Debates of April 28th, 2014

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 309

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

With regard to the Treasury Board's Policies and Guidelines for Ministers' Offices, for each month since April 2006, broken down in each case for (i) each Minister's office, (ii) the Prime Minister's Office, (iii) the office of each Minister of State, what is the total amount of funds dispersed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund: (a) pursuant to section 3.7.1 of the Guidelines, or any other section which may have been in force from time to time, for severance pay for departing exempt staff; (b) pursuant to section 3.7.2 of the Guidelines, or any other section which may have been in force from time to time, for separation pay for departing exempt staff; and (c) pursuant to section 3.7.5 of the Guidelines, or any other section which may have been in force from time to time, for employment assistance for departing exempt staff?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 310

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regard to government expenditures, what is the amount, program, nature or purpose, file number, and date of all grants or contributions made to Wabush Mines and Cliff Resources since January 2000?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 312

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

With regard to the Ring of Fire mining project in the far north of Ontario: (a) what departments and officials sit on the inter-department secretariat for the project; (b) what are the federal responsibilities for this project; (c) what is the federal funding to date for the project's activities; (d) how many First Nations members are currently or projected to receive training in mining related activity to work on the project, (i) from which communities do individuals currently being trained originate, (ii) in what trades, (iii) which federal programs are being accessed for this training, (iv) what is the forecast of skilled workers who will be required; and (e) what meetings have taken place between any officials of the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario on this project, (i) what are the names of the participants, (ii) on what dates were the meetings held, (iii) what was included in the agenda for each meeting?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 313

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Small Business Deduction, broken down by fiscal year, since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) how many tax filers have successfully claimed the deduction; (b) what is the total dollar amount claimed; and (c) what is the total cost to the government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 317

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada’s funding programs, for each program: (a) what is the detailed project approval process (from application submission to final processing, including the Minister’s approval); (b) what are the number and titles of the officials at the various stages of the process; (c) what are the deadlines or time limits for each stage in processing an application (including the Minister’s approval); (d) what are the standards governing the administrative process for funding applications and the work of officials responsible for processing them; (e) what were the budget envelopes allocated to each program, per year, for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; (f) how many sponsors submitted an application under the latest call for projects and how many of them are still awaiting approval; (g) what is the breakdown, by province and by riding, of the number of applications submitted under the latest call for projects, by application status (processed and approved, processed and rejected, or pending approval); (h) what is the breakdown, by province and by riding, of the amounts granted during fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (i) for the fiscal years referred to in (h), were there any surplus amounts, if so, where were they allocated; and (j) are there any studies or reports on the impact of projects completed under the various funding programs, if so, what are they?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 318

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

With regard to the labour market agreements between the federal and provincial governments: (a) are there any studies or reports on the economic impact of federal transfers to the provinces and, if so, what are they for each province; (b) are there any studies or reports on the social impact of federal transfers to the provinces and, if so, what are they for each province; (c) are there any studies or reports on the impact of a potential amendment to these agreements as a result of the introduction of the Canada Job Grant and, if so, what are they; and (d) is there a plan for the transition between the amendment or elimination of federal transfers and the introduction of the Canada Job Grant?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 319

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

With regard to government procurement of garments and textiles since fiscal year 2010-2011: (a) what percentage of these garments and textiles were manufactured, in whole or in part, outside of Canada; (b) of the procured textiles and garments manufactured, in whole or in part, outside of Canada (i) in what countries are these goods manufactured, (ii) what is the total value of these goods, broken down by country of manufacture, (iii) is the name and address of each factory where these goods are made documented; (c) what is the exact nature or purpose of any garments or textiles that are procured by the government and its agencies which are manufactured, in whole or in part, in Bangladesh; (d) what is the name and address of each factory in Bangladesh that produces garments or textiles, in whole or in part, that are procured by the government; (e) what portion of all garments and textiles manufactured in whole or in part in Bangladesh and procured by the government is contracted or sub-contracted by companies that are signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh; and (f) what portion of all garments and textiles manufactured in whole or in part in Bangladesh and procured by the government is contracted or sub-contracted by companies that are signatories to the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for so graciously ceding the floor so we could get through routine proceedings. I will give the floor back to him so I can hear the rest of his point.

