2014-10-24

Government Orders
Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-41. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not present to move the motion at report stage. Therefore, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage. 
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
 When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House.
Incorporation by Reference in Regulations ActPierre Poilievre:  moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I will be dividing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. 
Today I rise to speak to Bill S-2, a bill that comes to us from the Senate, which is seeking to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations. 
In many ways, we have a bill before the House today that is technical in its name and technical in its nature and really can be looked at as the plumbing required in the legislative and regulatory regime. I am going to speak to that briefly today.
In many ways the bill--
The Speaker: Order, please. Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that consent.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, who is far more passionate than I about the plumbing of state and the updating of our legislative and drafting requirements.
 As a lawyer, prior to coming to this House, I know that these sorts of bills are important for governance and for drafting. This would have some measures that would allow our legislative and regulatory regime to be modern, and the broadest way is the technique of incorporation by reference.
Bill S-2, and the specific provision on incorporation by reference, has been studied by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and reported, without amendment, to this House.
The technique of incorporation by reference is already used in a vast array of federal regulations. It is difficult to actually think of an area, a regulated area federally, where incorporation by reference is not used to some degree.
Bill S-2, the bill before the House today, is about securing the government's access to a drafting technique that has already become essential to the way governance operates in Canada. It is also in line with international trends in the modernization of regulations, and as I said, it responds to Senate and House committees, including the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. That is certainly a committee I want to try to avoid during my time here in Ottawa.
Incorporation by reference is an effective way to tap the resources of expertise in standards in writing bodies across Canada. Canada has a national standards system that is recognized around the world, and the incorporation of standards, whether developed here in Canada or internationally, allows the best science and the most widely accepted approaches to be used so that people can have a modern and comprehensive approach to the day-to-day use of regulations in Canada.
In fact, reliance on this sort of expertise, whether domestic or international, is essential to ensuring access to the technical knowledge needed for such regulations.
Witnesses from the Standards Council of Canada before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were clear in their testimony that Canada already relies extensively on international and national standards. The bill, in many ways, would ensure that regulators continue to have the ability to use incorporation by reference, or the ability to incorporate documents as they are amended from time to time, in our regulations so that Canadians can be assured that they are protected by the most up-to-date technology without the need to amend regulations or to constantly be referring to newer versions.
For these reasons, incorporation by reference is an important tool for regulators when they are designing our regulatory regimes.
The bill before the House today also strikes an important balance in respect of what may be incorporated by reference by limiting the types of documents that can be incorporated by the maker of regulations. Also, only the versions of such documents as they exist on a particular day can be incorporated when they are produced by the regulation maker. This is an important safeguard against circumvention of the regulatory process when incorporating documents that are internal to the government.
In addition to providing an express legal basis for the use of the technique of incorporation by reference, one of the most important aspects of Bill S-2 relates to accessibility. The bill would expressly impose, in legislation, an obligation on all regulators to ensure that the documents they incorporate are accessible. While this has always been something in the common law, and access to justice and common law principles always have applied to our regulatory regime in Canada, the bill would clearly enshrine that obligation in legislation.
There is no doubt that accessibility should be part of the bill. It is essential that documents that are incorporated by reference be accessible to those who are required, by regulation, to comply with those documents. That is an important and necessary step, and that is why it is included in Bill S-2.
The general approach to accessibility found in this bill would provide flexibility to regulatory bodies to take whatever steps might be necessary to ensure that these diverse types of materials, from a wide variety of sources, both domestic and international, could in fact be accessible.
 Material that is incorporated by reference is generally accessible, and as a result, in some cases, no further action on the part of a regulatory authority would be necessary. An example of this is provincial legislation across Canada that is already widely and generally accessible. Federal regulations that incorporated provincial legislation would undoubtedly allow the regulator to meet the requirement to ensure that the material was accessible.
 Sometimes accessing the document through the standards organization itself might be necessary. The proposed legislation would ensure that the regulated community would have access to whatever material was incorporated, with reasonable effort on their part. In this modern age, so many things are easily accessible by those that are regulated, so this reasonable-effort standard should be very easily met.
The bill, therefore, would create a meaningful obligation on the part of regulators to ensure accessibility while still allowing for innovation, modernity, flexibility, and creativity.
 Bill S-2 is intended to solidify the government's access to a regulatory drafting technique, essential and responsive, in our regulations. It also recognizes corresponding obligations regulators must meet when using this tool. This bill strikes an important balance that reflects the reality of modern regulation while ensuring that appropriate protections and accessibility measures are enshrined in law.
This proposal is consistent with the position the government has long taken on the question of whether the technique of incorporation by reference can or cannot be used in regulations. It would provide express legislative authority for the use of this technique in the future and would confirm the validity of existing regulations incorporating documents in a manner that was consistent with that authority.
 Parliament's ability to control the delegation of regulatory-making power would continue, as would the oversight of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We expect that this standing joint committee would indeed continue to play an important role in ensuring that the use of the technique continued and was exercised in the way Parliament intended.
We have many years of successful experience with the use of incorporation by reference in regulations at the federal level, and this knowledge will be useful in providing guidance with respect to this legislation in the future. There is also every indication that the use of this technique will be essential in implementing regulatory modernization initiatives here in Canada in conjunction with some of our regulatory partners around the world, most notably our partners to the south, in the United States. 
We have before us today one of these bills that are essentially the plumbing in our laws and regulations in Canada. The enactment of Bill S-2 would be a logical and necessary next step to ensuring that there is access in a responsible manner to incorporation by reference documentation in a way that is accessible but that allows our regulations to be modern and to incorporate some of the best references from around the world.
I invite members to support this important legislative proposal in Bill S-2 and recognize the important steps it would take to ensure that our laws and regulations are modern, accessible, and the best they can be.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing us to the debate. We already looked at this issue some time ago when it was Bill S-12. As at that time, and as I will say in my own speech, one of my concerns is how the general regulatory framework and this bill would deal with open or ambulatory incorporation by reference.
 I may not have been listening as carefully as I should have been to my hon. colleague, but I am wondering if he could address the question of open incorporation by reference and whether he feels that the collapse of closed and open incorporation by reference by the bill would be a problem and whether we should have very specific rules for open incorporation by reference.
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, my friend may have taught a course on regulatory interpretation while he was at Osgoode Hall. I look forward to his learned remarks on this subject in the House.
The hon. member did reference the ambulatory incorporation by reference. The ability for a government to incorporate documents by reference, and I talked about provincial or international partners' documents, is an important part of the legislative modernization process to allow our regulatory regimes to ensure that they have the most up-to-date technology and references, without the need to constantly amend the regulations and refer to newer regulations.
This is increasingly becoming a standard practice with modern jurisdictions such as Canada. In many ways it is important to note, and in my remarks I also talked about, the accessibility and the reasonable ability for such documents incorporated by reference to be accessible. That is provided for in the bill and has been consistent with the practice of government in the past.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the government for not bringing forward Bill C-42, which was originally to have been debated. It is a bill to relax gun regulations in this country, and it is an inappropriate week to bring such a bill forward. I am glad we are not debating that. 
On this bill, I am the critic for persons with disabilities and the word “accessible” has a particular meaning to persons with disabilities. It means that if someone is blind, it is available in Braille. It means that if someone is partially sighted, the fonts and the contrast online are such that he or she can read it. The term “accessible” has a different meaning.
I wonder if the government could tell us whether or not the word “accessible” includes those meanings.
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for his work with people with disabilities across our country.
In many ways what I talked about in my remarks, the accessibility and the fact that documents incorporated by reference must be accessible using reasonable efforts, is a standard that would be, as my friend would know, quite similar to the legal standard for accommodation of people with disabilities. Reasonable methods of accommodation for people with different ranges of abilities must be provided. That is the legal standard across the country.
We are talking about a regulatory incorporation of documents by reference. It certainly does not confront folks with a disability on a day-to-day basis, such as a lot of basic accessibility issues would. However, it would have a reasonably close standard, where documents incorporated by reference would need to be accessible with reasonable effort to the folks impacted by the regulations. That is the right balance.
Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak to members about an important aspect of Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.
I would first like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade for describing me as passionate about regulatory burdens on our small businesses. I take great relish in discussing these issues because ultimately our government is pursuing growth. It is looking to increase jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada. Part of that does fall on issues such as the regulatory burden.
In particular, I would like to address how incorporation by reference in regulations can assist regulators in designing regulatory schemes that ensure access to the expertise of the leading standards development bodies in Canada and all across the world.
As we know, Bill S-2 would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to make it clear in law when the drafting technique of incorporation by reference can be used in federal regulation. Incorporation by reference allows material to be referenced and then incorporated into the regulation without reproducing the same material.
We have heard today that there are two different sorts of incorporation by reference. One is called open or ambulatory and the other is called closed or static. When incorporation by reference is ambulatory, the reference material forms part of the regulation as it is amended from time to time. When this material is incorporated on a static basis, then only the version as it exists on that particular day is incorporated, unless the regulation is amended.
I would like to take a step back because we have heard some opposition members raise concerns about when open or ambulatory or when closed or static would be used. Bill S-2 applies a whole-of-government approach to when open or closed would be used. Therefore, it would bring more clarity to those of us here in this place as to when the government would use one or the other and sets out the conditions of that.
This drafting technique offers many different advantages. For example, it reduces needless duplication or repetition of material such as provincial legislation when the federal and provincial legislative regimes need to be harmonized. Incorporation by reference can be an effective way to collaborate with other jurisdictions.
The particular advantage I would like to draw the attention of the House to today is that the drafting technique is an effective tool to allow government to access the vast expertise developed in Canada and around the world in a multitude of areas that affect our economy and our daily lives.
When Parliament confers the power to make regulations, parliamentarians expect that the regulator will have the capacity to respond to diverse, complex and evolving challenges in areas where regulations have been developed. Consider the complexity of the areas in which regulations must now be developed. A few examples are electric vehicles, cloud computing, leading-edge medical devices and nanotechnology. Federal regulators must be able to respond in an effective and efficient way to meet the demands of regulating these complex innovations and sectors.
 Access to the technique of incorporation by reference is one way to respond quickly and effectively to constantly evolving areas. By enacting this legislation Parliament would provide regulators with an express legal foundation, allowing them to incorporate by reference national and international standards that are developed by expert bodies. While these standards are only one of the types of documents that would be authorized for incorporation by reference by this legal proposal, they merit some special attention.
