2014-11-07

Government Orders
Energy Safety and Security[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on an extremely important piece of legislation: the energy safety and security act. The act would ensure the continued safety and security of Canada's offshore oil and gas and nuclear energy industries, helping to make a world-class regulatory regime even better while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment.
Bill C-22 would modernize Canada's laws to ensure accountability in these industries and to protect taxpayers if a serious incident resulted in cleanup costs and compensation.
Our government has made a firm commitment, under our plan for responsible resource development, that no major resource project will proceed unless rigorous environmental protection measures are in place. Bill C-22 reflects this commitment by strengthening safety and security in Canada's energy sector by focusing on prevention, response, accountability, and transparency. 
The energy safety and security act would give Canada one of the strongest liability regimes in the world, providing a solid framework to regulate Canada's offshore and nuclear industries into the future.
The legislation would also support the responsible promotion and development of our offshore and nuclear industries, which are essential to Canada's economy.
I would first like to speak about the strong regulations we have in our nuclear sector.
Canada has a proud and distinguished history in the development and application of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. Canada has been involved in almost every aspect of the nuclear industry, from uranium mining and processing to the development of our CANDU reactors for clean power generation to the production of medical isotopes. As well, in many aspects of nuclear science, including our regulatory regime, we have been world leaders.
The task of overseeing Canada's safety in the nuclear sector falls to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, Canada's nuclear regulator. As hon. members are aware, the CNSC is independent with respect to licensing and regulatory matters. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. 
Our government places the highest priority on the protection of health, safety, security, and the environment in relation to nuclear activities in Canada. That is why we have ensured that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the resources it needs to do its mandated job.
The CNSC's compliance and enforcement system includes a number of enforcement actions, such as increased regulatory scrutiny, licensing, decertification, and prosecution. As part of our government's plan for responsible resource development, the CNSC has received an additional tool to ensure safety and environmental protection in Canada's nuclear sector: the Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations. These new regulations authorize the use of financial penalties for violations of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
Our Canadian nuclear industry is strong. Unlike the NDP, our government is committed to taking the necessary steps to make it even stronger. If the NDP had its way, it would shut down the nuclear industry entirely, putting 17,000 highly skilled Canadian workers out of work and bankrupting Canadian businesses. This is obviously unacceptable
The government supports a strong and safe nuclear industry, and Bill C-22 further demonstrates our commitment to nuclear safety.
A key feature of Bill C-22 is the $1-billion protection it would provide. In the case of Canada's nuclear industry, we would be strengthening the liability regime to increase the amount of compensation available for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion
Canadians can be assured that the CNSC would continue to diligently oversee all aspects of the Canadian nuclear industry to ensure that public health, safety, and security, as well as the environment, were protected.
I would now like to briefly touch on other parts of the bill that deal with the offshore.
Bill C-22 would also apply to oil and gas companies operating in the offshore, where we would be raising the absolute liability to $1 billion from its current levels of $30 million in the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic. 
With these measures, the energy safety and security act would reinforce, in unprecedented fashion, the polluter pays principle, which would protect Canadian taxpayers.
As hon. members know, on our east coast there are two independent offshore boards: the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. The accord acts give these boards the legal authority to regulate offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities.
Members of the offshore boards have professional expertise in various disciplines, including environmental protection, law, economics, engineering, and business. They are supported by highly qualified management teams and staff with extensive experience, including in the fields of environmental protection and safety. Each board ensures that operators exercise due diligence to prevent offshore spills. As a result, drilling cannot occur unless the responsible board is completely satisfied that drilling plans comply with federal regulations and are safe for workers and the environment.
With this in mind, we have worked closely with Nova Scotia and with Newfoundland and Labrador to update and expand legislation to ensure that Canada's offshore regime continues to be world class. Offshore installations and the equipment and training required to operate them must meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world. The Offshore Health and Safety Act, which received royal assent last spring, will further strengthen Canada's safety regime by giving the offshore industry a clear occupational health and safety framework that is enforceable by law and is free of jurisdictional uncertainty.
Bill C-22 would mean that companies operating offshore would have to have the financial capacity to meet the higher liability obligations. Before any offshore drilling or production activity could take place, companies would need to prove that they could cover the financial liabilities that could result from a spill. This legislation would also establish a cost-recovery regime for the operations of the offshore boards, oblige new requirements for transparency, and create new enforcement tools, such as administrative and monetary penalties.
In conclusion, our government knows that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We are committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of the environment. Through our plan for responsible resource development, we have taken action to ensure that Canada's vast resource wealth can be developed responsibly by putting public safety and environmental protection first. With the passage of Bill C-22, Canada would have in place one of the most modern, efficient, and stringent offshore safety regimes in the world.
 Our world-class standards are supported by strong environmental laws. We have worked closely with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to modernize this legislation to make Canada's already world-class safety regime even better.
 Bill C-22 is yet another example of our government's commitment to being a leader in safety and environmental protection while ensuring that all Canadians benefit from the jobs, opportunities, and economic growth created by Canada's natural resources. I urge the New Democrats to stop their ideological opposition to resource development and urge all hon. members to allow the passage of Bill C-22.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the importance of offshore activities on the east coast, the number of jobs that have been generated, and the economic wealth that is being created because of the amount of exploration and drilling that is taking place. 
The government is bringing forward legislation that would have a significant impact on the activities in that region. I am sure the member is sensitive to the fact that a number of stakeholders would want to participate in any discussion on legislation of this nature. Can the member indicate to the House to what degree the government has actually worked with different stakeholders in bringing forward this legislation?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, our government absolutely works with stakeholders across the country, especially in these areas that are affected to make sure that the plan works for everybody. We understand that natural resource development is key for our country and has been since Canada started as a nation. Absolutely, we will continue to consult with stakeholders, as we have in the past, to make sure that it is a good plan for everybody.
Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.
In his opinion, why have the Conservatives done nothing to comply with international standards before now? This bill will not allow us to catch up to our international partners. The Conservatives often brag that they want to be more like the United States, but the American government has adopted an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S.
Why, then, do the Conservatives not want Canada to adopt a regime that offers at least the same amount of protection as the U.S. regime? They are always saying that Canada is ahead of the United States, so why are they not showing leadership and attaining or surpassing the level of protection in the United States?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of on this side of the House. Absolute liability of $1 billion is significant, and there are further measures to capture more funds if it goes beyond that. 
Canada is one of the top countries in the world in terms of the environment and developing natural resources. We care about them. I am from British Columbia. People in my province want to make sure that we can balance both, but we absolutely need natural resource development, as a country, to continue to prosper.
Again, $1 billion in absolute liability is significant and is among the top in the world.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on this bill. I know that he and his party are great advocates of the free market. I wonder why, in this case, they are putting forward a bill that relieves the nuclear industry of some of the pressures of the free market by, in a sense, subsidizing the risks involved in that industry. Why should the nuclear industry, just like any other industry, not bear the full cost of the risk? Why should the public pick up this expense for the nuclear industry?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understand the question. In my speech I mentioned that we went from a $75-million liability to $1 billion. To me, that is a dramatic increase in liability for the proponent. I see it as quite an improvement to what existed before.
Again, Canada has nothing to be ashamed of. We care about the environment and resource development, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my friend who previously spoke about liability for the nuclear industry was quite right in saying that we have gone from $75 million to $1 billion. I wonder if my friend could expand a little further. Among countries that have nuclear reactors, we recently saw with Fukushima that the government of Japan essentially took over the nuclear industry in that country because of the billions of dollars involved. I think it is now in excess of $12 billion.
Could my friend tell the House about the procedure in circumstances where liability exceeds $1 billion? I wonder if he could talk about it coming back to the House so that the government could ensure that the industry complies with the additional costs.
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, the shift from $75 million to $1 billion in absolute liability is significant, but there is also a requirement that any proponents that go beyond that have to come up with the difference.
I would like to state again how important the nuclear industry is to Canada. It supports 17,000 jobs for Canadians and their families. We support the industry and want to make sure that it is environmentally sound but also competitive.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for sharing his time with me.
It is my privilege to speak to Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. This legislation would ensure continued world-class safety and security for Canada's offshore oil and gas, and nuclear energy industries. It would enhance regulation and ensure that development is done in a manner that is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment.
Our government has been very clear, taxpayers should not be liable in the highly unlikely event of an incident in either of these industries. It is the company that must be held liable. The bill would deliver on the promise made in the Speech from the Throne to enshrine the polluter pays principle into law. As well, it would fulfill our commitment to provide $1 billion in protection to Canadians by raising absolute liability limits in both these sectors. Absolute liability holds the company responsible regardless of fault.
Canada has an enormous wealth of natural resources that generate significant economic benefits for Canadians. It is not an exaggeration to say that the resource sector is the cornerstone of Canada's economy. Natural resources account for nearly 20% of our gross domestic product, and 50% of our exports.
In fact, the energy, mining and forestry industries provide over $30 billion a year in revenue to governments, money that supports critical social programs such as health care and education. Furthermore, 1.8 million Canadians currently work in the natural resource sectors or in industries that service these sectors. Put another way, one in 10 Canadians work directly or indirectly for the natural resources sector.
Natural resource jobs are in every part of Canada from coast to coast to coast. Today, more than 30,000 aboriginal people work in energy, mining and forestry jobs throughout Canada, making the natural resources sector the largest private sector employer of aboriginal people.
There is true potential for massive investments in resource sectors in every region across Canada. It is estimated that hundreds of major resource projects are currently under way in Canada or planned over the next 10 years, worth approximately $650 billion in investment.
These investments will generate enormous economic growth and create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs in communities across Canada. Responsible resource development achieves the right balance to unleash the potential of our resource sectors to create high-value jobs across Canada while strengthening safety and environmental protection.
The legislation before us today will strengthen the growth of Canada's energy sector, and will protect Canadians and the environment. With respect to Canada's booming offshore oil and gas industry, the economy of Atlantic Canada has been truly transformed.
 Over the past 15 years, Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas production has generated over $2.4 billion in government revenues and annually supports some 750 jobs. At the same time, Newfoundland and Labrador production has generated over $9.2 billion in government revenues and provides over 12,800 direct and indirect jobs annually.
Every stage of offshore petroleum activity, from exploration to production, is subject to strict regulations and oversight by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
Canada's environmental record is strong, and we are making it stronger by focusing on what matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Our government manages Canada's offshore oil and gas resources jointly with the provinces. We worked in collaboration with Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to develop these changes.
Bill C-22 would hold companies to account in the case of an incident. By fulfilling our promise in the Speech from the Throne and enshrining the polluter pays principle into law, we are ensuring the continued success of offshore development.
In the Atlantic offshore we are increasing absolute liability from $30 million to $1 billion. We are also increasing the offshore absolute liability in the Arctic from $40 million to $1 billion. This means that companies are responsible for damages up to that amount, regardless of whether they are at fault for the incident. As is currently the case, we would continue to maintain unlimited liability where fault or negligence is proven. 
Additionally, companies would need to demonstrate that they have $1 billion in available financial capacity. The bill would make companies responsible for their product and require them to pay for any damage caused. The bill would also strengthen the transparency of our safety regime by giving the public access to emergency planning, environmental plans and other documents filed with regulators. We feel strongly that the public deserves access to this important information and we will make sure that they have it.
Through our government's actions, oil and gas companies operating in the Atlantic and Arctic offshore would be subjected to the highest safety and liability standards in the world. 
As my colleagues have mentioned, the energy safety and security act would also strengthen Canada's system for nuclear liability. It places Canada in line with internationally accepted compensation levels and significantly increases the operator's absolute liability for civil damages from $75 million to $1 billion. This increase brings Canada in line with modern western nuclear power generating countries. 
This is an important aspect for Canadians because they want to be assured that nuclear power generated in Canada is done safely. Of course, the safety and security of this sector is paramount to the bill and I am proud that we are taking steps to update the liability limits for nuclear.
 It is unfortunate that the NDP continues to oppose thousands of jobs in the nuclear sector and the non-emitting electricity generated by nuclear power. I do not need to remind Canadians of the importance of our energy sector. Most willingly acknowledge the huge role that it plays in our national economy and many Canadians would even suggest Canada is blessed with an abundance of resources. The question is why any responsible party would attempt to minimize or negate the importance of one of the most important players in the energy sector, the nuclear industry, as it relates to the overall economic well-being of Canada. 
While other parties refuse to support hard-working Canadians or the creation of high-paying jobs across the energy sector, our government is moving forward to ensure that we have world-class safety standards for the benefit of all Canadians, which will in turn lead to even better economic opportunities for all.
In conclusion, the energy safety and security act offers Canada a solid, modern framework to regulate the offshore and nuclear liability systems in Canada for decades to come. Despite the divisive nature of the debate against Canada's development of our various natural resources, the truth that many Canadians realize is that economic prosperity and environmental protection can both be achieved. 
Canadians trust our government to grow the economy, create jobs and responsibly develop Canada's resources.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in her assertion of just how dependent Canada is on our natural resources, which employ a good number of people from every region of our country. She also put emphasis on our aboriginal and first nation communities. There is no doubt there is a great deal of reward economically.
My question is with regard to the idea of having a social contract related to the development of our natural resources, and therefore, being able to have sound environmental laws, but along with that, ensuring that there is a sense of working with the public as a whole. When we look especially at some of the pipeline issues, we have found that the government has fallen short on getting that social contract with Canadians. 
Could the member provide some thoughts as to why she believes the government has not done as well on that aspect of developing our natural resources?
[Interjection]
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that member's question.
We need to remember that Bill C-22 would do four important things. It would raise the absolute liability for companies operating in the Atlantic offshore. We talked about that. It would also raise it in the Arctic. It would amend the agreements that are in place with both the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. In the nuclear sector, it would increase the absolute liability amount to $1 billion. It would also take steps to replace the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act. 
There are other things that this bill would do. Coming from an area such as Sarnia-Lambton, I am well aware of the importance of the energy sector to our economy and the safety and environmental issues that are inherent in that energy sector. I am also well aware of pipelines. We probably have an inordinate number of pipelines in my area, far more than in any other area in this country.
Bill C-22 also puts in place some other measures that would provide an improved response, a stronger accountability and greater transparency. Therefore, I am looking forward to all members supporting the bill and getting it passed quickly.
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, of course a $1 billion liability seems like a lot. It is an improvement.
Nonetheless, my colleague surely knows the estimated cost of the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima. In case she does not remember, I will remind her that it is $250 billion. There is a huge difference between a $250 billion liability and a $1 billion liability, a $249 billion difference, to be exact. The federal government would have to subsidize the rest of the repairs and upgrades, and that means it would fall to Canadian taxpayers and the people of Drummond. I do not think the people of Drummond would be pleased to learn that.
How will my colleague explain to her constituents that if there were ever a nuclear disaster like the one in Fukushima, it would be up to Canadians to pay $249 billion?
[Interjection]
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, this is a point that we need to be clear on. Bill C-22 would raise the liability limits for the operator to $1 billion. We know we needed to do that. We were operating under a nuclear bill that was several years old and needed to be updated. We know when we compare the billion-dollar operator liability to other countries that this will put Canada among the highest limits in the world.
The United Kingdom, France, Spain and other European countries are moving to an operator limit of $1 billion. They are not there yet but they are thinking of going that way. Other non-European nations, including South Korea, South Africa and Argentina, have lower liability limits.
We ask, “Why not move it higher?” We know that in the aftermath of Fukushima the Japanese government had to step in and bail out the operator. In the highly unlikely event of an incident that exceeded the billion dollar limit, the Minister of Natural Resources in Canada would be required to table a report before Parliament containing estimates of the costs of the damages from the nuclear incident. That report would provide government the opportunity to make recommendations on the desirability of additional compensation beyond the liability limit based on relevant consideration at that time.
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in opposition to Bill C-22. It is called “an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts”. I suppose, compared to some other names I have seen for bills coming before the House, this one is not as reactionary or volatile. 
I have a major concern. We are dealing with a piece of legislation that is critical, and I am hearing that from colleagues on the other side. First, it took them forever to bring the bill here. They could have done it a long time ago. Now they keep moving time allocation on it. Here we are, once again, speaking to a bill, and it is one out of eighty bills that has had time allocation. 
This is getting to be ridiculous. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at that. Not only has the government placed time allocations in the House, but at committee stage it prevented a full array of experts and other witnesses from coming forward to present testimony so that the legislation can be well thought out and based on opinions of those in the field. It prevented experts from talking, who know a lot more about this issue than many parliamentarians in the House. 
Once again, we, as parliamentarians, have been denied access to that kind of expertise and science. Knowing the government's allergic reaction to science and expert opinion, I should not be surprised, but I am still very disappointed.
I have heard a number of times today that the bill is an improvement on what we have. I agree. 
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. My apologies to her.
The bill has taken a long time to come here. The changes are long overdue, but once again my colleagues across the way have failed to address fundamental issues that need to be addressed. 
I always hear from my colleagues about how the U.S. does it, and that if the U.S. is dropping missiles into Iraq we have to follow because we are very close friends. However, it seems in this case that they are quite willing to ignore what the U.S. is doing in this area, and what other countries are doing. Germany, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, and Switzerland have unlimited liability for nuclear power plants. We are not talking about one or two countries;.this is a series of countries that I have listed. 
