2001-12-07

Government Orders
Criminal CodeHon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, members of the House will recall that I indicated in question period on June 12 my interest in bringing forward legislation related to ignition interlock devices as early as this fall. Today I am very pleased to speak to the bill that fulfills this commitment.
I would first like to take a few moments to explain how an ignition interlock device works and how it is an important prevention and rehabilitation tool in the fight against drunk driving.
Where a vehicle is equipped with an ignition interlock device under a provincial program, a driver must provide a suitable breath sample before the vehicle will start. If the analysis of the sample shows a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed level, the vehicle will not start. At periodic intervals the driver is alerted to stop and provide further breath samples for analysis. The device records the date and time of all samples and the result of analysis.
The existing provincial programs do monitor each device's log. This monitoring occurs each time the interlock equipped vehicle is taken for its interlock maintenance appointment.
In 1990 my home province of Alberta became the first Canadian jurisdiction to pilot a program for repeat offenders who use an ignition interlock device. The province of Quebec introduced a similar program in 1997.
Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to offer a program for the use of an ignition interlock device throughout the jurisdiction. An evaluation has shown that offenders on the program in Alberta have lower recidivism than offenders not using an ignition interlock device.
Ignition interlock devices are one part of the combination of measures that can be brought to bear upon the serious health, safety and social issue of impaired driving. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation recommends the combination of ignition interlock device programs and mandatory assessment and education or treatment for convicted impaired drivers.
I am informed that many federally prohibited or provincially suspended drivers will drive while disqualified. Some will never try to re-enter the legal driving system with a valid provincial or territorial driving licence.
An ignition interlock device program extends control over many who would otherwise be in this group and provides monitoring that offers public protection. Such programs can also contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders by modifying impaired driving behaviour, particularly when combined with other measures such as education and treatment.
In May 1999 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report on impaired driving, to which it attached a draft bill. The government adopted the measures found in the committee's draft bill and passed Bill C-82 as amended in June 1999.
Among the provisions in Bill C-82 was one that raised the criminal code's minimum period of driving prohibition on a first impaired driving offence from three months to one year. For a second offence the minimum was raised from six months to two years. For a subsequent offence, the minimum period of driving prohibition was raised from 12 months to three years.
Only for a first offender is there a possibility to drive after serving a period of absolute driving prohibition of three months, if the offender is under a provincial program for the use of an ignition interlock device during the remainder of the period of driving prohibition.
While the standing committee's recommendation limited the restricted driving authorization to a first offender who is under a provincial program for the use of an ignition interlock device, the standing committee's report was favourable toward wider use of ignition interlock devices in order to provide public protection and to offer meaningful deterrence to individual offenders.
Experience in Alberta and Quebec has shown ignition interlock devices to be effective.
However, with the 1999 increase in the minimum period of driving prohibition under the criminal code, they have found it difficult to attract repeat offenders to the ignition interlock device program. There is currently no ability to have a second offender use a provincial program for ignition interlock devices until a minimum two year period has expired. For a subsequent offender the minimum period before which an interlock program may be used is three years.
In 2000 the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada unanimously passed a resolution from Quebec. It called for an extension to all impaired driving offenders of the possibility to drive after serving a period of absolute driving prohibition if the offender is under a provincial program for the use of an ignition interlock device for the remainder of the criminal code's period of driving prohibition.
The proposed amendments would permit a judge to authorize a second offender to drive after serving an absolute driving prohibition of six months if that person is on an ignition interlock device program operated by a province or territory for the remainder of the prohibition period. In the case of a subsequent offender, a judge could authorize the person to drive after serving an absolute driving prohibition of 12 months if that person is on an ignition interlock device program operated by a province or territory for the remainder of the prohibition period.
This approach follows the path taken by parliament with respect to first offenders in 1999. It combines a punitive element, namely the period of absolute driving prohibition, with a longer rehabilitative period of prohibition during which the offender may only drive a vehicle that is equipped with an ignition interlock device.
The provinces and territories determine whether to issue a provincial-territorial driving licence. Each province or territory may decide whether it wishes to offer the possibility of an early return to driving with a restricted licence that requires the use of an ignition interlock device. Some provinces may choose to require offenders to serve the full period of federal driving prohibition and the full period of provincial-territorial driving licence suspension before they are allowed or even compelled to drive with an ignition interlock device. Others may choose to offer a reduction in the provincial-territorial driving licence suspension if an ignition interlock device is used after the criminal code's absolute period of driving prohibition is served and during the remainder of the code's period of driving prohibition.
I had the opportunity to meet with Louise Knox who is president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other representatives of the organization MADD on November 26. The representatives of MADD told me that the ignition interlock provisions of the criminal code should be expanded to encourage all impaired driving offenders to participate in an interlock program whether they are first or repeat offenders.
I do not view ignition interlock devices as a magic bullet for the impaired driving problem. However in combination with other countermeasures such as education and treatment they are an important tool in the fight against impaired driving. I look forward to my colleague's support for this important proposal which I believe in some part will make our roads a safer place.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been an agreement that we would ease the passage of this legislation. I will keep my comments brief as there are a few of my colleagues who wish to make some comments.
As we approach this Christmas holiday season we are all bracing for the carnage that normally appears on the roads due to impaired driving. Any message that parliament can send to the Canadian public, and this bill is one, that we intend to get serious about the whole issue of impaired driving will be well received. I wish it could have happened a bit sooner, but it is better late than never.
When the drinking and driving legislation was being reviewed in the last parliament the then Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, was supportive of the whole notion of interlock devices on ignitions. I commend my colleague from Prince George--Bulkley Valley for all the work that he did on impaired driving over the last couple of parliaments.
I am sure all members have recently been contacted by MADD. It has a very active campaign right now to reduce the blood level alcohol content from .08 to .05. Let me assure the government that we will be working together with MADD to bring that about. It is something that we think has to be addressed.
Some of the other problems that we saw in the previous parliament were complaints from police and prosecutors that there were many procedural problems and many hurdles to be overcome before we had what most people would consider to be effective impaired driving legislation. This legislation would add to the many improvements we made in the last parliament. It is a good step but there is still much work to do.
I encourage all the folks listening today to please have a safe holiday season. If people are going to drink, I ask them not to get behind the wheel.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition— interlock device programs).
The shortness of this bill belies its importance. As the Minister of Justice has indicated, it includes in the criminal code a program that some provinces have already put in place. Its effectiveness has been proven in the United States and in some provinces, including Alberta and Quebec, a fact that the minister has emphasized. Later on, I will explain why Quebec created its own alcohol ignition—interlock device program in 1997.
Before dealing any further with this bill, whose shortness, as I said, belies its importance, amending as it does the criminal code, I would like to put on the record a number of statistics and facts. If we are to debate and vote on this bill, it is important to have a good picture of the present situation.