There are many standards that are already incorporated by reference in the federal regulations, including standards written by the International Organization for Standardization and other well-recognized international standards organizations. A recent review of existing references in federal regulations revealed almost 400 references to these standards established by these expert bodies.
 I am proud to say that Canada is one of the countries that is at the forefront of standards development. There are hundreds of standards developed in Canada as part of the national standards system in Canada and then incorporated into federal and provincial regulations, such as standards developed by organizations such as the Canadian General Standards Board, and that which is most likely the most recognized name, the Canadian Standards Association Group.
Standards developed by these organizations have already become key to the way that sectors are regulated in Canada. There are over 275 different standards produced by the Canadian Standards Association alone that are referenced in federal regulations. Added together, there are already more than 800 references in federal regulations to various types of standards, both internationally developed and developed as part of our national standards system. These are important components that help assist Canadian businesses and Canadians in how they conduct their daily business.
This legislation seeks to confirm that regulators can continue to rely on the standards in implementing their regulatory initiatives in an effective manner by allowing ambulatory incorporation by reference of such documents. 
The incorporation of standards by reference allows the government to draw on the national and international expertise. It allows government to effectively rely on the work being done by external expert bodies, to which the government has often contributed based on its own expertise. In many cases effective, responsive regulation demands that when changes are made to these standards, regulators must respond immediately. Ambulatory incorporation by reference is the most effective way to achieve this. 
When a standard is incorporated in the regulation on an ambulatory basis, it means that when a standard body updates a standard to respond to a new technology, new approaches or new innovations in the area, the changes are automatically made to the standard and are automatically incorporated into the regulation. The regulatory text does not have to be amended. 
We have one of the best regulatory systems. It is very stable. It involves regulatory impact assessment statements justifying in common language why a regulation needs to be put in place. It includes open comment by the public in almost all but emergency situations. Then a second part of it is that the government will come back and say what it heard and its reasons for moving forward with the regulation. I am very proud to stand here as a parliamentarian and talk about our regulatory regime. However, it does take time for these processes to take place. 
Why is it essential to incorporate by reference standards as they are amended from time to time? I would just give these three good reasons: expertise, responsiveness, and of course efficiency. First, the ability to adopt standards as part of federal regulations when it is appropriate allows the government to access technical expertise right across Canada and right around the world. Second, the ambulatory incorporation of these standards ensures that when changes are made by these expert bodies, federal regulators are immediately responsive through the ambulatory process. That is a significant advantage that I do not think we can overlook. Third, reliance on standards development organizations of this nature allows for the efficient use of government resources. It would neither be expected nor efficient for the government to attempt to develop and house the wide range of expertise found in these committees that develop standards here in Canada and right across the world.
To conclude, enactment of this legislation is a necessary next step to securing access to valuable technical expertise developed here in Canada and around the world. I invite members to support this legislative proposal, because at the end of the day, we need to make sure we have an efficient, very effective way of ensuring whatever laws we pass in this place are done in such a way that the people we are working for, everyday Canadians, whether in their business or their homes, can know that the Canadian government is providing what Parliament has intended. Part of that is making sure we have a responsive regulatory regime.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I must say on behalf of everyone in the chamber that you are doing a fine job this morning.
The parliamentary secretary for international trade reported correctly that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reported this bill back without amendment. However, there is something it did add in its very short report. It said: 
 Some witnesses who were supportive of Bill S-12— 
This was the previous version.
 —nonetheless expressed a desire for greater certainty about how the bill would be implemented. The committee encourages the government to develop guidelines with respect to the use of incorporation by reference. 
These guidelines are not specifically required by Bill S-2. I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware or whether he would otherwise support the government in developing such guidelines and publishing those.
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 does lay out a regime of when open or ambulatory incorporation by reference is appropriate, and when closed or static incorporation by reference is to be the case. This would allow all of us here to have a better understanding of when this drafting technique is used. 
I have to go back to that. This legislation would empower Parliament, by giving order to the way these things are done. Currently there is no provision for that, and it can create confusion. Let us be fair. One of the things we need to do when we are regulating is to create a sense of order. Bill S-2 would do that, and it would give parliamentarians additional tools to make abundantly clear which standards are ambulatory and which ones are closed.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask my colleague if he is aware that in the Senate the bill, both in its form as Bill S-12 and in its current form as Bill S-2, has come to us each time without specific amendments. That would leave a false impression about the extent of the debate that went on in the Senate where the bill originated. There was extensive debate about some of the problems with the bill, and a lot of witnesses at the Senate committee said there were problems. That did not lead to amendments or even suggested amendments beyond the guideline suggestion that I referred to earlier. 
I am looking for some assurance from the government side that when the bill does go to committee in the House, that the kinds of concerns that were expressed in the Senate, and that we will hear today, will be taken seriously because of the fundamental nature of the regulatory system for our democracy.
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is why we have two Chambers. Bicameralism allows us to go through each bill to see what the other House has made as far as suggestions or amendments, and to see if they are appropriate. It helps to move a much more learned debate. 
I look forward to seeing this legislation go to committee, and I also look forward to that member bringing forward specific concerns. I would point out that with over 800 existing incorporation by reference, which may or may not follow some of the guidelines laid out in Bill S-2, there may be issues with that just because of the wide variety of issues. With this legislation, we are trying to codify and empower the House and the Senate with guidelines on how incorporation by reference should be used as a drafting technique to benefit Canadians.
I look forward to that member bringing forward some specific concerns at committee so we can have a thorough debate of Bill S-2's incorporation by reference.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be continuing the discussion on Bill S-2. 
I would also like to thank the government for today's proceedings. If I have interpreted this correctly, we might have been hearing debate on Bill C-41, the South Korea trade agreement, which would have been at report stage, and it was known that a member of the House, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, as an independent, wanted to move some report stage amendments. It strikes me that the reason we are not debating Bill C-41 is to give this member the chance to move those amendments later. If that is the rationale for the government changing the orders of the day, I would like to thank it for that act of collegiality.
We have been hearing from both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and the last speaker, though they did not themselves use these words, that this piece of legislation is a form of house cleaning for the essential plumbing of the legislative and regulatory system, by virtue of making it somewhat clearer, or at least putting down rules, about how incorporation by reference occurs. Of course, incorporation by reference, for those tuning in to these proceedings for the first time, refers to a drafting technique whereby a legislative text or regulatory text includes external material. That is material that has been expressed elsewhere and is referred to in a general way, but all of its specificities are thereby understood to be incorporated despite not being enumerated specifically in the regulation or the legislative provision.
One might refer to an annex to an international treaty, which may be 10 pages or 100 pages. Rather than rewriting that annex, it is referred to and is understood that all of the text in that annex is thereby incorporated into the legislative provision or regulation that makes reference to it. That is incorporation by reference.
It is important to note that the sources that one can refer to and then incorporate by reference do not appear to be limited by this bill, and generally in practice they are not. They can include provisions from the very same text later in the text, provisions from another legislative text from the same jurisdiction, legislative text of another jurisdiction, which could include the provinces, for example, or a territorial government. It could even include a foreign jurisdiction. We could refer to some text in the United Kingdom's legal system that would be viewed as incorporated by reference. It could also include international agreements, technical standards produced by private associations, and technical standards produced by mixed bodies. In an increasingly transnational world, we have standards bodies that involve actors that are quite often both public and private, meeting well outside the shores of Canada, and that come up with standards that we in turn could incorporate into our legal system.
There are two kinds of incorporation by reference. Closed incorporation by reference means that when we incorporate something by reference we are only incorporating the text as it stood at the time of incorporation. If that text later changes, those changes are not thereby incorporated.
On the other hand, open, ambulatory, or dynamic incorporation by reference means that we first start by incorporating the text; however, if that text changes later at the hands of the other body, the external source of that text, those new changes enter into the law as changes for the law. To be clear, subsequent amendments to the incorporated text would be automatically incorporated if we are using open or ambulatory incorporation. Often that is signalled in our laws by language that references a text, such as, an annex to an international treaty as it may be amended from time to time. This is often the way to signal that.
There are clear advantages to this. Nobody in the House is saying that what the government is trying to do makes no sense. It certainly makes a lot of sense. It prevents duplication of text so that we do not have to reproduce large amounts of material throughout the entire range of laws. It promotes harmonization and consistency of standards. That is increasingly important, not just for federal-provincial relations where there is always an attempt to coordinate laws in the similar area, but also with respect to transnational harmonization.
 All of that also leads to a third benefit, which is efficiency. It is simply a more efficient and effective way for government to legislate and regulate, and it is also efficient for certain sectors that rely on regulations in particular to know what conduct is permitted or required. In a lot of business sectors there are reams of regulatory specialists who need to have an efficient framework within which to work. The bill will probably help with respect to that.
Now I would like to turn to the potential disadvantages. First, with any form of incorporation by reference, there are always multiple sources to consult. We think we can read in the document what we are required to do, and suddenly we are sent somewhere else and we have to find that other source.
There may also be access problems, in the sense of copyright, such that sometimes, if care is not taken, the text referred to that is external to the regulation or the legislative provision is not easily accessible. It may be behind some kind of firewall, or it may have copyright provisions, which means that it cannot be taken and uploaded for everyone else to see so that everyone is on the same page.
The third disadvantage is that there are issues in our federation of this being coordinated with the availability of the externally referenced document in both official languages. There is enough evidence to suggest that this does not always occur.
I would now like to move on to the possible disadvantages with ambulatory or open incorporation by reference. The first one is there being no accessibility. Accessibility, as stated in Bill S-2, is part of the technique of regulating by incorporation by reference, but it is not made clear in Bill S-2 exactly how that would occur.
 When we have open incorporation by reference, without constant monitoring of the external body that may be amending its own documents, which then automatically get amended by our law because the incorporation by reference is open, there could be a serious accessibility problem. People would not know that the standards have shifted. They cannot rely on knowing what the standard was when the regulation was adopted because incorporation by reference was not static; it was open.
Second, there is a large issue called subdelegation. Quite apart from accessibility, there is the issue around accessibility of changes as they occur from time to time at the hands of external actors, the rule against subdelegation—I would not even call it a constitutional or administrative law of principle, but a good governance democratic principle. The giving over of the power to external bodies to change the law adopted by Parliament is one thing, but the regulations that are then adopted pursuant to an act of Parliament, the giving over of that power to external bodies, raise fundamental principles of accountability.
It is important to know that the joint committee of the two Houses on scrutiny of regulation has for some time made clear that it views open incorporation by reference as creating a problem of subdelegation involving a very particular problem of accountability in that Parliament itself cannot make sure that when incorporation by reference takes place, which can change from time to time, there is scrutiny and accountability for those changes.
