Debates of June 18th, 2014

Natural Resources

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the proponent has more work to do to re-engage all communities along the route. Our government is working to build a stronger relationship with Canada's first nations. A response to the Eyford report is a first important step to building a relationship with first nation communities. The natural resource sector is the largest private employer of first nations people in Canada.

First nations have, and will continue, to benefit and contribute to the environmental stewardship and economic benefits of responsible resource development.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how about one last chance for one of these Conservative MPs, shall we? How about the member for Port Moody, the senior Conservative MP from B.C.? He can stand and tell the people of his riding why he is abandoning them in favour of serving the Prime Minister.

The people of British Columbia understand that Enbridge northern gateway is a bad project for them, a terrible idea for first nations and a disaster waiting to happen for our environment.

B.C. Conservatives are going to get the message now, or they are going to get it at the ballot box in 2015. How about standing now and showing a little courage in their convictions?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science and fact-based review panel. We have proposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants, 21 communities and reviewed more than 175,000 pages of evidence.

There is no question that the proponent has more work to do with communities along the route.

Infrastructure

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are out of touch with the reality that people cannot raise a full-time family on part-time work. Since last year Canada has lost 27,000 full-time jobs. Wages are stagnant, and families are falling behind. However, we can fix this. Smart investments in infrastructure can create good full-time jobs, but the Conservatives have actually cut infrastructure spending by 90% for next year.

Will the Conservatives listen to experts like David Dodge? Will they reverse these cuts? Will they invest in infrastructure and create good full-time jobs for Canadians right across the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the member is incorrect. He is misleading the House.

Here is the approach of our Conservative government with respect to infrastructure: We are making record investments. We have doubled the gas tax fund. Municipalities and provinces identified their own infrastructure priorities. We are spending within our means, and we are balancing the budget within the next year.

On this side of the House, we will take that approach to the bank any day.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the government's decision to cut funding in the building Canada fund by 90% until 2019 is having a devastating impact on jobs and the economy.

Joe Murphy, executive director of the P.E.I. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, said that jobs are being lost every day because the work cannot be done without the federal infrastructure dollars. One island construction company has reduced the number of employees from 40 in 2012 to 16 today. That is a cut of 60%.

First the Conservatives cut, and now they will not deliver. Why will the government not sign on with the provinces?

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the update on the new building Canada plan.

The gas tax fund has been doubled. It has been made permanent, and will be indexed moving forward. The new building Canada fund is open for business. Applications are being received. One project has already been approved by the federal government, an important public transit project in Edmonton.

The hon. member may not be aware, but project applications have already been received by his home province of Prince Edward Island.

Justice

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after a second disputed judicial appointment, the minister and the Prime Minister are raising suspicions about the possibility that Justice Mainville will be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Not only could that appointment contravene the court's decision in the Nadon case, but it would prolong the under-representation of women on the highest court.

Therefore, with so many high-calibre Quebec judges, what is the minister doing to ensure that the process to replace Justice Lebel will be open, transparent, responsible and participatory?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, as I believe he was here, the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday that the appointment of Mr. Justice Mainville to the Appeal Court of Quebec has nothing to do with the opening at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court opening of course is not available until November of this year, and in fact, there has been no process undertaken to date with respect to the replacement of Mr. LeBel.

I ask that the hon. member look forward to the future with optimism. We have a full complement of judges representing the province of Quebec. We are very aware of the need to keep that complement, and that is exactly what we will do.

Privacy

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in Spencer is in keeping with the spirit of his cyberbullying bill. Fortunately, making a fool of oneself is not harmful to one's health.

Some provisions of Bill C-13 run completely contrary to this ruling. The bill allows businesses to turn over their clients' personal information without a warrant from a judge.

The minister does not have to sacrifice privacy in order to fight cyberbullying. Why is he doing that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do it. In fact, it is very important, as the member has pointed out, that we respect their privacy, but at the same time allow the police to do their important work.

I remind the member and this House that the decision in Spencer was a child pornography case where the Supreme Court in fact upheld the conviction on the possession and sent the distribution charge back for retrial. With respect to that charge, we will wait to see what happens.

Regarding Bill C-13, the elements of this bill remain before Parliament. We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. We also believe that there are very compelling reasons to proceed forward and to ensure that we are putting the most protection in the hands of the police as far as their ability to enforce the law is concerned.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal senators failed to stand up for the privacy rights of Canadians in their review of the snooping provisions in Bill S-4, and the Minister of Justice stands in the House and tries to tell Canadians that the Spencer decision last Friday was somehow a validation of the government's attack on privacy.

