Hoang Mai

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to tackle contraband tobacco.

As the parliamentary secretary said, contraband tobacco is a serious threat. The NDP takes this very seriously. We know that contraband tobacco has just as many repercussions for public health and safety as it does for lost tax revenues.

I will focus more on public health and safety a little later. To begin with, we have long been calling on the government to do something about this and to work with the communities that are affected by this the most. Unfortunately, when I asked the parliamentary secretary about this I did not get a very good answer.

My riding, Brossard—La Prairie, is close to the border. When I was campaigning in 2008, I was asked questions about contraband tobacco.

We want to study the bill further. We want it to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, so that we can ask questions and see where this bill is coming from and where we can take it.

Let us be clear. We are not giving the Conservatives a blank cheque. We want to support the bill in order to truly get into the details, consult experts, witnesses and the public, and see what we can bring to it.

These are things that could be interesting to look at in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on which I sit with our justice critic, the hon. member for Gatineau. We are already doing very worthwhile work there. I am talking about the committee in general. I am truly proud to be part of it.

My question to the parliamentary secretary was on consultation. This is a very important bill. We know that this is a major problem. However, far too often we have seen this government introduce a bill without having done any consultation. It is very important that the communities be consulted.

The bill must be examined in committee. When the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights receives a bill, we talk about some of the important aspects. We must ensure that the rule of law prevails and that the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected. In this case, we are talking about minimum sentencing. It is something that would be well worth looking into. It is also important that we listen to what the experts have to say.

As the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead clearly stated, there is a problem with regard to resources. The government is introducing a bill, but it is not providing more resources. On the contrary, in the most recent budget, the government made cuts to both police and border resources. That is a major problem. We also still have doubts about the consultation process.

The Conservatives have introduced a bill that will affect everyone—the provinces, the territories and aboriginal reserves—but they are not providing the resources needed to enforce it. That is something we are wondering about. We will have to look at this issue in more detail and examine it more closely.

Our public safety critic mentioned how important this issue is and the impact it could have. When we talk about smuggling, we sometimes think only about what is happening here. However, more and more contraband tobacco is coming from other countries. We need to look into that and take it into account.

Why should we work to combat smuggling? As I mentioned, the NDP supports the fight against contraband tobacco. It is a public safety issue.

I have here a report published by the RCMP in 2008, entitled the “Contraband Tobacco Enforcement Strategy”, in which the RCMP states that it is very concerned about:

...the increased involvement of organized crime implicated in illegal tobacco activities...[Profits] from illegal tobacco products are also funding other criminal activities, such as drug and gun trafficking.

Knowing that tobacco smuggling is a gateway for organized crime, we must do something to address the problem. We spoke about the impact that this could have in terms of global security. We must combat smuggling, but as I mentioned earlier, we must also ensure that the committees have the resources they need.

I would like to take my hat off to the government, just the same, for one little thing that it has done. It announced the addition of 50 officers to the RCMP task force on tobacco smuggling. This is a step in the right direction. However, we have to take a broader look at the issue and consider the fact that contraband tobacco comes in through the port of Vancouver and across our border with the United States. An additional 50 officers is a good thing, but still we know budgets are being slashed and positions are being cut. We cannot be sure that the people are actually in the field. It is clear with these cuts that the government is not moving in the right direction.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that smuggling is a public health issue, and we too are very aware of this. As we know, contraband or illegal tobacco costs less. We also know who is involved: it is young people, primarily, who cannot necessarily afford to buy the legal products that are more expensive. They will therefore try to buy contraband cigarettes. However, studies have shown that this increases smoking among young people. It is true that this is a major problem, a huge problem, and we have to do something about it.

One thing the parliamentary secretary did not talk about was the quality of the product. Contraband or illegal products may come in from other countries. As my colleague, our public safety critic, mentioned, some products have labels that look almost exactly like the labels on totally legal products. However, there is no quality control of contraband products. This is another aspect that must be considered when we look at the whole issue of illegal or contraband products. This is why the NDP wants to take action on this issue.

I also mentioned lost revenue. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, since 2008, it is estimated that tax revenue loss resulting from sales of illegal tobacco products has fluctuated between $1.5 billion and $2.4 billion. This is a huge amount of money that could be used for other purposes. Once again, contraband products are linked to organized crime. The money goes into the criminals’ pockets rather than being invested in social services or in programs that could be better managed. This is another reason why the problem must be tackled.

