Debates of May 7th, 2014

Homelessness

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 455 under private members' business.

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

Vote #119

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

I have received notice from the hon. member for Calgary West that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Thursday, May 8, 2014. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence.

Accordingly, I am directing that tomorrow the table officers drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled tomorrow and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.

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

Infrastructure

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the House about why the Conservative government was cutting infrastructure funding next year. The answer was that despite the Prime Minister's claims, the economy was not his top priority. The main thing the Prime Minister is focused on is being able to go into the next election and say that he has eliminated the very deficit that he created in 2008 in order to gain votes.

Because of this, important federal investments are being delayed until after the next election. This is in spite of the fact that action now would generate economic growth and help middle-class families. We saw this when the Prime Minister delayed, for two years, his recently announced funding to help first nations children's education. That is a tremendously important investment when fewer than four in ten young aboriginal students even graduate from high school if they live on reserve.

However, Mr. Harper felt that was not as important as his balanced budget target date. Therefore, the funding does not flow until after the next election.

The new building Canada fund is no different. It is a 10-year plan, which Liberals were happy to see, but it is heavily back end loaded and extremely light on funding until after the next election. In fact, for the next two years, the fund will have only $210 million of new funding a year. If we compare this with the old building Canada fund commitment for 2013-14, which was $1.7 billion, this has been an 87% cut and it will not be back to last year's level until 2019. That puts projects like the Broadway corridor expansion of SkyTrain at risk.

Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver held a press conference this week to say that the Broadway corridor expansion of SkyTrain must go forward. However, the federal share of this investment may be delayed many years due to the delay in funding for infrastructure by the Conservative government.

Liberal Party members recently passed a resolution calling for major infrastructure investments of up to 1% of GDP. They understand how critically important infrastructure investment is.

UBC generates more than $10 billion in economic activity annually, but the bus-clogged Broadway corridor that goes right through my riding of Vancouver Quadra, is a major impediment to investment in the corridor, according to a KPMG report written recently. A new SkyTrain link from Broadway to Commercial would connect jobs and innovation centres in metro Vancouver, making this one of Canada's most important infrastructure and economic corridors.

As Mayor Gregor Robertson recently said:

We will see companies from all over the world coming to Vancouver if there’s good connectivity....The cities we compete with globally in technology are well-connected and are invested in rapid transit, and we need to keep pace. So it will have a nationally significant economic impact.

This expansion just makes good sense. In the short run, the Broadway corridor rapid transit project will create jobs, jobs in construction, transportation and manufacturing. In the long run, public transit in the Broadway corridor will improve the quality of life and of our air, reduce traffic gridlock and stress, shorten commute times and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. It will increase our productivity and make Canada a more attractive place to invest.

All we need to do is look at the economic benefits of our life sciences and innovation clusters along the Broadway corridor and the important post-secondary institutions, like UBC in Vancouver Quadra, to know that if we act now, we can realize more benefits for greater Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada. Starving the building Canada fund is not the way to do this.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I just want to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra not to use proper names, but to refer to each other by our riding names or titles.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to make strategic investments in infrastructure that contribute to economic growth, job creation, a cleaner environment and strong, prosperous communities.

The investments by our government have been unprecedented, beginning first with the historic building Canada plan in 2007, which invested $33 billion over seven years, followed by the economic action plan in 2009, which invested an additional $14 billion in infrastructure and housing to boost our economy at the time.

A significant portion of this funding has gone to support public transit in cities across the country. Since 2006, we have committed over $7 billion in direct funding to public transit infrastructure across the country. In addition to this, during the same period, Canadian municipalities have used over $2 billion of their federal gas tax fund allocations toward transit investments.

Five of Canada's largest cities, being Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton, have directed most of their federal gas tax fund allocations to the public transit category.