The Supreme Court was clear. Obtaining private IP information on Canadians without a warrant is illegal. Why is the Attorney General, the man entrusted with upholding the Constitution, standing in Parliament and misrepresenting the conditions decided by the Supreme Court in order to support the Conservatives' attack on the privacy rights of Canadians?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual Supreme Court decision, paragraph 73. It is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase “for a greater certainty”. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is the same provision of Bill C-13.

Here is another interesting quote:

—our ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying...but it also expands our ability to deal with child pornography over the Internet. It would give some additional tools to the police for that purpose....

Who said that? The member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading.

The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional.

Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where quoting exactly from the Supreme Court becomes creative reading, but let me note that upon the conviction of Mr. Spencer for possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court confirmed that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision, re-enacted in Bill C-13, gives police the legal authority to access subscriber information related to the Internet protocol address.

This is exactly what we have been saying. This is why we are not only bringing in provisions to protect people from bullying online, but we are also giving the police the ability to police the Internet and ensure that the law is being respected, and balancing that with privacy rights.

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court also says that you need a warrant to obtain people's information.

Canadians do not agree with the war that the Conservatives are waging against the Supreme Court. They do not accept that the Conservatives are trying to circumvent the rulings of the highest court in the land. They do not accept that the Conservatives are politicizing the process for appointing judges. They really do not appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is dragging the chief justice through the mud and that the Minister of Justice is freely interpreting the Supreme Court rulings to suit his partisan interests, as we just heard. When will the Conservatives put an end to their war on the Supreme Court?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, there is no war. The Prime Minister clearly said that he intends to respect the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling.

Let us be very clear. Mr. Justice Mainville is an eminently qualified Quebec jurist, with 33 years as a member of the Quebec bar. I think that is more than the member opposite. Under section 3 of the Judges Act, he is eminently qualified and eligible to join the Quebec Court of Appeal. I do not know what the member opposite has against judges serving on the supreme court of her province.

Housing

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to reduce the plight of the chronically homeless, our Conservative government champions an evidence-based model called Housing First, saying the most effective way the government could support the homeless is to find them a place to live. Housing First recognizes that without a home, it is extremely difficult for anyone to move forward to overcome other challenges, then to aspire to total independence.

Would the Minister of State for Social Development please explain what the evidence shows about Housing First?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and the great work he has done on behalf of the homeless throughout his career.

Housing First works. The evidence is in. The Mental Health Commission of Canada just released its results from the At Home/Chez Soi project which occurred across the country. It shows that not only does Housing First help in addressing homelessness, but it is a smart investment. In fact, for every $10 invested, there is a $21 return. That makes good sense in terms of policy, and good sense in helping the homeless.

Social Development

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives created the new Social Security Tribunal, they said it was because the old system was “slow and ineffective”. Now we learn that wait times have quadrupled. Unemployed Canadians are waiting on average eight months just to get a decision. This is simply ridiculous.

EI premiums pay for the tribunal, but when Canadians need it, the system is not there for them. Why did the Conservatives break the appeal system and what are they going to do to fix it?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to check her facts because, in fact, there is no wait time for EI appeals. If she had done some research, she would have seen, in fact, that the Social Security Tribunal is right up to date with EI claims.

There is a backlog on CPP claims. They are dealing with that and getting through it, just like they are with the EI claims.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives created the Social Security Tribunal. They cannot claim that they are not responsible for the ever-increasing number of delays.

The old EI appeal system guaranteed a hearing within 30 days. Unemployed workers must now wait eight months without benefits before a decision is rendered. Once again, Canadians are paying the price for the Conservatives' mismanagement.

What practical solutions are they going to take to fix this disaster and ensure that workers are treated fairly?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, just like the NDP like to free-wheel with taxpayers' dollars, they like to free-wheel with the facts.

Here are the facts on EI claims: In April of this year, 282 incoming cases were brought to the Social Security Tribunal. It got through 426 cases.

If the NDP members want to talk about CPP, we realize there is a backlog, but on EI, there is no backlog.

Human Rights

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services employees have a duty to treat transgender people who are coming to Canada fairly and respectfully.

However, that was not the case for Avery Edison, who was treated unfairly when she came to Canada earlier this year.

With the WorldPride Human Rights Conference starting next week in Toronto, will the minister ensure that all of the delegates will be treated with dignity and properly welcomed when they arrive in Canada?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Millions of passengers cross our borders every year. Border Services officers have a duty to welcome them with the utmost respect.

I can obviously assure my colleague that our Border Services Agency will treat people with great dignity. If an incident arises, there are mechanisms in place to deal with it.