Debates of March 25th, 2014

Canada Revenue Agency

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does that mean that they are using the airplanes as personal taxis 25% of the time?

This is shameful. Approximately 3,000 individuals had their personal information compromised by the Canada Revenue Agency in 2013. That is more than all of the other agencies and departments combined. These are serious personal and financial information breaches. What is more, there are over 100 cases where the information was lost or stolen. However, less than 1% of those breaches were reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The commissioner issued recommendations today. When will the Conservatives implement them? I am not asking if they will implement them, but when.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, our government understands that Canadians expect their personal information to be protected when dealing with government departments and agencies.

We have taken a number of concrete measures to strengthen privacy management through a CRA directorate responsible for CRA policy and assessment procedures, a proactive training program to ensure that CRA employees are fully informed of their duties to protect the privacy of Canadian taxpayers and provide security, and privacy-related processes. We are listening to recommendations.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the breaches at CRA are only part of a larger troubling pattern of indifference on the part of the government.

There are now reports that medical records and case summaries of survivors abused in the residential school system were stolen and that the person who stole this information has threatened to go public with it. If Indian Affairs knew of this threat, why was the Privacy Commissioner kept in the dark? Have these people not suffered enough?

I would like to ask the minister this question: when was the Privacy Commissioner informed of this breach? What steps have been taken to inform each and every one of those survivors that their personal histories have been stolen under the government's watch?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat, the administrative body that manages the IAP, is an independent, quasi-judicial organization for which this department is not responsible.

Any inquiries as to the breach of privacy should be directed to the chair of that secretariat. In the meantime, in answer to the member's question, we advised the Privacy Commissioner yesterday when we were made aware of the allegation.

Ethics

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has been caught abusing MP mailing privileges during by-elections and using its House of Commons budget to run offices for partisan activities. Not only is this disrespectful of taxpayers, it is also a direct violation of the rules.

Can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. So far everything I have heard is about actions of another party. As I said yesterday, members who want to ask questions about government business need to make that link very quickly.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we expect the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to cut the northern shrimp quota off Newfoundland and Labrador. Rumours suggest that in area 6 alone, it will be cut by up to 20,000 tons. That is a 50% cut in the inshore fishery. However, the offshore sector will not suffer nearly as much.

Harvesters, boat owners, their crew members, plant workers, and entire communities could be devastated. Will the minister seriously consider looking at a fair and stable arrangement, a sharing arrangement? Will she strongly consider applying the principle of adjacency? The minister needs to act now.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we realize the importance of the northern shrimp fishery in terms of the economic opportunity and employment that it provides to the harvesting and the processing sectors.

We do need to consider the long-term impacts of the changes that may be taking place in the ecosystem and their effects on shrimp, crab, groundfish, and other stock. Any quota changes for 2014 will be based on sound science advice and will take into account recommendations of stakeholders.

Veterans Affairs

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, May 9 will be a very good day for veterans and those heroes from Afghanistan and a day of honour, but it will ring a bit hollow when government lawyers are arguing in a court of law that the government has no social or moral obligation to care for those who served in harm's way.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs said the other day that he believed that there is a social contract with the government on behalf of the people of Canada and those who serve in our military. My question to him is if he believes that, why are government lawyers arguing in a court of law that the government has no moral or social obligation to care for the heroes of our country?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, our government's commitment to veterans is spelled out in the legislation we passed in the House. Our commitment to veterans is spelled out in the veterans bill of rights, increased financial benefits for those who are seriously injured, and the creation of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.

I can understand why the NDP does not want to recognize this. Its parliamentary record is one of only voting against veterans' benefits and services.

Public Safety

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn about an editorial from Carleton University professor Darryl Davies that disrespects our front-line police officers who died keeping fellow Canadians safe. In fact, he even goes so far as to defend an individual who protested the funeral of Toronto police sergeant Ryan Russell.

While disrespect for law enforcement is a fundamental tenet of leftist ideology, Davies hit a new low by attacking those who died in the line of duty. Could the Minister of Public Safety please tell the House what our Conservative government is doing to give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect Canadians?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Medicine Hat, I am appalled to see these types of comments from someone who educates young people.

Front-line police officers selflessly put themselves in harm's way to protect fellow Canadians and deserve our unending gratitude. Attacking a tribute to a heroic policeman such as 35-year-old Sergeant Ryan Russell, who was hit hard by a snowplow and killed while trying to protect people from a dangerous individual, is shockingly disrespectful and despicable.

I can assure the House that the government will continue to support its law enforcement agencies and will pay its respects to those who make Canada one of the safest places in the world.

Foreign Affairs

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, award-winning Canadian journalists have been imprisoned in Egypt for three months, and now Mohamed Fahmy's trial is again delayed, meaning more weeks in an Egyptian jail for this Canadian.

I am sure that the minister would agree with the NDP that targeting journalists simply for expressing their views is unacceptable, so what is she doing to press her Egyptian counterparts to ensure Mr. Fahmy's freedom and bring him home? Will the minister urge Egyptian authorities to respect press freedom and end this crackdown on journalists?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very clear. Canada stands with the Egyptian government and people in their efforts to build a stable, inclusive, prosperous, and democratic Egypt based on respect for human rights, tolerance, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.