With regard to the bill itself, when RCMP officers talk about contraband, they are talking about any tobacco product that does not comply with the provisions of all applicable federal and provincial statutes. This includes importation, stamping, marking, manufacturing, distribution and payment of duties and taxes. They talk about a legislative framework for contraband tobacco that is not necessarily limited to what is proposed in Bill S-16.

Let us take a look at what currently exists, even before passage of Bill S-16. I am not sure that I agree with what the parliamentary secretary said. He said there is no instrument and that police forces cannot use certain laws. The opposite is true. First of all, offences are linked to contraband tobacco and offenders can be prosecuted under the Excise Act, 2001, or a number of general provisions in the Criminal Code. Under the provisions of the Excise Act, 2001, certain offences are already punishable by fines and prison terms of up to five years, so there already are some instruments. At the present time, the Criminal Code has no offence specifically related to contraband tobacco. However, all police forces can enforce the provisions of the Criminal Code. Consequently, by adding offences relating to contraband tobacco, Bill S-16 enables all police forces to take action on contraband tobacco.

What, specifically, does Bill S-16 do? It creates a maximum sentence of imprisonment for six months, in the case of a first offence, on summary conviction. It is imprisonment for five years in the case of an indictable offence. More specifically, it creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for repeat offenders—it is important to point this out—where a large volume of tobacco products is involved. This means 10,000 cigarettes or 10 kg of other tobacco products. To be precise, the mandatory minimum sentence for an indictable offence is imprisonment for 90 days for a second conviction, imprisonment for 180 days for a third conviction and imprisonment for two years less a day for subsequent convictions.

Contraband tobacco is a serious and grave problem that we have to tackle. The people watching us must understand the extent of the problem. According to a summary prepared by the Library of Parliament, a recent study found that national estimates range from 15% to 33% of the tobacco market being contraband, with greater percentages in Quebec and Ontario. This problem has been raised numerous times in my riding, not just by people I meet when I go door to door, but also by stakeholders.

Recently, in 2012, the Committee on Public Finance of the National Assembly of Quebec conducted a study on measures to counter the consumption of contraband tobacco, which found that in 2007, more than one-third of the cigarettes smoked in Quebec and Ontario were contraband and over 90% of these illegal cigarettes came from aboriginal reserves and lands.

The study report also discusses the issue of consultation, which I raised in my first question to the parliamentary secretary. There do not seem to have been any consultations done before the bill was introduced, and we have some questions about that. The lack of consultation is not surprising. I have seen this often since 2011, when I was elected, particularly in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Conservatives are not in the habit of consulting the provinces or aboriginal people, particularly when it comes to bills that directly affect them.

What we want to verify in committee, however, is that this government has done its homework in this regard. In Quebec and Ontario, for example, contraband tobacco is a major issue. Those provinces have been working on the problem for years. We want to make sure that legislation at the federal level will not run counter to what the provinces are doing already.

Consultations are therefore important, because there are provinces already working on this issue. In fact, the first recommendation in the 2012 report of the National Assembly of Quebec says just that. I am going to read it, because I think it is very important:

That the Government of Quebec create a joint commission involving five parties, namely the governments of Quebec, Ontario, Canada and the United States as well as the Mohawk nation, to fight contraband tobacco and to develop an action plan dealing, among other things, with:

A “win-win” agreement among the governments and aboriginal people to stop the large-scale tax-exempt sale of tobacco to non-aboriginal people.

In its pre-budget consultation brief to the Standing Committee on Finance, the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco also made the same recommendation and called for more co-operation on that front.

A 2009 report from the Government Task Force on Illicit Tobacco Products raised another point: first nations communities in particular need to participate and collaborate in all initiatives to combat the problem of contraband tobacco in Canada.

We must certainly ensure that any measures aimed at addressing the problem also include consultations with first nations, as well as the necessary resources. Fighting contraband takes resources. Reserves need police resources to manage the problem.

