Debates of April 30th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I brought forward these amendments to correct the drafting error was to ensure that, when a test was done to see whether there was any concern for public safety with regard to the offender in question or someone who works for Correctional Service Canada, the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada would in fact disclose that information. Again, I would like to thank the member for that question and for the opportunity today to bring forward these amendments.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that information, but does the Parole Board still have discretion of when it holds the parole hearings? That is the specific question.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the member is asking this question, because he actually sits on the public safety committee with me, although on the other side of the committee. The member knows very well that the purpose of the bill is to extend the period of review time required by the Parole Board of Canada from the current regime of two years to five years.

The member should know that a hearing could take place any time up to the end of that five-year period, which actually was the case.

We heard from witnesses that, even though the current regime is every two years, it means the hearing had to be done every two years, at the latest. In fact, we heard from witnesses who, within a period of just a few short years, had to come and observe Parole Board hearings not once, twice, or three times, but multiple times within a two- or three-year period.

Hopefully, that answers the member's question.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be speaking to the bill as a whole. Despite the fact that amendments have been introduced, this is probably the best opportunity to talk about the bill as a whole.

I will accept the parliamentary secretary's assurance that these are in fact housekeeping amendments to correct errors. I will come back to that point in a minute.

The NDP will be speaking in favour of Bill C-479, because we believe that the bill, after it has been extensively amended, still contains important improvements in victims' rights, though we were disappointed by the unwillingness of the government to go further in some areas.

New Democrats remain concerned, however, about the use of numerous private members' bills to amend both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There are several reasons for this. Often these private members' bills are inspired by a single incident or a single case, and therefore they have a very narrow focus. What this means is that sometimes they miss larger issues in the criminal justice system because of that focus on a single incident or a single case.

Second, private members' bills do not get the same technical expertise applied to them in their drafting as government bills do. This is a natural phenomenon, as they are prepared by a single member of Parliament, who does not have access to the large legal and policy expertise a federal department would have if it were drafting the same legislation. Thus, we end up in a situation, which we had with Bill C-479, where we had numerous amendments to the bill at committee stage, which were necessary, and even the additional amendments that were introduced at report stage. That is one reason we have concerns about the extensive use of private members' bills to amend what are really quite technical bills, the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

As well, private members' bills do not go through the screening that all government bills must go through or are supposed to go through. That is the one that supposedly checks for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a government bill, the Minister of Justice would be required to certify that the bill did not conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not get that kind of scrutiny for a private member's bill.

Finally, we remain concerned about making extensive changes through multiple bills proceeding along different paths through Parliament on different timetables. The sheer volume of changes being made to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are often a problem, because they are being considered at different committees. Some of these bills are going to the justice committee, and some are going to the public safety committee. There is a risk of having legal errors and omissions as well as unintended consequences when we have different bodies of Parliament dealing with the same bill and amending the same bill on different timeframes. This, of course, includes the Senate, which would be dealing with these in a completely different timeframe.

What we have had was some bills going to the justice committee and some bills going to the public safety committee. We in the public safety committee do not have the benefit of hearing the witnesses and hearing the debate on those bills that are in justice and vice versa. They do not have the benefit of seeing what work we have been doing in the public safety committee.

For instance, specifically in the case of Bill C-479, the public safety committee did not have the advantage of seeing the text of the government's victims' rights bill, Bill C-32, and now that bill will go to the justice committee, which will not have had the advantage of hearing the witnesses on Bill C-479, which amends the very same bill on the very same topic. I think we risk errors, omissions, and unintended consequences when we proceed in this way in the House of Commons.

I hope that when the debate in justice comes to Bill C-32, it will hear some of the same witnesses we heard. However, I am sure it seems to those witnesses that Parliament has become a very inefficient place if they have to go talk about the same bills multiple times at different committees.

As I said before, and despite the rhetoric we so often hear in the House, obviously no party has a monopoly on the concern for victims of crime. However, New Democrats do differ with the government on how best to serve victims and how best to make sure that there are fewer victims of crime in the future. We in the NDP understand the importance of utilizing our corrections system to prevent additional Canadians becoming victims of crime in the future. Clearly, if one is going to do that, what one needs is a properly funded corrections system where offenders receive the treatment and rehabilitation they need, whether for addictions, mental illness, or more specific problems they may have, and where they can access training and education opportunities that are necessary for successful reintegration into our communities. If they do not get successful treatment for mental illness and addictions, if they do not get job training, then offenders will find themselves back in the same circumstances as before and therefore are very likely to reoffend, creating even more new victims.

