge all members in this chamber to support Bill C-13 and to see it put in place.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. I want to talk about her fisher analogy.
She seems to think that this bill will not allow anyone to access personal information without a warrant, but does she realize that there is already a parallel system to allow any government agency to cast a line and a big net to an Internet service provider—which would be the ocean in this case—and to catch all kinds of fish?
That does not seem clear to my colleague. Perhaps the government did not explain all the details of the bill to her. I do not know everything, but I know that this provision is in the bill. I would like to know whether she likes that.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I need to reiterate that the investigative powers would be subject to appropriate judicial oversight. None of the lawful access orders such as, for example, production orders, preservation orders, interception orders and search warrants, would permit information to be obtained in the absence of a warrantee or lawful authority.
We have talked about how the world has changed, and I thought the New Democrats had maybe come along a little way toward recognizing these significant changes in terms of what is happening out there. Just yesterday, there was another example of a young woman whose intimate images were distributed without her consent, and there was a devastating impact. Again, I have to encourage the opposition members not only to support the bill but to really recognize the importance of giving the tools and moving forward in terms of making this a reality for Canadians.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, every year, over 700 million Canadians are subjected to bullying in one form or another. It happens most often on mobile phones.
The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord introduced an anti-cyberbullying bill and the government voted against it. 
If cyberbullying and protecting victims are so important to the government, why did it vote against that bill?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, what we have with Bill C-13 is a comprehensive bill that would get the job done. It is also important to recognize that not only do we have the bill in front of us here, but we have many other measures. We talk about the need for prevention. We talk about the need for education. This is one piece of an important puzzle, but what this piece of legislation would do is be comprehensive in terms of how it would tackle this issue in an effective way.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary. Her presentation was thoughtful and there were interesting elements to consider. I do worry about her analogy of the small fishing boat and the fisherman. I would suggest to her that there is a possibility that there is a fishing trawler behind that, sucking up all the information as it goes along.
One of the witnesses we heard in the committee represented the Canadian Bar Association. That witness certainly thought that the bill went far beyond what is being discussed here, but also made major modifications to general provisions regarding search and seizure. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, what I did in my comments, and I hope I did it effectively to reassure my hon. colleague, was talk about the different levels of tools, depending on the issue in terms of what the police actually need. Again, there are times when the information that is required is perhaps more precise in nature. The bill would give the tools for that, versus the times when the police need to have the more general production orders.
What we have tried to do is recognize that it is very much a different situation in terms of small, targeted, precise information that continues to support the investigation, versus the more general production order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Churchill, I will let her know that we have only 10 minutes in the time allocated for government orders today. She can judge her time accordingly, and I will interrupt her at that time and give her the normal indication.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill. I want to thank my colleagues who, both in committee and in the House of Commons, have defended our New Democrat position in opposition to the bill, and have spoken of what we expected from our proposal to ensure that the bill is about putting a stop to cyberbullying, as it says it is.
Unfortunately, what we have, once again, is the Conservative government using language—and in this case, I would also argue, using people who are in vulnerable situations—to put forward a regressive agenda that has everything to do with attacking people's privacy. It leaves tremendous loopholes in terms of powerful actors gaining access to private information, and that would do very little to put a stop to cyberbullying, which is a very serious and sometimes tragic problem in our society.
We have heard from my colleagues as to why we do not support the bill. We put forward, I believe, 37 amendments at committee to improve the bill. We indicated that whether it is the private member's bill put forward by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, for an anti-bullying strategy, or the bill put forward by my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, to deal with sexual images and exploitation online, there are ways we can try to put a stop to cyberbullying and to the way in which too many people are exploiting privacy, private images, and taking advantage of people, in many cases young women, online.
What I find most disturbing about the debate and discussion around Bill C-13 is the way in which the tragic stories of young women who took their own lives as a result of cyberbullying are being used by the current government to push its agenda.
I do not know how many more ways we can say that this is wrong, that this is beyond disrespectful. It is disturbing, frankly.
I have had the opportunity to meet with the mother of Amanda Todd, and I have met with other youth, including those involved in Jer's Vision, who have done a great deal to try to fight bullying and cyberbullying in our communities. These are people with ideas. Sometimes these are ideas that come from places of immense pain, of having lost a loved one or having themselves experienced suicidal thoughts to get away from bullying. Despite that, they are proposing ideas. They are finding ways in their communities, and they are calling upon leaders at all levels of government, particularly at the national level, to take steps that would have an impact on ending bullying.
I am particularly encouraged by those who are applying a gender lens to this kind of bullying because we know it has a gender lens. There were the high-profile cases of young people who took their own lives as a result of cyberbullying, and they were women. In many of the cases, unfortunately, particularly in the mainstream media, women's experiences when it comes to the use of bullying was missed. Sexual objectification is very different and can lead to some very devastating situations.
