Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2013

Procedure and House Affairs

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that our separate report is a supplementary opinion, not a dissenting one, so the final words of my hon. friend were exactly right in that this is building on a very good committee process.

I rise today as the member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth and as the official opposition critic for democratic and parliamentary reform to speak on the study by Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding parliamentary privilege and how access to information requests should be handled.

Access to information is a crucial aspect of a well-functioning democracy. That is rather obvious. This spring, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, known as PROC, studied how to proceed with the disclosure of parliamentary documents under the Access to Information Act. During the study, the NDP members of PROC sought to ensure that parliamentary privilege would not be used as a kind of cloak, ultimately, for government secrecy.

My NDP colleagues and I felt that the committee report should go just a bit further than it did. We are concurring in the report, but this is a supplementary opinion. We felt it should go a bit further than just defining Parliament's constitutional privilege and prescribing administrative solutions for the House's voluntary disclosure of documents. Rather, we thought it necessary to supplement the report by outlining the options to improve the interaction of parliamentary privilege and access to information as presented to us by various witnesses during the study, including the Information Commissioner.

In our supplementary opinion, we stressed that the exercise of Parliament's discretion to disclose documents should be weighted in favour of disclosure to the public. We clearly indicated that while we recognized that there is indeed a constitutional protection for the privileges of the House of Commons, we also believe this does not mean that the House or the Senate should automatically assert itself over another quasi-constitutional right, namely that of access to information.

It is no doubt partly because of freedom of information's connections to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and perhaps also the fact that international human rights treaties applicable to Canada protect freedom of information as part of the right to freedom of expression—for example, article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—that Parliament ascribed certain characteristics to the Access to Information Act that led the Supreme Court of Canada to determine that the act is a quasi-constitutional statute.

Therefore, while the constitutional right of the House and its committees over their parliamentary proceedings is unquestionable, the NDP believes that a more transparent and functional approach could be taken by parliamentary committees in their dealings with third party notices, as they are called, under the Access to Information Act without compromising parliamentary privilege.

We also indicated in our supplementary opinion that the House should pursue, as a matter of some priority, amendments to the Access to Information Act to more clearly set out what documents are encompassed by privilege and what definition of parliamentary privilege or elements of parliamentary privilege should be added to statute law, ideally to the Parliament of Canada Act.

With respect to amendments to the Access to Information Act, New Democrats believe that due to the differing interpretations of existing law and constitutional norms presented by witnesses for the study—in particular, how they interact—the House should consider amending the Access to Information Act to include a new discretionary exemption for parliamentary privilege. This would be consistent with the recommendations of the 1987 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General entitled “Open and Shut: Enhancing the Right to Know and the Right to Privacy” as well as the 2002 task force report entitled “Access to Information: Making it Work for Canadians”.

Other Westminster systems, it is important to note, have similar exemptions in place where such an amendment would prevent costly legal battles and provide a statutory basis for the House of Commons to act. Such an exemption would also prevent government institutions from using parliamentary privilege in a way that would exclude their own documents. Without a statutory provision and with an overly broad interpretation of privilege, government departments may try to exempt or exclude information that relates to Parliament. This could include, as small examples, the question period cards, the ministers' briefing notes for officials who have been asked to appear before committees, or even observations about what has happened in Parliament.

The history of the Access to Information Act in Canada shows that even minor exceptions or exclusions will be interpreted in an overly broad way without clear language in the statute and without political leadership that favours disclosure over secrecy. It would be important that such an exemption be discretionary, meaning that access could be granted by the House. Most important, as I have already said, is that the exercise of discretion should be weighted in favour of disclosure to the public.

In conclusion, let me comment that the study was indeed illuminating and educational for all members of the committee. As our chair noted on several occasions, every point brought up by witnesses seemed to raise more questions. We certainly agree.

As we stated in our supplementary opinion last spring, we considered the study to be only the beginning of a discussion on the subject of access to information and the Parliament of Canada. There must be ways for Parliament to modernize and provide greater transparency to the public.

The opposition also has a responsibility to suggest remedies, and people know that they can count on us to propose practical solutions.That is why, just a few weeks ago, the NDP announced a practical plan in regard to the Access to Information Act with respect to protecting Canadians' right to know. We understand that comprehensive reforms are needed, so we are asking the government to agree to table immediately, or at least as soon as possible, changes to the Access to Information Act to accomplish three things.

First, Parliament must give the commissioner order-making powers to make sure that the commissioner has real teeth to enforce the act.