Tabling of Treaty

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this has to do with whether a treaty has been properly tabled. Its implementation plan is Bill C-31. I will continue where I left off.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you may wonder whether an intergovernmental agreement such as the one I have talked about counts as a treaty. While I know it is not the Speaker's place to adjudicate on points of law such as this, I will quote to you briefly from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on the matter of treaties, wherein the House of Commons reports:

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties...defines a treaty as:

“an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation”

Only a minority of such agreements have “treaty” in their title. Other common names include “convention”, “protocol” and “agreement”.

That is the case here. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is also the case for Canada. This agreement is indeed a treaty, and is even housed in the “treaty” section of the Department of Finance's website.

With a treaty before us, our attention turns to the Government of Canada's “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”. I turn the attention of the House to part 6.2 of that policy, which states in part (b):

For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will:

Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament...

I have made a search of the Journals and I am unable to find any notice of this treaty being tabled before this body prior to 21 days before the introduction of Bill C-31. This leads me to believe that the government may have sought to use the exception to this part of the tabling policy, but that stipulates:

If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.

That is from 6.3, part (b), of the government's “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”.

In this regard, I am unable to locate a statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding this instrument. While I am well aware of press statements released in February from the former finance minister and current Minister of National Revenue regarding the signing of this agreement, it appears Parliament was never informed of this agreement, nor apprised of its contents. As such, I believe these portions of the bill are neither properly before this body or before the finance committee as they do not adhere to what has become the practice of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the Journals of Monday, January 27, 2014, wherein during the tabling of documents, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs laid upon the table no less than five international instruments, many of which deal with trademarks and are now being implemented in Bill C-31. This, I believe, reflects what has become the practice, that treaties are tabled for a period of at least 21 days prior to the government seeking implementing legislation.

It is important to note why 21 days has become the so-called magic number. Here, I cite from the United Kingdom's select committee on procedure's second report from 2000. It says:

The Ponsonby Rule is a convention whereby almost all treaties which do not come into force on signature are laid before Parliament for 21 days before they are ratified. It was first stated by, and derives its name from, Mr Arthur Ponsonby, former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In a debate in the House in 1924 Mr Ponsonby affirmed that—

“It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament every treaty, when signed, for a period of 21 days, after which the treaty will be ratified...In the case of important treaties, the Government will, of course, take an opportunity of submitting them to the House for discussion within this period. But, as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the treaty in question.”

I cite this passage because the government's policy reflects British parliamentary practice and I believe this has become the practice of Canada's House of Commons as well. Indeed, our own Library of Parliament has noted:

The way in which Canada negotiates, signs, ratifies and implements international treaties is a constantly evolving process....Today the House of Commons has been granted a louder voice prior to official ratification. This enhanced role for Parliament is an important one...

I believe, if we search the annals of this place, we would find the practice of treaties being tabled well in advance of votes thereupon. Certainly there have been exceptions and the policy itself foresees such situations, yet the House being informed is still a prerequisite to debate. I believe the time has come for clarity from the Chair on whether this policy has indeed risen to the point of custom such that a violation, as appears to have occurred in this case, creates a legislative defect that must be cured prior to its passage.

Arguably, as a matter of principle, the government should explain why it has not respected its own policy in regard to the tabling of treaties before Parliament. As a matter of policy, we should not debate matters that parliamentarians have not been given adequate time to review and study. But, as a matter of practice, the House has established and operated on this custom of tabling for five years as formally enshrined and much longer than that if one looks at historical practice whereby governments have routinely informed Parliament of international agreements signed and ratified.

