Bill C-54 (Historical)

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)

This enactment amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public and to create a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims in the regime and makes procedural and technical amendments.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member.

I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent. In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are doing it again.

Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38, was the biggest one with which I was involved. It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation.

Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible. Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else.

My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government. The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them.

That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling. How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration?

It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38, C-45, C-60. Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly.

It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support. I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us.

The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here. They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers.

The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them. By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us.

Going a little further on this, Bill C-4, as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies.

The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans.

There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country.

This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-54 was at the time of prorogation of the 1st session of the 41st Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to the order made Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously by our outstanding House leader, I want to inform the House that this Bill C-14 is in the same form as Bill C-54, which was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion No. 2

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is Bill C-54 to which we are referring.

I can assure the member that these new provisions would only apply to a very small number of people who fall into the category of not criminally responsible accused.

The member rightly said that she was one of the very few members of Parliament who opposed the legislation. That points out exactly my point in answer to the earlier question about how absurd it would be to have the vast majority of members in the House pass legislation, then have prorogation happen, which is a very normal thing, which has happened over 100 times over the last 100 years as we heard from the government House leader a little while ago, to then have that legislation revisited so the few people who voted against it could take another kick at the can. To me that seems a really great waste of parliamentary resources.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be an absurd result for this Parliament to get into the habit of using prorogation as a way of revisiting the same legislation it had already passed.

It is supposed to do that debate one time, study it in detail, make amendments as was done with respect to Bill C-54 and then send it off through the rest of the process, which includes the Senate. If the bill the member is referring to should be reviewed, I assume it will be reviewed in the other chamber in the normal process.

However, to have bills going back and forth and having the government use prorogation to revisit a bill that has already been passed by the House, I think if he were on the other side of that issue, he would probably say that was an absurd result.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that proroguing is very commonplace. Every government has done it to come back and restart. There was a very short period of prorogation. Not supporting this Bill C-2 would cause months of starting all over again on these very important bills.

We heard the member speaking about Bill C-54. This is an extremely important bill, and it has to move through quite quickly to protect citizens. How important does the parliamentary secretary think it is for those members to support this bill?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what would really be a waste of time would be starting the whole process of Bill C-54 over again. It went through all stages of debate in the House. It was debated at length here in the Chamber. It was debated for five days in the justice committee. We heard from over 30 witnesses. Then it received final third reading support here and went to the Senate and was working its way through the Senate justice committee. To start that over again would be absurd, in my view.

In addition, if the member heard my speech, she will know that a number of amendments were made to the bill, which of course, would then have to be reintroduced, and that would take even more time. We could have the absurd result of the bill looking different from what was passed in the House previously.

However, to the point of her question, the throne speech was 8,000 words long, I believe. If she was standing at the back of the Senate, as I was the other day, listening to every word, she would know that the government put forward a number of new legislative initiatives, especially in the area of criminal law reform. Those things needed to be done to reset the agenda of the government. I look forward to working with her to make sure that those new reforms go through the House and the Senate as quickly as possible.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I found that the hon. member's speech was basically a waste of time because we never should have needed to listen to him defend the work that was done on Bill C-54. The member never would have needed to make that speech if his government had not decided to go into hiding for five weeks to avoid the Senate scandals.

Honestly, if I were linked to people as unscrupulous as Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, I would want to hide for five weeks, too. Despite all that, there was work to be done. As for the bill that the hon. member so strongly believes in, we would not be in this situation and the bill would not be on the verge of failing. I doubt that is what the hon. member wants.

Did the hon. member make these same remarks to the Prime Minister and the government House leader? Did he try to convince them not to prorogue the House and waste the effort that was put into the bill by the justice committee?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion to reinstate the not criminally responsible reform act.

As you know, former Bill C-54 was awaiting second reading debate in the Senate when it died on the Order Paper. I urge the members of the House to support this motion to reinstate the bill to permit the Senate to continue its study of this important piece of legislation.

It is my view that the reinstatement of the bill to second reading debate in the Senate would avoid duplication of the considerable amount of work already undertaken by the House and by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with respect to the study of this bill.

Members of the House will undoubtedly remember that former Bill C-54 was considered and debated by the House for 15 hours between February 8 and June 18 of this year. All parties had a significant opportunity to present their views and be heard on this issue. It would seem to me to be an inefficient use of resources to repeat this process on the exact same issue.

In addition to the vigorous debate in the House, the bill was exhaustively studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this past June. Over a period of five days, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard from more than 30 witnesses with a wide variety of backgrounds and professional experience.

The committee heard testimony from the former minister of justice and his officials. Victims' advocates, such as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, also testified, as did representatives of the Mental Health Commission of Canada and representatives from other major mental health organizations.

Review board members from two jurisdictions were able to attend, as well as a psychiatrist from one of Canada's busiest forensic institutions. Several members of the legal profession and major non-governmental organizations also testified.

All of these witnesses presented valuable viewpoints on former Bill C-54. This greatly enriched the study of the not criminally responsible reform act. The justice committee was well served by their participation.

Furthermore, the committee also had the benefit of hearing directly from a number of victims who had become involved in the criminal justice system as a result of having lost a family member in an incident involving a mentally disordered accused.

It took great courage and strength for them to speak to the committee about their loss and express how the justice system can be improved. We are grateful for their participation and for the perspective that they brought to the study of this bill.

The committee heard all of these concerns and proceeded to return the bill to the House with two substantive amendments to improve it further. Reinstating the bill at second reading in the Senate would avoid unnecessary duplication of all the valuable work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights just this past spring.

In support of this position, I would like to take a few minutes to remind hon. members what exactly is included in the bill and why it is so important that the parliamentary review of these proposed reforms be able to continue as expeditiously as possible.

The not criminally responsible reform act seeks to amend both the mental disorder regime of the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to enhance the protection of the public and improve the involvement of victims in the process.

The mental disorder regime in both statutes sets out the powers and procedures that govern an accused who has been found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

Individuals who fall under the mental disorder regime are supervised by provincial administrative tribunals that are referred to as review boards. These review boards are made up of legal and psychiatric experts whose task is to monitor the progress of accused persons and evaluate their potential risk to the public. They review each case on an annual basis, although in certain circumstances it could be every two years, until the individual no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Issues of criminal responsibility for individuals who suffer from mental illness have been a vexing issue for policy-makers and lawmakers for centuries. These issues are complex and challenging from both a technical legal perspective and a societal perspective.

The not criminally responsible reform act is a targeted and reasonable response to the concern about high-risk, not criminally responsible accused who pose a higher risk to the public.

The not criminally responsible reform act has three main elements. First, it seeks to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration when decisions are made about not criminally responsible and unfit accused. This element is intended to add clarity to an area of the mental disorder regime that has presented some confusion.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has stated on more than one occasion that public safety is the paramount consideration in determining the proper disposition with respect to a not criminally responsible accused, there remained some concern that this interpretation was not being reflected in practice.

In fact, various witnesses who testified before the justice committee had varying views as to whether public safety was truly the paramount consideration or simply one of four listed factors to take into consideration. By clarifying that public safety is the paramount consideration in decisions regarding the mentally disordered accused person, the government is ensuring that public safety is the primary consideration of decision-makers.

Second, the bill proposes a new scheme to designate some not criminally responsible accused as high-risk accused. This scheme is intended to apply to only the small number of not criminally responsible accused who are found by a court to represent an elevated risk to society so that they would be subject to the extra protection provided through this designation.

The high-risk designation would ensure that a not criminally responsible accused would be held in custody in a hospital and could not be considered for any kind of release until the high-risk designation was revoked by the court. High-risk not criminally responsible accused would not be eligible to receive unescorted passes into the community and would only receive escorted passes in narrow circumstances, such as for medical reasons. This designation would operate to protect the public by ensuring that the not criminally responsible accused who posed the highest risk would not have unsupervised access to our communities and neighbourhoods.

Another outcome of the high-risk designation would be that the review board would be able to extend the time period between reviews. As I mentioned, the review board usually reviews each case on an annual basis, which can be extended up to two years in certain circumstances under the current law. This bill proposes to provide the review board with the discretion to increase the period of time between reviews to up to three years if the accused has been designated a high-risk not criminally responsible accused. The review boards would be able to extend the length of time in two circumstances: if the accused consents to the extension; and if the review board is satisfied, on the basis of relevant information, that the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that detention remains necessary for the period of the extension.

Finally, the bill also proposes significant changes to the victim-related provisions of the mental disorder regime to improve information-sharing and victim participation in the mental disorder regime.

The government is very committed to addressing the concerns of all victims of crime, not just those impacted through the mental disorder regime. In fact, over the summer, the minister travelled to many parts of Canada to engage in consultations with stakeholders on developing a federal victims' bill of rights that would provide victims with a more effective voice for victims in the criminal justice and corrections systems.

Our government is taking action to ensure that our streets and communities are safe. This includes enhancing the rights of victims so that they know that they have a voice in the criminal justice system. One of the key themes that emerged from these consultations was the desire for victims of crime to be kept informed and involved at every stage of the justice process. The victim-related reforms in the not criminally responsible reform act are a step in that direction. They address this concern by increasing the information that would be made available to victims and by ensuring that their safety was considered when decisions were made. For example, the bill would require courts and review boards to specifically consider the safety of the victim when determining whether a not criminally responsible accused remained a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Another improvement to the victim-related provisions in the mental disorder regime would be a requirement that review boards consider in every case whether to make a non-communication order between the victim and the mentally disordered accused. The review board would also have to consider whether to issue an order preventing an accused from going to a certain place. These elements would be in place to both increase the safety of the victims and to ensure their peace of mind.

Victims who have become involved in the mental disorder regime have also expressed concern that they have no way of knowing when a not criminally responsible accused is going to be released or discharged into the community. They expressed apprehension about encountering the accused in their neighbourhoods or communities with no warning.

In response to this concern, the bill proposes that for victims who want to be notified, the review board would be required to notify them when a not criminally responsible accused was being discharged into the community. This provision was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its deliberations to increase the amount of information the victim would receive. Specifically, the amendment would provide that a victim could receive information regarding the intended place of residence of the accused upon discharge. This amendment was intended to ensure that interested victims were made aware if the accused was going to be located in their community upon release. The committee felt that this amendment would be a positive addition to the victim-related components of the not criminally responsible reform act, and I agree with them.

It is important to note that the victim-related reforms were supported by every witness who testified at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. All of the witnesses who commented on these elements were very supportive.

There are a few final things I would like to emphasize with respect to this legislation. The bill should not be interpreted as implying that people with mental illness are presumptively dangerous. That is not what the bill does. I can assure all hon. members that the proposed reforms are consistent with the government's efforts regarding mental illness and the criminal justice system. In addition to seeking to protect the public, it also seeks to ensure that the mentally disordered accused receive fair and appropriate treatment. I am confident that the not criminally responsible reform act would not have a negative impact on the broader issue of mental illness in the criminal justice system, nor is it intended to fuel stigma against the mentally ill.

Before I conclude my discussion on the substance of the bill, I would like to bring to the attention of the House one other amendment made to the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This other amendment provides for a parliamentary review of the mental disorder provisions five years following royal assent. The committee members unanimously agreed that it would be beneficial to review the amendments to ensure that they were having the intended effect. Given the highly technical nature of this area of criminal law, I think hon. members would agree with me that the amendment is a welcome one and would likely provide Parliament with valuable information as to the impact of the proposed reforms.

I would like to return now to the issue at hand, the motion currently before the House to reinstate Bill C-54 at the stage it was at in the Senate. I encourage all members to vote in favour of the motion to avoid significant duplication of effort, and most importantly, to ensure that this important legislation, whose main focus is aimed at protecting the public and addressing the concerns of victims, can quickly become law.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleagues for the warm applause.

Let me start by making a few comments on the motion and what it means. Although many words have been spoken in previous days about government Motion No. 2, particularly by my colleague, the hon. government House leader, I think it is important for those people who may be watching for the first time that I try to explain what government Motion No. 2 is actually about.

Quite simply, government Motion No. 2 purports that all unfinished parliamentary business, which we left when we rose for the summer recess back in June, would return in the same state in which it was before we recessed. In other words, to use the vernacular, we simply want to pick up where we left off.

That in itself is not unusual. Many times before governments have, after prorogation, brought forward similar motions that allowed unfinished legislative initiatives, in other words government bills, to be brought back to Parliament in the same state that they were pre-prorogation. That is what we are doing with approximately seven bills that were still being debated when we rose for the summer and prior to prorogation.

However, we go far beyond that, because although it is normal for governments, previously, to bring back similar motions to try to start the debate on these important bills, we decided not only to just have government legislation brought back but all parliamentary work should be brought back in the same state that it was before we adjourned.

Why is that important? It is important because in committee work there are two, in particular, very important parliamentary studies being conducted by committees. These two studies, I should add, are supported wholeheartedly by members of the opposition.

We appointed a special legislative committee to study the issue of missing aboriginal women. Now, opposition members have been calling for such a study to be enacted for many months, in fact, I think over the course of the last two or three parliamentary sessions. We have agreed to that. We installed a special legislative committee that would allow for such a study to occur. However, if we do not pass Motion No. 2, that committee would be disbanded. That study would be halted.

We think it is incumbent upon us as a government to observe the hard work that parliamentarians did on all sides of the House on that committee, and bring the study to fruition. The only way we can do that is to pass Motion No. 2.

Failing that, what would happen is that there would have to be another legislative committee struck, membership presented and the committee would basically go back to square one on the analysis and study of that very important issue. Why do that? Why should we waste the valuable time that has already been spent on that very important issue? Motion No. 2 would take care of that.

The other study that is ongoing and quite frankly has just started is the study being conducted by the procedure and House affairs committee on members' expenses. I will speak about that in a little more detail in a few moments.

Let me now turn my attention to why the opposition apparently has a problem with Motion No. 2. What the official opposition has stated in its opposition to government Motion No. 2 is that it feels by lumping together government bills and committee studies somehow we are prejudicing the entire motion. They are saying we are somehow playing politics with the facts, because if the opposition wants to approve the continuation of committee studies, it is forced to vote in favour of the motion, which includes government bills.