The Conservatives have set the bar even lower than the U.S., the closest to us border-wise. That causes me major concern. When it suits us, we have to be like the U.S. and follow it here and there. However, when it does not suit us and it concerns the pocketbooks of Canadians and our future well-being, then they are quite willing to look the other way. 
Even the U.S. has standards that are much higher than the ones proposed in the bill. The U.S. has an absolute liability regime of $12.6 billion U.S., compared to $1 billion. We can all see, even my grandchildren in school would be able to see, that there is a huge difference there. 
However, if the companies are not paying, guess who is paying? It is the taxpayers. The current government, which is always talking about being good managers of taxpayers' assets, in this case is willing to land the taxpayers with billions and billions of dollars worth of liability. I am not exaggerating. We only have to look at what has happened in the past when it came to cleanup. 
It is not as if we do not have any examples. We can look at the cost of cleanup around Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Japanese government estimates that the cleanup for the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant could be over $250 billion. 
I am not grabbing these numbers out of the air. This is a country that has experienced that reality, and it is giving us its best opinion. Japan has already spent well over hundreds of billions on this.
What do the so-called smart economic managers for our Canadian taxpayers do, who are sitting on the other side? They are proposing a total liability of $1 billion. That does not speak well for being good managers of taxpayers' money.
We are pleased to see that the bill would bring some changes, which include unlimited liability for gas and oil companies. Coming from beautiful British Columbia and being very proud of our pristine coastline, we are very concerned. We want to see obstacles put in the way so that the business community, oil explorers, and other companies, will make sure that they take every precautionary step possible to avoid a leakage, spill, or any other kind of disaster.
If this measure is good enough for the oil and gas industry, it should be good enough for the nuclear industry as well. I am finding it very hard to get my head around why we would treat two industries so very differently. Neither industry is new; they are both well established. 
After years of experience as the environment minister in Quebec, I believe that the NDP leader knows environmental protection and sustainable development inside and out. I absolutely believe that he would not support, nor would he bring forward, legislation that would put liability for nuclear companies at only $1 billion.
Subsidizing the most profitable industries in the country and leaving taxpayers on the hook for a massive nuclear disaster or oil spill does not make sense. However, the Conservative government would do exactly that. 
I would say that the Conservatives are going against the common sense test. If I were to put this idea forward to a grade 5 class in my riding, they would say “Really? That's not fair”. It is not right, and it concerns me. I think it is shameful that we have a bill before us that does not put the interests of the taxpayers before narrow corporate interests, and that is what we are seeing here.
I will finish with wishing everyone in the House a happy and productive week in their ridings. I know that all of us will be participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies, which are always filled with pathos, sadness, and memories as we honour those who sacrificed for us. However, this year, in light of the events we have personally experienced here, they will take on a different level of poignancy. 
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the remarks that my colleague made. If I heard her correctly, she stated at the beginning of her speech that this legislation was long overdue and she was wondering why it has taken the government so long to bring it forward. I am a bit curious about that comment. If I recollect correctly, this is about the fifth time that we have introduced legislation on this important issue, and each time it has been opposed by the NDP.
Does the member opposite not agree with stronger accountability, improved response, and greater transparency when it comes to nuclear operations?
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear about transparency and accountability from that side of the House. It is absolutely because we want accountability and transparency, and because we want the polluter pay principle applied to the nuclear branch as well, that we are opposed to the bill. The bill is deficient. We would not be doing our homework.
I hear about the minister. This legislation proposes to give discretionary power to the minister that could lower the amount from $1 billion. That seems asinine to me.
This is not about transparency or accountability. This is about doing favours for the government's corporate friends.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the issue of liability insurance could be of great interest to many people with regard to the cost of acquiring it. There is a need for government to get engaged sometimes, and the best example I can come up with was after the 9/11 disaster when the government had to get involved in terms of insurance in order to secure air flights. 
Does the member believe that at some point limits should be put on liability insurance, or should it be 100% recoverable through insurance? I am referring to companies that want to drill or export or transfer oil, or deal with nuclear material.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it should be polluter pay, and at no time should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of cleanup, whether it is nuclear material, oil, or gas.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague two or three questions. 
Assuming there is no limit to how much an oil company can get out of the ground, if an oil deposit contains $20 billion worth of oil, the oil company will take that $20 billion worth of oil. Since the resource potential is unlimited, why should the company's liability be limited? What are we supposed to tell people if a company causes damage in excess of $1 billion?
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the insightful conversations that I have with my colleague and his thoughtful contributions in the House.
If we believe in the principle of polluter pay, then that has to be applied consistently. We cannot pick and choice and say that it will apply to one industry but not the other. 
My friends across the way have commented that a report will be made to Parliament. What difference would that make? It would be great to have a report that says it costs more than $1 billion, but at the end of the day, who is going to pay for the cleanup? Companies are not going to pay. Taxpayers are going to end up paying, and that is unacceptable.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public is well aware that we are debating Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. 
This legislation has a number of sections, but the part that I will focus on is the fact that it would modify Canada's civil liability regimes for the offshore oil and gas industry and it would notably increase the absolute liability threshold to $1 billion to operators of offshore oil and gas and nuclear facilities. The current threshold for offshore oil and gas operations are $40 million in the Arctic and $30 million for all other offshore areas.
Offshore drilling does not take place in all parts of Canada. The legislative summary points out that, in addition, offshore exploration activity is currently being conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Offshore petroleum wells may also be drilled in the Beaufort Sea. Drilling programs there are undergoing a regulatory screening process. In addition, offshore basins near Nunavut's high Arctic islands and in the eastern Arctic may be developed in the future.
Currently, there is a federal moratorium on oil and gas activities in place on the offshore of British Columbia. In Quebec, a provincial moratorium exists on the oil and gas offshore activities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A permanent prohibition on such activities applies in waters northwest of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary.
What we have heard from the other side is that the New Democrats should approve and support whatever bill the government brings forward. One member talked about the fact that this was all about jobs. Any responsible member of Parliament must, first, do their due diligence. However, second, when we talk about resource development and issues pertaining to resource development, we need to consider them in the economic, environmental and social contexts. We would be irresponsible if we did not take a very broad view of any resource development that happens in Canada and the consequent liability.
The NDP has been critical of this bill on a number of fronts, but there are three principles of sustainable development: equity, precautionary principle and broad inclusive participation. Bill C-22 would not uphold the polluter pays principle in the nuclear part of the bill and it would fail to create an inclusive consultation process for projects. It would allow the minister to be subject to lobbying, thus reducing the minister's accountability.
 Bill C-22 would not mandate a solid inclusive consultation process for specific projects, which is essential, given the potential impact these projects could have on the quality of life and well-being of concerned communities and regions.
The government's proposed $1 billion cap for offshore drilling would apply to no fault liability, while operators would continue to face unlimited liability should they be found at fault or negligent. Companies would also be required to demonstrate to the regulators their financial capacity to cover $1 billion in cleanup costs should it become necessary. It would also increase coverage for exploratory drilling operations offshore, production operations, the loading of tankers for transport and undersea pipelines, such as natural gas from Sable Island to the Mainland in Atlantic Canada.
Here is the sticker. The bill would provide for ministerial discretion to reduce absolute liability levels to below the legislative level of $1 billion. This discretionary provision could undercut the advantages of the legislative increase in the absolute liability limit contained in Bill C-22.
The legislative summary refers to section 2.1.4.2 under “Public Hearings”. Bill C-22 would add new sections to the Canada oil and gas operations, allowing the National Energy Board to conduct a public hearing in relation to the exercise of any of its powers or the performance of any of its duties and functions under the act.
The New Democrats absolutely support a public process with regard to reviewing applications that come forward around resource development. However, I want to highlight the fact that the National Energy Board has been subject to some pretty severe criticism with regard to its operations. Simply because it is in this bill that the National Energy Board would be able to conduct a public hearing, it does not give us any confidence about how that public hearing would be conducted, who would be involved and whether the information would actually be considered.
I want to turn to a letter dated October 30, that was sent to the secretary of the National Energy Board. It is about an intervenor making a licence withdrawal from the hearing on the Trans Mountain expansion project. I will read an excerpt from this letter, because again, if the legislation mentions it but we do not have confidence in the process, why would we support it? In this letter, the intervenor says:
 The unwillingness of Trans Mountain to address most of my questions and the Board’s almost complete endorsement of Trans Mountain’s decision has exposed this process as deceptive and misleading. Proper and professional public interest due diligence has been frustrated, leading me to the conclusion that this Board has a predetermined course of action to recommend approval of the Project and a strong bias in favour of the Proponent. 
 In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator. 
If the government is to review applications in sensitive offshore areas like the north and if this is the kind of process to which these reviews would be subject, it does not leave us any confidence that we will end up with the best kinds of decisions.
 The letter goes on to say:
 In addition to gutting the oral-cross examination feature of a public hearing process that supports proper questioning and an adequate level of due diligence, there are other Board decisions that have been made over the course of this hearing that reflect a pre-determined outcome. 
 The evidence on the record shows that decisions made by the Board at this hearing are dismissive of intervenors. They reflect a lack of respect for hearing participants, a deep erosion of the standards and practices of natural justice that previous Boards have respected, and an undemocratic restriction of participation by citizens, communities, professionals and First Nations either by rejecting them outright or failing to provide adequate funding to facilitate meaningful participation. 
Certainly in British Columbia that continues to be an ongoing source of irritation, which is probably too light of a word. However, many people who want to intervene in an NEB process simply do not have the capacity to review the thousands of pages of documents and to present a finding, so funding becomes critical, particularly with regard to first nations communities that will be directly impacted by projects.
It is a lengthy letter, so I cannot read it all, but further in the letter the intervenor indicates:
 The Board had stated that the elimination of cross-examination of the Proponent’s evidence can be evaluated through the two scheduled Information Requests. But we have a Kafkaesque outcome. Trans Mountain refuses to answer questions and the Board does not compel them to do so. 
We have a proponent that can say whatever it wants, yet intervenors have no ability to question it, because the board will not allow the questions.
 The intervenor goes on to say:
 The Province of British Columbia stated that “Trans Mountain’s failure to file the evidence requested by the Province in Information Request No. 1 denies the Board, the Province and other intervenors access to the information required to fully understand the risk posed by the Project, how Trans Mountain proposes to mitigate such risk and Trans Mountain’s ability to effectively respond to a spill related to the Project.” 
 The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest. 
One of the reasons the NDP has objected to the bill is the lack of clear process around public consultation. The government continues to say that Canadians should not worry, that the National Energy Board will look after their interests. When we have had a very credible intervenor raise questions about the NEB's independence, we need to do a far better job of telling Canadians how projects would be evaluated. 
We need that openness, transparency and accountability so Canadians have confidence that when a project is approved, that it has been tested for the environmental, economic and social impacts. It is with very good reason that the New Democrats do not support the bill at this stage. We attempted to make a number of amendments at committee stage and of course to no surprise, those amendments were rejected by the government.
I point out, once again, that we are under time allocation and that limits the amount of time and the number of witnesses who can be called to review the bill. With very good reason, the New Democrats oppose the legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There will be five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan when the House next turns to debate on this question.

Statements By Members
Polish Independence DayMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for Canadians, November 11 is the day we remember the brave men and women who helped build our nation and gave us strong democratic foundations.
In Poland, November 11 is independence day. Poland shook off its oppressors and regained its independence in 1918. Since that time, Poland has served side by side with Canadians in World War II and suffered through decades of Soviet rule.
The Solidarity trade union helped break Communism's back, and today Poland has served by Canada's side in Afghanistan and on other missions. Poland has fought for its freedom for centuries, and Poland's democratic drive is deeply rooted.
 Today Poland again stands alongside Canada in helping Ukraine in its struggle, and Poland stands stalwart as Vladimir Putin threatens global security and makes threats towards the Baltic States. Canadian and Polish soldiers are presently serving in Poland as part of Operation Reassurance, and our pilots are patrolling the skies over the Baltics together.
 I am proud that Canada has an ally like Poland, which shares our values and love of freedom. I ask all Canadians to join me in congratulating Poland on its 96th anniversary of independence.
 Jeszcze Polska jeszcze nie zginela.
World Diabetes DayMr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, November 14 is World Diabetes Day. The 2014 campaign slogan is “Diabetes: protect our future”. This day is recognized worldwide because diabetes does not discriminate. It affects people from all walks of life and of all ages.
 According to the International Diabetes Federation's Diabetes Atlas, there are currently 382 million people living with diabetes, and that number will rise to 592 million by 2035. A further 316 million people are currently at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, with the number expected to increase to almost 500 million within a generation.
Leading medical experts call this a 21st century pandemic. November 14 is an important day for everyone. Let us take control of our health now.
Human Rights in IranHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I welcomed Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 Horrific human rights abuses are ongoing in Iran, and the situation continues to worsen. Dr. Shaheed's research reveals that the number of persons executed in Iran has risen since 2004. A recent case that has shocked and saddened the international community was the execution of 26-year-old Reyhaneh Jabbari, who was hung without due process or a fair trial for killing a man attempting to sexually assault her.
 Unfortunately, it is not surprising that basic rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and access to a fair trial continue to be ignored by the Iranian government.
 Later this month Canada will co-sponsor the UN resolution on Iran. This resolution is significant to the promotion of human rights.
World Prematurity DayHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the eve of World Prematurity Day, November 17, recognized internationally to promote awareness and related action on prematurity, as it is a leading cause of infant mortality and morbidity, affecting many families who are forever changed following a premature birth.
This day has special meaning to me, as I have two grandchildren who were born premature: Lavi, a 25-weeker who struggled valiantly but sadly passed away, and Ella, a 32-weeker and now a healthy five-month-old. 
Today we salute these amazing little fighters who beat the odds. We salute their families and the team of neonatologists and NICU nurses who truly work miracles every day. Words can never describe the gratitude families have for them.
On this day, major monuments around the world and in Canada are lit up in purple, in tribute and recognition. It would be most inspiring and would bring strength to all those affected to see Parliament Hill lit up in purple by lighting up the Peace Tower on this day.
Remembrance DayPatricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in order to pay my respects to those who have served our nation with courage and valour.
 During World War II, my father served for four years in the European theatre. He was able to return home. It was not so for my uncle, who served courageously as a rear gunner before being lost in battle somewhere over the North Sea.
 In recent times I was touched by the loss of two young men from Sarnia—Lambton, Private Will Cushley and Corporal Brent Poland, both of whom lost their lives serving in Afghanistan while fighting for the same freedoms that we enjoy each and every day here in Canada. Their brave service encompasses the incredible character of the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who serve this nation with pride in perilous times. 
Many Canadians have similar stories of heroic returns and tragic losses. This November 11, I ask all Canadians to remember the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as all servicemen and women who are on active duty and cannot be here with their families.
Riding of PontiacMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on October 21, I had the honour of attending the presentation of decorations for bravery ceremony.
In my riding, on April 19, 2011, Rachel Lacroix Pilon, Janelle Lanoix and Josée Pilotte managed to prevent an armed man from harming any students at the Saint-Laurent elementary school in Buckingham. They showed tremendous restraint and remarkably quick thinking. As a parent of young children, I want to personally thank them for doing everything in their power to keep the children safe.
I would also like to take a moment to highlight two important anniversaries. The Shawville Lions Club will soon celebrate its 65th anniversary. That organization's generosity has helped improve the lives of many vulnerable people and families.
The Gracefield Co-op is also celebrating its 75th anniversary. I wish to congratulate the co-operative, which contributes to Gracefield's local economy and employs people in the region.
Thank you to everyone for making the riding of Pontiac such a wonderful place to live.
Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing HeritageRick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before the House today to acknowledge of the passing of my private member's bill, Bill C-501, which formally designates the third Saturday in September as Canada's national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day. 
Hunting, trapping, and fishing heritage runs deep within my family ancestry and was an integral part of the lives of the first Canadian settlers and aboriginal peoples. Bill C-501 received all-party support in the House and the Senate, as well as the support of every provincial and regional outdoor federation across the country.
I would like to thank Senator Lynn Beyak and all those who helped get the bill passed and invite all members to join me in celebration on the next third Saturday in September and each year thereafter to mark this important part of our nation's history.
Decorations for BraveryMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 21, I was honoured to attend the Governor General's decorations for bravery ceremony. 
The decorations for bravery recognize people who risk their lives to try to save or protect another. The Medal of Bravery is awarded by the Governor General to Canadians in recognition of acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. I was proud to watch Mr. Clayton Joseph Beck of St. Andrews, along with fellow Manitoban Mark Alexander, being presented the Medals of Bravery for their selfless and valiant efforts. 
On August 29, 2011, Clayton Beck and Mark Alexander rescued a man from a burning house. Despite the intense heat and smoke, both men made their way inside the house to locate the unconscious victim and bring him safely outside. These men ran into a dangerous situation, putting their own lives at risk to save someone else. The actions of Clayton Beck and Mark Alexander are something that all Manitobans and Canadians alike can be proud of.