Second, the Access to Information Act should allow the Information Commissioner to look at cabinet documents so that this cannot be used to shield documents that should be released. The current blanket exclusion of cabinet confidences is being abused. Evidence suggests that any document the government does not want released is all too often classified as a cabinet confidence, whether it is truly so or not.

Under current legislation, the Information Commissioner does not have the power to review these documents to determine whether that classification is justified. Making cabinet confidences exempt rather than excluded from the act would allow the commissioner to verify that the requested documents truly are cabinet confidences and to order their release if they are not.

Third, Parliament should extend the Access to Information Act to cover the administration of the House of Commons and the Senate. This was recommended in many past reviews of the act and is one of the core recommendations we received from the Information Commissioner. Combined with our commitment to make a more detailed system of MP reporting of expenses available by default, this would open up Parliament and give Canadians the transparency they deserve, and most importantly, the transparency they want.

I encourage all members to take a look at the NDP's dissenting report, tabled today, on the subject.

While steps have been taken in terms of the greater release of information on spending by the House of Commons and also in terms of Internet access to committee proceedings, more must be done. I am going to give one example that I will freely admit is almost a bee in my bonnet. For example, the digitization of government answers to order paper questions has not yet resulted in online searchability of these answers. This could be a useful next step for transparency.

To conclude, parliamentary privilege is important in protecting freedom of speech for members of Parliament and in protecting them from intimidation, but when it is used to hide information the public would expect to be available, its invocation becomes a detriment to the standing of Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few words on the record with respect to the report, but I would also make reference to a report brought forward today.

Canadians have a growing expectation of their parliamentarians. They want to see more accountability. They want to see more transparency. The report we are making reference to today allows more clarity on the issue.

We have had the first report, since being prorogued, of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It was about the Board of Internal Economy. There is a Liberal Party supplement expressing our concerns. One of the critical concerns was about in-camera meetings. This is something we have seen in a wide variety of committees, and it has a profound impact on the Auditor General, or anyone else, in terms of access to what actually transpires at a particular meeting. Arguing for transparency and accountability, that is the reason, almost without exception, the Board of Internal Economy should not have in-camera meetings.

Another aspect we talked about was an independent commissioner who would deal with issues such as appeals and pay and benefits.

With regard to the report we are dealing with today, I understand that it deals strictly with access to information requests. It came up as a result of a request when the House was in recess. We found that there was a need for PROC to deal with the important issue of how and what we can see released.

There were four points, which the government representative referred to. I, too, would like to make some reference to them.

The first deals with public and accessible documents. Whenever there is a standing committee, of whatever nature, a considerable amount of information is made available and it is for the public record. One would anticipate that if there were a request for that information, it would be made available.

The second point is the issue of in-camera documents. Because there are so many restrictions in terms of receiving information discussed at in-camera meetings, we have to do what we can to minimize the number of in-camera meetings that take place.

What we have found is that the current government, more than any other prior government, has a tendency to go in camera as often as it possibly can. When that occurs, as we will see through the recommendations in this report, it is almost impossible to get any form of information, even through access to information requests.

The third point is that when we have meetings that are not in camera, and a presentation is made, sometimes those presentations have an addendum that is circulated to members of Parliament. Because of the secretive nature of the attachment, there may be a valid argument that in certain situations, the sensitivity of that particular file warrants the entire document not being released, even though it was for public standing committee meeting.

Fourth, there are occasions when we see documents prepared by government institutions for parliamentary proceedings, but they are never presented or submitted. I have experienced that first-hand, when for any number of reasons, the presentation was never made, and the information being made available for the committee members was quite substantial. I have had the opportunity to use some of that information. It was meant to be public, and we believe that there is merit in it being released.

We recognize the importance of parliamentary privilege. At the end of the day, we believe that the report is positive. There is not a dissenting report from the Liberal Party, although we share some of the concerns expressed by the New Democratic Party.

I would conclude my remarks by emphasizing how critically important it is that we recognize that we need to see more transparency and more accountability in government. One of the ways we can ensure that is to minimize the number of in camera meetings that take place. In camera meetings are necessary in certain situations, but the government has been far too dependent on them. We call upon the government to recognize that the more we can avoid in camera meetings, the better off we will be as an institution, and ultimately, Canadians will win.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to add my few words on behalf of the Liberal Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to join the discussion on the recently tabled report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I want to start by thanking all of the recognized political parties for doing something unprecedented, at least it appears unprecedented from my research. In the closing days of our session at the end of June, in negotiating our slightly early adjournment, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre took the role of negotiating on behalf of the Conservatives, the House leader for the official opposition and so on and they agreed with a proposal I made to them.