I will quote from our joint committee report, and I believe this quote is from 2007. 
 It has always been the view of the Joint Committee that the incorporation by reference of external material into regulations “as amended from time to time” amounts to a subdelegation of regulation-making power, in that it will be the body amending the incorporated material, and not the authority on whom the power to make the regulations has been conferred, who will determine the content of the regulations. 
On this point, it is extremely important to note why there would be a concern with subdelegation. It is not simply a matter of pointing out that it is subdelegation. It is saying that incorporation by reference would allow one to refer to an external body's set of rules, which we could cope with if it is static, because at the time of the adoption of the regulation we would know what we were incorporating and those regulations would be scrutinized by the joint committee on scrutiny of regulations as they stood at the time of the incorporation. However, the moment we have open incorporation by reference, the subsequent changes never come back before the joint committee on scrutiny of regulations. They are automatically brought into the law. Also, there is nothing in this, that I can tell, that actually deals with this very particular problem of accountability.
Imagine all of the private sector actors—standards councils, for example, transnational bodies from the banking sector, consumer safety—that produce standards that can indeed change from time to time, and suddenly, by virtue of an open incorporation by reference, they become part of the law. They produce accessibility problems for industrial sector actors to know that the content has changed, but most importantly, they produce accountability problems in so far as Parliament itself never actually gets to deal with the changes unless somehow we were to create new mechanisms for that. I do not believe, unless I have misread Bill S-2, that the bill would do that.
The parliamentary oversight issue is really important when we know that the practice we follow, and which would be in some sense codified by the proposed legislation, is not invariably the practice of other jurisdictions to which we would look to see whether or not we could learn from them. Jurisdictions like Ontario or Manitoba here in Canada, and places like Australia and New Zealand, which tend to often be ahead of us when it comes to parliamentary governance reform, have laws that limit the use of open incorporation to specified instances determined on a case-by-case basis, and so there is an awareness that there needs to be a more constraining framework for open incorporation by reference in those jurisdictions. However, that awareness does not seem to be present with respect to the government's approach through Bill S-2. Indeed, Bill S-2 would collapse open and ambulatory incorporation by reference in the sense of making almost no distinctions between the two, in any place, as far as I can tell. 
Finally, I think it is important to return to a point that I made in the question and comments session after the last speaker, which is to note that there was extensive Senate debate. There were concerns expressed, not dissimilar to the concerns I have been expressing, and in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill S-2—although it was obviously determined by the majority, which I assume were Conservative senators, to not put forward any amendments—there was a signal sent, and it was the following: 
 Some witnesses who were supportive of Bill S-12 nonetheless expressed a desire for greater certainty about how the bill would be implemented. The committee encourages the government to develop guidelines with respect to the use of incorporation by reference. 
Now that is a mild recommendation, but to me it is also minimal. I think the government is honour bound to come up with those regulations if it insists that, by the end of this process in the House of Commons, it is not going to build in legislative safeguards that take into account the problems I have been addressing.
At minimum, we need guidelines so we have an extra level of understanding about when the government would be using open incorporation by reference. Beyond that, we need guidelines that make very clear what the government understands by “accessibility” of external documents because that itself is not defined in Bill S-2.
 We had a good question from my colleague from York South—Weston, who asked about questions of accessibility for the disabled. There is language accessibility, there are questions of copyright, and there is the fundamental question of whether the government should not have a duty to have a central repository, in this Internet age, of all externally referenced documents. There would be no problem at all to create a central government site where every externally referenced document would be hyperlinked, with a reference to where it also appears in our regulations or our legislation, and the hyperlink would be constantly checked by a team of civil servants to ensure that it is live and that the newly updated externally incorporated texts are the ones being linked to.
 At minimum, I would suggest that the government consider something like that, which would at least be consistent with what the Conservatives are seeking to do with this bill, by having a lean bill that is not too prescriptive. I would prefer a bill that is more prescriptive, but at minimum I would ask them to please take into account what amounts to a recommendation from the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to develop such guidelines, and along with those guidelines develop a practice of a central Internet portal, such as I suggested.
I would like to now return to my own remarks from February 2013. As I have already indicated, this bill essentially was before us before the last prorogation. In February 2013, I had the privilege to speak to it. I would also refer anybody interested in following this particular debate to ensure they read the speeches at that time by the members for Gatineau and Hamilton Mountain, both of whom gave extraordinarily insightful speeches about some of the problems with this bill.
Here are some of the central points I made, and I am treading on some ground I have already covered, but at that time I may have put it even better and I would like to summarize.
 The government essentially would have us believe that Bill S-2, which was Bill S-12, is essentially technical or housekeeping, albeit important. In part, the Conservatives do that by suggesting it simplify codifies existing practices of how regulations are drafted to incorporate by reference, and all this is doing is making that clearer in a statutory framework, so there is a rule-of-law goal accomplished.
Although at the time journalists began to talk about this as just a routine bill, I do not know if any journalists are paying any attention to the fact that the bill is now back in another form. However, the fact of the matter is that Bill S-2 is anything but innocuous.
 In my capacity not only as a former professor of law but also as the official opposition critic for democratic and parliamentary reform, I believe that this bill could end up being an anti-democratic reform. It could be a step backward for accountable government. Essentially, it would give carte blanche to the executive branch to use incorporation by reference of an open sort with very few, if any, serious constraints.
 Regulations can change over time when external bodies that have no accountability relationship to Parliament decide on their own to revise those documents. They have automatically become the law with no further action required from the Canadian state, let alone from Parliament; and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations—a committee of both the Senate and the House of Commons—would never see these ambulatory changes. When changes come in externally, once the regulation that incorporates the external document has been incorporated and that external document becomes updated, the joint committee never sees it.
That is a huge accountability problem, especially when we know that one of the functions of the joint committee on the scrutiny of regulations is charter compliance scrutiny. It is not at all difficult to imagine how, in some sectors, an external body having no responsibility to think about our constitutional framework could come out with changes that, if automatically incorporated by reference, could actually cause problems for our conformity with our charter.
The point of the matter is that I am not saying this would happen in most cases. For the most part, the harmonization function of what is being codified here will prevail, but there are fundamental accountability issues, and there are imaginable cases when escaping from accountability of Parliament actually will result in a setback for democracy.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate this bill with the hon. member today.
I actually find it slightly ironic, so I will give a comment and then a question. The member and his party are relying on arguments based on debates in the Senate. They do not support bicameralism. They do not support the Senate. I find it ironic for them to lead with their very vague concerns.
I would like to go back to the issue of accessibility. I would like to inform the member that all Government of Canada regulations are published in both English and French. They are all available online. I have a constituent who is blind, Mr. Ken Westlake. He actually applauds the government for making the website so accessible that he can use low- or no-cost software to go through whatever government documents are there. We should celebrate that in this House.
I have a question for the member. Many of the standards he speaks of are highly technical; for example, electrical codes. I would say that he is a very learned member. I would say that he is very intelligent. However, if I were to present to him a technical manual of such length and detail, the question of accessibility is that only people who are fully trained and versed in that particular narrow technical field could understand it.
I would ask the member for his comments on accessibility at that stage.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, nothing changes about my remarks on accessibility. I am perfectly content to congratulate the government for having increased accessibility of legislative provisions and regulations, if that is in fact the case.
However, that is beside the point. The point is the accessibility of the external documents. That is a matter of whether or not they can be accessed in both official languages, and for the example of Mr. Westlake, if he happens to be an electrical engineer, whether or not they are accessible to him as well.
We are maybe two ships passing in the night on this. The accessibility has to do with the external documents and not with the regulations themselves or with the legislative provisions.
The Speaker: There will be some time left for questions and comments after question period, but for now we will move on.

Statements By Members
DiwaliHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday people across the world celebrated the festival of lights popularly known as Diwali. 
Diwali symbolizes the victory of light over darkness. As the Prime Minister said at the 14th National Diwali celebration in Toronto on November 1, many places in the world face darkness, and that is precisely why we need to celebrate Diwali: because Diwali reminds us that light always casts out darkness, that truth always dispels ignorance and fear. 
In front of over 1,000 people and organized by temples across the GTA, at this year's 14th National Diwali Celebration the Prime Minister and the guests lighted the diya to symbolize light over darkness.
On Wednesday, for a brief period, darkness descended on the capital and Parliament. Through the collective role of Canadians, the light is shining again.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Office Patrice Vincent. 
I wish everyone happy Diwali.
Canada PostMs. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, door-to-door mail delivery is a local service that strengthens our communities and helps keeps seniors and people with reduced mobility involved in society.
Last Tuesday, Canadian Union of Postal Workers local 290 invited the people of Joliette to join them in expressing their displeasure at seeing this service disappear. Union members will deliver postcards to people, who can then return them to my office. I will be happy to accept them.
Cuts to home delivery have been announced for Joliette, Notre-Dame-des-Prairies, Saint-Charles-Borromée, Saint-Paul and Saint-Pierre. In a few months, these people will no longer have their mail delivered.
Events of October 22Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about an event on Tuesday and how it links with the despicable act on Wednesday. 
On Tuesday many of us gathered at Rideau Hall to celebrate 45 individuals who received the Medal of Bravery.
Following the ceremony, a Liberal colleague offered to drive me back to Parliament, and we both reflected upon those extraordinary acts. We talked about how few individuals get tested in this way and how it is hard to know how one would respond.
What a prescient conversation that turned out to be.
 In the events that unfolded Wednesday, I want to recognize many heroes in Ottawa: the bystanders who came to the aid of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, all our agencies tasked with safety and security, colleagues who were ready to fight, and people who gave comfort. I want to acknowledge all the Hill staff, from the interpreters in our booth to the many hundreds who in lockdown remained professional and calm.
We are blessed to live in Canada where these incidents are not common. We witnessed that Canadians are ready to rise with courage and dignity.
Marystown Volunteer Fire DepartmentMs. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Marystown Volunteer Fire Department in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.
The department was recognized by Muscular Dystrophy Canada as its 2013-2014 Fire Department of the Year for the Atlantic region. This recognition was welcomed by a department that takes its commitment to help fight MD very seriously.
Approximately 145 fire departments in Atlantic Canada raise funds for muscular dystrophy. This past year, the Marystown Volunteer Fire Department held four fundraising events in support of MD patients, and since 1983 it has collected nearly $70,000 for this worthwhile cause.