There is also a problem with border resources. My colleague from Compton—Stanstead gave a real-life example that proved that people in these communities do not have the funding or the tools they need to address this problem. When introducing a bill that is designed to tackle this issue, the government also needs to ensure that the resources will follow. That is true for contraband that originates in the United States and contraband from foreign countries.

My colleague, our critic for public safety, the MP for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, has mentioned to me that cuts to CBSA would not help. There are issues with contraband coming into the Port of Vancouver and not having resources to actually look into containers, not having the manpower to tackle that issue. That is a huge problem.

We did not see anything in this budget or the previous budget to ensure that we have the necessary resources to tackle that issue.

The NDP does not always oppose mandatory minimum sentences, which this bill provides for. We have supported this notion in the past, but we always have some reservations about it. We always need to ask ourselves whether this tool is really necessary. This issue really needs to be examined in committee, because it is important to look at the impact this can have on provincial prison populations and determine the additional costs, not only at the federal level, but also at the provincial and municipal levels. We also need to make sure the charter is being respected.

As I already mentioned, given that this bill came from the Senate rather than the government, once again, it bypasses the mechanisms that ensure that the charter is being respected. Unfortunately, that is a problem.

Coming back to some of the concerns raised regarding what the bill proposes, a report released by the Barreau du Québec states:

Nothing in the report [the RCMP's 2011 to 2012 progress report on contraband tobacco] challenges the effectiveness or adequacy of the measures currently set out in the Excise Act, 2001, the Criminal Code or other provincial criminal laws for the purpose of prosecuting offences related to contraband tobacco.

It goes on to say:

In fact, the RCMP did not make any recommendations regarding amending the legislation, and particularly the Criminal Code, which in its current form is already an effective tool that police officers can use to prosecute offences related to contraband tobacco.

These are some of the questions we are asking ourselves, and they need to be examined more thoroughly. That is why we want to send this bill to committee. We understand that it is very important to address contraband tobacco for public health and safety reasons, as I mentioned. All of these questions are crucial. Many people, including some of my constituents, have told me that we need to tackle this problem. However, we also need to look at the tools that are being used and the tools in this bill and go forward from there.

On an issue as important as this, one that involves amending the Criminal Code, it is really unfortunate that Bill S-16 had to come from the Senate, the other place, which is unelected. We have to wonder whether that is the ideal place to introduce such a bill.

As everyone in the House knows, the Senate is mired in scandal. We wonder how appropriate it is to introduce Senate bills in the House. Why go through the Senate? It is a good question that is hard to answer.

As far as civil society is concerned, I have met with people in my riding and I have also met with a number of groups, because this is a major problem. There is the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco and the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, which has been running a campaign on the ground for years.

These groups represent convenience stores and chambers of commerce. There is public support for tackling contraband. In my opinion it is essential.

They said:

It is also important that all levels of government—including federal, provincial, municipal and first nations—meet this challenge...It is important that governments collaborate with aboriginal communities to find innovative solutions.

They are quite pleased that 50 RCMP officers are being assigned to this problem because that was one of their recommendations. This is a step in the right direction.

Resources and consultation are the problems. One thing is for sure: when the NDP forms the government in 2015, it will consult the public, including aboriginal communities, before introducing such an important bill.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He mentioned that it was an election promise the Conservatives had made a long time ago. We know that tobacco smuggling is a terrible problem in terms of public safety, health and lost revenue for the government. It was said that tobacco smuggling could benefit organize crime.

Knowing this and the problems it raises, what consultations has the government carried out on this bill, which will have a major impact on organized crime and the provinces? A number of provinces, including Quebec, have studied this issue. Before introducing the bill, did the government hold consultations not only with the provinces but also with the other levels of government and the first nations?

[Community Organization in La Prairie, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Complexe Le Partage, a wonderful organization in my riding.

On May 24, during an event called “Panthéon de l'excellence”, business people and members of the Royal Roussillon chamber of commerce and industry awarded the organization a prize in the category of “service and retail business with over 20 employees”.

Complexe Le Partage is a community organization that was founded by Laurent Blais, a municipal councillor for La Prairie, and it is run by Cathy Lepage. It offers peer assistance services, support services, integration services and training to underprivileged families in a spirit of community and of individual and collective responsibility.

For 15 years, this organization has been changing the lives of people in my region, and I am proud that its work and commitment have been recognized and rewarded.