I also want to acknowledge the way in which LGBT youth, lesbian, gay, and trans youth, are often the targets of cyberbullying, which has a gendered lens as well. Yet nowhere in Bill C-13 is there any plan to act on, not just bullying, but the cyber-misogyny that we see running rampant online and in our society.
I would like to turn the attention of the House and of those who are listening to the phenomenal work being done across the country to draw attention to cyber-misogyny and the way in which we can take legal action, but more importantly, employ policies and invest socially in order to put an end to cyber-misogyny.
I want to draw attention to the recent report by West Coast Leaf called “#CyberMisogyny” that is entirely about what all of us at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, in our schools and even in our homes can do to begin putting an end to cyber-misogyny. It is not a quick fix and it certainly is not Bill C-13. What it requires is real leadership and tackling the very serious issues of inequality, violence against women, sexual harassment, and the marginalization of girls and women in our society. 
It also means taking bold action when it comes to putting an end to the discrimination of trans people and the particular discrimination that trans women face, and recognizing that we have a role to play. Sadly, all I hear in the House is the way in which the Conservative government is using the stories of young women who experience cyber-misogyny to put forward its own agenda, which has nothing to do with that. The hypocrisy, and frankly, the disregard for these women's memories is, like I said, disturbing.
In taking the next steps, I would encourage the government to not only see the value of dropping this badly thought out bill, which stands to benefit some of the government's agenda with regard to pulling people's private information and having access to people's private lives in a way that it sees as helpful, I guess. However, there are other steps it ought to be taking. 
For one, it could support the motion that I put forward, a national action plan to end violence against women. It could work with this side of the House to try to find a way to build a comprehensive anti-bullying strategy, including working with community organizations and young leaders who are on the front lines and understand what it means to be a victim of cyberbullying.
It could also look at specific measures, as I have indicated, including Bill C-540 that was introduced in the House last June, which would make it an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of an individual without his or her consent. The list goes on, and many of my colleagues have been pointing to the actual steps that the government could be taking to put an end to cyberbullying.
I would like to end with a demand that so many people have, that the memories of those young women such as Amanda Todd and others not be used as a front for what is, once more, a piece in the regressive agenda put forward by the federal government. It can do better.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, October 1, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 20, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. 
I see the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale rising.
[Interjection]
David Sweet: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Would it be the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  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
Assaults Against Public Transit OperatorsCorneliu Chisu:  moved that Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today and to speak in strong support of Bill S-221, a bill that seeks to acknowledge, through explicit sentencing principles, the harm caused when public transit operators acting in the course of their duties experience violence.
I urge all members to vote collaboratively to ensure that the bill is passed into law as quickly as possible. 
I would like to start by first thanking Senator Runciman for his diligent work on this file in the other place. I would also like to mention the work of the member for Leeds—Grenville in this matter.
Transit operators play an absolutely critical role in the lives of our citizens and our communities all over Canada. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our major cities, where public transit is relied upon to transport millions of passengers every day.
It would be no exaggeration to say that without the people who drive our buses, trains, subways, trams, and taxis every day, our economy and our communities would be in peril.
A 2010 report prepared by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, entitled “The Economic Impact of Transit Investment: A National Survey”, offers the following key findings: transit reduces vehicle operating costs for Canadian households by approximately $5 billion annually, and it reduces vehicle accident costs by $2.4 billion annually.
We need to ensure that the transit system operates effectively, that people feel safe when they use the transit system, and that those operating our public transit feel assured that if they are victimized on the job through acts of violence, the criminal justice system will effectively respond to such violence.
At present, there is no specific offence or aggravating factor in the Criminal Code that uniquely targets acts of violence committed against public transit operators. The proposed bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a new aggravating factor for the sentencing of offenders convicted of uttering threats, any of the three assault offences, and unlawfully causing bodily harm to transit operators.
This would send a strong message that Parliament believes that such crimes must be treated more seriously because of the fact that those victimized are vulnerable, given the role they occupy, and because of the potential for broader harm to passengers and the public.
The amendments align with the preventative purpose of criminal law. That is, the bill proposes a criminal law response that seeks to prevent harm from occurring in the first place by deterring the commission of such crimes through explicit sentencing principles. It further responds to acts of criminality that can have a significant effect not only on the individual victim but more broadly on the safety of the general public.
These amendments would make Canada's criminal law approach to violence against public transit operators comparable to the approach taken in other jurisdictions, including a number of U.S. states and Australia's New South Wales. While the approach taken is not identical in all cases, these jurisdictions have all taken steps to explicitly address violence committed against transit operators.
More serious incidents of violence toward transit workers are occurring across the country. Every day, transit operators face the real risk of being assaulted on the job. Their physical exposure and frequent customer interactions leave them vulnerable to being molested, struck, or spat on and to becoming the targets of verbal abuse, threats, and thrown objects.
Transit operators, due to the nature of their work and their inherent inability to defend themselves against aggressive acts while carrying out their duties, face a number of unusual and unpredictable threats in their workplace that most Canadians do not.
