Debates of Feb. 4th, 2013

Justice

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition from residents of Winnipeg North who ask the Government of Canada to work with other levels of government in developing effective programs that will prevent youth from committing crimes, with a special focus on trying to prevent youth from going into gangs, and finding alternative activities for them.

Experimental Lakes Area

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Experimental Lakes Area is a unique, world renown facility for freshwater research and education. It is now falling under the Conservative axe, and petitioners from across the country are fighting to have that decision reversed. Specifically, they are calling on the government to do three things: to recognize the importance of the ELA to the Government of Canada's mandate to study, preserve and protect aquatic ecosystems; to reverse the decision to close the ELA research station; and to continue to staff and provide financial resources to the ELA at the current or a higher level of commitment.

While I know that it is not appropriate for us to endorse petitions, I am delighted to be able to table it in the House today.

Food Labelling

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first one calls on the House to bring forward an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act to have mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods.

Poverty

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House to implement an act to eliminate poverty in Canada, Bill C-233. This would require the federal government to develop and implement a strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with the provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments and with civil society organizations.

41st General Election

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. One calls for a national inquiry into the ongoing question of who was behind the robocalls made in the 2011 election.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition speaks to the question of the need to have a thorough review before allowing risky pipelines and tankers in British Columbia.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the petition I am presenting today is just some of the support for my motion I have received from across the country, from coast to coast, from citizens and municipalities alike, and, on top of that, from ridings of all stripes. These petitioners are from Ramea, Newfoundland and Labrador. They are calling on the House of Commons to support my Motion No. 400, an issue that unites rural Canadians from across the country. It calls on the House to take leadership in protecting our water, our rivers and our lakes.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition that calls for the government to pass Bill C-400, since we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy and since 1.5 million households are in core housing need.

Pensions

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents adding their names to those of thousands of Canadians who have petitioned the House to change the proposed changes to old age security eligibility.

The government has increased eligibility from age 65 to 67, and that puts a great deal of pressure on the poorest seniors. It means that those very poor seniors will lose as much $12,000 in benefits. It will also impact younger Canadians. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to maintain eligibility for retirement age at 65 and to increase the guaranteed income supplement so that we can lift every senior in the country out of poverty.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate today on the urgent matter relating to the disclosure by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada on January 11 that the department had lost the personal records of 583,000 Canadians who participated in the Canada student loans program between 2000 and 2006. According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, this is one of the largest data breaches in Canadian history.

The House of Commons needs to debate this issue because the loss of this data means that the private and confidential financial information of almost 600,000 Canadians is at risk and there exists a real danger of identity fraud.

Furthermore, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has been unable to tell the House of Commons how long the hard drive containing the data was missing from her department, exactly what information was lost, why social insurance numbers were included in this data, why the RCMP was involved and why it took two months to inform the public.

In addition, the House needs to debate the issue of protection that HRSDC is providing to these Canadians. There has been much confusion as to what credit and identity protection services the government is actually paying for with Equifax, one of the two major credit bureaus in Canada. As well, why is the government not paying for the equivalent coverage with TransUnion, the other major credit bureau, as recommended by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada?

There are reports that many of the approximately 600,000 affected people have not yet been contacted by HRSDC even though it has been almost three months since the drive was first noticed missing.

According to recent media reports, less than 5,000 individuals have signed up so far for the free credit monitoring service provided by the government, and I reinforce free for most.

Knowing how many of these people have yet to be contacted and the reasons for the delay in being contacted is very important. The possibility that a large number of the affected people are still not aware that their personal information has been breached is unacceptable.

Canadians, and more specifically the people affected in this data breach, need to have confidence that their government is doing everything it can to find out why and how this historic breach occurred, and more important, how the government is going to immediately protect them from the risk of identity fraud.

Canadians should not have to pay for the mistakes of the Conservative government. I respectfully ask that you, Mr. Speaker, grant my request so that hopefully questions will be answered and solutions found to the satisfaction of those affected.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. While there is no doubt that it is an important issue for many people, I do not feel it meets the test for emergency debates.

The Chair also has notice that the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is going to add remarks to the question of privilege raised by the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Access to Information

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in response to a question of privilege that was made on Thursday by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

I have had the opportunity to review the Hansard of his intervention and that on Friday by the House leader of the official opposition in his Hansard interventions. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley also offered some precedents, which I would commend to the Chair. I also want to acknowledge the hon. gentleman's sagacity in citing those cases despite the fact he sits in opposition to the government which in its own nature makes me question his sagacity on a number of other issues, but I digress.