Let us take the situation over 20 years. These are the figures currently available to us, for the period between 1977 and 1996. Let us keep in mind that, at the present time in Canada, 40% of accidents where the driver was at fault and was sentenced to anywhere from licence suspension to imprisonment involved a fatality, and 30% of them injuries. I repeat, among accidents in which the driver was at fault and was sentenced to anywhere from licence suspension to imprisonment, 40% involved a fatality and 30% involved injuries. All of these figures are for 1977-96.
In addition, let us keep in mind that, during that same period, 1977 to 1996, 35,000 people were killed or sustained severe injuries in collisions involving a driver found guilty of impaired driving. This is far from an insignificant number.
This number of 35,000 may seem modest, but if thought of in terms of days, it translates into 4.5 people daily who are killed in accidents involving impaired drivers.
There is a cost attached to this, the personal cost to the impaired driver who receives a sentence, as well as major social and economic costs. The economic costs up to 1996 are estimated at $52.1 billion. So, the costs are high: social, personal and economic.
In addition, the estimated number of injuries to people involved in impaired driving accidents is 1,505,000 in 20 years. This means more than one million people have sustained serious or less serious injuries. This is a significant number. Very often these automobile accidents involve people who have broken the law, have got behind the wheel when they are over the allowed limit, a limit they often are not aware of and are not in a position to assess, because they do not have a breathalyzer available to them.
So, 1.5 million people have been injured in 20 years in accidents involving impaired drivers and costs of $42 million. This is not insignificant.
It is an economic problem, as I have just said because of the costs arising from the collisions, which are sometimes fatal—the luckier ones escape with a few injuries—but significant social costs to our health care system are also involved.
So responsible action is needed both in penalizing and in helping impaired drivers. It is not just a matter of clamping down. History has shown, and I will cite other figures a little later, that simple sanctions—if I can call prison sentences and the suspension and revocation of drivers' licences sanctions—have not in the past prevented people from driving while impaired and even from repeating the offence several times.
Experience has also shown that repression is not always the best solution to the problem of drivers who take the wheel while under the influence of alcohol.
We must come up with, not an alternative, I would say, but with something complementary, between what we have now in terms of sanctions, which I described earlier, and a more humane and supportive approach for the drunk driver.
Not only is the ignition interlock system of help to the accident victim, but it is to the driver who is under the influence as well. It saves lives.
This is why, since 1997, Quebec, along with Alberta and other provinces, have considered the question—and similar programs exist in the States—in an effort to come up with some positive results and render service.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has also considered the matter of drunk driving since 1999. A number of committee sittings have focussed on this matter. A number of witnesses have appeared, including specialists on the matter and parents, who have decided to join together and form a group called MADD, which offers help to the victims.
I would also point out the eloquent figures and studies reported by a witness, who appeared on February 4, 1999 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will name him. He is Herb Simpson, a member of the board of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation.
Mr. Simpson's testimony was important and eloquent, but I will simply refer to one study that he mentioned. This was a fairly recent study, which concluded that 70% of offenders are often repeat offenders.
The moral of the story is that there is a hard core of drivers who, having driven once while drunk, are arrested and either have their licences suspended or receive some other penalty.
In 70% of cases, these are people who have already been charged once. These are the drivers the study described as hard core, those who, despite government sponsored awareness campaigns, despite promotion and awareness campaigns by citizens' groups, which are doing everything they can to inform the public about the dangers of drinking and driving, still continue to get behind the wheel drunk.
What is worse, these repeat offenders, these hard core, are responsible for 65% of serious accidents. That says a lot. Furthermore, 70% of those arrested for impaired driving have already been arrested once for the same offence. Road safety surveys done after driving accidents reveal that those responsible are often repeat offenders.
Some caution is in order, however. Do these figures mean that the majority of the population continues to repeat the offence and drive while impaired after an initial offence? The answer is no. According to the studies, this group of repeat offenders represents only 1% of the total population of Canada.
I think the three parameters that have been studied—the percentage of repeat offenders; the percentage of repeat offenders involved in serious accidents; and whether people in general are drinking and driving or are repeat offenders, which is not the case—must show to us the policy to be followed.
This policy must be balanced. For example, should we install an ignition interlock device in all motor vehicles? Would this be socially acceptable and economically effective? Should this be the norm? The answer is no. I think there must be a fair balance between sanctions and the ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device must never be considered as an alternative to sanctions, but we must add this provision to the criminal code to provide the judge with the possibility of ordering that this device be installed in motor vehicles.
Our examination of the issue leads us to say yes to an ignition antilock device, especially a device such as this one, for repeat offenders, and not for all Quebecers and Canadians. If this were done, it would not constitute an appropriate, justifiable and balanced response to the sociological reality and the actual facts I mentioned earlier with regard to the three parameters.
Another point that I would like to address deals with criminal law that applies in the case of drinking and driving. One must remember that, in Quebec, it is the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec that has this management responsibility.
We have to remember that if drivers with probationary licences or learners' licences cannot drink any alcohol and drive, which is tolerance zero, nothing prevents drivers with regular licences to drink alcohol before driving. However, the limit of alcohol consumption remains at 0.08%, which means that anyone respecting that limit does not commit an offence.
Another issue deals with sanctions. Are the sanctions provided in the criminal code, and I may quote them later, the true answer to the serious current situation?
Let us not forget that the Bloc Quebecois initiated the fight for the use of an ignition interlock device. This campaign was spearheaded by the Bloc. Through the member for Témiscamingue and chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois, and also my colleague from Berthier--Montcalm, the Bloc Quebecois led the battle in committee. Why? Because the voters in our ridings who came to see us had relatives or children who became the victims of impaired drivers. Several organizations also contacted us.
The first question one should ask is the following: do the sanctions provided in the criminal code appropriately reflect how serious the situation is, especially in the case of repeat offenders? Again, I stress that a difference should be made for impaired driving, not so much in terms of sanctions but in terms of support and proposed solutions, between a first time offender and a repeat offender. The solution cannot be the same in both cases, because numbers, studies and cases have shown that 70% of individuals found with a blood alcohol content higher than 0.08% are often second time offenders. Therefore the solution cannot be the same for everyone.
In this respect, there are two major studies to take into consideration. The first one was conducted in Toronto and involved 27,390 offenders who had committed all kinds of offences. We are not only talking about people who had their driver's licence suspended or revoked. This sampling of 27,000 offenders included people who had received all sorts of sentences, including fines, jail terms, probation periods, driver's licence suspensions and so on. It was found that, in the case of first time offenders, suspending their driver's licence was probably the greatest deterrent, even more so than a jail term. This is quite the paradox. Telling a person that he was under greater risk of losing his driver's licence than going to jail was the most convincing argument to deter him from driving under the influence.
The hard line, which is imposing a life sentence, is not always the best solution. The threat of going to jail does not always deter people from driving under the influence.