Transit operators face most of the known risk factors for workplace violence: interacting directly with the public, working alone or in isolated areas, having a mobile workplace, working late at night or early in the morning, providing services to people who may be experiencing frustration, having a workplace where access is uncontrolled, handling monies or fares, and having inadequate escape routes. Relying on this, transit workers are at higher risk for violence than are workers in many other occupations.
Members need not solely listen to me to understand why we are singling out public transit operators in this bill. Let us hear testimonials from people directly involved in this matter.
On June 12, 2014, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard from Neil Dubord, the chief of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police. In his own words, he explained why public transit operators need to be granted additional protection by the law. He said:
 Public transit is differentiated from other occupations by the very nature that they serve a broad spectrum of customers including the working poor, homeless, addicted and those suffering from mental illness. As with other occupations, the opportunity for operators to disengage and extricate themselves from potentially violent situations does not exist. They cannot walk away or withdraw from the incident because they are locked in the driver's seat and operating a large vehicle. A pilot would never allow a passenger to freely walk into the cockpit of a plane.... Public transit operators do not have the luxury of restricting access; their occupation is unique and the hazards they face are not experienced by other occupations. This is why they require the protection of Bill S-221. 
Passing Bill S-221 would provide Canadian public transit operators and taxi drivers with an extra legal safeguard to deter assaults committed against them.
My riding of Pickering—Scarborough East contains two separate municipalities and, in turn, two separate transit authorities, Durham Region Transit and the Toronto Transit Commission.
In the area serviced by Durham Region Transit, there were four relevant instances of assault on transit operators in 2013 alone. The TTC states that there is an assault on a public transit operator in their system at least once a day.
For example, on July 20, 2011, a woman boarded a TTC bus and became involved in a fare dispute. She proceeded to hurl racial slurs at the TTC employee. The situation quickly escalated, and the woman pepper-sprayed not only the bus driver but three passengers who bravely came to the aid of the victim. Her penalty? Forty-six days of jail time for four charges of assault with a weapon.
As horrible as such cases are, they pale in comparison to the ordeals that other public transit operators have had to endure across the nation. A bus driver in the Maritimes received 14 stab wounds to his face, neck, and arm. He lost over half of his blood and nearly died in the process, all because he would not deviate from his route. In Edmonton, a driver was hospitalized in intensive care after he was subjected to a vicious and unprovoked beating from a passenger. The list goes on and on, and tragically, it lengthens each and every day.
These attacks not only take a personal toll on the victims but can also have a significant financial impact on the transit systems in terms of lost work hours, medical claims, employee absenteeism, and lawsuits.
According to the Canadian Urban Transit Association, there were 2,061 reported assaults in 2011. That is over five reported instances of assault a day across this country.
StatsCan reports that the average public transit operator is more than four and a half times more likely to be assaulted while operating their vehicle than the average person walking on the street.
Of course, the need for quick passage of the bill is not based merely on the fact that public transit operators are more likely to get assaulted; quick passage is also needed because of the consequences of the assault on the public in both the immediate and long term.
Public vehicles are, by their very nature, transporting members from the public. An assault on a public transit operator can happen quite literally at any time, whether it is in a school zone, on a highway, in a side street, or parked at a station. The transit operator is tasked with an incredible amount of responsibility for the individuals that they are servicing.
Should an assault happen while an operator is driving their vehicle, we suddenly have not only the driver at risk of serious injury but every other person on the bus as well. In addition to the passengers, every single pedestrian, cyclist, and driver in the immediate vicinity also becomes a potential victim.
While being physically assaulted is of course horrendous, being witness to such a destructive act can have its own effect. Members of the general public using transit need to be reassured that their safety is protected at all times, and the best way to do that on our transit systems is to protect our operators. Every single Canadian should have a right to both be safe and feel safe at work. 
I appreciate the hard work that many associations and organizations such as the Canadian Urban Transit Authority and the Amalgamated Transit Union are doing in committing themselves to making sure that the workplace of public transit operators is as secure as possible.
In addition to shaking the confidence of the general public, assaults on public transit operators have a more direct effect on the industry, namely in the recruitment and retention of competent operators.
Bill S-221 is intended to serve as a deterrent to violent acts against public transit service operators and to increase overall safety on public transit. Having legislation like Bill S-221 in place would give judges the grounds to hand down harsher sentences than if the victim were not a transit operator or a taxi driver.
If I may, I would like to briefly touch on the reasoning behind including licensed taxi drivers in this bill. Much like the assault of a bus driver poses an immediate threat not only to the driver but to his passengers and the people around them, so too does the assault of a taxi cab driver. The similarities do not end there. Cabbies often find themselves working alone at late hours, dealing with fares, being restricted in their seats, having a mobile workplace, etcetera. That much is very straightforward. 
