CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 109

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Poland

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on November 11, 2010, Poles everywhere celebrated the 92nd anniversary of

the independence of Poland.

Poland and its people are used to enduring hardship. In the 18th century, Poland was one of

the largest and most powerful countries in Europe. However, Poland collapsed in 1795 and its

territory was then partitioned. Thus, for 123 years, Poland was erased from the world maps.

However, the Polish people, language and culture persevered, and in 1918, the Second Polish

Republic was created. However, Poland's suffering continued with its subsequent invasion by

Nazi Germany in 1939, which led to the deaths of more than six million of its citizens.

Even with Poland's liberation from Nazi Germany, its suffering continued under communism

until the efforts of Polish Pope the Venerable John Paul II and the Solidarity trade union

eventually led to the collapse of communism not only in Poland, but in the Soviet Union itself and

all of eastern Europe.

This resulted in the creation of the Third Republic of Poland, a free and democratic country,

part of both NATO and the European Union.

As a proud first-generation Polish Canadian, I understand the significance of this celebration,

and I wish to express my best wishes to Poles everywhere.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 102

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Canadian Museums Day

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Monday is Canadian Museums Day, a day to draw awareness to the importance

of Canada's museums and public art galleries to the Canadian cultural landscape.

Canada's museums and public art galleries preserve our rich history, help shape the Canadian

identity and educate visitors about the importance of tolerance and understanding in our society.

Besides representing the very souls of our vibrant communities, Canada's 2,500 museums,

which include everything from art galleries to science centres to zoos, are key to the economy.

This sector employs 24,000 Canadians and contributes $17 billion in tourism revenue.

On Canadian Museums Day, I encourage all Canadians to consider the role that culture plays

in their communities and to become more active supporters of heritage so that the Canadian

story can continue to live on through the generations.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 097

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Pope John Paul II Day Act

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.)

moved that Bill C-573, An Act to establish Pope John Paul II Day, be read the second time and

referred to a committee.

[Bill C-573. Second reading]

He said: Mr. Speaker, you may recall these words spoken on October 16, 1978:

Dear brothers and sisters, we are still grieved after the death of our most beloved John Paul I. And now the eminent

cardinals have called a new bishop of Rome. They have called him from a far country... far, but always near through the communion of faith and in the Christian tradition. (...) I don't know if I can make myself clear in your ... in our Italian language. If I make a mistake, you will correct me.

Those were the first words spoken by the new pope, Pope John Paul II, formerly Karol

Wojtyla, the first Slavic pope in the history of the Roman Catholic church and a pope that reigned

for 27 years, one of the longest reigns ever.

I am very honoured to speak to my private member's bill, which is an act to establish Pope

John Paul II Day. In essence, it seeks that every April 2, the anniversary of his death, be a day

of memory for Pope John Paul II from this point forward in Canadian history. This would not be a

formal legal statutory holiday but simply a day of memory.

I have indicated before, and I mean this very sincerely, that I am very moved to introduce

this bill, being a proud first generation Polish Canadian and practising Roman Catholic. Words

cannot express the significance and importance of Pope John Paul II to the Polish community in

particular around the world and in Canada.

There are over one million Polish Canadians in Canada. When Pope John Paul II was elected as

pope we celebrated and cried, and when he died we mourned, but in between those dates, the

Polish community watched his every move with pride and a sense of destiny.

It must also be remembered that Pope John Paul II is not simply an ordinary pope of the

Roman Catholic church. He has now been given the title ―venerable‖ by Pope Bénédict XVI, which

is a step toward sainthood, a process which it is anticipated will be completed within one to two

years.

Beyond his Polish and Roman Catholic faith, Pope John Paul II, now known as venerable, was

a world statesperson. He was one of the architects of the defeat of communism. He must be

remembered not only for his religious ties and role but for his worldwide historical influence. In

terms of his role in the fall of communism, I have some quotes.

Canadian reporter Eric Margolis described going into the central committee's headquarters in

Moscow after the election of Pope John Paul II this way:

I was the first Western journalist inside the KGB headquarters in 1990. The generals told me that the Vatican and

the Pope above all was regarded as their number one, most dangerous enemy in the world.

They recognized even then that he would play a significant role in terms of being anti-

communist, possibly leading toward the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union.

Former priest and writer James Carroll asked this question:

What is the greatest, most unexpected event of the 20th century?

Isn't it that the Soviet Empire was brought down non-violently? Isn't John Paul II's story part of it?

That really is a rhetorical question and the answer obviously is yes. If we think about it from

the perspective of our generation which grew up with the Soviet Union, communism, détente and

the threat of nuclear annihilation. There was the constant threat and worry as children about this

potential fight between the west and the Soviet Union.

(1820)

Quite unbelievably the Soviet Union fell without one bullet being fired. John Paul's 1979 trip to

Poland is described as ―the fulcrum of revolution which led to the collapse of communism‖.

Timothy Ash put it this way:

Without the pope, no solidarity. Without solidarity, no Gorbachev. Without Gorbachev, no fall of communism.

In fact, Mikhail Gorbachev said, ―It would have been impossible without the pope‖. He credits

Pope John Paul II for being the key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.

In addition, I would like Canadians to understand exactly the scourge of communism. Here we

read about it. Here we had the threat of nuclear war, but for the people who actually lived it, it

was a new life when communism fell.

In my own family, my father grew up in Communist Poland before he managed to come to

Canada. My uncle and his family told me stories of their escape from Poland, about going across

the border and being shot at by the police. I remember my father sending money in envelopes to

his family in Poland from Canada. They were very small amounts of money relatively speaking

for us, but they were fortunes for people over there. However, they could not really use the

money to buy things because they did not have things to buy in the same way as we do here.

This defeat of communism must always be remembered, and the role of Pope John Paul II in

that defeat must be honoured and remembered. The yearning of freedom for Poland is where it

started and it spread to the other eastern bloc countries. It began in 1979 with Pope John Paul II

going to Poland and standing up to the Communist regime.

There is another major accomplishment of Pope John Paul II. Nobody will agree with

everything that any leader does, which is to be expected, but he did bridge the divide between

the Roman Catholic church and other religions. I would like to quote people who are not Roman

Catholic to prove that point.

In October 2003, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement congratulating Pope John

Paul II on entering his 25th year of the papacy and essentially complimenting him for his role in

bridging the divide between the Jewish faith and the Roman Catholic church. Immediately after

Pope John Paul II's death, the same Anti-Defamation League issued a statement that Pope John

Paul II had revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations saying that ―more change for the better took

place in his 27-year papacy than in the nearly 2,000 years before‖.

There are many other examples of his attempts to bridge with other faith communities. In

terms of the Muslim community, Pope John Paul himself, when he was in Casablanca on August

19, 1985, during his journey to Morocco, said:

Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common, as believers and as human beings. We live in the same

world, marked by many signs of hope, but also by multiple signs of anguish. For us, Abraham is a very model of faith in God, of submission to his will and of confidence in his goodness. We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection.

He reached out to the Muslim community during the time he was pope. He reached out of

course to the Jewish community. Pope John Paul II said to the Jewish community when he was at

the great synagogue in Rome on April 13, 1986:

The Jewish religion is not ‗extrinsic‘ to us, but in a certain way is ‗intrinsic‘ to our own religion. With Judaism

therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.

(1825)

He reached out to many other communities as well. On October 27, 1993 in Assisi he held a

meeting of over 120 religious leaders from around the world, from different religions and

Christian denominations, to try to foster some unity and respect among various religions and

sects.

He did more during the time he was Pope to bridge the divide between the Roman Catholic

church and to show respect for other religions and other faith communities than, I would argue,

any other pope in history.

Pope John Paul II as a person, as a man, was a remarkable world leader. He was known as

the travelling pope. He visited 129 countries and he attracted some of the largest crowds in

human history, such as over five million people in Manila in 1995. He came to Canada on more

than one occasion. When he came to Toronto in 2002, over 800,000 people came out to meet

him and to pray with him.

When Pope John Paul II passed away, there were numerous quotes.

Everybody will remember Lech Walesa as the hero and the leader of the solidarity movement

in Poland. In referring to Pope John Paul II, he said that without him ―there would be no end of

communism or at least much later and the end would have been bloody‖.

Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan called the pope a ―tireless advocate of

peace‖, while German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose own country was long held under

the oppressive forces of communism, said,―Pope John Paul II wrote history. By his efforts and

through his impressive personality, he changed our world.

Former Israeli president Moshe Katsav said that the pope ―bravely put an end to historic

injustice by officially rejecting prejudices and accusations against Jews‖.