Congratulations to the team and the volunteers at Complexe Le Partage. You are turning social development into a winning business formula!

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 28th, 2013]

With regard to new bridges over the St. Lawrence river: (a) what is the specific purpose of the $14 million in table 3.3.2 of Budget 2013 and what is the breakdown of the costs; and (b) with respect to the $124.9 million to build a bridge-causeway between Nun's Island and the Island of Montreal in Chapter 3.3 of Budget 2013, what is the breakdown of the cost?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

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

First of all, we do not mean to bash anyone, but I am simply explaining why we now have this problem. With regard to the privatization in 1995, one cannot help but wonder why no one looked at the possibility of not privatizing the tracks. That issue could have been debated and we could have avoided our current situation, with a virtual monopoly, poor service, and so on.

As for amendments, we proposed some at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. They essentially supported what the shippers coalition was calling for. We proposed some things, but unfortunately, the Conservative government did not accept any of our very well thought-out amendments.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I want to thank the member for that question, but I will do so anyway, because I am polite.

First of all, let me say that we are not in favour of nationalizing CN. What we said, and I will repeat it again, is that the problem was created in 1995, when the Liberals were in power and they decided to privatize CN without putting any regulations in place to protect shippers. My colleague should agree with us on that.

I think he will agree that the Liberals are to blame for their inaction, but then he also needs to look in the mirror and ask himself why the Conservatives did nothing about this when they came to power. Why did they wait so long? When they finally decided to do something, they introduced a bill that does not go far enough and does not do enough to protect the rights of shippers. That is the problem we have with this bill.

Instead of making up ridiculous stories, the Conservatives should really focus on what is going on here and on the bill, which unfortunately still has flaws. It is a step in the right direction, but it needs improvement.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

The NDP thinks this is a very important issue, and it is no secret that we will be supporting the bill, essentially because it is a step in the right direction. I will explain. However, much more could have been done. Unfortunately, the government missed the opportunity to do more. Before getting into the bill specifically, I would like to talk about why railway transportation is so important in Canada.

It comes as no great surprise that railway transportation is important in Canada when you consider that 70% of surface transportation of goods is done by rail. Railway transportation is an effective way of fighting greenhouse gases. My colleague mentioned that as well. We must encourage train use as much as possible.

I am glad to be able to travel by VIA Rail this afternoon to get to my riding. We must promote train use. Here we are talking about shipping merchandise. I am not merchandise, so I will get back to talking specifically about the bill.

The bill is a step in the right direction, since it tries to solve the problem of the existing monopolies. When we talk about rail service, we are fully aware that the two major companies, CN and CP, have a virtual monopoly.

The virtual monopoly is a problem. It is one outcome of the actions that the Liberal government took in 1995, which included the privatization of CN. In addition to privatizing CN, the government did not implement the appropriate regulations. That is why we are surprised to see the reaction of the Liberals when they complain about the Conservative government's failure to act. It is true and we agree that the Conservative government waited a very long time before introducing a bill. Actually it was 2007 or so. That is when studies were carried out. A report was also released in 2011. That means that we have waited for more than five or six years for this bill, which provides a partial solution to one of the existing problems.

The Liberal government at the time identified a problem. In 1995, when the Liberal government privatized CN, it had the option to look at what could be done to avoid a monopoly over rail transportation.

What regulations can we put in place to ensure that services are better designed and distributed? The lack of regulations is a problem. Take VIA Rail for example. In some cases, this company needs to rent the railway tracks from CN or CP.

That also has to do with the virtual monopoly. As a result, shippers using rail services must pay more. In addition, they are experiencing some problems with the services provided. We hear a lot about the impact on consumers, among others. Higher costs and delays are among the problems linked to the virtual monopoly.

Bill C-52 addresses some of those problems. It creates an arbitration process. That arbitration process will allow for better discussion and a better way of solving problems with certain distributors. As my colleague mentioned, penalties will be imposed in some cases. The problem is that the money from those penalties will go into government coffers, not to the shippers. The NDP is trying to protect shippers in that respect.

Studies were done and reports were released. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not take advantage of all of that information.

I would like to thank our transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina. She introduced a private member's bill outlining a better system that would give greater protection to shippers.