Muscular Dystrophy Canada has 10,000 clients, 200 of whom are in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, the organization estimates there are approximately 50,000 people in Canada who suffer with MD.
I ask all members to join with me in thanking the Marystown Volunteer Fire Department for its work on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy Canada and in thanking all volunteer firefighters who raise money for this and other very worthwhile causes.
National Flag of CanadaMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is home to the second-largest Hungarian diaspora in the western world next to the United States.
In October of 1956, inspired by hope and a deep desire for freedom, my family joined with thousands of others in Hungary in a revolution against the bonds of Communist oppression.
The revolution was extinguished by Soviet tanks. People were slaughtered, and justice was suppressed for decades.
It is a history I share with my son, Jeffrey.
Some of my family were imprisoned, owing to mistaken identity, for days; some fortunate members of my family were able to immediately flee to France, the United States, and Canada; some of my family members had to endure decades of Soviet oppression until they could get out.
I am so fortunate to have been born in Canada, where the values of human rights and the rule of law are deeply rooted in our country's foundation.
This Wednesday was also the fiftieth anniversary of the selection of our new Canadian flag. For my family, our flag is a proud symbol of freedom. Under this flag, may we reaffirm our love for this country and reflect upon the opportunities afforded equally to all Canadians in “the True North strong and free”.
Islamic New YearMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the Hijri new year is about to begin, I would like to wish all Muslims health, happiness and prosperity. In these difficult times, both at home and abroad, it is very important that we continue to spread messages of peace all around us.
I invite everyone to take this opportunity to spend some time with loved ones and think about how we can make our society fairer, more inclusive and more peaceful. Let us also keep Corporal Nathan Cirillo's loved ones in our thoughts. We must not forget the daily sacrifices made by members of the armed forces and their families on our behalf. We must continue working together to protect our institutions and improve our society.
[Member spoke in Arabic.]
Canadian SolidarityMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Diwali and Bandi Chhorh Divas, a day normally reserved for celebration by the South Asian community. Instead of celebration, we have seen an outpouring of grief and support from members of the South Asian community.
In an act of solidarity led by the Ontario Gurdwara Committee, the Guru Nanak Mission Centre and the Sikh Spiritual Centre Toronto held off their fireworks and celebrations.
 Members from across Canada, but especially in my hometown of Brampton, have reached out with a clear and consistent message: the community stands shoulder to shoulder with Canadians and our government as we refuse to be intimidated. 
Together we will fight against terrorism here at home and abroad. 
Most importantly, we stand with the families of Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo during this very difficult time.
Canadian Armed ForcesMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for 200 years we have not had war on our soil. Without being a pacifist people, we have been a peaceful country.
People from all over the world come knocking on our door to become Canadian citizens.
However, in the past week, two radicalized young men born and raised in Canada violently denied our values and in separate incidents in two parts of our country cowardly mowed down Warrant Officer Vincent and Corporal Cirillo.
We sit in this chamber only temporarily and our merit is also limited. Rather, we owe this institution to selfless men and women in uniform who every day with vigour and determination put their lives in the line of fire in armed conflicts around the world and even in training.
Until this week, no one would have believed that someone standing guard over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or someone simply walking in a suburban parking lot would be at risk.
Let us honour those who courageously safeguard our freedom, democracy, human rights, and rule of law. That honour and support must persist for our veterans.
Post-Traumatic StressMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we went through a very upsetting experience this week. It serves as a reminder of the importance of taking care of the individuals who serve our country, including veterans and RCMP officers.
Unfortunately, there is not enough funding available to help them cope with post-traumatic stress. Every day, our forces deal with serious threats and put their lives at risk. They deserve our full support.
It is time to help those who live with the debilitating effects of PTSD. They have protected us. We need to protect them. We need to bear in mind the toll that being a serviceperson takes. We need to stand with our brave women and men in uniform. Do they not deserve our fullest support?
World Polio DayMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today as we observe World Polio Day, Canadians should take pride that Canada has been and remains a staunch ally in the global effort to eradicate polio. In 1988, when the year of the global polio eradication initiative was launched, polio was paralyzing 350,000 children, in 125 countries, every year. Canada was at the forefront of polio eradication efforts, being the first country to donate to this global initiative. We are 99% of the way there and the finish line is in sight.
Last year, the Prime Minister reaffirmed Canada's support at the Global Vaccine Summit by pledging $250 million over six years. Canada's deep commitment to eradicating polio means that literally hundreds of thousands of children have been immunized, often in remote, impoverished, and very insecure regions of the world.
 Nobody should have to suffer from a disease for which a simple cure exists. Canada will continue to support efforts that will finally put an end to polio.
London InterCommunity Health CentreMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on November 6, London InterCommunity Health Centre is celebrating its 25th anniversary. This community health centre, in London, Ontario, provides inclusive and equitable health care and social services to a number of people who face barriers to care.
The health centre focuses on immigrants, people living in poverty, people with complex mental health issues, seniors, and youth. All of these members of our community can too often experience a very difficult time finding the health care that they need.
I want to take this opportunity to show my support for the good work that the London InterCommunity Health Centre does for some of the most vulnerable people in the city of London. We thank the dedicated staff of health professionals and the volunteers who give selflessly of their time for this work.
Please join with me and the citizens of London in this celebration of 25 successful years of caring for our community and helping people to break the barriers to that care.
Canadian Armed ForcesMr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see that this House remains unshaken and steadfast through the recent attack on our institution. This resolve, strength, and perseverance is what makes our Canadian Forces who they are. It is seen in their complete dedication to duty and to defending the values we as Canadians hold dear.
Despite the recent attacks on our men and women in uniform, Canadians across this country stand in solidarity with the Canadian Forces. As the Prime Minister said, we will not be intimidated by the actions of cowards. This is not the Canadian way.
I thank these brave men and women on bases across Canada and abroad for their tremendous efforts, and for their commitment to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.
While our Canadian Armed Forces are standing up for Canada, I am certain that we will all be standing right behind them.
DiwaliMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the next few days, families and friends will gather across the country to decorate their homes, light diyas, share meals, exchange gifts, and revel in all that Diwali, the festival of lights, has to offer.
They meet in one another's homes to mark a great occasion of kindness and peace, and come together to celebrate something so fundamental, the triumph of good over evil.
In times like these, when there are those who would threaten our freedom and security, never has it been so important to remember that light will prevail over darkness, good over evil, and intelligence over ignorance.
Canada stands squarely on the shoulders of our myriad cultures and heritages, festivals and traditions, and we are so much the richer for the joy of each celebration and its celebrants. Together, as more and more Canadians celebrate Diwali, we affirm our mutual values and celebrate the light.
On behalf of my liberal colleagues and all members in the House, I wish a very happy and joyous Diwali to all Canadians who are celebrating.
Warrant Officer Patrice VincentMr. Robert Goguen (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to exercise my democratic right as the elected member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. Our founding fathers, our veterans, and our brave men and women who wear our uniform fought and continue to fight for that right.
Tragedy struck Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu early this past week, resulting in the violent and sudden death of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was a dedicated member of our forces for 28 years. Warrant Officer Vincent served with dignity and valour. 
Courageous men and women risk their lives every day to defend our freedoms.
They put on their uniforms knowing they are fighting to uphold the very values our predecessors fought for.
I think I speak for all Canadians, inside and outside the House, when I wish the Vincent family our condolences and our strength at this difficult time. 
God bless the Canadian Forces and all they do each and every day to protect Canada.
Events of October 22, 2014Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, ordinary passersby rushed to Corporal Nathan Cirillo's wounded body, desperately pumping his chest and urging him to hold on. Ottawa lawyer Barbara Winters was telling him, “You are loved. Your family loves you. You’re a good man. You're a brave man”.
Our hearts are broken by this killing of a young father, standing unarmed, on ceremonial guard.
 Nurse Margaret Lerhe also rushed to Corporal Cirillo's aid. As we grapple with this tragedy, let her words guide us. She said, “I just think it's doing what you should do in the time of crisis”.
 “You can't let this bother you. You can't let this take control of who you are and what your fundamental beliefs are.”
On behalf of this House, I want to thank Margaret Lerhe, Barbara Winters, and all the ordinary people who at a time of crisis showed us the best in our community and in our country.
Patrice Vincent and Nathan CirilloMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this has been a week like no other in Canadian history. We witnessed two attacks meant to terrorize us on Canadian soil, and our hearts are filled with incredible sadness for the two brave Canadians who were lost this week.
Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was murdered in a calculated hit-and-run attack, served his country with distinction for 28 years. Then, on Wednesday, my fellow Hamiltonian, Corporal Nathan Cirillo, was murdered in the attack that took place in this building and at the National War Memorial. Corporal Cirillo was a fine young father who was slain in the very duty to our country the memorial is there to honour.
I would like to thank all Canadians for their outpouring of sentiments, particularly at the James Street armoury, where Corporal Cirillo's regiment is based, including the Hamilton Muslim community, which laid a wreath at the site yesterday afternoon.
Although our nation has been undeniably changed by the events of this past week, let us be mindful of the words the Prime Minister spoke on Wednesday evening. Let us be clear. We as Canadians will not be intimidated, ever. We will continue to be a role model for the world of freedom, democracy, and human rights. There is no greater legacy we can leave for Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo.
 May God bless their families in this time of grief, and may God bless Canada.

Oral Questions
Public SafetyMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we were all affected by this week's tragic events.
In responding to those events, we must take an approach that protects both the civil liberties and the safety of Canadians. Those are our Parliament's two basic responsibilities. 
What is the government's plan to deal with this challenge?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that question. As we witnessed this past week, the attacks against our Canadian Armed Forces and against our institutions of government are a stark reminder that we are not immune to the threat of terrorism and that we face the same challenges as do our allies.
Is it also important to note that, as Canadians, we cherish certain things in this country: freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. That is why any legislation with respect to this, coming in future weeks, will make sure that we take into consideration and balance the appropriate measures on both sides.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government for its response, but I would like to be clear. When it comes to responding to this week's tragic events, we have to proceed carefully and thoughtfully, and in the spirit of co-operation. We must take advice, of course, from security authorities, and we must engage Canadians, but we must ensure that our actions protect both public safety and civil liberties.
Will the government agree to meaningful consultation with all parties in the House, and will the government ensure that we preserve fundamental Canadian values?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, our government is committing to ensuring that our national security agencies have the tools they need to be able to track terrorists, whether abroad or here in this country.