Therefore, our approach must take into account not only the facts, but also the attitude, the behaviour and the way a person reacts to awareness campaigns by the government and other groups or lobbies. The situation is very different when the individual is taken into consideration.
Another study conducted in 1991 showed that suspending drivers' licences reduced by 30% to 50% the number of offences related to driving under the influence.
Therefore, revoking a person's driver's licence is the greatest deterrent. A study done in California showed that suspending drivers' licences reduced by 30% to 50% the number of offences related to driving under the influence.
This illustrates the importance of using tools that ensure complementarity between the various sanctions. There is a new element that allows us and societies such as ours to apply modern solutions to complex issues, namely technology.
Twenty or 30 years ago, we could never have hoped to change behaviours and attitudes through effective technological means such as the ignition interlock device. Back then, we could only rely on criminal penalties. Today, technology allows us to use comprehensive and effective programs which, while they do not meet people's needs as such, allow them to behave responsibly by respecting a number of social standards.
This is why the ignition interlock device program is, in my opinion, a good solution that involves new technologies. However, as I said earlier, this program should not replace existing penalties and sanctions.
I would like to remind people of what an ignition interlock device is. It is a breath analyzer. It can be installed in a vehicle and can be connected to the ignition, the starter, the electrical circuits and all the other instrument panel systems.
Moreover, this device can be used to measure the driver's blood alcohol level and to prevent the engine from starting or the car from being used if the alcohol level exceeds a predetermined limit.
The driver has to submit to a breathalyzer test before starting the engine or using the car. Other tests are required on a random basis as long as the engine is running. If those tests are not complied with or the level exceeds the predetermined limit, an alarm goes off and it keeps ringing until the driver passes the test or the engine is turned off.
The new models also contain mechanisms that prevent improper use. This concerns the interlock device technology.
What is the ignition interlock device program set up in Quebec, in Alberta and in the United States used for? This program provides for the monitoring and supervision of all offenders accused of impaired driving. It is enforced by the court officials under a probation order or by the licensing authorities as a prerequisite for the restoration of the driving licence.
The ignition interlock device records the breathalyzer tests results and all the other data pertaining to the program conditions.
These figures may then be studied by program administrators when the vehicle goes in for maintenance. The device must undergo regular maintenance checks every 30 to 60 days. The maintenance requirements must be adhered to strictly, if not, the device will prevent the vehicle from starting.
The purpose of the alcohol ignition interlock device program is not, I repeat, to replace the penalties for impaired driving. Instead, it provides an additional means to lower the number of repeat offences. Enrollment in the program could be in addition to the sentence, as a condition of probation, or a condition to be fulfilled for the reissuing of a driver's license.
I would like to take a moment to talk about the device and the program, because there are not very many provinces that have implemented this type of program. Today, by modifying the criminal code, we are acting at the level of federal legislation, but in the coming months, we will need to ensure that these legislative changes are adjusted to provincial programs in order to lower the rate of repeat offences. Programs such as those that I have just described—despite the fact that described them rather quickly—must be implemented.
Many people believe that this type of provision and measure would cost a great deal, that there are tremendous costs associated with it. I would like to remind the House that it would cost a mere $3 per day to install such a device on the vehicle of a driver accused of impaired driving.
Some people often refer to cost as a factor in the government's policy decisions. However, we must also consider the benefits. Costs must not always be seen as economic costs. They must also be viewed in terms of opportunity costs, and in terms of social costs too, because at the end of the day, as a number of studies have shown, the alcohol ignition interlock device program is very effective.
The arrest rate among offenders whose vehicles were equipped with ignition devices was up to 75% lower than that of offenders whose vehicle was not equipped with the device. This program has lead to some considerable improvements.
You will say we are short 25%. Of course, as is the case with all technology, there are always ways to get around it. I do not need to tell you the ways to get around this type of device, but they do exist. We have to recognize they are effective, if only in the case of drunken driving, because this is the aim of the amendments put forward by the government.
The offenders pay for the program. That is interesting. So, they are prepared to pay the sum, amortized of course, of $3 a day. The offenders are the ones who are prepared to assume the cost of this program.
So, in this regard, I think there is evidence that, even in the case of a repeat offender, the individual, if it is his second time, may determine his blood alcohol level at some point. Imprisonment is not always the best route, especially not life imprisonment.
So there are some people who accept to have a device installed in their vehicle at their own expense. As I have said, 38 states in the U.S., as well as the provinces of Alberta and Quebec, have such a program in place. More than 40,000 ignition interlock devices are in use in the world, 4,500 of those in Canada. I repeat, 40,000 in the world and only 4,500 in Canada. There certainly cannot be more than that number, when these programs are only in place in Alberta and Quebec.
It is clear that, if we were to pass these legislative amendments, and the provinces set up programs such as those already in place in Quebec and Alberta, we would, without a doubt, be in a position to state that Canada is playing a lead role in this novel solution, which places responsibility with the individual, initially, and also makes our roads safer.
Provided actions follow on the decisions we take now or in the days to come, we could see Quebec and Alberta —they having been the first—and Canada as a whole, becoming a world leader in this area. This is nothing to sneeze at.
I should also mention the position of an organization whose representatives I personally met in my riding, because they came to see me. MADD, which helps victims, led an exceptional public awareness campaign in Canada, in November 1999. The organization's representative, Ms. Swinson, appeared before the committee and clearly said that:

New federal acts passed in July allow judges to demand the use of an ignition interlock device as a conditional measure. Moreover, this device is very affordable.

Organizations, groups and boards told my colleagues from Témiscamingue and Berthier—Montcalm about the importance of adopting such legislative changes. I am thinking of the Fondation de la recherche sur les blessures de la route and of MADD.
Does this mean we should go faster and demand that such a device become standard in vehicles in Canada? The answer is no. Why? Because the rate of recidivism is only 1%. That being said, some measures are in order.
I should also mention the position expressed on February 16, 1999, by the Council on Drug Abuse. Mr. Bates appeared before the committee. He said that these ignition interlock devices should be installed in vehicles, subject to two conditions.
First, they should be installed if an individual is guilty and has a blood alcohol level over 0.165—as people know, the current level is 0.08—and, second, if the individual is a repeat offender, one of what I described earlier as hard core drinking drivers.
We must therefore, in my opinion, take responsible action, but only after careful consideration.
In conclusion, yes, we support these amendments to the criminal code; yes, we believe that the alcohol ignition interlock device must be incorporated into the criminal code; and, yes, provincial programs must be put in place. But this device must not become a standard feature of automobiles. And we also agree that these devices should be installed in the vehicles of repeat offenders.
We would thus be able to help Quebecers and Canadians, including those who abuse alcohol, live in a more balanced society as well as continue to be near their families, and to ensure that all of us have a very merry Christmas and a happy 2002.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party in support of Bill C-46. The bill is actually very important. It is fairly rare that everyone in the House agrees on legislation, especially legislation that is relatively brief compared to other legislation, but it is something we believe is in the interest of Canadians.