In response to that bill, the Conservatives introduced a bill that is quite flawed. I have already pointed out a few of those flaws. For example, the government could have done more when it came to arbitration. Unfortunately, it did not.

I am thinking of light rail transit on the new Champlain Bridge. It is the right way to go considering that we are moving towards an economy of the future. However, seeing how the government is managing this file, it makes us wonder whether it will act openly and transparently, particularly regarding construction of the Champlain Bridge. This corridor between Montreal and the south shore, as well as between Canada and the United States, is very important.

The government's actions worry us. It makes decisions behind closed doors and ignores what is said during consultations. We see that here. Even though the government brags about having consulted a number of people and says it stands behind shippers, at the end of the day, it introduced a bill that does not reflect all the suggestions that were made. None of the amendments, NDP or Liberal, were accepted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Here again, the government is not open to suggestions.

It is unfortunate because we said that we support the bill. However, today, we are pointing out certain flaws. The government seems to be digging in its heels once again. Of course, this is a majority government that can do as it pleases. When it comes to protecting shippers, we are told that it is part of our economy. However, that is no longer the case when it comes to protecting consumers. It is difficult to understand why the Conservative government is not listening to what the opposition has to say and, in particular, to what the shippers and the witnesses told the committee.

A lot of work remains to be done. We are used to having a government that does not listen very well. We are supporting this bill because it is a first step and we are headed in the right direction. However, the government has not taken advantage of this opportunity.

As for the Liberals, they knew when they decided to privatize CN in 1995 that a virtual monopoly would be created. Why did they not introduce this type of bill? Why did they not do more and include what they are asking for today? When the Liberals were in power between 1995 and 2006, why did they do nothing about this? Why did they wait so long, and why are they getting all worked up today and saying that they are the defenders of the system and they want to protect shippers?

We have been saying from the very beginning that there was much to be done at the time. We lament the fact that it took the Conservatives so long to act and that the Liberals' failed to make progress on this file when they were in government.

I mentioned some amendments in the report that should have been included. A 2008 study, which was released in 2011, was a starting point. The NDP is not simply voicing its opposition to the bill, but is also making suggestions. We suggested including details about the service agreements. At this point, there really are none because there is a monopoly. We want a better system that better protects shippers.

There is a problem with the dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements in the event of breach of contract. With this bill, shippers must pay the fees for the arbitration process that will be put in place. Why not make the big corporations, CN and CP, pay these fees and solve these problems since they are the reason for bringing in these agreements?

[Petitions, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by many Canadians who want the importation of shark fins to be banned.

More than 73 million sharks are killed every year just for their fins. This has a direct impact on endangered shark species. The practice of shark finning is cruel. It consists of cutting off the shark's fins and throwing the body back into the ocean. That is why many Canadians oppose the importation of shark fins.

[Criminal Code, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would first like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Langley, on his initiative. We in the NDP understand that steps have been taken for both victims and witnesses. We understand where he is coming from on this. We know he met with people in his riding who went to see him to explain what a real problem this is.

As long as I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, along with my hon. colleague from Gatineau, we have seen a great deal of discussion and many bills on this matter. Quite frankly, having moved over to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights from the Standing Committee on Finance, we can understand much better and see the concrete impact this could have on victims.

The NDP has always been in favour of victim protection and we still are, which is why we are supporting the bill. We want to study it at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Why do we want to study it? We are seeing more and more private members' bills being used to advance the government's agenda. We are not the only ones to say so. It is being widely reported in the media. Why is the government doing that? That is what we want to know and we think it is worth looking into the process. Again, this is not about taking away from or attacking the member for Langley's bill, but about how the process is being used.

This bill addresses something rather important in that it would amend the Criminal Code and related legislation. In this case, we know that the Conservative government is being sued by Edgar Schmidt, who used to work at Justice Canada. He claims that the government was not obeying the law and not fulfilling its obligations to ensure that government bills are consistent with the charter.

What is more, with the Conservatives, the cost of justice is at a record high because the government has to defend its bills in court. We are talking about $5 billion. That is quite a bit of money just to get the government to fulfill its legal obligations.

Again, we want to know why a private members' bill is being used to introduce something that is already part of the government's law and order agenda.

The Minister of Justice has really pushed this agenda. It is not necessarily the government doing this. It is backbenchers who are introducing these bills.