As we talk about these specific issues, it is important to note that this type of legislation will be tabled in the House very shortly. There will be robust debate from all sides and political parties on this particular issue.
The threat from terrorism, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is more complex and diffuse. Now, more than ever, a radical individual or group of motivated extremists with access to technology can do significant harm to Canada from thousands of miles away. That is why we are introducing that legislation.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, we are asking for consultation. We cannot let this event divide us. Canadians believe in our country, and we have built an inclusive country that finds its strength in tolerance and diversity.
Canada's Muslim community joins all Canadians in condemning the cowardly and despicable acts of this disturbed individual. We must ensure that no community or group in Canada is targeted with hate or violence.
Can the government inform the House about its efforts to reach out to our Muslim friends and neighbours across Canada?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, it is important to note and respect the comments of the opposition member. As we know, hate in this country is something we do not want to spread, and we want to make sure, when we talk about terrorist attacks and so forth, that we are talking about the individuals who have committed these atrocities abroad and here in Canada. 
I would like to thank the member for that question.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, soldiers in uniform were targeted in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. We are concerned about their safety both here and abroad.
As a result, Department of National Defence officials ordered members of the Canadian Armed Forces not to wear their uniforms in public.
Can the minister give us more information about the scope of that order?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. As someone who wore the uniform, I know the immense pride that our men and women have in the uniform.
Our government trusts the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces to make decisions that are in the best interests of its members.
Foreign AffairsFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Press is reporting that an employee of the Canadian consulate in Turkey was hospitalized after opening a suspicious package. Similar packages were allegedly sent to the consulates of Germany and Belgium.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs give us more information about this incident, which forced the closure of the consulate?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Before question period, I briefed both the Liberal and New Democratic foreign affairs critics. There was a package with some yellow powder, suspicious, sent to the Canadian mission in Istanbul. It was sent to a number of other foreign missions. 
In an abundance of caution, the individual who opened it is receiving medical care. We are not sure if it is required, but it is with an abundance of caution. We have closed the mission until we can ensure the safety of all of our employees.
I would be very happy to provide any more information to the member opposite.
National DefenceMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the minister testified at committee that there were 80 individuals known to have returned to Canada after being involved in terrorist activities abroad. Section 83.181 of the Criminal Code, brought in under the Combating Terrorism Act, makes this a criminal offence. Why have they not been charged?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, law enforcement comes forward with these types of requests, and of course the government is always willing and able to facilitate these efforts. We are always examining tools to make the system more effective in protecting all Canadians. 
Marc Garneau:  Mr. Speaker, the deputy director of CSIS raised concerns about the agency's ability to effectively monitor the 93 people who are currently identified as potential threats to Canadian security. Yesterday, the RCMP commissioner also spoke about the lack of resources for carrying out these national security investigations.
Could the minister tell the House what plans are in place to ensure that our security agents have the resources they need to effectively carry out their responsibilities? 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, to make all parliamentarians aware, we have actually increased funding and investments to our national security agencies, for both the RCMP and CSIS. As well, the director of CSIS recently stated that today's terrorist threats are diffuse and they develop rapidly. 
CSIS will continue to dedicate its resources to investigate the threat posed by terrorist travel and radicalization. Our government has brought forward a number of measures since forming office to give our agencies the proper tools they need. We will be doing that more so in the future. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the deputy director of CSIS raised concerns to Parliament about the agency's ability to effectively monitor the 90 people who are currently identified as potential threats to Canadian security. Yesterday, the RCMP commissioner said that if they put all of their resources on the 93 people being tracked they would not be able to do anything else.
Could the minister inform the House whether new measures, new resources have been put in place recently to ensure that we can effectively carry out these important responsibilities?
Roxanne James:  Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, we have actually increased investment in our security agencies, for both the RCMP and CSIS, and of course we are looking at new measures in the future, always examining ways that we can provide better tools for them to do their work. 
The BudgetMs. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives tabled yet another mammoth budget bill. It is 458 pages, with more than 400 clauses, dozens of laws repealed, rewritten, or amended, and all in a single omnibus bill. 
Canadians expect us to study, debate, and deliberate on their behalf, and to make thoughtful choices. Will the government agree not to shut down debate with closure or time allocation on this large piece of legislation?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is moving forward with important measures to create jobs. For example, the bill creates jobs and opportunities across Canada through the new small business job credit. The budget implementation bill makes life more affordable for Canadian families by doubling the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000 and making it refundable, and ending pay-to-pay billing practices by telecommunications companies. 
I urge the opposition to support this important legislation. 
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about that jobs credit. The Conservatives are using their omnibus budget bill to push through changes to EI, a jobs plan that will not create jobs. The Conservatives' proposal has been panned by experts, economists, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who found it would create just 800 jobs while actually discouraging small businesses from growing.
Given all of these concerns, would it not be prudent to separate this proposal from the mammoth budget bill so that it gets the scrutiny it deserves?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the budget bill will connect Canadians with available jobs, support families and communities, and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system. The bill contains important measures, like creating a national DNA-based missing persons index, reducing administrative burden on charities, improving the temporary foreign worker program, and expanding eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance. 
The bill is a further step to returning to balanced budgets while keeping taxes low, creating jobs, and improving the economy.
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are champions of secrecy.
As a piece of legislation, the new omnibus bill makes no sense. This is what we have come to expect from the Conservatives. The content of the bill is even more concerning. The tax credit for small businesses will cost $500 million for just 800 jobs.
Seriously, why is the government proposing such an ineffective program that will not truly create jobs here in Canada?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the CFIB says the small business job credit will in fact create 25,000 person-years of employment. They call it, “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 over two years. In contrast, the opposition are supporting a 45-day work year that would drastically increase premiums by 35%, adding a $4 billion tax burden on Canadians.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill introduced yesterday shows this government's complete lack of vision.
The bill is 458 pages of fiscal nonsense. It makes no sense to include measures dealing with beekeeping, cable television, employment insurance and refugee health care in a single bill.
Will the government split its bill so that members can study it properly?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, Canada leads the G7 with more than one million jobs created since the global economic recession, but we are not immune to the challenges beyond our borders. That is why our government supports economic growth and job creation while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets in 2015.
The budget bill will connect Canadians with available jobs, support families and communities, and improve the fairness and integrity of our tax system. I urge the opposition to get on board and support this important new legislation.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, if words still mean anything, a budget bill should contain budgetary measures.
Once again, the Conservatives have used a budget bill to secretly introduce some reprehensible measures. This time, they are going after refugees by allowing the provinces to restrict access to social assistance. 
Do the Conservatives feel bad at all that they are trying to conceal their schemes in an omnibus bill?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, this bill continues our plans for supporting growth and long-term prosperity by strengthening Canada's intellectual property regime to promote job creation and to improve conditions for business investment and access to international markets while reducing costs and red tape by making the tax system simpler and fairer for farming and fishing businesses, and by extending the existing tax credit for interest paid on government-sponsored student loans to interest paid on Canada apprentice loans.
I encourage the opposition to get on board and support this important new legislation.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, that obviously did not address the question. Hiding a private member's bill to strip refugees of social assistance in an omnibus bill is both unjust and a serious abuse of parliamentary process. The government knew its proposal to pull support from people who have survived persecution would be unpopular with Canadians. It is using an omnibus bill to try to escape and avoid a public backlash.
Will the Minister of Finance agree to withdraw this measure from the budget bill?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to continue Canada's tradition as a leader in international refugee protection, our government has increased the number of refugees resettled annually by 20%. Canada welcomes one in ten refugees resettled around the world, more than almost any other country in the world.
Our government is working to improve refugee outcomes as we will be able to better plan for their arrival.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, in response to the confusing and frightening events we have experienced, Canadian news coverage is being praised around the world, including the great work of the CBC. However, CBC employees were told this week about 400 more lost jobs. This brings the total number of job cuts at CBC and Radio-Canada to 1,057.
 Will the government now agree to reinvest in CBC and Radio-Canada so they can continue doing the vital work of informing the people of our country?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the CBC already receives significant taxpayer funds and it can operate within its existing budget. While the CBC must adapt to changing technology and demographics in the broadcasting industry, our government believes the CBC can and should do so within its existing budget.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am seeing people laugh when I talk about these cuts.
The majority of those watching pointed out how professional Canadian networks were, particularly CBC/Radio-Canada. However, this week—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh! Oh!
Pierre Nantel:  Are they going to quiet down? Their lack of respect is unbelievable.
This week, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, Hubert Lacroix, announced to employees that 400 jobs will be eliminated between now and March 2016. There is even talk of getting rid of satellite trucks.
Her government's ideology aside, does the minister not see that budget cuts are having an even more devastating impact that anticipated?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the strategy that was implemented and is spoken about by the member opposite was announced in June of this year. This is a continuing and ongoing process that the CBC has undertaken and will continue to work through. I would add that Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, also said: 
 ...a weak advertising market across the industry, lower-than-expected schedule performance in the key 25-54 year-old demographic on CBC Television, lower than expected ad revenues...and the loss of the NHL contract...have combined to create an important revenue shortfall.... 
 The CBC is doing what it is supposed to do: dealing with it.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that too many jobs have been cut at CBC/Radio-Canada in recent years, and this continues.
In June, CBC/Radio-Canada announced that 25% of its workforce would be let go between now and 2020, but things have gotten worse. It is our responsibility to respond. There is no way that one in four workers can be laid off without affecting the public broadcaster's mandate. It is impossible.
Can the minister stand up, show respect for the artists and journalists of our public broadcaster and ensure that Canadians get to keep the public broadcaster they cherish?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, equating a strategy that the president and the organization of CBC are implementing in terms of dealing with the changes that are happening within the markets across this country, and trying to qualify that as something that has anything to do with this government, is completely unfair. We certainly understand the important role the CBC and Radio-Canada plays in remote and minority-language communities. Having said that, our government and all Canadians expect the CBC to fulfill its duty to provide quality programming to official-language minority communities under the Official Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act.
Public SafetyJudy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the government has indicated it is considering new legislation with new powers for law enforcement. Can the minister confirm whether the existing tools that were passed by the House as part of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, have been employed in any of the RCMP's 60-plus active national security investigations?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to talk about the upcoming legislation and why it is needed.
 As we know, the passage of the CSIS Act occurred back in 1984. We are talking 30 years ago. A lot has changed in 30 years. When we think about where any of us may have been, I may have still been in high school. I certainly did not have a computer, did not have a cellphone and did not have email.
 Things have changed, so has terrorism in this country and so have issues related to national security. That is why we need to modify and clarify the tools that CSIS has.