Not only is that nonsensical, it really defies description to believe that we would even attempt to play politics with such important issues as the study on missing aboriginal women and children. I think any opposition it has to our attempt to pass government Motion No. 2 has now been allayed, because the Speaker's ruling of last Friday said we will now have two votes on the same motion.

The first vote will deal with government legislation. We will vote on whether or not to bring back all government bills in the same state they were in prior to prorogation. We are talking about bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act, the tackling contraband tobacco act, bills that had reached various stages of progression in this Parliament. Some had reached and gone through second reading. Some had reached report stage. Some had even passed third reading. Many of the government bills that we want to bring back had the full support of the entire Parliament, yet the NDP, primarily, wants to see us refuse to bring these bills back, and in effect, reintroduce them and start the debate all over again.

I ask if there is any sensibly thinking Canadian who would look at this opposition and say that this is the way we should go. Rather than continuing on and getting these bills passed, which all parliamentarians support, would anyone say they want to start all over again, have the same debate again, waste Parliament's time and waste taxpayers' time? No. No one would agree to that, except, it appears, the opposition.

Because of the ruling of the Chair, we are now going to be dealing with government bills in a separate vote. If members of the opposition vote in favour of our motion, that is not to say that they are voting in favour of each individual bill. It would merely be to say that they are voting in favour of bringing these bills back to Parliament in the same state that they were before we adjourned in June. To me, it seems like a common sense approach because most of the bills, as I said before, have been approved. Some of them have passed second reading debate. Some of them have passed third reading debate. Many have the approval of the entire Parliament. Why in the world would we want to discard all of that hard work and start over again? It does not make sense.

However, if the opposition was only concerned with the lumping of the committee studies and the government bills, now they should not have a problem with it, because we will have a second vote. That vote will be to bring back other parliamentarian work, specifically committee studies, and restore them to the same state they were in before. Clearly, it gives the opposition an opportunity to make their views known on government legislation and on committee work. If the opposition wants to vote against Motion No. 2 with respect to government bills, it can do so. If it wants to vote in favour of bringing back committee studies, it can do so. However, it will be government Motion No. 2 that we are voting on. Even though it is split into two votes, the motion, I predict, will carry, hopefully with the support of all parliamentarians.

Again, on the legislative initiatives, on the government bills, it does not mean that if the opposition members vote in favour of it, they are voting in favour of each of those seven bills. It just means that we return those bills to the Order Paper at the same point they were before we recessed for the summer. It is a common sense approach. It saves parliamentary time. It rewards the hard efforts of all the parliamentarians who debated these very important bills for several hours last spring. That seems to be a common sense approach.

Let me spend a few moments on one of the other committee studies. I want to point out what appears to me to be an apparent contradiction and the blatant hypocrisy of the NDP when it comes to the second study that I mentioned, which is the procedure and House affairs' study into MP expenses.

Only a couple of months ago, we had a special meeting. It was held in the summer, when most parliamentarians were not in Ottawa, and initiated by the NDP for the sole purpose of trying to initiate some rules, practices and procedures surrounding this ongoing study into MP expenses, trying to increase transparency so that all Canadians would feel assured that their taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and appropriately. At the time, the NDP went to great lengths to talk to the media and try to convince the media that it was the only party that truly wanted a transparent approach to member of Parliament expenses. New Democrats talked for many days and many hours, trying to convince the media that the other parties in the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives, really did not want transparency, while the NDP, of course, did.

Since that time, interestingly enough, there are only two parties in the House that have voluntarily agreed to post their MP expenses online: the Liberal Party and our party. We are doing this voluntarily.

Our position, quite clearly, is that we would like to see a procedure and a system set up, hopefully approved through the Board of Internal Economy, that all parties could agree to. In other words, we would have a common approach to posting our expenses. However, in the interim, because that may take some time to develop, our party has agreed to have our MPs post hospitality and travel expenses voluntarily on a go-forward basis. The Liberals have also agreed to that. There is only party that has not agreed: the NDP.

On one hand, the NDP is trying to convince the media and Canadians that it is the only party in favour of transparency. On the other hand, it is the only party that does not want to post its expenses online. Let us think about that for moment. Think about the hypocrisy of the NDP. All of this time when its members were talking about their attempts and desire for transparency, it was nothing more than a political stunt.

There is a saying where I come from, and many Canadians share it. It is “put your money where your mouth is”. If NDP members truly believe in transparency, I challenge them to stand up today in questions and comments following my presentation and agree that their MPs should post their expenses online. It is a simple thing. One can do it voluntarily. Some members may be doing it individually, and I applaud them for doing that, but as a party they have refused to make their MPs accountable to Canadians. They have refused, as a party, to agree to posting MP expenses online. Let them stand up today and say that they will. I would be the first to applaud them and say they have taken a positive step. However, I cannot sit here, and I certainly cannot stand here during this presentation, and admit that they are in favour of transparency when they have not proven it.

Let us vote in favour of government Motion No. 2 this evening so that we can bring back all of the legislative initiatives of this government to the same state in which they were in order to allow further debate and allow those bills to go to a vote. Some may pass and some may be defeated, but at least we should bring them back without any undue delay.

Also, let us vote in favour of bringing other parliamentary business back in the same state it was, specifically committee studies. Let the committees continue their hard valuable work, the work that Canadians have been asking for.

Finally, let the NDP members today stand in their places and say they will join us in posting MP expenses online. If they do not, it only says one thing: that they are not interested in transparency. They are not interested in allowing Canadians to see their expenses but only in political stunts, and that is something we cannot abide.

MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the good news was that parliamentarians worked for more than a whole extra month's worth of debate time in the House in May and June. As a result, the House was able to get great things done, and it was not just the bills that we are seeking to have restored at the stage they were read: overall, in the first five months of this year, 37 pieces of legislation reached royal assent. In fact, that matches the most productive year of the Conservative government back in 2007, when we were in a minority, and we did that in just five months. That was done through the hard work of all parliamentarians, including sitting, on some occasions, as late as 2:00 a.m. to get work done here in May and June.

People did not take time off. People here worked very hard. They worked extra hard and put in extra time.

The question before us now is whether we shall throw away some of the product of that extra time, pretend it did not happen, and force everybody to go back to "go", or should we respect the hard work of parliamentarians, the debates that occurred, and the advancement of legislation, which in most cases all parties supported? Perhaps that was not so in some cases, but bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act and the tackling contraband tobacco act were apparently supported by the NDP.

We would encourage them to once again support their continued processing through the parliamentary process.

Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approach to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister wants to address the substance of the bill, having been at committee when the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan testified, I was surprised that among her many amendments that would have spoke to what victims wanted, so many of the measures were not included in Bill C-54. It was very clear from the victims rights groups that testified at committee. Most of them saw the very compelling need to ensure adequate mental health services, that we had more in place for prevention and that the not criminally responsible sections that were most important to victims were the ones about notification. These are not the ones who are most under assault by those who are expert in clinical psychology, forensic psychology, review boards and legal experts.

There was a way forward to respond to victims' needs and to also respect the system that, according to all the experts, was working well in the stream of not criminally responsible people who were then monitored closely. Why did the minister not pursue a compromise in which victims' rights and the rights of mentally ill people who found themselves in the NCR system were both respected?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the whole 30 minutes talking about great Canadians like Brian Mulroney and other great Canadians, but 30 minutes would not be nearly enough to talk about the accomplishments of Conservative prime ministers in this country. It would not even come close to what we would need.

That said, I am pleased that we are moving forward on this Bill C-54 that concerns not criminally responsible individuals. I think, and everybody should agree, that having five hours of debate can be very helpful. This bill has been in the works for quite some time. It has been before committee and it was here for second reading.

Again, I hope nobody over there is offended that protection of the public will be the paramount consideration. It seems to me that protection of the public should have the support of everyone. I look forward to this debate.

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

moved:

That, in relation to C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Data Used by Government with Respect to Bill C-54

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond briefly to last night's further intervention by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on the question of privilege respecting Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. My intervention will be brief and I hope it will be the final of many interventions on this point.

On the report tabled on Thursday, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage pointed out last night that the hon. Minister of Justice had sought, and did in fact receive, unanimous consent to table that document. For example, page 433 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at footnotes 111, 112 and 113, notes several examples when documents have, with unanimous consent, been tabled in only one official language.

Mr. Speaker, in the case currently before you, the Minister of Justice sought such unanimous consent to table the report for the very reason that it was produced in only one official language. Otherwise, he would not have had to seek such consent in the first place. The minister did so in the fullness of transparency, to provide members with the document as quickly as possible. Of course, once the translation is complete, the document will be tabled in the other official language as well.

On the tabling of a Microsoft Word track changes version of the document, it is my understanding that this was deliberately chosen as the means by which the House could most easily, readily and quickly determine what had changed between the two versions of the report. Rather than the member opposite trying to ascribe the most nefarious possible motivation to the minister tabling the track changes version, I would suggest that he, instead, consider the most plausible explanation: the minister was simply trying to be as transparent as possible. What he did was provide the House with an easy-to-reference version specifically highlighting the differences. For those not satisfied with that, he also provided the website address where a clean print of the updated version of the report could be located.

It is important to bear in mind that the original version of the report, which I will note was marked as final by the author in November 2012 and with consent to release, as tabled in a response to Order Paper Question No. 1169, was upward of 200 pages in length, thus making the need for track changes or the benefit of track changes rather obvious.

On the matter of the response to Order Paper Question No. 1169, I would refer to what was asked in the order paper question itself. In paragraph (a), the government was asked for certain information relied upon “in developing this legislation”. That is a very important part of the question. The material that was provided in answer to that was the earlier version of the report. I am left wondering how data received well after second reading debate started—that is, the revised report—could be responsive to a question related to the development of the bill, which was the question on the order paper.

Despite that, my colleague should be commended for noting in his response to that order paper question that a revised version of the report had been received. Therefore, not only was he responsive to the question, he was also transparent and open at the same time.

Finally, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands offered some comments on a systemic remedy, which he proposed. Despite his creativity, I disagree that there is a prima facie case of privilege to be found here. As such, I need not respond further to his suggestion on how to craft an order of reference to the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rose last Wednesday to raise a question of privilege in relation to a report central to the deliberations of the House on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. I have since had the benefit of reading the interventions of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the hon. Minister of Justice and I wish to respond this evening.

Briefly, for the benefit of members listening who are unfamiliar with the issue, the government commissioned a report on persons found not criminally responsible last year. This report was received last November.

When researchers discovered in March an error involving the transposition of data labels, they diligently worked to provide the department with a corrected version. However, after the corrections were provided to the government, the minister continued to cite from the old report in debates, an old report that the government, even after being apprised of the error, tabled in the House.

When first rising on this point, I thought it very important that the House be provided with the correct numbers in a timely manner. Indeed, the basis of my intervention was that as a scientist MP in particular, I am impeded in my work when evidence in the form of quantitative information is withheld or concealed. Moreover, I feel that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was unable to properly study Bill C-54 with incorrect data before it.

I rise today to respond to the intervention on this matter from the Minister of Justice. At the outset, let me state that I appreciate his prompt attention to the matter, and I also appreciate that he decided to not repeat in the House the comments of the spokesperson for his office as reported in the press, comments that criticized both the researchers and their work and could have unfairly damaged their careers and reputations.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent in my intervention today to argue two things.

One is that the government lacked a necessary sense of responsibility, urgency and rigour in correcting factual errors germane to the debate on Bill C-54, and that this neglect had significant consequences for the work of the House.

Second, I would like to propose, if you find that my privilege has been breached, that a commensurate and positive remedy would be one that formally led to a systematic way for ministers and members to correct any significant factual errors presented to the House. I believe that would improve the work of the House for the benefit of all members and for the good of Canada.

At the end of his intervention last week and in response to the request in my initial intervention, the Minister of Justice tabled a report in this place. I thank the Minister of Justice for that. However, and regrettably, that document gives rise to what is potentially a new point of order that I can only raise now, having seen the document for the first time on Friday.

As the Journals for last Thursday note at page 3406, the Minister of Justice

...laid upon the Table,—Document entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of “Serious Violent Offences”” (English text only).

This note is followed by the annotation “Sessional Paper No. 8525-411-60”.

I wish to raise two issues here. First, as O'Brien and Bosc note on page 433:

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister or, as the case may be, by a Parliamentary Secretary, whether during a sitting or deposited with the Clerk, are required to be presented in both official languages.

The citation therein is to Standing Order 32(4):

Any document distributed in the House or laid before the House pursuant to sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order shall be in both official languages”

I do not wish to belabour this point at length, but I note that the minister sought unanimous consent to table the document, something which he is not required to do by virtue of his being a minister. That said, he did not specify to the House that the document was only in one language. I believe the minister will agree that all documents tabled in this place ought to be tabled in both official languages of this country, and I must say I found it curious that he sought consent without informing the House of why it was needed. Had he specified he wanted to consent to table it unilingually, it is quite possible that some hon. members would not have agreed.

Second, and this is the bigger issue, the document tabled was not actually the final March report as we know it now to be. Instead, what was laid upon the table was a work product version replete with "track changes" intact. “Track changes” is a feature used to manage multiple versions of Microsoft Word documents. While I trust that some members will now appreciate having the opportunity to study a version of the report with correct data, it is regrettable that the minister did not table the clean and finalized copy, with which I am now aware his office was provided on the same day as this version.

Additionally, the minister did not table a copy in French. Surely the final report in both languages would best suit members studying the matter and perhaps re-evaluating their position vis-à-vis Bill C-54.

In his comments in this place, the Minister of Justice stated that the corrected report had been available online for some time, providing reference to the website for the national trajectory project.

I would first begin by noting that the version on this website is clean and not the one that the minister tabled in the House.

In addition, I visited the website over the weekend. The minister is correct in saying that the report is available, but it is only available in English. There is no French version.