The bill is about saving lives. It is done through a very ingenious device, a piece of technology. I think sometimes we all question whether technology serves and helps people but in this case it appears that technology, in the form of an alcohol ignition interlock device, is something that can be used in a very simple, cost effective way to prevent deaths on our roads. It would prohibit intoxicated habitual offenders from driving their car. I believe that is a very significant advance. The NDP supports the bill and we urge its approval. The bill has been a long time in coming.
While doing some research on the bill and on the interlock devices, I noted that Marketplace , a very well-known CBC consumer affairs program, aired a program in 1996 on car breathalyzers, as it was called at that time. It aired an update in February of 1997. Obviously the information and the technology have been available for a number of years. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to come to the House in the form of fairly straightforward legislation.
As others have mentioned today, there is appalling evidence which shows that 70% of people who have lost their licence because of drunk driving will actually get back in their car when intoxicated and drive again. The destruction, the injury and the death that causes on our streets is something we can only begin to understand in terms of the individual tragedies that take place and the impact that has on families and communities. The fact is that 40% of all motor vehicle deaths are as a result of impaired driving. That is about 2,000 Canadians every year. Those deaths are preventable. The thousands of injuries that result from impaired driving are preventable.
While I do support the bill, it is also very important that there be a full array of measures, particularly with regard to prevention. If a person has had too much to drink at home or in a public environment, such as a bar, a pub, a cocktail lounge or a party, and the person gets behind the wheel of a car while impaired, we should not only know whether the person is a repeat offender but we should also focus on the source. I believe that should be part of our alcohol abuse prevention programs.
Alcohol is a source of immense profits for all kinds of different businesses. While most businesses act in a very responsible way, the reality is that in some situations, as people are beginning to become intoxicated and getting over the legal limit, they may actually have alcohol that is being pushed on the table and they are being encouraged to drink more at a drinking establishment. Therefore, I do think it is very important that as part of our overall program of dealing with alcohol abuse we focus on issues of criminality, negligence and liability at the source as well.
It is important to deal with individual intoxicated drivers, particularly where it is a repeat offence. However it is equally important to have preventive education and criminal sanctions for those who push alcohol and do not meet their responsibility to make sure they serve alcohol in a socially responsible way.

Statements By Members
Frank DoyleMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Frank Doyle who tragically lost his life in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center on September 11.
Frank was a citizen of the United States with strong ties in Canada. Both his parents come from the Pontiac region and his beloved wife Kim is a Canadian citizen who was also born in Quebec. Frank leaves behind many loved ones including his daughter Zoe and his son Garrett.
Tomorrow his family and friends will gather to remember Frank as he will be laid to rest in Canada, the first American born casualty from September 11 to be returned to his family.
I join with my colleagues on behalf of all Canadians to offer our deepest condolences to the Doyle family.
Halifax Explosion, 1917Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1917, at around 8 a.m. the Belgian relief ship Imo left Bedford Basin headed for open sea. At the same time the French munitions ship Mont Blanc was heading up the harbour. On board were 400,000 pounds of TNT.
The two ships collided. The Mont Blanc caught fire. At 9.05 a.m. in a blinding flash the earth shook with the largest man-made explosion prior to Hiroshima.
Nineteen hundred people were killed instantly. Within a year the figure had climbed well over two thousand. Nine thousand were injured. Almost all of north end Halifax was destroyed. A blizzard struck the following day, dumping 16 inches of snow over the ruins.
With astounding speed the relief efforts were set in motion. Haligonians remember the generosity of the state of Massachusetts. To this day Halifax sends an annual Christmas tree to the city of Boston in gratitude.
In light of the events of September 11 we take a moment to salute the generosity of our neighbours to the south who came to Canada's side when it was needed most.
Leo McIsaacHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Leo McIsaac of Mermaid, P.E.I., on being inducted into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.
After active duty in the air force during World War II, Leo joined the P.E.I. department of agriculture working aggressively to promote farm extension work and 4-H clubs throughout the island.
Leo was the first full time secretary manager of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, was involved in the creation of the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board, and served as a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture advisory committee to the federal government resulting in the creation of the Natural Products Marketing Act. He also managed to publish three books.
In 1996 Leo McIsaac was named agriculturalist of the year. Leo remains active in the community. The induction into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame is a tribute from his peers for his significant contributions to farming on P.E.I. and throughout Canada. I congratulate him.
Christmas Lights Across Canada ProgramMs. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night we watched Parliament Hill and the surrounding area light up. A luminous ceremony took place for the launch of the 2001-2002 Christmas Lights Across Canada program.
Until January 13, 250,000 lights will illuminate more than 60 landmarks in Ottawa, starting at 4 p.m. everyday.
The Christmas Lights Across Canada program is an initiative of the National Capital Commission. All 13 provinces and territories take part in the program. Each year, as the holidays approach, the country lights up from east to west.
This festival awakens the magic of the Christmas season in the hearts of Canadians everywhere. It brings us in touch with our values and with who we are.
May this marvellous sight sweep us all off our feet.
Acts of BraveryMs. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 6, exceptional Quebecers were recognized by the Governor General of Canada for their bravery.
I would like to congratulate Louis Gignac, from Quebec City, who received the Star of Courage. In 1999 he risked his life to protect seven Serb civilians being attacked by several Albanians.
The Medal of Bravery was awarded to 30 courageous Canadians. Included among them, I would like to mention Jacques Couillard, who risked his life by defying an armed man at the caisse populaire in Baie-des-Sables, and Mathieu Cusson, Daniel Douville, Benoît Roy and Shaul and Yonatan Petel.
Your ability to come to the assistance of your fellow humans is remarkable. You are most certainly heroes in your community and I congratulate you.
Softwood LumberMr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a topic that seems to just keep going and going. I have stood in this place and made three speeches on this subject and at least as many statements. I have written multiple letters to both the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade dating as far back as August, with no reply to date. Now I find myself once more urging the Minister for International Trade to take some action and get the softwood lumber dispute resolved.
Many in Canada are getting into the swing of the Christmas season, but for those in the forest industry in British Columbia and across the country there will be no Christmas because of this government's lax behaviour when it comes to preserving jobs in the resource industries. It is time for the minister to stop hoping for a resolution and to start working for one.
Film and Television IndustryMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian film and video industry has over the decades faced enormous challenges that have been and continue to be addressed by providing the tools that will nurture the growth of a strong and vibrant Canadian film and television industry.
This industry plays an important role in providing benefits and creative employment opportunities to all Canadians. Almost every region in Canada has experienced growth in the film and television production sector. In 1999-2000, for example, total volume of production activity represented nearly $4.4 billion. This represents a 12% growth over the previous year.
It is important for Canada to nurture and support our film and television production industry so that all Canadians reap the benefits of a dynamic and creative industry that is an important part of who we are.