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, in the context of any new national security legislation, is the government prepared to create a national security oversight committee with representation from all parties consistent with those that exist among our allies, whose role will be to ensure that the right national security measures are in place, and also that there is a balance between the needs of our national security agencies and the rights that Canadians enjoy?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, first we are not any other country, we are Canada. In Canada we already have independent robust oversight that actually includes a former member of provincial parliament from the NDP. We are not interested in creating another bureaucracy that has the same responsibilities as the oversight body already in place.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the new national security legislation. Will the government be creating a parliamentary oversight committee?
I am not talking about red tape but about a parliamentary oversight committee that includes our security agencies and all of the parties. Its role would be to ensure that appropriate security measures are put in place and that there is a balance between the needs of our security agencies and the rights of Canadians. That is what our allies are doing.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, Canada already has independent, robust oversight over our security agencies.
In fact, the difference between us and the Liberals and the NDP is that we would rather focus our resources on giving law enforcement and security agencies the tools they need.
International DevelopmentMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Ebola epidemic continues to threaten global health. Cases were reported yesterday for the first time in Mali and in New York.
Urgent global action is necessary to bring infection under control and save lives. What is the government doing to scale up Canada's Ebola response in West Africa?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have that question today because I can now report that $52 million is being distributed to our trusted partners.
We continue to work with organizations like the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, the World Food Programme logistics team, UNICEF and International Red Cross. We have been at the forefront of the international response efforts, and we will continue to be a world leader in the global response.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, these measures are a good start, but we need to do more. We need to be quicker at delivering the goods and contributing more to the World Health Organization. We need to control this epidemic because soon it will be too late. 
Does the government plan to strengthen our approach?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we have signed agreements with the organizations with which we are working. These are organizations that are under the direction of the World Health Organization. We gave distributed $52 million as of today, and we will continue to work with all of our partners. We want to see this disease eradicated.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Cindy Blackstock's lengthy battle is coming to an end this week, as she is giving her closing arguments before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Child welfare agencies on reserves receive 22% less money from the federal government than agencies off reserve. Ms. Blackstock has been fighting for some time to correct this injustice.
Does the government plan to listen to her arguments and adjust its funding accordingly?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health, safety and well-being of first nations children is a top priority for our government. That is why since 2006, we introduced a prevention-based approach to delivering child and family services on reserve, and our government has increased funding for on-reserve child and family services by 40% since taking office.
We will continue to take action to ensure that children and families have the support they need to lead healthy and safe lives.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first nations children receive 22% less funding from child welfare services than what other children in Canada receive. That is a fact, and it is one that the minister continues to ignore.
Can the minister explain what he will do to ensure that child welfare services for first nations children meet the same standards as for all other children in this country?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, what is a fact is that our government has increased funding for child and family services on reserve by 40% since taking office. Another fact is that every time we introduce new measures to protect children and families on reserve, the opposition votes against it.
National DefenceMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our nation's resolve was tested, and the brave men and women of our armed forces came under threat. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo both gave their lives serving their country. Corporal Cirillo paid the ultimate sacrifice undertaking the highest honour, guarding our nation's war memorial.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please update the House on how the nation will honour these fallen heroes?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House that Canada's Highway of Heroes will see another hero travel its length.
Later this afternoon, Corporal Cirillo and his family will return to Hamilton and his unit along the Highway of Heroes. This will allow Canadians in communities like those in Northumberland and my riding of Durham to pay respect to Corporal Cirillo.
I know I speak for all members of the House and all Canadians when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with his family. We stand with the Canadian Armed Forces at this time.
International TradeMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in Europe the debate over investor state dispute settlement is beginning to boil over. The new President of the European Commission is strongly opposed, as are Germany and Austria. The Financial Times is now reporting that it is unlikely CETA will pass the European parliament as is.
Given their potential to derail the implementation of this deal, is the government ready to drop these controversial provisions or will it insist on them?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, as that member well knows, both Canada and European negotiators were specifically instructed to provide for investor state dispute resolution within the agreement. Such dispute resolution has been used by Canada and by most European countries to provide certainty.
It is sad that the NDP continues to try to find ways to oppose trade and the one in five jobs that come from it.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should be following what is happening in Europe. He should take into account the fact that we have a robust justice system, as does the European Union. Both systems protect their own investors, and there is no need to harmonize those mechanisms. 
If the Conservatives really want their agreement with the European Union to be successfully concluded, why not concede that an investor state dispute settlement mechanism is unnecessary in the context of the Canada-European Union agreement and simply get rid of that measure?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the member knows as well that legislators and leaders throughout the European Union and member states like Germany have pledged their support for these provisions and for CETA. This is an opportunity for Canada to create 80,000 net new jobs.
 This is just another way the member is trying to oppose trade. This agreement is robust. It has taken us a long time to get here, but it is a big win for Canada.
Quebec BridgeMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in Quebec City, we have a bridge in need of a paint job. Wednesday's ruling by the Quebec Superior Court clarifies matters, if nothing else. CN and Transport Canada have to stop passing the buck.
The federal government is now obliged to respect the agreements signed in 1997 in the context of privatizing the bridge.
Will the minister respect this ruling and get the Quebec Bridge painted?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed with this ruling. Officials are reviewing this decision. We will wait for the second part of the ruling before commenting further. In the meantime, we continue to believe that CN should have respected its agreement with regard to painting the bridge.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, this is really disappointing, especially considering that in 2005, the Prime Minister himself made fun of the Liberals, saying that they could not even get a bridge painted.
Now that the Superior Court ruling clearly shows that the federal government must do its part, will the government prove that it can get the Quebec Bridge painted?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as owner of the bridge, Canadian National is responsible for its maintenance and safety. In August 2013, Transport Canada inspected the rail section of the bridge, which is under federal jurisdiction. Transport Canada did not detect any problems with the rail section of the bridge. The road portion of the bridge falls under provincial jurisdiction.
HealthFrank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us any additional information on the steps the government is taking to work with provinces and territories to ensure they are prepared to deal with a potential case of Ebola? 
Could the minister also update the House on the most recent actions the government has taken to ensure that front-line health care providers are prepared to deal with a potential case of Ebola?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, health matters should always transcend politics and partisanship.
The minister and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada are in regular contact with their provincial and territorial partners.
It is PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, that provides guidance to the provinces, but the provinces are responsible for training.
We have learned a lot from SARS and H1N1, and in the event of an Ebola case in Canada, the Public Health Agency is ready to provide support with five rapid response teams, lab expertise to quickly confirm diagnosis, and emergency supplies of masks, gowns, and gloves.
MulticulturalismMr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several candidates running in Monday's municipal election in Toronto have had their signs and campaign offices vandalized. They are being targeted because they are Muslim. 
Today, a young candidate, Munira Abukar, was assaulted and pelted with garbage. Her brother is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
These attacks are unacceptable. They too are an attack on democracy. What steps is the government taking to assure Canadians that not only are individuals, mosques, and places of worship safe, but will Conservatives join us in condemning these attacks on Muslims?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the member opposite. Canada is a country where pluralism is one of the cornerstones of our values. We welcome people in all parts of life, from all religious backgrounds. That is what makes Canada such a great country. I think I speak for all members of this House when I say that we find such acts despicable and not part of the Canadian way of doing things.
Canada PostMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week in Montreal's north shore, residents of Lorraine, Rosemère and Bois-des-Filion lost their home mail delivery service.
I met with hundreds of people to discuss this, and I can assure you that Canadians, particularly seniors and people with reduced mobility, are not happy about it.
Will the minister finally decide to intervene and restore home mail delivery service?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, Canada Post has seen a continuing plummeting of volumes of individual-addressed mail. In fact, there were 1.2 billion fewer pieces of mail in 2013 than in 2006.
The member would also know that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive their mail door to door. Those in the remaining one-third, as part of Canada Post's five-point action plan, will be seeing a change, but they will continue with their daily mail.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a company in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli in my riding could have built the new community mailboxes. It has been building mailboxes for Canada Post for over 25 years.
However, that is not what management at Canada Post decided to do. Canadian manufacturers have not even been allowed participate in the bidding processes that have taken place in recent months. They cannot even bid. In 2015, our mailboxes will be manufactured in the United States.
Can the minister explain why she is forcibly imposing working conditions on crown corporations and yet doing nothing to create jobs for Canadians?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member understands the structure of crown corporations. They are not government departments. They operate at arm's length from the government in their operational decisions. They have a board of directors who make those types of decisions. They have clearly made a decision in this matter. If the member has a problem with that, then he should take that up with Canada Post.
Foreign AffairsMr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past spring, Canada sent over 300 observers to monitor and observe Ukraine's presidential elections. This upcoming Sunday, the people of Ukraine will take one more step toward reaffirming their desire for a free and democratic Ukraine. 
On October 26, Ukrainians go to the polls to select their representatives for Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on Canada's support for Ukraine's parliamentary election?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we strongly support the people of Ukraine as they go to the polls. Canada has a long and rich tradition of working to support the Ukrainian people in their quest for full democratic rights, a democracy, and to live in freedom without interference from their neighbours.
I am very pleased to say that Canada has sent 300 election observers for these parliamentary elections. We look forward to hearing back from them about the state and quality of the elections.
This is just another example of how Canada and this government is standing behind the people of Ukraine.
International TradeMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the CETA deal officially signed and the legal scrub of the text having started, there are still some questions that remain unanswered. One such question surrounds the articles around patent protections for pharmaceutical products.
Can the government tell us what commitments it has made to compensate the provinces and territories as a result of the pharma provisions of CETA?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question because CETA represents the most modern trade agreement in our nation's history. What is amazing about it is that it was coordinated with stakeholders, employers, and the provinces.
 We have worked directly with the provinces along the negotiation of this to make sure that, if any intellectual property changes impact their pharma regime, we can work with them to make sure, over time, that the provinces are kept whole, in addition to the increased transfers we are already giving to the provinces for health care each year. 
HealthMr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday, borders cannot contain viruses. 
At least 200 Canadians have been infected with the chikungunya virus, which has affected hundreds of thousands of people in the Caribbean. Many others could catch this virus unless they can protect themselves. The parliamentary secretary remained vague yesterday.
What meaningful measures will this government take to protect Canadians against this virus here and abroad?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, this is a tropical mosquito-borne illness. Health officials advise that there is no evidence of person-to-person transmission in Canada.
The Public Health Agency has posted travel advice for Caribbean and Pacific tropics, asking Canadians to exercise precaution in order to avoid mosquito bites.