Since there is no French version on that website, strictly speaking, I would have to object to the minister's assertion that "the amended version in fact has been available online for everyone to see". Indeed, as I verified with the researchers, no French copy of the corrected version existed anywhere in the public domain and, to my knowledge, it still does not.

The manner in which the minister tabled the revised research report last week is an illustration of the government's lack of rigour. It is his responsibility as minister to ensure that the members of the House have the information required to make informed legislative decisions. Rather than tabling the final report, the minister tabled a unilingual draft version. In failing to provide these updated statistics in a transparent way by tabling a draft report rather than a final report, and then only in response to my intervention, I believe that the minister has failed in his responsibilities to the House. Because the minister has shirked his responsibilities, he has violated my privileges as a member.

There is a critical contention that is not refuted by the Minister of Justice's comments on the matter of privilege. In his submission of last Thursday, he stated, "We gave notice that the report had been significantly amended". This notice was only given in an order paper response. The problem, as you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, is that saying there is an amended report and actually providing the amended report are two separate things.

Beyond that, on May 27, the Minister of Justice said to the House "I referred to some of the statistics in the final report", knowing full well that he had, in fact, referred to statistics that were no longer in the corrected report because researchers had diligently reviewed their findings, discovered significant errors and transmitted them to him as soon as possible. Over two months after receiving the "significantly amended" report, the minister was referring to erroneous data in what he called a "final report" from November, 2012. This to me suggests an intent to mislead the House.

I understand that the Speaker does not generally delve into the minutiae of order paper responses; however, I must note with frustration that the government's response to a question asking for current statistics, as part of Question No. 1169 on the order paper, a response that simply pointed to the old report given in annex 1, would indeed mislead the House and provide members with the impression that the report in annex 1 was the significantly amended one, when it was in fact the old one.

In responding to questions posed in Question No. 1169 on the order paper, such as "Which people found NCR and released have been convicted of a subsequent offence?" and "What was the nature of the subsequent offence", the government had the option to use information it knew to be correct. Instead, it chose to respond with information it knew to be incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I am told you have no role in adjudicating the sufficiency of answers to order paper questions. However, I believe you cannot deny that the government did not use that opportunity to take responsibility and correct important factual errors.

I will now focus on one aspect of the privilege question more precisely, the central issue of incorrect data cited in this House.

I rose in this place last Wednesday, June 12, after routine proceedings. This was my first opportunity since the June 11 Global News story about recent citations of incorrect statistics by a minister and a government member.

Yet that same afternoon, June 12, after the Global News report and after my question was raised, a witness before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights testifying about Bill C-54, Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association stated the following, as reported by the blues. I will quote his citation of the Minister of Justice.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson provided some interesting facts in the House of Commons debate on March 1, 2013, about persons found not criminally responsible, when he stated that:

A little over 27% of individuals found not criminally responsible have had a past finding of not criminally responsible; 38% of those found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27% of those accused of attempted murder had at least one NCR finding; and, 19% of those accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior finding of not criminally responsible.

This underscores the problem. Ministers' words carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. However, all of these statistics quoted by the aforementioned witness are incorrect. I know it, the minister knows it, and now, as of this report being tabled, all English-reading parliamentarians know it.

The problem, as I believe you will see, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister's act of informing Parliament did not correct the Hansard record of March 1. His assertion that the corrected report could have been found on a website is unconvincing, as that source did not inform certain witnesses or even government members, such as the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who cited old numbers at committee during its study on this bill.

I should be clear that I do not fault the witnesses for their use of the facts as they were provided. I do not believe any of them had any intention to mislead Parliament. I do, however, take issue with the minister only tabling the correct numbers after the committee had reported the bill back to the House, and the use of old statistics by other government members.

In particular, regarding the citation of old statistics by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Justice explained that, “...the Minister of Natural Resources was provided, as were many government members, with supporting documentation that in error included the statistics....”

He then added, with respect to the Minister of Natural Resources, “This was nothing more, quite frankly, than an honest mistake, not of his own doing, and I hope this addresses entirely the matter pertaining to the hon. minister.”

While I greatly appreciate the Minister of Justice acknowledging that a mistake had been made, I must disagree with the conclusion he draws as to the matter being closed.

Indeed, if the Minister of Justice's proposition, that all members should have gone online and consulted the corrected report, is followed through to its logical conclusion, this obligation would equally extend and apply to the Minister of Natural Resources and all government members. The Minister of Justice was quick to suggest that I should do “a simple Internet search”. Surely his fellow minister and other government members ought to have done the same Internet search. If even the Minister of Natural Resources and his office were misled, how could regular members of Parliament to be expected to discover the true facts?

Given that, as of Friday, June 14, the report from Dr. Crocker's research group had not yet been translated, and therefore had not been tabled in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, do we even know if all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights knew the correct facts when they adopted report 25 on Bill C-54 on June 12, 2013?

Returning to the elements of privilege as outlined in my initial submission, the minister failed to address another point. As I noted, the minister referred to the November report as “final” despite having received the corrected report. He again, in his intervention on my question of privilege, used the word “final” in relation to the November 2012 report.

I do believe this misleads the House. The November report is not final if there is a corrected March report. Similarly, the report tabled is not final if it is not the final version submitted, which it, the one submitted containing Microsoft Word's track changes, is not.

Moreover, while the Minister of Justice has indicated a mistake in what was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Natural Resources has yet to recognize his error before this body. I believe he ought to do so and, more importantly, tell the House whether knowing the actual facts has changed his mind about Bill C-54.

Speaker Milliken often ruled in the past, which I will cite from Monday, October 4, 2010, as follows, “it is also a long-standing practice in this House for the Chair to accept the word of hon. members and indeed their apologies”. I agree, but we have not yet heard from the Minister of Natural Resources personally, one way or the other.

In my initial submission, I stated that I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While the government did provide a document, not the final report, it did not explain why it had yet to table it and, indeed, basically sought to say it had done everything it ought to have done. I disagree.

I would like to move now to discuss what I think would be an appropriate and commensurate remedy for any breach of privilege. It is not because I wish to presume to know your decision, Mr. Speaker, but it is because I believe this matter can result in a positive legacy for Canadians and I wish to explain how.

My colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley helpfully pointed out the following to the House in support of my question of privilege:

—the 22nd edition of Erskine May, which states the following on page 63: “[I]t is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

Had the ministers, in fact, corrected in an obvious and accessible way the errors that were preserved on the record, witnesses would have not quoted them after my intervention as evidence in committee. Had the record been corrected, witnesses and parliamentarians would have had accurate information upon which to formulate their positions on this gravely important issue.

Moving forward, the question becomes whether this matter should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, an issue on which we should have guidance from you, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of how you rule on privilege merits, it is the obligation of members to correct themselves on important matters and the means by which this might be done. I believe all members would agree that it is important to, as much as we can, ensure that erroneous so-called facts are not repeated in the public square. I believe all members would agree that the repetition of untruths in the public square can seriously impede members in the exercise of their democratic function as legislators and I expect that the hon. members of the House would never stand by and allow that to happen. Therefore, I believe that if there were a clearly defined process for members to correct any errors they had unwillingly stated on record, they would eagerly seize that opportunity.

Like the Minister of Justice's statements on March 1, which I acknowledge were made before the new report was provided, the Minister of Natural Resources's comments after the correction also remain on the record.

So far, the approach of the House and Chair appears to be that members can, if they so choose, rise on a point of order or rise on a question of personal privilege to correct themselves. It seems there is no formal requirement to do so. The problem is that in the case of erroneous empirical facts, they may remain on the record, which is permanent, even after perhaps new research has corrected them. Permanent corrections are possible, however, through the process of seeking a corrigendum. Regrettably, there is little guidance on this point and, indeed, I only find a handful of references to corrigenda in speaker's rulings since 2001. As the parliamentary glossary explains, this is a term used in journals, Debates, committee meetings of proceedings and committee evidence to indicate that a substantive correction has been made to a previous issue.

Beyond clerical corrections to bills and the order paper, there are examples of where a speaker has ordered that a “corrigendum be issued to rectify the error”. I will concede that these have arisen, it seems, primarily in cases where the transcript does not reflect what a member said. However, I assert that there ought to be clarity on whether a member could rise to seek such a correction where new research, for example, has shown that the empirical facts have changed.

As such, it might be appropriate for the procedure and House affairs committee to consider whether or not another mechanism should exist for an ex post correction of Hansard by a member who intervened, limited to empirical findings perhaps, to ensure that those who rely on Hansard are not misled. In other words, I accept that the minister did not know of the corrected data when he first spoke. When he was informed later in the month, it would have been ideal for him to rise on a clarifying point of order or to seek a corrigendum. The premise that I am operating under, of course, is that if the minister had the corrected data, he would have indeed cited it at the time. This is not something he has yet said, and so I realize it is not an entirely safe assumption.

In closing, I believe that this matter is not best resolved by belabouring who exactly said what, or placing the Chair in the position of interpreting the intended meaning of words, something you recently reminded the House was beyond the Chair's purview. Thus, while other members may seek to extend this matter, I believe we are best served by ministers involved reporting the correct numbers to the House as a point of order or seeking to correct themselves through a corrigendum if such is indeed permissible.

The words of ministers of the Crown carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. That is why I believe they have a special obligation to correct themselves. Moreover, each member of this place surely has an obligation to inform himself or herself of the facts before speaking and to correct himself or herself if erroneous information is presented. If that were not our habit, the force and import of debate in this House would be diminished and the dignity and purpose of this House would be diminished.

From you, Mr. Speaker, I would thus seek some guidance whenever you choose to report back to the House as to what is required when a minister realizes that an error has been made. I would also ask you to consider whether it is possible for members to seek correction of their own interventions in Hansard when it is not merely an error of transcription but rather a correction to an empirical quantity, perhaps with a notation that an amendment has occurred, such as would be appropriate in the cases I cited in my interventions on this matter.

I believe that your guidance on such requirements may be a positive legacy of this matter of privilege.

I thank you and I thank all members for their attention to this matter.

Data Used by Government With Respect to Bill C-54

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to a question of privilege raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands, with regard to statistics related to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act.

As hon. members know, the cases involving Alan Schoenborn in British Columbia, Vince Li in Manitoba, Richard Kachkar in Ontario, Guy Turcotte in Quebec, and Andre Denny in Nova Scotia were horrific tragedies for everyone involved. No words of mine nor anyone else's can ever ease the pain felt by the victims and their families.

As the Prime Minister rightly stated, we cannot change terrible things in the world, terrible things are going to happen, but we can create a system that is reasonable. That is exactly what Bill C-54 aims to do.

On November 22, 2012, the government announced its intention to move forward with legislation to address concerns about high-risk accused persons found not criminally responsible.

On February 8, 2013, the government tabled Bill C-54 in the House of Commons.

On February 12, the member for Mount Royal tabled Question No. 1169. Question No. 1169 sought information that the government relied upon in developing Bill C-54.

The government responded to Question No. 1169 by indicating several sources of information that it had relied upon in developing the legislation. The government's response included the final November 2012 report by Crocker et al to the Department of Justice.

As correctly noted by the member for Kingston and the Islands in his question of privilege, “This makes sense because the government can only rely on the evidence it had at the time.”

The member for Kingston and the Islands also noted that the government included an annotation in its response to Question No. 1169, indicating that the Department of Justice had received a significantly amended version of this report 38 days after the introduction of Bill C-54.

After the bill had been introduced, we gave notice that the report had been significantly amended.

In any case, the amended version of the report was provided 17 days after my speech on March 1 on second reading of Bill C-54, with respect to which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had taken exception.

A simple Internet search would show the hon. member that the amended version in fact has been available online for everyone to see on the National Trajectory Project at www.ntp-ptn.org.

I would also point out that nothing at any time between March and today, June 13, 2013, has stopped any member of the House to ask the government a follow-up order paper question or just ask us to table the amended version.

I would also like to respond to the assertion made by the member for Kingston and the Islands regarding the Minister of Natural Resources.

In delivering what I consider an excellent speech on Bill C-54, the Minister of Natural Resources was provided, as were many government members, with supporting documentation that in error included the statistics listed in the final report that was submitted to the Department of Justice in November 2012.

To suggest that by referring to this data was a deliberate attempt to mislead the House is preposterous. This was nothing more, quite frankly, than an honest mistake, not of his own doing, and I hope this addresses entirely the matter pertaining to the hon. minister.

In your May 7, 2012 ruling, Mr. Speaker, at page 7649 of the Debates, the Chair established a three-part test for establishing contempt in relation to misleading the House. In these circumstances, the claim by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands fails in two respects. The incorrect statements were not known to be incorrect, and they were certainly not made with any intention whatsoever to mislead the House.

As for the response to Question No. 1169, it is well established that the Chair does not intervene with respect to the quality of an answer.

In any event, I would submit that the government went above and beyond its obligations by indicating that a revised report was received after the fact despite the question asking about the drafting of Bill C-54.

For his part, this afternoon the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited examples of committee matters. It is another well-established principle here that the Chair does not typically concern itself with committee proceedings, except upon a report from the committee itself.

In this case, this morning the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reported Bill C-54 with amendments. No other report has come from the committee nor do I anticipate one will.

In drafting legislation, the government relies on a wide array of information. It is because of errors in statistics, such as what came to light in this situation, that the government cannot rely on any one source or any one study. It is a good example.

It is critical that the government collect a broad cross-section of information in drafting legislation, and that is exactly what we did with Bill C-54. In developing Bill C-54, the government relied on a number of sources, including relevant jurisprudence, doctrine, available research, and consultations with provinces and territories.

Indeed, at our last federal-provincial-territorial meeting in October 2012, ministers recognized the importance of public safety being the paramount consideration in the Criminal Code Review Board decisions.

Ministers also discussed proposals to make the process more responsive to the needs of victims, including further consideration for the appropriate term for reviewing decisions in serious personal injury offence cases.

I believe profoundly that the measures contained in our legislation are balanced, reasonable and carefully drafted. We want to ensure that those who are mentally ill and who pose a serious danger to the public and indeed those who pose a danger to themselves get the treatment that they need.