On behalf of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake and indeed all Canadians, I thank them for their bravery and congratulate them on their deserving distinction of honour on being awarded the Medal of Bravery.
Remembrance DayMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity that has been given to me today in the House to acknowledge the courage and bravery of our veterans.
As Remembrance Day approaches this Tuesday, November 11, my thoughts go out to the members of the two legions in my riding of Laval—Les Îles: Branch 216 in Laval West and Branch 251 in Chomedey. Your service and the sacrifices made by you and your families will forever be etched in our collective memory. We are eternally grateful for what you did.
I also want to commend those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country and our rights. I honour their memory today. I am thinking especially of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who died tragically, as we all know.
To you, your families and your friends, I say: lest we forget. 
TaxationMr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to our new family tax cut plan, 100% of families with children in Fort McMurray—Athabasca and across Canada will be better off. That includes working, stay-at-home, and single parents and one-earner and two-earner families. Indeed, all families with children will have more money in their pockets.
 Every parent will now receive up to $1,920 per child, but the Liberal leader committed to reversing our tax relief so that he could spend their money the way he wants. Despite a Liberal leader who has positioned himself against middle-class families, I am proud that our government is giving money back to each and every family with children in Canada.
Victims of Sexual AssaultMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week the Fédération des femmes du Québec, in co-operation with Je suis indestructible, an initiative that gives a voice to sexual assault victims, launched the hashtag #AgressionNonDénoncée on Twitter.
I was moved by the courageous stories of victims of sexual assault. Thank you for helping us understand the silence of women who have been raped, and for refusing to trivialize their experiences and blaming them. 
According to the YWCA, only 33 cases of sexual assault out of 1,000 are reported to police. Too many victims live in shame and in silence. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to consent, there are no 50 shades of grey. There are no blurred lines.
In Quebec, the helpline for sexual assault victims is 1-888-933-9007. There are other resources that provide support, such as the Regroupement québécois des CALACS.
There are many of us fighting the same fight. We must work together because together we will change the world.
Remembrance Day Service at Osgoode HallMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we enter Remembrance week, in a year that marks the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, it is important for Canadians to remember the 61,000 Canadians who gave their lives in the Great War. 
Next Monday I will be at Osgoode Hall for a special event at which the Law Society of Upper Canada posthumously calls to the bar 58 law students who left promising young careers to serve in the Great War and gave their lives for Canada. They join 113 lawyers who gave their lives in the Great War and are marked on the Osgoode Hall Great War memorial. That includes Sam Sharpe, the member of Parliament for Uxbridge, who was my predecessor 100 years ago. He fought at Vimy Ridge and died as a result of his service in the Great War. 
I thank the Law Society of Upper Canada, in particular lawyer Patrick Shea for his vision on this event, and I thank the Highlanders' foundation for making it possible.
Beechville BicentennialHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the community of Beechville on its 200th anniversary. Beechville, which was originally called Beech Hill, was first settled in 1814 by men and women of African descent. The settlers were refugees from the United States who escaped slavery during the War of 1812. Despite facing many hardships, the residents of Beechville have endured and have made significant contributions to the culture of Nova Scotia.
 I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Beechville's proud history. 
TaxationMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under our family tax cut, all families with children will receive more money in their pockets, which is where it belongs. The vast majority will go to low- and middle-income families. A single parent with two children earning $30,000 would receive over $1,500 per year, a single parent with two kids making $50,000 would see over $900 in relief and benefits, and a two-income family with kids whose mom earns $48,000 and dad earns $12,000 would receive a benefit of over $1,100. That is a whopping 36% of their federal tax bill.
Our plan also includes increasing the universal child care benefit so that parents will soon receive a benefit of $160 per month for each child under six.
Our Conservative government is fulfilling its promise to balance the federal budget, and we are proud to be in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadian families balance theirs.
Harassment in the WorkplaceMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every Canadian, no matter where they work, has the right to work in a safe, harassment-free environment. Parliament Hill is no exception.
Everyone needs to feel safe: employees, elected officials, interns, journalists, everyone.
We need to work together and stop thinking about ourselves and what is best for our party, so that we can create a safe, respectful environment. This is not the time for grand gestures; we need results. 
We need to look at our policies and our daily actions to determine how we can prevent harassment and put support and crisis-management mechanisms in place.
We need to do a better job of supporting victims and ensuring that they have the resources they need to face the physical and psychological consequences of harassment and to overcome their ordeal.
I just want to tell the victims of harassment, and there are far too many in Canada, that we are with you. You are not alone.
EmploymentMs. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today Statistics Canada announced an increase of 43,100 jobs in October, with the majority being full time. This is further proof that our government's plan for jobs and growth is working. 
While monthly employment numbers can be volatile, what is more important is the long-term trend. Our government has had the best job creation record in the G7, and we are leading in economic growth. In fact, we have created almost 20% more jobs than our closest competitor. Since the depth of the global recession, over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created.
 While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberals have the same old Liberal high-tax, high-spending agenda that will threaten jobs and set working families back. At the same time, the NDP continues to push risky high-tax schemes, such as a $20 billion carbon tax that would hurt Canada's economy and kill Canadian jobs. 
Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canada: growing the economy and helping create jobs. 

Oral Questions
TaxationMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have taken another page from Mike Harris's shady playbook by deciding to deliver their economic update outside Parliament to an audience of financial elites rather than to the people's representatives. Not surprisingly, they are completely out of touch with what families need.
Instead of offering tax cuts that will not benefit 85% of Canadians, why is the government not using next week's economic update to keep its promise to create 125,000 day care spaces?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after today's announcement on job creation, our record is over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the end of the recession. This is the best job creation record in the G7. In fact, we have created almost 20% more jobs than our closest competitor. Our economic action plan is working. While the opposition continues to focus on high-tax and high-spend schemes, our government will continue to focus on job creation and economic growth.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that there are 200,000 more unemployed people than there were at the beginning of the recession. The truth is that the Conservatives have nothing to offer families and workers in the manufacturing sector. I, for one, am not surprised that the Minister of Finance is seeking refuge among Toronto bankers.
Why is the government not using next week's economic update to help families and workers?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: economic growth and job creation. While monthly employment numbers can be volatile, more important is the long-term trend. Since coming into office, our government has had the best job creation record in the G7 and we are leading in economic growth. Since the depth of the global recession, over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. However, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic growth.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance again plans to ignore Parliament and instead deliver the fall economic update at an exclusive $80 a plate event in Toronto, but his bad choices do not end there. We already know he wants to spend billions on an income-splitting scheme for the wealthy that will give no benefit whatsoever to more than 85% of Canadians. Does he honestly believe that ordinary working families would be impressed with his Bay Street budget?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, actually every single Canadian family with children under age 18 will benefit from our announcements that we announced a week ago. Under our family tax cuts, close to two million families will benefit, as well as the increase to the universal child care benefit. Another really good feature of what we have announced is the expansion of the amount that individuals and families can claim for child care expenses. We have increased that by $1,000 in every one of the categories. 
We know that the NDP and Liberals would end income-splitting for families. We know they would take away the universal child care benefit. Families can only count on this government to keep money in their pockets.
Child CareMs. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Finance is looking forward to heading back to hang out with his Bay Street buddies next week, but Canadian families are wondering when they will get their update on what happened to the Conservatives' promise to create 125,000 new child care spaces. Last I checked, the counter is still at zero and the costs of child care continue to climb.
How many new child care spaces will be announced in the fall economic update?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, here is the difference between our plan for helping families with child care and the NDP's. The NDP plan is a $5 billion plan that would help less than 10% of Canadian families. What we believe is that families need choice. Not every single family chooses a nine-to-five formalized daycare option. Many families either use a private daycare or they might use other family members to help. We believe families should have the choice and the decision-making power. That is why the universal child care benefit is being increased and expanded to let families make the choice.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme will go over better in a room full of bankers than it does with regular Canadians, or economists, or former finance ministers, or pretty much anyone else who has looked at the details. They are all opposed. 
By contrast, New Democrats have put forward a plan for quality universal child care at $15 a day or less. Why will the minister not adopt our plan to create one million spaces and reverse the trend of climbing costs that put the squeeze on so many families?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP and the Liberals voted against our plan to expand the universal child care benefit. We know that given the opportunity, they would claw it back. They would take it away to fund their $5 billion huge scheme that would only help less than 10% of Canadian families.
We have seen their true colours. We have seen how they have voted and what they have said about the universal child care benefit. Canadians know that if the NDP had the chance it would take away that benefit that families depend on.
TaxationGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, a new gag order has been imposed on the Conservative caucus. It is all but impossible to get Conservatives to utter the phrase “income splitting”. Even the Prime Minister's lips are sealed, and we all know why. It is bad policy and it will leave 85% of Canadian families empty-handed.
Today, the Canadian Press agreed that this is no baloney. Why can they not just admit that their misguided scheme will mean nothing for the vast majority of families in the country? 
Let us see if the minister says “income splitting” in his answer. 
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because the Liberal finance critic, in 2003, said that income splitting was good. The leader of the Liberal party said that he was misguided, but he clearly is misguided; look who is guiding him on financial policy. 
We know that the Liberals would not only reverse income splitting for families, they would reverse it for seniors. They would increase taxes and the burden on seniors and on families. We are going to put more money into the pockets of Canadian families. Liberals are going to take it right out. We are not going to let that happen. 
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the late Jim Flaherty was concerned that income splitting would not benefit the vast majority of Canadians. He was right.
He talked about single-parent families, families whose kids are in university and families in which both parents have similar incomes. However, an MP who makes $160,000 could get $2,000.
How is that fair?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the NDP are absolutely on the wrong side of this issue. Every Canadian family with children will benefit, and when it comes to our income-splitting family tax cuts, in fact close to two million families will benefit. 
What are the Liberals thinking? What are they doing voting against a great measure that will put money in families' pockets, and in fact, committing to reversing it and reversing it for seniors? One has to wonder, who are they listening to? Who is advising them? It is very bad policy.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the jobs minister suggested it is only stay-at-home parents who make sacrifices for their kids. Unlike what Conservatives believe, all parents make sacrifices to raise their children. Is this the real reason Conservatives excluded millions of hard-working families from their income-splitting scheme? Do they actually believe millions of single parents and two-income families do not make sacrifices for their kids, or are they just trying to buy votes?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, it actually was the Liberal member for St. Paul's who said mothers who stay at home are not really doing real work. I think that is an incredibly disrespectful thing.
Here is what we value. We value every single parent in every single family and respect their choices. Whether it is a single mom or a single dad, whether it is a two-income family with both working outside the home, or a family that decides one will work outside the home and the other will stay and work at home, we respect their choices. We will continue to put money behind that respect in the universal child care benefit. 
VeteransMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Coalition for Veterans says it plans to boycott all government photo-ops. 
It also says it will not agree to be quoted in any news releases until Ottawa improves its treatment of veterans. This government is not doing nearly enough for our veterans, particularly those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Why is it that veterans have to stage a protest for this government to treat them properly?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans. It is part of the reason we have invested almost $30 billion since coming to office. That is approximately $4.7 billion in new funds. 
Almost every single initiative we have brought forward as a government to help Canada's veterans the opposition has voted against. I would encourage the opposition to stop paying politics and support our initiatives. 
National DefenceSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is abandoning not only veterans, but also serving military personnel. The Department of National Defence departmental performance report reveals that the level of satisfaction among soldiers regarding the health care they receive is not even 67%, including for mental health care. That falls well below the 90% to 100% targets the department had set. 
Why is this government failing to meet its commitments?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, we have significantly increased investments in health services for the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly with respect to mental health services. We now have approximately 415 full-time mental health care workers, which is more than double the number there were when we assumed office in 2006. This means that Canada now has the highest ratio of mental health professionals to soldiers in NATO.
We have increased the military health budget by more than $130 million, and this includes boosting the annual health budget by $11.4 million, for a total of $50 million.
We will be tabling the government's response to all these concerns that keep arising from the opposition.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just pointed out, the rate of satisfaction of Canadian Armed Forces members with the health care they receive is far below National Defence's target levels. Despite the well-known problems in staffing military mental health care, $41 million of spending on health care for soldiers was allowed to lapse last year while the crisis in military mental health unfolded. This is unacceptable. 
Why has the current government failed on almost every measure to deliver the needed health care for soldiers and veterans during this urgent crisis?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everyone here that we inherited the decade of darkness from the Liberal government. Every measure we have brought forward, increasing spending and hiring more people to support our soldiers in health care and mental health care, has been voted against by the NDP. We will continue to do the right thing and hire the appropriate personnel and invest the dollars to help our soldiers who so greatly serve this country. We will continue to ensure that we have all the dollars needed to get the job done.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, they have had a decade to fix it.
This morning, at 9:00 a.m., our Veterans Affairs critic and the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl were scheduled to tour the Canadian Forces Station St. John's after being invited by the commanding officer. Last evening they were told by the minister's office that a tour could not happen, because the station was not in their riding. No, it is in my riding, a stone's throw from St. John's South—Mount Pearl. The minister knows full well that this facility serves and draws from all of St. John's and the surrounding area and indeed all of eastern Newfoundland. This is outrageous.
 Why do the Conservatives continue to treat military assets as if they were political assets instead of the pride of all Canadians?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament can visit bases when it works into the best schedule for our armed forces. They have to remember that right now we have a heightened level of security at all our military bases across this country. These are not parks. These are where people work and have to be concerned. 
We will continue to work with members of Parliament to arrange visits at the appropriate times. We want to ensure that the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces are being used wisely at every base across this country.
Veterans AffairsMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the truth is this: Last year, nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada were closed by the Conservatives. That included more than 3,000 veterans in Thunder Bay who lost their office.
These unnecessary cuts saved the current government just $5 million, the same amount now being spent on advertising about how well the government treats veterans. We have seen the guy dressing in front of the mirror: $5 million. That is $5 million taken from veterans so the government can spend $5 million on advertising.
Why is the minister more focused on papering over his government's atrocious record on veterans than on providing actual care to veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, our government believes that we have a responsibility to provide benefits and services to veterans nationally. That is why we have created 600 points of service across this country in areas where a district office did not exist. There are many cities, towns, and regions in this country where veterans now have access to Service Canada locations. 
I would like to remind that member that where the offices were closed, we put a fully trained Veterans Affairs Canada employee in those locations, and most were in the same buildings.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Conservatives and veterans has deteriorated dramatically, precisely because of the government's ongoing failures when it comes to veterans. Most serious is the systematic failure to deal fairly with disabled veterans.
The Canadian Coalition of Veterans says that members will not participate in government photo ops or be quoted in news releases until veterans are better treated by Ottawa.
Why does the government not fully implement the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and provide quality benefits to those who serve Canada so greatly instead of fighting them?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government, in its response, have made perfectly clear, we agree with the intent and the spirit of most of the recommendations put forward by the committee in a unanimous report.
This is Veterans' Week. This is an opportunity for all Canadians to honour our veterans who have made a tremendous sacrifice. I would encourage the member opposite to stop playing politics, especially this week, and get on board with the government to support Canada's veterans.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the best way to honour our veterans is by listening to them.
The funeral and burial program has been very hard to access for years now, and yet nearly $1.2 million allocated to the program for 2013-14 was not spent. In other words, 12% of the $10 million allocated to the program was left unused, even though there is a desperate need.
Why did the government not use that money to improve access to the program?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the members opposite to get their facts right. It is not the first time they have had difficulty with numbers. I will point them out once again. Our government has invested almost $30 billion since taking office. That is almost $5 billion in new funding.
I would like to remind all members opposite that if they have respect for Canada's veterans, if they truly care about Canada's veterans, they need to support the initiatives this government brings forward. They have opposed virtually every single initiative we have brought forward to support Canada's veterans.
EthicsMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the Prime Minister invited some European senior officials to go to Toronto with him for the evening. The Prime Minister requested that they be given the royal treatment, which included flying them back to Europe on a government Airbus. We now know the cost of that royal treatment: $450,000, including $120,000 for an extravagant evening.
How can the Prime Minister justify wasting $450,000, especially since the agreement with the European Union has still not been concluded?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-European trade agreement represents an amazing opportunity for our country and for Europe—80,000 net new jobs. The Canada-EU coalition that was announced is working on ensuring that we benefit from the $12-billion injection to our GDP that deal represents.
The real question for this question period today, now that the final text of the agreement is out, is if the NDP is going to oppose yet another trade deal that is great for Canada.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, spending $120,000 on a last-minute reception is simply unjustifiable. This royal treatment for Europeans cost Canadians $34,000 on food and hotels, $13,000 on drinks, $8,000 on music, $19,000 on backdrops, and a total of half a million dollars for a party and a pointless photo op.
Does the minister not agree that this money would be much better spent helping Canadians and Canadian businesses actually benefit from trade opportunities?
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that Conservative governments in Canada have granted 98% of the market access our exporters have.
The European Union market represents 500 million consumers, $17 trillion in its economy, and a huge opportunity for our businesses and for creating employment. One in five Canadian jobs are attributable to trade. We are going to pursue this agreement with gusto.