When committee members previously visited one of our federal correctional institutions and met with the prisoners committee, two of the people there had returned to prison, and we asked them why. They both gave the very same answer. They said when they got out, they did not have any resources, they had not had the training they needed, and they ended up back with the same friends who got them into same trouble they had been in before.

Therefore, New Democrats would like to emphasize that one of the very important things we can do to prevent victims of crime being created in the future is to have a properly functioning corrections system, and we know right now we do not have such a system. There is overcrowding in the corrections system, there is underfunding of training, there are long wait lists for mental health and addiction programs. If they are not fixed, it will lead to more victims of crime in the future.

The Conservatives, especially in private members' bills, often focus on the understandable feelings of some victims that the justice system ought to be more punitive and provide a greater sense of retribution, or they focus on the victims who believe toughness is the solution for crime. However, in doing so, they risk missing the more fundamental feeling expressed by nearly all victims. The one thing that nearly all victims of crime will say, the one thing they seem to share, is the wish that no one else has to go through what they went through. This is where victims start and end.

For New Democrats and, I believe, for most Canadians, there is a concern that we not lose the balance in our justice system between the need for punishment and the common good of increased public safety that we can achieve through rehabilitation programs. That balance is placed in jeopardy by the Conservative government's “penny wise and pound foolish” approach to public safety budgets. The consequences of this failure of the Conservative government to adequately resource the corrections system will, unfortunately, be seen down the road in additional victims.

Today, we in the NDP are supporting Bill C-479 because there are provisions in it which are of clear benefit to victims. Indeed, most of the provisions in this bill are already normal practice in the parole system. These include the presence of victims or members of their families at parole hearings, consideration of victims' statements by the Parole Board in its decisions, some special provisions for the manner in which statements can be presented at parole hearings, a stronger requirement to communicate to victims information that the board considered when making its decisions, an obligation to make transcripts of parole hearings available to victims and their families, as well as to offenders, and a better system of informing victims when an offender is going to be granted a temporary absence or parole or is released at the end of his or her sentence.

All of these things normally take place and New Democrats agree that it is a good idea to entrench these rights for victims by placing them in legislation. They are now mostly discretionary and we are saying these things need to be a right for victims. It is kind of peculiar to me that Bill C-479 actually has more rights for victims in it than the so-called victims rights bills. This actually entrenches many things in legislation.

New Democrats were, however, surprised to see the government reject one amendment which we put forward. We said that right now we have a strange situation. If, for some reason, a victim is not allowed to attend a hearing, either because he or she threatened the offender or some other reason, the victim is allowed to observe the parole hearings through teleconference or video conference. Other victims do not have that choice. We proposed an amendment giving every victim the right to observe parole hearings through video conference, teleconference, or by some other means where the victim does not have to be present in the room. Some victims do not want to be in the room because of fear, some do not want to be in the room because of revulsion, and we believe that all victims should have the right to observe parole hearings by video or teleconferencing, if they so choose. As I said, it was very surprising to me that the government voted against this amendment.

Making video conferencing available also has another very important impact for victims and their families. Sometimes people have to travel across the country. If offenders have been transferred, they may no longer be in institutions near the victims, so the victims would incur travel costs and might have to take time off work that could be avoided with video conferencing. One thing New Democrats have confidence in, as raised by the member for Malpeque, is that this bill does preserve the discretion of the Parole Board with regard to how long hearings have to take place.

As my time draws to a close, let me conclude by saying the New Democrats support strengthening victims rights, but we urge all members to consider another important thing that victims need, not just legislation but also well-supported programs to help them put their lives back in order.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I want to point out that at report stage there are no questions and comments and therefore we were mistaken in the last rotation in that the hon. parliamentary secretary took some. We will proceed now with 10 minute speeches.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That is all right, Mr. Speaker. We did not get many answers.

We will be supporting the bill because the contents and the intent of Bill C-479 remain basically as they were presented to the House during second reading. Given the fact that the key element of the legislation, namely, an effort to reduce the discretion of the parole board to conduct its tasks, has not been infringed, it is our intention to support the bill.