Employment InsuranceMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, with the complicity of the Minister of Human Resources Development, took advantage of a day the House of Commons was not sitting, this past Friday, to announce that he would be continuing to dip into the employment insurance fund with both hands, despite the fact that the government does not pay one cent into it.
With their boast that they are cutting EI contributions by 5 cents in 2002, these Liberal bullies are disguising the sad reality. What these master illusionists are not saying, and what must be said, is this:
New workers, who have accumulated only 900 hours at an hourly rate of $10, will be lining the pockets of the Minister of Finance with $198 instead of $202.50, yet will still not be entitled to EI benefits. Real generosity, that.
This is a very telling comment on the empty words of compassion this five cent minister spouts on the world stage, a man who is more concerned about becoming the next Prime Minister than with social justice and equity.
The minister has just shown his true colours.
Woman Entrepreneur AwardsMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 22, the Rotman Canadian Woman Entrepreneur of the Year Awards 2001 were presented in Toronto. In their 10th year, these awards honour the creativity and success of women entrepreneurs who are contributing in important ways to the growth and strengthening of Canada's economy.
I congratulate the five recipients of this year's award: Kim McArthur, president and publisher of McArthur &amp; Company of Toronto; Linda Knight, chief executive of CarePartners of Belgrave, Ontario; Rosemary Marr, president and CEO of Transera Group of Companies of Calgary; Doreen Braverman, president of International Flag &amp; Banner Inc. of Vancouver; and Jody Steinhauer, president and chief visionary officer of The Bargains Group Ltd. of Toronto.
I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating these exceptional and outstanding women who are important contributors to the Canadian business community.
Canada Loves New YorkMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on our own dime and our own time members of the Canadian Alliance joined with 20,000 fellow Canadians for the Canada Loves New York weekend. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was overwhelmed by the support we showed and many New Yorkers were deeply touched.
We were proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American brothers and sisters, letting them know that we shared their grief. We also let them know that Canadians are deeply linked to Americans by our shared concern for rights and freedoms and by our unique trade relationships. My colleagues and I took the opportunity to speak to congressmen and senators about Canadian trade concerns.
My congratulations go out to the organizers of the Canada Loves New York event. We showed our neighbours that we cared and we discussed issues that are important to Canada.
Montfort HospitalMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in politics as in life, we often experience some hard times, but there are also some really special ones like today. The Ontario Court of Appeal has just turned down the appeal by the government of Ontario and has confirmed the division court decision on Montfort Hospital.
What is particularly important is that the court's decision was based on one of the unwritten constitutional principles: respect for and protection of linguistic minorities. I will quote an excerpt from the decision.

The Constitution’s structural principle of respect for and protection of minorities is a bedrock principle that has a direct bearing on the interpretation to be accorded the French Language Services Act.

All minority communities, the anglophones of Quebec and the francophones elsewhere in the country, are thus provided with a solid basis for the respect of their rights.
Congratulations are in order for the management of the hospital, the members of SOS Montfort and the thousands of Canadians, both anglophone and francophone, who supported our cause.
HousingLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to present my report “Housing and Homelessness: Still an Unnatural Disaster”.
I visited seven cities and met with housing advocates and activists who gave compelling evidence on how Canada's housing crisis is getting worse and affecting more and more Canadians.
The recent housing framework agreement provides less than one-tenth of what is really needed for affordable housing in Canada. The fact that the federal government, with the provinces and the territories, has even agreed to a framework at all is due to the outstanding work of organizations like the National Housing and Homelessness Network and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which have brought national attention and visibility to the situation facing millions of Canadians.
We have to do more. My report calls on the federal government to recognize housing as a human right and to make affordable housing a priority in the upcoming budget.
I challenge the Minister of Finance to heed his own words, said when he was in opposition, to invest in social housing and not leave Canadians out in the cold. Every single family and individual has the right--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
Infrastructure ProgramMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the dawn of a new federal budget, I invite the Minister of Finance to respond to the appeal launched by his Quebec counterpart, Pauline Marois, in her November 1 budget, which involves investing new money in Quebec infrastructures in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Since September 11 an economic downturn has hit and many workers have unfortunately lost their jobs. According to the president of the Coalition pour le renouvellement des infrastructures au Québec, Gilles Vaillancourt, every billion dollars spent on infrastructure creates 12,500 jobs. This is a solution the Minister of Finance might consider seriously in his next budget.
I would remind him that in October he indicated an openness to the idea of a 50:50 cost sharing arrangement with Quebec to expand the parc des Laurentides highway into four lanes.
Expectations are high in the Saguenay. The great money man would be making a mistake if he did not invest the amounts so long awaited. After all, a promise is a promise.
Softwood LumberMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the province of British Columbia continues to pay a hefty price for not having an influential cabinet minister.
Just as it has done with the softwood lumber dispute, the government has failed to step in and offer to help the province in our fight against the mountain pine beetle. The Minister of Natural Resources now seems to believe his government has done its part, as it pointed out to the province that it had this problem in 1995 with the timely advice “You might want to fix it”.
As with health care and highways, the government has abandoned my province to find the money and resources to combat a crisis. This is a complete reversal of the minister's position in May when his response to my question was that the government would pursue every reasonable means to help our forest sector find a solution.
A war against the beetle costs money. On November 6, I wrote to the Minister of Finance to ask that he allocate $50 million annually to fight the mountain pine beetle.
If the government takes the issue seriously, the necessary funds will be targeted in Monday's budget.
Nunavut AwardsMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week was a proud week for Nunavut. On Wednesday, Ashley Dean from Rankin Inlet was awarded the Prince of Wales Community Leader Scholarship for all her volunteer work, from coaching children in figure skating and soccer to organizing special events for elders and combating racism.
On Thursday, Moses Aliyak, also of Rankin Inlet, was awarded the Medal of Bravery by the Governor General for his efforts in confronting a polar bear which attacked his family camp in 1999. Showing great courage, Moses Aliyak distracted the polar bear so that his grandson could run to safety. As a result of his brave action, Moses was severely injured. Hattie Amitnak, who was mauled to death in that same incident, was also awarded the Medal of Bravery posthumously in an earlier ceremony.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in honouring these outstanding citizens.
Pearl HarborMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago today Pearl Harbor was attacked, taking the lives of 2,390 Americans. It was a day of infamy.
The attack galvanized the entire United States and it brought them into the war. The rallying cry became “Remember Pearl Harbor!”.
Pearl Harbor stands as a lesson in the need to be vigilant in our defence of our values and our freedoms.
In recent years with the end of the cold war that lesson may have been forgotten by some governments. Tragically, not quite three months ago, the free world was again reminded of the dangers of complacency.
Today yet again the free world is defending itself against aggressors that seek to destroy what we value. September 11 has also become a day that will live in infamy.
Let us hope that the tragic events of December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, will serve future generations as examples of both the tragedies of terrorism and the courage of those who defend us from it.
