Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2009

Criminal Code

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I ask the question of the hon. member, I would like to thank him for his obviously very heartfelt and cogent comments. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for giving me the chance to clarify. I want to make it clear of course that he is correct. Clifford Olson was convicted before 1997 and so he is not exempted from the ability to apply. I clearly meant a Clifford Olson-type accused. Since 1997 a multiple murderer cannot apply under the faint hope clause, and so that should be. I am in agreement with that.

I campaigned for this office on a law and order campaign, and law and order for the environment. I find it incredulous that the party across the way would criticize my party and other parties for not believing in law and order. I sat in this House and watched while we passed important amendments to major Canadian federal environmental statutes to increase the penalties and yet, this government put forward a law so that lesser penalties would be applied to environmental infractions on Indian reserves. So, I think perhaps the other side is not very consistent in its law and order agenda either.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he could reply to this. It has occurred to me that under the faint hope clause it actually gives the opportunity for those who may have been victims of a crime to have the opportunity to come forward and speak again about whether or not they have second thoughts, whether or not they would like to welcome the accused back into their family, or the community impacted.

If we take away the faint hope clause, we take away the entire opportunity for forgiveness within the system and some kind of opportunity for the accused to actually come to the family of the victim or the community of the victim and at least speak to that matter.

I also wonder if the member could speak to the possibility that there may well be occasions where this faint hope clause actually gives the opportunity to at least be revisited, even if the decision remains the same and the prisoner remains in prison. We have to remember that it is a life sentence, but it is 25 years. There is nothing magical in the 25-year number, and it should be open for review by the community, by the jury, and by the court.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond more to the second part of the question. It seemed as though my colleague had not finished a debate with her Conservative neighbour opposite. I did not think that what she was saying had much to do with me. In fact, I even thought of leaving.

As for the second part of her question, I would say that, given that the system is adversarial, both sides can make their case. People have the opportunity to express their views, and the victims can be heard.

I would like to repeat what I said, which is that this second chance helps promote the reintegration of inmates. It also helps make them much more cooperative during their incarceration.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on his very pertinent remarks, which, I feel, clearly explain why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

In addition, my colleague pointed out that the Conservative Party's positions are very disconcerting. Perhaps he could speak to the issue of the Conservative Party's behaviour regarding the motion introduced in this House by the Bloc Québécois to proceed quickly with the vote on eliminating the possibility of parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. The opposition was berated again today in this House for not wanting to eliminate the possibility of parole after one-sixth of a sentence.

I would like my colleague to speak to this issue to show the people who are watching just how disingenuous the Conservatives' position is.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has one minute to respond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have become experts at the “outside the Church there is no salvation” approach. As I said earlier, if we do not agree with them, it means that we are the bad guys.

Once again, the Conservatives could have agreed to the quick passage of the bill regarding white collar criminals. When it comes to parliamentary rules, as long as it is not against public order and good morals, we can quickly pass any amendment by unanimous consent. That is what the Conservatives did not want to do for the bill regarding parole after one sixth of a sentence has been served, as in the Vincent Lacroix case.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver East has two or three minutes to make some comments on this bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to third reading of Bill C-36.

I spoke in the House at second reading and during that debate I expressed my very serious concerns about the principles of this bill and what it would do to our justice system. When the bill went back to committee, I know the NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, put forward some amendments to the bill that would improve the support and involvement of victims and family members. Unfortunately, those amendments were not allowed. Now the bill is back before the House at third reading. I must say the concerns that I and others have expressed here today not only remain but may be stronger than ever.

After listening to the debate today in the House, what really troubles me is that the response from the Conservative government on any problem or serious issue it sees in our society is that there always has to be a tougher sentence. Everything is answered in its mind and world as a tougher sentence.

What we are dealing with here is the justice system as a whole. I heard one of the Conservative members say that it seems to be all about the offender. No, it is not about the offender. It is about our justice system, whether we have balance in it and whether we are doing things that actually help rehabilitate people.

When people have committed crimes, are convicted and sent to prison, they are serving time for that crime, but it is also about rehabilitation. I really have not heard that word today on the Conservative side.

We are hearing in the debate today that there are many members who are very concerned about this bill because it is fundamentally going to change the kinds of balances we have in our justice system, and for that reason we are—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian and as a Canadian, I am outraged at the antics of the Conservative government on the very important issue of the proposed amendments to NAFO.

The government says it wants to vet international agreements in the House, yet it has pulled every trick in the book to ensure that debate on the changes to NAFO do not get debated, discussed, questioned or reviewed. What kind of democracy do the Conservatives think we have? What is the government trying to hide?