While I and the Liberal Party of Canada have strong and profound disagreements with FATCA and its implementation, particularly as it infringes on privacy rights and the charter, forces the Canada Revenue Agency to do the IRS' dirty work, and infringes upon our sovereignty, I will save that for a debate for another day. My concern giving rise to this point is that proper procedure has not been followed and the customs of the House have been infringed upon, thus creating a procedural irregularity to be remedied.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the proper remedy, if you agree with this point, would be to remove those clauses from Bill C-31 that implement this treaty until such time has passed after either the treaty in question is tabled or the Minister of Foreign Affairs informs the House that an exception to the tabling requirement has been sought and the reasoning for this exception. As the matter is before committee, I believe it would be in your power to interpret the committee's mandate relative to the bill as encompassing only those matters that were properly before the House upon its introduction, thereby precluding consideration by the committee of a treaty of which the House was never informed until its accompanying implementing legislation was introduced.

I understand and acknowledge that parliamentary practice has evolved in the realm of treaties and is indeed still evolving. I believe, however, that we have now established a new custom and practice with respect to the tabling of such instruments and that it would be appropriate for the Chair to give expression to the legitimate expectations of members of this place that they be informed of treaties and their contents prior to debate on implementation, as well as to accord Parliament its proper place in the debate on international instruments such as included in Bill C-31.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have a brief initial response and reserve the right to come back further with more details.

I would like to touch on four points.

First, the tabling of treaty policies is not a product of the Standing Orders of the House or any rules of practice of the House. It is indeed a government policy, which can be found on the Government of Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs website. That is where it exists. That is its origin. It is a policy that applies not to the House but rather to the activities of the government. From that perspective, it is not an appropriate point for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on, that is the question of whether or not the government is complying with its policy. It is not a question of whether the rules of the House are being followed.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that there is no jurisdiction for you to deal with it.

Second, the policy itself in substance does provide, as the hon. member indicated, opportunity for exemptions for the policy including, for example, for urgency and for other bases. In this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with. From that perspective, the point the member raises is interesting but moot as the policy has been complied with.

The third point I would raise is actually the purpose behind the policy, or the objective of the tabling policy. I think this goes to the heart of why an exemption is also appropriate here.

The purpose of the policy is to give an opportunity for the House, if it wishes, to express its views on a proposed treaty and to give an opportunity for a debate and a vote to be had on that matter. In this case, because it is actually being implemented through legislation, the House does have exactly such an opportunity to assess the policy, to vote on it, to deliberate, decide and make the determination on whether or not to proceed forward with the treaty and therefore then allow the government to ratify it. Ratification, as you know Mr. Speaker, is a separate process that is done by the Governor-in-Council, by cabinet.

The purpose of the policy is to allow the opportunity for the House, for the opposition or anybody else who wishes to identify it for debate and to allow that to happen. Because there is actual legislation going forward, there will be an opportunity for the House to pass judgment on it as it has done at second reading and as it will have an opportunity to do presumably at report stage and third reading. From that perspective, the policy purpose behind the tabling policy is also respected, as well as the actual words of the policy itself.

Finally, it seems particularly ironic that such a point of order would come out of the Liberal Party, whose members for years resisted any such policy and never had it as one of their practices. Liberals maintained full jurisdiction within the Prime Minister and the cabinet to deal with treaties and their ratification without ever bringing them to the House of Commons, without ever requiring an opportunity for members of Parliament to see them before they became law and before they were ratified. From that perspective, I am surprised the Liberals would have the chutzpah to bring forward this argument after years of behaving in an entirely different fashion, but then I am not surprised because that does tend to be the way they do things.

Therefore, I do not think there is any merit to the point of order that has been raised both on the facts and interpretation of the rules and on the jurisdiction that you have, Mr. Speaker, as well as the irony of the Liberals bringing this point of order forward themselves. However, I will reserve the opportunity, since I had no notice of this point of order, to come back with further arguments if that is necessary.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie for raising this point of order in the House.

Of course, since we had no notice either, we will verify what he said and consider the various points of view. Then we will come back to the House to discuss it. This is extremely important. One million Canadians are affected by these massive changes and a growing number of people across the country are opposed to this.