Hockey DayHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, the CBC will air in the new year a three hour celebration of hockey during an event designated as Hockey Day in Canada. The town of Windsor will serve as host community for the broadcast, which will include nine other communities across Canada.
Windsor is known as “the little town of big firsts”, including the oldest agricultural fair in North America, Canada's first independent school and Canada's oldest library. It is the home of the first giant pumpkins and the first pumpkin regatta. Most significantly, Windsor is the birthplace of hockey.
It is in the writings of internationally known author Thomas Chandler Haliburton, a Windsor resident, that the first known reference to a form of ice hockey can be found. Dr. Garth Vaughan, a Windsor resident, published his extensive research verifying Windsor's claim in a book entitled
The Puck Starts Here.
In fact, in 1844 when writing about his early 1800s childhood experiences, Thomas Chandler Haliburton referred directly to the boys “racin', yelpin', hollerin' and whoopin' like mad with pleasure” playing what was then known as hurley--

Oral Question Period
Auditor General's ReportMr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report continues to confirm this government as the worst money managers in Canadian history, with $1.6 billion in wasted grants pointed out two years ago. That rocked the government. That was just one department. This time the auditor general talks about $16.3 billion worth of grants right across the government being wasted.
We can deal with increases to health, security and defence if the government is willing to deal with the waste. Will the Prime Minister, who says he is writing the budget, leak some good news and stand and say that there will be across the board cuts to the $16.3 billion in wasteful grants going on right now? Will he leak that good news?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition ought to know, in any event, that the government has been very assiduous in the way it has controlled spending. If we take a look at our spending compared to where it was when we took office that becomes manifestly clear.
What I would simply say to the hon. member in terms of the budget is that I look forward to seeing him on Monday.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the government has not been assiduous. It has been insidious. We want to know what is going on with all this waste.
The auditor general has shown this government's mismanagement clearly. Even after the scandal involving the Department of Human Resources Development, there was no control over the $16.3 billion in subsidies. We have to cut waste in order to finance health and safety.
Will this government announce today the cuts to grants and subsidies contained in Monday's budget?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken.
The auditor general did not say these amounts were wasted. She spoke of improved management and confirmed that the steps for improving management of these contributions are being followed.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, whenever the government gets into trouble, instead of fixing the mess it does a two point strategy. It does the rope-a-dope. It goes in the corner, covers up, takes a few hits, and then it creates a diversion somewhere else in the arena.
This time it is budget leaks. It is budget leaks about the CBC, what the Prime Minister calls his own TV station, getting more money. It is budget leaks about private, pet, political projects like speeding up the high speed Internet chat rooms for the Minister of Industry.
I have a better, less destructive strategy. Will the Prime Minister stand up and announce an across the board cut in these wasteful political areas--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken about a rope-a-dope strategy. Does this come from himself looking into the mirror? Is it a personal reference about himself when he speaks of rope-a-dope or does this come from the days of Muhammad Ali?
I would like to say that when the hon. member talks about cuts he must be calling for cuts in health care and cuts in aid for higher education. This is not what Canadians want and I am sure that on Monday we will see an excellent budget which even he will have to support.
TaxationMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that unemployment increased again, this month to 7.5%, more than expected, with a loss of 43,000 full time jobs, thanks to this Liberal recession.
The government is showing us what its priorities are. Instead of reducing job killing payroll taxes, which it is going to hike next year, it is leaking billions in handouts for the heritage and industry departments.
Why does the government not get its priorities straight and give Canadians the job security they demand by reducing job killing payroll taxes instead of increasing wasteful spending?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, every time a job is lost in Canada it obviously is of great concern to the government. It also ought to be of equal concern to the opposition so that we can in fact have an intelligent debate. That means that the opposition critic should not stand up and essentially put out numbers which make no sense.
The fact is that the unemployment rate went up because more Canadians sought to enter the workforce. That action is a sign of confidence. The fact is that there were more jobs created last month in Canada than there were jobs lost, compared to over 330,000 jobs--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is happy to see 43,000 full time jobs lost and thinks it is a sign of confidence in the economy. Sure, some part time jobs are being created under his watch but they are replacing real, well paying full time jobs. That is happening in part because the finance minister is raising payroll taxes.
Perhaps he would like to blame that on the Prime Minister since we understand from the PMO that it is the Prime Minister and not the finance minister who is writing this budget.
Will he cut payroll taxes next year, like employers and employees demand, instead of increasing them?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons and the Canadian people are entitled to more than the garbage, the nonsense, that the opposition critic is offering.
In fact, as I said in my opening remarks, we are worried about the loss of full time jobs but the fact of the matter is that there were more jobs created in Canada than were lost.
The problem we have in North America is the 330,000 jobs lost in the United States and the impact that will have on us in Canada. That is the kind of thing we have to worry about. How do we stimulate domestic demand? How do we make sure this economy operates? That is what the hon. member opposite ought to be worrying about.
Employment InsuranceMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is something strange with the way the employment insurance program works. Those who contribute to it have no control over anything. They have no control over what they pay and what they get, while the government, which does not contribute one penny, shamelessly skims off the surpluses in the fund. The employment insurance program is not designed to generate huge surpluses, but to provide insurance for workers who really need it.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that if the employment insurance program does not provide that guarantee, it is because it has become a payroll tax?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that, on the one hand, we just lowered employment insurance contributions and that, on the other hand, these contributions have been reduced by $6.8 billion since we took office. This is money that is in the taxpayers' pockets and that is very important for job creation.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the budget that will be brought down on Monday by the Minister of Finance will show how the Minister of Human Resources Development is unable to follow up on the recommendations of the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
Will the minister recognize that she shows more talent in justifying the misappropriation of the EI surpluses than in giving the unemployed the protection that they should expect from a real employment insurance program?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Minister of Human Resources Development has worked really hard for Canadians.
This can be seen in the improvements made to the employment insurance program. I am thinking of parental leave and of the whole issue of small weeks to help Canadian workers.
The minister has worked very hard and this is why the system is so much better.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the auditor general's report and the opinion of the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada, which all condemn the pointless surpluses in the employment insurance fund, the minister stubbornly refuses to make changes.
Does the minister realize in what spiral the employment insurance program is headed down into because of the government? On the one hand, the government is taking the money from the fund and, on the other hand, it is moving farther away from the original purpose of the program, which was to financially compensate workers who lose their jobs?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. First and foremost, every year the employment insurance commission does a review of the employment insurance program. This is a commission made up of employers, employees and the government. The commission indicates that 88% of Canadians in paid employment would be eligible for employment insurance should they need it.
Let us also remember that the government has not hesitated to make changes to improve the employment insurance system when evidence is presented.