On his death, he was honoured with one of the largest funerals in human history. What we are

really talking about here is the people of Canada providing some respect, honour and memory

for Pope John Paul II. We have done it before. For example, we granted honorary Canadian

citizenship to the Dalai Lama.

The Americans honoured Pope John Paul II. In 2004 he was awarded the Presidential Medal

of Freedom, which is the highest civilian honour the United States awards to anyone.

In Ontario this bill passed first reading and perhaps even second reading. There was a similar

bill to get an honour for Pope John Paul II. Unfortunately it died on prorogation. We are

attempting to bring this honour to Pope John Paul II across Canada.

When Pope John Paul II died, the outpouring of grief and his funeral itself showed how

strongly he was respected both as a religious leader but equally important as a world leader. At

his funeral, his requiem mass on April 8, 2005 was said to have set world records for both

attendance and the number of heads of state present at a funeral. It was the single largest

gathering of heads of state in history, surpassing the funerals of Winston Churchill and other

world leaders, such as Tito. Four kings, five queens, at least 70 presidents and prime ministers,

and more than 14 leaders of other world religions were in attendance.

Many people say it is also likely to have been the largest single pilgrimage of Christianity in

history. More than four million people from around the world came to Rome for the requiem

mass.

This man must always be remembered and respected for many different reasons. I ask my

colleagues to help me bestow this honour upon him in a non-partisan way, and to make April 2,

the anniversary of his death, a day of memory each year.

Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here next to my colleague who made an incredible

speech, one that is very touching about a man who inspired the world, as he pointed out. One of

the things, among many, that inspired me about Pope John Paul II was his ability to reach out,

to go to all these countries so that people could actually touch, feel and see the pope as an

individual. But more than that, he inspired so many people.

He came to Newfoundland and Labrador many years ago and inspired us. He came to this

country, as my colleague pointed out, on several occasions. His ability to do that brought the

Roman Catholic Church out to the people who are members all over the world, and by doing so

he has made the world a much better place as a result of it. It is truly an inspiration, which was

shown, as my colleague pointed out, when one of the greatest Christian pilgrimages of all time

was to go to Rome to attend his requiem mass.

I would like my colleague to touch on, once again, and perhaps explore further the idea of just

how far he would go, to what great lengths he would go, in order to bring the Roman Catholic

Church from the Vatican out to the world.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, throughout my life, from when Pope John Paul II was elected pope, we watched

him travel to a record number of countries. I think the number was 129 countries. We watched

him going before and praying with millions and millions of people. Imagine having a mass in a country such as Manila with five million people attending. Considering the size of Toronto in

2002, imagine having 800,000 people in one location coming to see him and pray with him.

This was a pope who will go down in history as not only one of the greatest popes, but one of

the greatest world leaders, somebody who did try to reach out to different communities and

different religions and show respect. He did not go around saying that the Roman Catholic

Church was right and other religions were wrong. He went around saying let us work together

and try to be good, help and respect one another and show love and compassion. This is a pope

who is missed, and this is a pope who will always be remembered. In terms of the Roman

Catholic Church, he is already on his way to becoming a saint. This is not simply an ordinary

pope.

(1835)

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this is not specific to my colleague's motion, but I wonder if he has considered

that the problem we are going to have with motions naming certain days in Canada after certain

leaders, religious figures and whatnot, is where the line gets drawn. Who do we say we name a

day after and who do we not? We would fill up the whole calendar. What criteria is the member

suggesting be used? Is it prominence? Is it the particular person's influence on Canada? Is it

religious significance?

What I am trying to understand in the motion is what principle the member is putting forward

that would then guide future Parliaments and future decision makers about who to have days

named after and so on.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to respectfully point out to my friend that this is a private

member's bill, not a motion. However, in terms of answering his question, in terms of setting

standards, each case would have to be decided on its own merits and basis. I do not think we

could have one standard that would apply to everyone at all times. The answer to this question

would be that we would know it when we saw it.

We had no difficulty bestowing the honour upon the Dalai Lama in terms of becoming an

honorary Canadian citizen. So if we look at the facts of this case, in terms of religious

significance and the fact that he is a world leader who helped to end communism and the fact

that, already with the title of venerable, he is on his way to sainthood, respectfully, in this case it

is clear that we know it when we see it and this case is obvious.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 082

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Strengthening Aviation Security Act

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-42 today. I would like to start with an analysis of

the title: strengthening aviation security act. My question, given that this is how the government

has entitled it, is how does this strengthen Canadian aviation security? How does it strengthen

Canada? How does it strengthen the safety of Canadians going on such flights? My suggestion is

that it does not in any way.

First of all, under the existing law we can already have airlines disclose the information of

persons travelling on planes when they are landing in foreign countries. That is perfectly

reasonable. Every sovereign state has the right to know who is coming into their country. I

would expect no different for Canadians or any other country.

The government is now essentially trying to amend it so that if flights are going over a foreign

jurisdiction, and let us be clear that we are talking about the United States and this is why we

are having this discussion at all, if flights are going over the United States, even if they are not

landing in the United States, private information on Canadians will have to be disclosed. How

does it strengthen Canadians or in any way live up to the descriptive ―strengthening aviation security act‖? How does it strengthen aviation security for the benefit of Canadians to disclose

this information when the flights are not landing in a foreign jurisdiction, period, and they are not

landing in Canada? How is it even logical to say that this is strengthening protections for

Canadians?

I would like to take a particular example in terms of our sovereignty. It is one thing to say in

the circumstance of flights going over the United States and landing in some other foreign

jurisdiction that information has to be disclosed. It does not strengthen anything for Canadians

and it is still problematic, but that example needs to be compared specifically to the example of a

flight leaving Toronto and landing in Vancouver. So if a flight goes over the United States to go

from one Canadian jurisdiction to another Canadian jurisdiction, there are multiple concerns.

First of all, once again, how does this strengthen the safety of Canadians? It is not logical. It

is not reasonable. It just makes no sense. Second, how is it that the Conservative government is

willing to give up sovereignty, willing to give up privacy concerns, when there is a flight

originating specifically, as this example indicates, in Toronto and landing in Vancouver and never

landing in the United States? Please explain how that in any way strengthens the safety of

Canadians.

Also, this is not even logical. How does that strengthen the safety of Americans?

Canadians need to know that the Conservatives are willing to give up our sovereignty. A flight

from Toronto going to Vancouver never leaves the grasp of Canadian jurisdiction. At all times

that flight will be governed by Canadian law. Those passengers will never get onto foreign soil. It

is Canada--Canada, going over the United States, yet in those circumstances the Conservative

government is willing to give up our sovereignty by giving private information about those

passengers to a foreign government when those passengers will never set foot on foreign soil.

How is that logical? It is not logical. We all know it is not logical.

The only thing that seems obvious is twofold. One, the Conservatives are not very good

negotiators when it comes to foreign relations, and I will give a couple of examples that we have

all been speaking about already. But two, for whatever reason, although they can be tough on

Canadians and have no problem with not helping people through EI and various benefits, and

when it comes to social and economic issues in Canada they have no problem being tough there,

how can they not be tough when it comes to a foreign country, and particularly in this instance,

the Americans? What are they afraid of?

We are a partner in Afghanistan. We are the Americans' largest trading partner. They trade

25% to one third, depending on the current statistics, to Canada. We trade 80% to the Americans. We are their largest exporter of oil and energy.

(1625)

The Americans need us just as much as we need them. Why do we have to be afraid of them?

If there is a reasonable request, as with any friend, we negotiate, we say yes and we work it out.

However, when the request is not reasonable, we say no, we give our reasons and be respectful.

Once again, how does it strengthen and protect Americans to give information when the

flights are going from Canada or to Canada or from Canada to a foreign jurisdiction? The only

thing I can think of is perhaps, in addition to other concerns, the Americans do not trust the

Conservative government, despite the fact that it has spent a lot of money, some people say

billions, on screening mechanisms and other initiatives. Does that not work? It is not good

enough? Does the government admit that they are not working, that the initiatives are broken,

or that it has not spent enough money or it has not drafted legislation or regulations properly?

Why does this have to take place? Why do the Americans not trust the Conservative

government to ensure that persons boarding Canadian flights will not be a risk? If the

government's position is that the Americans should trust us, then, by definition and logically, its

position should be they are overstepping their reach and we should simply say no in these

circumstances.

On foreign affairs, I would like to know what specific negotiations have taken place between

the Conservative government and the American officials on their request of Canada and

Canadians. Why can the Conservative government not convince the Americans that the steps it

has taken to increase airline security in Canada are good enough? Why does this private

information need to be disclosed? Maybe the Americans cannot be convinced or maybe the steps

are not good enough. It is the government's onus to tell us why the security measures in Canada

are not good enough that we would need to then disclose to a foreign jurisdiction this private

information. Frankly, Canadians deserve better.