Therefore, when the government House leader stands and says that we have to look at the objective or the purpose, the objective or the purpose, I imagine, of hiding this tax information exchange agreement inside a larger omnibus legislation is simply to hide it from the million Canadians who are profoundly impacted by the government's action.

The reality is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that bilateral tax information exchange agreements are filed in the House. It is quite correct to say that the practice has been to bring it forward to the House and not to hide it in omnibus legislation.

We have seen these practices here for years. There are also the practices the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie was talking about, such as the Ponsonby Rule. That rule comes from another Parliament, but a Parliament that we are modelled after nonetheless. In both cases the practices are the same.

I will come back to this point later today. I think it is extremely important and I hope that you will carefully consider this matter before coming back to the House.

Remarks by Minister of State for Democratic Reform

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He took issue with a comment that I made on the floor, which I will cite verbatim. I stated:

There are regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times. That, too, can be found on the Elections Canada website.

The cards in question are the voter information cards Elections Canada provides to electors who are on the voters list to indicate to them where and when they can cast their ballots.

The second sentence in my statement is as follows:

That, too, can be found on the Elections Canada website.

That, of course, is used as a pronoun here and refers to multiple voting and multiple cards. Therefore, let us check whether Elections Canada's website does, in fact, have cases that deal with either or both of those. I turn members' attention to that website, and I will share a few URLs, which are too long to list here on the floor, but I am sure members will have no problem finding them.

For example, I turn members' attention to the Commissioner of Canada Elections' compliance agreement, which states:

This notice is published by the Commissioner of Canada Elections pursuant to section 521 of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”).

On September 20, 2013, and pursuant to section 517 of the Act, the Commissioner of Canada Elections entered into a compliance agreement with Ms. Laura-Emmanuelle Gagné (hereafter referred to as the “Contracting Party”), of the city of Montréal, Quebec, who was an elector in the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie during the 2011 federal general election.

The Contracting Party has acknowledged acts that may have constituted a failure to comply with section 7 of the Act, which provides that no elector who has voted at an election may request a second ballot at that election.

The Contracting Party has acknowledged that, on May 2, 2011, polling day for the 2011 federal general election, she voted in the Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie electoral district before proceeding that same day to the Laurier—Sainte-Marie electoral district and requesting and obtaining a second ballot.

Specifically, the Contracting Party has acknowledged the following:

During the period leading up to the May 2, 2011, federal general election, she received two voter information cards in her name, one for the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in which she resided, and one for the neighbouring electoral district of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, in which she did not reside.

On May 2, 2011, she went to polling division No. 103 in the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie with three unidentified persons and a hidden camera provided by those persons, and voted.

That same day, she went to polling division No. 002 in the electoral district of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and found that her name had been struck off the list of electors for that electoral district and moved to the list of electors for the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Given that her name had been struck off the list of electors for the electoral district of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, she asked to register using a registration certificate so that she might vote, then requested and obtained another ballot, which she completed before spoiling it.

She erroneously believed that spoiling the second ballot meant that she was not committing an offence under the Act.

The hoax in which she took part was broadcast on May 5, 2011, on Infoman, a show produced by Zone3 Inc., on Radio-Canada.

The Contracting Party has accepted responsibility for these acts, and she is now aware of section 7 of the Act and the offence provision at paragraph 483(b) of the Act.

There we have one example of someone receiving multiple voting cards, enabling the possibility of voting more than once. She obtained two ballots as a result of having two voter information cards and having been allowed to use those cards for that said purpose.

I have a second case, which is almost identical. I am not going to repeat all the same language, because it is pro forma, but the second example is of Mr. Simon Poulin, hereinafter referred to as “The Contracting Party”, and I quote:

...he voted in the Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie electoral district before proceeding that same day to the Laurier—Sainte-Marie electoral district and requesting and obtaining a second ballot.

It goes on to say:

During the period leading up to the May 2, 2011, federal general election, he received two voter information cards in his name, one for the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in which he resided, and one for the neighbouring electoral district of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, in which he did not reside.