The real question for that member is this: Will the NDP finally come out and say it opposes this agreement?
TaxationMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we learned that a Canadian crown corporation used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme to avoid paying $20 million in taxes in Germany. Climate change, international development, the United Nations and now taxes: the Conservative government keeps tarnishing Canada's reputation abroad.
The Conservatives are not credible leaders in the fight against tax evasion, because they themselves are guilty of it. How are the Conservatives going to fix this embarrassing mistake?
Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Public Service Pension Investments, which is responsible for addressing the post-2000 pension obligations of the federal government, operates at arm's length from the federal government. It is not part of the federal public administration, and its business and affairs are managed by a board of directors.
We expect investments to be done in compliance with laws, rules, and regulations in a transparent manner while keeping in mind the best interests of the clients. Our government has a strong record of combatting international tax evasion, including a number of new measures dedicated to offshore compliance activities.
National DefenceHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to DND's annual report, the department missed 60 of its performance targets. That is six, zero. Half of all government procurements are hopelessly behind schedule, and that record is actually worse than the year before. In addition, it hit only 9% of the air force reserve recruitment targets.
No CEO would be allowed to continue her job if they missed 60 performance targets. Are these performance targets, or are they just casual suggestions?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Liberals that after their decade of darkness, we actually undertook some major, ambitious defence procurement projects right here in Canada. This includes modernization of our Halifax-class frigates. We bought four C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift aircraft, 17 C-130J Herc aircraft, 15 Chinook helicopters, and Arctic offshore patrol vessels in our national shipbuilding procurement strategy, not to mention the Leopard 2 tanks we bought.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, 60 missed performance targets is gross incompetence, but it is completely inexcusable to not support our troops.
By the government's own numbers, over a third of the Canadian Armed Forces, that is one third, say that they do not believe the government will look after them if they are injured.
Why is the government so indifferent to the needs of those who put their lives on the line for us?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, we have increased the overall budget of National Defence to $19.5 billion this year. There is a new $900 million in the supplemental estimates this year, and the year is not even finished yet. That is going into new procurement. It is going into more capital projects, and it is in investments in health care services that are needed so desperately by those brave men and women who serve us in uniform.
Access to InformationMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the action plan on open government that the Conservatives launched this week has some major flaws. They do not even have the nerve to modernize the Access to Information Act, which is the key to an open government. What is more, when the NDP introduced a bill to reform the Access to Information Act, the Conservatives voted against it.
How can the government claim to be more open when it refuses to modernize 32-year-old legislation?
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, this government has done more than any other government to make sure that Canadians have access to information, particularly through the Access to Information Act. Last year we saw an increase of about 27% in inquiries being answered.
We are making sure that there are investments to make sure that Canadians get access. We are doing more on open data to make sure they can get more information on hundreds of thousands of different data sets. This government is getting it done for Canadians.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous for the Conservatives to say they are modernizing the administration of the act, when it is the law itself that needs to be fixed. The experts they consulted, and even their own advisory panel, told them so. The Information Commissioner has said that fixing the law is the one element that needed to be in the plan, and it is not there.
I would like to give the minister a chance for real openness. Why does he refuse to fix the Access to Information Act?
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, in 2012-13, our government set a number of records for openness and transparency. The government processed a record number of access to information requests, released a record number of materials, and had an improved turnaround time. Our government processed nearly 54,000 access to information requests, which represents, as I said, a 27% increase over the previous year, or over 10,000 more requests. The government also released a record number of materials. Over six million pages were released, an increase of nearly two million.
The numbers do not lie. Canadians are getting more and better access than ever, thanks to this government.
Citizenship and ImmigrationJinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration proved to be scandalously unaware of the impact that his cuts are having on real people. Every single case that the NDP mentioned yesterday was real. They are refugees who were refused health care in Canada because of a decision by the Conservative government.
The minister has decided to turn his back on basic Canadian values. Why is he also refusing to take responsibility for the real harm caused by his decision?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the premise of her question is untrue. Refugees do indeed get health care in our system.
However, what is shameful is that the NDP and the Liberals support failed asylum seekers who receive health care benefits that are better than those provided to hard-working Canadian families. 
Canadian taxpayers deserve better than that, and we urge the opposition parties to stop supporting failed asylum claimants and stand up for hard-working Canadians.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister is clearly feeling the heat, and so now the Conservatives want to have it both ways. They want to claim credit for restoring health care for pregnant women and children, and at the same time the minister is appealing the court decision in order to take that away again. The minister claims that he is only trying to save taxpayers' dollars, by launching expensive lawsuits on a policy that the court has already ruled unconstitutional. 
Why does the minister not end this embarrassing charade?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, the NDP record with respect to refugee and refugee protection is indeed shameful. Do not take my word for it; let us look at its voting record.
On the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, did the NDP vote for it? No. On protecting Canada's immigration system act, did the NDP vote for it? No. On the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, did the NDP vote for it? No. On standing up for Canadian citizenship, did the NDP vote for it? No.
The NDP's record is shameful. 
Veterans AffairsMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, next week Remembrance Day ceremonies will take place from coast to coast to coast. Canadians are honoured and proud to commemorate our fallen heroes. 
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs share with this House the exceptional role of our brave men and women in this time of conflict?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for his question and his work on this file. 
Veterans and still-serving members of the Armed Forces have helped to build this great country. In times of conflict, they have kept us safe and free. This November 11, we will honour and thank our veterans and remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. 
Lest we forget.
CBC/Radio-CanadaMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a group of citizens from Gatineau and Ottawa came together to denounce the draconian cuts to Radio-Canada/CBC. They launched the group “CBC, I Care!”. They are calling for the board of directors to resign if it is not willing to fight for the CBC. 
Since the Mulroney government, CBC's budgets have been cut by 40%. It is now impossible for the crown corporation to fulfill its mandate.
The government has already cut the fat, the muscle and the bone. Now there are cuts to service, news, archives and even wardrobe. Is it the CBC's soul that the minister is after? 
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, another question period, another comment from the member that is completely untrue and unfounded. These changes are being made by the CBC as a result of declining advertising revenue and declining viewership in very key demographics.
 Our government provides significant taxpayers' funds to the CBC. I believe it can and should operate within its existing budget.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her parliamentary secretary keep falsely claiming that the CBC is separate from the government, the CBC has a board of directors stuffed with big bosses of mining and oil companies and former directors of the Conservative Party. They are not there for their knowledge of arts and culture. It is like the minister-of-no-concern, pardon me, the Minister of Infrastructure, who said yesterday that he enjoys culture as much as he enjoys pizza. 
Why does this government have such contempt for culture?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the member is fully and well aware that the appointments made at CBC are done through a very strict and regimented process. He should not be standing up here on a daily basis categorically insulting the people who are working on behalf of Canada at the CBC and doing the work that they are doing.
I would also add that it is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want and to fulfill its mandate under the Broadcasting Act. They are working on it, they are doing it, and the member should quit insulting them.
Champlain BridgeMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, instead of closing the debate on changing the name of the Champlain Bridge, the Minister of Infrastructure told us that he was working hard on finding a new name.
The minister has missed the point. The problem is not the name “Maurice Richard”. The problem is that he is trying to get rid of the current name.
When will the minister tackle the real issues with the Champlain Bridge: the transparency of the bidding process, communication with Quebec and elected officials, and especially the toll?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the goods news is that a new bridge will be built over the St. Lawrence, and this will create 30,000 jobs for the greater Montreal area.
We are staying the course and moving the project forward, including with respect to the terms of the toll. The tendering process is progressing and there are three consortiums in the running.
Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, La Presse is reporting that the toll on the Champlain Bridge continues to poison relations with the Quebec government and the cities in the metropolitan area.
The Quebec government is saying that a toll cannot be charged and people who do not pay cannot be prosecuted unless it is involved.
Instead of creating fake debates about the name of the Champlain Bridge, will the minister finally sit down with the Quebec government and elected officials in greater Montreal to talk about the real issues, such as the toll?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we are staying the course and moving the project forward, including with respect to the terms of the toll. The tendering process is progressing and there are three consortiums in the running.
That is very good news for the greater Montreal area.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure has backed down. This is good, but does he understand his mistake?
The Champlain Bridge will not be called the Maurice Richard Bridge, but who knows what brilliant idea the minister will come up with next? After all, there is another Richard, Henri Richard, the valiant Pocket Rocket who won the Stanley Cup more times than any other player in history.
Can the minister promise that he will not suggest naming the Champlain Bridge the “Henri Richard Bridge” or the “Pocket Rocket Bridge”?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made about a name for this new bridge in Montreal.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, that is not very reassuring. The minister is the one who unexpectedly put two giants of our history in competition with each other. 
Quebeckers were not speaking out against the hero Maurice Richard. They were standing up for Champlain, the founder of Canada.
Even the Minister of State for Small Business  and the Minister of International Development are urging the Minister of Infrastructure to keep the name “Champlain”.
If, however, the minister insists on changing the name of the Champlain Bridge, he could call it the “Samuel de Champlain Bridge”.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of my colleague's suggestion.
However, no decision has been made.
National DefenceJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, news has come out this morning that the government has told the United States that it plans to buy at least four F-35 fighter jets. Pentagon documents show that the Conservatives have asked to swap places with the United States Air Force in the production line and place the order in the current fiscal year. 
Could the government confirm that this is the case? Did it really bring back the sole-sourced F-35 purchase without Canadians or Parliament being told anything about it?
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House and the member that no decision has been made on replacing the CF-18s as of yet.
As the member also knows, the CF-18s are being life-extended to maintain a fighter capability for missions like Iraq. The extension of the life of the CF-18 will be through 2025.
National Capital CommissionMathieu Ravignat:  Mr. Speaker, the NCC has proven that it is unable of protecting Gatineau Park. More than 5,000 people signed our petition to stop the encroachment on the park and to protect this green space. 
Will the minister commit to working with us to reform the NCC so that it is more transparent and more responsive to the people who live in the national capital region?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment.
Since we formed government, we have created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected areas, three national wildlife areas, four national parks, and one national historic site. We have done more than any other government. In fact, the total area of the lands that we have protected is an area that is nearly twice the size of Vancouver Island.
The EconomyTed Opitz: Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is creating jobs and economic growth, not the high-tax, high-spend agenda of the opposition.
Our economic action plan provides positive pro-growth measures, like landmark investments in research and innovation, creating the Canada apprentice loans, supporting more paid internships for recent graduates, cutting red tape for small business, delivering additional tax relief for families, and so much more.
Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance update this House on how our jobs and growth plan is working?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, growing the economy and creating jobs.
While monthly employment numbers can be volatile, more important is the long-term trend. Since coming to office, our government has had the best job creation record in the G7. We are leading in economic growth. In fact, on a relative basis, we have created almost 20% more jobs than our closest competitor. Since the depth of the global recession, over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created.
However, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic growth.
Statistics CanadaMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to measure long-term trends.
Bill C-626 will be debated later today, a bill to restore the mandatory long-form census so that we have the trustworthy information we need to govern ourselves wisely.
Instead of voting it down, would the government consider a compromise to restore the long-form census but remove one or two of the questions that it says cause the most complaints? If not, is the government having a look at a move towards the systems used in some European countries where they have quality national statistics but no census?
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to collect reliable statistical data while maintaining the privacy of everyday Canadians.
What we do not want to do, as the member's bill proposes, is to increase the burdensome red tape and costs to Statistics Canada, and ultimately taxpayers, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in more taxes.
I know the Liberals are okay with increased taxes, but Statistics Canada has said that the national household survey has yielded high-quality data that covers 97% of the Canadian population.
That is getting it done for Canadians, and that is getting it done efficiently.
ShippingMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for three years now, the ship Kathryn Spirit has been rusting in one the water reservoirs in greater Montreal. Three years, and the Conservatives have done nothing.
Finally, Transport Canada has apparently recently issued a towing permit so that the ship can be removed from Lac Saint-Louis.
Can the minister unequivocally confirm that a towing permit has been issued for the Kathryn Spirit, and if so, can she tell us when the ship will be moved?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, the responsibility for any stranded vessel rests with the owner of the vessel. We do provide an authorization role for those who are seeking to move those types of things.
I do not have the specific answer at the moment about the timing of the permit, but allow me to report back to the House with specificity later on.
Canadian HeritageBob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, the finding of the HMS Erebus is a magnificent accomplishment, one that was celebrated in Canada from coast to coast to coast and throughout the world.
 Parks Canada divers and archeologists report that there may be many artifacts on and around the ship, which can aid in our understanding of the Franklin expedition and Arctic exploration during this period in Canadian history.
 Can the Minister of the Environment please tell the House about the significance of an artifact that was recently discovered at the HMS Erebus?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was proud to unveil the bell from the HMS Erebus, which had been recovered during this year's search for the Franklin expedition.
If the HMS Erebus is a treasure, then this artifact, this bell, is a treasure from within the treasure. The bell, which long ago signalled the passing of time and the change of the watch, will now serve to connect Canadians to our history and to our north.
This discovery would not have been possible without modern technology and the oral history of Inuit, equipped with this government's vision and determination.
This bell further proves that the Arctic belongs to Canada, the country of the true north, strong and free.
International TradeMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture will meet with dairy and cheese producers next week in Quebec City.
Will the minister take this opportunity to announce that he will compensate cheese producers, as he promised to do when the free trade agreement was signed with the European Union?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, our government strongly defends supply management. The Canada-European Union trade agreement is very important for Canada and its economy, but particularly for agriculture. Our government has made a commitment that should dairy farmers lose as a result of CETA, our government would put forward mechanisms to help provide compensation to those farmers. Those consultations are ongoing.
The EconomyMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, when the price of oil goes down, the value of the Canadian dollar goes down considerably as well. Over the coming months, a large portion of the oil sands tax revenue could disappear into thin air.
Are government members aware that by abandoning the other sectors of our economy to focus on oil production, they are potentially exposing Canada to major economic turmoil?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as we have continually said, the global economy remains fragile and events that occur outside of our borders can affect Canada. Fluctuating oil prices have implications on the economy. Our government remains on track to return to a balanced budget in 2015. 
As the Minister of Finance stated yesterday, a full update of the economic and fiscal outlook will be provided on November 12.
Public SafetyFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I learned this morning that a jail in Halifax has mistakenly released a 22-year-old man who was awaiting trial on charges including attempted murder, home invasion and robbery. I am wondering if this law and order government can update the House on what exactly happened.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all law enforcement agencies across this country for the fabulous job that they do in keeping Canadians safe each and every day.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
Committees of the HouseJames Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to order in council appointments referred to the committee.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Thursday, June 12, 2014, be concurred in.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are talking about the fifth report from the Canadian heritage committee.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Not the third, not the second, not the sixth. 
Kevin Lamoureux:  Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that the members across the way can actually count. I am somewhat impressed. Maybe they can count the number of meetings that have been lost. 
It is my pleasure to talk about the review of the Canadian music industry. It is an industry that is obviously of the greatest importance. What I would like to do is to provide some thoughts and share them with the members of the chamber.
I have been provided a fairly long and interesting letter that deals with a number of recommendations. I think what I should do is acknowledge some of the recommendations that have been brought forward. It is a lengthy document but if members do not mind being somewhat patient with me I will be sure to try to cover as many as I can in the limited amount of time we have.
If I may, I will highlight through some of the correspondence, which was provided from who I believe is the chair of the standing committee, dealing with the funding of programs, in particular recommendations 5 to 9. This is a letter that was provided to members of the committee, and in fact to all of us.
It states:
 We acknowledge the Committee’s recommendations to examine means by which the Government provides support to the Canadian music industry, including the structure of the CMF and other possible funding tools such as tax credits. In order to develop and promote Canadian music, particularly in a rapidly changing environment, access to upfront capital and financial flexibility of public programs are key concerns of the Canadian independent music sector. 
I want to talk about how important it is for us to acknowledge our music sector. A lot of Canada's culture and heritage is shared through music. I believe there is no better example I could provide than Folklorama. I am a proud Winnipegger who enjoys my summers as much as possible. I can say that over the last 20 years every summer I get engaged in what is one of, I believe, the greatest tourist attractions in North America. It is known as Folklorama. If members want to get a sense of music in Canada and the many different heritage groups that participate in Folklorama, they can go from one pavilion to another where they will be enriched by the different types of music and entertainment being provided. I must say that it is a great experience. If members have never had the opportunity, I would suggest that this is something they should get involved in. 
With respect to this report, we talk about funding and supporting our music industry both directly and indirectly. I would suggest that is money that is well invested and it is done in many different ways.
Going back to my example of Folklorama, the public will not only see the amateurs in the industry but also professionals. As much as possible, I make a point of going to a number of different pavilions during Folklorama every summer. Some of the pavilions that have enriched my experience over the years have been the Philippine pavilion, where members can see musical instruments that are not necessarily customary in a traditional music class in our elementary, secondary or post-secondary schools, as well as the Punjabi pavilion, where they will get that same sense and where they will hear a different type of music, and accompanying that music is often dance.
I have cited two pavilions. I believe there are about 51 pavilions in Folklorama. It fluctuates to a certain degree every year. However, every pavilion gets engaged in music and, in part, dance at the same time, but music plays a very important role. 