The intent to ensure that victims of crime are considered remains as has been the cornerstone of previous Liberal initiatives, which came into strong focus with the 2003 Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime negotiated between federal and provincial governments.

The problem with this legislation, as with all of the private members' bills from government members related to public safety, is how flawed they are and the extent to which the government, through Department of Justice lawyers, has had to intervene to amend the legislation to bring it into line both legally and constitutionally. We just saw that at the beginning of this discussion tonight, with the ninth amendment to the bill coming forward at this late stage.

The trouble begins with the statements delivered by members moving these bills, as was the case with respect to Bill C-479, that they have been vetted to ensure that they met the legal and constitutional standards expected of legislation coming out of this place. The member who moved Bill C-479 provided the House with the assurance that the bill had met these standards.

The consequences, though, were that when this legislation, similar to other government private members' bills, was brought before the public safety committee, there were substantial and numerous amendments by the government after we held the hearings. Witnesses come before the committee on the basis of the original bill. Then in the very last session the government comes forward with a whole series of amendments, as I said in this case eight at committee and the ninth here, and basically the bill, in my view, is quite often, and this one has as well, has been changed substantially from the intent that the mover of the bill talked about.

One of the concerns that has arisen is the contradictory nature of private members' legislation from government members relative to the government's tough on crime agenda. For example, the principle behind Bill C-479 is to reduce the number of parole board hearings to which victims would be subjected. However, we then have Bill C-483, the principle of which is to increase the number of parole board hearings to which victims would be subjected. The previous NDP speaker also mentioned some of the contradictory nature of the bills coming forward and how it could jeopardize justice in our country.

The question victim and victim organizations should ask themselves is straightforward. Do those government backbenchers over there speak to each other before they bring these contradictory bills forward?

Let us examine what occurred with Bill C-479, a bill well motivated I have no doubt.

Bill C-479 is a seven clause bill that required eight government amendments and the ninth tonight. The first point to bear in mind is that the initial rationale for the bill was to extend the period the parole board could hold a hearing for violent offenders from two to five years. According to the member in whose name the bill stands, his intent was made very clear during testimony before the public safety committee on February 13, at page 3 of the evidence, as to what he wanted to have addressed, “our federal parole process...makes the revictimization of victims and their families an all too frequent occurrence”.

The problem has been, and remains after the changes at committee made by the government itself, that the discretion of the Parole Board remains, in spite of the intention of the member opposite. That was the reason for my question earlier, which I guess was out of order. That was my question earlier to the parliamentary secretary. Basically, we are back to where we were in the beginning. The discretion, whether it is two years or five, remains with the Parole Board.

On this bill, I moved a motion that the condition be changed from “the Parole Board may make such a decision” to “shall”, but the government voted against it. I wanted to make it strictly so that the Parole Board makes such a decision, and government members themselves voted against putting in place that clear direction to the Parole Board.

As has been stated before, the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, was supportive of the bill. At a media event at which the member sponsoring the bill was in attendance on May 8, 2013, he stated that, “The Parole Board has the option of waiting up until five years before a hearing takes place. It can be done sooner”.

The member himself acknowledged that the Parole Board would retain the discretion as to when to conduct a further hearing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness confirmed in testimony before the public safety committee on February 27 the discretion of the Parole Board to convene hearings at its discretion. The point that raised the concerns of the mover of Bill C-479 was being maintained. She said:

...the Parole Board of Canada could still hear, could still have that happen. It doesn't have to wait for five years; it doesn't have to wait for four years. It could actually do it in two years. It could do it in shorter than that as well.

What is the point, then? We have had a lot of propaganda from government members around this bill. They brought the victims in, telling them that this was going to happen, and now we are basically back to where we started. The discretion remains with the Parole Board.

The rhetoric was clear. The purpose of the legislation was to reduce the number of occasions victims might be revictimized by the number of hearings held by the Parole Board. It is clear from the statements of the former public safety minister and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the Parole Board has, and will retain, its discretionary authority over when and how many times hearings will be conducted.

That is what people who came forward as witnesses need to understand. What the promoter of the bill said in the beginning, and the end result after the government made amendments to the bill, is that the Parole Board has the discretion to make the decisions. I have to say that there is some smoke and mirrors in terms of these private members' bills coming forward from the government when, at the end of the day, they really have not changed a whole heck of a lot.

