Debates of Dec. 9th, 2013

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-4.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #41

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

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

Ethics

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to get clearer answers about the Senate scandal, which involves the Prime Minister's Office and senators.

I asked a question regarding ethics in the Prime Minister's Office. In fact, I asked several questions without ever getting any answers. This evening, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs will be able to give me clear and precise answers on the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in the Mike Duffy scandal, particularly its interference in this affair. I will explain what I mean in my speech today.

According to Canadian parliamentary tradition and according to the Prime Minister, the Senate is an independent institution that should ultimately be a separate branch of the legislative body of the House of Commons.

That is why everyone is wondering what business the Prime Minister's Office has getting involved in Senate affairs. Why did a senator, Ms. Stewart Olsen, say that she was at the service of the Prime Minister's Office?

Here is the fundamental question that he must answer: what business does the Prime Minister's Office have getting involved in the affairs of the Senate, an institution that, according to the Prime Minister, is independent from the legislative body of the House of Commons? The Prime Minister's Office should never have been involved in such a scandal.

When we learned about the scandal surrounding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy's expenses, the Prime Minister immediately hit the roof saying that he had nothing to do with it, that he knew nothing about it and that he was not responsible for what happened in the Senate.

Unfortunately, a few days later, the Prime Minister changed his story by saying that Nigel Wright was responsible and was taking all the blame. Today, we want to know who was aware of this orchestrated scheme. Whose hands are dirty?

Now that we know that, unfortunately, the Conservatives interfere in Senate affairs, we need to know who in the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for breaking the fundamental rules of our Parliament.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP are reviewing that right now.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

This is so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I am speechless. I cannot even believe this.

I know the parliamentary secretary does not want to be here right now. He tries to answer questions during question period. However, I am so astonished. He has four minutes to at least make his point tonight, and he stands up and makes no points at all.

I am going to ask him my question one last time.

Who in the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for giving orders to senators? Ms. Stewart Olsen clearly indicated that she was at the service of the Prime Minister's Office. Who then in the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for giving the orders to senators?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the senators are responsible for their own decisions.

Health

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, December 2, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and I raised a serious question during question period about the access of foreign governments to the private medical information of Canadian citizens.

The case involves a constituent of mine, Mrs. Ellen Richardson, a paraplegic who was flying down to the United States to participate in a $6,000 cruise in the Caribbean, courtesy of the March of Dimes. She was prevented from doing so by the U.S. border services at Pearson airport. They had on their files a reported mental illness episode from June of last year. Although Mrs. Richardson was guilty of no crime, in order for her to continue her trip the U.S. border services required her to seek, at some considerable expense, a U.S. appointed doctor to determine her capacity to travel before granting her access to the United States. Needless to say, this was not possible given the timelines and Mrs. Richardson lost her cruise and her money.

This episode raises troubling questions about how a foreign government could gain access to the private medical information of Canadians. Mrs. Richardson, we have discovered, is not alone. According to the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, a Government of Ontario agency, dozens of Canadians from Ontario have been stopped at the border by U.S. officials on this basis in recent years. That is, they were stopped because the U.S. border services had information about their health, information that is by law in Canada, confidential.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, in reply to my question said that the government respects the privacy of Canadian health information, but that such health information is the responsibility of the provinces. The fact is that the responsibility for sharing Canadian information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security lies with the RCMP through its Canadian Police Information Centre and the RCMP is clearly the responsibility of the federal government. This is where we believe the federal government should be acting to ensure that private health information, unrelated to criminal records, that is contained in CPIC is kept confidential and not shared with foreign governments.

What happened to Mrs. Richardson at the border was not only crushing for her, it raises questions for all Canadians. How did her personal medical information end up in the hands of U.S. border guards? Did a Canadian entity share this information with U.S. authorities? If so, why? Was it a mistake, or was this information shared with U.S. authorities according to Canadian government policy? Who has access to it? What other information is being shared?