We have the recent example of losing Camp Mirage. We have the case of the security council

seat. When I was in my riding of Brampton West over the break week, I received a lot of calls

from people who were both upset and embarrassed that we had lost that security council seat

because of, as many commentators have written, the foreign policy of Canada was no longer

Canadian. Our foreign policy is not what the world expects and has become used to, a

progressive and involved one. What we have is a American republican foreign policy, which does

not bode us well in the international scene.

In addition to the weakened sovereignty and to the fact that the amendment to the statute is

not logical, we have other concerns.

At the transport committee on May 11, as has been mentioned earlier, the assistant privacy

commissioner, Chantal Bernier, stated that, the United States would retain this information for as

long as 7 days to 99 years. She also added:

—our understanding is that information collected can be disclosed and used for purposes other than aviation security, such as for law enforcement and immigration purposes.

Once the Americans have the information, they will use it for whatever they so choose.

Let us look at why this is a concern. What if the Americans decide they are providing

information to other countries? Not all countries are equal, but the Americans are our good

friends, and that is fine. However, what about other countries across the world to which

Canadians would not want their personal information disclosed? What if we have Canadians who

have been naturalized, who have come from foreign countries, who were refugees, who were

persecuted, who were in some way hurt, whose families were hurt, who have families remaining

in those countries that could be subject to blackmail or harm?

(1630)

Once this information is out and the Americans have it and they choose to disclose it to a third

country, Canadians could be at risk and for no logical or rational purpose. The fact that the

Conservative government wishes to disclose this personal information in those circumstances

could be harmful to Canadians who have come from other countries, specifically refugees who

have been naturalized. This is a serious concern.

What about the precedent that this would create? The Americans are our good friends, but if

we give them everything they want just because they ask—

(1635)

Mr. Brian Jean:

It's their land.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

I hear the parliamentary secretary saying ―it's their land‖. It is not their land. A flight

between Toronto and Vancouver never lands on foreign soil. It is always under the jurisdiction of

the Canadian government.

Let me get back to the precedent. Once we give our American friends whatever they want,

even when it is not logical, what if other countries then ask? England is our good friend too.

What about other countries that perhaps are not so reputable? Where are we going to draw the

line? Who are we going to insult? Are we going to have diplomatic incidents or visa restrictions

imposed on Canadians like what happened with Mexicans? How is the government going to guard

Canadians from future foreign and diplomatic problems? The government will have less

discretion to simply say no to this kind of request when it says yes to whatever the Americans

ask for.

I would like members to look at the name of the act once again. It is called the strengthening

aviation security act. I would ask the Conservative government to explain how this act and the

amendments in particular would strengthen the protection of Canadians and protect Canada's

sovereignty.

We are members of Parliament in Canada. We are not American senators or members of the

House of Representatives. We have an obligation to Canadians to sometimes say no to our very

good friends when they overreach.

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I hope, based on my colleague's comments and his colleague's previous

comments, that they and their party will vote against this bill.

We are talking about a bill that would change the Aeronautics Act so that every time someone

buys an airline ticket all the information given to the travel agent will be sent to the security

agency. The law would implement a number of secret treaties that the government has recently

signed with other nations. The government has signed or is negotiating secret treaties with

Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic, the European Union and the

United States.

The Conservative government likes to conjure up fear. The Conservatives try to get people to

believe that they need to change the laws here because they are at risk. They need to build

more prisons because there are criminals out there who they are not aware of and who need to

be put in jail.

There is a problem with the bill with respect to the retention of the information. Not only

would we be giving out information to people we do not even know, but we would not have the

opportunity to tick a little box saying that we allowed the information to be given out. That is

quite problematic.

I also want to touch on his colleague's comments a while ago, because he talked about body

scanners. To me, body scanners are an invasion of privacy. Not only are they an invasion of

privacy, but we do not know how much radiation goes through those scanners and we go

through them all the time. It is just like the Wi-Fi study that we are doing right now.

Does my colleague believe that Canadians would be at risk, that they could be targeted as a

result of the information being provided?

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in favour of all security

measures that protect Canadians and any airline traveller. The point of this conversation today is whether this bill is logical and whether it actually protects anybody.

When it comes to her question, we do not know, but that possibility exists. If this information

goes to the Americans, they are allowed to use it for whatever they wish. They are no blocks in

terms of how we can control that. If they provide that information to a foreign country or once

the precedent has been established by the Conservative government to essentially give other

countries whatever information they want on Canadians, and they do that with other countries

that may be a risk, yes, that potential for putting Canadians at risk is certainly there.

I use the example in particular, because I deal with constituents of mine who came to Canada

as refugees. If people become a refugee in Canada and they actually get to stay in Canada under

that, there is some problem because they have been at risk in some way in their host country. If

they wish to go back and visit family members, or go to neighbouring countries, or whatever it

may be, or they have family members who remain, even if they are not going there, in some

way we do not wish to harm either those individuals who are now Canadians or their families, so

the risk exists. In a free and democratic society, we always have limits, but those limits need to

be based on reason. We cannot simply provide limits to the protections and freedoms of

Canadians because the Americans or another country say so. We need to do it based on logic.

In these particular circumstances, I am still waiting for the explanation from the Conservative

government as to how these amendments to the statute would actually protect Canadians as

opposed to simply just giving in to our American friends.

(1640)

Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure

and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that I would trust the rule of law that is

imposed in Canada and the United States over almost any other nation in the world. I would

suggest, first, I trust in the rule of law that is applied in North America by the court system that

is independent and impartial.

However, as far as the fearmongering by the members opposite in relation to domestic flights

that were, in part, negotiated to be excluded from this, I ask the member to check who

negotiated that. Was it the previous Liberal government? No. It was this government that

negotiated with our southern neighbours on many aspects of this and other treaties to make

Canadians safer.

The member asks how will this make Canadians safer. I think it is clear from what happened

in 9/11 that we are all subject to terrorism. We in this Conservative government will keep

Canadians safe by negotiating and also sharing information that will otherwise put Canadians in

peril. Let us be clear. Terrorism knows no boundaries. This government will keep Canadians safe.

As far as insulting our American neighbours, I ask that member go back in time to a national

TV broadcast where one of the Liberal sitting members of Parliament stomped, jumped up and

down, on a figurine of the United States president at the time. I am sure that did a lot to help

our friendship with the United States, since the Liberals were in government at the time it took

place. What happened to that member? Zero, zip. She continued to sit in the House and the

Liberals did nothing.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, I have respect for my hon. colleague, but when I ask him to have the

Conservative government describe how this legislation would protect Canadians, I do not think

the most logical argument is that a number of years ago some member of Parliament stepped on

a doll. I suggest that is window-dressing and rhetoric as opposed to answering the question.

When the member speaks about a previous government's bill, once again, that is window-

dressing and rhetoric, since it is the Conservative government's bill, Bill C-42. This bill seeks to

put these onerous restrictions on the privacy of Canadians by letting the Americans know all

about these people on the flight, even the ones who are flying just across Canada.

For him to suggest somehow that his rational, logical argument in favour of the bill is doll

stamping or that some years before somebody introduced some other bill, which is not the one

we are discussing, that is not a rational response.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought to the debate something fundamental about what the

object is of this legislation, the strengthening aviation security act.

We do have a passenger protection program. The Privacy Commissioner issued a report in

2009 which concluded that there are even some problems with regard to the Canadian system of

protection of that information, but that is the program under which passenger protection is

covered.

This is not just about Canada and the U.S. This is about any country in the world that happens

to have legislation requiring this information. For instance, if a flight left Canada and flew over

Pakistan but did not land in Pakistan, the Pakistani government could say that it wanted to know

the name of everybody on that plane, without having some sort of reciprocal requirement or

objective. It really could get ugly and complicated as to how to coordinate all that information

when there may be no contact between that plane and the government.

If a foreign government does enact legislation requiring information for aircraft flying over its

land, how do we comply without--

(1645)

The Deputy Speaker:

I will have to stop the member there because there is only a minute left for the member for

Brampton West to respond.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, that is the point exactly. The point is that because the government will not, in a

respectful and friendly way, stand up to our American neighbours, we are creating the precedent

to put Canadians at risk because of the legislation that may be in force now or in the future in

terms of foreign countries.

The hon. parliamentary secretary made a point that I wish to address further. He suggested

that in some way this is going to help security. I will again ask a question that he did not answer.