In conclusion, I believe that my submission provides a response to the matter in question and that there in fact is no prima facie case of privilege.

In addition, and in response to the request of the member for Kingston and the Islands, I am seeking unanimous consent to table the amended version of the Crocker report as received by the Department of Justice in March 2013.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco) and the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking of contraband tobacco.

I have been here for most of the day listening to the speeches on Bill S-16. As chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it is my understanding the bill will go to the justice committee for review and just as we reviewed Bill C-54, we accepted amendments from both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party last night. Today I tabled the report in the House. It was well analyzed with a number of witnesses, From those witnesses, a number of amendments were proposed and in fact accepted. The amendments from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party all passed.

Bill S-16 started in the Senate and we are debating it at second reading right now. There will be a vote, hopefully in the very near future, and Bill S-16 will move to committee where a number of the questions that have been asked today will be properly vetted with witnesses and bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing these changes so we understand what the effect will be on the Criminal Code.

The bill would provide mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment of persons who are convicted for a second or subsequent time of this offence. It is important for everyone to understand that the mandatory minimum approach we have taken on a number of bills is important to give gravitas to the issue in front of us.

It is very important that we send a message to those who are in the business of contraband tobacco, whether they are traffickers, or selling it in small components to individuals, that it is illegal. It was indicated earlier that those who were in the business of not obeying the law often took into account what the penalties would be and used that as part of the cost of doing business. If there are no mandatory minimums, just fines, they price that risk in their product. They will decide what risk level they are willing to take.

It is important, not just in this case, but in many cases that the Government of Canada look at mandatory minimums, and we are doing it in this bill, so we let those who are willing to break the law and circumvent it know that there is a real penalty to be paid, a much more difficult penalty they cannot include in the cost of doing business.

I am fully in favour of mandatory minimums and in this case new mandatory minimums for this new level of offence. I believe it is fair. We are saying that it only will apply after people's second offence. Let us say, for argument sake, that individuals who make a mistake, are caught up or there is peer pressure, whatever the issue might be and they become involved with contraband tobacco. There is no mandatory minimum for that. However, if people make the mistake twice, they have consciously made that effort. They have built in the cost of making that mistake the first time and are now doing it another time.

It is time for the Government of Canada, through the Criminal Code, to say to them that they knew what they were doing. They broke the law and faced a penalty previously, but now they face a much more severe one with a mandatory minimum. I have no issue with that. My true belief is that the vast majority of the people of Burlington also believe in mandatory minimums.

There is another very important piece to the bill. As member of Parliament, every two or four years if we are in a minority position, we have a platform. Every party has a platform. We go to the people and talk about what we will accomplish if they give us the confidence to form government.

Fortunately for us, in 2011 the public gave the Conservative Party of Canada a majority in the House of Commons. Part of that decision-making of the people of Burlington and the rest of Canada was our platform. What did the party stand for?

There are certainly other factors. There is the leader, the policy of the party, the platform during an election and the individual candidate. I would hope that some people in Burlington voted for me because they liked me, but I cannot prove that. It might be my wife and maybe my daughter, but I cannot prove that either.

People talked to me during the election about the platform and what we were proposing to do if we formed government. Part of that 2011 election platform was a commitment to reduce the problem of trafficking of contraband tobacco by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders of trafficking in contraband tobacco.

It was clearly stated in our platform. In fact, part of my literature and part of the campaigning I did included a discussion on mandatory minimums. This was part of what we promoted.

That was two years ago. Some people think it has taken us a while to get here. I do not hear much about in my riding, but my colleagues in caucus were persistent that we needed to move on this, that it was a real issue for them in their ridings. It could be an issue in my riding of which I am not aware.

I am fortunate enough that I and my wife are non-smokers. My two daughters who are young adults are non-smokers. They will have a number of their peers over to our house. There could be as many as a couple of dozen and there are no smokers in that group. I do not have the exposure to that. However, I have been told that it is an important issue at the high schools in my area.

We have the ability to look at what we promised during the election and what we are able to deliver to the people of Burlington and to the rest of the people of Canada. We are moving on that. It took some time. I think we took the appropriate amount of time to look at options to tackle this problem.

This is not an easy problem to tackle. As we have just heard, there are a number of sources for contraband tobacco. It could be offshore or domestic. It could be from south of the border. The sources are difficult. The ability to track and find these sources is a difficult one for police and border services officers.

We promised mandatory minimums in our election platform. We have brought forward some legislation that will meet the commitment we made to the public. We have also said that we cannot just put mandatory minimums in without providing some resources to ensure we can implement them. That is why we have created a special task force, I believe it is up to 50 officers from the RCMP, to tackle this problem.

Having 50 officers will not end the problem overnight, but it is a great start for us to tackle this issue. It has put a focus on the problem that we have been having in our country and, in particular, in certain parts of Ontario to a greater extent than others. It has affected not only certain ridings based on production, but also the distribution. A number of small business owners have come to me and have sent me letters. I have had them in my office talking to me about what this is doing to their businesses.

I am not a proponent of smoking. My mother-in-law had lung cancer. She has had one lung removed. She was a smoker. She has been very fortunate as she is a survivor of cancer. Her lung cancer was over 12 years ago and she lost her brother to lung cancer through smoking. Therefore, smoking, from our family's perspective, is very much frowned upon. We have been lucky that, through the health system, she went on some experimental drugs and her cancer was cured, and we are very grateful for that. We are not big proponents, and that is why I am very much in support of this bill.

I started the conversation of there being mandatory minimum sentences. Let us be honest, some are more significant than others. For those caught in the trafficking aspects, it is up to six months. If it is an indictable offence, it is up to five years. It is significant and I do not deny it. However, it is a significant problem that these individuals have created. We talked about the cost to the health care system and so on, but to me personally it is not about the cost to the system, it is about protecting people's health when contraband tobacco products hit the market.

We know cigarettes are better regulated, produced and properly labelled by a licensed facility. We know they are a health issue. People are well warned on the packaging, which we have increased as a government. It is not any surprise to anyone at any age that these are health hazards. However, the health hazards of tobacco products that are not labelled, and we do not know where they came from and what is in them, are tenfold what the legitimate cigarette producers ensure on those warnings. We have not a clue what is in those other products. That is why we need these penalties to be significant and severe, and I believe this bill would do that.

We have heard from other members today. I do not want to repeat the number of cigarettes that are involved or the kilograms. That information has all been put forward.

The other thing I would like to talk about is why we are moving on this. There was discussion about time allocation on this bill. I believe it is a two-way street in the House, maybe even three-way if there is such a thing. We need to start to work together. We had an example yesterday where we looked at Bill C-54. We had amendments proposed by the opposition. The vast majority of them did not pass, but we did accept one from each party. We have seen—

Data used by government with respect to Bill C-54

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the question of privilege brought by my friend from Kingston and the Islands. He brought a question of privilege regarding data, and more importantly, data the government was using that was not correct in terms of constructing its argument for a bill. He took that as a question of privilege, an invocation that I think is quite serious.

Our research team prepared a report for the justice department entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of 'Serious Violent Offences'”. This report was central to the discussions on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, both in the House, where the report was tabled, and at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, which studied the legislation.

The report was given to the Department of Justice in November 2012. On March 14, 2013, the department was notified that there was an error in this report. The government was provided with a corrected version on March 18 of that same year. We know this as a sure fact from a committee witness who said:

That error was discovered on March 14th and immediately communicated to the Minister's office, and a revised report was provided on March 18th with that data corrected

There was also a note attached to the report when it was tabled, saying that a significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013, so that is not in dispute. Whether there was an incorrect report that was then corrected and given to the government has all been established as fact.

However, the Conservatives nonetheless continued to cite from the old report and even tabled the old report on March 27, thus providing misleading information to the House and all members of Parliament. The numbers between the two reports varied significantly and have had an impact on how we have been studying and debating legislation and making decisions on policy concerns.

A small example is that the original report said that 38.1% of sex offenders found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding. That number was changed in the report to 9.5%. When MPs were debating, the information they had given to them by the government said that almost 40% were true in these cases. The actual number was less than 10%.

It also said that 27.7% of those accused of attempted murder had one NCR finding. That number was then changed to 4.6%, and the figure of 19% accused of murder or homicide with one prior NCR was changed to 5.2%. There was a dramatic one-fifth, one-quarter and one-tenth difference in the numbers. These are not small or trivial. They are significant.

According to O'Brien and Bosc, contempt of Parliament is

“any action which...tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

According to the same authors, “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee” is a form of contempt.

The 22nd edition of Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice also states on page 63:

it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity

This would not be the first time the Chair has found a prima facie case of contempt of the House related to misleading the House and committees.

In 2003, the former privacy commissioner, George Radwanski, was found in contempt of the House for providing deliberately misleading testimony during hearings of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the financial management and staffing of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, November 6.

In 2008, the RCMP deputy commissioner, Barbara George, was found in contempt of this House for providing misleading testimony during the Standing Committee on Public Accounts hearings into allegations of mishandling of the RCMP pension and insurance plans.

This, sadly, is not the first time we have discussed instances of the Conservative government misleading the House and Canadians. In this case, the Conservatives purposely used the old and incorrect numbers, because they made a better case for their version of the legislation. They used the numbers that pleased them instead of using the facts that were true. This was detrimental to members of all parties and to the members of the committee studying the bill based on incorrect data.

Correct numbers give us the ability to develop good policy, but the current government members, we have seen far too often, are not interested in science-based policy-making.

Misleading the House and Canadians is a very serious breach of the rules of governing both our democracy and this institution.

I therefore support the request from the member for Kingston and the Islands that the proper measures be taken.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating another bill that was put under time allocation, which is 44 or 45 times now.

The irony in this instance is that the government could have had an agreement with the opposition to speed the debate of this bill so that we would be using less time in the House than it took to bring in the time allocation motion, vote on it and then provide a full day of debate, because we in the NDP do want to see this bill go back to committee, where it can be approved. Therefore, we will be supporting it at second reading.

Again, we had time allocation brought in before the Minister of Industry, the person presenting the bill, had even spoken to it. We did not have one full speech in this House. There was a speech by the member for Simcoe—Grey, who spent half of her speech laughing at jokes being told to her by other caucus members. We did not have one full speech before time allocation was brought in.

I would say humbly that this is not democracy. This is not how Parliament is supposed to work. We are supposed to have the opportunity to have full debates in the House on the various issues that are brought forward.

Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is now otherwise titled the “combating counterfeit products act”, is an important issue. It is my honour to rise today to present the lead-off speech on Bill C-56 for the NDP and the official opposition.

Normally our industry critic, the member for LaSalle—Émard, would be leading off on second reading comments on this bill. Our critic had planned to give her remarks on Friday when this bill was supposed to come up for debate; however, because of time allocation and the government playing games, we are here Wednesday evening instead, again preventing certain members of Parliament from participating in this debate in the way that they would like to.

In their rush to introduce yet more record-breaking time allocation motions—as I said, we are at 46 now—the Conservatives rescheduled all the House business this week.

As the NDP's deputy industry critic, it is indeed my privilege to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition. This is a bill the NDP takes very seriously, as opposed to the Conservative government, it would appear, because this bill was presented originally in March. It did not come up for debate until the end of May. Recommendations for this bill were made in a committee report in 2007, again in 2009, and then there were more recommendations from the industry committee in an intellectual property study that was done earlier this year. It has taken the government a very long time to start bringing these forward for implementation.

We have yet to have a whole speech by the Minister of Industry on this bill. Even then, if it was not going to be the minister, we would have thought that maybe it would be the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, but that was not the case.

When the government presents a bill, it is supposed to justify why it is bringing that bill forward. It has yet to do that and has already implemented time allocation.

Instead of a full presentation by the government, what we had was the parliamentary secretary for human resources and skills development getting up and presenting a very short speech on this bill. In her speech she spent a lot of the time laughing and did not seem to be taking the bill seriously. It was so bad that the Speaker had to interrupt and ask if she was able to continue.

I mention all this because it seems to speak to the Conservative government's contempt for Parliament and to its continual practice of introducing legislation that can never be properly implemented because its budget cuts make it impossible.

There are many clichés we would use, but the Conservatives keep putting forth pieces of legislation that are either empty shells or just cherry-picked from among the many recommendations that we need to implement to have solid pieces of legislation. They put forth rules and regulations that perhaps cannot be enforced, because those budget cuts mean that no one will be there to enforce them.

Recent examples include Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which the Conservatives put forward without the funding in place to make many of its provisions actually meaningful. Another one, Bill C-54 would make changes to how we would deal with people deemed not criminally responsible, however, it would download the responsibility for mental health care onto the very provinces, which are having their health care budgets slashed again by the Conservative government.

Bill C-56 is another example of the Conservatives playing the shell game they so like to play. It is legislation that on one hand imposes some good rules and on the other hand, through the budget, cuts the jobs of those who are supposed to be enforcing these new rules. I will come back to that point later in my remarks.

Let me say up front, again, that the NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be sent back to committee and, we hope, fixed to maximum its impact. However, it would indeed be a first at our committee, if we actually saw recommendations and amendments that we brought forward voted on and passed by the Conservatives on the committee. That would be groundbreaking.

The bill dealing with counterfeiting and copyright infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. We will support the bill so it can go back to committee for further study and we want to ensure we maintain the necessary balance on copyright and trademarks.

For instance, the bill would give ex officio powers to our border officers, which the NDP has been calling for since 2007. However, it is very difficult to see how this will be implemented when, last year, the Conservatives slashed $143 million in funding to CBSA, which further reduced front-line officers and harmed our ability to monitor our borders.

CBSA expects to lose several hundred front-line officers by 2015. It is also important to note that in the past the government repeatedly has refused to take a balanced approach to copyright. The NDP believes that intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interest of users and consumers.

I will now take a few minutes to explain some of the details of the bill.

Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, would amend both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. Its purpose is to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies or counterfeit trademarks.

The proposed bill will add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods and introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions: first, for personal use, items that are in one's possession or baggage; or second, items in transit. It also, as I said, grants new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods, a significant policy shift. Until now, border officials required a warrant before seizing infringing copies or goods at the border.