National DefenceMr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please provide this House with any new developments with respect to Operation Impact, Canada's contribution to the fight against ISIL?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca for the question and for his support of the Canadian Forces since he has joined this House.
As the Minister of National Defence said to the House yesterday, Operation Impact is on time and on target.
 In addition to the CF-18s that left CFB Bagotville yesterday, later today, two CP-140 Aurora aircraft will be departing from CFB Greenwood. These Aurora aircraft are some of the most modern civilian aircraft in the world due to our government's update of the Aurora aircraft. 
Our CAF and our training personnel are now joining our allies to combat the threat that is ISIL.
Forestry IndustryMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the FSC certification standards are apparently going to be revised by 2016, which could have a considerable impact on my region.
Quebec has some of the best forestry practices in the world. The Government of Quebec has been talking to industry clients, particularly in Europe and the United States, to show how exemplary the industry's practices are.
Does the federal government plan on joining the Government of Quebec in supporting Quebec's forestry industry?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking a question on an important economic driver of rural communities all across Canada.
 I am proud that economic action plan 2014 builds upon our government's success on this file by focusing on innovation and protecting it from the threat of forest pests. Our focus on diversifying markets for forest products has increased softwood lumber exports to China tenfold. These are successes that we should be applauding.
Public SafetyMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.):  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety claimed in the House that the RCMP had hundreds—yes, hundreds—of programs to prevent violent radicalization.
In fact, there are programs to prevent people from joining street gangs, but not to prevent violent radicalization.
Can the government commit to creating and providing a budget for programs to prevent violent radicalization, which will make it possible to take appropriate action when young people are flagged?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as members in this House know, the RCMP does work collaboratively with different organizations and groups right across Canada, working with our youth and so on.
I want to for a moment take the time to also thank the RCMP, local law enforcement, and of course our Parliament Hill security, for the outstanding job they did this past Wednesday. As many members in this House were actually in lockdown, I can assure Canadians that we were safe at that particular time, and the efforts of our security agencies are the reason.
HealthMaria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are concerned about radio frequency emissions. The fact that Canada, like the United States, has the lowest safety standards of the industrialized countries is worrisome.
Why does the government not follow Switzerland's example and adopt stricter radio frequency standards just to be on the safe side?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's question.
Indeed, radio frequency emissions can be hazardous to Canadians. However, I would like to point out that Canadian regulations are very modern and address Canadians' concerns.

Routine Proceedings
Foreign AffairsDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled Amendments to Annex 1 of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, notified on October 3, 2014; Amendments to Annex II of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, notified on September 29, 2014; and Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Korea on Air Transport, done at Ottawa on September 22, 2014. An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas: the Report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation respecting its participation at the 34th meeting of the board of directors in Mexico City, Mexico, on June 23, 2014; and the Report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation respecting its participation at the Annual Gathering of the Group of Women Parliamentarians in Mexico City, Mexico, from June 24 to 25, 2014.
PetitionsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. Two of the petitions are with regard to a moratorium on GM alfalfa.
The petitioners outline concerns with regard to the fact that genetically modified alfalfa is currently being planted and tested in Canada.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow a proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is with regard to Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.
The petitioners outline a number of concerns with regard to poverty in Canada.
The petitioners call on the government to develop and implement a strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with provincial, territorial, municipal, and aboriginal governments, and with civil society and organizations.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to table a petition from concerned Canadians with regard to the government's legislation for the Rouge national park.
The petitioners are very troubled about the government's current plan for the creation of the park because it ignores the ecological vision and policies approved for the Rouge Park plans and provincial greenbelt legislation. As well, it ignores the long-standing plans for a 600-plus metre wide forested Rouge Park main ecological corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Londoners, from both the Christian and Muslim communities. These petitioners are very concerned about what is happening to family and friends in Syria and Iraq.
The petitioners are calling on the Canadian government to highlight the plight of Iraqi Christians, and to use all diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to assist them in their plight.
The petitioners are calling on the government to assist other like-minded governments and organizations that are engaged in this effort to stop the suffering of Iraqi Christians, and to work with all governments and organizations currently engaged in humanitarian and diplomatic assistance.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 655 and 723.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:  With regard to the Department of Finance’s Venture Capital Action Plan: for the years for which data are available, (a) what investments were made; (b) what organizations benefited from the funds and what was the total amount invested in each case; (c) was a certain amount set aside for cooperatives; and (d) how many cooperatives benefited from the investments and what amount was granted to each cooperative?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) and (b) of the question, through the venture capital action plan, or VCAP, the Government of Canada is investing in high-performing funds and in large-scale private sector-led funds of funds being established under VCAP. Of the high-performing funds, Lumira Capital announced in November 2013 that it has closed its fund, Lumira fund II, a life sciences-focused fund. In April 2014, Real Ventures announced the first closing of Real Ventures fund III, its latest web, mobile and Internet-focused fund. Both funds benefited from $10 million each in investments from the Government of Canada. In the last few years, both Lumira Capital, https://www.lumiracapital.com, and Real Ventures, http://realventures.com/en/, have made several investments in innovative companies throughout Canada, and details can be found on their websites.
In January 2014, the Government of Canada invested in the Northleaf venture catalyst fund, the first fund of funds being established in partnership with private sector investors and interested provinces. This fund of funds achieved its first closing with $217.5 million in commitments, including $145 million from private sector investors and $36.25 million from each of the Governments of Canada and Ontario. In August 2014, Northleaf Capital Partners announced the second closing of this fund of funds, bringing the total commitments to date to $233.5 million, including an additional $2.5 million from the Government of Canada. Since the initial closing, this fund of funds has invested $60 million in XPV water fund II and Georgian Partners growth fund II as well as $10 million in Versant Ventures V, helping these underlying venture capital funds to achieve their close and commence investments in innovative, high-growth companies. The Northleaf venture catalyst fund has also invested directly into innovative, high-growth companies, including Wattpad, Vision Critical, Silanis and eSentire. 
With regard to part (c), VCAP program has not set aside funds for investments in cooperatives. 
In response to part (d), to date, high-performing funds and the funds of funds that have received investments from the Government of Canada under the VCAP have not made any investments in co-operatives. 
Scott Simms:  With respect to boat operator licenses issued in the Atlantic provinces by Transport Canada: (a) for each license issued since 2009, (i) on what date was each license issued, (ii) who were the owners or operators, (iii) under what conditions, if any, for the use, retention, or renewal of the license was it issued; (b) for each vessel whose license was suspended, rejected, or for which a renewal was denied, (i) on what date was the license suspended, rejected, or the renewal denied, (ii) for what reason(s), (iii) on whose authority, (iv) what are the file numbers of all relevant ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and all entities, departments, companies, contractors, or individuals, broken down by minister or department, relevant file number, correspondence or file type, date, purpose, origin, intended destination, other officials copied or involved; (c) what are the specific rules for the retention or renewal of any such license; (d) what are all rules, files, and correspondence related to observer and dockside monitoring of these license-holders and users, broken down by (i) all relevant file numbers, (ii) entities, companies, contractors, or individuals, (iii) minister or department, (iv) correspondence or file type, (v) date, (vi) purpose, (vii) origin, (viii) intended destination, (ix) other officials copied or involved, (x) military base, asset, or facility, (xi) type of activity or contract; (e) what differences exist in the conditions for licenses between different regions, zones, or provinces; and (f) what are the rules specific to keeping as opposed to releasing fish caught on boats used for recreational or touristic purposes, broken down by province and number of applicable licensees?
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) to (e), Transport Canada does not issue boat operator licences. Transport Canada is responsible for pleasure craft licensing, vessel registration, and operator competency. 
In response to part (f), this falls under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Question No. 654 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Hon. John McKay: With regard to the proposed Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP): (a) how does the RNUP legislation and strategic plan incorporate the ecological integrity, water quality and quantity, and habitat restoration goals and priorities of (i) the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, (ii) the Rouge North Management Plan Section 4.1.1.2, (iii) the 2007 Rouge River Watershed Strategy and its targeted natural heritage system, (iv) the Little Rouge Corridor Management Plan (2007), (v) the Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Plan (2008), (vi) the Toronto Great Lakes Area of Concern remedial action plan for Toronto, (vii) the federal report “How Much Habitat is Enough” and the recommendation of more than 30% forest cover and 10% wetland cover per watershed, (viii) the National Parks Act, (ix) the Ontario Provincial Parks Act, (x) the draft Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (2011), (xi) the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, (xii) the Endangered Species Act, (xiii) other relevant provincial, municipal and federal legislation; (b) how has the government addressed the issues raised in the unanimous November 2012 City of Toronto Motion on RNUP; (c) why has the promised RNUP “Transition Advisory Committee” not been created, (i) what is the updated timetable for the creation of this committee, (ii) what individuals or entities will comprise the advisory committee, (iii) what mandate will the advisory committee be given; (d) what steps have Environment Canada, Parks Canada and the government taken to assess the water quality, biodiversity, migratory fisheries, climatic, flood and erosion control, public health and ecological service benefits of restoring the majority of the public lands in Rouge Park to forest, wetland and meadow vegetation; (e) will the federally-owned and provincially-designated Greenbelt “Natural Heritage System” and Oak Ridges Moraine lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP Study Area; (f) will the “Federal Greenspace Preserve” lands in north Pickering be included as part of the RNUP study; (g) how much of the land within the RNUP study area is (i) mature native forest habitat, (ii) wetland habitat, (iii) leased land utilized for cash cropping, (iv) leased land utilized for agricultural uses other than cash cropping and what are these other uses, (v) leased for residential purposes, (vi) land within road, hydro, highway, pipeline and other public utility corridors, (vii) land which is accessible to the public, (viii) other, and what are these other categories; (h) for the most recent year available, what are all the leased properties in the 57 km2 NRUP study area, broken down by (i) address, geographic location and approximate boundaries on a map, (ii) description of the buildings associated with the lease, (iii) land area (acres and hectares) associated with the lease, (iv) name of leaseholder and name of the actual tenants, (v) annual lease rate and length of lease, (vi) true annual public cost of property upkeep and lease administration, (vii) public investment in the property needed to address modern building code, safety and energy conservation standards; (i) what provincial, municipal or conservation authority lands have been transferred to the government or Parks Canada within the proposed RNUP, (i) what are the predicted time frames for the various outstanding land transfers, (ii) what compensation or benefits, direct or indirect, have been offered to the province, municipality or conservation authority by the government or its agencies, for the various land transfers; (j) will a RNUP “Trust Fund” be established similar to the existing Rouge Park/Waterfront Regeneration Trust Fund; (k) what provisions and timelines does the draft RNUP legislation and strategic plan outline to (i) reduce cash cropping in RNUP, (ii) transition towards ecologically sound farming practices, (iii) phase-out the agricultural mono-cultures and pesticides which threaten the survival of the monarch butterfly and many other rare and endangered species; and (l) what are the details of all the submissions received regarding the RNUP Concept? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: There are still seven minutes left for questions and comments for the speech of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch all of that excellent speech. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has a renowned reputation in the House for speaking effectively on legislation. Therefore, I would ask him to give us the Coles Notes version of the bill itself. Could he take a couple of minutes and with the deep foundation of knowledge that he brings to the House, just provide the Coles Notes or the 30-second elevator response as to how the New Democrats feel about Bill S-2?