It turns out there is very little control over what information the RCMP collects and stores in this database and how it is to be accessed. Surely there is a difference between criminal records, outstanding warrants, stolen property and criminal surveillance, which are all legitimate items to share with law enforcement agencies, and 911 calls for assistance, police reports where no charges were laid and other non-criminal activities. Surely there are reasonable limits to what Big Brother should know and share with other governments.

Ellen Richardson broke no laws, yet her personal information ended up in the hands of the U.S. government. Therefore, the question still remains. Is the government, which says it is committed to ensuring the privacy of all Canadians' health information, willing to take steps to do so? Is the government ready to publicly review the criteria of what information in the RCMP's Canadian Police Information Centre can be accessed and by whom, in order to assure Canadians that non-criminal health information about them remains confidential? Canadians deserve better.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question put to the House by the member for York South—Weston regarding the sharing of information with the United States.

Police services collect and add information to the Canadian Police Information Centre system, also known as CPIC, in the interests of public safety. Leading mental health organizations support the placement of information in the CPIC system on individuals who may pose a danger to themselves or to others. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health supports inclusion of information on the CPIC system on individuals who may pose a danger to themselves or others.

While the RCMP maintains the infrastructure of the CPIC system as part of its national police services, the information is added, maintained and modified by each contributing police agency in accordance with CPIC policy. CPIC contains information on charges; warrants; persons of interest, including persons who have attempted suicide; stolen property and vehicles; and public safety investigations. This information, however, does not include personal medical information.

I encourage any individual who has concerns regarding the accuracy of their CPIC record to contact the RCMP. Additionally, I would like to inform the member that the Government of Canada has no authority to direct other governments to waive their requirements for the purpose of entry into their country.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attempt at a response, but, unfortunately, it leaves a whole bunch of unanswered questions.

The agent in the U.S. did, in fact, have her medical information in front of him. He knew that she had been hospitalized. She had not shared that information with anyone and the government says that was not shared. Then how did he get it? It was shared and placed on the database. That information ought not to be shared.

With regard to persons accessing their records, he says to contact the RCMP. Unfortunately, the RCMP requires more personal information to be shared with it before it will grant access to CPIC. It requires applicants to actually provide fingerprints before it will share any information on the CPIC records with an individual and in some cases has refused to share that information with an individual. It is not an appropriate answer to suggest that this person can just go and see what information is there.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the CPIC system was established in 1972 as a tool for police agencies to share information regarding crime and associated criminals. It is now the primary public and officer safety tool used by police, public safety and law enforcement agencies across Canada.

Operated under the stewardship of the RCMP on behalf of the CPIC user community, CPIC is the system that stores and retrieves law enforcement information submitted by authorized agencies. The RCMP acts as the custodian of this information. Information contained in CPIC is owned by the originating agency and the police service of jurisdiction would decide whether to enter observed behaviour such as mental health issues or attempted suicide into the CPIC system. This is done for public safety reasons.

The exchange of information between law enforcement agencies, both Canadian and American, is essential for the detection, prevention and suppression of crime and for national security purposes. Entry into any foreign country is governed by the country's laws and policies.

Persons with Disabilities

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, I tried to get an answer about the delayed follow-up report on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Canada ratified the convention in 2010 and had two years to produce its report; therefore we should have received this report in April 2012. It is now December 9, 2013, and we still have no news of this report.

However, this obligation is clearly outlined in article 35 of the convention. To refresh the Conservatives' memory, the following is an excerpt from this article:

1. Each State Party shall submit to the Committee...a comprehensive report on measures taken to give effect to its obligations under the present Convention and on the progress made in that regard, within two years after the entry into force of the present Convention...

We have to understand that the purpose of this convention is to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities and to ensure respect for the dignity of each and every one of them.

My Conservative colleague simply ignored the question. Instead of answering me, he thanked me for my attendance at the International Day of Disabled Persons. That has nothing to do with my question. I must admit that I did not expect to get an answer to my question, much less a reason for the delay, but I would have greatly appreciated being given a possible date for the release of this report.