The need to include taxi drivers is only emphasized when we look at the staggering rates of violence against this group of individuals. From 1997 to 2011, the homicide rate for taxi drivers was 3.2 per population of 100,000. In that 15-year period, 23 taxi drivers were murdered in cold blood. Unfortunately, we do not have official statistics on assaults on cab drivers, but one can only shudder when thinking about how high they must be.
The very last point I would like to speak to concerns a recent court decision here in Ottawa. I feel that it perfectly illustrates the actual issue Bill S-221 would address.
 A man was charged and pleaded guilty to assaulting a bus driver. The crown requested that the judge consider the fact that the victim was a bus driver in rendering the sentence. When handing down his decision, the judge said:
 Does his status as a bus driver alter the severity of the sentence I am to impose? I do not believe the law supports the notion that bus driver assaults per se attract higher sentences than other assaults.... 
 That bus drivers are exposed to the risk of assault is supported not only by periodic media reports of driver assaults but by common sense. Bus drivers encounter thousands of individuals during their work, many of them impaired or simply intent on mischief... 
 While all of this is true, I am aware of no settled body of authority holding that an assault on a bus driver is per se more serious than assaults on anyone else who has the misfortune of being victimized, and no authority was advanced by the Crown. To be sure, the Criminal Code of Canada does contain principles aggravating the seriousness of an offence for vulnerable groups including those prone to hate-based abuse, the mental or physically disabled, children, and those who the offender owes a duty of trust to. Bus drivers are not, however, enumerated. 
This is not the first time we have debated criminal law reform to address this reprehensible activity. There have been several private members' bills on the subject, from members from all political parties, but unfortunately, they were not passed.
Support for this bill extends far and wide. Transit unions, transit police, bus and taxi drivers, the Ottawa Transit Commission , the TTC, and many others have spoken in strong support of this bill. We now have the opportunity with Bill S-221 to work together and unanimously pass into law meaningful changes that will appropriately address the violence committed against transit operators.
We owe it to these hard-working men and women to ensure that the law properly responds to the harm they experience. Bill S-221 would assist in this regard, and I strongly support the bill.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East. Bringing this bill forward in the House is laudable. 
The statistics he quoted are certainly sobering, such as that there are five attacks a day in this country against our transit officials. That is very worrisome, and it may very well be why the unions in 2010 asked the government to pass this sort of legislation. At the time, the minister of Justice refused, saying that this type of thing is already covered in the Criminal Code. I am glad to see that the government has finally come to its senses and has brought forward this legislation.
One thing I did not understand in his presentation was that the member said this bill would act to protect our transit authorities. That may be true directly, if we are talking about sending people for longer sentences. The bill would give the courts the possibility of imposing greater penalties. If we are talking about recidivists, those who continually attack transit authorities, I would feel safe because they would be behind bars. However, I did not hear anything in the member's speech that suggested that there was a high rate of recidivism.
I would like to know exactly who would be protected here. How would they be protected? Would it not make more sense to also have provisions that would reduce violence on our streets? Would that not also be a helpful thing to do?
[Interjection]
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, the legislation would ensure that the sentence would be appropriate to the crime. That is important. The legislation would also act as a deterrent against committing crimes, as people would think twice before committing a crime for which there would be an appropriate sentence.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, protecting bus and taxi drivers is a priority for the NDP. These individuals are more vulnerable because they drive longer hours than most people, their profession requires them to be behind the wheel at all times and they always have to deal with the public, which includes people who are nice and not so nice, even criminals. We will be supporting this bill because it makes sense.
The question I have for the member is this: a number of bills have been introduced on this topic, including one sponsored by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Why did the Conservatives not move forward on previous NDP bills? 
[Interjection]
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned there were several bills that unfortunately did not pass for various other reasons. However, Bill S-221 would make it an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing if the victim of an assault were a public transit operator.
 How would this bill accomplish this? The bill would add subsection 269.01 to subsection 269 of the Criminal Code, which would state that when a court imposed a sentence for an offence referred to in any of sections 266 to 269, common assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duty and shall give primary consideration to the objectives of the legislation and the tenets of the conduct that formed the basis of the offence. 
This bill concentrates on one of the sections of the Criminal Code that deals with aggravated assaults. Therefore, it has a certain purpose, and that is to provide clarity in the Criminal Code.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, today I am very happy to speak to Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators). I would like to begin by saying that I will be pleased to support this bill at second reading. 
This bill contains two important elements that I would like to focus on today. First, it amends the Criminal Code to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duty. 
I am hardly a Canadian Criminal Code expert, unlike many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who can claim to be. I had no idea what an aggravating circumstance was, so I decided to do a little research to learn more about this.
Here is what Jean-Paul Doucet wrote in Dictionnaire de droit criminal:
 An aggravating circumstance is a circumstance attending the commission of a crime or a characteristic of the offender or the victim of the crime. Aggravating circumstances make the crime more dangerous to society and therefore deserving of stronger sanctions. 
Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses sentencing and aggravating circumstances as follows:
 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
 (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender... 
In this example, the various legislators ordinarily distinguish between the aggravating circumstances associated with the offence and those unique to each offender.
There is a lot of good news in these definitions of aggravating circumstances. First of all, this addition to the Criminal Code ensures that the court dealing with the offences committed against public transit operators will take into account the fact that the victim was performing his or her duties at the time of the offence. This is a major win for the workers covered by this bill.
To illustrate the extreme importance of this aspect, I will provide an example directly related to taxi drivers.
In its 2009 report entitled “Homicide in Canada”, Statistics Canada shows that those most at risk of being killed on the job are police officers and taxi drivers. I will read an excerpt:
 On average, 13 victims have been killed each year since 1999 while "on the-job", including 11 in 2009. A recent report concludes that taxi drivers and police officers have the highest rates of homicide per 100,000 persons in their occupation. In 2009, there were three taxi drivers and one police officer killed as a direct result of their profession. 
In Canada, 23 taxi drivers were murdered between 1997 and 2011. In Montreal, 68% of nighttime taxi drivers feel that their job is not very safe or not at all safe. That is not even to mention other public transit operators, who are also the target of violence during their shifts.
Next, what I like about the definition of “aggravating circumstances” is that the court must take this new factor into consideration when ruling on an offence, but judges also have the freedom to decide how harsh a sentence to impose. As mentioned in the legislation, every case is different. It is up to our judges to rule on each case.
It is very refreshing to see that people still have confidence in our justice system and that this addition to the Criminal Code does not involve a minimum sentence, which is something the Conservatives unfortunately often include.
I would like to point out another aspect of Bill S-221, which is the scope of the definition of “public transit operator”. I would like to quote clause 2 of the bill:
 The following definitions apply in this section. 
 “public transit operator” means an individual who operates a vehicle used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public, and includes an individual who operates a school bus. 
 “vehicle” includes a bus, paratransit vehicle, licensed taxi cab, train, subway, tram and ferry. 
The bill covers several different types of jobs that all involve workers who deal directly with the public and who, in some circumstances, can become victims of crime during their work day.
The New Democratic Party has always made it a priority to protect public transit operators. We support the demands made by the associations and unions that represent these operators. For years, they have been calling for better protection for their members.
Unfortunately, several times a year we hear stories about assaults on public transit operators in the media. For example, in April 2013, a thirtysomething bus driver with the Société de transport de Montréal was savagely beaten by three men on his bus while he was driving down Saint-Laurent Boulevard. In November of that same year, we heard of the sad story of Ziad Bouzid, a 45-year-old taxi driver and father of three from Montreal.
Mr. Bouzid, who had driven a taxi for more than a dozen years, was savagely shot to death in the middle of the night, during his shift. These assaults on these workers must stop. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to do everything we possibly can to help them and ensure that these kinds of things do not happen again. That is why the NDP already introduced a number of private members' bills that were similar to the bill we are studying today.
However, I am disappointed to see how the Conservative government goes about addressing an issue as important as workers' safety.
In 2010, the justice minister at the time, now the Minister of National Defence, said that the Criminal Code already adequately protected transit operators from all forms of assault. However, the Amalgamated Transit Union had long been calling for a bill similar to the one before us today.
The Conservatives have not done anything to resolve the problem since they came to power in 2006. Instead of helping workers, they have introduced bills that deny workers the rights they fought so hard to win.
This government has attacked the Labour Code many times. For example, I am thinking about how the definition of the word “danger” is going to be changed because of the Conservatives. This will have a negative impact on many workers, particularly those who have jobs on the front line, such as our correctional officers. It is shameful that the government is seeking to make women and men in uniform more vulnerable.
Like the current government, the former Liberal government did not propose any measures to help public transit operators. It is time for that to change.
This is an issue that is very important to me. For my generation, a job with a public transit company, such as the one in Laval or Montreal, is a promising career opportunity. I am thinking, for example, of my friend Nicolas, who started working for the Société de transport de Montréal a few years ago. He loves his job. He is a happy guy who loves working with people. He has a good, well-paid job with good working conditions. However, his safety can sometimes be compromised by individuals with bad intentions. Nicolas is a young father, and we would be very remiss if we, as parliamentarians, did not do everything we can to protect him better as he carries out his duties at the STM.
The taxi industry is flourishing in cities like Laval and Montreal, and making the work of taxi drivers safer is also very important to my constituents, especially those who live in Saint-François in Laval.
Members may be surprised to learn that many taxi drivers work in Montreal but live in Saint-François, which is in my riding. Saint-François is a lively neighbourhood where more than forty cultural communities live in great harmony.
If you pass by Marcel-Villeneuve Avenue in the morning, you will see taxis leaving Saint-François to take the Pie IX Bridge or Highway 25 to go to Montreal. The drivers will only return late at night after a long day. These men and women work very hard to give their children the best possible future.