On 14 separate occasions, the Liberals have demanded an open discussion in the House and the Conservatives have said no. In committee, the Liberals moved to defeat the proposed amendments only to have the NDP and the Conservatives in agreement to call more witnesses instead. Obviously, the NDP members have yet to make up their minds on all of this.

A distinguished group of former DFO senior executives with extensive experience took the unusual action of speaking out and calling the proposed Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization amendments tabled in the House by the Conservative government “a sell-out of Canadian interests”.

The government has a string of broken promises. Since forming government, the Prime Minister has broken promises to Canadians in several ways. No province is more aware of this than the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government has demonstrated time and time again that it does not keep its promises to Canadians, whether it is not to raise taxes, not to run a deficit, on equalization, on 5 Wing Goose Bay, or to protect Canadian fisheries.

The proposed amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization are yet another example of the government's broken promises. It promised custodial management and strong action to protect the fish stocks off our coast, but instead it has tabled in the House a series of changes that, if ratified, would leave our country in a considerably weakened position. Yet again, with this broken promise, we see the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador being the victims of the government's inability to keep its commitments and to fulfill its promises.

Claims are being made by the Conservatives that the new NAFO convention rules will be beneficial. They have been contradicted time and time again by expert witnesses appearing in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I cannot imagine the rationale for the Government of Canada committing to an agreement that gives foreign interests control of our own fish stocks, thereby undermining our sovereign rights by giving other nations the right to impose their management rules inside Canada's 200-mile limit.

These proposed amendments, if ratified, could be detrimental to the ability of Canada to protect and conserve its fishery resources and NAFO's ability to provide for conversion of the fish stocks of the Northwest Atlantic.

It is unimaginable that we would leave any of Canada's resources vulnerable to foreign interests. If Canada loses its ability to control what goes on in its own waters, we are indeed opening ourselves up for the “largest handover of Canadian sovereignty in history”, as one critic said in reviewing the situation.

Newfoundland and Labrador has been clear in its objections to the NAFO amendments. The municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador unanimously passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed NAFO amendments at its recent conference.

I ask the parliamentary secretary, if the government has any understanding of the seriousness of this issue, why did it cut off debate today and at every opportunity raised by Liberal members in the House? The government and minister have refused to a full and open debate, and I ask him why? What is he hiding?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member. I really think she has her facts wrong on this, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct some of them.

The previous government, the party which she represents, had no policy at all about bringing any kind of international agreements, like the one we are discussing today, before Parliament. It was our government that put in place the requirement to table before Parliament, for a minimum of 21 sitting days, these international agreements, and we did that. We did this back in June and allowed 21 sitting days for her party to do whatever it wanted during that time.

The committee decided it needed to hear more witnesses on this and the government added an additional 21 days. During that time, the Liberals did not use a single opportunity of an opposition day to discuss this. It was their opportunity to do that if they really felt strong about it and they did not take it.

We are talking about NAFO reform. The amendments to this convention are part of the reform, but it is bigger than that and it has gone on for a number of years, since 2006. We understand the importance of the fisheries, especially for people on the east coast. It is worth billions to our economy, and it is particularly significant for Newfoundland and Labrador.

NAFO has been around since 1978, but it has changed a lot since then as have the fisheries, so there is a requirement to do some work on this convention. After 30-some years, NAFO members agreed that it was time to modernize the organization. We know we have to be forward-looking and to give ourselves the modern, decision-making tools required to deal with the contemporary problems we face.

Probably one of the most important things we did, and it is outside of these amendments, and we were able to do without changing the convention was make improvements to our monitoring, control and enforcement. The reform finally gave NAFO the teeth it had always lacked.

Vessels that committed serious infringements, such as misreporting of catch or fishing for moratorium species, would now be ordered to return to port immediately for a full inspection. An early return to port is a harsh penalty in and of itself, given the exorbitant costs associated with outfitting a vessel for a lengthy fishing trip and the lost fishing possibilities. The vessel would also be subject to penalties imposed by its own country for the infringements it had committed. This has borne fruit. The number of serious violations has dropped significantly in recent years from 13 in 2005, 7 in 2006, 1 in 2007 and zero in 2008.

We have also heard questions, and my colleague has raised this, about whether Canada is effectively protecting its sovereign rights under this amended convention. Let me be very clear. The amended convention protects Canadian sovereignty over the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Under the amended convention, it is clear that Canada will control the process of establishing measures in its own waters. NAFO measures will not apply in Canadian waters unless two conditions are met: first, the Canadian government requests the measure; and second, Canada's NAFO delegation votes to adopt it.