Besides the interventions you have already heard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add two more authorities to those before you to assist the Chair in preparing a ruling.

As the government House leader remarked in his initial comments last week, the hon. member did not mention one of his parliamentary duties or responsibilities as a member of the House of Commons. Instead he referred to a matter of constituency business.

Page 117 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, offers a categorical summary of how the Chair has approached these issues:

In instances where Members have claimed that they have been obstructed or harassed, not directly in their roles as elected representatives but while being involved in matters of a political or constituency-related nature, Speakers have consistently ruled that this does not constitute privilege.

Finally, Sir, I offer a ruling of Mr. Speaker Milliken from February 12, 2003. The following passage from page 3470 of Debates would, I suggest, give guidance on distinguishing between occasions when questioning officials is and is not a matter for privilege. Again, I quote:

Members have an undeniable right to question and obtain information from the government in order to discharge their responsibilities of oversight. This function is chiefly carried out in two ways: by asking questions of government—

That is to say, to ministers and parliamentary secretaries here in the chamber.

—either during question period or by way of written questions, and through inquiries carried out by committees of the House. Both of these proceedings are protected by the full weight of parliamentary privilege. It is not the case, however, that the privilege to seek such information extends to every aspect of a member's activity.

In conclusion, when the facts advanced by the hon. member, regardless of the conclusions taken from them, and I certainly would not share the opposition's spin on them, are considered through the lens of these precedents and those quoted on Friday by the NDP House leader, I would submit there is no prima facie question of privilege to be found here.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what did not come through perhaps clearly in what I said, and you will recall the first time I raised this last June, was it was directly related to my duties to prepare for question period. In obtaining information as the Liberal advocate for co-operatives, I needed information through CMHC, which I could not then obtain because it was not allowed to provide the briefing. There is one issue where there is a direct link to my parliamentary responsibilities which cannot be avoided.

The same can be true because I intend to raise questions about this massive development of a military base which has been ceded to the Canada Lands Corporation, but in order to do so, I need to obtain information. Therefore, the two are intrinsically linked.

In you judgment, Mr. Speaker, I hope you would consider also equality of access to information because I did mention, and I would hope you would look into that, that in all my conversations with members on the government side, never have I heard anyone complaining of their inability to access information from the government, just as members of this party and I gather from the House leader of the NDP, members from his party have been impeded from obtaining.

There are two issues here that are directly linked to my parliamentary duties as a member of Parliament representing constituents.

Finally, just on the morality of anyone in the riding that I represent can access information directly from public servants and they have been told by the government that they cannot give me that information. There is something that is untoward and unacceptable in a functioning democracy. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, in your judgment that you would weigh these three matters.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will let my intervention stand on its own merit.

However, quite frankly, as I pointed out in my intervention, all members of Parliament have leverage at their disposal to obtain information from the government, questions on the order paper being the most common.

I would suggest for the member opposite that the levers I speak of are certainly available to him in his capacity as a member of Parliament. Again, I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in precedents of years of questions of this sort being raised to the Chair the rulings have been consistent.

I do not believe the member's privileges have been violated. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to please, if you could in your capacity, make yet another ruling supporting my intervention and do so as quickly as possible.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank both hon. members for their further contributions to the question currently before the Chair.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert has eight minutes to finish his speech.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I had to interrupt my speech, I was talking about the report on the mediation that was unfortunately not successful. We tried to open a dialogue between the clients and the service provider. We were unable to resolve the problem and that is why we have this bill before us today.

CN and CP wanted nothing to do with this bill. But it might be a kind of wake-up call for these two companies. It is a little bill that does not do too much or ask for much and that we would like to see improved. For the rail companies it is a sign that everything is not just fine.

There are things to improve, and these companies will be tasked with improving them. If they do not, other more restrictive bills will be introduced. Even though, depending on the region, they have either a monopoly or a duopoly, they will have to develop a corporate culture based on customer service. They will have to find a balance between profit and customer service, so that customer service is not sacrificed for the sake of profit. That is the message we must get across.

I would now like to talk about the vision of transportation as such. In some respects, this bill manages a crisis. We have let the rot set in and we have waited until the very last moment. Minimal action has been taken. However, it is not our job here in the House of Commons to engage in short-term crisis management. Our job is to stamp out a vision for our country for tomorrow, for the day after tomorrow and for decades to come. Right now, we lack this vision.