Following on these record investments, our government worked with provinces, territories and municipalities to develop a long-term plan to invest in public infrastructure. As a result of these efforts, this Conservative government delivered the new building Canada plan, which provides $53 billion for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure over a 10 year period. This includes $47 billion in new funding through: the $32.2 billion community improvement fund that supports municipal infrastructure across the country, such as roads, transit, water and waste water systems, and recreational and cultural facilities; the $14 billion new building Canada fund to support provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects of national, regional and local significance, including public transit; and the renewed P3 Canada fund, with $1.25 billion to support innovative ways to invest in infrastructure projects, providing better value for taxpayer money through public-private partnerships.

Our government launched the new building Canada fund on schedule, in fact, ahead of schedule by a few days, on March 28. We are also concluding renewed agreements with provinces and territories for the gas tax fund, which we have extended, doubled, made permanent and now indexed at 2% per year, ensuring municipalities have the certainty they need to plan and invest in their infrastructure priorities.

Finally, $6 billion from existing infrastructure programs continues to support public infrastructure.

In conclusion, our government remains committed to working with the provinces, territories and municipalities as we continue to make record investments in public transit that support job creation, economic growth and a high quality of life for Canadians in every community across Canada.

With respect to the member's home province of British Columbia, I am pleased to inform the House that the province will receive almost $4 billion in dedicated federal funding over the next decade.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, nothing in the response tests my assertion, which is that this funding is dropping 87% this year and next year over last year. It is not until 2019 that the funding level will return to what it was last year, so this is years of delay in critical infrastructure.

I note the member is praising the benefits of the gas tax fund, and I would agree with that. This is a program initiated by a previous Liberal government and it was the right thing to do.

He also praises investment in rapid transit. Just to make a point of comparison, the $500 million that was spent for the Canada line to the airport, a very important federal investment, was actually approved and budgeted by a previous Liberal government. That is $500 million for one—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's assertions are incorrect. This federal government will be investing in average of over $5 billion per year in infrastructure over the next decade. This is part of our $53 billion investment through the new building Canada plan.

This funding will support provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure across the country, including roads, public transit, water, recreation and cultural infrastructure. Over 70% of new funding under the plan is dedicated specifically to municipalities for municipal infrastructure priorities, and this record investment in public infrastructure will build upon the $7 billion our government has already provided for public transit in cities across the country and will support job creation, economic growth and help to enhance a high quality of life for Canadians in every community across Canada.

National Defence

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the question I asked in February remains as important today as it was when asked. The use of CSEC to intercept some passengers transiting our major airports for WiFi communications or any other communications constitutes a form of unwarranted surveillance.

I also referenced the 2012-13 annual report of the CSE commissioner, whose mandate is to provide oversight of CSE. In that report, at page 20, the commissioner stated the following with respect to the issue of whether CSE was operating within the law as the minister claims it did in response to my question on February 3. The commissioner stated:

I had no concern with respect to the majority of the CSEC activities...However, a small number of records suggested the possibility that some activities may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law...I was unable to reach a definitive conclusion about compliance or non-compliance with the law.

It is interesting that the Minister of National Defence has failed to address this situation, which flatly contradicts the statement he made to the House on February 3. He said at that point, that report, meaning the 2012-13 report, referring to the commissioner, highlighted that all reviewed CSEC activities were authorized and carried out in accordance with the law. As I just quoted, the commissioner actually said “contrary to law”.

What the minister said is factually wrong. I hope the minister or the parliamentary secretary will correct that misleading statement this evening.

In testimony before the Senate National Security and Defence Committee on February 3, the chief of CSEC, John Foster, stated that CSEC was “specifically required to protect the privacy of Canadians”. However, he also stated that given the nature in the cyber and telecommunications environment, CSEC “may risk the incidental interception of private communications of Canadians”. How often that occurs was not elaborated on. However, Mr. Foster did make a statement that was of concern, and it goes to the heart of the question I asked the Minister of National Defence on February 3. Did the minister, under the provisions of section 273.65 of the National Defence Act, give any authorization to CSEC to conduct surveillance operations which could result in the monitoring of communications of Canadians within Canada or of individuals transiting our country?