I remind Bloc members again that every time our government moves to enhance the employment insurance program they vote against it.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, we realize why the government does not want a separate fund. It is because the Minister of Finance would not be able to use the huge surpluses in the employment insurance fund as he pleases. The powerlessness of the Minister of Human Resources Development is all the more easy to understand, considering that the surpluses have already been spent.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that, after abandoning the unemployed, older workers and retired people, the only message that she is sending is that there is no longer any hope with her as minister?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is quite the contrary. It is this government that doubled parental benefits. It is that party that voted against it. In this government that voted to repeal the intensity rule. It is that party that voted against it.
It is this party that has moved to make the small weeks pilot project part of the national program and all they can do is say they do not agree.
On this side of the House it is clear. We are here in support of Canadian workers. They really are not.
The EconomyHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the November unemployment rate is up and we have seen the replacement of 57,000 full time jobs by 43,000 part time jobs. The Liberal vision of a low wage part time economy is a reality. There is a widening income gap between the rich and the poor.
Is there any minister across the way who is willing to stand up to the Liberal minister who is a conservative Minister of Finance and call for a jobs budget for Canadian people instead of a budget for corporate Canada? Is any minister willing to do that, including the Minister of Industry?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I and other ministers are standing together with the Minister of Finance, the outstanding Minister of Finance of modern times.
When we stand together with the Minister of Finance we are standing with every Canadian who has benefited from the measures in his budgets which we are proud to support. We will be proud to support the budget on Monday.
The hon. member should be ashamed of himself for not recognizing this reality and giving it his support as well.
Lorne Nystrom: Such a defensive Deputy Prime Minister and defensive Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal vision of a low wage, part time economy is a reality. Even in Toronto we now see tens of thousands of people about to be laid off in the hospitality industry. Meanwhile, bank profits are at a record high despite the downward trend in the economy.
The minister knows 80% of new jobs are created by small business. What will the Minister of Finance do to help small business create jobs and put Canadian people back to work? What will he do about that?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right when he says that small and medium size businesses are the engine of growth. What he ought to know is that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been doing regular surveys over the course of the last three to four months. Those surveys have shown a great deal of optimism in terms of the economy and their ability to create jobs. What they are saying is that they support this government's policies and they are absolutely right to do so.
I do not know if I am allowed to raise a point of order in question period, but calling anybody a conservative minister is surely unparliamentary language.
The Speaker: We will now hear from a former Conservative prime minister, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Business Development Bank of CanadaRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, my question is about the Business Development Bank document alleging that the BDC loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère would have been used in part to pay a $23,040 debt to the Prime Minister's family holding company.
The Prime Minister claims that allegation is a forgery. After an eight month investigation the RCMP finds no evidence to support the Prime Minister's claim but the RCMP wants to close the file.
Rather than having the Prime Minister's claim unproven, would the government agree to call in independent forensic auditors to see which document is a forgery?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party is mischaracterizing what the RCMP has said. As was reported in the media this spring, I am told the bank compared the document with the original in its files and determined it was forged. I think that answers the question.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, which one is forged? I have three related questions for the minister responsible to parliament for the Business Development Bank.
First, did the information commissioner ask to review the BDC files respecting the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Second, could the minister give the House an unconditional guarantee that none of the BDC files requested by the commissioner were sanitized or otherwise altered before they were made available to the information commissioner?
Third, would he advise whether Mr. Luc Provencher and Mr. Jean Carle were among the bank officials involved in responding to the request of the information commissioner?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all these questions have been dealt with. All of these questions have been independently looked into by both the commissioner and by the RCMP.
The fact of the matter is, at a time when Canadians are focused on a terror campaign, which is coming to a conclusion in Afghanistan, when Canadian troops are going overseas, when the economy is suffering a recession, which is being felt all over the world, it is indeed surprising and disappointing that this former prime minister so desperately clings to this lost cause of a question.
ImmigrationMr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the official opposition criticized the immigration minister's mismanagement of her refugee system, she called that a dark chapter in Canadian history.
When my colleague criticized the revolving door she maintains for undocumented arrivals, she called those questions treasonous.
Now that her Liberal colleague, the chair of the immigration committee, has called for many of those very same things that the Canadian Alliance has been promoting, what name is she going to call him?
The Speaker: I have doubts about this question.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was pleased to receive the committee's report. I have just had a chance to review it.
I noted that it did not call for mandatory detention, but in fact called for detention which is appropriate for both who are undocumented and unco-operative and is already included in Bill C-11, and it was part of the committee's report of March 2000.
While the government will be responding fully to the committee's report, I would say to the member that many of the issues that have been raised in the report are already a matter of government policy. The rest will be looked at very--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeland.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the minister has read the report or has referred to the comments she has responded to before. Maybe she did not really understand what the opposition was getting at, but that certainly is not because the questions were not clear.
The fact is this Liberal dominated immigration committee has come out with a report which recommends many of the same things that the immigration minister has said in the past simply were not acceptable to her. In fact, she viciously attacked those critics who called for many of those very same changes.
When will the immigration minister put aside her partisan rhetoric and mudslinging permanently? When will she apologize and make the changes to the refugee screening system which will protect Canadians?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, recommendation No. 36 in the report states and I quote:

Detention continues to play a role in our border security procedures...

However it cautions that people should be detained for a minimum period necessary and that detention review should occur within 48 hours. That is existing government policy.
It also goes on to say in recommendation No. 37:

The detention of minors be avoided...

Further, recommendation No. 38 states:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada ensure that undocumented refugee claimants who are uncooperative in establishing their identity are detained.

That is government policy.
Garanteed Income SupplementMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the government's job is simply to inform the population.
Clearly the minister has not had much success with this yet, and she appears to be incapable of advocating for the poorest in our society who have a right to the guaranteed income supplement.
What is the Minister of Human Resources Development waiting for? Do the honourable thing and give these elderly people what they are entitled to.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the guaranteed income supplement is a very important part of the overarching Canadian pension structure. A one year retroactivity provision has been part of that program since its beginning 30 years ago.
This provision is consistent or more generous than similar provisions in the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan or other federal or provincial income support programs.
Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, it might be nice if the minister was familiar with the program.
Does the minister acknowledge that we must give credit to unemployed people, older workers and retired people, because it is thanks to them that this government has been able to balance its budget, and it is from their pockets that this government shamefully stole money in order to reach its objectives?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, what I will agree with is indeed older workers are a very important part of the Canadian economy and they do deserve our respect. That is why we are so glad and proud of our overarching pension system which has really improved the levels of income for Canadian seniors over the course of the years.
However I cannot accept the accusation made by the member opposite in his question. The government stands firmly behind Canadian seniors, whether it be through pensions or whether it be through our support for them as a older workers, through older worker pilot programs and the employment insurance system.
JusticeMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, after the opposition raised questions in the House yesterday regarding the allegations of wrongdoing by correctional officers, the solicitor general finally announced that there would be an investigation into that. We commend Correctional Service Canada for this undertaking. However we are concerned about the limited scope of the investigation.