I do not question the sincerity of the member who proposed the bill. Clearly, his intentions were what was contained in the bill. Nor do I question the sincerity of those witnesses who testified in supporting the original bill, which the House approved at second reading. What I do question is the deliberate misleading by the Conservative government of victims of crime. When it comes to presenting legislation, it assures these people that the bill will achieve certain objectives for the victims, and then government lawyers intervene to bring those commitments in line with Canadian law and the Constitution.

To the people who came in good faith as witnesses before this bill, I say that they should understand that there have not been a lot of changes. The Parole Board still has the discretion to make the decisions on when the hearings will be held.

We will be supporting the bill at this stage.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-479, the fairness for victims of violent offenders act, a variation of which I introduced in 2011 and again as Bill C-479 in 2013 to ensure victims of violent crimes are treated fairly in our justice system.

We heard throughout this debate that victims of crime wanted more meaningful participation in the justice system as well as more information about prisoners. Even in cases in which victims are able to move on and rebuild their lives, painful memories, stress, and fear can resurface as the offender nears the end of his or her sentence and begins a process of Parole Board hearings.

The purpose of parole is, of course, to help convicted criminals safely reintegrate into general society so that they never go back to prison. It allows eligible convicted criminals to continue serve the balance of their sentences outside of prison. Indeed, the parole process is a critical tool to helping convicted criminals re-enter society and become law-abiding, contributing Canadians who can make a difference in their communities, often for the first time in their lives.

But what about the victims of crime and their friends and families? Does the parole system work from their perspective? Victims have told us they wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and that they were having trouble accessing the services they needed. The Government of Canada has listened and acted.

We developed a vision to transform the federal corrections system, which included giving victims of crime a greater voice and better access to available services and information.

Since 2006 we have moved ahead with a comprehensive agenda to bring victims' rights to the forefront. Early in our mandate, we established the Office of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to help victims get the services they need to help them heal from the terrible ordeals they have experienced.

In 2007 we put in place the federal victims strategy, ensuring ongoing permanent funding in 2011. We also passed a wide range of legislative measures that strengthen the parole process and empower victims. Of note, through our Safe Streets and Communities Act, we have ushered in a number of changes that help victims and strengthen the parole process.

In particular, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act now recognizes the role of victims in Parole Board of Canada hearings, and victims have access to timely information about prisoner transfers. For example, we have put in place measures so that prisoners cannot withdraw their parole applications 14 days or less before the scheduled date of a hearing. Victims should not be stuck with paying for travel expenses for a hearing that does not take place.

We have ensured that prisoners are held accountable by following a structured correctional plan from the day they enter a federal institution through to their release and reintegration into their communities.

We must continue to fulfill our commitment to help victims of crime to overcome the trauma they have experienced, give them access to information they need, and ensure they are part of the parole hearing process. For me this is a very personal mission, having observed Parole Board of Canada hearings of victims who are constituents on three occasions over recent years. As I have explained throughout the discussion on the bill, this is what prompted me to bring the bill forward.

The bill before us will help us continue on the path of helping victims. Bill C-479 proposes to modify parole and detention review dates and provide additional support for victims.

As we heard during second reading debate, the bill proposes a number of measures. For example, it would extend mandatory review periods for parole for offenders convicted of murder or a violent offence. This means that if a criminal convicted of a violent offence is denied parole, the Parole Board would be required to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

The bill would initially increase the period to within four years in which the Parole Board must review parole in cases of cancellation or termination of parole for an offender who is serving at least two years for an offence involving violence. For any subsequent cancellations, the period would be extended to five years. Contrary to the claims of the member for Malpeque, this gives the Parole Board the tools to limit the number of Parole Board hearings, tools that they did not have heretofore.

The bill would require that the Parole Board take into consideration the need for the victims and the victims' families to attend a hearing and observe the proceedings. It would require that the Parole Board consider any victim impact statement presented by victims, particularly in cases of victims of violent offenders.

It would require the Parole Board to provide victims, if requested, with information about the date, location, and conditions of an offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, as well as provide victims with information about the offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

Clearly this bill goes a long way toward making sure that victims of crime are treated more fairly.

As well, we introduced some important amendments in committee to ensure the soundest legislation possible. For example, with respect to the provision regarding mandatory disclosure to victims of information about the offender's release, we have passed amendments in committee to allow the board the option to not disclose this information in a case where doing so would endanger public safety.