Our sovereignty over the 200 mile limit is also guaranteed in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and in customary international law.

We look forward to the next NAFO annual meeting, where we will have the opportunity to help the organization move forward on its commitments. In the meantime, we think the amendments to the convention are a good thing. They benefit Canada's interests and they should be ratified.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, the outrage being felt in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador right now is palpable.

Yes, the agreement was tabled before Parliament and was given 21 sitting days. Yet at every turn, every opportunity and over the 14 times the Liberal Party tried to get this debated, discussed, reviewed and questioned in the House of Commons, we were unable to do so. The Conservative stopped every opportunity.

Yes, we did bring witnesses before committee and the witnesses agreed that this was very serious. We have had senior executives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have had those who have retired, those who are experts in NAFO, say, “This is a sell-out of Canadian interests”. Then we have others saying that it is the largest handover of Canadian sovereignty.

How can the government pretend that this is a good thing for Canada when it is not?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleague to actually read the testimony from the committee and she will find that she is misinformed. In fact if she looks at the data, she will find out that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was part of the delegation that was looking at the amended convention and that right up until this last summer, it was onside with this. We do not know what changed its mind. Perhaps it has something to do with some political issues. In any case, she might also want to talk to industry representatives in her province. She will find they are pretty unanimous in their opinion that this is good for their industry, good for the stocks, good for Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we agree with them.

She might also want to talk to the legal experts who told us that as far as they can tell, there is certainly nothing to be concerned about with this, that it is actually good for Canada and it is an advancement and probably going to be the best--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, on September 14, 2009, I asked a supplementary question in this House directed at the Prime Minister, regarding a closed-door speech he had made and that had been recorded.

In the speech that the Prime Minister gave, he said that “judges are left-wing ideologues”; he also referred to women fighting for equality as “left-wing fringe groups”.

During question period, I said that women are not marginal left-wing groups, and that the judiciary and judicial discretion are very important.

The Prime Minister in that closed-door speech also made this point speaking about the Conservative Party, “If we do not win a majority this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists”.

This is another quote: “This country cannot afford a government like that. If they force us to the polls, if they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson”.

This is another quote: “Imagine how many left-wing idealogues they would be putting in the courts, federal institutions, agencies, the Senate. I should say, how many more, they would be putting in.”

This is another quote: “Instead of...subsidizing lawyers to bring forth court challenges by left-wing fringe groups, we have been bringing in laws...” and then he goes on to laud himself and his party.

These so-called fringe groups and left-wing idealogues are people who brought court challenges based on equality rights and language rights that are guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution. One has only to look at the issue of the Montfort Hospital.

Because of the court challenges program, which was abolished by the Conservative Prime Minister as one of his first actions after coming into power, the Montfort Hospital, here in Ontario, is still open.

If we look at the issue of women's equality rights, it is because there was a court challenges program that an ordinary female worker who is not unionized but who is suffering gender discrimination has been able to bring a pressing case before the courts and has been able to win on that. It is the same thing for the issue of gay and lesbian rights.

We see a government that closed 12 of the 16 Status of Women offices on April 1, 2006. There are only four regional offices now, rather than sixteen. We see a government that has abolished the court challenges program. Under pressure from ordinary Canadians, the Conservatives brought in some milquetoast program that is a faint shadow of the court challenges program.

I would challenge the Prime Minister and the Conservative government to cease and desist with their ideology, which they use to attack those who do not agree with them.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, in the initial question there was not a lot of substantive content and some of it was not in the appropriate context. In trying to make something out of nothing and taking a position without regard to the big picture in what we have done as a government there was a lot of bluster there. However, I would like to clarify some things.

Our Conservative government was elected after Canadians were fed up with 13 years of arrogance, a culture of entitlement, the Liberal government in it for itself, not listening to the Canadian people, nor addressing those needs that they wanted.

The Liberals had a remarkable disdain for Canadian sensibilities with their sponsorship scandal. I would point out that some of the moneys taken from Canadians who paid their taxes and used for purposes that Canadians would not approve of, have not yet been recovered

The Liberals were soft on crime and corruption, soft on ethics and respect for Canadians, but hard on law-abiding citizens and those Canadian men and women in the armed forces who needed more support, better equipment and more funding.

Canadians elected a Conservative government because they wanted to. They are happy and pleased with the actions we have taken. We have taken actions with respect to the economy with our economic action plan. Canadians support our actions to help unemployed workers. They support our efforts to help self-employed Canadians.