It also grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with the right holders so they can actually see what is being brought in and take measures themselves to combat that counterfeit and trademark infringement.

That is important, because the businesses do a great job of trying to protect their own products. Seeing what is coming into the country illegally and what products are counterfeited can give them ideas about how to combat that counterfeiting better for themselves.

The proposed bill widens the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of sign, including colour, shapes, scents and tastes. Measuring the problem in counterfeit goods and copies in Canada and its corresponding impact on the economy is difficult.

The New Democrats, nevertheless, support dealing with counterfeiting, especially where health and safety concerns are at stake. As I have mentioned, it remains unclear to me and many others how the CBSA could implement these enforcement measures in the face of the cuts from budget 2012.

The United States and many industry groups have long called for border measures on counterfeiting. It remains important to continue to be vigilant to ensure that intellectual property laws balance the rights and interests of rights holders with those of consumers and users.

The government has long been aware of the difficulties in measuring the scale of counterfeiting for copies and goods in Canada, a challenge that was identified in a 1998 OECD report on “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting”. One of the difficulties results from the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. Much of the data is estimated and based on actual seizures, which is anecdotal or comes from industry itself, in which case the collection methods may vary or be unavailable to assess.

In 2007, the industry committee report on counterfeiting recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigations, charges and seizures for infringing copies and counterfeit goods as a means of collecting data.

A recent Industry Canada report published this year notes that, “It is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the market for counterfeit or pirated products in Canada”. Why? Because, again, the government has delayed bringing this legislation forward. Even now that it has, the Conservatives have not put provisions into the bill to implement those measures I just spoke of so we can start collecting more robust data to more accurately determine the economic impacts of counterfeit and trademark infringement in Canada.

As I said, much of the information in Canada comes from statistics about actual seizures. Industry Canada notes that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit goods and infringing copies could be valued at up to $250 billion U.S. It is a mind-boggling number that there would be that many counterfeit and trademark infringed goods travelling around the world. Law-abiding companies are losing out on much of that revenue.

The same study also reiterated previous calls for better information. We know anecdotally that counterfeit products can pose risks to the health and safety of consumers, whether we are talking about counterfeit electrical components or unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets.

I mention unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets because when we were at committee, many different Canadian businesses and organizations presented before the committee. One such company was Canada Goose, which is certainly a Canadian success story. However, representatives of Canada Goose brought with them some counterfeit Canada Goose jackets they had collected. The things contained within those counterfeit jackets would make one's toes curl. There were things like feces in the lining, feathers that were not properly treated and sanitized before being stuffed in the jackets. Certainly they were not goose down or coyote fur. Many different animals were being used.

Unfortunately, it was very difficult, on the surface, to detect these jackets as being counterfeit. When we put a real Canada Goose jacket next to a counterfeit jacket, they looked identical. It was not until we took a microscope to it or started to pull the jacket apart that we started to see that one of the jackets was indeed counterfeit.

Other representatives that came before the committee were from Hockey Canada. They talked about the last Olympics we had in Canada and about professional sports jerseys. They found, through studies they conducted and at the Olympics, that sometimes in professional sporting events, up to 70% to 75% of the jerseys being worn at the games were counterfeit. Consumers are unwittingly buying illegal and counterfeit products when they try to support their sports teams. At the Olympics in Vancouver, many stops and arrests were made of individuals selling counterfeit Olympic paraphernalia and products.

It is a growing problem because there is a financial incentive there. There is money to be made in counterfeit goods. We certainly have a responsibility to try to stop as much of it at the border as we can. As for the stuff that gets across the border, we have to deal with it here and hold the appropriate people responsible.

In many cases, as I have said, it is very difficult for consumers to detect whether they are buying legitimate products. However, vigilance is also important and people who have any concerns about products they are buying should go to the manufacturers' websites and contact people in law enforcement if they think they have bought something illegal. There are many things people can do to prevent these crimes and, indeed, to ensure the products they are buying are legitimate.

Dealing with counterfeiting is important to both Canadian businesses and consumers. It is especially important where counterfeit goods put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Yet again it remains unclear how the enforcement regime being proposed by Bill C-56 will be resourced. This bill would add significant new responsibilities to the duties of border officials during a time of significant budget reductions.

In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed $143 million in cuts to CBSA, reducing front-line officers and further reducing our ability to monitor the borders. This is interesting. This year's CBSA report on plans and priorities alone indicates a loss of 549 full-time employees between now and 2015. At a time when there is more trade, goods and people crossing the border, we will be cutting front-line officers? It makes absolutely no sense.

Under Bill C-56, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringed on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for infringing copyright would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply, something with which the courts often struggle. The New Democrats want the CBSA to be adequately funded to implement this bill without compromising the other responsibilities of protecting Canadians and our borders from things like drugs, guns and other threats.

The United States has lobbied for stronger enforcement measures in Canada for counterfeit and pirated goods for many years. In the 2012 special 301 watch report, the office of the U.S. trade representative stated that the U.S. “continues to urge Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts, including by providing customs officials with ex officio authority to take action against the importation, exportation, and transshipment of pirated or counterfeit goods”.

In its June 2012 report on counterfeiting in the Canadian market, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, a sub-group of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, identified counterfeiting as a barrier to competitiveness and specifically recommended that customs officials have ex officio powers, that Canadian law be amended to bring criminal and civil sanctions for counterfeiting and piracy and that enforcement officials be encouraged to seek strong remedies for infringements.

It bears saying that many of the requests the United States made are, indeed, in this bill. Providing ex officio powers to the CBSA in order to track, monitor and confiscate copyright and trademark infringed goods are terribly important to our long-term safety.

In its recently tabled report, “Intellectual Property Regime in Canada”, the committee recommended border measures that we supported, including providing appropriate ex officio powers to customs officials, civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, allowing customs officials to share information with rights holders regarding suspected goods. All members of the committee agreed that consumers acting non-wilfully should not be subject to excessive fines.

The New Democrats on the committee, of which I am one, filed a dissenting opinion that called on the government to also consult with consumer groups, as well as industry groups, in an effort to combat counterfeiting and piracy, that border officials receive appropriate authority to do their work while respecting civil liberties and due process and that the CBSA be adequately funded to combat counterfeiting without compromising its other important responsibilities to protect Canadians and defend our borders.

Data Used by Government with Respect to Bill C-54

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. In particular, I rise to address certain data offered by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Natural Resources in support of the bill that I believe violates my privileges as a member, and the privileges of all members of this place.

As O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 86 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, privileges may be infringed by “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House by a Minister”.

The case at issue involves a report prepared for the justice department by a research team led by Dr. Anne Crocker of McGill University, entitled “Description and processing of individuals found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder accused of serious violent offences”. This report has been central to the discussions of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this legislation. It was important in the House, as well, during second reading debate. In fact, if we look at the blues from last Wednesday's justice committee meeting alone, we will find Dr. Crocker mentioned by name 10 times.

As one of the few scientists in the House today, I especially value and need correct numbers to properly do my work as an MP; otherwise my work would be impeded.

One thing people have learned over the last few centuries is the value of observation and measurement: the success of empiricism. That is how we have made advances in science and technology. It gives us the ability to have smart government policies, to understand the people and the country they have entrusted us to govern.

I found Dr. Crocker's report helpful in formulating my own thinking on Bill C-54.

As a news story by Laura Stone of Global News reported yesterday afternoon, and thus I am raising this question at the first opportunity, the Department of Justice was provided with the initial version of the report that I mentioned in November of last year. Some of the data in this report was incorrect as the result of a coding error. This is not something for which I would find fault with the government or researchers. Tabulation errors are bound to happen here and there, and in my work as a scientist I have made such mistakes and have had to fix them. In fact, that is how good scientists work. Mistakes are discovered, acknowledged and fixed, and our understanding advances.

What is shocking is that the government was provided with a corrected version of the report from this past March, and despite having the new report, continued to cite from the old report, misleading Parliament and Canadians. The government even went so far as to table the old report in this place after being informed of the corrected report, a report it has yet to table.

Moreover, the government now takes issue with the researchers whom it commissioned to prepare the report, saying their corrections raise questions about the quality of the work, calling it “unreliable”, even though science actually makes progress through a process involving a continual recognition of errors and their corrections. The researchers did the right thing here, and they know what the right numbers are.

While I could go on at length about the need for evidence-based policy-making and how we should not be legislating if we do not have facts to support our propositions, I will confine myself now to the privilege question before us.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, includes, at page 83, a list of items found by the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to be types of contempt. Specifically included on this list is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. As well, and again I quote, “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House or a committee”.

Mr. Patrick Baillie of the Advisory Council of the Mental Health Commission of Canada testified before the justice committee this past Monday in response to a question from the member for Brossard—La Prairie, and said:

Regarding the recidivism statistic, there was an unfortunate error that occurred in the initial draft of the report that was provided to the Department of Justice in November of 2012. [...] That error was discovered on March 14th and immediately communicated to the Minister's office, and a revised report was provided on March 18th with that data corrected.

My colleague, the member for Mount Royal, followed this with a clarifying question, to which Mr. Baillie responded:

We became aware of the error on March 14 and communicated that to the minister's office that day. The amended report was then provided to the research division on March 18 with an acknowledgement seeking clarification of what was the nature of the coding error. So the office was aware of that in March.

As Mr. Baillie further testified, and with this I would agree:

I think that it is important on such a serious issue for the committee to have accurate and up-to-date information, and I hope that the report that was provided to the office in March can be made available to the members of this committee for their deliberations on this topic.

It should be clear that reliance on the old report prejudices members of all parties. Indeed, the news article in question quotes the Conservative MP for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley as saying, “If it was tabled in the House of Commons, I assumed it was accurate”.

The initial draft of the report was tabled as part of an order for return in response to question 1169 on the order paper standing in the name of my colleague from Mount Royal. That order for return included the report as an annex with a note stating, “A significantly amended version of this report was provided to the Department of Justice on March 18, 2013...”.

This statement is important because it confirms that the department was made aware of it on the 18th. It is also important because the order for return bears the minister's signature.

Where it gets interesting is that the old report itself was included in response to part of the order paper question asking about sources relied upon by the government in developing Bill C-54. This makes sense because the government can only rely on the evidence it had at the time. However, the question also asked the government separately for several particular pieces of information, including which people who were found NCR released had been convicted of a subsequent offence and what was the nature of the subsequent offence. The government's response was “see annex 1”, which was the old report.

If the government is asked a question and gives an answer, we will assume it is referring to the most up-to-date information that it has. Members would easily conclude that the correct information was included in response to the question and thus the corrected report. As we found out only this week, that was not the case.

While I take issue with the government's choice to table the old report when it had the new corrected report, as a matter of principle, I also take issue with it as a matter of privilege. Simply put, the government should seek to be forthright with Canadians, providing them and their elected representatives with accurate information in a timely fashion as a matter of course. The government has an obligation to do so as per the rules of the House.

On Monday, May 27, the Minister of Natural Resources stood in this place and said the following during debate on Bill C-54:

It is very important that when we talk about what the risk to the public is, we try to get as close as we can to the facts. The facts are: 27.3% of not criminally responsible accused have a past finding of NCR; 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior....Those facts have to be brought into the analytical picture so we get a more objective understanding of what is in fact going on.

That was May 27, yet the minister cited from the old report.

To illustrate the problem with but one example in his intervention, the scary sounding statistic that 38.1% of NCR accused of a sexual offence had at least one prior NCR finding is in fact incorrect. In reality, the number is only 9.5%. The government knew of this fact two months before the statement of the minister.

It is not surprising that in the same debate the leader of the Green Party stated, “I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources...”.

I think many watching that debate were also.

However, where it gets more baffling is the response from the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, wherein he stated:

the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4% or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools....

What is important is that parliamentarians are provided with the facts. What is important is that this House is not misled.

I submit that the Minister of Natural Resources misled the House in his interventions on May 27, citing crucial statistics that the government previously acknowledged had been since revised. Moreover, I submit that the Minister of Justice misled the House on May 27, as well, when in response to a question from the leader of the Green Party about the Crocker report in particular, he stated:

Mr. Speaker, we have actually commissioned a couple of reports and I referred to some of the statistics in the final report that was given to us in November 2012.

By the Minister's own signature on the order for return on May 27, he acknowledged that an amended report was given to the justice department on March 18. Therefore, he misled the House, by stating on May 27 that the “final” report was “given to us in November 2012”.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on March 18 of this year, and found on page 14854 of the Debates, you reiterated that:

Our parliamentary practice sets a very high threshold for the Speaker to make a prima facie finding of privilege.

Citing a previous ruling from last year, you reiterated the three findings you must make regarding misleading statements. I will quote from your ruling, Mr. Speaker:

one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, [it must be proven] that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

Briefly going through each element, the Minister of Justice calling the November 2012 report final was misleading when there was a corrected March report. By his own pen, he acknowledged the March report's existence in May. The question he was asked was about the Crocker report in particular, and it was the minister who volunteered the qualifying adjective “final”. I therefore submit that this misled the House, as did the reliance on the old report on the same day in debate by the Minister of Natural Resources.

On that last point, Mr. Speaker, you quoted Speaker Milliken's ruling of April 21, 2005, found at page 5412 of Debates, wherein the former Speaker reminded the House of a key element to consider when finding a prima facie instance of privilege. Specifically, he said:

...whether the minister's responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading.

Mr. Speaker, members are impeded in their functions when they are denied evidence and facts used in crucial arguments for or against legislation. Various members have raised concerns over the statistics involved in this file. It is clear that the member who asked the question to the Minister of Justice that elicited the “final report” answer was upset that she could not further question the Minister of Natural Resources about his statistics from said report, and remarked in this place, “I wish I could have gotten a question to him”.

Those statements of May 27 were right before the bill went to committee, and as I understand it members will be beginning clause-by-clause examination this evening. They have thus been operating with incorrect data before them, an issue raised by witnesses this past Monday. Again, this is something that prejudices all members, regardless of party.