I also think of all the school bus drivers in Laval and across Canada. I am sure that they have to deal with all sorts of things over the year. They do an excellent job. I would like to thank them for safely driving our children every day. 
It is time for us to take action and I sincerely hope that this bill is passed as quickly as possible. 
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as well to speak to Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators).
I am supportive of the bill which, in summary, would amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault, as a public transport operator, to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.
The key points related to the bill are that Canadians rely on public transport to get around, yet everyday five bus operators are assaulted. That is simply unacceptable. In this city, as we come into work each morning and go home each night, we see buses rolling along. It cannot be pleasant to go to work if one is worried about being assaulted or even shouted at, as many of them are.
 We understand that 2,061 bus drivers were assaulted in 2011, with attacks ranging from being spit on and punched in the head to knife attacks and sexual assaults. That is entirely unacceptable, and this bill would go some distance toward addressing that.
 The nature of their work certainly puts bus drivers at heightened risk, so we have an opportunity as parliamentarians to reduce that danger to bus drivers and take action to protect them.
 By making it explicit that assaulting a bus driver is a criminal offence with serious consequences, this should, although it would not in all cases, deter these crimes. I would suggest as well that there be some education and notice, whether on buses or in bus terminals, that this is an offence. Maybe it would give people second thought as to whether they would treat bus drivers in an unacceptable fashion.
The Liberals support the bill in general. It is a private member's bill, but we have had discussions on it and there seems to be fairly widespread support in the House for Bill S-221.
 I want to name a couple of my colleagues who have done fairly extensive work on addressing the difficulties that bus drivers face when they go to work everyday.
The member for Winnipeg North has spent a lot of time examining public transport in his city and holding discussions with drivers. He even did a ride along. It was truly an eye-opening experience to be with the bus driver and see what drivers faced over quite a number of hours. It is not like getting on the bus and getting off four or five stops down the road. The member for Winnipeg North certainly got a feel for what it was like to be in that workplace on a continuing basis. 
Then there is the Liberal long-term member for Wascana, who introduced Bill C-533. The bill would make the nature of a victim's employment as an on-duty transit operator an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes in relation to all Criminal Code offences. I will talk a bit more about the views of the member for Wascana on this matter. 
As well, there have been others who have introduced private members' bills related to this issue. There is Bill C-402, which comes an NDP member, and Bill C-637, which comes from an independent member.
Many members in this place are concerned about the issue and have put forward various proposals. 
As I said earlier, the member for Wascana put out a blog today. He wrote:
 With the support of transit employees, their unions, municipalities and other transit operators, police officers, the Canadian Urban Transit Association and others, I have spent the past year promoting legislation to better protect bus drivers and other transportation workers. 
That bill was Bill C-533. Some aspects of that bill are related to and referenced in this piece of legislation.
As he stated in his article today: 
 These people provide vital services to the general public in all sorts of locations in all weather conditions and at all hours of the day and night. They are often on duty alone, operating powerful vehicles on public streets and thoroughfares. By the nature of their employment, they assume serious responsibilities for public service and safety, and put themselves in a vulnerable position. 
He went on to say: 
“Bill C-533 had earned broad public support, but remains on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. Such Private Member's Business is selected for debate and a vote by the luck of a draw. Other MPs from all other Parties have also advanced similar proposals from time to time. This is not a partisan issue that divides along political lines”. 
 A few months ago, a Conservative Senator (Bob Runciman) brought forward his own proposed “bus driver” legislation (Bill S-221). 
That is the bill we are dealing with today.
 It differs in detail, but is similar to mine in principle. The procedure applying to Senate Bills has allowed S-221 to move more quickly. 
That might be something we need to consider here.
 It has passed the Senate and is coming before the House of Commons today. 
That is what we are debating. I and other members of my party encourage the House to support this piece of legislation.
Bill S-221 is not as broad in proposal as is Bill C-533. As the member for Wascana pointed out:
 It applies only to certain specific offences in the Criminal Code, not every offence. And it doesn’t make any reference to persons coming to the aid of a bus driver under attack. On the positive side, it does include a useful definition of “transportation employee” that covers certain others like taxi drivers too. 
From the outset, I do not believe many of us consider this legislation to be a partisan proposal or a partisan position. It is useful legislation and should be moved forward through this chamber quickly. 
The member for Wascana continued:
 Once it becomes law, transit operators need to launch prominent communications campaigns, 
—as I said a moment ago—
 informing the public that offences against people like bus drivers are serious criminal matters carrying serious penalties. And offenders will be prosecuted. 
To come back to where I began, bus driver assaults in any fashion, whether it is language, spitting, or actual assaults, are a serious matter. These people provide a public service. They deserve a safe and secure workplace, and the bill should show that Parliament supports them in their workplace in having a safe environment to work in.
I am certainly pleased to support this legislation.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-221, a bill that comes to us from the Senate, and to follow up on the remarks from my colleague, the member of Parliament for Pickering—Scarborough East, who introduced the subject to the House.