When we talk about how important the music industry as a whole is to Canada, all we need to do is look at some of the festivals that take place.
 I make reference one, where there is close to a quarter of a million of people. The vast majority will be from the Province of Manitoba, but there is a huge appetite from the public to get engaged and be in tune and share the types of heritage that we are building upon through our music industry as a whole. It is really important for us to acknowledge that.
Page 1 of the report states:
 According to testimony by Jean-François Bernier, Director General of Cultural Industries at the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian music sector contributes nearly $3 billion annually to the Canadian economy. Over 10,000 people are employed in the sound recording and concert sectors, and there are 30,000 professional songwriters. In addition, music contributes to other economic sectors, such as tourism and advertising. 
Folklorama is all about that. When we hear statements like this, not only do we see the thousands of people directly employed, but 95%-plus of the people in Folklorama are volunteers. This is one reason why I believe it is important that when we concur in these reports, as much as possible we provide some feedback. At committee stage, it provides many different stakeholders the opportunity to come forward and share their thoughts and appreciation.
Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I was unable to attend during the preparation of this report. Had I had the opportunity to participate, when Jean-François made reference to the number of people who were directly employed, I would have also added to that the tremendous value of those who volunteered. Quite often it is through volunteering that many of those artists are born. Many of the songwriters who we often talk about today come out of many of our different community events.
I have spent a lot of time talking about Folklorama, but I could talk about the many other types of festivals that take place in my home province. At the end of the day, those individuals often start in some form of volunteer capacity. It may be at a local festival or it could be at a local community church, but they often start off as volunteers. By doing that, they will ultimately hone their skills, maybe feel much more confident of their ability, and then move on. Hopefully they do it because they enjoy sharing their talents. Many of them are accorded the opportunity to earn a living by it.
It is a very important issue for me personally. I have long been an advocate for young people to get engaged and show their talents. 
When I was elected in the 2011 general election, one of the things I came up with was the Winnipeg North's Got Talent event. We just had our last event. I was talking to my executive assistant just last night about how we could incorporate some of the winners of our talent contest into our next 10 percenters. It is truly amazing, the type—
Jeff Watson:  They need to know.
Kevin Lamoureux:  Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. As a member of Parliament, I like to stay in touch with my constituents and keep them aware of the type of the things we do.
We have done this. This is not just a one-off. We now have held our third annual Winnipeg North's Got Talent event. I have gone to other events throughout the year where I have met many of the young people who have gone through the event, which I host. They are actually singing the song that they performed and possibly even received an award for, or at the very least a certificate from my office. We also give some cash prizes.
It is important for us to recognize that there are so many benefits. In committee, we talked a lot about the direct benefits. I want to spend some of my time talking about the indirect benefits.
 When we hold our Winnipeg North's Got Talent contest, dozens of young people take an interest in it and want to participate. It is a competition. We will have community-minded individuals who play the role of judges. We build a platform and provide great sound. Members of this chamber would be so impressed with the amount of talent in our communities. I have been a judge. I have been a member of the audience. I get engaged. We have had run-offs in which dozens of people meet prior to the event because of the demand to perform in it.
For many of the individuals who show up at this event, it is not their first time. Most often, they will have practised expanding their talents or honing their skills throughout the year. I have grown very fond of one particular young lady because of her abilities to share her dance routine of Indian heritage.
 Even though 90% or more of the performances are musical, some participants will share a heritage dance. The musical background and the amount of discipline involved in learning, whether a dance, or performing art or a musical instrument, is quite impressive. This is not something that someone learns overnight. Usually, it involves a parent, or a guardian or maybe a grandparent, someone within the family who has also has the interest and wants to share that with that child. In sharing that interest, they will encourage and often have that child attend a special event. Quite often, those individuals are the number one supporters and the ones who clap the loudest.
How many events do we all go to where we see an outstanding young person? In my experience, in most cases it is usually someone under the age of 22. Those individuals will astound the audience because of their abilities. The parents, or family members or guardians will be applauding them and encouraging them.
On a micro scale, we might say “Isn't that nice; it's a wonderful story”. It might be just one or two, here and there, but if we look at the cumulative effect across Canada, we have literally thousands. In the report it says, as quoted by one, that there are over 10,000 people employed, or 30,000 professional songwriters in the music industry. Imagine tens of thousands of people from every region of the country getting engaged, in one way or another, in an industry that is so very important to Canada.
We need to highlight that. One of the reasons is that it is a wonderful, creative, positive activity in which our young people are engaged. When I have the opportunity to talk about the music industry through this report, it would be a mistake for us not to recognize the valuable contributions that the tens of thousands of people make in their life by encouraging and supporting young people to get involved. 
Then there are the thousands of volunteers. I made reference to Folklorama. I am biased. It is one of the greatest tourist attractions that Canada has to offer. It is good quality entertainment every summer. I think it has now been taking place for 35-plus years. This is where we get a lot of the semi-pro individuals who are quite often looking at making a career commitment in the music industry. It is wonderful to see.
The report talks about the economic sectors, such as tourism and advertising. It even goes beyond that. It helps shape our social and heritage foundation. If we really looked at the many different festivities that take place throughout our country, it is not just in big cities. Small communities of a dozen homes to communities of 5,000 plus homes are all engaged, in some way, in supporting our music industry. 
We cannot underestimate the importance of the music industry and how it contributes to who we are as Canadians. My leader often talks about diversity. It is our diversity that makes Canada so great. Whenever we are afforded the opportunity to stand and promote Canada's great diversity, which gives us our strength, and reflect on our heritage, we should do so. 
Music is one of the driving forces in appreciating who we are as a society today. Recognizing that rich heritage puts us ahead of any other country in the world.
I did not get a chance to go through any of the recommendations in the report. It appears that my time is up, but maybe I will have another opportunity to add some more comments. 
I would like to thank my New Democratic colleagues for bringing forward this concurrence motion. I anxiously await the Standing Orders from the procedure and house affairs committee, hopefully to be debated at some time. I have many opinions in this area as well. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
Ted Opitz: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Does the hon. member for Etobicoke have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
PetitionsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House today.
The petitioners draw the House's attention to the fact that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and trafficking and that the demand for sex with women and children is not addressed in present legislation.
The petitioners want Parliament to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a man, woman, or child and be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by hundreds of petitioners.
The petitioners are asking the government to put a hold on the deportation of asylum seekers from Burundi. They are concerned about what might happen when these people are deported back to Burundi.
The petitioners call on the government to be seized with this issue.
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Newton--North Delta to present a petition calling on the Government of Canada to support the proposal launched by Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish to bring injured Palestinian children from Gaza to Canada for treatment.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from Canadians who are concerned about the long-standing and widespread human rights violations in North Korea. After an exhaustive inquiry, the United Nations commission of inquiry has confirmed the existence of widespread and systematic crimes against humanity.
The petitioners urge Canada to adopt a human rights in North Korea act. Similar legislation passed in the U.S. and Japan has involved, among other measures, increased support and protection for North Korean refugees and for organizations promoting human rights in North Korea.
I join with the petitioners to sound the alarm on massive repression by the North Korean regime and to urge Canadian action.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 684 to 699 as well as 716 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mathieu Ravignat: With regard to question number Q-263 on the Order Paper, what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the approval of Project Ojibwa for stimulus funding for Port Burwell, Ontario: (a) (i) according to independent analysts, what is the economic development return on investment of Project Ojibwa, (ii) has the submarine museum ever won an economic development award that is supported by the federal government; (b) is there another submarine museum in Ontario; (c) when is the 100th anniversary of submarine use in Canada; (d) on what date (i) was stimulus funding applied to this project, (ii) was it approved and by what department, (iii) were applicants notified they had been successful in receiving funding; (e) what specific conditions, if any, were attached to the funding, and by what dates did conditions have to be met; (f) what meetings, and on what dates, did the applicants have with (i) economic development departments, (ii) the Department of National Defence; (g) what concerns did either department have with the project; (h) what challenges did the government foresee in transporting a submarine from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Port Burwell, Ontario, including, but not limited to, (i) dredging the Port Burwell Harbour, (ii) building a road in Port Burwell, (iii) transporting the submarine on a barge, accompanied by tug boats, (iv) re-fitting the submarine at Hamilton, Ontario, (v) designing and building cradles upon which the submarine would eventually sit at Port Burwell; (i) how were these challenges communicated to the project managers and when; (j) what real-world examples or precedents existed for the departments to provide conditions and timelines for transporting a submarine in a safe, suitable, and timely manner from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Port Burwell, Ontario; (k) which departments defined conditions and timelines, and how, and when, were these conditions and timelines communicated to the project managers; (l) what specific assessments were the applicants required to undertake, including, but not limited to, environmental assessments; (m) for each assessment required, what is the typical time taken for such an assessment, and its approval; (n) on what date were the applicants presented with a ceremonial cheque and for what amount; (o) what political representatives were in attendance; (p) did Port Burwell have a government “Economic Action Plan” sign showing the community the government’s contribution, and if so, when was the sign installed; (q) did the applicants ever apply for an extension of the timelines for funding, and if so, (i) on what date, (ii) what were the reasons given for an extension; (r) was there ever an extension of the timelines for funding, and if so, (i) by whom, (ii) what were the reasons given; (s) what exact amount of federal funding did the applicants receive; (t) were the applicants ever successful in (i) dredging the harbour at Port Burwell, (ii) building the required road in Port Burwell, (iii) transporting the submarine from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Port Burwell, Ontario, (iv) bringing the submarine ashore at Port Burwell, (v) installing it for viewing by the public, and if so, what are the dates for each; and (u) has HMCS Ojibwa been open to the public, and if so, (i) from what starting date, (ii) how many guests have visited the site? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Judy Sgro:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of York West, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. John McCallum:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Markham—Unionville, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Scott Brison:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Kings—Hants, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Wayne Easter: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Malpeque, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Marc Garneau:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Westmount—Ville-Marie, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of St. Paul's, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
John McKay:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Scarborough—Guildwood, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Sean Casey: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Charlottetown, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Hedy Fry: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Vancouver Centre, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Frank Valeriote:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Guelph, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Scott Simms:  With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ted Hsu: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Mark Eyking: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Sydney—Victoria, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Sydney—Victoria, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Lawrence MacAulay: With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Deficit Reduction Action Plan Track 24: Prioritization and Restructuring Habitat Management and Associated Ecosystems Management Activities: (a) what is the government’s objective with regard to this Track; (b) how many employees have been eliminated to date due to this objective and what are their positions and locations; (c) how many employees will be eliminated in total and what are their positions and locations; (d) has the government done an analysis on what effects this reduction in funding, combined with the government’s changes to the Fisheries Act and regulatory changes authorizing the deposit of deleterious substances will have on Canada’s marine environments and fish habitat and, if so, what are the findings of any such analysis; (e) what are the internal tracking numbers for any documents, briefing materials, or communications from provincial governments and key stakeholders regarding this Track provided to senior government officials at the level of Director General or above; (f) what is the total budget reduction of the Track in (i) 2014-2015, (ii) beyond; (g) has the government developed the regulations, policies, and tools needed to implement these changes and, if so, what are the details; (h) what is the government’s definition of a practical, common-sense approach to managing threats to Canada’s recreational, commercial, and Aboriginal fisheries and the fish habitat on which they depend; and (i) since this Track has begun to be implemented has the government had any instances of failure in its objective for no net loss to fish habitat and, if so, what are all associated details?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Energy Safety and Security Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. I will be splitting my time with my neighbour, the very capable member for Northumberland—Quinte West.
This bill has been a long time coming to the House. It addresses a number of specific provisions for the offshore oil and gas industry as well as the nuclear energy industry. It is our government's effort to modernize legislation and regulation around these industries. We are hoping that this will not be the third or potentially fourth time that the NDP attempts to delay and block such important modernizing legislation.
The offshore industry is an area where the federal government works collaboratively with the Atlantic provinces. There are accords with the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those provinces will update their legislation following the passage of Bill C-22. For offshore exploration in the north, it is the National Energy Board that is responsible for the oversight of exploration and drilling, whereas with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the offshore petroleum boards that are the specific and expert regulators.
This bill is our attempt to make sure that Canada continues to have world-class and modern regulation of these industries, which are parts of Canada's dynamic energy economy; to make sure that safety is at the forefront of these industries; and to make sure that the environment is respected in the process as well.
As I said, the two areas addressed by this bill are the offshore industry and the nuclear industry. I will speak to both briefly in my remarks on elements of the bill, and then I will discuss something dear to my heart, which is the nuclear energy industry in Canada. 
On the offshore oil and gas exploration side, this bill would carry out an important act by clearly enshrining the polluter pays principle in legislation. That is important. It would recognize that when there is fault or negligence on the part of operations in the offshore environment, there would be unlimited liability for people who are negligent or at fault in their operations in that sector.
In the no-fault regime, this legislation is important because it would update and modernize an approach and compensation levels and structures that are remnants of the 1970s. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industries, the no-fault provisions would be increased from a $30 million range for compensation to a $1 billion range for compensation. I think most Canadians would agree that these things should be updated at least every 25 to 30 years. In this case, we are looking at a gap of almost 40 years in updating the regulatory approach and updating those limits and insurance requirements for operators.
The bill would also make it much easier for the government to be directly capable of seeking damages for environmental impact from operations. We all want to make sure that those things never happen, but this bill, which promotes safety and security, would address these liability issues with unlimited liability where there is fault, as I said, and with requirements for compensation of up to $1 billion in the no-fault regime. Canadians think that that is important.
The other aspect, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is the nuclear industry. This is another case in which the regulatory regime and compensation levels would be updated after a lag time of 30-plus years. In cases of incidents in nuclear energy generation, the old cap of civil liability, which is in the $75 million range, would also be increased to $1 billion. Absolute liability would rest with the operators.
The operators, who have a terrific track record in Canada, a perfect track record, I might add, certainly know that they are required to keep the highest standards and ensure that they have adequate operating and insurance coverage to meet the new limits, which would be updated with Bill C-22.
Importantly, on the nuclear side, we are also increasing the limitation period from 10 years to 30 years. This is important because claims may arise from an incident. Remember that we are talking about the what ifs, the very unlikely scenario of any incident. The claims period for accessing compensation should be longer than 10 years. As a lawyer, I know limitation periods are important, but it is important to have a limitation period that acknowledges that some damages or injuries will present themselves long after the incident. This is another way of bringing this up to a modern era.
This bill would also allow Canada to be a signatory to an international convention, the International Atomic Energy Agency's convention on supplemental compensation. This would bring us up to a standard where we could be a signatory to that important international convention, which deals with transborder and international issues with respect to offshore and the nuclear energy industry. This would also make sure we would be world class. Our compensation levels are among the top in the world, particularly in the top for countries with active industries in these sectors.
 This is an important modernization of the regulatory and compensation structure for these important industries.
As the member of Parliament for Durham, I am also very happy to be an active proponent of nuclear energy in Canada. Our world-class excellence in this area is something we do not talk about enough. I wanted to do that as an MP, someone who had worked in some energy regulatory matters as a lawyer beforehand, so I helped create the nuclear caucus in Ottawa to promote the industry, to try to raise the level of knowledge among parliamentarians and certainly among Canadians on the important role this industry played in Canada.
Canada was the second nation to have controlled nuclear fission, to create cheap and affordable clean energy. That is an achievement we sometimes forget. The great part of our experimental work in industries in the nuclear sector is that we were never a nuclear nation in terms of warheads. We always used nuclear energy peacefully, and our technology remains among the world's best.
There are 71,000 jobs connected to the nuclear and supply industry in Canada, representing a $7 billion benefit to our GDP. There are 19 operating reactors across Canada. In Darlington, there are four reactors, which, in 2013, were awarded an international safety award from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. 
If we look at the Durham region at large, beyond just my riding, 50% of Ontario's electricity is generated by nuclear power, a good portion of that coming from the Durham area. This is important because this power is affordable and predictable, it is baseload power, and it is GHG emission-free. So many people in the House, particularly in the NDP, talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but then, at the same time, oppose nuclear energy. It is really an absurd position.
I would note that the member for Winnipeg Centre actually said in the House, “We do not want to see the Darlington nuclear power plant doubled in size. We want to see it shut down”. When 50% of the baseload electricity in Ontario is from nuclear, we cannot set up a few wind turbines to replace that. It shows the absurdity of the position of the member for Winnipeg Centre and many of his colleagues.
I have been a proud supporter of working not only with Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in my riding, but also the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries. Our government provided it with an $88,000 global opportunities for associations grant to sell technology abroad. AECL Candu technology is present in China, Romania, India, Pakistan, Argentina, and in Canada, with a perfect track record. I do not want to forget that It is also in South Korea. When I was in South Korea, people talked positively about our industry. It has an error-free record and some of the best technology in the world, so we need to celebrate industries that are world champions.
I would also like to mention the University of Ontario Institute of Technology's clean energy research laboratory, where nuclear power can help work with hydrogen and isotopes to create clean technology.
The bill is important to modernizing our regulatory structure and allowing our industries' offshore industry and the nuclear industries to excel.
François Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. 
He said that the $75 million for compensation has been increased to $1 billion because the compensation levels dated back to the 1970s. In his speech, he also said that the amount should be updated every 25 years. That said, the amount was updated for the 1990s. Does he not think it would be appropriate to update it again, given that this is 2014?
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for asking the question in the way that he did because it allows me to politely chastise his party. This is the fourth time that our government has tried to bring this type of legislation before the House, only to be delayed, blocked, and impeded by the New Democratic Party, which has a very bizarre position on nuclear energy. New Democrats, and the member for Winnipeg North, oppose nuclear-generated electricity which provides the majority of Ontario's power, yet they want more reductions on greenhouse gas emissions. 
They do not seem to realize that in certain provinces with an industrial base, like Ontario, we cannot pull out 50% of the electricity generation which is all greenhouse gas emission-free, and replace it with wind or solar. It shows that the NDP does not understand the modern economy.
 I would ask the member to speak to his leader, and members like the MP for Winnipeg North, to tell them to stop blocking this legislation to update our standards.
Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is doing an outstanding job in his area of the country, in Durham region, and part of that is making sure that jobs are protected and jobs are created. 
Moving forward with Bill C-22, our government is very much focused. Unlike what the NDP would like to do, essentially bankrupting these companies that are moving forward, and putting people out of work, we are moving forward to make sure this is done in a responsible way and that we are creating jobs in the interim.
I would like to ask the member for Durham for his thoughts with regard to how this contributes to job creation, and with respect to the opposition members' position and how it is a job-killing motion. 
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for her intervention and for her passionate work across Canada. She certainly has a soft spot for the Durham region, and that is appreciated by me and all of the MPs. For a time she was one of the leading surgeons in our area, and it was deeply appreciated.
She certainly also understands the importance of this industry, not just to Ontario but to the Canadian economy. If we look at the generation and supply network, there are 71,000 jobs in a very high-tech and innovative sector. Canadian technology, represented by CANDU technology, is world class, with a perfect operating record. We should be promoting this more internationally.
 We do have plants in half a dozen or so countries around the world, generating greenhouse gas emission free power. However, our regulatory regime, the safety and environmental represented in Bill C-22, needs to be updated. This should not be an opportunity where the NDP, and even the Liberal Party, because the Liberal candidate in the by-election called the nuclear industry “a necessary evil”, stand in the way of modernizing the regulatory framework for some of our leading energy industries, the offshore and nuclear. This is about world-class regulation and promoting jobs in Canada.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, and particularly on the ways in which the bill would enhance environmental protection.
As part of our responsible resource development plan, our government has been clear that the development of our natural resources will only proceed if it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.
 Over the past year, our government has initiated a series of new measures to ensure that the development of our natural resources in the offshore is balanced with the protection of the environment. For example, we have increased the number of tanker inspections, required the use of double-hulled ships, and we have improved navigational tools and surveillance used in offshore. 
Our government has worked closely with the governments of Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that Canada's offshore oil and gas regime remains world class. In each province, offshore oil and gas projects are closely and jointly managed by a federal-provincial offshore board, namely the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
Bill C-22, the proposed energy safety and security act, builds on this work and would provide a world-class regulatory regime for Canada's offshore oil and gas sectors, as well as the nuclear sector, while strengthening protection for Canadians and the environment. 
Bill C-22 is focused on the three main areas: prevention, response, and accountability. Today I would like to focus on the area of accountability, namely polluter pays.
In our Speech from the Throne, our government committed to enshrining the polluter pays principle into law. Bill C-22 would do exactly this. It would place accountability on industry and protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of an accident.
The polluter pays principle assigns responsibility to the polluter, who would have to pay for any damage done to the environment as well as any associated cleanup costs. In doing so, this principle would encourage industry to put more emphasis on the need to protect the environment through the course of its operations.
Under Bill C-22, our government would deliver on the promise to enshrine the polluter pays principle in the law for the offshore civil liability regime. 
The current offshore civil liability regime is twofold. First, in the event of an at-fault accident, the offshore operator is subject to covering all costs related to cleanup and remediation. Second, an offshore operator could be subject to absolute liability, even without fault, of up to $30 million in Atlantic Canada and $40 million in the Arctic. This means that if an operator deliberately or negligently causes an accident, it is wholly responsible for all damages and cleanup costs. If it is not negligent in causing the accident, the offshore operator is liable for the accident and any damages that emanate from it, but only up to $30 million in the case of the Atlantic offshore and $40 million in the Arctic. This is clearly out of date, and the legislation before us will update these liability limits. 
One of the key features of Bill C-22 is that it will raise the absolute liability limit to $1 billion. This would bring Canada's offshore liability limit in line with other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. It would mean that if a company caused an accident in the offshore or Arctic but was not found at fault or negligent, it must cover costs of up to $1 billion. I think we can all agree that this would be a significant improvement from the current $30 million and $40 million, in the offshore Atlantic and Arctic respectively. 
Unlimited liability will remain. This means that if found at fault, a company must pay for all of the costs regardless of how much they are. 
Another key feature is that the legislation would establish a basis to seek environmental damages. This would ensure that any damage to species, coastlines, or other public resources could be addressed in a timely and effective manner. The civil liability regime created under the bill would be one of the most robust and comprehensive in the world.
In addition to actual losses, environmental damages resulting from an accident will be included in the new civil liability regime. This is an important aspect of our legislation, and I would like to outline what can be claimed under that regime.
The regime is set out in three broad categories of damage, as follows: first, claims for all actual loss or damages incurred by any person as a result of an incident; second, the costs and expenses incurred by the federal government, a provincial government, or any other person in taking action in respect of a spill; and the third category would cover claims by the federal or provincial governments for loss of what is referred to as “non-use value” relating to a public resource that is damaged by a spill.
The scope of what would be included under the first category of damage is broad. It would cover all actual loss or damage, including loss of income and future income. With respect to aboriginal peoples, it would include the loss of hunting, fishing, and gathering opportunities. This head of damage would include the loss of what falls under the term “use value”, which would include claims for damages to what is commonly referred to as “ecosystem services”.
The second category of damage would enable the federal and provincial governments, or any other party, such as third-party response contractors, to recoup the costs they incur in the course of taking measures to respond to or mitigate a spill.
The third and final category of damage would create liability for loss of what falls under the term “non-use value” in relation to public resource. This would mean that the federal government or provincial government could bring forward a claim for damage to environmental assets that are valuable to Canadians and future generations.
We introduced authority to account for loss of non-use value in the calculation of fines for environmental offences, in 2009.
Bill C-22 would mark the first time that civil claims for loss or of non-use value of public resources would be available under federal legislation. This would clearly be a big step in improving environmental protection. I am proud that our government has brought it forward.
In conclusion, future generations depend upon our taking a long view of protection: establishing clear liability rules, plus an economically meaningful marker demonstrating that we value the full scope of benefits that we receive from our environment.
Bill C-22 would recognize the economic and social value of our natural resource assets, and the diverse and unique value that the environment holds for Canadians.
I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support this important legislation, and I remain available for any questions that may arise.
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I know our party is concerned about both sides of the issue, the environmental issue and also the jobs that come from natural resource development. The opposition seems to think it is an either/or discussion. We believe that we could do both and do it responsibly.
Would the member explain how that responsibility is important to us, to the Conservative Party?
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, we do not think that it is either the environment or jobs. We believe that the responsible use of our natural resources coupled with environmental protection is doable, and that is what the bill actually enhances.
We know that the extractors of this country, whether it be the petroleum industry, the mining industry or the forestry sector, all combined, create the basis of our economy, the basis upon which much of our economy is founded.
We can do that responsibly. Indeed, Canadians are known around the world as some of the best mining researchers. Almost every single operation around the world has mining engineers or someone from the Canadian mining industry involved. We have learned from other countries that do not have the track record that we have. We have learned that responsible resource management and the protection of the environment go hand in hand to create jobs. I want to thank the hon. member who comes from an area of Canada where this is most important.
 The hon. member for Durham talked about the nuclear industry and the jobs it created. In my riding, which is adjacent to Darlington, we produce nuclear fuel. Cameco Corporation is the largest non-government employer in Northumberland County.
We know all too well the importance of this industry to Canada. I thank the hon. member for Durham for bringing that to the attention of the House and all Canadians.
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, liability in the nuclear energy sector is one of our concerns.
Increasing the liability to $1 billion is a good start. However, the Japanese government estimates that the cleanup from the Fukushima accident will cost $150 billion. That is far higher than $1 billion.
If a similar accident were to happen in Canada, who would be liable for the remaining $149 billion? If the people of Drummond and my colleague's riding were to receive the bill, I would like him to explain to his constituents why they have to pay so much money while the companies are not held more accountable.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, that question just confirms what the hon. member for Durham said about the NDP. It is really not interested in what the liabilities are and the fact that we are increasing them. It just does not like the nuclear industry and wants to find any excuse whatsoever to not support the legislation.
Let me assure the hon. member that the Canadian nuclear industry post-Fukushima was reviewed by a task force created by that industry by the commission itself in 2011.
The hon. member for Durham has said, and this is a fact, that in over half a dozen countries around the world and in this country, there have been no nuclear incidents that caused anywhere near the concern that the hon. member refers to in Japan. That accident occurred due mostly to human error, and that is not a fault of the nuclear industry but a human error.
In Canada, with the nuclear reactors that we have, the CANDU reactors, those types of human errors have not occurred and are highly unlikely to occur. To reassure the member, the legislation says that once that threshold of $1 billion is exceeded, the matter comes back before this Parliament, before the government, and the House will decide what further action needs to be taken.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time.
It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House to represent the people of Gatineau on this lovely Friday before we go back to our ridings for a week. People might wonder why the people of Gatineau would be interested in the Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts. Unlike my colleague who just spoke, I can say that it is of great interest to us, as it should be to all Canadians. 
This law outlines what would happen if serious problems were to occur, especially in cases of offshore oil and gas spills. This legislation also outlines the levels of responsibility in the event of nuclear incidents. Nonetheless, as we all know, it is often Canadians who are expected to foot the bill.
 I always have to smile a little when people talk about the government's money. It is not the government's money; it is the taxpayers' money. That always reminds me of the time someone told me that the government was nice because it had sent him a cheque at tax time. I told him that the government did not send the cheque out of the goodness of its heart, but because it had taken too much of his money, and, on top of it, without paying interest. 
I already spoke to this bill at second reading, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by my colleagues from Hamilton Mountain, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Edmonton—Strathcona, for this is not an easy issue. That act is very hard to read.
In my speech at second reading, I said I was very pleased that our critic in this area had made a recommendation to approve the principle of the bill and suggest amendments at the committee stage. The amendments sought expanded liability and the implementation of global best practices.
The member said that she was going to present amendments to try to strengthen the bill. After some explanations and some rather heated debates, the NDP caucus, which always works very well together, rallied behind the member and her recommendation and voted in favour of the bill at second reading.
Of course now we are getting a slap on the wrist from the government because we have announced that we will be voting against the bill. I find many things in the House pretty shocking, but I was deeply shocked when the Conservatives flatly rejected the serious, intelligent amendments presented by my colleagues of the official opposition. 
This is a very important bill that could potentially represent billions of dollars. The sun can't shine every day. We have to be prepared for the tough times. That is what we call risk management. If we do not plan ahead, we might go bankrupt and have to borrow money to pay for things.
This should raise a flag for the Conservatives, unless they think it is up to Canadians to always pay for their mistakes. I want to pick up on what my colleague said. I am still trying to digest what he said about the fact that there has been no human error because accidents only happen as a result of human error.
According to him, since there has been none, this justifies neglecting to include the necessary compensation guarantees with regard to the nuclear industry. With all due respect to the hon. member, that is a bit cavalier because the principle of this bill is to protect against the risk of accidents.
The goal is also to ensure that there are reasonable amounts of money to do so. 
 I often tell the House that we have a tendency of forgetting the past and that is why we continue to make the same mistakes.
There has not been a case of human error in the nuclear sector. So much the better. However, human error was a factor in Lac-Mégantic, and there is a cost attached to that. All kinds of repairs and rebuilding are going to cost millions if not billions of dollars. I do not wish that on anyone.
I represent the riding of Gatineau, which is in the Outaouais region and the National Capital Region. Chalk River is not very far from there. I remember reading articles in the Ottawa Citizen about the transport of rather dangerous and radioactive materials. Quite often we are not even aware of what is happening under our noses.
I believe it is our duty to ensure that the legislation we pass protects Canadians. At the same time, Canadians should not be our country's cash cows.
Some companies earn huge amounts of money from their industry, and we are not against industry, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier. We simply want to ensure that polluters pay their share and that they do it the right way. For example, if an accident happens, we want companies to be required to compensate anyone who is affected and to fully fix the situation, not to stop at $1 billion. Although $1 billion is a nice figure, it is just a drop in the bucket if you look at the astronomical costs associated with events that happen around in the world. 
I would like to talk more about the work done in committee. I was shocked to see that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources had three meetings. Some might say that holding three meetings is fine. However, there were just two meetings with witnesses on a bill that is really not easy to study, and one meeting for the clause-by-clause study.
If memory serves, the two meetings with witnesses were not even full meetings, because of interruptions for votes. All members experience this in committee. Sometimes groups of witnesses are forced to wait for us while we come back to the House to vote. To date, we have come to the House 80 times to vote on time allocation motions, as was the case with this bill.
I am rising in the House to speak to a bill at third reading that is subject to a majority-led gag order. In other words, since the government holds a majority, it is in control of the committee so no one really knows what happens during in camera meetings. There were requests to extend the meetings in order to hear from all of the witnesses who wanted to share their opinion and provide information. Although I do not know what was said behind closed doors, I understand that those requests were denied.
Committees are not an extension of our work here. It is not simply about debating one another. It is about listening to the witnesses and trying to understand the bill. However, given what happened and in light of the comments from some witnesses, we do not get the impression that the bill was seriously, thoroughly studied in committee. There were not very many witnesses who were able to speak. That saddens me deeply.
Another thing that saddens me deeply is that Bill C-22 is being debated under an 80th time allocation motion.
I have already expressed my views on time allocation motions, which can be necessary. They have been used by other parties in power, which were not our party. I hope that we will never have to get into that kind of discussion. I would not like to be criticized for something I said. I am usually consistent and I walk my talk. However, 80 times is really too much.
I would like to take the time I have left to say that I hope the people of Gatineau can participate in Remembrance Day day ceremonies that honour this special time we set aside to remember what our veterans have done for us every day. 
I will be at the Norris and Pointe-Gatineau branches of the Royal Canadian Legion to honour the presence and bravery of our veterans.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member in regard to liability insurance. Is it the position of the New Democratic Party that, whether it is nuclear or offshore oil drilling, any private sector company wanting to go in that direction would be obligated to have unlimited liability insurance?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I know the member's question is specific. I will not necessarily give such a specific answer. I am not a specialist in the matter. 
What I said in my speech is that what I want to avoid is that it falls on Canadians, everyday Canadians, to pay for these things. The idea behind the legislation is to try to have reasonable amounts covered. I am not so sure about the amounts that are there and whether the committee had the chance to do a proper study of what those amounts really represent for the industry and Canadians. 
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent speech. 
If the nuclear industry is truly mature, it should cover costs in accordance with the polluter pays principle. Unfortunately, this bill maintains subsidies to the industry and downloads the financial risk onto taxpayers for costs that exceed $1 billion.
Taxpayers are not the ones doing the polluting.
Does my colleague think that citizens deserve better protection if companies make a mess?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, that is our biggest complaint about Bill C-22. If the Conservatives really wanted to protect Canadians and the environment, they should have harmonized the two parts of Bill C-22 by imposing the same standards on the nuclear energy and oil and gas sectors.
That is what has me stumped about this bill. The government has not provided an adequate, acceptable or reasonable response to explain this double standard that seems to exist between the oil and gas industry and the nuclear industry. Is it because the government knows that damage caused by the nuclear industry would be much worse and more costly and, in that case, it is not prepared to force the industry to provide compensation?
I do not know what is behind all this, but something does not feel quite right. I think it is a shame that a thorough study of the bill was cut short to benefit the people who keep telling us about their nice nuclear industry in television ads. Congratulations, they do things. We must not think that the nuclear industry is fundamentally bad. The nuclear industry does a lot of very good things, but let us be realistic.
We do not talk about it enough, but there is potential for human error. I realize that there may not have been any errors yet, but something could happen. To err is human. That is what we have to protect ourselves against. We must ensure that we treat the industries the same way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before I recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I will let him know that there are only two and a half minutes remaining in the time allowed for debate on the question. However, I will give him the usual signal, and I am sure he will have something to add to the debate this afternoon, even if it is for two and a half minutes. 
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are only two and a half minutes remaining to debate this bill really does illustrate the point that many members have made on our side.
The government has now used time allocation 80 times. It shows that what I want to say about this bill will not get into the record today. I cannot possibly deal with this matter in two and a half minutes. Other members of our caucus will not be allowed to speak at all on this very important bill. 