On this point, I refer you to an intervention from the Conservative member for Prince Albert on Bill C-54, when he said:

There has been a limited amount of data on the rates of reoffending by NCR accused persons.

and then:

These reforms will provide the data we consider necessary....

I think that member would be pleased to learn that there is such data and that the government is in possession of it, though whether or not he reaches the same conclusion upon its review is a different story.

As I draw to a close, I return to the issue of the report. I submit that the corrected version was required of this government in its answer to Question No. 1169 to the extent it cited such a report as a source of current, correct data.

Moreover, as the Debates of March 1, before the corrected report was brought to the government's attention, illustrate that the government undertook to provide members with data. In particular, the Minister of Justice cited statistics and said in response to a question, “There are statistics, and I would be glad to share the report with the hon. member”, later again repeating, “Those are statistics and findings that have been researched. I would be pleased, of course, to share this with the hon. member in more detail”.

I do not believe the House or committee sought more information from the minister of the government because we took the minister at his word to provide the data he and his department had. I believe the government undertook this obligation of its own accord and therefore created an impression in the minds of members that it would be forthright with the data. As we now know, it was not.

Mr. Speaker, while I realize such matters, if found by you to be prima facie breaches of privilege, are referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there are other avenues here that may be more helpful. While I do believe you should find that the House and committee have been misled by the minister cited, I am more concerned about the remedy.

While I doubt the government would be willing to put Bill C-54 on hold until it had data it considered reliable and accurate with regard to persons found non-criminally responsible, I would accept this. Moreover, I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While I realize other members affected by this situation may have a different approach and wish to see this at the Procedure and House Affairs committee, I simply need to have the correct numbers placed before the House.

In closing, all members of this place, regardless of party, benefit from having facts and data before them when legislating and, indeed, I would argue we all have a right to know. The government knew, but kept members in the dark and, by its own admission, made an effort to conceal.

This is something that ought to be sanctioned as, if left uncorrected, remains a standing affront to the privileges of all members of this place.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478.

As my colleagues have already said, this bill amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

As my Liberal colleague, the member for Halifax West, stated during the last debate on the bill, we Liberals will be supporting this matter at second reading. We support the principle behind the legislation—that is, we agree that those who are convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim should not easily receive parole.

Many community organizations, including the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, also support this bill.

While we are fortunate that such brutality is rare in Canada, we know all too well that this evil does exist. Just this time last year, the nation was gripped with headlines of Luka Magnotta, who is alleged to have killed, raped and dismembered his victim. He is presently awaiting trial on charges including murder and committing an indignity to a body.

Also at this time last year, a sentence was handed down in the case of Michael Rafferty of Woodstock, Ontario, who along with Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and charged in the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford. Both are serving life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years, Rafferty having been found guilty of first degree murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm and kidnapping.

These names and these cases, like those of Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams and Clifford Olson, clearly prove that this evil does exist in Canada and force us to evaluate the need to amend our Criminal Code accordingly.

Of course, the question might arise as to whether the existing regime is sufficient. All these individuals I have named have been punished, and many will not be out for parole for quite some time.

The answer is that this bill, as the mover noted, is not about punishment. Indeed, it does not increase penalties for any of the associated offences. What Bill C-478 does, however, is extend the period of parole ineligibility to relieve grieving families of the burden of having to relive their awful torment every two years once the offender becomes eligible to seek parole. Indeed, the bill is about ending the re-victimization of families.

It should be noted that the 40-year period that the bill speaks to is not a requirement. Judges are given necessary discretion on this particular point.

That is not to say that the bill is a flawless piece of legislation. These being private members' bills produced with the limited resources that we have as members of Parliament, there are going to be some flaws. Hopefully, at committee we will work hard to make sure that these are perfect bills when they come out of committee.

My colleagues from the NDP have raised concerns regarding its compliance with the charter and with the Rome statute. I am sure these will be questions put to the technical witnesses at the justice committee for which they will undoubtedly have well-researched answers. Surely amendments could then be moved if needed to clarify both our desire to comply with our domestic and international obligations and our desire to achieve our aim of a longer period of parole ineligibility for certain types of offenders.

It is not often that I am able to address the House on matters of criminal justice policy. I am delighted to do so today and I am delighted that the bill before us is not one of the usual mandatory minimum penalty bills that the Liberal Party opposes on policy grounds.

Much of the discussion in the House on justice policy of late has focused on the idea of victims' rights. I am proud to be part of a party that takes the rights of victims seriously and has matched this commitment in word and in action.

On November 1, 2005, the Government of Canada established the National Office for Victims at Public Safety Canada. This office is a single point of contact for victims who have concerns about offenders and questions about the federal correctional system and Canada's justice system.

The office provides victims with information and provides input on policy and legislative initiatives. It also attempts to educate members of the criminal justice system about victims' issues.

Further, although it has perhaps been overlooked in the current debate over Bill C-54, the Liberals proposed the initial amendments to the not criminally responsible regime that permitted a victim to read a victim impact statement at a review board hearing and required courts or review boards to advise a victim of his or her right to submit a victim impact statement at the initial disposition hearing for the accused.

Before closing, I must address one troublesome aspect of the bill as it is before us, not in substance but in form; namely, it is a piece of private member's business that has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice as a worthwhile and necessary change to the law, yet it is something that would have been adopted much faster had it been introduced and advanced as government legislation. Indeed, why was this not part of the crime omnibus bill, Bill C-10? Or, more pertinently, why was this amendment not included in 2011 when Parliament debated Bill S-6, the serious time for the most serious crime act? Surely the government will agree these are serious crimes that deserve serious time.

My point is that the government has had ample opportunity to make this change to the law without having to use private members' hour to advance its agenda. It is a troubling trend because the use of private members' bills limits debate and circumvents charter review, something which is completed by the Department of Justice for only government bills and not private members' bills like Bill C-478.

Another troubling trend is that the Conservatives' justice agenda focuses on punishment without bearing in mind as well the need to adopt preventative measures designed to reduce the number of victims in the first place. Wow. For some types of offences, we should focus on root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and lack of access to affordable housing. For other types of crime, we should be looking at mental health initiatives for early screening and detection such that individuals may be diverted into the treatment programs they need.

Regrettably, changing sentencing and parole rules, however welcome some changes may be, does not prevent victimization. We must ensure a holistic approach is taken to justice, one that seeks to prevent crime, one that seeks to adequately punish the offender, and one that seeks to better reintegrate offenders into society once they have served their sentences.

In short, there is much more to be done, and Bill C-478 is not a magic bullet to solving the problem of crime in this country. However, as I stated at the outset, I believe the principle behind this bill has merit and thus I will be voting to send it to committee for further study and review.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Bill C-52—Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that the minister is unblocked, finally.

That said, I think this is the fourth time in four days that I have risen to criticize this process, something that now seems to be standard practice for this government. They bring in a gag order to end debate.

What the Minister is not saying is that in 2006, the Prime Minister prorogued the House because he was about to be clobbered by the opposition parties. Such actions tend to derail bills. There were elections after that in 2008 and 2011.

Today, all of a sudden, on this beautiful May 29, we are told there is great urgency—in fact, we hear this every day. This is the fourth bill of its kind, and they are not trivial bills either.

There was Bill C-48, which dealt with all kinds of tax amendments, Bill C-49, meant to change the name and mandate of a museum, and Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. These are not inconsequential bills.

Now we have Bill C-52 before us. I believe the cat was let out of the bag yesterday when a colleague of the minister rose to say that they were ultimately not interested in what people from the various ridings had to tell them. What interested them was what they, the Conservatives, had to say on those matters.

In their view, once we agree on a bill, we should be quiet, stay politely seated and not say another word because, in any case, they are not interested in what the people of Gatineau have to say, through their member, on the merits of the issue.

Only three hours were allotted for debate at third reading. That is appalling. It is a hijacking, not of a train, but of debate. It is shameful. For reasons unbeknownst to us, this is now part of this government's normal procedure.

I do not want to know whether the bill is good, since we are going to vote for it. I want to know why we are being compelled to do it this way. To date, the minister does not appear to want to give us an answer that is sensible and acceptable, at least for the people of Gatineau.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if any of my law faculty colleagues from long ago are watching right now, they will probably be sniggering because they will remember that tax law was not my favourite field. I would add that it was not the favourite field of many law students.

However, it is probably the subject that affects people's everyday lives the most. People always talk about the long arm of the government and how it finds all kinds of ways, each more imaginative than the next, to reach in and take what we earn with the sweat of our brow. Sometimes it does that under what is called the Income Tax Act. At other times it does so by means of hidden taxes, which are highly valued by the Conservatives, with charges levied on all kinds of things.

We pay our share every day and our money flows in many ways into the government's coffers. Many people will obviously wonder why I am rising to discuss Bill C-48. I am doing so because it has an impact on everyone's life. It has an impact on the lives of the people in my riding, Gatineau. That is as true for small businesses as it is for big businesses, but it is also true for individuals. They pay every day through the GST, and barely a month ago they did through their income tax returns, so this is not the easiest subject.

Earlier I flipped through the act and thought back on marvellous memories of my time at the law faculty and on the Income Tax Act, just from looking at a few sections of the act. I wondered why legislators were incapable of coming up with anything simpler.

I was listening to the member on the other side of the House who spoke before me. Several questions were put to her, all asking the same thing: why are we making technical amendments in 2013 that should have been in place since 2001? Let us get something straight. This is technical, but Bill C-48 is already in force by means of comfort letters.

People must understand that, from the moment the mean taxman decides that something must be done, it is done, even if it is not yet included in the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act or related legislation. From the moment a comfort letter is signed, the government takes that money from our pockets. This will therefore make little change to people's lives, but it will be much easier to access because it will finally be in the act. Comfort letters are all well and good, and they say what they say, but they are not always clear.

For individuals, our tax system is based on voluntary assessment. In other words, we rely on average Canadians to file their tax return by April 30. If they are lucky, and Revenue Canada does not ask them to produce various documents, they can use the short form. In fact, it is not over yet. Even for people with some training in taxation, it is not very straightforward.

As the Auditor General said, this is not like other bills, where we have seen three versions die on the order paper as a result of an election or prorogation forced by the Conservative government, whose agenda disappeared as if by magic. In this case, the work just was not done. The work was also not done by the Liberals, since the previous legislation dates back to 2001. Auditors general have been calling on the legislators of the House for ages to do something about this more quickly.

In this way, the public could immediately see the changes to the legislation.

In my opinion, the Conservative response to this matter does not stand up. The legislation has not had previous incarnations, nor has it taken a great deal of time, nor is it the opposition’s fault. That is absolutely not the case.

It has taken them this long to produce Bill C-48 and finally listen to what the Auditor General was telling them. What she was telling them was rather serious and blunt. She noted that there were more than 400 technical amendments, and there are barely 200 in Bill C-48.

In her fall 2009 report she said:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said [as quick as the devil] that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

This is true, whether you are a New Democrat, a Liberal, the sole member of the Green Party or one of the few from the Bloc Québécois. This is true for everyone, including the Conservatives.

In the 1991 Report of the Auditor General, chapter 2, the Auditor General expressed some concerns that income tax comfort letters were not announced publicly. We are talking about chapter 2 of the Auditor General's report from 1991. In response, the Department of Finance Canada stated that:

…the government intends to release a package of income tax technical amendments on an annual basis, so that taxpayers will not be subject to more lengthy waiting periods as in the past before amendments are released to the public.

Comfort letters have since been regularly released to the public. However, in the past 18 years, very few technical bills have been introduced and passed. Only four of the bills relating to income tax have been passed.

A few sentences in my colleague's speech caught my attention. I found them surprising because it seemed to me that I had heard them yesterday as well. It is important to understand that all these bills are subject to a time allocation motion, be it Bill C-48 today, Bill C-54 last night or Bill C-49, which is to come and will not be spared either.

Introducing a time allocation motion for Bill C-48 seems particularly outrageous, especially when the members opposite do it ad nauseam, parroting the lines written and produced for them by the office on the third floor.

They are trying to tell us that this has been before the House for 200 days, yet Bill C-54 was also in the House for 200 days, as was Bill C-48, and Bill C-49 probably will be, as well.

With its majority, the government can advance its agenda as it pleases. Perhaps we are moving at a snail's pace because the government does not really know where it is going. It improvises a little and all of a sudden it realizes that the session may end and that it will leave a lot of things unfinished. That is why it is speeding everything up.

I hear people say we are repeating ourselves, but that is not the case. The message the people of Gatineau want me to send the Conservative government, particularly on Bill C-48, is that they are fed up with provisions so inaccessible and incomprehensible to the average person that everyone would like us to change those aspects.

When I got to page 13 of the Income Tax Act, I had covered only three sections, and I was already getting fed up.

Yet I was a lawyer for 30 years. I studied tax law. I was elected as a member in 2004. I have analyzed many budgets, and I have seen the Income Tax Act in all its forms, as a member of both the government and the official opposition. I was not born yesterday, but this can be hard to grasp even for someone like me.

Small businesses also point out a problem I regularly hear about in my riding of Gatineau. For a small business required to complete all the forms, the disproportionate amount of red tape is good only for the numbers expert industry.

When members of the middle class or less privileged individuals want to do the right thing and pay their taxes, but do not really know how the system works, they have to go see an expert to be sure they make no mistakes. Few people like to make mistakes when it comes to taxes. However, some people manage to divert a large portion of what they owe in taxes even though they make millions of dollars. Authorities often go after lower-income individuals and treat them like criminals even though some people are forced to make arrangements with the Canada Revenue Agency, Revenu Québec or other organizations simply because everyday life is hard for them.

We get these kinds of messages in our ridings. True, we will vote for the bill, but the Conservatives tell us to shut our traps the moment we agree with them. We are no longer entitled to speak. I do not have the right to tell the House what the people of my riding would like to get from their politicians, and I was elected by 62% of the electorate, not 39% like the Conservative government. There are lessons to be learned from each of our ridings. That is what democracy means. It means electing 308 members of different political philosophies. Gatineau may not have the same problem as certain ridings in Alberta, British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces. That is what makes it possible for us to improve the situation together.