I am very well aware that there are various programs for people with disabilities, but that is not the issue.

I want to know whether there have been any advances or setbacks in terms of providing support for people with disabilities.

At the risk of repeating myself, people with disabilities, as a group, still require more attention and increased support from all stakeholders in our society, because they often live in poverty and still face too many significant obstacles to their integration in society.

All the necessary measures to provide these people with better support must be based on the understanding that the situations that challenge them result from their interactions in a physical or social environment that does not take into account their functional characteristics or specific needs.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is a powerful international legislative tool that must guide all countries that have ratified it to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise their rights on an equal basis especially by providing the appropriate supports to do so.

Although Canada was closely involved in developing the convention's content and the process leading to its adoption, the Conservative government has not shown leadership with respect to its implementation in our country. Instead, it has been quite indifferent and has shown little interest in having Canadians with disabilities exercise their rights.

In my opinion, in order to show the leadership required to ensure the implementation of the convention, the Canadian government must do the following: first, sign the optional protocol to the convention in order to clearly demonstrate to the international community that it is engaged in a process that will guarantee that all Canadians with disabilities can exercise their rights; second, establish a Canadian plan to implement the convention and to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the mandate to put in place an oversight mechanism together with the provinces and the territories; third, respect the spirit of the convention by ensuring that organizations that represent persons with disabilities are involved in the process to oversee its application.

I will repeat my question: when do the Conservatives plan on presenting the follow-up report and implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to create a more accessible and inclusive Canada?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has delivered measurable results for Canadians living with a disability. No other government has done more to support persons with disabilities find employment than our government.

In the most recent economic action plan 2013, a series of measures were introduced to strengthen the social and economic inclusion of Canadians with disabilities. We are providing $222 million per year toward a new generation of labour market agreements for people with disabilities to better meet the employment needs of Canadian businesses and improve employment prospects for people with disabilities. This will ensure that the training programming that is being delivered is demand driven and involves employers.

Beginning in 2015, the opportunities fund for people with disabilities will be funded on an ongoing basis to help people with disabilities train for in-demand jobs. The opportunities fund provided over 5,500 people in the last fiscal year with specific training for available jobs. More than $2 million will be spent to support the creation of an employers forum, building on the recommendation from the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.

The enabling accessibility fund will be funded at $50 million per year on an ongoing basis to continue to improve access to facilities across Canada. Since it was created by our Conservative government, over 850 projects have been funded. For the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, $7 million will be earmarked to support research related to the labour market participation of people with disabilities.

Finally, the social development partnerships program disability component will provide $11 million annually to support a wide range of projects designed to improve social inclusion and tackle barriers faced by people with disabilities.

We are delivering results for persons with disabilities to ensure they can participate in the labour market. It is our goal that all Canadians can benefit from our government's priority of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP made a firm commitment to do whatever it takes to ensure that persons with disabilities have full access to all of the rights that they share with all Canadians.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is one sure way to make that happen. We will continue to pressure the current government to take the necessary action to maximize the impact of the convention on the day-to-day lives of persons with disabilities.

On December 3, I asked the government why no status report on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been released. My Conservative colleague listed all kinds of programs, but as I said, I am very familiar with those programs.

That being said, I still do not understand why the Conservatives are not taking this issue seriously or why they have not taken the necessary measures to implement the convention to build an increasingly inclusive Canada. This would be a first step toward recognizing the day-to-day efforts of persons with disabilities and their contribution to society.

My question is simple, and I would like a simple answer.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government remains committed to eliminating barriers and creating opportunities for people with disabilities.

There are over 800,000 working age Canadians who are not working but whose disability does not prevent them from doing so. Of this group, 340,000 people have post-secondary education. These individuals are a significant untapped pool of talent with major contributions to make to Canadian society.

Economic action plan 2013 provides concrete measures to help strengthen the economic and social inclusion of millions of Canadians with disabilities. The big question is this. Why did the member opposite and her party vote against the economic action plan?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 7:29 p.m.)