I would therefore like to share with you some elements of a vision which has been dubbed, among other things, a national transportation policy. It would be entirely appropriate to address issue. It is my hope that once the bill passes second reading stage and has been referred to a committee, committee members will expand the debate to consider the overall evolution of the rail transportation system.

We live in a global world. We have a phenomenon called the Internet. It allows a supplier to advertise a product on the web and a customer anywhere in the world to buy that product. The logistics of delivering that product is the ensuing challenge. For Canada, a country of wide open spaces, the rail transportation system is absolutely critical to the process of delivering goods.

So then, it is important for us to continue focusing on this issue. However, I want to stress the importance of striking a balance. Much has been said about striking a balance between an industry’s ability to make a fair and reasonable profit and the possibility for captive customers to have a service that meets their needs and allows their business to grow. Such a service would help people stay in their regions and prevent a population exodus. It would be one way to develop resource regions. This matter is extremely important to us.

On the question of balance, we can take it further. We can talk about striking a balance between the transportation of people and freight. Even though there are problems with respect to freight transportation, passenger rail service often takes a back seat to freight transportation. How many times must passenger trains pull over onto a siding to allow a freight train to pass?

It all comes down to a matter of balance. Therefore, we need to examine all of these aspects and put an end to any short-term vision. We need to come up with a plan for a rail infrastructure worthy of the 21st century. This is important.

We are still living with an infrastructure that is a holdover from the 19th century, albeit an infrastructure that helped cement our national unity. Why not take another stab at improving it so that the companies that provide the service as well as the users and citizens can all benefit.

Finally, I want to stress that the main reason we want a national passenger and freight transportation policy in place is to be able to plan and make the right moves at the right time, rather than merely react to situations.

A business owner always looks to get a positive reaction from customers. Right now, there is no positive response and that is why this legislation is before the House.

In conclusion, I will say that this is a step in the right direction, a very small step. Everyone has agreed to support it. In fact, everyone is operating on the principle that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. So we are taking this small step today. We hope to improve service to suppliers. We hope the government will accept some of the amendments that will be proposed. Ultimately, we are probably addressing the most glaring part of the problem, but, since there have already been some reports and mediation attempts, and because we at least want to solve certain problems, I believe this requires cooperation by everyone, and especially by the various stakeholders, so that the House has to intervene as little as possible in the development of the railway system. It will be important for citizens, suppliers, customers, the economy and especially for Canada that we resolve that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am pleased that he mentioned the coexistence of passenger trains and freight trains.

I believe that coexistence, the role that CN has to play in our communities, is one of the bill's main themes. I know a lot about that because a railway passes through my riding. I will have occasion to say more about that later on.

Since this is a first step in the right direction, I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate on how long we could continue working with CN and move ahead with various projects, whether it be that of AMT, which wants to electrify the rails, or with the project we are considering today, the agreements between producers and railways.

I would like my colleague to talk about that because, in the NDP's view, cooperation and teamwork are part of an effective approach.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. In a fundamental way, it is all a matter of relations between the various groups, quite apart from numbers, profits and services rendered.

What is important, and what will have to be increasingly so, is that some companies do not really have any competition. We have to admit that fact. It was acknowledged in the rail freight service review report, which we have already discussed, that the competition was going to be tough.

So it is important for those businesses to be aware of the fact that, given their internal culture, they will have to start cooperating with others.

In a last-ditch effort, they have started to improve certain types of services, but that is unfortunately too little, too late for this bill. On the other hand, I believe that, if they are getting the message, we might perhaps have something better in future.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am delighted to hear the hon. member indicate that he is going to be supporting the legislation.

I think it is important that members recognize that when we talk about Canada's freight rail system, we have to talk about it in a North American context since it really is a fully integrated system. Ultimately we have to recognize that while there are challenges within the system with respect to the shipper-railway relationship at times, even though that rarely happens, we really do have the greatest freight rail system in the world. It enables so much business and gives so much back to our economy.

Does the hon. member agree with the principle that first and foremost we would like to see market-based solutions, and that this mechanism should be used as rarely as possible, wherever there is a situation that cannot be solved between the shipper and the railway?

I think this is a good follow-up system. What the minister has put forward is a good system to support shippers and railways and to help them derive market-based relationships and solutions on their own. Would the hon. member agree with that?