On May 2, 2011, he went to polling division No. 103 in the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie with three unidentified persons and a hidden camera provided by those persons, and voted.

That same day, he went to polling division No. 002 in the electoral district of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and found that his name had been struck off the list of electors for that electoral district and moved to the list of electors for the electoral district of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Given that his name had been struck off the list of electors for the electoral district of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, he asked to register using a registration certificate so that he might vote, then requested and obtained another ballot, which he completed before spoiling it.

This is evidence of people receiving multiple voting cards, which enables the practice of multiple voting.

I will move on to additional examples.

On December 5, 2011 the Commissioner of Canada Elections, pursuant to section 517 of the Canada Elections Act, entered into a compliance agreement with Mr. Jacques Nadeau (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Party)...

The contracting party has acknowledged that he voted by special ballot in the office of the returning office for the electoral district of Mégantic--L'Érable on April 20, 2011. He also acknowledged that he wilfully requested a second ballot for the same electoral district at the advance poll on April 25, 2011.

That case, I should point out, did not involve the use of the voter information card. However, going back to my original statement, I referred in general terms to the phenomenon of multiple voting, and this case is one such example.

I will now move on to a fourth example of dealing with the issue of multiple voting. On June 27, 2006, the commissioner entered into a compliance agreement with the contracting party, who is from Montreal, and I quote:

In this agreement, the contracting party admits to acts that constitute an offence under section 7 of the Canada Elections Act, as she registered and requested a second special ballot on January 12, 2006, in the electoral district of Jeanne-Le Ber, after having already voted by special ballot in the same electoral district on December 5, 2005, with the mistaken belief that in the case of the first vote, it was in a by-election.

Now I move on to a fifth example of multiple voting, which is also on the Elections Canada website:

In this agreement, the contracting party admits to acts that constitute an offence under section 7 of the Canada Elections Act, as she registered and requested a second ballot on polling day, June 28, 2004, in the electoral district of Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, after having already voted at an advance poll in the electoral district of Huron—Bruce...

This case is where someone voted twice, once in each riding. This was based on the mistaken belief that if a person has two residences, a person can vote twice, something that is obviously not true and something that this particular elector has since learned and acknowledged.

I have a sixth example. On July 20, 2006, the commissioner entered into an agreement with the contracting party, of the city of Stephenville. It is an issue whereby the individual in question requested a second ballot on January 23, 2006, in the electoral district of Random—Burin—St. George's, after having already voted in the advance poll in the same electoral district on January 16, 2006.

There is a seventh example. The commissioner signed an agreement with a citizen from Woodstock, Ontario. The offence, again, was that the person requested a second ballot in the 2004 election in the riding of Toronto—Danforth after having already voted in the advance poll in the electoral district of Oxford.

I have just given seven examples of multiple voting, and I gave two examples where the receipt of multiple voter information cards occurred and led to electors seeking a second ballot after they had already voted. Therefore, if you look to my original comments, you will find that they were indeed accurate.

All the examples I have shared with the House are found on Elections Canada's website, which is precisely what I suggested in my statement. Therefore, my comments are an accurate reflection of the reality people would find if they went to that site, and I stand by the comments.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the hon. minister's intervention. I will come back to the House in due course with a ruling on this particular point.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to supplement my comments made in an initial response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on Wednesday, April 9, respecting the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-483.

I will tackle two matters in these submissions. The first is to address the subsequent response made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition. The other is to offer some citations in support of my argument.

On April 9, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster intervened and said, “I found the point of order raised by the member for Malpeque to be very compelling. I did not find the intervention from the government House leader very convincing at all”.

I found something that the member just might find convincing: his own party's position at committee. On page 2 of the evidence of the April 1 meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the public safety critic, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, spoke to a question of the scope of the bill and whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill. He said:

...I would have to say in this case, having spent a lot of time looking at the bill, I believe that the amendments by the government make changes that really amend the same sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and they do it by the same means. So to me it would technically seem to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested.

I will repeat that: “...seemed to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested”.