Voting in favour of a bill is not necessarily the same thing as giving the government carte blanche or saying that overall the bill is amazing. Sometimes, the government would do well to listen to us and follow the interpretation, which it does not often do. This is unfortunate, but there is a reason why it sticks to the script, like a racehorse running straight for the finish line. The Conservatives’ problem is that they often hit a wall because they fail to listen to what people were saying along the way. That is regrettable, but the message they are sending to all of our constituents is that their opinion does not matter in the least.

Yet if there is one issue that affects all Canadians, regardless of where they live, surely it is taxation. My grandmother always said that in certain areas of life, things should be the same for everyone. I am sure that she would qualify that statement, since some people are good at avoiding certain things. She used to say that some things were unavoidable, like death and taxes. She was right up to a point, although she would surely be turning in her grave at all of the tax avoidance measures that abound today.

While I am very pleased to see that Bill C-48 attempts to address certain problems, I am not fooled either. The Minister of Justice argues that by amending and toughening up certain laws, the problems of all crime victims will be resolved. That is not true. If the government fails to put more police officers on the highways and to increase funding for psychological support services, then it will not accomplish anything. The same holds true for tax avoidance.

If there are not enough agents to properly investigate cases of tax avoidance, or better still, of tax evasion, we will hit another wall.

Again, this is a problem that the Conservatives have. They have an extremely narrow vision of how to get from point A to point B. They are incapable of appreciating that in order to get to point B and the desired outcome, they might have to make a small detour. The Conservatives just do not do certain things, like admitting they were wrong or that they made a mistake. According to an old saying, a fault confessed is half redressed. They have a hard time with that and again, that is unfortunate.

Bill C-48 is a sound piece of legislation, but it does resolve everything. Had we not had to contend with this time allocation motion, we would have been able to hear a lot more from my colleagues, and maybe even from the Conservatives.

I listened to some of the speeches, and it was interesting to see what it is about this bill that makes some Conservatives react. Once they had dispensed with “we are the best, the nicest, the cleverest” or what have you, in the final 30 seconds, they tied it to what was happening in their riding. It was beneficial for all members of the House.

We can all learn from one another. I learn something from my colleagues who represent more rural regions. They in turn learn about what makes people in urban areas tick. Of course, there are different kinds of urban areas. There are large cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver and cities like Gatineau, which is the fourth-largest municipality in Quebec. Gatineau’s problems are different because it is located right on the Ontario border. By talking to one another, it is possible to find real solutions.

When I served in Parliament from 2004 to 2006, I chaired the women’s caucus. Back then, my favourite expression was gender-based analysis, or GBA.

I would tell my male colleagues that GBA stood for gender-based analysis, not Game Boy Advance. When a bill was being drafted, we ensured that all of the facts were taken into account. We were not just concerned about women.

The best example I can give you is young people who drop out of school. If the facts show that young boys are the ones who drop out of school and a policy is needed to address that situation, then young boys will be the focus of that policy. That logic will dictate our actions.

We accomplish things by talking to one another, by discussing matters and especially by listening and by being willing to admit that sometimes ours is not the absolute truth. However, this government is absolutely incapable of understanding that someone other than the PMO may have some sound ideas or be right. Just imagine having to admit that the NDP had a sound idea. The government thinks the sky would fall and something terrible would happen if it admitted that. How utterly ridiculous and how out of touch with the public.

When I weigh everything, I tell myself that maybe this is what the Conservatives really want in the final analysis. All this really does is leave the public fed up, and what happens when people are fed up? The Conservatives are gambling on two possible outcomes: either that people will come out in force and vote them out of office, which I am hoping will be the case because people no longer want to have anything to do with them, or that people will stay home because they are sick and tired of the whole process. The Conservatives are gambling that the second scenario will play out.

I think people have to realize that while they may not be interested in politics, something like Bill C-48 affects their day-to-day lives, starting with taxation.

Just think about the tax people pay every day on all kinds of things. If they were to calculate how much tax they pay throughout the year, not just income tax, but tax on items purchased at the corner store, at the grocery store, at the drugstore or elsewhere, they would realize that the government is truly omnipresent and that perhaps they should pay attention to politics.

I will be voting in favour of the bill, but it is not an end in itself.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to know where NDP members stand on a bill like Bill C-54, we should read all the speeches they have already given, because they are almost identical, speech after speech, the same rehashed talking points. What is the substantive point of moving the debate forward if they do not actually debate, they just read the same handful of talking points over and over again?

It is time to get on. We have heard plenty of what NDP members believe about this. They are on the wrong side of the issue on the substance of it, but it is time to get on with it. Let us get on to talking about this particular bill. We will hear the same handful of talking points again in the next few hours, I am sure about that.

Let us get on with it. What does the minister have to say about what NDP members will say over the next few hours?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I should be thanking anyone. No more than an hour ago, I was rising in response to the 34th time allocation motion. Now here we are with another time allocation motion for Bill C-54.

I will not repeat what I said about Bill C-48. However, in the words of Captain Haddock “ten thousand thundering typhoons” that is quite the gang of “bashi-bazouk” across the way.

As far as Bill C-48 is concerned, I understood from the minister that it was extremely technical aspects that have been backlogged for over 10 years. Anyone who has read Bill C-54 knows that it is highly contested by experts in the field. I am talking about the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network. Many people are questioning Bill C-54.

It is highly likely that the bill will ultimately pass, but we are only at second reading stage. The government is toying with extremely complex concepts having to do with mental disorders and being not criminally responsible. I think that 11 people at most have spoken on the subject, and the government is moving a time allocation motion.

I would like the Minister of Justice to say a few words about this to explain why the government thinks it is necessary to move a time allocation motion at this stage, when there has been no evidence of dilatory practice. I think that everyone has the right to speak to—

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-54--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the House that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our government has moved forward this week to conduct business in the House of Commons in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion, and we have tried to work in good faith.

We began the week debating a motion to add an additional 20 hours to the House schedule each week. Before I got through the first minute of my speech on that motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley interrupted with a dubious point of order to prevent the government from moving forward to work overtime. His was a bogus argument and the Speaker rightly saw the NDP delay effort as entirely devoid of merit and rejected it outright.

During its first speech opposing the motion to work hard, the NDP then moved an amendment to gut it. That amendment was defeated. The NDP then voted against the motion and against working overtime, but that motion still passed, thanks to the Conservatives in the House.

During the first NDP speech on Bill C-49 last night, in the efforts to work longer, the NDP moved an amendment to gut that bill and cause gridlock in the House. I am not kidding. These are all one step after another of successive measures to delay. During its next speech, before the first day of extended hours was completed, the NDP whip moved to shut down the House, to go home early. That motion was also defeated. This is the NDP's “do as I say, not as I do” attitude at its height.

Take the hon. member for Gatineau. At 4 p.m., she stood in the House and said, “I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight...”. That is a direct quote. It sounded good. In fact, I even naively took her at her word that she and her party were actually going to work with us, work hard and get things done. Unfortunately, her actions did not back up her words, because just a few short hours later, that very same member, the member for Gatineau, seconded a motion to shut down the House early.

I am not making this up. I am not kidding. She waited until the sun went down until she thought Canadians were not watching anymore and then she tried to prevent members from doing their work. This goes to show the value of the word of NDP members. In her case, she took less than seven hours to break her word. That is unfortunate. It is a kind of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that breeds cynicism in politics and, unfortunately, it is all too common in the NDP.

We saw the same thing from the hon. member for Davenport, when he said, “We are happy to work until midnight...”, and two short hours later he voted to try to shut down the House early. It is the same for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the hon. member for Drummond. They all professed an interest in working late and then had their party vote to shut down early. What is clear by their actions is that the NDP will try anything to avoid hard work.

It is apparent that the only way that Conservatives, who are willing to work in the House, will be able to get things done is through a focused agenda, having a productive, orderly and hard-working House of Commons. This afternoon, we will debate Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, at report stage and third reading. After private members' hour, we will go to Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow before question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, and after question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Monday before question period, we will consider Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would provide protection for aboriginal women and children by giving them the same rights that women who do not live on reserve have had for decades. After question period, we will debate Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading, a bill that makes a reasonable and needed reform to the Criminal Code. We are proposing to ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It is time to get that bill to a vote. We will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—and yes, that is last year—at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will continue the debates on Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

On Wednesday, we will resume this morning's debate on Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, at third reading.

On Thursday, we will continue this afternoon's debate on Bill C-51. Should the NDP adopt a new and co-operative, productive spirit and let all of these bills pass, we could consider other measures, such as Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Optimism springs eternal within my heart. I hope to see that from the opposition.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who serves his community with tremendous distinction. He is an accomplished local community leader and business leader, and he really has a sense of what is important to people in his community. I think that is why the not criminally responsible reform act, Bill C-54, is important to him. This bill will that ensure public safety should be the paramount consideration in decision-making affecting high-risk offenders who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

This is an important value question in our justice system, including for those who are found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. Are we going to make community safety the first and foremost consideration in all decisions? That is what the bill proposes to do. This issue has affected absolutely every region of this country and has affected many people in a very deep and personal way. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to a committee where, as I said, witnesses can testify about it. With the extra hours we propose, that can happen.

Extention of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to rise and speak in support of private member's Bill C-479, which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

I want to thank and commend my colleague for his strong commitment to placing the needs, rights and interests of victims ahead of criminals and for introducing this bill that would further strengthen victims' rights in this country. The bill includes measures that are in keeping with our government's strong commitment to support victims of crime and ensure that they have a strong voice in the justice system.

While we have made some very good progress over the past seven years to meet these commitments, we know that more work needs to be done. That is why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada recently outlined the next phase of the Government of Canada's plan for safe streets and communities.

Through this plan, our government will take further action in the following areas:

We will tackle crime by holding offenders accountable for their actions. This includes bringing forward legislation to further toughen penalties for child sexual offences and to better understand the risks posed by known child sex offenders.

As well, we have introduced Bill C-54, not criminally responsible reform act, which would better protect the public from accused persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Such legislation would ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in these cases.

We also moved ahead with further measures to enhance the rights of victims by introducing legislation to implement a victims' bill of rights. This legislation would serve to further enhance the government's commitment to victims of crime by entrenching their rights into law at the federal level.

I want to again thank my colleague, because he mentioned this important piece. It is one thing to talk about victims' rights, but they need to be enshrined in federal law. My colleague's bill will move forward on this as will what our government is doing to support victims of crime.

Finally, we will increase the efficiency of our justice system by looking at measures to make our justice system more efficient through the “Economics of Policing” study.

Members may recall that the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale introduced a similar bill in 2011. He has been very committed to this cause and continues to be.

Since 2011, we have passed into law the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which included these important measures to enhance the participation of victims in the justice system and to increase offender accountability. As such, Bill C-479 proposes some important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, also known as the CCRA.

I will now look at how Bill C-479 would amend the CCRA. First, private member's Bill C-479 proposes to extend mandatory review periods for parole. For example, if a violent offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would then be obligated to review the case within five years rather than the current two years. Again, we have heard today the impact that would have on victims. Rather than having to come back every two years and relive the horror and tragedy of what they or their families went through, the bill would extend that period to five years.

The bill also proposes to hold detention reviews every two years rather than annually. Again, this considers the rights and interests of victims and what they go through when they are unfortunately re-victimized every time they have to go through this. This would not only affect offenders who are not ready to be released into the community at their statutory release date, at two-thirds of the sentence, but would also put victims' interests into the equation.

The second set of changes to the CCRA proposed in Bill C-479 relates to the attendance of victims and members of their families at parole review hearings.

There is no magic formula for healing from the traumatic experience of violent crime. There is no single set of counselling, time or things that can happen after one is victimized. There is no magic formula that can fix the pain and tragedy victims have gone through. Each victim, each family member, is affected differently and will cope in a unique way. With this in mind, Bill C-479 proposes to give more weight to the needs of victims in the justice system.

Specifically, Bill C-479 proposes that if victims are denied the opportunity to observe the hearings in person, they could follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed, again another way that the government and the Parole Board could show victims that their voices matter. Currently, there can be distance and time and it can be very difficult for victims to attend hearings, yet they want to see it or be a part of it. This bill would give them the opportunity to follow hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed.

The bill would provide useful tools. However, we need to strike a balance between theory and practice. Therefore, there are some minor amendments to make it easier to implement this and we expect amendments would be required for this part of the bill.

Currently, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives victims the right to certain basic information about offenders and criminals. At the same time, it gives the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada discretion to provide additional information if the interests of the victims clearly outweigh the privacy concerns for the offenders.

Bill C-479 proposes to expand the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals in order for information to be shared about offenders. Specifically, it would make the release of certain information mandatory rather than discretionary. This information would include the date, if any, when an offender would be released on either unescorted or escorted temporary absences. As well, a victim would be informed of any of the conditions attached to an offender's unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release and the reasons for any unescorted temporary absences. In addition, a victim would be informed of the destination of an offender when released on unescorted temporary absence or parole or statutory release. Again, one would assume this has already taken place, but it has not, and those are some of the provisions that the bill would provide.

Obviously, it is important for victims to have all this information well in advance of an offender's temporary release. Bill C-479 proposes that the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada discloses this information at least 14 days before an offender is released. The bill would further provide victims with information about offenders' correctional plans, including progress toward meeting their objectives and providing transcripts of parole hearings, if they are produced. Should the bill be referred to committee, we would again seek to move certain amendments to ensure that any necessary public safety safeguards would be in place for the sharing of this information.

Again, I would like to commend my colleague for his strong commitment to victims and for introducing this bill to further strengthen the rights of victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-479 bring greater fairness to the justice system for victims. This is in keeping with our government's commitments and I am proud to indicate that we will be supporting this important legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills that have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader expressed concern that the scheduling of several opposition days, on which the opposition gets to determine the subject matter of debate in the House of Commons, showed a complete absence of a plan and a complete absence of any ideas for policy innovation. Having heard the debate and the resolutions coming from the opposition for debate on those days, I am inclined to agree with him.