Canada continues to call on the Egyptian government to promote the rights of journalists and to protect those rights in keeping with Egypt's new constitution and with the aspirations of Egypt's people to build a fully democratic Egypt.

Democratic Reform

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' fair elections act is anything but fair. Bill C-23 would turn voters away from the polls. Too few voters is our problem, not too many.

Bill C-23 would do nothing to fix our undemocratic system. It would grant 100% of the power to a party with less than 40% of the vote.

Will the minister fix the real electoral problem and make our electoral system more proportional?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, some people say that they should not need to use photo ID when they vote, and they are right. They should not, they do not, and they would not under the fair elections act. In fact, there are 39 different pieces of acceptable identification. They do not even need government-issued ID to vote in Canada.

Most people think it is pretty reasonable that when they show up to cast a ballot, they are able to identify who they are and where they live. That is the best way to ensure the integrity of our voting system, and it is all the fair elections act would require.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Burundi, led by His Excellency Laurent Kavakure, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Israel, led by the hon. Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, Speaker of the Knesset of Israel.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the 2014 Governor General's awards in visual and media arts: Kim Adams, Sandra Brownlee, Max Dean, Raymond Gervais, Angela Grauerholz, Jayce Salloum, Brydon Smith, and Carol Wainio.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Advertisements by the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I understand the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie would like to respond to the question of privilege raised yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to the question of privilege raised by the MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, a riding adjacent to my own riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie.

In essence, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine argued that I have infringed upon her privileges as an MP by placing an ad in a weekly newspaper that announced that I would be holding a meeting in a coffee house and that I was welcoming citizens from both my riding and her riding to join me for coffee. This would have been on January 25.

More specifically, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine argued that the ad I prepared for publication was trying to make it sound as though I was actually the MP for her riding.

I should point out a number of things that are relevant here.

First, the ad in question was placed in the NDG Free Press weekly newspaper. This weekly newspaper's distribution straddles both my riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie and the neighbouring riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Second, while my riding is called Westmount—Ville-Marie, it actually includes approximately 45% of the population of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. When the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine stated yesterday that she represented the vast majority of NDG, she was wrong. Approximately 30,000 of my constituents live in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I am perfectly entitled to notify them of an upcoming meeting by placing an ad in a newspaper inviting them to join me.

Third, the MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine accuses me of trying to present myself to her constituents as their MP. The ad very clearly identifies me as the member of Parliament for Westmount—Ville-Marie and nothing more. I believe it is a reasonable assumption, on my part, to say that her constituents know very well what riding they live in and that my ad did not confuse them in any way.

Finally, given that our ridings are adjacent, it is also reasonable to assume that we share some common preoccupations. One example is the plan to build a third rail line for the Montreal AMT train service, a public transportation service that crosses both my riding and a good part of the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I have been very active on this file and have organized meetings with citizens impacted by this major infrastructure addition to public transportation. As the MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie, I consider it acceptable to invite all those who might be potentially impacted by such a project to join me for a coffee, and I always make it very clear that I am the MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

This is no different from my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine getting up in the House of Commons a little while ago for a member's statement and telling everyone that the NDG Food Depot, which we both support because it is a good cause, was in her riding, when in fact it is in my riding.

Both of us care deeply about the work done by the NDG Food Depot, which serves both our ridings, but the fact remains that she was wrong when she said that it was in her riding.

Am I upset? Are my privileges undermined? No. I made nothing of it at the time, because it was not, in my opinion, worth doing that.

My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and I both work with a number of organizations that serve both our ridings. Some of these organizations are based in my riding while some are based in her riding. I do not consider this a cause for partisanship, since in the end, the interests of our constituents should be our common priority.

It did not occur to me for one minute that when she was meeting with organizations based in my riding that serve her riding she might be passing herself off as the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. That would be very petty on my part.

I do not want to say much more about my colleague's question of privilege other than to state that it is a frivolous question of privilege. It is a frivolous question that has been clearly raised because the NDP is trying to distract from its abuse of mailing privileges in the ridings of Bourassa, Toronto Centre, Brandon—Souris, and Provencher during the recent byelections, ridings where it used taxpayers' money to mail literally hundreds of thousands of NDP documents designed to identify votes and partisan fundraising in ridings, possibly during the writ period. It is no wonder that the Board of Internal Economy has taken the unusual step of referring the matter to the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to rule quickly on this frivolous question of privilege and put this matter to rest.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say, given the final comments, which were rather frivolous, that the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie really does not have much of a defence.

What happened is very clear. He put an advertisement in local newspapers. He did not invite just the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who live in his riding, he invited all residents of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and the residents of Montreal West, whom he does not represent at all. That was not clear in the ad.

As I mentioned yesterday, in 2004, former Speaker Milliken ruled on the same matter and said that that there was a clear, prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Speaker, as you review all the facts, I hope that you will find that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine was perfectly correct in raising this matter in the House.