The member went on to say:

Now I have to say I'm very happy because we raised some concerns in the questioning of witnesses and the vast majority of those concerns have been accommodated in these amendments. So I would also be in a very strange position if I said the government actually listened and then I don't think procedurally they can do that.

If the NDP House leader will not find my arguments convincing, I do hope he will at least find his own colleague's arguments persuasive. I do find the arguments from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, quite convincing on this point.

It does bear an interesting question for you, Mr. Speaker, of who actually does speak for the NDP: the House leader or its critic. In this case, I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to their critic. However, I digress.

The second part of my submission relates to the assertion of the hon. member for Malpeque, that the amendments adopted by the committee go beyond the scope of the bill. This morning, on another matter, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons read from page 564 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition on the definition of the scope of the bill. It states:

Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases difficult cases of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine its scope.

I would supplement that by reading from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition at paragraph 698(2):

An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.

Paragraph 5 of that Beauchesne's citation states:

An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.

Despite these amendments, the bill's proposal to enable victims to participate in the hearings to be held by the Parole Board of Canada on certain applications for an escorted temporary absence is preserved. As I mentioned on April 9, the committee's amendments may in fact narrow the extent to which the escorted temporary absence regime in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be changed, and thereby arguably narrow the scope of the bill, not broaden the scope of the bill or not go beyond it. It would narrow it.

What has changed is that these Parole Board hearings would not be required in every instance. If an offender is approved for an escorted temporary absence by the Parole Board, a warden could approve subsequent temporary absences, so long as the offender did not breach a condition of an earlier temporary absence. If anything, these amendments would actually strengthen the spirit of the bill, to respect victims. With these amendments, victims would have an opportunity to participate in this process, but they would need not fear being revictimized by receiving invitations to many repetitive and redundant hearings.

Nevertheless, while the scope or extent of the bill may be narrowed here, the amendments do not negate, do not overturn, and do not offend the principle of the bill. Therefore, the public safety committee's report is in order.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates the points made by the hon. government House leader and will take it on advisement and return to the House if and when necessary.

Orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on the protecting Canadians from online crime act. This is an important piece of legislation for many people in my constituency. I am glad that the government is following through on its commitment in the Speech from the Throne to bring this legislation forward in a timely manner.

The bill we are discussing today is a central part of the government's contribution to addressing the issue of cyberbullying, which unfortunately, with the widespread use of the Internet and social media, is becoming more prevalent in today's modern age. This bill is another key element of the government's continued agenda to stand up for victims and punish criminals who wish to prey on innocent, law-abiding citizens. As we are all aware, Canadians have fully embraced the Internet and other mobile communications technologies, such as smart phones and social media, for communicating with family and friends, seeking information, making new social connections, and creating blogs and websites.

As all members can attest to, the Internet is a large part of being an MP. We use the Internet to stay connected with our constituents, to post relevant speeches and announcements, and even to stay in contact with our families back home.

However, while most people use the Internet in a constructive manner, there have been an increasing number of tragedies where people are using the Internet or other electronic media to engage in malicious and mischievous conduct that leads to serious consequences for the victim.

With this legislation, our government was required to examine the nature of cyberbullying as it manifests itself in today's digital age. Although the issue of bullying itself is an age-old problem, technology has irrevocably changed the nature and scope of bullying. For example, bullying conducted over the Internet is faster, easier, and nastier than ever before. It also has the potential to remain in cyberspace permanently and to be done anonymously. Furthermore, perpetrators may be more likely to engage in bullying behaviour online because they cannot see or hear the effects of their actions, and because it is possible to be anonymous online. This leads me to the severity and potentially tragic nature of cyberbullying.

When we think about the bullying of the past, where some kid might have stolen our lunch money or pushed us into a puddle, we rarely associate further ramifications to these spiteful yet seemingly minor actions. However, over the past few years cyberbullying is alleged to have played a part in the decision of some young people to take their own lives. The recent stories which we are all familiar with are truly heartbreaking. I am sure I speak for all Canadians when I express our deepest condolences for the families of the victims of these tragic events. However, these incidents also prompt us, as lawmakers, to ask what the federal government can do to prevent similar tragedies.

