Debates of Nov. 5th, 2012

(Return tabled)

Question No. 887

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the government’s role in monitoring and regulating arms exports, and with regard to the reply to Q-230 (Sessional Paper No. 8555-411-230): (a) on what date or dates will the government table in Parliament or otherwise release a report or reports on the export of military goods from Canada for 2010 and 2011; (b) in the report or reports for 2011, will the government provide a level of detail similar to that provided in the Annual Report of 2002; (c) in particular, will the report or reports provide information similar in nature to that contained in the 2002 report’s “Table 3: Exports of Military Goods by Destination Country and Component category”; (d) what is the value of export permits for Export Control List (ECL) Group 2 items authorized for the United States from 2006-2011, broken down by year and by Group 2 ECL subgroup item (2-1, 2-2, 2-3, etc.); (e) what is the value of export permits for ECL Group 2 items authorized for Saudi Arabia from 2006-2011, broken down by year and by Group 2 ECL subgroup item; (f) what factors explain the increase in total value of export permits authorized for ECL Group 2 items for Saudi Arabia from $35.2 million in 2010 to $4.024 billion in 2011; (g) what additional information is available to explain the increase in total value of export permits authorized for ECL Group 2 items for Saudi Arabia from $35.2 million in 2010 to $4.024 billion in 2011; (h) what factors explain the increase in total value of export permits authorized to all states for ECL Group 2 items from $4.1 billion in 2010 to $12.1 billion in 2011; and (i) what information is available to explain the increase in total value of export permits authorized to all states for ECL Group 2 items from $4.1 billion in 2010 to $12.1 billion in 2011?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 890

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

With regard to the study underway by Environment Canada and the study by the Council of Canadian Economies entitled “Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction”: (a) what are the mandates for these studies; (b) what are the deadlines for these studies; (c) will these studies be made public and, if so, what process will be followed to make them public; (d) will the two studies include public consultations and, if so, (i) with what groups, (ii) where, (iii) when; (e) will the two studies include case studies and, if so, (i) what cases will be studied, (ii) will the case studies include affected sites; (f) will the studies consider the role of the federal government under (i) the Indian Act, (ii) the Fisheries Act, (iii) the Navigable Waters Protection Act, (iv) the Migratory Birds Convention Act, (v) the Species at Risk Act, (vi) the Canada National Parks Act, (vii) the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, (viii) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; (g) will the studies consider the link between the national conservation plan and shale gas; (h) will the studies examine the impact of shale gas extraction on the greenhouse gas emission targets for 2020; (i) who will receive the results of the study; (j) what parties will be consulted, including (i) groups, (ii) departments, (iii) organizations, (iv) scientists, (v) regions, (vi) associations, (vii) cities, (viii) municipalities, (ix) provinces and territories; (k) will the emissions from the following sources be studied, (i) industrial furnaces, (ii) home furnaces, (iii) stored liquids, (iv) wellhead leaks, (v) ground leaks, (vi) connection equipment; (l) will the studies include (i) direct, (ii) indirect, (iii) cumulative shale gas emissions in their greenhouse gas emissions calculations; (m) which shale gas wells will be studied; (n) will the following incidents related to hydraulic fracturing be studied, (i) the leak at the St-Hyacinthe well, (ii) the well blowout in Alberta, (iii) the earthquake in Ohio, (iv) the wells in Louisiana, (v) the wells in Texas; (o) will the studies consider the impact of shale gas, salt water and injected liquids on (i) surface water, (ii) well water, (iii), groundwater, (iv) waterways (v) air, (vi) the atmosphere; (p) what impacts will be studied in the areas of (i) water quantity, (ii) water quality, (iii) impact on municipalities (iv) impact on communities, (v) impact on Aboriginal peoples, (vi) human health, (vii) animal health, (viii) aquatic flora, (ix) aquatic fauna, (x) terrestrial flora, (xi) terrestrial fauna; (q) what actions have been taken since environmental petition 307 was received by the department on January 12, 2011; and (r) what are the titles of the research projects undertaken by Natural Resources Canada regarding shale gas between 2006 and 2011?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Oral Questions

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today my colleague from Etobicoke North asked a question concerning the fact that she had put a written question on the order paper. The Minister of Public Safety got up and made a reference to the fact that this cost $1,300, a figure used by him, to address a part of that question, and then went on to elaborate.

I want to draw members' attention to the fact that in O'Brien and Bosc it says very clearly that replies to written questions may be presented each sitting day during routine proceedings under the rubric “questions on the order paper”. It says specifically later, “The Speaker, however, has ruled that it is not in order to indicate in a response to a written question the total time and cost incurred by the government in the preparation of that response”.

I am wondering if we could get the government to address this specific concern and let us know whether it does intend to answer the question fully that was put forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was anything in the written response to the question that did that. I believe it was his oral answer in the House.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was indeed in the reply of the minister, versus in the reply to the question. The reply to the question was in fact two and a half lines. That is all there was to it. That is why my colleague was asking for an explanation today as to why a question on the very serious matter of disaster management only warranted a two and a half line reply.