How is it that he believes this legislation is necessary? Have they not done enough to protect

Canadians through the security measures that we have in Canada? That is the true question.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 075

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Friday, October 1, 2010

Pope John Paul II Act

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-573, An Act to establish Pope John Paul II Day.

He said: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour of introducing my private member's bill

that I have entitled, ―an act to establish Pope John Paul II Day‖.

I am particularly moved to introduce the bill, being a proud first generation Polish Canadian

and practising Roman Catholic. However, it must be remembered that the impact of this man,

who has been granted the title ―Venerable‖ by Pope Benedict XVI and is on his way to sainthood,

goes well beyond his Polish roots or Roman Catholic faith.

Pope John Paul II is universally recognized as a leading figure in world history and a principle

force behind the ending of communism in Eastern Europe. He bridged divides between the

Roman Catholic Church and other religions. He visited 129 countries and attracted some of the

largest crowds in history, such as over 5 million people in Manila in 1995 and over 800,000 in Toronto in 2002.

I will be asking for the support of my colleagues to designate each April 2, the anniversary of

Pope John Paul II's death, as Pope John Paul II day across Canada.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 064

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Polish Community

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a proud first generation Polish Canadian.

On June 13, I was honoured to welcome to both my riding of Brampton West and the church

of St. Eugene de Mazenod, His Eminence Jozef Cardinal Glemp of Poland, His Grace Thomas

Collins, the Ambassador of the Republic of Poland, Mayor Susan Fennell, my Liberal colleagues

the MP for Etobicoke Centre and former MP Jesse Flis, and other dignitaries.

We celebrated the laying of the cornerstone at the building site of our new church. This

cornerstone is an actual piece of St. Peter's tomb in Rome and was blessed by Pope John Paul II, adding to the significance of the occasion.

I would like to express my congratulations and thanks to everyone involved in making the

building of this church, of which I am a proud member, a success.

Special recognition must go to Father Provincial Janusz Blazejak and the Pastor of St. Eugene

de Mazenod, Father Adam Filas. Without their dedication, this project would never have

happened.

I would also like to wish both Father Adam Filas and Father Andrzej Sowa, the Pastor of St.

Maximilian Kolbe Parish, congratulations on the 20th anniversary of their ordination, which also

took place this past Sunday.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 060

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Religious Freedom

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, bonjour, Sat Sri Akal, Namast.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this petition was supposed to be presented yesterday when

hundreds of Canadians travelled to Ottawa to remember the thousands of Sikhs killed in India in

November of 1984. However, prior to the hearing of petitions, the Conservatives brought a

procedural motion and then voted in favour of skipping past petitions, so the tabling of this

petition yesterday was blocked.

Today, one day late, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by thousands of

Canadians remembering the thousands of Sikhs killed in India over two days in November of

1984.

Members of Parliament are not allowed to endorse the contents of a petition, however, in

tabling this petition, I do wish to offer a few personal words about this tragedy.

First, I would like to remember the victims and their families and offer my sincere

condolences. This petition is truly about them.

Second, I would like to use this solemn occasion to reflect on Canadian ideals of justice and

tolerance. We hold those values to our hearts as we remember and honour those who were

victims of hatred.

The essence of this petition is the pursuit of justice, closure and reconciliation within a

peaceful and united India.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 047

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Friday, May 14, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Criminal Records Act Review

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in terms of my friend's speech, she essentially focused on Bill C-23 but we are

here today with respect to her Motion No. 514. I also will speak to Bill C-23 but I will read her

motion first. It reads:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the

Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions.

There is one thing I do not think my friend mentioned, but I actually did speak with her

beforehand and she was agreeable that the three months should be three months of sitting days.

I just wanted to clarify that that is what we are discussing, not just any three months.

In terms of the motion, I support it.

I am on the public safety and national security committee, and the reason I wanted to clarify

that it should be three months of sitting days is because there is just no way we could do it

otherwise. Right now we are involved with a discussion of Bill C-391 on the gun registry, and we

have far too many witnesses that we are going through, various victims' rights groups, police

officers and mental health persons, all of whom want to come and testify to try to keep the gun

registry. So there is just no way that we could do that in the short period of time that we have.

The motion is a good motion but it needs to be compared and contrasted to the reaction of

the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety once the Graham James story came out.

When this story came out, there was an immediate reactive decision to overhaul the Criminal

Records Act because of the story. My problem with the immediate reaction that they had was

that there was no thorough and thoughtful suggestion or review of the pardon system

whatsoever. It was just an immediate reaction to this news story.

I actually compliment my friend for putting something forward that is more thoughtful and

thorough in terms of what she would like to see accomplished. I compliment her for standing up

to what has occurred in her own party, because by her motion, she is actually recognizing that

we need a full and proper discussion, not simply an immediate statute because of a news story.

In terms of the Bill C-23, it is important to remember that this issue was raised first in 2006

by the Conservative government because there was another news story with respect to convicted

sex offender, Clark Noble. At that time, the public safety minister indicated that the government

would review the need for possible changes to the pardon system because of the 2006 news

story. Why were the changes that it is currently proposing not made or introduced back in 2006

in response to the first news story? If the changes had been made at that time properly, we

would not be facing this exact situation with the new news story with respect to Graham James.

When my friend speaks of the law and order agenda and how the Conservatives are trying to

solve a problem, to be honest about this, there must be recognition that this problem was

already recognized in 2006 and ignored by the Conservative government. I applaud my friend for

trying to fix the problem now that was ignored back in 2006.

In terms of Bill C-23, any pardon system must operate in the best interests of public safety,

100%, but that also means we have to figure out what that is, and that means having a proper

study. I personally welcome the opportunity at the public safety committee to do that.

My friend went through what Bill C-23 seeks to accomplish in terms of changes. I will not

repeat it but I will reiterate that based on all of these suggested changes, if they were so urgent

and so important, why did we not hear about any of these in 2006 when this first review took

place after the other news story? It was ignored. Who is at fault for this?

I want to point out some things in an article by Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen.

(1340)

What happened in 2006 was that the minister of public safety at the time studied the process,

the policy and the facts and concluded that changes were warranted. For example, two Parole

Board members, not one, would be involved in applications and, rather than relying on local

police to bring forward information related to the applicant's conduct, the Parole Board would be

required to get information the local police may have.

However, on the fundamental question, which is key for the Graham James news story that

has now come out: Should sex offenders continue to be eligible for pardons?, the then minister

of public safety considered the question and gave an affirmative answer. Why?

The current proposal in Bill C-23 suggests that sex offenders who have harmed children would

not be eligible. I am in favour of that. I have actually spoken out many times against the

Conservatives' law and order agenda saying that it was not tough enough. A lot of it is window

dressing, in my respectful view. When the bill says that it would exclude sex offenders who have

harmed children, I wonder why it is only children. What about all the other victims who have

been hurt by sex offenders? Why is the government again ignoring all of those other victims?

When the Conservatives talk about a law and order agenda and about protecting victims, how

are they doing it? They did not fix it in 2006 when they did study it and made some changes.

Now all they are proposing deals with a sex offender who has harmed a child. What about all the

other victims?

In order to come to a logical, reasoned analysis of what the best overall system is, because I

do not want to prejudge it, there should be a proper study. That means experts, various persons

interested in coming forward and victims groups appearing before the committee. I welcome

that. The motion is good for that very reason. We need to have a thoughtful analysis so the

Conservatives do not make another mistake like they made in 2006 when they made some

changes but ignored some of the things that really mattered.

In terms of the 2006 story, there is an October 21, 2006 article by Timothy Appleby and Peter

Cheney, called ―[The Minister of Public Safety] calls for review after sex offender obtains

pardon‖, and it goes through this. The Conservatives did this the first time in 2006 but they did

not get it right.

What happened because they did not get it right in 2006? I will describe exactly what

happened because Canadians need to know. An article in the Globe and Mail by Daniel Leblanc

dealing with criminal records states:

Nearly all the sex offenders who apply for pardons in Canada successfully wipe out their criminal records from public

view, despite the Conservative government‘s promise four years ago to make the system tougher.

Over the last two years, 1,554 sex offenders applied for a pardon with the National Parole Board; only 41 of them

were rejected, leaving 1,513 without a trace of a criminal record, unless they apply to work with children or vulnerable individuals.

Because the government ignored this in 2006, 1,513 convicted sex offenders since that time

have received these pardons. That was an intentional decision by the government.

I want to be fair. I want to quote somebody with respect to victims. Victims essentially say

that Bill C-23 was a knee-jerk reaction. I would rather not see a knee-jerk reaction but rather a

considered, thoughtful debate and evidence given before the public safety and national security

committee. I intend to be strong on this but I also want to be reasoned and thoughtful with

proper submissions.