Previously the member for Gatineau was talking about how this bill was considered when it was in committee. There were only two days of hearings, in which only nine witnesses called, and on the second day those hearings were cut short, and understandably, by bells in the House. Then time allocation and scheduling that were forced on the House and on its committees by the government meant that the committee was not able to complete its consideration of the bill. 
Then only one day was given to deal with possible amendments to the bill. There were 32 amendments submitted from the opposition. If we think about the amount of time, namely two hours, with 32 amendments and four opposition members, it is clear that the government was not interested in hearing what people had to say, because they were allowed about one minute each to explain these amendments. Obviously, on a very technical and important bill, one minute per amendment is not taking Parliament and democracy seriously. 
It is an indication that the government is not prepared to listen to anything that people have to say on this side of the House. It is indicative of what I would say is the Conservatives' attitude toward democracy. For them it seems to be all about winning and only about winning.
 Lately we have seen yet another Conservative member who took that idea way too far. He was forced to leave the House because of his disrespect for the rules about making politics fair. 
Time allocation is also indicative of the government's attitude toward debate. It seems to believe that debate is something it has to sit through until it gets its way. For me, debate is very important here. I was elected by my constituents to bring their concerns to the House of Commons, and those concerns will vary from member to member. I represent a riding on Vancouver Island. There are people who represent an entire country. On the same bill, the interests of our constituents will be different, even if we are in the same party. The government seems to view all of this as a needless process because it won the election. I have a much higher view of democracy than that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, September 25, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion, the yeas have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek concurrence to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census)Ted Hsu:  moved that Bill C-626, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, as members may know, this debate has been rescheduled three times because of events out of our control over the last couple of weeks. We are used to mixing up our schedules, but that also means that my family's schedule has been rescheduled three times, so I would like to thank my family, staff, and volunteers for taking care of that. I would also like to acknowledge my wife, who has volunteered quite a number of hours to this project. I would also like to acknowledge the outpouring of support from across the country we have had in the last little while.
Today I rise to present my private member's bill, Bill C-626. It is a bill that reflects the belief that people must have trustworthy information about themselves to govern themselves wisely.
 Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said in his recent speech to the United Nations:
 ...vital statistics are critical. 
 You can’t manage what you can’t measure. 
We parliamentarians should aspire to safeguard the integrity and quality of fundamental information about the people of Canada, whom we endeavour to serve. Is that not what we seek when we pray at the beginning of each day in the House of Commons: Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all, and to make good laws and wise decisions?
However, the quality of national statistics has been compromised. In 2011, the voluntary national household survey replaced the long form census. Researchers have publicly called that survey worthless. 
What are some of the effects? In May 2014, the Progressive Conservative premier of New Brunswick said that the elimination of the long form census makes it hard to track the outcomes of the province's poverty program. That is, it is hard to figure out what New Brunswick got from the money spent to help the poor.
National household survey data were too meaningless to be published for 25% of Canada's towns and cities because of low response rates, rising to 30% in Newfoundland and Labrador's and 40% in Saskatchewan. 
All levels of government and the private sector have been handicapped by bad data here in Canada. What is worse is that the one mandatory long form census forms an essential anchor that is needed to adjust for errors in many other voluntary surveys. We have lost that data anchor.
Why is the voluntary national household survey so poor? The problem is that certain groups of people tended not to fill out the voluntary survey. Rural residents, single parents, one-person households, renters, the very rich, the poor, and younger people all tended not to complete the national household survey. The result is a biased and misleading picture of Canada and Canadians. This is what scientists call a systematic error. A systematic error, unlike a random error, cannot be corrected by sending out more census forms. 
This systematic error is eliminated if everyone who receives a long form survey fills it out. Not filling out the long form census is a disservice to the country. That is why filling out the census should be considered a civic duty.
In 2011, the government went ahead and sent out more voluntary surveys to compensate for the lower response rate. This inflated the cost of the census by approximately $20 million, but it gave us poorer information. Avoiding such waste is another reason we should restore the mandatory long form census.
More importantly, making business and investment decisions and managing the economy and the affairs of the people all require trustworthy information about the people. That is why, just this past summer, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce passed a policy resolution calling for the restoration of the mandatory long form census. That is why, in 2010, groups such as the Canadian Association for Business Economics, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Toronto Region Board of Trade opposed the elimination of the mandatory long form census.
Let me say this again. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association for Business Economics, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Toronto Region Board of Trade want the mandatory long form census.
Let me give an example of the value of the census. Suppose one wants to know how educational attainment and income are related. One could get data on education from graduation records. One could get data on income levels from tax returns. However, if one wants to know how a person's education is related to income, one has to ask the person both questions at the same time. One has to survey people. This sort of question is very important for provincial government policy, and that is why the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec protested the elimination of the mandatory long form census.
The government said in 2010 that it eliminated the long form census because some people believed it was an intrusion into personal privacy. In its “Final Report on 2016 Census Options”, Statistics Canada considered the use of a virtual census based on using administrative data the government collects in the course of normal operations and in other surveys. Indeed, some countries, such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, manage to do this and have no census. 
In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen in August 2014, chief statistician Wayne Smith said, “Could we actually, without bothering Canadians...[b]e able to obtain the same level of accuracy or better than the current survey-based census?... [W]e’re probably two censuses away before we could do it”.
Is this the long-term plan of the Conservative government? Could it be that the government is only guilty of being too hasty in eliminating the long form census before its replacement was ready to be implemented? The answer to that can be found in the same StatsCan report, which noted the following about the virtual census:
 ...this approach requires both a population register and a universal personal identification number. Neither exists in Canada.... 
What might life be like with such a universal personal identification number? It would be a number people received at birth. They would use it for education, health care, driving or gun licences, paying taxes, voting, reporting change of address, or banking. All their vital information could be in a single database, catalogued by universal personal identification number. That is what happens in countries with no census. 
Most Canadians would agree with Statistics Canada that there are serious privacy issues with a virtual census. Letting Statistics Canada take a snapshot of them every five years, as it has done for decades, is not as risky as having all their vital information tethered for life to a universal government ID. For decades Statistics Canada has done an excellent job of protecting the privacy of individual Canadians who fill out the long form census.
 To summarize, the Conservative government knows that the long form census is less of a threat to privacy than other national data-gathering systems in use today.
Bill C-626 would also give new responsibilities to the chief statistician so that the work of Statistics Canada was not unduly subject to the political imperatives of the day. In 2010 the industry minister claimed that Statistics Canada itself suggested the replacement of the long form census with the voluntary survey and that Statistics Canada and the chief statistician supported the government's move. In the wake of this statement, chief statistician Munir Sheikh resigned from his post, issuing a public statement, explaining:
 I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census. 
 It can not. 
 Under the circumstances, I have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister. 
Munir Sheikh later elaborated on his resignation, explaining that a critical issue was the fact that StatsCan was subject to significant interference from the government of the day. He has since gone on to say: 
 ...in my mind the most serious consequence of cancelling the census, is the loss of trust in Statistics Canada to be independent of government interference. 
Bill C-626 seeks to protect the integrity of StatsCan so that Canadians can trust that their data are produced according to strict professional considerations, including scientific principles and professional ethics. In describing the duties of the chief statistician, Bill C-626 would remove the phrase, “under the direction of the Minister”, and instead would require the chief statistician to establish and publish guidelines, on technical and methodological matters, based on international best practices.
Indeed, Canada helped codify some of these best practices in a document called the United Nations “Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics”. The bill also gives the chief statistician the duty of educating the public, consulting stakeholders and choosing census questions.
Under Bill C-626, the minister may give orders and the chief statistician is still accountable to the minister, but if those orders fall within the scope of technical or methodological guidelines, the orders must be published in the Canada Gazette. 
Because the chief statistician is granted additional duties and independence, Bill C-626 requires that he or she be chosen in a way that safeguards the credibility and integrity of the office. For that reason, the bill establishes a process similar to how officers of Parliament are chosen. There is extensive consultation with stakeholders by appointing a search committee composed of senior representatives of the civil service, the statistics profession and the Canadian research community. There is also consultation with the leaders of all official parties in the House of Commons, because the chief statistician should be credibly non-partisan.
Finally, Bill C-626 does not enshrine the latest form of the long-form census into law. Instead, it acknowledges and makes allowances for new sources of data or methods of data collection in the future, methods that must maintain or improve the quality of data, but may be less intrusive or less costly, all the while protecting people's privacy.
Bill C-626 eliminates the threat of a jail term for failing to truthfully answer the census. Instead, it replaces it with a fine of, at most, $500. People who guard their privacy so much that they will not fill out the census will not face a jail term.
I want to re-emphasize that Canada's mandatory long-form census is less of a risk to privacy than the national statistics systems of other countries who have no census, and instead rely on administrative data tied together by a universal personal identification number.
Data about Canadians is continually collected, analyzed and stored by public and private organizations, probably more so than if the mandatory long-form census still existed. What is the difference? When Statistics Canada collects, analyzes and stores data, it works very closely with the Privacy Commissioner. Statistics Canada is accountable to the public as it does its work through this elected House. With the mandatory long-form census, Canadians are, in a sense, getting the best information for the lowest cost in risk to privacy.
I will end by talking about duty. As Canadians, we have a duty to ensure that Canada has the financial capacity to protect us from foreign threats and to offer all of us equality of opportunity, thus we have a duty to pay taxes. As Canadians, we have a duty to ensure that our justice system is accepted by the people as legitimate and fair, and thus we have a duty to serve on juries. As Canadians, we have a duty to ensure that trustworthy information is available so that we may govern ourselves wisely for the benefit of all. This is the duty to respond to the census.
 For the good of Canada, may responding to the long-form census again be recognized as a civic duty. May the House vote to approve Bill C-626 at second reading.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this very important private member's bill before the House. Certainly, on the New Democratic Party side, we will be supporting the member's bill and sending it to committee. When the government was in the process of cancelling the long-form census, we fought hard against that decision. 
I wonder if the member could comment on what he sees as some of the implications for policy-making, at the federal level but also at the provincial and municipal levels, of not having adequate data.
[Interjection]
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, there are many implications related to governments at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, not knowing about the people whom they are supposed to be protecting and taking care of.
The whole north end of Kingston, for example, is a lower-income area. All the data in that area about education levels, aboriginals, immigration levels or household income were suppressed because not enough people returned the national household survey. Therefore, when we do not know where the people are who need services, we have a harder time locating the services and determining the quantity of services that need to be delivered. This repeats itself across the country because it is the federal government that is abdicating its responsibility.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands referenced the national household survey a couple of times in his remarks today. That survey provides much of the data that planners need for their public policy planning. He also referenced that some countries collect data through new or different means. I am wondering if he could comment on the national household survey perhaps learning from some of the international approaches beyond just the long form. 
[Interjection]
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, I would say two things. With regard to the national household survey, researchers who have analyzed the data have discovered that it is of very poor quality. The income data revealed by the national household survey, because it was compared with the tax data, has been called worthless.
With respect to the planners, I would say urban planners are probably the most supportive group when it comes to the mandatory long-form census. There are five countries in Europe, as I mentioned, that do not have a census but have a different system. The problem is that everybody there has a universal personal identification number and the Privacy Commissioner is dead set against that. There are definite privacy risks. If we were to implement such a system, I would recommend that this country have a very serious discussion about the privacy implications because I am not sure Canadians would feel comfortable with that.
The safest thing to do in terms of privacy is to continue what Statistics Canada has been doing for decades, which is to have a mandatory long-form census done every five years. Stats Can works very closely with the Privacy Commissioner and is accountable to the public. As it does its work, as it asks questions and gets information from people, Stats Can is accountable to the public. There is a lot of information gathering going on across this country that is not accountable to the public.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his efforts in putting together the bill. It is quite commendable.
I recollect that a few weeks ago there was a Globe and Mail article supporting the hon. member in this bill. It seems to me it feeds into a lot of other media commentary from pretty well right across the spectrum, left, right, up, down, whatever, that supports the hon. member's proposal. I wonder if he would comment on the media support that he has received for his proposal.
[Interjection]
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to read a very strongly worded editorial in The Globe and Mail today supporting the restoration of the mandatory long-form census and denouncing the actions of the government four years ago. I should mention that the writers of that editorial seemed to assume that the bill would fail and be voted down by the government. 
Therefore, I offered to the government earlier in question period the possibility of a compromise, where it could choose a couple of questions from the census that the people who thought the census was intrusive most complained about. I think researchers would be happy with this compromise if we could take out a couple of questions. If the government could be happy, maybe we could reach a compromise. That is the sort of thing that we in Parliament should be doing more of. Therefore, I hope the government will perhaps take the time to address that idea.
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-626 and its proposed amendments to the Statistics Act.
Our government is committed to balancing the need to collect reliable statistical data, while protecting the privacy of Canadians and reducing costs to taxpayers.
Canadians expect their government to put in place meaningful statistical programs that provide the information needed for governments, businesses, municipalities, associations and university researchers, while reducing the response burden and cost to taxpayers.
This government understands the importance of collecting reliable data in order to make informed decisions. We are not, however, prepared to force Canadians to give detailed private information to government officials at a great cost to taxpayers.
As with all activities across government, Canadians deserve to see clear lines of accountability in the programs their government puts in place. It is the government's responsibility to ensure these programs respond to the needs of Canadians. The amendments my colleague across the floor is proposing would negatively affect the governance and accountability of Statistics Canada and the timeliness of data collection. They would be costly to taxpayers and would reverse steps the government has already taken to alleviate this burden on Canadians. 
This bill attempts to change the method for appointing the chief statistician, shifting part of that responsibility from the Governor-in-Council to other players. This government is committed to ensuring clear lines of accountability for all Governor-in-Council appointments.
These amendments would blur the accountabilities of the chief statistician, who is currently appointed like other deputy ministers. Canadians expect accountability in government decisions, and we have continued to make appointments in a fair and consistent manner.
The bill also attempts to shift decision-making powers from the minister and the Governor-in-Council to the chief statistician with regard to the overall statistical program. 
The bill would see the chief statistician rather than the Governor-in-Council deciding on content for any census. Any questions that are asked on a mandatory basis, with legal penalties for non-compliance, should be approved by our elected officials. The change my colleague is proposing would upset the current balance between the advisory and implementation role of officials and the decision making accountability of the minister to Parliament.
 Moreover, the chief statistician already has a broad range of powers and responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the statistical program and to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. The proposed changes will strip accountability away, changing what is already a robust and balanced process.
The bill also unrealistically would commit Statistics Canada to adopting ambiguous international best practices regarding data collection and ethical standards and guidelines. Statistics Canada already employs international standards when these standards are suitable to the Canadian context. To prescribe the adoption of international best practices in law would not give Statistics Canada the flexibility it needs to apply best practices, ethical standards and guidelines that meet Canadian values and norms.
The bill also seeks to mandate the publication of all surveys in the Canada Gazette that meet the same ambiguous international best practices. This is an unnecessary and unrealistic requirement as Statistics Canada already publishes detailed information on all surveys on its website. To force the publication of over 350 surveys per year would significantly increase costs and red tape associated with surveys and reduce the timeliness of data. This obligation would grind Statistics Canada operations to a halt, would increase the cost of operations, and would seriously limit its ability to respond to user needs for data in a timely manner.
Bill C-626 also attempts to reverse the important decisions this government has made to reduce the burden on Canadians and to protect their privacy. It prescribes that all Canadians be forced to respond to a long form questionnaire and also defines the parameters of such a survey. This would be a regressive step as it would legally compel Canadians to respond to all census questions however intrusive.
 This government has already taken steps to ensure that certain census questions, the ones pertaining to establishing the population, calculating transfer payments and determining government policy, remain mandatory. The government has also decided that other questions are unnecessarily intrusive and a breach of the privacy of Canadians.
 The bill fails to respect that balance and seeks to reverse these decisions, compelling Canadians to answer mandatory questions with legal recourse if they fail to comply. Therefore, these aspects of the bill cannot be supported.
Our government committed to removing the jail-time penalties for Canadians who refused to participate in mandatory surveys. The bill before us would partially accomplish this, yet it does not go far enough in removing this threat. When Canadians respond to surveys about their private lives, they should be able to do so without the threat of jail time. They should be able to provide their responses without having to face the threat of jail should they choose not to answer private questions. 
Canadians expect their government to be tough on crime and to stand up for victims. Prison sentences are penalties meant for criminals—murderers, drug traffickers, and child abusers—not for people who do not comply with mandatory surveys or who fail to provide administrative data.
As promised during the last election, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has brought forward legislation that would go further in removing this penalty. I would encourage my colleagues to support that bill when it comes forward for debate.
This government takes the statistical program seriously and has taken many steps to establish a fair balance between the collection of relevant data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. Statistics Canada has long been one of the world's most respected statistical agencies, and Canadians deserve an institution that continues to remain at the forefront of its field. 
This government will continue to work hard and ensure that statistical programs remain relevant and cost-effective while respecting the privacy rights of Canadians.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-626, an act to amend the Statistics Act, regarding the chief statistician and mandatory long-form census. As I said in my question to the member, New Democrats will be supporting the bill and look forward to discussion at committee, if the Conservatives will agree to support the bill.