It is a real concern for members of recognized parties in the House, such as the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, who do not have 12 members and therefore are not included as members of the Board of Internal Economy. It is also an interest for members who are truly independent members and not associated with political parties, such as the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert and the member for Ahuntsic. In the case of all of us as a group, we have no more idea of what goes on in the Board of Internal Economy than a member of the media or anybody in the general public.

Those meetings that are in camera can be reported back to the caucuses of the three larger parties, Conservatives, the New Democrats and Liberals, but for those of us who sit either in smaller parties or as independents, we do not have any knowledge of what transpires and how decisions are made.

However, all of us collectively achieved something quite remarkable for which I want to thank the members of the larger recognized parties. We were allowed to participate in the discussions that took place and the specific hearings of the Board of Internal Economy within the committee on House and procedural affairs, and we have tabled our own report. This is again an unprecedented achievement because the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party, the member for Ahuntsic, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert and the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North do not always see eye to eye on everything, but we did agree on some key points. The member for Edmonton—St. Albert agreed on all but one point with us.

Our report appears as an addendum and in essence it is this.

We do not believe the status quo is acceptable. We do not think the Canadian public is any longer prepared to accept that there are areas that take place in the dark and nobody in the public ever has access to know what decisions are being made. The Canadian public has a right to expect full accountability, transparency and good governance from those of us in this place.

Personally, I have been posting all my expenses online from the day I had the honour of being elected as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. That is what should be done. I know there are arguments from some in the House that we need to have it become uniform. This report presented by the smaller parties and independent members puts forward a solution on which I would like to touch.

We think we need to “democratize”, because it was basically the evidence from the former Speaker of the House, the Hon. John Fraser and our current Clerk, Audrey O'Brien, that we should have a democratizing of the process. We differ on how that might work out.

Rob Walsh, the former law clerk and parliamentary counsel to this place, offered a suggestion that one way to democratize the Board of Internal Economy would be to have a member of the public sit as a member of that committee. Our position as a group of independent members of Parliament, Bloc Québécois members and Green Party is why not start with having a representative of those of us in this situation.

We are elected members of Parliament who now have no access whatsoever to the Board of Internal Economy. In fact, once the Board of Internal Economy makes a decision in camera, we only find out what the decision is, but we have no access to the thought process, competing policy solutions that were considered and why the Board of Internal Economy made one decision over another.

We also think it would be very wise to continue the work with the Auditor General to find ways to publish more information. The obvious way to provide all the information with full transparency is to go to the House administration.

The House administration, in order to reimburse members, already has to receive original receipts of everything. Therefore, it is not complicated to put together the package of all information on how money is spent by members. In order to reimburse us, the House administration has that information and would just be required to put it online.

The one place our group felt that it would be important to suppress some of that information was in relation to Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner's concern. We should probably ensure that if we have had meetings with individuals and constituents, that their personal information of having met with us not be published. Obviously, lobbying is already covered under the Lobbying Act. This would be just to protect privacy concerns of people who may have been meeting with their members of Parliament and would not want to be caught up in us reporting on our expenses, which we must properly do from here. It is something where we are beginning to see a gathering and growing consensus.

The other piece was the Green Party submission to this report. It was the only area where my hon. colleague, who really is honourable, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, did not want to agree with this, and I accept that. I am very pleased that the Bloc Québécois, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North and the member for Ahuntsic did agree with me.

It is that there is a lot more that goes on in the Board of Internal Economy than just approving our expenses and looking at issues of financing. The governance of this place as an institution takes place at the Board of Internal Economy. It deals with questions, such as an initiative of the former Speaker of the House, John Fraser, which was called the “Greening of the Hill”. Under his tenure, they got rid of the use of herbicides on the lawns, they put forward a rule that one was not allowed to idle their car on Parliament Hill and the House only use 100% post-consumer paper products. These rules are slipping away and I do not know quite why. Certainly cars idle on the Hill all the time not all the paper is any longer 100% post consumer. We should have ways, as members of this place, to make our views known and to insist on higher levels of ecological performance in this place.