This is a bill to create as an aggravating factor in sentencing, threats of harm or violence toward public transit workers who get assaulted or threatened in the course of their employment. This would bring in considerations for the court to consider when sentencing an offender who has assaulted or put into a situation of harm someone in the course of doing a job that is a public service. 
This would apply to five specific Criminal Code offences and the sentencing that comes out of convictions under those charges. The first would be uttering threats under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code; assault, section 266; assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, section 267; aggravated assault, section 268; and unlawfully causing bodily harm, section 269. 
The maximum penalties in sentencing for these violations of the code range from five to 14 years when proceeding by way of indictment. At the sentencing level, it is clear there is discretion for the court in that range and some of the considerations should be brought to the court's attention when sentencing those offenders.
The aggravating factor would apply when the victim of one of the five Criminal Code offences I outlined was a public transit operator in the course of his or her duties, a duty that is a public service, from the B.C. ferries right through to buses in St. John's, Newfoundland. It is good public policy in that these are already Criminal Code provisions. These are harms our society agrees upon, and agrees that people should be responsible for their conduct and that there should be a penalty. The penalty should consider these aggravating factors in the fact that this is someone performing their duties. 
We should remember that transit workers, whether they be TTC in my area, or Durham Region Transit, cab drivers, and others, often work late shifts. In some cases they are 24-hour shifts. Rick, from Clarington Taxi, picked me up at 4:45 this morning, a time when there is potential for harm. 
In some areas of the country we have seen that harm inflicted. In fact, between 2005 and 2011, Winnipeg, a city I had the pleasure of living in while I was in the air force, saw a 300% increase in violence inflicted on their transit workers in that city in just those six years. 
A cursory review of newspapers just in the last few years would show that this is a national problem. In 2013, there was a very high-profile closed circuit TV assault of a transit operator in Calgary, where the vicious assault could be seen. I think a paramedic was harmed in the same incident. Just this April, in Surrey, British Columbia, a driver was punched in the face when someone was trying to run off on a fare. In Toronto, there was a quite well-known incident at Yonge and Bloor where passengers had to come to the aid of the driver, who was being assaulted. 
This is a real issue that has unfortunately been on the rise at a time when we are encouraging people to take public transit. We have to support the men and women who are providing this service to make sure they can do so in a way that is professional and that provides the public good that transit provides. 
 They know that we, as a government, are saying there should be a harsher sentence when there is violence perpetrated toward these people for no reason other than the fact that they are doing their job.
Senator Runciman, I think, rightly expressed the need for this when he said:
 This is a bill that balances Parliament's right to provide direction to the courts in defined circumstances with judicial discretion at sentencing. 
As a lawyer, I think it is important for us to talk about these sentencing decisions in a professional way. Courts will arrive at a just decision in terms of innocence or guilt of a crime, and at the sentencing stage, when they are addressing punishment for that crime, they will consider a number of factors—some aggravating factors, some mitigating factors—in determining what type of punishment our society will give, through the court, to the person who commits a crime.
This should be very seriously considered when it is a crime that infringes upon the rights and the personal well-being of another Canadian, particularly someone who has been tasked with a public service role.
I would remind the members of this House that in the early debate, it is clear there is a lot of support for the bill coming to us from the Senate, and my colleague, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, has outlined some very good cases to show why this bill is in the public good. I would also point members of this place to the Criminal Code, section 718, which outlines the purposes of sentencing. It is important, particularly for some of my friends on the other side, to remember some of the factors in this aspect.
Denunciation of unlawful conduct is a purpose and a principle of sentencing. The promotion of responsibility and acknowledging of harms to victims and their community is also a principle and a purpose of sentencing that the Criminal Code requires consideration of when someone judged to be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code is sentenced. 
One of the other purposes is rehabilitation of the offender. That should always be part of the mix, but in recent years there has been far too much consideration of just that and not enough consideration of the denunciation of conduct that goes against our community and against the public service aspects of the role of a transit worker. 
This measure would apply broadly. Having lived and worked in Toronto, I have commuted by TTC and by the 501 streetcar, the famous longest-run single-run streetcar in the world, I believe, along Queen, when I lived in the Beaches neighbourhood of Toronto. This measure would not apply just to your typical driver of a bus, subway, or car. It would also include, specifically, school bus operators.
Further, the bill is very smart in that it would apply to vehicles that are not just typical modes of transport. They would also include paratransit vehicles, licensed taxis, trams, and ferries. That is not an exhaustive list. It would incorporate a number of people who perform these duties. 
It is a way that Parliament, in entering into that dialogue with our courts, can show that the public, through Canada's Parliament—which includes the Senate, where the bill comes from, and the House of Commons—denounces this type of crime perpetrated against people we charge with something we consider a public good, public transit. It shows that we denounce that conduct and that we are also trying to deter such conduct. Deterrence is also part of sentencing, as I mentioned, and it is a consideration that should be present any time an offender is sentenced.