In fact, in seeking clarification as to why it had not been answered, the minister very clearly said, as I interpret it here, that this was going to cost money and therefore they were not going to do it. Is this setting a dangerous precedent?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's concern relates to written answers. This was an oral question in the House and the answer to the question that was raised provided the information that I believe they were seeking.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing now if this is going to become a standard answer. When the government members do not wish to answer a written question on the order paper, will their response be that they are not going to answer it because it involves a certain amount of money?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for drawing this to my attention. I will certainly look at the response that was given and get back to the House, if necessary, on this particular point.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-36, Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, following its review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Bill C-36 builds on our government's commitment to protect the most vulnerable members of society, including the elderly. To this end, Bill C-36 proposes to consider as an aggravating factor in sentencing the fact that an offence has had a significant impact on the victim because of the combination of his or her age and any other aspect of his or her personal situation, including his or her health and financial situation.

I am pleased that the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expressed their support for the general purpose of Bill C-36. Several of them said that the bill would increase public awareness of elder abuse in Canada. This further confirms the important role that this legislation will play in elder abuse cases by emphasizing the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. This government recognizes the concern expressed by witnesses who appeared before the committee who noted that Bill C-36 could not serve as the only response to the problem of elder abuse.

It is important to note that this legislation was never intended to serve as the only response to elder abuse. The proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would complement the significant resources that our government has been investing for several years to fight elder abuse. For example, the elder abuse initiative has contributed to raising public awareness with its advertising campaign entitled “Elder Abuse--It's Time To Face The Reality”.

Another example of our government's investments in this area is the new horizons for seniors program. Since its creation in 2004, this program has supported projects to upgrade seniors facilities and to increase elder abuse awareness, among other things. Some of the projects funded by this program are Canada-wide and aim to develop and implement awareness activities and to create tools and resources to help seniors protect themselves against abuses, such as fraud and financial exploitation.

Some of the agencies that appeared before the committee have benefited from this program. For example, we heard that the long-term care best practices initiative had received funding from this program to develop long-term care best practices guidelines that would benefit Canadians across the country. Such examples illustrate how this government understands and recognizes that efforts to fight elder abuse must be made at the federal and provincial levels through, for example, legislative amendments in areas of exclusive jurisdiction, as well as investment in community, regional and national initiatives, including the ones I have just mentioned.

As we heard in committee, it would seem that Bill C-36 has unanimous support in principle. However, the opposition parties proposed two amendments during the clause by clause consideration of the bill. The first proposed amendment, which was passed by the committee, amended the short title of the French version of the bill from “Loi sur la protection des personnes âgées au Canada” to “Loi sur la protection des personnes aînées au Canada”. This amendment responded to concerns expressed by a few witnesses that vulnerability should not be defined only in terms of a victim's age.

Bill C-36 would instruct sentencing courts to take into account the significant impact that the offence has had on the victim, considering the combination of age and other personal circumstances, including health and financial situation.

The second amendment to the bill would have eliminated the word “significant” from the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code so that any impact on the victim would be considered as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing. In my opinion, such a proposal reflects a lack of understanding of the Criminal Code and, in particular, of the sentencing scheme. The proposed amendment, if passed, would have trivialized the denunciatory and deterrent value of the aggravating factor in Bill C-36 by making it apply to any offence against seniors that has had an impact, even transient or trifling in nature, on an elderly victim.

We agree that every offence has an impact on its victim. However, Bill C-36 addresses cases where the impact of the offence is exacerbated because of the victim's age and health, for example. It also bears noting that Bill C-36 is consistent with recent amendments to the Criminal Code.

Section 380.1 of the Criminal Code was amended, effective November 1, 2011, to specify that, in the context of fraud, the fact that an offence has had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circumstances, including their age, must be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

This provision thus bears at least two similarities with the amendment proposed in Bill C-36. It speaks of a “significant” impact and identifies age as a factor for aggravating circumstances.

It is important to bolster our fight against elder abuse by ensuring that our courts denounce and deter offenders from committing such crimes by imposing tougher sentences.

For the reasons I have noted, I urge my colleagues in the House to give the bill their unanimous support.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very hard and very dedicated work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. But I do have a question for the member.

In committee, we heard several witnesses talk about this bill in its current form. Ms. Beaulieu of the Research Chair on Mistreatment of Older Adults of the Université de Sherbrooke emphasized the importance of raising awareness among all stakeholders in the justice network to ensure that Bill C-36 has a real impact and to ensure that judges, prosecutors and police know how to respond and that they have the tools they need to interpret clauses like ones included in this bill.

This suggestion can also be found in an excellent report by the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. It also suggested that training and education within the legal community be included in the legal measures to be implemented in the fight against elder abuse.

I would like to know what my colleague's thoughts are on that and if Bill C-36 should mention and include measures like those identified by the witnesses that appeared before the parliamentary committee I just mentioned.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her relevant question.

Obviously, in addition to stakeholders, judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are involved in the justice system and must understand this important program, social workers and nursing home workers must also be aware of elder abuse issues.

An awareness program such as the new horizons for seniors program would complement an amendment to the Criminal Code, since an amendment is not enough, in and of itself, to identify and solve elder abuse problems. In other words, we need to make the penalties harsher and also make sure that everyone knows that these problems must be reported. All stakeholders must be aware of this major issue.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way a question.

With only a small investment, we could lift seniors out of poverty, which would be the most effective way to protect them from abuse.

Why is the Conservative government not making any effort in that regard?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I understood the question, but this government has certainly been taking major steps to draw attention to elder abuse.

That is why we made an amendment to the Criminal Code, as described in Bill C-36. We also introduced the new horizons for seniors program, and ran television ads that draw attention to abuse situations, to make people understand that it is simply not acceptable to abuse their father, mother, aunt, brother or anyone in a vulnerable position.