I am also concerned about the social responsibility. What kind of employers are we here? I think most members are surprised to learn that so much of our staff here are not only low waged, but their employment is very tenuous. For example, the serving staff in cafeterias and the dining room and the drivers. When we are not here, they are laid off. They have no job security, but we expect them to come back. We expect them to be here when we resume. Much like seasonal workers across Canada, they are also disadvantaged by changes to the Employment Insurance Act. They have a hard time going on EI. They are laid off at Christmas, for Heaven's sake. I feel badly about this, but I cannot get access to that decision making unless I have some access to argue the point before the Board of Internal Economy. It makes the decisions.

We believe that we should continue with the Board of Internal Economy, but we should improve it. We should have an eye to possibly going in the direction of the U.K. parliament and having an independent body. However, at this point, let us see what we can improve through greater transparency, greater accountability and access for all members of this place to know how and why we are governed collectively the way we are. To do that, we need to open up the Board of Internal Economy, not just to greater transparency around our expenses, but to have an opportunity for every member of Parliament to have some access to know what is going on in the Board of Internal Economy, to make presentations to it and participate as fully as is possible within the constraints of efficient management of the House of Commons.

Again, I am indebted to the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and I want to thank all recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats, and particularly the committee chair of the House committee on procedure and House affairs for accommodating this innovative process that allowed members in my position to participate actively in the hearings on this matter on the committee and in the drafting of the report.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to an order made Thursday, November 28, the motion is deemed adopted on division.

(Motion agreed to)

Sambro Island Lighthouse

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today with hundreds of signatures, from my riding and Canadians across the country, to create a strategy for the preservation of the Sambro Island lighthouse.

The petitioners ask the government to commit to the preservation of the site, which is the oldest operating lighthouse in the Americas. They request that responsibility for the lighthouse be placed with the correct federal department, if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can no longer maintain it, and that an annual budget for the maintenance of the lighthouse and surrounding structures be established.

I look forward to the minister's response on this.

Navigable Waters Protection Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from people who are concerned about the Navigable Waters Protection Act. They are ask that the Government of Canada to assume its responsibility to protect the public's right to navigation and to guarantee continued right of navigation on all of Canada's lakes and rivers, not just the ones that are specifically listed in the new act.

I look forward to the minister's response to this as well.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first petition is an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The petitioners remind the government that Cowichan River on Vancouver Island in recent years has experienced dangerously low water levels. This situation poses a significant health risk to salmon stocks.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Motion No. 495 to reinsert the Cowichan River into the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Genetically Modified Foods

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House of Commons to support Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).

Gasoline Prices

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the government to do something about the overcharging on gasoline in Canada.

The petitioners call for the implementation of meaningful protection for consumers of gasoline in Canada and to augment the existing inspection regime and that the government create an oil and gas ombudsman with power to monitor the oil and gas industry to ensure consumers are be protected.

Privacy

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by many of my constituents. The petitioners are calling on all members of the House of Commons to support Bill C-475.

They are very worried about the fact that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act has not been updated since 2000.

Given that technology has changed dramatically since then, the legislation no longer adequately protects Canadians against the risks that are present in the digital age.

House of Commons

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward a petition that was provided to me and signed by a number of constituents in Winnipeg North.

The petitioners are quite upset with the fact that the government has chosen to increase the size of the House of Commons, realizing that both the New Democrats and the Conservatives want to see more politicians in Canada. They are upset with that and that is the reason why they signed the petition.

Falun Dafa and Falun Gong

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this afternoon.

The first petition has to do with human rights, particularly in China.

The petitioners are from Ajax and Toronto. They call for the Government of Canada to do everything it can to protect the rights of people who practise Falun Dafa and Falun Gong, who find themselves imprisoned in the People's Republic of China, and to push for greater protections for them, particularly as they attempt to flee to Canada as refugees.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of climate change and is signed by residents of my riding, particularly from Salt Spring Island, but also from Vancouver, Guelph as well Toronto.

The petitioners call on the House to work toward putting in place the limits required by science for much more rapid reduction of greenhouse gases, particularly to the levels that were once passed by the House, under former Bill C-311, to reduce greenhouse gases by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This the least we should be doing.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 35 and 45.

Question No. 35

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With regard to government‘s funding for tourism, and the return on investment which this funding produces, what is the estimated economic multiplier for spending by (a) the Canadian Tourism Commission; and (b) other departments on tourism-related projects, in terms of (i) government revenues, (ii) Gross Domestic Product?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a)(i) and (a)(ii), the Canadian Tourism Commission, or CTC, provides annual estimates of its economic indicators, which can be found in its annual report. The Canadian Tourism Commission does not provide an estimate of the impact of its programming on GDP.