I thank my friend across the way for having the courage to recognize that a problem has

existed since 2006 when it was not fixed and for trying to fix it now.

(1345)

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 044

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Sri Lanka

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians of Tamil origin.

May marks the one year ending of the war in Sri Lanka. As we know, thousands and

thousands of persons were killed in that war and there is still no durable political solution. The

petition asks the Canadian government to engage both the Sri Lankan government and the

international community to seek a long-lasting political solution and to assist the persons who

are still jailed in the barbed wire camps in Sri Lanka.

The United Nations High Commissioner has called for an investigation into the various war

crimes or killings that occurred, especially near the end of the war. The petition seeks

engagement on that issue as well.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 037

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Friday, April 30, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits)

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of addressing the House today on the issue of Senate reform

and specifically with respect to Bill C-10. I would like to state that I do support Senate reform. I

do support sending this bill to committee so that the issue can be studied in full. However, any

type of Senate reform must be logical, democratic and constitutional. I do not believe that this

bill fits any of those three criteria.

Why has there been no consultation with the provinces at all by the government? The

Conservative Party espouses provincial rights. The Conservative Party talks about that and tries

to compare and contrast with other parties. Why has the Conservative government ignored

provincial rights? Why have the Conservatives not consulted them? Why is this bill so urgent that

the government cannot consult the provinces in circumstances where it had a virtually identical

bill, Bill S-7, that was introduced prior to prorogation?

The Conservatives had no difficulty suspending Parliament and killing that bill through

prorogation, yet they must now take the position that this is so urgent that, although they killed

the bill through prorogation, they now do not have time to consult the provinces with respect to

this bill. I think that is wrong.

If the government does not even know if the provinces will support any amendments,

notwithstanding what the government is trying to do, or if the provinces are prepared to support

amendments, what type they would be, why are we taking the time of the House of Commons to

deal with this? Should we not first know that the provinces will support this?

In order to get a meaningful constitutional amendment through, which I believe is what needs

to occur and not simply this bill, we need the support of 50% of the population representing at

least seven provinces. Even on a basis of good faith, I would like to know why the government

has not taken the time to consult with the provinces to see whether there is that form of support

across the country for this.

I mentioned three criteria. One criterion is democracy. Whenever somebody talks about

Senate reform, they assume that they are proposing something that should be followed or that

there is some urgent need for it. If we are going to do this, we should not make the situation

worse. My fear is that an eight-year term would be a risk to democracy, not a benefit.

Various people have thought about this. The Senate is supposed to be a chamber of sober

second thought. In order to get that, we need people with some institutional memory and

experience who have been around for a reasonable period of time. More than that, we need to

consider what they will do when they are there.

I would refer to an article written by David Akin which appeared in the press a couple of

weeks ago. There are arguments against the eight-year term. The main argument is:

For example, under the terms of [the Prime Minister's] initial proposals, any Prime Minister representing any party

would be able, over the course of only two Parliaments, to appoint – yes, appoint – senators to every one of the 105 Senate seats. Talk about a rubber stamp! Any semblance of the institution‘s independence would be gone.

The first issue, especially in circumstances where we have had minority governments since at

least 2006, is that it would be a risk to democracy to allow any sitting prime minister to, in

theory, appoint the entire Senate through only two mandates.

In short, the Liberal Party is in favour of Senate reform, but we have to work in conjunction with the provinces to get there. We would like to know what our provincial partners think. We do

not think it is appropriate to ignore them and not consult them, as the government has done.

In terms of the exact proposals, other comments have been made. From that same article, I

quote:

The proposals by the present government, one to limit the terms of senators to eight years, and another for indirect

senate elections, are not real or meaningful reform, in that they do not propose to alter the Constitution in any way. In fact, they have been painstakingly designed to avoid doing so.

(1215)

If we are to have meaningful, long-term, democratic Senate reform, it requires consultations

with the provinces to get that required 50% of the population with seven or more provinces, and

we need to amend our constitution in a proper manner. Anything short of that, frankly, is

unacceptable.

There is another comment in terms of Senate reform and limiting the terms. We already have

the risk that we have discussed in terms of having one prime minister potentially appointing the

entire chamber if the term is eight years, but there is another issue also. I would like to go to a

journal article of UBC entitled ―Transforming Canadians Governance Through Senate Reform

Conference, April 18-19, 2007‖.

There is another issue, and I think this is actually the more important issue. It is not so much

what the terms are for the Senators. I support doing something about this. I am not against it,

but once again, it has to be democratic, constitutional and logical.

The bigger issue is not the term, but the legitimacy of the Senate once in power, because as

indicated, having reference to the United Kingdom's House of Lords, the issue is to keep the

chamber bipartisan, so we actually get sober second thought, the main original goal of the

Senate, and we have some check, some thought about the legislative agenda of the House of

Commons. I will read from this article as well. On the question of legitimacy, and it is talking

about a presentation, it states:

—stressed the legitimacy of the currently constituted House of Lords in the sense of broad public endorsement of an appointed chamber challenging the legislation of a popularly elected government. The secret, Meg Russell argued, was in the partisan balance maintained in an the appointment to the House of Lords, so that neither government nor opposition alone had the ability to control the chamber. Legitimacy came from independent—or at least bipartisan—action by a parliamentary chamber, not only from the mode in which members were selected.

In short, the problem with the proposal in this legislation is that in theory it gives the Prime

Minister the power to appoint the entire chamber and there is no check on how that gets done.

We need a method to ensure that the bipartisan, the rough balance that we have in the Senate,

is maintained so all parties are represented and so it is not simply a government Senate

chamber, whatever the government of the day may be.

If we deal with Senate reform and spend the time of the House of Commons and of a

parliamentary committee, bring witnesses in and incur expenses, should we also not know that it

is constitutional? Why is there no reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?

In 2006 the Prime Minister, when he appeared before the Senate committee speaking on Bill

S-4, said, ―The Government believes that S-4 is achievable through the action of Parliament

itself‖. This is not democratic, and I do not think it is even constitutional. We have scholars such

as Alexandra Dobrowolsky, the chair of the Department of Political Sciences, St. Mary's

University, who clearly says ―that the failure to consult with the province violates the

constitutional conventions‖.

The Library of Parliament of Canada disagrees with the Prime Minister. I will quote from its

writings on August 17, 2009:

There is, however, an involved debate as to whether the constitutional amendment procedures introduced in the

Constitution Act, 1982 would allow Parliament to modify the main characteristics of the Senate without the consent of the provincial legislative assemblies. The Supreme Court has issued an opinion stating that Parliament does not have that authority, but the decision dates from 1980 and thus precedes the amendment mechanisms introduced in the Constitution Act, 1982. The question is therefore unresolved.

I do not think it is responsible for the government to go through this process without first

consulting the provinces, as I have already indicated, but also knowing whether this is

constitutional.

(1220)

It is common sense to state that there should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada

to make this determination rather than requiring persons after the fact to engage in lengthy and

expensive litigation to challenge this. I anticipate that if this goes through, some group will

challenge this, there will be such legislation and we will be tied up. Why not, since the Prime

Minister has the power, simply refer this to the Supreme Court of Canada now and seek a ruling?

There is a certain irony in terms of what is occurring with these proposals. I am going to read

three quotes. The first is, ―Only candidates elected by the people will be named to the Upper

House‖. The second is, ―the Upper House remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of

the prime minister‖. Both of those quotes in 2004 were from the Prime Minister.

Another quote from the Conservative Party was ―A Conservative government will not appoint

to the Senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people‖. I am sure Canadians will

find that most ironic considering what has taken place.

Another example from May 28, 1996, the Reform Party opposition day motion speaking to it

at paragraph 3049, stated:

The Reform Party proposal for a triple E Senate, a Senate which is elected by the people with equal representation

from each province and which is fully effective in safeguarding regional interests would make the upper House accountable to Canadians. Implementing changes to the Constitution to provide for a triple E Senate, an extension of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act into other provinces, is the best means to proceed in permitting Canada's regions to have a greater say in Ottawa and bring democratic accountability to government.

What happened to that? What happened to the positions of the government members when

they were in opposition? Why are they not fulfilling their promises in seeking an attempt to bring

meaningful Senate reform to Canada with consultations with our provincial partners? Why this

legislation in this form? It is not democratic and it is quite ironic that the government is doing

this considering its various prior statements.