This was the motivation behind the federal-provincial-territorial working group on cybercrime. In July, the Department of Justice, on behalf of all federal-provincial-territorial partners, publicly released its report on cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. The working group studied and considered whether or not cyberbullying was adequately addressed by the Criminal Code and whether or not there were any gaps that needed to be filled. This working group made nine unanimous recommendations with respect to the criminal law response to cyberbullying.

The first recommendation in the report calls for a multipronged and multi-sectoral approach to the issue of cyberbullying and calls for all levels of government to continue to build on their initiatives to address cyberbullying in a comprehensive manner. This recommendation recognizes that cyberbullying cannot be adequately addressed by one initiative by one level of government. In fact, most experts agree that bullying and cyberbullying are most effectively addressed through a multipronged approach. Criminal law reform only represents one small portion of a much larger situation.

Getting back to the bill that is before us today, I am pleased to note that all of the proposals contained in the bill were recommended by the federal-provincial-territorial working group and are supported by provincial and territorial attorneys general.

The bill has two main goals: to create a new Criminal Code offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and to modernize the investigative powers of the Criminal Code to enable the police to effectively and efficiently investigate cyberbullying and other crimes committed via the Internet or that involve electronic evidence.

I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the proposed new offence. The proposed offence would fill a gap related to a form of serious cyberbullying behaviour with respect to the sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images which are later used without the consent of the person depicted. It is important to emphasize that the goal of this offence is not to criminalize the making of these images or even the consensual sharing of these images, as between intimate partners or friends. Rather, this offence would focus on the behaviour that is more often becoming associated with these images, the distribution of them without the consent of the person depicted.

Specifically, this new offence would prohibit all forms of distribution of these types of images without the consent of the person depicted. Quite often the perpetrator of this behaviour is the ex-partner or ex-spouse of the person depicted in the images who is seeking revenge or looking to humiliate or harass them.

To secure a conviction for this offence, a prosecutor would be required to prove that the accused knowingly distributed the images and that the accused distributed the images either knowing the person depicted did not consent to this distribution or being reckless as to whether or not the person consented.

A key element of the proposed offence is the nature of the image itself. The bill proposes a three-part definition of intimate image to guide the court in determining whether or not a particular image is one that could be subject to the proposed offence. An intimate image is one in which the person depicted was nude or exposing his or her sexual organs, or anal region, or engaged in explicit sexual activity. The Criminal Code uses a similar definition in the voyeurism section 162 and child pornography section 163 offences. However, the content of the image on its own would not be enough to qualify the image as an intimate image. The court would also need to be satisfied that the image was one that was taken in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the person depicted in that image still retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image.

These two elements are key to ensuring that the proposed offence is not cast too broadly and does not capture images in which there could be no reasonable privacy interest. For example, if a person took sexual images of themselves in the privacy of their own home for their own personal use, the image would likely be found to be an intimate image. However, if that same person then posted those images on a public website it is less likely that the court would find that the individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy, despite the fact that the initial recording of the image was privately done.

The proposed offence would be supported by several complementary amendments in the Criminal Code to provide protection to victims of this particularly contemptible form of cyberbullying. These complementary amendments would permit the court to order the removal of intimate images from the Internet and other digital networks as well as make an order for restitution to cover some of the expenses incurred in having the images removed.

Further, the court would be empowered to order the forfeiture of tools or property used in the commission of the offence, such as a smart phone or computer, as well as a prohibition order to restrict the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender. This prohibition order would be especially useful in cases of repeat offenders.

The legislation also proposes to permit the court to issue a peace bond against a person who has intimate images in their possession where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a new offence would be committed by that person.

The proposed new offence and complementary amendments fill an existing gap in the criminal law and aim to provide broad protection to victims of this behaviour.

I understand that this legislation will not address all of the concerns that stem from cyberbullying, however, I believe this a great leap in the right direction and I strongly urge all members to support this piece of legislation.