The Liberal members of her party walked away and turned their backs on unemployed Canadians and when we finally put forward legislation to help long tenured workers by extending benefits from five to twenty weeks, the Liberal members voted against that provision in order to force an election that no Canadian wanted. It is an election that no one wants. They wanted it for themselves and for their own benefit.

I wonder what they might say to the 190,000 Canadians. They voted against specific benefits in a narrow bill to help long tenured workers. I do not understand how they would do that.

Canadians support our stronger, more principled foreign policies. They support our efforts to properly fund and equip our men and women in uniform. They support our efforts to get tough on crime and criminals. They appreciate our respect for hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers.

The actions of the Liberal Party have fallen flat with Canadians. Canadians are aware that the Liberals want an election only because of their self-interest and not because of those regular Canadians who look forward to legislation being passed.

Canadians wanted the Liberal Party to work with our government to come up with solutions for the unemployed over the summer but that did not happen. Thankfully, we were able to get other members of the opposition to support that legislation so we could get it through.

We are putting forward legislation for the self-employed. I cannot imagine the Liberal Party voting for that as well. They are simply out of touch with Canadians and with what Canadians need.

Our Prime Minister and our Conservative government did not need to impose any sort of agenda on Canadians. Canadians support our Prime Minister and they support the direction we are taking. They support the goods things we are doing.

On this side of the House, we intend to continue to give Canadians good government that they can support. The evidence is there. They see that we are in favour of getting things done for everyday ordinary Canadians, the hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes and who expect their government to take their interest into account and not the government's own interest.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what the member has to say about his government attempting to cover up the allegations that Canadian soldiers handed over Afghan detainees to torture at the hands of the Afghan authorities.

We had testimony from a reputable diplomat who was promoted following his experience in Afghanistan. What we have had to listen to in the House for this past week and a half is the Minister of National Defence and his lackeys, and that is what I will call them, trying to smear that diplomat's credibility, reputation and intelligence. This is from a government that said that it would protect whistleblowers.

It now has a whistleblower on its hands and what is it doing? It is attacking that whistleblower. It is trying to smear his reputation and, in so doing, it is trying to intimidate other potential witnesses.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, that member certainly goes wherever she might want to. She strayed quite far from her original question, so it is difficult to respond. However, I will say this. We will stand behind the men and women of our Canadian armed forces whose job it is to protect us and our society as we know it.

Everyone knows that we are doing the right thing. We are doing what Canadians think is important. Canadians believe that our government is on the right track. They support our Prime Minister, our Conservative government and the direction we are taking. They do not support the Liberal agenda.

We are interested in an agenda that puts Canadians first, not the Liberal Party or Liberal members, but Canadians. Our agenda is responsible, principled, respectful of the hard work of Canadians and mindful of the proper place of government in their lives. We are working on things that matter to Canadians, such as getting tough on crime, a principled foreign policy—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage investigated Telefilm Canada in 2007. No action was taken following the investigation's report, and absolutely nothing was done about its findings, which have never been made public.

I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage if the government could release the findings of the investigation into Telefilm Canada. The minister replied that Telefilm Canada has since changed how it operates. I believe him. Indeed, I think Telefilm has seen some major changes. That is why I am talking about Telefilm at that time. The minister told me that the report I was referring to was in the government's hands and that they were taking the necessary steps to look after taxpayers' needs.

I have no problem with that. I understand the minister plans to table the report's findings. I would like to know when. When will the minister table the findings of that report?

However, new facts were brought to light recently. For example, we recently learned that in 2002 the President of Telefilm, Charles Bélanger, decided on his own initiative to pay thousands of dollars in grants to Cinar, which was accused and recently found guilty of infringing Claude Robinson's copyright. We realize that the matter is currently being appealed. Nevertheless, the company was found guilty.

In 2002, Charles Bélanger, president of Telefilm Canada, decided on his own initiative to pay thousands of dollars in grants to Cinar, which was in hot water at the time. Cinar was accused of fraud and of using fictitious authors to obtain government grants, which it then used improperly.

What is troubling in this affair is that, at that time, Charles Bélanger's spouse co-owned Teletoon with Cinar.

Given the new information revealed since Cinar's recent admissions—and accusations—why is the government not reopening the Cinar inquiry? Why is it refusing to shed light on the matter? Why is it not making the information behind all of these inquiries public? Why has it not launched an inquiry into the inquiry? Why was this inquiry halted halfway? Who shut down this inquiry so that nobody would find out the truth, so the facts would never come out? Who did that, and why?