In terms of other broken promises, I already read the quotes of the Prime Minister in terms of

never appointing senators who have not been elected. I find it ironic that a record was broken

with the Prime Minister appointing 27 senators in one year. There have now been 33 unelected

senators appointed by the Prime Minister, despite very clear promises that he would never do

that. That must go to the credibility of the government. Of course this is not the only promise

that has been broken.

We also had the promises of income trusts, the public appointments commission, to never run

deficits, to follow fixed election dates, which we know did not take place during the last election,

and to not raise taxes, although we have a huge payroll tax, which, according to economists, will

kill 200,000 plus jobs. This is just a litany of broken promises by the government that Canadians

frankly need to know about.

Since this is under the democratic ministry, let us talk about democracy. With the 33 Senate

appointments that the Prime Minister has made, let us examine them. These were not bipartisan

appointments for the benefit of Canadians. Essentially these were Conservative mainly defeated

candidates. I think Canadians need to know this.

I quote an article, once again by David Akin, of January 20, 2010. He states:

There is an irony to the appointments [the Prime Minister] has made that is not lost even on some of [the Prime

Minister's] own advisers and supporters. As a young Reform party organizer and MP, [the Prime Minister] campaigned vigourously to make the Senate more independent of the prime minister. And yet, to create the Senate he wants, [the Prime Minister] now needs a Senate that will do precisely what he wants.

With the five members he is expected to appoint Friday, [the Prime Minister]—who once said he would never

appoint senators—will have named 33 senators since taking office in 2006...

(1225)

Who are those people? He goes on to state:

In fact, 20 of the 33 appointees were failed Conservative candidates, former political staff to Harper or the party, or

were members of the Conservative party or its predecessor parties, the Reform party, the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance.

I think Canadians have a right to know who those people are. This is the lost: Bert Brown,

Reform Party organizer; Claude Carignan, failed Conservative candidate; Fred Dickson, adviser

to former Nova Scotia Premier John Buchanan, a Progressive Conservation; Nicole Eaton, writer

and community leader who chaired the Conservatives last two national conventions; Doug Finley,

Conservative national campaign manager; Michael Fortier, co-chaired of Conservative national

campaign; Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, former Progressive Conservative MP; Stephen Greene,

Reform Party staffer; Michael MacDonald, Conservative Party executive; Fabian Manning, former

Conservative MP, lost re-election in 2008; Yonah Martin, failed Conservative candidate; Percy

Mockler, New Brunswick Progressive Conservative; Richard Neufeld, provincial politician active in

social credit reform and B.C. Liberal Party; Don Plett, former Conservative Party president;

Michel Rivard, failed Canadian Alliance candidate; Judith Seidman, co-chaired the Prime

Minister's 2003 leadership bid; Carolyn Stewart Olsen, long-time Prime Minister communication

aid; and the last, John Wallace, failed Conservative candidate.

In terms of John Wallace, I will have to admit I know him. He is a good appointment.

However, did the Prime Minister actually ask Senator Wallace before he was appointed to limit

his term to eight years? Did he know this was coming? Senator Wallace gave up his lucrative

business to come here. Maybe he should have asked him. Maybe that would have been fair.

Maybe that would have been trustworthy.

There is a history here. Why are we dealing with this Senate reform package now? Obviously

it was not urgent, because if it were so urgent, the government would not have killed it by

proroguing Parliament, which also killed the legislation. It would have continued with Parliament

to ensure this was taken care of before.

We do have urgent matters, though, that the government has sought to avoid by bringing

forward this type of legislation, Senate reform at this stage. I am not saying we should not do

this at some point, but why now? I have made this point in terms of the law and order legislation

as well. Although I support almost all of it, why now? Why not deal with the issues that are

urgent for Canadians when we are living through the worst recession since the last depression?

Why now?

I am going to give one example. I have a top 10 list here that, frankly, the government

should have dealt with already or should be dealing with, which it is seeking to avoid. This has

nothing to do with the recent scandals and everything that has been going through question

period. It has to do substantive issues that matter to Canadians for their ordinary daily lives.

They are simply being ignored.

I sat in the transport committee this week, but I am not on the committee. I was shocked. In

questioning pilots, as one example, members talked about these new SMS safety standards. In

2007 there were amendments to the Aeronautics Act contained in Bill C-6, An Act to amend the

Aeronautics Act. This would have clarified Transport Canada's authority to regulate SMS,

enhanced the sharing of safety data with Transport Canada and provided protections for

employees who reported safety concerns internally under SMS.

The pilots who testified clearly stated that this was something they needed, that it was

important, that it was required for the safety of air passengers across Canada. How many

Canadians travel on aircraft? Yet it has not been reintroduced and the pilots, who were before

the committee, want it introduced. Why has that not been done rather than go through with this

law and order legislation and go through Senate reform at this stage? Why not pick other

meaningful things that should be dealt with for the benefit and safety of Canadians?

As I essentially have no time left, I will not have a chance to go through the entire list. That is

one example, and there is a whole litany of those that have been ignored.

(1230)

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage,

CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and frankly, I cannot understand why the

member does not get it.

Confederation in this country occurred in 1867. The Senate is still stuck there. A lot has

changed but not the Senate. It is still a place where political patronage extends for life.

What possible objection can the member have to Senate term limits? I just do not

understand.

I can tell the House that in my riding my constituents want more democracy in this country.

They want change in the Senate. Senate change must occur. Frankly, the member knows well

why it has not occurred. He knows that for years and years, and decade after decade, the Liberal

Party used the Senate as nothing more than a house of political patronage.

It is time to change. It is time to get into 2010. It is time for the member to stand for his

constituents. It is time to stand for accountability. It is time to stand for democracy. It is time to

stand for the Senate reform bill that is before the House.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. parliamentary secretary obviously did not have an

opportunity to listen to my speech. Rhetoric does not solve the problem. Facts and figures do.

We talk about democracy. Could the Conservatives please explain why they have not

consulted the provinces? We talk about risking democracy for an eight year term because in

theory the Prime Minister could appoint the entire chamber and many independent persons have

indicated that it would not be constitutional. What we really need is some method to ensure the

bipartisan or balanced nature of the Senate. How is talking about democracy a response to that?

I am looking for reasoned responses and logic so we can actually debate the issues rather

than debating conclusions and rhetoric.

(1235)

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member about the concerns he has with the bill. He

itemized and went through a role call of all the government's patronage appointments to the

Senate. I heartily agree with the member that it is not the right way to go, but the question is

this. Is the Liberal Party's position different from that?

I do not have to tell the House about how the other place has been treated by both the old

line parties. It is a place to stuff one's friends; it is a reward system.

I hear the member's critique. We will listen to independent voices and references to the

Supreme Court which is fine, but that is process. I would like to know from the member, what is

the Liberal Party's position on the Senate? Is it fine the way it is? I do not think Canadians are in

line with that. If not this, then what?

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the Liberal Party's position is not that the Senate is fine in its

current form. The Liberal Party's position is that it must be changed in a reasonable and logical

manner, working together with the provinces.

If we are going to have meaningful change, it means actually doing something substantive,

which means amending the Constitution of Canada in a method that the provinces will accept.

The Liberal Party does not want to tell our provincial partners what is going to be done and

then challenge them to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to seek a ruling that what the federal

government has done is unconstitutional.

Mr. Dean Del Mastro:

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear because I want to take the answer the member has just provided

to the next step.

I gather from his comments that the member agrees that there should be Senate reform. He

thinks it is a good time right now in Canada, when the primary concern of most Canadians is the

economy, although judging by the questions for the last month from the Leader of the

Opposition we would not know that, to open up a constitutional debate in Canada. Would that

not be wonderful?

Why not just move with simple democratic reform measures for the Senate now? He has the

ability. He was elected in the last general election. He has the ability to be a proponent of

change, to bring democracy, and to bring the Senate into the 21st century to represent the

views of his constituents.

He is saying no. Here is a can of worms. Let us open this up right now while Canadians are

concerned about the economy. Nonsense. This is a good bill and the member should support it.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is absolutely right. This is not the time to deal with

Senate reform. If it is going to take place, it has to be legal, which means constitutional, which

means consulting the provinces.

The government should instead be dealing with things like Kelowna and Copenhagen. We are

an embarrassment on the international stage with respect to the environment.

The government should be looking at making EI changes to help individuals. It should be

looking at affordable housing, day care, the huge deficit that we have, the Nortel bankruptcy and

the ignoring of pensioners, the waste that we have, and the loss of 500,000 full-time jobs. It

could also look at the Aeronautics Act that I just mentioned.

You are absolutely right. Now is the time to deal with issues that matter to Canadians, which

are mainly economic issues. The reason you are not dealing with these things is because you do

not want people to know that the Conservatives are bad economic managers.