Over the years where this conversation has been happening in the House, the New Democrats have been consistent that we support the maintenance of the mandatory long-form census. We think it is an important document in terms of evaluating government programs and services and providing information for all levels of government when they are developing programs to address social policy issues. We believe that this form does need to be restored in its 1971 format.
 I heard the member opposite talk about how effective this national household survey was. Let me read into the record some of the problems with it.
 Mandatory surveys are typically used when taking a census due to high response rates. The mandatory census response rate was approximately 94%, whereas the voluntary national household survey response rate was 68%. Rural communities were especially under-represented, causing Statistics Canada to withhold data on 1,128 communities. In Saskatchewan, over 40% of communities have data of such low quality that it will not be published. This figure is over 25% in the Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta. Voluntary surveys typically also have lower response rates for visible minorities, including aboriginal people and women. 
Although many of us do get called at home for polls and surveys, and so on, I would argue that some people will respond to voluntary surveys and some will not. Therefore, the voluntary survey approach that the government has taken has failed to provide the kind of year-over-year comparable data that is very useful in terms of developing policy.
When this discussion was happening about cancelling the long-form census, there were outcries from across the country from all kinds of different organizations, academics and governments. I want to read something from 2010, prior to this decision taking effect. An op-ed by the C.D. Howe Institute was called “Cancelling the 2011 Census Long Form: Libertarians Take Out the Wrong Target”.
It is an interesting article because the focus is the fact that this kind of information gathered year over year allows citizens to hold their governments to account, and it gave a couple of very concrete examples of this. The C.D. Howe Institute said: 
 ...the case for the long form is still strong. Not just because the voluntary survey will provide a less reliable picture of how Canadians live and work but because Statistics Canada's information—much of it based on the long-form census—is an essential tool for Canadians seeking to ensure that the state's use of its vast powers is effective and benign. 
 Take education. Most Canadian students receive instruction in public schools, and virtually all follow a curriculum, write tests and accept certification mandated by governments. Census information is invaluable for judging how well these systems work. C.D. Howe Institute research on aboriginal education, and on how students at particular schools do compared to what neighbourhood characteristics would predict—key tools for parents and taxpayers to demand better performance—would be impossible. 
 Or immigration. Canada's economic and social success is intimately linked to the economic and social success of new arrivals. Alarmingly, the average experience of immigrants in the Canadian labour market is deteriorating. Long-form data brought this problem to light; other long-form information on education, language and country of origin can help us address it. 
 The state plays a huge role in Canadian health care: Good information on personal and neighbourhood characteristics can help us know if we are healthier or sicker as a result. It redistributes income on a colossal scale: The long-form census can reveal much about the successes and failures of these programs. In all these areas, good information helps Canadians hold their governments to account. 
 Many critics of the decision to drop the census long form are talking past the people they need to persuade. Mandatory collection of such data is intrusive. The information it yields is imperfect. The question is whether we should put up with the costs and defects for the sake of the benefits—among the most vital of which is empowering Canadians with knowledge about how well, or poorly, they are governed. 
 For those who want government to do less but do it better, good information is indispensable. If the census long form is gone for good, libertarians will have won the wrong fight. 
I thought that was a very interesting, telling article, because what we have seen from the current government is a continuing erosion of the ability of not only parliamentarians but other organizations to gain access to information. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been forced into courts at times in order to get information to determine whether the government's figures are accurate.
It seems there are many who are saying that despite the potential for intrusion into Canadians' lives, that type of information is essential in determining how effectively government is operating. Therefore, a government that talks about openness, transparency, and accountability surely would want to make sure that the information is there to allow Canadians to determine that it is in fact open, transparent, and accountable.
With regard to the long form census and its impact on aboriginal communities, The Globe and Mail published an article in 2013. The article is headed “The lost long-form census means shakier insight into aboriginal issues”. This is what it says:
 Canada’s public policy concerning aboriginal peoples continues to be perplexed, and the country needs more rather than less significant and reliable information about their lives and circumstances; many communities are afflicted by social problems. Consequently, the loss of the mandatory long-form census is acutely felt in Statistics Canada’s National Household Survey on First Nations, Métis and Inuit, which was released on Wednesday. 
 Several passages in the NHS allude to the difficulties of assembling solid statistics about aboriginals. The understandable ambivalence of some members of aboriginal communities about Canadian institutions can lead to a reluctance to answer census questions; a legal requirement was a real help. As Statistics Canada rightly says, “the characteristics of those who choose to participate” may – indeed probably do – differ from those who refuse, which undermines the information value of the survey as a whole. 
I have an article from Dr. Janet Smylie, who talks about the importance of the long form census. I will not be able to read all of this document because I know I will be running out of time, but in it she indicates that the “social data systems in Canada are extremely deficient” with regard to aboriginal peoples: 
 We all know that First Nations, Indian, Metis, and Inuit health and social data systems in Canada are extremely deficient. We also all know that capacity (especially Aboriginal HR capacities) and infrastructure issues are a real challenge. We also all likely agree that historically and currently there have been/continue to be challenges in the way that Statistics Canada has interfaced with Aboriginal communities. 
 This said, the long form census is one of the key tools that we do have to understand the size of our populations and assess the conditions in which our peoples live, including the level of social disparity.... Without it our current data systems, weak as they are, will be severely disabled. While there are many problems with the national surveys run by Statistics Canada, including the APS and ACS, all of these surveys required the long form census to develop their population based sampling frame. For non-Status Indian, First Nations/Status Indians living off-reserve, Metis and Inuit communities the impacts of no long form census will be devastating, as this is the primary source of social and demographic information for our communities--and in most situations the only source, since we are otherwise hidden in the large majority of data sets. For example, the recent studies that demonstrated life expectancy disparities (including for the Inuit disparities of infant mortality in Inuit inhabited areas of up to four times those for non-Inuit inhabited areas) for First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples would not have been possible without the long form census. 
I know that in the past much of that long form census data has been used to shape policies with regard to health care, with regard to housing, with regard to education. With the loss of that data comes a major concern that the absence of good information will allow decision-makers to make up policy based on ideology rather than information.
One of the things I am hoping the member who proposed the bill will be open to at committee, if it gets to committee, is to look at the fact that gathering information on a year-over-year basis that would allow for comparability is not specifically included in the bill.
Any of us in this House who have tried to deal with estimates and with the changing formats in which they are presented know how critical it is to be able to look at historical data. We can look to see if there have been trends or changes and we can see if programs and services are having any kind of impact through some of the legislation and programs that have been developed.
I am hopeful that perhaps the Conservatives will see the light of day and allow this bill to go before committee so that we can hear testimony from witnesses, possibly amend the bill, and reinstate the long form census in Canada.
Emmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-626, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), introduced by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.
As parliamentarians, we have a duty to develop the best possible policies for the governance of our nation. We also have a duty to adjust our way of doing things and adapt our public institutions to society's progress. Our society is growing, both in terms of population and institutions, and we also want it to grow economically.
As society evolves, the policies that govern it must also evolve. Developing the appropriate policies requires an ever increasing degree of expertise and information.
As we go through our own renewal, we in the Liberal Party strongly believe that progress is critical to our public institutions and the democratic process. We believe that the holders of this expertise, whom we need to listen to rather than stifle, must be actively consulted. This expertise comes not only from Canadians all across the country who experience these realities, but also from scientists and specialists from every area that we choose to focus on.
The information, which is getting increasingly complex, comes primarily from reports, think tanks, experts and studies. The people we represent deserve to have us consult a greater variety of experts to ensure that we are best equipped to develop the policies that affect them. That is what we call evidence-based policy. 
My colleague's bill is entirely consistent with this approach, which I wholeheartedly support. Since this government came to power, it has been opposed to the idea of developing evidence-based policy. While Canadian society continues to evolve and progress in terms of novel ways to access information and to develop commercially and intellectually, the government is trying to slow us down and limit the flow of information. The government has decided that information and its purveyors—such as scientists, the media, academics and even charities—are enemies. What does it prefer over evidence-based policy? It prefers politically based policy.
That is exactly what the government was trying to do when it abolished the long form census. Let us look at the merits of this census compared to the National Household Survey, which the government tried to use to replace the census in 2011. 
First of all, one of the Conservatives' main arguments for getting rid of the long form census was the associated cost. In that regard, the verdict is clear: even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the administration of the 2011 survey cost $30 million more than the previous census.
The next issue is the government's oversight or the oversight it permits. Another one of the Conservatives' populist arguments was that abolishing the census would counter the surveillance of Canadians by major federal institutions. This argument alone must be assessed by weighing the loss of privacy against the collective good to society of the census. 
Before discussing this issue, I would like to point out the extent to which this government, whose surveillance agencies are busy spying on Canadians here and around the world, is inconsistent. It does not hesitate to share Canadians' confidential information with Revenue Canada, other departments or even other countries. This government refuses to establish parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies. That is another example.
Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense for the government to tell Canadians that they are overly concerned about their privacy. Canadians do not ask questions about that, whereas the government does not hesitate to snoop on them without their knowledge.
Statistics are very useful. In order to understand why I believe we should bring back the long form census, we must understand the usefulness of the data collected. I already mentioned that not only the federal government, but also the provincial and municipal governments need reliable data to develop sound policy. The government cannot afford to base its policies on bad data.
For example, we need to know where in Canada people speak certain languages, especially French and English, in order to know where and how to provide services to Canadians. It is not just governments that need these data. The data are used by businesses to identify potential markets and by labour to assess job opportunities. When deciding how to manage their growth or provide their services, NGOs need to know who really needs their services and who can contribute. 
Academic researchers, who shape our understanding of society and demographic or sociological phenomena, must also be able to refer to reliable data on the Canadian population. I have not even touched on the main value of the long form census. It is the anchor for every other study conducted by Statistics Canada and any other organization on the Canadian population. It is absolutely crucial to the reliability of every other study that is based on it.
In a completely ironic turn of events, the 2011 national household survey, which the government tried to use as a replacement for the long form census, used the data from the 2006 census to adjust its results.
If there was any need for another argument in favour of reinstating the long form census, the 2011 national household survey certainly provided it. Despite the hard work of experts at Statistics Canada, that study was terribly unreliable and in no way indicative of what we are capable of producing. The reason for that is quite clear. Because the study was voluntary, not enough people participated. Participation was about 65% and as low as 0% in some communities and for some groups. My colleague's bill aims to reinstate that anchor, the long form census.
Since time is running out, I wish to conclude by saying that I commend the thorough process followed by my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, in fine-tuning his bill. The bill went through many versions and was improved at every stage of the consultations with, for example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as the member just said in his speech. The member also heard criticisms of the original legislation, particularly concerning possible prison sentences, which are no longer part of this bill. I wish to congratulate him on that.
That is how a consensus is built around a bill that is needed and that Canadians deserve. We must move forward with this bill if we want to have a reliable statistical base in order to better understand the population we represent, to develop more sound, thoughtful policies, and to provide services that will meet the specific needs of Canadians. If we want businesses to be able to recognize and take advantage of opportunities, if we want to understand the impact of our policies on Canadians, if we want to know the people who elected us to represent them and if we want to better serve them, we need to know these statistics. That is what Bill C-626 proposes.
We are quickly approaching 2016, and the brave staff at Statistics Canada will have to get to work soon to restore their pride and joy, the long form census, and to strip it of any political interference.
In closing, I congratulate my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I also urge my other colleagues from all ridings to vote in favour of Bill C-626, because this is what Canadians deserve.
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-626 and the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act.
First and foremost, the government has consistently been committed to balancing the need to collect reliable statistical data while protecting the privacy of Canadians and reducing costs for our taxpayers. 
Many aspects of the bill would negatively affect the governance and accountability of Statistics Canada, the timeliness of data collection, and would force Statistics Canada into adopting standards and practices that may be unsuitable for the Canadian context. Moreover, it would increase costs to taxpayers and impose an unnecessary burden on Canadians that has already been lifted. For these reasons, it is impossible for this government to support the bill. 
Our government committed to the removal of jail-time penalties for not filling out mandatory surveys. The bill before us would partially accomplish this; however, the bill does not go far enough. While the bill seeks to remove the threat of jail time for Canadians refusing to respond to mandatory surveys, including the census, it would not remove this threat from other portions of the act.
We believe that when Canadians respond to surveys about their private lives, they should be able to do so in complete confidence, without the threat of imprisonment for failing to comply. We also believe that when Canadians take part in the survey, whether as an individual citizen or on behalf of an organization, they should never have to respond to questions or provide administrative data under the threat of imprisonment. 
This government has committed to being tough on crime and has brought forward many measures to meet this commitment. We have also made standing up for victims a priority, to ensure that Canadians feel safer in their communities. We have worked to combat serious crimes, protecting some of the most vulnerable members in our society against harm and abuse. 
We believe that our criminal law should be focused on actual criminals and should reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. Prison penalties should be reserved for criminals, drug traffickers, murders, and child abusers, but not for people who fail to comply with mandatory surveys or fail to provide administrative data. It is just like the Liberals: they want to turn law-abiding Canadians into criminals, either through this bill or with what they tried to do under the long gun registry.
There is no utility in threatening jail time for Canadians who refuse to fill out surveys, especially when this disciplinary measure has scarcely been enforced. There is only one individual in the history of the census who has ever been sentenced to custody for failing to complete a mandatory survey. In all other cases, which are few in number during each census cycle, the penalty of a fine or community service has been sufficient.
Canadians understand that their participation in the census is important. Their responses are necessary for establishing the population of the country, which is information that we need to define electoral districts and determine transfer payments involving billions of dollars to the provinces.
 Canadians value the census, and this was no more evident than in the response rate of the last census in 2011, which was 97.1%. This highlights Canadians' commitment to helping us collect the information that we need to inform policies and programs right across the country.
However, it is this government's view that no Canadian should ever face the threat of imprisonment for refusing to fill out a census or a mandatory survey, or for refusing to grant access to administrative information. This is why, in keeping with our election promise, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has introduced Bill C-625, which proposes to remove the threat of jail time for all forms of data collection.
It was this government that stood up for Canadians and made the necessary changes to the census so that no Canadian would ever feel forced to answer intrusive questions that challenged their right to privacy. It was this government that worked to find a balance between the need to collect reliable, relevant data and the obligation to protect the privacy that Canadians value.
We have taken numerous steps to ensure that fundamental information, the information that is so important to Canadians in communities across the country that it must remain mandatory, continues to be collected. 
The government has also decided that Canadians should not be forced to respond to detailed questions about their private lives, and has since adopted the national household survey. This survey provides a better balance between collecting reliable data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.
This government has the utmost respect for the right to privacy that all Canadians deserve, and we believe that when Canadians participate in mandatory surveys, they should be able to do so without the threat of imprisonment. Prison is meant for criminals, not for those who do not comply with mandatory surveys or fail to provide administrative data.
 The current bill would not take the issue far enough and would not remove the unnecessary imprisonment threat for all forms of data collection.
I would encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-625 when it comes forward for debate and vote against Bill C-626.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before I recognize the hon. member for Pontiac to resume debate, I must inform him that he will only have three and a half minutes for his speech.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, it is okay if I have only a few minutes. This is an important subject, and I am pleased to have the honour to rise in the House and support such a bill. I must congratulate my colleague who introduced this bill in the House.
Before becoming an MP, I was a researcher. I did research at a federal research council, and I know the importance of research. I also know how important it is to have research that is independent from the government. That is why I applaud this bill. We must provide all federal government researchers and statisticians with independence and the power to tell us the truth on various aspects of things.
By the way, I deeply regret the loss of the long form census.
This was a tool that researchers had that was very valuable. I saw, in my former career, several researchers use it to very good ends. It allowed us to track some major demographic trends in our country. It allowed us to track income inequality, what was going on with aboriginal populations, with aging, with the challenges of many Canadians.
Unfortunately, perhaps, it was a tool that was too useful in criticizing the government and perhaps that is one of the reasons why it disappeared.
I have no disagreement with my former colleague who spoke about making criminals out of people who do not want to fill out forms. There is no doubt that, on that point, I agree. However, what is more important here is really the issue of the independence of the chief statistician and the independence of researchers in this country to speak truth power, to do the research they do.
The long arm of the government should be shortened with regard to the control of what people can research. That control can be done tacitly and it can be done explicitly at different levels. One of the tools the government has is the conditions under which money comes to these research councils and to Statistics Canada. In that way, the government can force research to go in a certain direction. That is truly unfortunate because we do need curiosity-driven research in this country. We never know when researchers will find something that is of extreme use to our country, and they can only do that if they have the greatest amount of latitude to research what it is that they think is important.
There are several works written in the past that at the time they were written were ridiculed. We could say that Darwin was ridiculed at the beginning of his findings. Today, we realize the degree to which that particular book on the origin of the species has been fundamental in our understanding of the human being and of the evolution of life on this planet, but at the time it was ridiculed. That was curiosity-driven research. At the time, he had a patron and he had money, so he was allowed to research the way he wanted to.
Fundamentally, I fully support the bill. I think it would be a good addition and a breath of fresh air for the research community.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Pontiac will have six minutes for his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, so the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)