With regard to (b)(i), the Government of Canada supports a strong tourism industry through targeted programs and services. In 2009-2010, the federal government contributed over $827 million to various programs, projects, and activities that had a direct impact on tourism. In 2010-2011, the contribution reached over $939 million.

Overall, tourism in Canada generated $21.4 billion for governments in 2011, up 6.6% from 2010. Tourism exports generated by international travelers’ spending in Canada contributed $4.7 billion to government revenues in 2011, representing 21.8% of total government revenues attributable to tourism. The source for this information is the document entitled Government Revenues Attributable to Tourism, or GRAT, from Statistics Canada.

With regard to (b)(ii), the tourism sector plays a vital role in our economy and is an important economic driver and community builder in all regions of Canada. In 2012, tourism activities directly accounted for $32.4 billion of Canada's GDP, an increase of 3.8% over 2011 in current dollars. Tourism represents about 2% of Canada’s GDP.

Question No. 45

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

With regard to the recent sale of crown land owned by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), in the amount of 1,554.48 square meters, located on Frontenac Institute in Kingston, Ontario: (a) who is the purchaser; (b) what is the purchase price; (c) what is the closing date of the transaction; (d) what were all the measures taken to respect the Commissioner’s Directive for Real Property for CSC, in particular the statement, under Principles, that “acquisition and disposal of real property assets will be done in a fair and open manner, which shall include public consultation”; (e) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and the purchaser; (f) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties who expressed interest but ultimately did not purchase the land; (g) who signed the agreement; (h) under what authority; (i) on what date; and (j) what was the first date of any communications regarding the sale of this land between the government and parties other than those in (e) and (f)?