The Deputy Speaker:

I would just remind the hon. member for Brampton West to address his remarks through the

chair and not directly at other members.

Questions and comments.

Mr. Dean Del Mastro:

Mr. Speaker, we are economic managers who are leading the G8 in growth, economic

managers who have just produced six consecutive month of economic growth, and economic

managers who are creating jobs while other countries are still losing them.

Canadians see what this government is doing on the economy and they are impressed by it. I

am very proud of this government's record on the economy. The Liberal Party has no record on

the economy recently at all because the Leader of the Opposition has not asked a single question

on it in at least a month.

Let us go back to the issue at hand. We have a bill before us for democratic reform,

something that would put more power back in the hands of the people we serve. That is what we

are here for. This is not just some place of process, just some place of patronage, some place

that is removed from the people. We are the representatives of the people.

It is time to move the Senate forward to make it more accountable. The member mentioned

senators that we have appointed recently. Those senators are committed to Senate change,

committed to Canadians, committed to the initiatives that this party has undertaken to bring the

Senate into the 21st century. The Senate offers great value to Canadians, of that I have no

question.

We can do much better when we can bring democratic reform that each and every Canadian

will appreciate. That member has that opportunity. He should support the bill.

(1240)

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Economic managers, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives, under former Prime Minister Mulroney,

left us with a deficit of approximately $43 billion, which the Liberal Party cleaned up when it was

in office. Before the recession took place, the Conservatives gifted us with a deficit of

approximately $14 billion. They took a $14 billion surplus and turned it into a $14 billion deficit.

The member talked about economic management. Recent independent information shows that

the stimulus package is not working. We are going to have a $60 billion-plus deficit. Is this a gift

for our children?

You talk about the loss of 500,000 jobs. Yes, some part-time jobs are being created. I do not

think the people in my riding who want a full-time job are very impressed that they might,

maybe if they are lucky, get a part-time job.

If you want to talk about economic management, then you should talk about day care. How

are poor families supposed to work when they receive a taxable $100 per month for a child

under six? Everybody knows that these people cannot afford that. For poor families--

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. The time for the answer has come to a close.

I would just remind the hon. member to address his remarks through the chair and not

directly at other members.

I would remind all members that we are at second reading on a bill regarding Senate reform.

The Standing Orders regarding relevance do apply. While members may wander into other areas

as they make their points, we should try to keep our questions, comments, and speeches directly

on the subject-matter of the bill.

There is enough time for a very brief question or comment, perhaps 30 seconds. The hon.

member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Paul Dewar:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that while this bill would put

some parameters around the Senate, it is a problem in terms of how senators get there. In other

words, there would still be this fundamental problem around the way senators, at the end of the

day, even with this mechanism of local elections, are appointed.

Is this not really denying the fact that we need real Senate change and not just this

incrementalism to get to a legitimate Senate?

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, my friend is right. One of the quotes that I read said exactly that. UBC has

already stated that this is not what should be taking place; it is not logical.

If we want to have true Senate reform, we need to amend the Constitution Act in consultation

with our provincial partners. We should not be telling the provinces what they should be doing

but rather working with them.

There are more important issues right now, such as the economic issues that I mentioned.

They should take priority for the benefit of Canadians.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 028

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, April 19, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Income Tax Act

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, ―Salaries at some charities make a mockery of the concept of charity‖. That is a

quote from the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, and she is correct. That is why I wish

to congratulate her on introducing this bill which seeks to protect and stand up for donors,

recipients of charitable funds, and taxpayers. I am honoured to be a seconder of this bill.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: first, to limit the global compensation of employees of

charities to $250,000 per year, which is a substantial sum; and second, to allow full public

disclosure of the incomes of the top five employees of charities.

In terms of the analysis of the bill and the $250,000 limit, the practical effect of imposing this,

if it were to be exceeded by a charity, would be to provide the minister with the discretion to

revoke the charitable status. This would not be automatic. It would allow the minister to use

discretion in a particular circumstance if there were some reason that this should not take place.

As well, there is an effective date of 2011 for this bill to provide ample time for transition

purposes.

There are multiple reasons to support this bill. First, we must protect the recipients of charity,

Canadians in need. We must ensure they are not taken advantage of and that the money raised

to help them actually reaches them to the greatest extent possible. Every dollar spent on an

executive that is in excess of what is reasonable is a dollar taken away from a recipient, and that

must end.

Second, we must protect donors. Most donors are ordinary people who dig deep into their

pockets in order to help others. It is simply unfair to these ordinary donors, ordinary Canadians,

to allow such executives to abuse their generosity and, frankly, to earn far in excess of what

most Canadians earn.

Third, we must protect charities and the charity system itself. Every year Canadians dig deep

and contribute billions to 85,000 registered charities. They will not do so if they believe the

system is broken, if their trust has been violated and, frankly, if their money is being wasted on

exorbitant compensation packages for executives.

The SickKids example, which has already been mentioned in the House today, is relevant.

When the Toronto Star broke the story that the head of the SickKids Foundation took home $2.7

million in salary and severance in one year, people were rightly shocked and outraged.

Think about the average donor who is providing a donation of $30 or $50, whatever it may

be, digging deep to help. Think about the recipients of charities who need that money to live.

When they hear that somebody is making $2.7 million from moneys that should be used to help,

they are outraged and they should be.

What is important in terms of the integrity of the charitable system is that once the SickKids

Foundation story broke, it hurt the foundation. There was a backlash from donors. The

foundation had to set up a specific hotline to take questions and address concerns. The SickKids

Foundation received a 10% decrease in donations and had to lay off 38 staff members.

I ask, how is it right that that individual received $2.7 million in one year, and then the

foundation itself was hurt by a decrease in contributions and 38 innocent Canadians received a

pink slip, a layoff notice?

If this legislation had been in place at the time, it would have stopped this. The foundation

would not have been allowed to pay $2.7 million to that executive. The SickKids Foundation

would not have received a 10% reduction in contributions, and those innocent 38 people would

not have been laid off.

It is instructive to reflect upon the recent changes the Conservatives did make for disclosure

provisions. The disclosure provisions, although admittedly an improvement, are not enough. The

$2.7 million salary was only learned of because the foundation also operates in the United States

and had to file there.

(1135)

The changes that have been made by the Conservatives create a continuing problem, because

despite the new filing requirements introduced by them, there are no exact salary figures or

names of the highest paid individuals that must be disclosed. Instead, charities must identify the

number of people who earn a salary within a certain range, with a top range of ―$350,000 and

over‖.

Using the SickKids Foundation as an example, if that foundation had not also operated in the

United States where there are strict filing and disclosure requirements, and we only had the

benefit of the new regime that the Conservatives introduced, the only thing we would have

known is that at least one person, if not more, at the SickKids Foundation made more than

$350,000. We would not have had the right to know that $2.7 million had been paid to an

individual. Although the changes introduced are an improvement, they do not go far enough.

This private member's bill must be supported in order to ensure that we have full disclosure of

this information.

The other reason we must support this bill is to protect taxpayers. In the most recent year,

the taxpayers of Canada contributed almost $3 billion in federal tax credits. Every Canadian has

the right to know the salaries of such executives and provide reasonable limits to these

taxpayer-supported activities. We are supporting these executives in their positions. We have a

right to know how much they are making and we have a right to set reasonable limits on what

that income is.

In terms of integrity, it must be remembered that in 2007, Canadians donated a total of $10

billion and volunteered 2.1 billion hours. If that goes down because people do not believe that

the system can be trusted and people are being treated unfairly, Canadians will suffer. Six years

ago, in 2004, the United States recognized it had a problem regarding disclosure. The IRS

announced new enforcement efforts to identify and halt such abuses. The IRS said:

We are concerned that some charities and private foundations are abusing their tax-exempt status by paying

exorbitant compensation to their officers and others.

In Canada, nothing has been done to remedy the situation apart from the small change that I

noted, which does not solve the problem.

This outrageous compensation is a serious problem in Canada. It is not limited to the one

example of the SickKids Foundation that I noted. That perhaps is what broke the story, but it is

not the only example. One reporter stated:

It seems for some of Canada‘s best known charitable organizations, charity begins in the chief executive‘s office.

Some of Canada's largest and best known charities pay some of their top officials more than

$300,000 per annum, which is more than deputy ministers make. Frankly, it is more than most

Canadians make. Chief executives at Plan International Canada Inc., the Heart and Stroke

Foundation of Ontario and York University Foundation all were paid more than $300,000 last

year. The BC Children's Hospital Foundation and Toronto General and Western Hospital

Foundation paid top executives between $250,000 and $300,000 per year.