I am focusing on denunciation and deterrence as purposes of sentencing because the deterrence aspect can actually help to lead to less crime. It is not the only factor, but it is an important factor, and it is society's way, and Canada's way, to try to discourage and deter crime by imposing a stiffer penalty for such conduct. 
What a great way to wrap up before the Thanksgiving break, hearing general all-party support for this important bill. It has been my pleasure to rise today in the House to speak on it, and to particularly thank the transit workers in Durham and the greater Toronto area for the work they do. This is a way we are trying to make sure they know their work is appreciated and they are kept safe.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this bill, as many of my colleagues are doing. I think everyone in this House is behind this particular legislation.
I want to share a couple of stories. Suzanne Burgess went to work one day. She was taking a layover break, as they call it, in between her runs. She saw a person going across the way, in a precarious and dangerous way. She opened the window to tell her it was too dangerous to be there.
Unfortunately, what ensued was something that should never have happened. This person barged onto the bus, threatening Suzanne with vulgar language. Suzanne immediately radioed for assistance, and when she hung up she was assaulted by the person grabbing and scraping her face and neck and trying to drag her to the floor.
It took 17 minutes before security could reach her. She mentioned that she was so grateful that another driver heard her screams and came to her assistance.
In testimony she said, “I want to help people, not be afraid of them”. She was basically pleading for us to do our job here to protect her in her workplace.
I will share another example of someone who went to work and was exposed to a horrific scenario, something that should never happen in any workplace.
John Karagiannis went to work as an OC Transpo bus driver. He was threatened by a passenger. He was dragged out onto the sidewalk on Bank Street here. He was beaten up. He had a broken rib. His knees and back were bruised. He had cuts and bruises, as well. He was off work for a long time.
No one should go to work in the kind of environment where they feel threatened. It is important that we understand this.
 I am happy to see the Amalgamated Transit Union bringing this issue up. They are the ones who represent their membership, the workers. They have done a good job of documenting this through health and safety committees; they have heard from their bus drivers. They are basically doing what unions should do. 
Sometimes the government likes to beat up on unions, for whatever reason, but in this case we should have a sober reflection on the good work that unions do. Unions are there to represent their membership. It is important that we listen to these stories, and to the Amalgamated Transit Union, which has been carrying the flag for this cause. It is saying that no one should go to work feeling threatened or be in a dangerous work environment. It is a basic health and safety issue.
It is about people having the ability to go to work without being threatened. I want to underline that point. This is something that the Amalgamated Transit Union has done good work on. I want to give credit to them, as well as other members of Parliament, who have brought forward private members' bills. In fact, it was back in 2010, when Judy Wasylycia-Leis, my colleague from Winnipeg, brought forward a private member's bill on this, followed by my colleague, our House leader, and presently we have my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who has a private member's bill on this issue.
It is not from a lack of trying to bring this forward, but at last we are here. I hope that we do get this passed as soon as possible. What most people would note, and my colleague from Durham enumerated, is that this is not just bus drivers. It is about taxi drivers, people who work on trains, ferries, etcetera, all of those public transportation systems that people rely on.
It is very important because this affects numerous people. When a bus driver is being threatened, it affects the safety of everyone. I have taken the bus many times in Ottawa. Passengers trust that the bus driver is going to keep things calm and is going to ensure the bus is a place of safety.
When the driver's safety is threatened, it actually means everyone else is threatened. I think we have all experienced times when there has been some chaos or commotion on a bus. People look to the bus driver or the transit operator to bring calm to the situation.
Bill S-221 is simply saying that we support those workers who are actually providing that service, and not just for getting us from A to B but for making sure it is done in a civil way. Therefore, I am fully supportive of the bill. It is not overstepping in terms of the parameters for judges in sentencing. It is a rational, smart thing to do.
I will finish by saying that I hope the bill is passed for the Susans and Johns who went through such horrific experiences, which has had an effect on them not just physically but emotionally. As one can appreciate, when something like this happens, there are emotional scars that have to heal. They will be the people we look to as examples of what we hope to never see happen in the future.
 What we are trying to do is make sure that workers who go to work every day will not be threatened. After all, if the bus driver, train conductor, cab driver, or the person conducting the ferry does not feel secure, then there is insecurity for the public. 
I am delighted to get behind the bill, as are many of my colleagues. I look forward to it passing as speedily as possible. To that end, I thank all those who have brought this to our attention. I really want to cite the Amalgamated Transit Union here in Ottawa for doing great work.
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their support of this bill. Let us continue to work together to make this bill law as soon as possible, following the procedures of the House.
Again, I am thankful for the great support for the bill. Let us make the men and women working in public transit safe, as they deserve to be.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 22, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
Before adjourning, and on behalf of the Speaker, I would like to wish honourable members, clerks, pages, interpreters and all employees of the House a happy Thanksgiving.
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 20, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)