After adoption of this amendment, however, a drafting error was discovered. The amendment, which related to section 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, inadvertently overwrote subclauses 6(2) and 6(3) of the bill. This error would have meant that the chairperson of the Parole Board could disclose this information at his or her discretion as well as require mandatory disclosure following a public safety test. That is why the parliamentary secretary introduced amendments to correct this error and to remove that discretionary aspect. The bill must clearly state that this important information is disclosed unless it negatively impacts public safety.

Another amendment passed in committee clarified that the disclosure of details about an offender's release, including date, location, and conditions, should be provided to victims at least 14 days before the release date only when it is feasible for the board and Correctional Service Canada to do so. We passed that amendment because sometimes, due to situations beyond their control, these agencies are not always certain of details about an offender's release a full 14 days prior to the release.

A drafting error resulted in the notation of the amendment being incorrect. The amendment wording referenced paragraph 142(1)(a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, when in fact it should have referenced paragraph 142(1)(c). Again, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for introducing amendments to correct this drafting error.

Taking into account the amendments before us today and the amendments adopted by the committee, we are confident that we have sound legislation for the benefit of all victims. Therefore, we urge all members to support the motion to correct these drafting errors and to allow this bill to move forward as a measure to create a strong, fair system for victims of crime.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 7, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Democratic Reform

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 25, I asked during question period whether the minister would fix the real electoral problem and make our electoral system more proportional. The answer I received at the time was completely irrelevant to the question that I posed. I hope the parliamentary secretary will attempt to provide a more on-topic response this evening.

Unamended, Bill C-23 could have prevented thousands of Canadians from voting, and likely violated the charter in the process. I am pleased to see that the minister of state has finally agreed to amend at least some of the most anti-democratic aspects of this legislation, but only after thousands upon thousands of Canadians stood up against this bill.

However, the fact remains. The real problem facing Canadian democracy is our first-past-the-post, antiquated, unfair and undemocratic electoral system, which delivered 100% of the power to the party that received less than 40% of the vote in the last election. And what is the primary symptom of that? Many Canadians believe their vote will not count, and increasingly they remain home on election day. Too few voters is our problem in Canada, not too many. As many voters stayed home during the last election as voted for the governing party. This appears to suit the Conservatives just fine.

What is the solution to this crisis in our democracy? The answer is to move to a more proportional voting system where every vote counts, and all Canadians have a genuine opportunity to have an equal say in selecting their government. First-past-the-post probably harms the electoral prospects of the Greens more than any other party. For example, in 2011, despite receiving almost 600,000 Canadian votes, the Green Party of Canada was only allowed one member in Parliament. In a proportional system where every vote counted, as in the vast majority of countries with real elections, these same 600,000 Canadians would have elected 12 Green members to Parliament.

Yet our electoral system does not target only Greens; it disenfranchises voters from coast to coast to coast whose ballots, whether cast for Conservatives, New Democrats or Liberals, are not reflected at all in the make-up of the House of Commons today. This huge group of Canadians of all political stripes cheated out of their votes adds up to approximately half of all eligible voters. Can we really be surprised that 40% of Canadians could not be bothered to cast a ballot in 2011?

However, there may be hope. I see hope in the thousands of Canadians who spoke out against the Conservatives' unfair elections act, forcing them to accept amendments to Bill C-23. I also see hope in the widespread support that has greeted the important private member's bill, the reform act by the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills, which would allow MPs to return to working for their constituents.

After eight years under this administration, these questions are increasingly understood as central to the health of our democracy. Electoral reform and restraining the centralized power of the Prime Minister and other party leaders must be understood as central to fixing the crisis in Canadian democracy and restoring Canadians' faith in our government.

I ask this question again. Rather than attempting to invent some fake plague of voter fraud, are the Conservatives prepared to fix the real problem facing Canadian democracy? And what are they prepared to do to ensure that every vote actually counts?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I note in the member's written question a reference was made regarding proportional voting and he just expressed some concerns about the first past the post system that we now use. I also note that the member opposite was first elected as a member of the New Democratic Party, later to become an independent member of Parliament, and more recently to join a party again, in this case, the Green Party. The Green Party, as we know, supports proportional voting and as such we are here to deal with this question tonight.