Some people will oppose this legislation, but I ask why. First, why are they afraid of

transparency? What are they trying to hide? Why would they not want to disclose what the top

executives actually are making on an individual basis? Taxpayers have a right to know. Donors

who provide the money have a right to know. Canadians who are receiving the benefit of these

dollars have a right to know.

Second, is $250,000 not enough? It is enough, but more than that, setting a limit will level

the playing field in Canada. Tim Price, chairman of the York University Foundation board, said it

paid CEO Paul Marcus $394,000 in salary and bonus last year and that the payment ―was in the

context of the competitiveness of talent to be able to get a first-class person‖. The foundation

would not be required to have paid $394,000 to that individual if there was a cap of $250,000.

Frankly, people would not be seeking to move around and drive up the cost of compensation

packages if there was a limit. Canadians who need these funds would actually receive them.

(1140)

There are very large Canadian charities that already are compliant, such as Big Brothers Big

Sisters of Canada, United Way of Canada and the Red Cross. There is no reason that everybody

cannot be compliant.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 025

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Poland

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, Poland lost its political, military and church elite, including

President Lech Kaczynski and his wife Maria, whom I had met. They had been flying to a

memorial to remember the Katyn massacre, an event not well known in world history, but one

that they rightly did not want forgotten given the brutal murders of over 20,000 Polish officers

and elite by Soviet forces in 1940.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has called this plane crash the most tragic event of Poland's

post World War II history and the Archbishop of Warsaw has stated that ―words are too poor and

weak‖ to capture the loss. As a first generation Polish Canadian, I can say that they are both

correct and that the Polish community in Canada, known as Polonia, is in shock and mourning.

On behalf of my entire family, the residents of Brampton West and Polonia, I wish the

survivors of the deceased and the people of Poland our sincere condolences on this terrible

tragedy.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 007

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken

Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I heard from my friend's speech that the point of this bill appears to be to keep

the medals in Canada. As a general theory, I support that, but I want to point out a couple of

factors in the bill.

Clause 3(2)(a) and (b) states in terms of what the prohibition is, that it ―does not apply to the

transfer of an insignia to a near relative of the owner of the insignia‖. Obviously that person

could reside outside Canada. If the goal of the bill is to keep these various medals inside Canada,

the bill does not do it entirely. Paragraph (b) refers to ―an heir of the owner of the insignia upon

the death of the owner‖. The heir obviously could live outside Canada. If once again the point is

to keep the medals inside Canada, the member needs to do something different.

Another point is, how is this going to be enforced? Perhaps it could be put on a customs

declaration form when people are entering or leaving the country. Something has to be thought out. If the member wants the bill to do something, it has to have some mechanism.

In terms of the general concept, I support the bill. I have no problem with it. My particular

problem is that we are here discussing the medals of veterans and not the veterans themselves.

The hon. member has indicated previously that he sees this as an opportunity ―to honour our

veterans and support our troops‖. While I like the goal, the bill does not do that.

I would like to review the various multiple failings of the government in terms of veterans. He

has brought a bill forward in terms of veterans and that is what we should be discussing, how we

are helping veterans, rather than focusing on the medals.

The one remaining national hospital is Ste. Anne's Hospital in Quebec. Last fall the

Conservatives announced that they were considering transferring it to the province of Quebec.

The issue is not whether it should or should not be transferred. The issue is where the treatment

is going to be provided and who is going to take care of these various veterans.

Veterans are aging and will require long-term care and beds. Where is that going to come

from? Veterans will be coming back from Afghanistan with serious issues such as post-traumatic

stress disorder. Where are they going to find treatment? Who is going to take care of them?

There needs to be a national strategy for that. When I hear that the Conservatives are simply

going to transfer the last remaining hospital in theory to Quebec, I want to know the practical

effect of that. That issue has not been addressed.

That particular transfer has been opposed by 57 different veterans groups, comprised of the

National Council of Veteran Associations.

Members of the regular forces who are coming back have significant problems in terms of

post-traumatic stress disorder. They rely upon Ste. Anne's Hospital to get their treatment.

Hon. Jason Kenney:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have reviewed the bill and I believe that the speech

being delivered by the hon. member has nothing to do with it.

I would ask the Chair to call the member to order insofar as his remarks are not pertinent to

the matter on the floor.

The Deputy Speaker:

I just remind the member of the rules of relevance and to ensure that he keeps his remarks

as close as possible to the private member's bill before the House.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should look at the bill and see what it talks about because it refers

to veterans. I do not know how it could be possibly argued that this bill does not deal with

veterans. If my friend wants to interrupt, that is fine, but I do not think his point is a valid one.

In terms of these issues with respect to veterans, homelessness is a severe problem. The

veterans ombudsman, Patrick Strogan, last year took the Conservatives to task for not doing

enough about homeless veterans. Since then nothing has been done.

Veterans advocate Claudia Schibler of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman indicated that

the mandate and authority of the veterans ombudsman is very weak. She complained about it

and nothing has been done. As well, the veterans advocate has indicated that the department is

spending more and more money in terms of discounting and denying veterans' claims than it is

in actually helping them.

In terms of the department's budget, I would like to know from my friend in terms of the bill

why the Department of Veterans Affairs is returning so many millions of dollars to the

Department of Finance when the money could be used on behalf of veterans.

(1750)

The Deputy Speaker:

Order. I know the hon. member may be bringing his remarks close to the bill. I will just read

the title of the bill again. This is Bill C-473, An Act to protect insignia of military orders,

decorations and medals of cultural significance for future generations. While it may have

something to do with veterans in an abstract way, it is very specifically aimed at insignia of

military orders, decorations and medals of cultural significance.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has made a point of relevance. I

would encourage the member for Brampton to speak to the substance of the bill at second

reading.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the medals and insignia of veterans, I presume, because

that is who gets them. We are talking about veterans having to sell those very medals and

insignia to get money.

They have to sell their medals and insignia to get money because they find themselves in dire

circumstances. They find themselves in dire circumstances because they are not receiving

income from the government. They require medical assistance because of various disorders they

get from fighting in combat. When they come back to Canada, they cannot afford to pay for the treatment on their own. They are not getting help from the veterans department, so they then

have to consider selling their medals and insignia.

Some veterans are homeless. There is a Calgary shelter that has over 40 veterans. I would

like to know why they would have to sell their medals and insignia to try to find some place to

live rather than being able to keep them and not having to sell them to other institutions.

I would like to know why the Conservative government's promise in terms of compensating

victims of agent orange and holding a public inquiry has not taken place yet. Perhaps if that had

taken place, the veterans would have money and they would not have to consider selling their

medals and insignia.

I would like to know why the Conservatives' promise to extend the home care program for all

widows and veterans has not yet taken place. If that had taken place, perhaps they would not

have to consider selling their medals and insignia.

I would like to know why the Conservatives' promise to resolve the clawback of service

income security insurance plan pensions for disabled veterans has been broken and not been

taken care of. Perhaps if it had been and they had more money, they would not have to worry

about selling their medals and insignia—

Mr. Bruce Stanton:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member, this

narrative is completely beyond the bounds of relevance to the topic at hand. I would encourage

the Chair to please get the member back on topic. Mr. Speaker, you may want to consider

moving on in the debate. Again, with the greatest of respect, these points may be heartfelt but

they are just not on topic.

(1755)

The Deputy Speaker:

There is only one minute left for the member's remarks. While I understand that he has tried

to make a link between the topic he was focusing on and the substance of the bill, there is only a

minute left. The Chair does give some latitude at second reading on bills, but a number of points

regarding relevance have been raised.

If the member could conclude his remarks by staying as close as possible to the substance of

the bill, the Chair would appreciate it.

Mr. Andrew Kania:

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite correct that this particular hour is a non-partisan hour. I think

it should be very non-partisan that veterans deserve better. They should be helped and should

not be put in a situation where they have to consider selling their medals and insignia.

CANADA

House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 145

l

NUMBER 005

l

3rd SESSION

l

40th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I previously spoke on the bill in the last session. This emanates from a 2007

Department of Justice Canada report. At the time, I said that this should be a government bill. I

complimented my friend, and he will recall this, for taking the initiative and trying to fix the

Conservative government's omission in not bringing this forward as part of its own legislation. At

this point in time, I think he will agree with me that this is an important issue. It should go to

committee. It should have been studied, and I support it.

He must be as disappointed as I am that this is not further along. This could have been much

further down the road if Parliament had not been shut down. Does he share my extreme

disappointment that Parliament was prorogued and that this legislation was delayed because of

that.