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

Mr. Speaker, as of October 17, 2013, the sale of the Crown land owned by CSC located on Frontenac Institution in Kingston, Ontario, has yet to be finalized. Therefore, CSC is unable to respond to the question, pending the completion of the sale.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 27, 28, 32 to 34 and 38 to 41 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With regard to aboriginal justice, broken down by year from 2006 to the present: (a) how much money was dedicated to the Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS); (b) how much money was devoted to other aboriginal justice programs; (c) with respect to (a) and (b), by program, how much money was spent; (d) by whom were monies in (a) and (b) spent, on what dates, and for what purpose; (e) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were provinces and territories consulted with respect to funding of the AJS for the upcoming year; (f) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were the provinces and territories consulted with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (g) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to the AJS; (h) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (i) with which First Nations groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (j) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (k) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to the AJS, by what means and on what dates; (l) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (m) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (n) with which First Nations groups and NGOs did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (o) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (p) how does the government determine stakeholders regarding aboriginal justice concerns; (q) by whom, with what criteria, and when was the AJS budget determined; (r) in what ways, by whom, and when is AJS evaluated; (s) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers' meetings was the AJS raised; (t) what commitments were made by the government; (u) were those commitments met; (v) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to other aboriginal justice programs, by what means and on what dates; (w) by whom, with what criteria, and when were these budgets determined; (x) in what ways, by whom, and when are these programs evaluated; (y) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers' meetings were these programs raised; (z) what commitments were made by the government; (aa) were those commitments met; (bb) in what ways do these programs work to implement the Gladue principles; (cc) in what other ways are the Gladue principles being implemented; (dd) by what means, how often, with which criteria, and by whom does the government evaluate its implementation of the Gladue principles; (ee) what programs and strategies are in place to ensure both respect for and compliance with the Gladue principles; (ff) how many Gladue courts operate in Canada; (gg) in what ways is the government engaged with Gladue courts; (hh) in what ways does the government support Gladue courts; (ii) in what ways does the government ensure training for judges on the Gladue principles; (jj) in what ways does the government ensure training for prosecutors on the Gladue principles; (kk) in what ways does the government ensure the consideration of Gladue principles in its filings and submissions before the courts; (ll) in what ways is the government addressing the over-representation of aboriginals in prisons; (mm) what are the principles of the government’s aboriginal justice approach; (nn) how does the government evaluate whether its approach to aboriginal justice is working; (oo) by what specific standards, by whom and how often do such evaluations occur; (pp) in what ways does the government undertake predictions or forecasts with respect to the incarceration of aboriginal offenders; (qq) how are these forecasts taken into account in criminal justice policy development; (rr) in what ways are proposed justice laws evaluated for their impact on aboriginal persons; (ss) in what ways is the government incorporating aboriginal justice into its overall justice strategy; (tt) what policies exist to ensure aboriginal justice concerns are taken into account at every stage of policy and legislative development; (uu) who is responsible for keeping statistics on aboriginal justice; (vv) with respect to (uu), what statistics are available and from which departments; and (ww) with respect to (vv) what are the figures for each of the last three years?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With regard to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s statement in the House of Commons on March 14, 2012, that “we have issued an operational bulletin to our visa officers and CBSA (Canada Border Service Agency) agents indicating that the African National Congress (ANC) is an organization that has undergone substantial change and, therefore, membership in it should no longer be considered grounds for inadmissibility”: (a) when was this directive issued, (i) was this directive issued in written form, (ii) if so, is it publically available and where can it be accessed, (iii) on what date was it posted to the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (iv) why, as of June 4, 2013, is it unavailable on the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (v) what are the details of the directive, (vi) how was the directive communicated to CBSA agents, (vii) how was the directive communicated to Citizenship and Immigration Canada personnel in Canada, (viii) how was the directive communicated to Embassy and Consulate personnel abroad, (ix) with respect to (vii) and (viii), on what dates did said communication occur, (x) on what date did the directive become effective; (b) does the exemption to inadmissibility created by this directive apply only to ANC members or does it apply to members of any organization that has undergone a fundamental change, (i) if the former, does it apply to both current and former ANC members regardless of the time period during which they were associated with the organization, (ii) if the latter, are there specific guidelines regarding the determination of whether an organization has undergone a fundamental change, (iii) if so, are these guidelines publically available and where can they be accessed, (iv) if not, how is this determination made, (v) what organizations are currently considered to have undergone fundamental change; (c) under what sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have ANC members been found inadmissible, (i) broken down by year and section, how many ANC members have been found inadmissible, (ii) how long did the determination of inadmissibly take in each case; (d) does this directive necessarily exempt the ANC from inadmissibility pursuant to section 34 of the IRPA; (e) does this directive necessarily exempt the ANC from inadmissibility pursuant to section 37 of the IRPA; (f) does the new directive apply to any organization that has undergone a fundamental change; (g) what provisions of IRPA are specifically targeted by this new directive to ensure that inadmissibility determinations do not solely rest on ANC membership; (h) are specific determinations regarding the admissibility to Canada of current and former ANC members based on individual answers provided to questions on visa application forms; (i) upon a finding that a current or former ANC member is not admissible to Canada, can this determination be appealed and, if so, on what grounds; (j) is it necessary that an applicant have engaged in criminal activity related to his current or former membership in the ANC in order to be denied admissibility based on his membership in this organization, (i) if so, is it necessary that the applicant have a criminal record, (ii) is it necessary that the conduct at issue be currently criminalized in Canada in order to result in inadmissibility pursuant to section 37 of the IRPA; (k) were there any exemptions to the inadmissibility of a current or former ANC member prior to the adoption of this new operational directive; (l) have the new directive and any resulting operational guidelines been applied since their adoption to the cases of any current or former ANC members; (m) to whom can an applicant present evidence that a relevant organization has undergone a fundamental change; (n) what standard of evidence is required for showing that an organization has undergone a fundamental change, (i) how are such decisions made, (ii) by whom and applying what criteria; (o) is a finding of inadmissibility in this regard, or a finding as to the applicability of the “fundamental change” exemption, at the complete discretion of the particular border guard who reviews a particular application, (i) is a finding of inadmissibility in this regard reviewable, (ii) if reviewable, to whom is an application for review made and are the relevant procedural guidelines for review specified, (ii) if there are specified guidelines for review, where can they be accessed; (p) has the Minister proposed any further measures to address the problem of the inadmissibility to Canada of current and former ANC members, (ii) if the Minister has directed that new measures be applied in this regard, to whom has the directive been made and where can they be accessed, (iii) if the Minister has not directed that new measures be applied in this regard, what steps are being taken to ensure that current and former members of the ANC are not automatically denied admissibility to Canada on the basis of their association with that organization; (q) on what occasions and through what channels has the government discussed the ANC visa issue with the Government of South Africa; (r) was the Government of South Africa advised of the operational bulletin and if so, on what date; (s) how is the operational bulletin being evaluated for its effectiveness and what steps are in place to ensure it is working; and (t) prior to their recent South Africa trip, were the Governor General, Foreign Affairs Minister, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister informed of the operational bulletin and, if so, on what dates and by whom?

(Return tabled)