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the NDP is happy to see a bill that is attempting to make the regulatory process more efficient. However, we have some concerns that the way the technique of incorporation by reference appears in Bill S-2 will have some problems from a democratic perspective. 
Incorporation by reference can include a method that includes referring to texts that change later and then the later changes end up automatically being part of our regulatory system without any further parliamentary review or review by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. In a nutshell, those two phenomena—of an open incorporation by reference and of future changes that never then actually have an accountability mechanism within Parliament—are the source of my particular concern, and I suspect my colleagues will also share that.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I have known the member for Toronto—Danforth, since he first came to the House a couple of years ago, as being extremely effective and meticulous about legislation that is brought forward. We certainly saw that with the changes to the electoral act. On behalf of all Canadians, he did a fantastic job scrutinizing and meticulously going through each of the changes proposed by the government and looking at what was clearly a concern with respect to reducing the level of democratic participation rather than increasing it, which should hopefully be the goal of everyone in the House.
Given the fact that he has already raised the question of incorporation by reference that bypasses the normal scrutiny that should be put into the consideration of any government legislation, I would like to ask the member this. Taking Bill S-2 as an example, can he broaden his frame of reference and respond to the concerns of whether the government would be willing to do the consultation and the transparency that is necessary to make sure that the bill does subject itself to accountability and transparency? 
Given his vast experience on the Elections Act, does he feel comfortable that the government understands the importance of consultation and accountability and would understand that it has to bring changes to Bill S-2 in committee so that regulatory changes that are brought in are in the public interest and reflect that transparency and accountability?
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be that I do not have any great confidence that the government will proceed that way. The way in which Bill C-23 was handled suggested that strong consultation was not part of the modus operandi of the government.
The bill may be a bit different. It purports to be technical only but the government acknowledges it is about a very central part of the modern administrative state, the regulatory power, and it is well aware that testimony, as well as some speeches in the other House, have revealed some serious concerns.
In light of the fact that the bipartisan and bicameral Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has repeatedly said that there is a problem with delegating regulatory authority to external bodies through the open incorporation by reference technique in particular, I would hope that the concerns of that standing committee do not get lost simply because the bill ends up before the House, having started in the Senate, with another committee having to scrutinize the bill.
As often happens, we sometimes have moments in the House when it feels very co-operative. It certainly has felt like that the last couple of days for very obvious reasons. I would urge the government to take that approach on this because we are on board with the fact that cleaning up how we deal with incorporation by reference in an extremely important area of law-making. The problem is that the government may inadvertently end up creating some democracy deficit problems. 
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this. I note with irony that yesterday we spoke to a private member's motion that attempted to ban the practice of proxy marriages. We have here an attempt in some ways to provide regulation by proxy. If it is unacceptable to marry someone by proxy, it ought to be just as unacceptable to try and govern a country by proxy and distribute regulation and use proxy in this case to create a simplified legislative tool, but in fact complicate the regulatory regime.
There are significant issues with this legislation. We are profoundly concerned. They range across the legislation as it is presented, but they go to the heart of this issue. In trying to make things simple, sometimes we actually end up making them that much more complicated. In trying to be efficient, sometimes the efficiency creates confusion, legal challenges and complications that actually slow things down and make things less fair. Instead of creating accessible definitions, inaccessible procedures are created, and inaccessible and sometimes even costly regulations come into effect. It is the unintended consequences perhaps of good intention.
However, I return to the notion that if it is unacceptable to do marriages by proxy, why would we create legislation and regulation by proxy and simply choose to proceed in a quick way rather than in the right way?
For example, if an incorporated document is protected by copyright and that copyright document regulation is referenced in the legislation, it may actually cost people to get the information they need to comply. Willing individuals, willing corporations and willing institutions are prepared and attempting to participate properly and legally. Yet because of the way the legislation is constructed, they have to pay to get public information.
We have talked a great deal about the value of an open democracy and open government, but our regulations, our rules and our laws must also be just as open. When we short-circuit that process, as cumbersome as it may be, as rooted in tradition as it may be, it provides us with positive thought and in this case with cause for concern sufficient enough to stand in opposition.
Section 18.6 says: 
 A person is not liable to be found guilty of an offence or subjected to an administrative sanction for any contravention in respect of which a document, index, rate or number—that is incorporated by reference in a regulation—is relevant unless, at the time of the alleged contravention, it was accessible as required by section 18.3. 
In other words, what it is saying is if the rate is done by proxy, or in this case defined in the way it is in this legislation, the numeric figures that must be complied with are suddenly just beyond the reach of someone acting within what they think are the bounds of the rules and regulations. In fact, because they have not had access to those exact data files, they actually do not know what rate they may be governed by.
Additionally crown corporations may have their rates changed. We have a situation where the details of the rules and regulations are hidden by the provisions in this document we are debating today.
This is critically important for a country that is bilingual. We have no guarantee that the proxy regulations, especially if they are overseas or outside the jurisdiction of Canada, are translated in real time into either official language. That is significant because under Canadian law, we have an obligation to treat both language groups equally and fairly. If outside organizations, which do not have an obligation to meet, are the ones having their rules and regulations referenced, that lag time between having equality of languages creates an unfair condition and such a troubling precedent in this country. It is again, something with which we really need to be concerned.
In a globalized world of complex trade agreements and trade treaties, in a world that wants to speed up and in a complex federal system, we understand the impulse of what is being proposed here. What we are doing, as I said, is circumventing the proper process, a good process and a sound process. We are substituting it with something that creates glaring inequities and gaps.
When we draft laws and knowingly draft laws that have these gaps, we are inviting court challenges and non-compliance, even through good intent. We are also opening the door to potential exploitation of that, which is perhaps the most serious of all of the concerns.
We are concerned to the point of opposition to Bill S-2, and the Liberal Party will not be supporting it.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for his, as usual, very articulate analysis. I find this notion of regulation by proxy particularly helpful. It is a more accessible idea than what I was referring to, which was the problem of subdelegation of authority, which is maybe a more technical way to speak of it.
I wonder if he could talk a little bit more about a couple of the examples of why he would see that referring out the power to regulate to external bodies might just be some sort of problem for democracy.
[Interjection]
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get too specific in the legislation only insofar as the colleague who asked me the question is a much more learned professor of law than I am.
The issue is that there is this handing off at arm's length and referencing at arm's length to other organizations. We understand why it happens. We understand that sections of existing laws get drafted into new laws, treaties or agreements. We understand how the law evolves and lives over time.
The trouble is that as we enter into a world where international law governs much of our trade, much of our economic activity and much of our obligations, and as we short-circuit the detail and definitions, we enter into areas where other legal practices, conventions and terminology start to enter into, and at times, confuse, contrast or even contradict very similarly phrased legal agreements. We start to look at some of the agreements that govern down into the provinces and into the municipal level around trade. The CETA agreement is one of those issues where these concerns are being raised. 
We take a look at non-parallel situations that may exist in a continent such as Europe, where trade agreements have been put in place. We have the European Parliament governing it. We have individual nations governing it, and subregions, provinces, cities and other legal entities providing governance. When we start extrapolating all of the different variations that may exist around a certain set of regulations, customs, practices, and most importantly, laws, the opportunity for gaps in understanding, for clarity to be replaced by confusion, is a real and significant possibility.
Writing into and codifying directly into laws that govern and regulate Canadian practice needs to be done in the context of Canada. That means in both official languages simultaneously. It also means taking the time to make sure that the language is right, because language is at the root of law-making.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I have another question, but I was happy to hear the examples. One of the features of our constitutional system is that international treaties cannot have the force of law until implemented through legislation. They also have to follow the division of powers after that.
My colleague has just raised an important element of this. There is another constitutionality dimension besides my concerns about charter compliance in some instances. That is that if international treaties themselves, which may well have been incorporated through lead legislation, contain annexes and appendices that are changing through international decision-making processes, it really does seem to be a form of an end run around our constitutional rule that international law-making, and particularly, treaty-making cannot enter our system until Parliament itself has brought it in.
I wonder if my colleague can comment on that. I know that the other side is likely to say that this is overstating the concerns, but for me, it is a major structural concern. If this is not thought through in terms of the accountability procedures, we could end up basically farming out so much of our future legislation.
[Interjection]
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, there is a significant concern. There is also the concern that as it is farmed out, and as it delegated or done by proxy, or that through this bill it is re-regulated, the very text we are quoting as being delegated to or made proxy to can change under our feet without our being notified or having any requirement of being notified. We would end up in a situation where laws are being changed in the absence of Canadian scrutiny. That is a concern.
The goal here is an admirable one. We understand the goal, and we understand the efficiency that is being sought. We all seek to create more efficient systems. 
However, as I said, we build in inefficiencies when we delegate to authorities and chambers and bodies making decisions that we have no connection to, no relationship with, and in some cases have no reporting mechanism. We are referencing rules that could be changing, and as a result we are giving an unfair advantage to those entities outside the country to effectively use Canadian law against Canadians in a way that was not expected because the law is not changed and the ability to exploit those changes resides with entities outside the country. Therefore, we are granting them unfair practice and procedure inside our own courts system, and Canadians may be oblivious to this.
We do not need to refuse to pursue these agreements, to abdicate the opportunities that may be presented to knit together, on a global stage, treaties and agreements and trade deals. We need to do that. We understand that, and we live in that world. However, we need to do it in a way that respects the common law traditions, the practices of Parliament, and the Constitution of Canada, including the rights that the member has raised.
The Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried. 
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I believe the hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30.
The Speaker: Is there consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Centre is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the item will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1:30, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:24 p.m.)