To the best of my knowledge, the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, that this member was first elected to be a part of, has not stated publicly support for proportional representation voting. I only mention this because I would question if the member's constituents have given a mandate that supports proportional voting.

In my home province of British Columbia where the leader of the Green Party also represents an electoral riding, B.C. voters have rejected the very idea of a new electoral system twice. While I understand that the Green Party supports the idea of proportional representation, I do not believe that there is a clear mandate for Canadians that is in agreement with this.

I would also point out in this place I am not aware of any of the official parties sharing support for proportional representation outside of the member's party. It is perhaps one of the few things that collectively many members of the House do agree upon. In that respect I would submit that it would be undemocratic to support a voting system that to date is only supported by the two members of the Green Party.

I should also point out that when we consider the proposed amendments to the fair elections act, what remains of the bill for the most part are changes more of a technical nature as opposed to a wholesale change of our electoral process as the Green Party would prefer.

For example, adding one more day of advanced polling, something that has shown increased usage by voters, is not to the best of my knowledge being opposed. Again I would hope that the member opposite would think that offering an extra day so that any Canadian who would like to vote can find the time to do so and participate in our democracy, the very thing the member brought up in his comments pointing to the issue of not having enough people voting and participating. I hope the member would support it; likewise, the stiffer penalties for impersonating Elections Canada staff.

As for eliminating a decades-old provision for blacking out certain electoral information so people on the west coast of Canada would not know what results there were, obviously social media has changed that. Closing loopholes around unpaid leadership loans and using estate bequests to circumvent donation limits are not aspects being opposed by the fair elections act.

As for vouching, the member is likely aware that this is an issue being addressed by an amendment, although the majority of Canadians I have heard from strongly support that they want to see people have the ID necessary to vote.

In closing, I would submit that the amendments to the fair elections act will ultimately help eliminate irregularities in our voting system and ultimately help increase voter participation because we all do want to see Canadians take their democratic rights and take the opportunity to vote in order for us to do the work of the people.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member is in error about the position of the NDP on this issue. It has always been in favour of proportional representation and still is.

Bill C-23 will be back before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs late tonight. The leader of the Green Party will be tabling substantial amendments to this very flawed bill and we all hope that Bill C-23 looks very different when it returns to the House.

My question this evening has not really been answered. I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians would like a proper response. Will the Conservatives fix the crisis in Canadian democracy resulting from the antiquated and anti-democratic electoral system that discards half the votes cast in every election?

There is no evidence of voter fraud in Canada, but there is lots of evidence of electoral unfairness in the way the government abuses an already flawed electoral system.

I will ask again. Will the Conservative government ensure equal and effective votes for all Canadians through a more proportional electoral system?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the member is coming from. He obviously feels that this particular proportional representation proposition is supported widely by the New Democrats. I have not heard any New Democratic members come forward with that. However, that is their business to decide.

Again, I have been speaking to my constituents about the fair elections act, and they are quite happy with many of the provisions that are in there. Obviously that is why we consult widely with our committee work, so that at the end of the day we can have a very clear bill that has the majority support of Canadians.

If the member wants to question why there is not a proportional representation proposal before the House, he has two options. Either more Green members can be elected in the coming election and they can press for change, or that member can propose a bill in this House. His leader put forward a bill on Lyme disease, which I think it is certainly worthy of a look and support.

There are plenty of opportunities for the Green members to advance their cause. It should not be up to the government to enact their policies; it should be their responsibility.

Foreign Investment

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few moments to rise and speak about this question that I raised in the House not too long ago.

In my view, the Conservative government has once again proven its incompetence when it comes to reviews under the Investment Canada Act. It is unclear, in fact, whether the interests of vulnerable Canadians are being properly protected.

I asked a question about Nordion and what is happening with it. I am thinking of those Canadians who rely upon medical isotopes for medical diagnosis and treatment.

Despite repeated promises to make the Investment Canada Act more transparent and to provide a clear definition of net benefit, we have another case that is shrouded in secrecy and uncertainty. I am talking about the $800 million deal for a United States company to acquire Kanata-based Nordion.

Before the government approves this deal, we should know the criteria it will use to assess the transaction, but we do not. Since the sale means that Nordion, which supplies medical isotopes, will become private, there should also be some assurances given to Canadians who rely on medical isotopes.