This is quite disturbing. This matter has always been disturbing. It tainted the previous government, the Liberal government, which was in power when the inquiry was halted. Now the Conservative government is trying to cover something up, or seems to be covering for someone or something or some situation that does not look good.

That was the question we had at the time. Who is the government trying to cover for? And in addition to finding out who the government was trying to cover for, we want to know why the government is not being transparent and why it is not giving us all the facts about the inquiry. Why is it not making the results of the inquiry public, and why is it not holding an inquiry into the inquiry to find out why the Liberal government at the time halted it?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member on this question.

As the member made it abundantly clear, the allegations that she and other Bloc members are making around this issue occurred under the previous Liberal government. The issue around CINAR and the RCMP investigation that occurred at Telefilm occurred under the previous Liberal government's watch. There were findings made at that time and recommendations subsequently have been made to the minister.

The member well knows that this Conservative government has no interest whatsoever in covering up any Liberal misappropriations of government funds. In fact, we would like to get to the bottom of it.

The first action we undertook when we became government was to introduce the Federal Accountability Act to clean up those types of issues. The sponsorship scandal, for example, was a flagrant misuse and abuse of taxpayers' money. In committee I have used the word “crime”, because I believe that the money taken from Canadians did reflect criminality, but unfortunately, there has been no finding of crime by members of the previous government. That is unfortunate.

I did bring a motion to the ethics committee last week. The Bloc members did not support that motion. I wanted to know where the missing funds are, more than $43 million of the more than $360 million in sponsorship scandal money, or adscam money, that was taken. I want to know and I want to know who is responsible. I want to know who in the prime minister's office decided to write the cheques. Justice Gomery talked about that. He called it an elaborate kickback scheme that ran from the Liberal prime minister's office of the day. I would like to know who made those decisions.

I would like to know which Liberal riding associations in Quebec ultimately benefited from that, and by extension, the members that those riding associations represented, but the Bloc did not support me on that last week. I wish the Bloc would have supported me because I would like to get to the truth on that. I am not done. I will keep working to try to shine the light on that issue because I do think Canadians need to know.

I do want to talk a little about Telefilm, because CINAR was funded through Telefilm, which is an arm's-length body. Since the member has afforded me that opportunity, I want to talk about the value of Telefilm because it is important.

Telefilm was created in 1967, more than 40 years ago. The company's mission is to foster and encourage the development of the audio-visual industry in Canada. As a cultural investor, the company contributes financially to the health of a community by sharing the risks and revenues of production selected by a rigorous process. The revenue generated by its investments in the production are then reinvested into new productions.

Telefilm supports Canadian businesses and creators, ensuring Canadian voices are heard and accessed. The company is not only a cultural investor in leading Canadian film, television and new media, but it is also a promoter which promotes the growth of a Canadian audio-visual industry of international significance.

Through the Canadian feature film fund administered by Telefilm Canada, the Government of Canada provided approximately $90 million in 2008-09. This fund supports the development, production, distribution and marketing of Canadian feature films. We have seen many successes on this front recently, from Passchendaele, De père en flic, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, Cruising Bar 2, Trailer Park Boys, Les 3 p'tit cochons, Nitro and Away From Her, to co-productions such as Eastern Promises, Silent Hill and L'Âge des ténèbres.

Last year alone, more than 40 feature films were created thanks to this fund, and it triggered financing from other public and private sector sources.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not denying the usefulness of funding for Telefilm Canada. That has nothing to do with it. I recognize that Telefilm Canada does excellent work and that it needs even more money, especially to pursue co-productions and to resume leadership in the field with respect to other countries. I will take advantage of the parliamentary secretary's presence here to get that message across.

The parliamentary secretary says he wants to know who made the decision in the sponsorship scandal. My question is about the matter before us. Who made the decision to stop the investigation into Cinar and what are the findings of that investigation?

In answering my last question, the minister admitted that a report was about to be released. When will that be?

Everything the parliamentary secretary is saying about the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is very interesting, but he really should answer the question.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member finds it interesting. I hope that when I bring the same motion to another committee, the member will encourage her colleagues to support me so that we can shine a light on finding out exactly who was responsible for cutting the ad scam cheques and which Liberal riding associations in Quebec received taxpayers' money illegitimately. I believe that was a substantial crime.

The minister has indicated that there was a report made to the minister's predecessor in the department. Those recommendations have been implemented and we will be happy to table in the House and provide to the member the changes we have made to ensure the good stewardship of funds.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:01 p.m.)