To come back to Bill C-489, I want to say that it has good intentions in that it seeks to protect victims. The bill would ensure that a judge hearing a case is required to impose certain obligations. The judge would have to make an order prohibiting certain offenders from being within two kilometres of a dwelling house where the victim is present without a parent, say, the father. This is very important, as it was something that was raised by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

In his report it was mentioned that “...it might help a victim to feel more at ease if they were informed of a local instruction placed on the offender that prohibited him or her from going within a certain distance of the victim's residence.”

One thing that we will need to look at is how the two kilometres would apply. I heard the member of Parliament for Langley mention that he went from five kilometres to two kilometres. When we look at what happens specifically in certain regions, two kilometres basically means that the person would have to be evacuated from where he or she lived. This is something we need to look at in the justice committee.

Again, I applaud and commend the member for thinking of victims. On this side, we also understand that we need to protect victims and we will look at the bill in more detail in the justice committee.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time.

I would like to begin by explaining to taxpayers why I have a black eye. We were playing soccer yesterday, and although our wonderful pages are kind enough to bring us water here in the House, on the soccer field, things are quite different. Seriously, though, we had a lot of fun.

I would also ask the House to go easy on me today, because I am a little shaken up. I just learned today that a childhood friend of mine committed suicide. His name was Jean-Maxime Leroux. Mourning his loss are his two children, his family and friends. He will be sadly missed.

Now I would like to move on to the motion currently before the House. It has to do with the $3.1 billion that the government seems to have lost. According to the government, however, that money was not lost; it simply does not know where it is.

That is a huge amount. In fact, $3.1 billion would be enough to build the new Champlain Bridge in my riding. What is really unfortunate is the partisan rhetoric that the government continues to spew. I do not like using such strong words in the House, because it affects how people perceive us. However, everyone sees how partisan this is. When the government loses track of $3.1 billion, questions need to be asked.

The government often quotes the Auditor General, but it does so selectively. What the Auditor General said was that they did not find anything to suggest that the money was used inappropriately and that it is important for Canadians to understand how that money was spent, because the government did not report it properly. Again, this $3.1 billion was for anti-terrorism efforts.

The government does not know if the money was misspent. It does not know if this is the sponsorship scandal all over again. It does not know if the money was misused the way the President of the Treasury Board misused money on gazebos. Nobody knows where this money went and therein lies the problem.

The Conservatives are saying that it is in the public accounts, but even the Auditor General cannot figure out what this money was spent on. When we asked the government to point to where and when exactly this money was spent, it could not. Unfortunately, the answer we got was that it has no idea.

The purpose of the motion is to call on the government to be more transparent and to hand over the documents. Why are we asking for the documents? We want to ensure that the money was spent wisely.

The government says that it gave all the documents to the Auditor General, but this is the same government that was found in contempt of Parliament, which was a first in the history of Canada. The Conservative government was found in contempt of Parliament for failing to do what Parliament asked it to do, which was to provide documents on the F-35s.

Despite the fact that the government's handling of the F-35 file was a real fiasco, he has the audacity to say that the NDP is incapable of running the government. I would like to remind the government that, according to the provinces, all political parties and the federal department's research, the NDP is the party that has the smallest deficit and that is the best manager of public money. The government should take lessons from the NDP. Instead of making empty promises and boasting about being the best manager, it should look in the mirror. It might see that it has a black eye like the one I am sporting this morning.

It really has set a bad example. It has spent $113 million in pointless advertising. Furthermore, Canadians are tired of seeing the ads. We have to wonder: Is this money well spent? The government does not know what has happened to the $3.1 billion. That money could have been used for other things.

We agree that fighting terrorism is important. However, we take exception to how the government fights terrorism, and particularly Bill S-7, which we oppose. This bill goes too far in that it attacks the rights and fundamental freedoms of Canadians by undermining the charter. Unfortunately, the Liberals supported it.

The events of September 11 were very serious. Nevertheless, we should have learned that Canada is safe. In order to ensure our safety, we have to better manage money earmarked for the protection of Canadians. Instead, the Conservatives are cutting funding for border services that keep us safe. That is difficult to understand.

In closing, we must remember that this government is a poor manager of public funds.