Sterigenics Inc., which wants to acquire Nordion, is a sterilization services company, and it is owned by a Chicago-based private equity firm. Nordion's CEO says the transaction delivers value to shareholders and is a good, strategic fit. We take him at his word.

However, we still need to ensure that it is also in the best interests of all Canadians, and especially those who need a safe and secure supply of medical isotopes.

According to media reports, Sterigenics said its initial focus will be on the use of cobalt-60, a radioactive isotope used to sterilize medical equipment.

Nordion officials said Sterigenics is supportive of Nordion's continued efforts to secure a long-term supply of medical isotopes.

However, before the deal goes through, the government would have to also lift foreign investment restrictions that currently apply to Nordion. These restrictions prevent non-residents from controlling more than 25% of Nordion, which of course is involved in the nuclear industry in Canada.

There are measures in the Conservative omnibus budget bill to remove that restriction, so some may think that the government approved the deal even before it reviewed it, because it has these measures in the budget bill and it has not even reviewed the deal yet.

Of course, the Conservatives will say the sale is a net benefit to Canada, because it just happens to define what net benefit means.

This decision has been and continues to be worrisome, and we are all too aware of the consequences of a shortage of medical isotopes.

I look forward to hearing the answer to this important question from the government side.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reaffirming our government's commitment to welcoming foreign investment in Canada that particularly benefits Canadians. Foreign investment is crucial to the Canadian economy and for prosperity in Canada. It introduces new technologies and practices that promote growth, employment, and innovation here at home. It brings some of the most productive and specialized firms in the world to Canada and it results in some of the highest-paying jobs for Canadians.

The budget implementation act introduces measures to remove the non-resident ownership restrictions on Nordion under the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act. Removing these restrictions allows the company to seek other avenues to succeed.

That said, any specific proposal by a foreign investor to acquire control of Nordion is subject to the Investment Canada Act and to approval. I understand that Sterigenics has indicated that it will file an application for review under the Investment Canada Act.

As the hon. member for Halifax West knows, the minister approves an application for review only when he is satisfied, based on the plans, undertakings, and other representations of the investor, that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada.

In making his determination of net benefit, the minister considers the factors listed in section 20 of the act. These include, one, the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; two, the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business; three, the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation, and product variety in Canada; four, the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; five, the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic, and cultural policies; and six, the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

The review process under the act is rigorous, and as part of the process, the minister considers the views of a variety of stakeholders. He consults affected provinces or territories as well as the federal department with policy responsibility for the sector involved.

In addition, any person or group that has a view on a specific investment proposal may provide those views to the minister during the review process.

Our government's balanced approach ensures foreign investment transactions are reviewed on their merits, based on the long-term interests of Canadians. I would like to reassure my colleagues in the House that Sterigenics' proposed acquisition of Nordion will be reviewed thoroughly and carefully. It will not be approved unless the minister is satisfied that it is likely to be of net benefit to Canadians.

I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to discuss these points and I hope that the six points added some clarity for people watching the debate at home.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments.

I mentioned a few moments ago the worry about the consequences of a shortage of medical isotopes that this situation could lead to. Unfortunately, the one region that has been left out of plans to produce medical isotopes using new technology and to be part of the experimentation going on right now in those new technologies is my region of Atlantic Canada.

I have written to the minister about the exclusion of Atlantic Canada's only medical isotope production facility—the only area that is really doing work in this field—from the isotope technology acceleration program, or ITAP. The federal government has now invested more than $50 million in the development of an alternative supply of medical isotopes, and I am informed that none of this funding has been invested in Atlantic Canada. This is unacceptable in a region where the supply of medical isotopes is precarious.

Like many others, I am concerned that patient care for residents of Atlantic Canada will be jeopardized should the Conservatives neglect to invest in the region under ITAP.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I can appreciate that the member has a certain interest in making sure that his riding can fully participate in the economic and social well-being of our country, there are many regions that would like to see investment. There are many regions that would like to see government programs and those kinds of things come in to help that riding or region to grow and prosper. That is why the government does consultations on a regular basis.

However, getting back to his original question which was based on the Investment Canada Act and the feeling that there was not a strong, transparent process, I would just go back to the six points. I hope they have relieved the member somewhat of some of his concerns. If he or any stakeholders have any concerns, as I mentioned in my speech, he or any individual group is free to advise the minister of their concerns as part of that process. I would encourage the member to take that opportunity.