Sadly, they have shown that when the opposition has the agenda, there are no new ideas and there is nothing of value spoken. However, the Standing Orders do require us to have those opposition days scheduled as part of our procedure, and that is what we are doing.

I would like, however, to respond a little bit to his comments on the time allocation on the bill yesterday. Yesterday's bill was Bill S-2, a bill to give aboriginal women and their children on reserve the same matrimonial rights that other people have. It is a bill that has been in Parliament for five years, through a series of Parliaments, in fact, and it has not yet come to a vote. To paraphrase the President of the United States in the recent State of the Union address, the aboriginal women and children of Canada deserve the right to a vote. That is why we did what we had to do, after five years of obstruction from the opposition preventing the bill from coming forward.

The bill would provide the protection they have been denied for decades. It is truly shameful that, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, every single opposition member stood up against this bill at second reading. They voted against the principle of protecting aboriginal women and children and providing them with rights equal to those of all Canadian women off reserve. They voted against giving them protection from violence in the situation of a domestic family breakdown and giving them the same rights to matrimonial homes that other women have had for decades in this country.

It is another example of how the NDP approaches things. It claims that it is for women's rights and aboriginal rights, but when it comes time to actually take action, it does not. It is “do as I say, not as I do”.

This afternoon we will continue the New Democrats' opposition day. Tomorrow is the fourth allotted day, when the New Democrats will again propose our topic for debate. Monday shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day, with a further New Democratic motion being considered.

Next week is victims week in Canada, so on Wednesday, the House will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which aims to put the protection of society and of victims front and centre.

On Thursday morning we will consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, at report stage. After question period on Thursday, we will start report stage for Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which was reported back from the transport committee this morning.

Finally, next Friday, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, will be again considered at report stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating third reading of Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, a bill that would give the RCMP the tools it needs to strengthen accountability and enhance public trust. I am puzzled why the NDP is putting up member after member to delay and block bringing accountability to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The New Democrats should let the bill come to a final vote so that these much-needed reforms can be put in place. In fact, the RCMP commissioner, Robert Paulson, was in front of the committee yesterday, and he called for swift passage of the bill.

If the New Democrats heed the commissioner's advice and allow the debate to conclude, we will be able to start third reading of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, and help keep Canadians safe that way.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. This bill proposes to put public safety as the first and paramount consideration in the process of dealing with accused persons found to be not criminally responsible. It accomplishes this change without affecting the treatment these individuals receive.

The debate on Bill C-54 will continue next Thursday and—if necessary—on Friday. Monday, we will consider Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, at report stage and third reading. We will continue that debate on Wednesday.

Tuesday, March 5, shall be the sixth allotted day, which will go to the New Democrats.

Finally, I hope that the opposition will support our hard-working approach to business so that we could also consider second reading of Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; the second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and report stage and third reading of Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

In addition, in response to what I will take to be an invitation from the oppostion House leader, I would like unanimous consent to propose the following motion. I hope the opposition will not block it.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

Unanimous consent for this would show that they really do care about Senate reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the implicit offer of assistance from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I look forward to discussions with him later on the possibility of moving forward both Senate reform and Bill C-12 on a unanimous consent basis straight to committee. I would be happy to do that with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating the Liberal opposition day motion. Tomorrow we will hopefully finish second reading of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, a measure supported by all three parties. After that we will turn to third reading of Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act; third reading of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act; and second reading of Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act.

When we return from our constituency week on Monday, February 25, we will start second reading of Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act. This bill needs to be passed by mid-April before the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, which would render the important powers available to police ineffective.

After Bill C-55, we will consider Friday's unfinished business.

Tuesday, February 26, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will go to the Official Opposition, and it will therefore choose the subject of debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will continue debating the bills I have already listed.

Additionally, Bill C-47, Northern Jobs and Growth Act, was reported back from committee yesterday, and I anticipate Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act, will be reported back soon. So we could also call these bills at report stage and third reading, if we have extra time next week.

Finally, on Friday, March 1, the House will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. The Prime Minister announced this bill last week as part of our efforts to ensure we have a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say honestly that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51 at second reading, not so much personally, as I was already up speaking this morning, to Bill C-42, as was the parliamentary secretary, but because, like many members, we have had challenges even getting to the House today.

As the NDP public safety critic, I have the honour of speaking in the House quite often. Unfortunately, too often, it is on bills motivated by the Conservatives' tough on crime attitude. The parliamentary secretary asked why we do not support all of their bills. I would like to take just a moment to talk about this tough on crime attitude, because this is an attitude that too often results in policies that are ripped from headlines.

At best, it is based on a faulty concept of deterrence and the idea that harsh sentences somehow deter crime. There is actually no imperial evidence to show that. The only way deterrence functions is when the investment is made at the front end of law enforcement. It is the certainty of being caught and the swiftness of prosecution that puts people off committing crimes.

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence. Obviously they are motivated by other social, economic and personal factors. If resources are put at the front end, we get better results. That is one reason this legislation looks a lot better to us than most of the bills that come forward from the Conservatives.

At worst, the tough on crime agenda appears to be based on little more than retribution, and retribution is not an effective approach to crime. Although it may make some people feel better for a short period of time, it results in policies that are expensive and that rarely show any positive results. In contrast, we in the NDP believe in evidence-based measures, which will help us build safer communities.

I am honestly pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-51 at second reading. We have seen a couple of hopeful signs from the Conservatives with this legislation, and also with Bill C-54, which deals with measures for those not criminally responsible. We have seen more consultation from the government on these two bills. We have seen more attention to evidence on these two bills than we have seen before. In this case, action is long overdue. We are glad that the government finally listened to stakeholders, as we have been asking it to do this since 2007.

In November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina repeated our call for action to expand eligibility for those going into the witness protection program. This is particularly important in the struggle against street gangs. The previous narrow definitions excluded them from the witness protection program. We and government members have heard from many community representatives, and from many law enforcement agencies, that to get co-operation to help break street gangs, inclusion of possible witnesses in this program would be very important.

Since 2007, the NDP has also specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better provision of services to those provincial programs, which is another positive measure we see in the bill.

We have always called for better overall funding for the program. I will come back to that question.

While we support what the bill attempts to do, which is improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government will refuse to commit any new funding. In fact, the minister said during the introduction of the bill that this would have to be funded from existing funds.

While there is no legislative flaw we can see at this point in the bill, which ensures that we will support it at second reading, we are concerned, because as I often like to say, the proof is in the funding. If we make these improvements, but law enforcement agencies do not have the funding they need to operate the program, we have not moved very far forward.

Whatever the improvements here, the demand that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will likely hinder the implementation of the proposed amendments and the improvements in the bill.

The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. When municipal departments, which are extensive across this country, try to make use of the program, they must reimburse the RCMP fully for the costs, which can be very high. This is an ongoing cost for them. Most of them have no provision in their budgets for making use of this program. It means, oftentimes, that front-line law enforcement officers have to make difficult choices, because they cannot get those who need protection into the program, because the funding is not available to support those individuals once they are in the program.

Again, the witness protection program is often crucial to getting the co-operation the front-line police need so that they can get convictions that will take key organized crime figures out of the community. If there were adequate funding, the same would be true for getting key witnesses to testify against street gang members to help break up those street gangs.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs, and for the low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. In 2012, 108 applications were considered for admission to the program, and, largely due to funding constraints, only 30 people were accepted.

What does that mean? It means 78 cases for which we might have been able to get a conviction and might have been able to make progress on organized crime, because that has been the focus of the program to this point. We did not get that because of inadequate resources.

There are some important improvements, as we acknowledge, in the bill. Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. This would be especially important for expediting getting new identity documents for those in provincial programs. Before, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this required transferring them to the federal program and transferring them back, with an enormous amount of bureaucratic time-wasting and cost. We are pleased to see that.

The expanded definition is important. In addition to including witnesses in street gang cases as possible entrants to the program, it would also expand the program to include agencies with national security responsibilities.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection. That is one of the key issues local law enforcement figures have raised. Sometimes people need to go into this program very quickly, and sometimes it takes a while before they can get into a more permanent situation. Extending that emergency protection is important.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of this program, including recognition of their existing programs. Again, the designation of programs and recognition of those programs is a positive feature of the bill.

For federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, both those that function under national defence and those that function under public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I will say in a minute why that has been a gap of very great concern in the past.

Because there is no direct reference to eligibility for the program for witnesses in street gang cases, many stakeholders have been concerned that street gang witnesses may not fit these new criteria. We are assured by the government that they will. We look forward to talking about this question in committee to make sure that this critical area is indeed covered by these changes to the witness protection program.

At committee I will be asking those questions to make sure that the federal government is truly committed to the inclusion of street gang, youth gang and national security witnesses in this program. This will be an important step toward building safer communities in Canada.

We believe that the bill addresses the key problems. There are still a few things it does not do. Again, we would like to talk about those in committee.

Bill C-51 does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as was recommended in the Air India inquiry report.

There is kind of a conflict of interest when the RCMP manages the program and also manages the investigations. It is able to use the incentive, I guess one would say, of the witness protection program to get co-operation, and then, later, it makes the decision about who is actually eligible to be in the witness protection program. The Air India inquiry report suggested that there should be an independent agency to make those decisions that involve the RCMP as both the investigating authority and the decision-making authority on who gets protection from the program.

When we look at national security, the inability to protect witnesses was a major obstacle to prosecutions in the Air India bombing case. That is why, in the report, there was a lot of attention given to the witness protection program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, publisher of the B.C.-based Indo-Canadian Times, was assassinated in 1998. This made the affidavit he had given the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence in the case.

I would say that Mr. Hayer was not a likely candidate to go into the witness protection program because he was a very brave individual. However, two additional witnesses, seeing what had happened to him and not being eligible to go into the witness protection program, refused to provide evidence to the RCMP or the Air India inquiry because of what they had seen happen to another witness who had provided information, and the fact that he was assassinated.

Justice Major, in his report, acknowledged that he felt unable, because of the restrictions in the witness protection program, to provide the protection that would be necessary for prosecution in the case of Air India.

The RCMP has also called for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees, a national support centre for the program, and has also supported the call for an external advisory board in their case to serve as a watchdog on the decisions being made.

We recognize that these are all potentially outside the scope of this bill, but I still think it is worth having a discussion in committee about some of the other things that the RCMP has said are necessary for the efficient operation of the witness protection program.

New Democrats believe that strengthening the program will improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence, and in doing so will help make our communities safer. It has a proven record of success in the fight against organized crime.

While the Conservatives have been slow to respond to this issue, and we on our part have been calling for these changes since 2007, we are pleased to see that the government has listened to the stakeholders in this case and brought in this new legislation to expand the program.

Bill C-51 does address key legislative concerns with regard to the witness protection program and therefore warrants our support. Despite our ongoing concerns about funding, the NDP recognizes that Bill C-51 still falls short on some key changes to the program, such as having a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Again, the Conservative government has ignored the important recommendations of the Air India inquiry with regard to this independent review of who is admissible into the program.

We do feel that Bill C-51 provides the basic legislative fix that we need. We will wait to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources to make it really count for local communities. As I often say and will say again, the proof is in the funding. Local police wish to make use of this program. They welcome these changes. They are waiting to get to work on some of the street and youth gang problems they have when this tool becomes available to them. However, it will not work if they do not have the funding at the local level.

At the public safety committee, we are doing a large study on the economics of policing. I think it has made all members of Parliament aware of the constant downloading of costs and responsibility onto police forces.

When we asked witnesses at committee what percentage of their calls for service were actually what people regard as crime, they responded that it was around 20%, saying that 80% of the time the police spend working on other issues. What that really means is that they are working on things like mental health, addictions, and all those other social problems of exclusion and marginalization. In our society we have made what I would call an unconscious decision that we will leave all those responsibilities to the police. One good sign of that, which we often see, is the difficulty of finding emergency social services, even in urban areas, after five o'clock. Who will one call after five o'clock when most people have their mental health and addiction crises? Those offices are closed.

The police become the agency called to deal with those problems. This is one of the huge, and probably the most important, cost drivers in policing. I know that the Minister of Public Safety suggested that police salaries were in fact a cost driver and that they took away resources from other things they needed. We on this side believe that the police who serve our communities as highly trained professionals need to be paid a fair, professional wage. We recognize that most of the time wages—and certainly in municipal and provincial departments—have been set through a process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, it not the police salaries that prevent resources being available for things like the witness protection program, but government budgets and all those other demands that we place on the police every day of the week.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the police are out in snowstorms doing all kinds of things that are not strictly fighting crime but providing emergency assistance to the public. I am looking forward to the work in committee not just on this bill but also on the study on the economics of policing to help find some ways to get the cost of policing under control by getting the focus back on building safer communities.

We in the NDP are committed to this concept. We need measures based on real evidence that will lead us toward solutions that make our communities safer. One way of doing this is through an improved witness protection program that helps keep our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs.

The parliamentary secretary talked about an expedited process. I want to again reassure her, as I did in the questions asked at the beginning, that on this side we are committed to getting this bill to committee as soon as we can, and giving it a high priority in committee and bringing in the witnesses we need to talk to as quickly as possible. We will not prolong the process beyond what is needed, because we know that local police forces are in fact waiting for this tool to be made available to them in order to do some very important work in community safety.

At this point, I am happy to conclude my remarks by saying that this is one case where the New Democrats believe that the government has listened to stakeholders and has consulted. It might be a little late, but we are pleased to see that it brought in this legislation, and we will be looking at the next budget to make sure that the resources that police forces need, particularly the RCMP, are there to ensure that this new and improved witness protection program can actually be used by those on the front line.

Justice

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. Canadians, particularly victims, are increasingly concerned about the potential for high-risk individuals being released into the community. It is not surprising, given that, according to the Department of Justice, between 1994 and 2004, there was a 50% increase in the number of review board admissions for those found not criminally responsible and unfit to stand trial. This is one of the reasons we have introduced Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. We are acting to ensure that public safety is given paramount consideration while giving a greater voice to victims. These are common sense reforms. I hope they have the support of all members of the House.