Given these revelations and the fact the Minister of Public Safety just this week admitted that the agencies under his mandate were in fact involved in telecommunications surveillance in excess of 1.2 million times in a single year, I have to ask the minister to be clear. Did the minister authorize the surveillance of Canadians under section 273.65 of the National Defence Act?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this opportunity to once again assure all Canadians who are concerned about the activities of the Communications Security Establishment Canada that CSEC's activities are lawful, they are independently reviewed, and they serve to protect Canadians from foreign threats.

The House has engaged in a full debate on this matter, including debating a motion tabled by the member for Malpeque for a full day back in February. The Minister of National Defence and the chief of CSEC have also appeared before the Senate committee and the House committee on national defence to outline how CSEC makes invaluable contributions to the safety of Canadians as well as a continued commitment to lawfulness and privacy.

The key facts continue to remain unchanged. CSEC operates within all Canadian laws, including the National Defence Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, and the Privacy Act. CSEC is also subject to legislative measures to protect the privacy of Canadians and persons in Canada. By law, CSEC cannot direct its foreign intelligence activities at Canadians, whether they are at home or abroad, or at any person in Canada, and it cannot target Canadians indirectly if it is prohibited from doing it directly, which means it cannot use any of the Five Eyes partners to do any of that work.

CSEC may lawfully assist federal law enforcement and security agencies under their legal authorities, such as applicable court warrants.

CSEC has an effective and independent review body. The CSE Commissioner, an esteemed retired supernumerary judge, reviews all the agency's activities. The commissioner does not take direction from the government or from CSEC, and his office is independently funded by its own budgetary appropriation from Parliament. In order to review the agency's activities, the commissioner is supported by expert staff and external consultants and has full access to CSEC staff, records, and systems.

The commissioner has never found CSEC to have acted unlawfully. In fact, he has specifically noted CSEC's culture of lawful compliance and genuine concern for protecting the privacy of Canadians. Further, multiple commissioners now, all highly qualified judges, have reviewed CSEC's metadata activities. These reviews concluded that its activities are in compliance with the law and subject to comprehensive and satisfactory measures to protect the privacy of all Canadians.

As the current commissioner, Jean-Pierre Plouffe, has noted in his public statements, he is fully aware of CSEC's metadata activities and has the full co-operation of the agency in his review activities.

These are the basic facts, the same as they have been since the member's last request for an adjournment debate back in January. Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight that CSEC's foreign intelligence activities are critical to the ongoing protection of Canadians and Canada's interests. CSEC plays an essential role in protecting our country and our citizens from threats such as terrorism, hostage takers, cyberthreats, and foreign espionage. The work of this agency has revealed plots to attack Canadians and allied personnel overseas before these plans could be executed. CSEC has also helped reveal foreign-led efforts to radicalize and train individuals to carry out attacks here in Canada.

In Afghanistan, CSEC's operations were critical in assisting in the protection of our brave men and women in uniform from insurgents. Each and every day, the dedicated men and women working in the Communications Security Establishment work in obscurity and silence to help ensure our nation's prosperity, security, and stability.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there were not a lot of answers to the question I asked.

Nobody is questioning the need for CSEC in security matters. What we are questioning is whether Canadians are in effect being spied on. We have the issue of CSEC, which used metadata at airports, which we are talking about tonight. We have the admission now of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the RCMP, CSIS, and the Canada Border Services Agency were, in fact, involved in the gathering of information in those 1.2 million requests that the Privacy Commissioner released. We also know that earlier in the year, the Canada Border Services Agency was involved in about 1,800 requests. Is it being done illegally?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that it is not. I can tell the member for Malpeque and all Canadians who are watching that CSEC has to act within the law. Even when it is assisting the RCMP and CSIS with any of those activities, it has to go through the proper court orders in respect to legislation to ensure that Canadians' rights are protected.

Let me say it one more time: CSEC acts within the law. The commissioner and his staff are independent, and they do robust review and oversight of the commission.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes related to Transport in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Transport in the main estimates, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)

Transport—Main Estimates, 2014–15

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to open this committee of the whole session by making a short statement on this evening's proceedings.

Tonight's debate is being held under Standing Order 81(4)(a), which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours.

The debate is also held under the provisions of the order made on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. Tonight's debate is a general one on all of the votes related to Transport. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the Liberal Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

As provided in an order made on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, parties may use each 15-minute slot for speeches or for questions and answers by one or more of their members. In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how his or her time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.

When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the parties.

Though members may speak more than once, the Chair will generally try to ensure that all members wishing to speak are heard before inviting members to speak again, while respecting the proportional party rotations for speakers.

Members need not be in their own seats to be recognized.

Finally, I would remind hon. members that according to the order made May 6, during this evening's debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

As your Chair, I am guided by the rules of the committee of the whole and by the order made on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. However, in the interests of a full exchange, I am prepared to exercise discretion and flexibility in the application of these rules.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, ministers and members should be referred to by their titles or riding names, and of course, all remarks should addressed through the Chair.

I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language, and behaviour. At the conclusion of tonight's debate, the committee will rise. The estimates related to Transport will be deemed reported, and the House will adjourn immediately until tomorrow.

We may now begin tonight's session. The House, in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the first appointed day, consideration in committee of the whole of all votes related to Transport in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

The floor is open.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to publicly wish the Minister of Transport a happy birthday. After that, I stop playing nice.

Here is my first question: Between 1995 and 2012, how many years was Canada Post profitable for?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, I have the corporate plan for Canada Post, but of course, Canada Post is an independent crown corporation and as a third party, is arm's length from us.

We do know that since 2006, there have been 1.2 billion fewer pieces of domestic letter mail delivered. That is why Canada Post has embarked upon this change.

If the member would like to have further information with respect to profitability, we can provide those back years. However, I can tell the member that with respect to this year, Canada Post in 2013 had a loss of $269 million—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As I explained in the opening, normally the responses by the minister will be around the same time as the time used to pose the question.

Having said that, and for some of the members who have been through this process before, if the question compels a particularly complex response but the questioner takes only several seconds, clearly time must be permitted for the minister to respond to the essential tenets of the question that was put.

However, generally speaking, whatever time was taken by the questioner, one should try their best to fashion their response in the same time the questioner took.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, my question was simple and it should have had a very short answer. The answer was actually 17 years. My colleague did not need two minutes for her answer.

Canada Post has posted a profit 17 out of the past 18 years. The only loss posted in that period was in 2011.

What was the largest one-time expense that Canada Post incurred that year?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, on the topic of profit or loss in the operations of Canada Post, as I said, I have in front of me the annual report. It indicates that while there was a profit in operations in 2009 and 2010, there was not in 2011, 2012, or 2013. There was a loss of $226 million in 2011, $106 million in 2012, and $193 million in 2013 from operations.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, once again, the minister is not answering the question.

The only one-time expense in 2011 was the pay equity settlement that took 31 years to materialize. I imagine that the minister agrees with the pay equity settlement. Canada Post would have turned a profit in 2011 without this expense.

Does the Minister of Transport agree with Deepak Chopra, Canada Post's CEO? He believes that the end of home delivery will benefit seniors because it will force them to go outside and get some exercise—Is that her opinion as well?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, clearly Canada Post has in place ways to deal with people who have special needs when it comes to the delivery of mail. It does that currently and will do that in the future, as well, when we move the five million homes that currently receive their mail at the door to where they will receive it in a community mailbox.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, what I gather is that the minister agrees with Canada Post. It is going to create a new dependency for tens of thousands of seniors and people with reduced mobility. In fact, they are going to have to rely on people to go and get their mail. We are going to be the first G7 country that will be unable to provide home delivery. We must provide home delivery.

I have a very specific question for the minister. In major urban centres such as Montreal, Vancouver or Toronto, where will these community mailboxes be installed? Will they be installed on sidewalks or in parks?