My question is for the solicitor general. Will this be another internal correctional service investigation or will the RCMP be called in?
Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the allegations. As the House knows, we have zero tolerance when it comes to these kinds of things. We will pursue it to the nth degree.
If the hon. member has any information, he should do the honest and decent thing, and that is to make sure that the RCMP or Correctional Service Canada has the information he has. That would be the best way to approach this.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, it would be an excellent idea for the solicitor general or his parliamentary secretary to take a tour of some of our prisons. It is very obvious that we have a rampant drug problem in our prisons as well as other problems. Coerced by threats and intimidation, correctional officers as well as visitors have been implicated in drug smuggling and drug distribution.
Quite obviously, we must look beyond what the solicitor general offered to the House yesterday as a solution.
I ask the solicitor general this. What is being done to effectively rid our prisons of drugs? What new measures is he considering in light of the huge problem?
Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I have toured the prisons across Canada many times and will continue to do so in my capacity. I am pleased to report that not only do we have ion scanners in place, but drug dogs as well.
We will continue to ensure that safety is priority number one. We will continue to ensure that we have the best prison system in the world. We will continue to ensure that Canada stands proud in this very great area.
HealthMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus in place in Quebec on the importance of home care and the methods for delivering that care so as to meet the needs of the public.
Unfortunately, once again, the funds are in Ottawa while the needs and the expertise, along with the consensus, are in Quebec.
Rather than initiating his own national health care policy, would the Minister of Health not agree that he should transfer the funds to Quebec and leave the people who really know what they are doing to do their job, that is Quebec and the provinces?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that our colleague is raising this matter, because in September 2000, when the ministers of health met together, they reached an agreement: $800 million would be devoted to primary care, which includes this type of project.
I must also point out that $135 million were available to Quebec, but we are still waiting for Quebec to sit down at the table and reach an agreement on the way it will receive these funds.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, since Quebec is already well advanced in the establishment of a home care delivery program, can the Minister of Health assure us that he is going to engage in serious discussions with the Government of Quebec in order to enable it to proceed with its own program, by transferring the necessary funds to it, because Quebec is capable of being in charge of its own home care delivery program?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, Quebec, like all other Canadian provinces, is entitled to a share of Canada's assets.
As I said earlier, but I think my hon. colleague was not listening, the money is available, $135 million. It is a matter of sitting down at the table and reaching agreement in such a way as to continue to be accountable to all Canadians for the investments we make. They need to know how their money is being used.
National SecurityMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government is not making investments in security. First, the OPP had to take over immigration enforcement. Now metro Toronto police services face a $1 million shortfall because this government has downloaded security and counter-terrorism investigations on their backs.
Will the government finally make a much needed investment in the RCMP and other security services so that local police forces do not have to make up for this government's shortcomings?
Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, we continue to provide the necessary tools and appropriate resources to the RCMP. For example, since the last budget, close to $3 billion has been provided. This speaks volumes about the commitment of the government when it comes to security and safety, not only in our neighbourhoods but in our cities, towns, villages and indeed across Canada. That is exactly what the government stands for: safety and security for all Canadians wherever they live.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the answer I just heard certainly does not address what the Toronto police department is saying, which is that it is short $1 million. It is not getting a penny and has not had any help.
The government pushed through terrorism legislation with the expectation that our police forces would administer the new laws and did it without any funding. It is called putting the cart before the horse.
Will the government put the funds in place for our police forces so the legislation will actually be effective? Yes or no.
Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is saying that Mr. Harris and the province of Ontario are not doing their job with respect to metro Toronto police, then I agree with him.
What I do know is that we at the federal government level continue to provide the resources and the tools necessary to make sure that our country, as a whole, is safe and secure for all residents wherever they live in this great country.
Impaired DrivingMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is a serious problem in Quebec and across Canada. Too many people die tragically and pointlessly every year.
Does the Minister of Justice plan on introducing new initiatives to respond more effectively to the problem of driving under the influence of alcohol?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very serious question for all of us as the holiday season approaches. In the last year for which we have statistics, 1999, 906 innocent people lost their lives due to impaired drivers. The government has taken action in Bill C-82 and Bill C-18.
Let me say that, with the co-operation of all parties in the House, we are introducing a new amendment to the criminal code that will involve ignition interlock devices. These devices have been used successfully in provinces like Alberta and Quebec. Today's legislation will ensure that we keep more impaired drivers off the road, thereby saving lives.
Employment InsuranceMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that he does not like being called a Conservative.
When the minister gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror, does he not see a Conservative rather than a Liberal? If he does not see a Conservative looking back at him, then why does he not allow the Minister of Human Resources Development to make changes to employment insurance, especially since the fund will have a $42 billion surplus by March, 2002?
Why does he not hand this money over to her, since it belongs to Canadian workers?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, once again, the member should know that, according to the auditor general, employment insurance premiums and government revenues have to be consolidated.
The member has to look at what we have done. We have invested in health, in parental leave, in job creation, and in research and development.
We have done this because when we on this side of the House look into the mirror, all we see are Liberals.
The MediaMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a growing outrage over the worrisome new editorial policy in the Southam chain of newspapers. Now a national editorial will be printed in every paper and the local editorial board will be forbidden to contradict it.
This loss of editorial independence is a direct consequence of the concentration of ownership in the media and our worst fears are being realized because of the laissez-faire attitude of the government toward the issue.
What concrete steps does the government intend to take to prevent even further corporate centralization of the media and an even further erosion of the editorial independence in the country?
Brian Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the government has no plans at this time to impose any new rules or regulations with respect to the operation of the free press in Canada.
The member's views about the state of play with respect to editorials are views that members on all sides of the House would, from time to time, have some sympathy for. Occasionally, there is an editorial or two that I do not like much myself but I do not want to go out and change the rules in the way in which newspapers operate.
The EconomyScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, in his response to a question today from our leader, the industry minister said that the economy was in a recession.
Does the finance minister agree with the industry minister that indeed Canada is in a recession?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Industry said was that the global economy was in a recession. There is no doubt that when we look at the problems in the United States, Japan and Europe, members will understand the very difficult context within which the government is now doing this budget. It is in fact because of the slowdown that is outside of our borders. It demonstrates the extent to which we have a very important balancing act in terms of providing stimulus, in terms of staying out of deficit and in terms of making sure we do things consistent with our long term plan. I can assure the House that we are up to the challenge.
Employment InsuranceMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Minister of Human Resources Development used her crystal ball to interpret a question from one of her colleagues as to whether or not EI recipients will get their cheques before Christmas. The minister said that they would.
However, as late as today, her officials have said that the only way a recipient will get a one week cheque is if they go in and make an individual case.
Who is calling the shots and what will the minister do rectify the situation?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I did not need a crystal ball. All members of the House realize that the opportunity for employment insurance claimants to get an advance payment before Christmas is a very important provision in the act.
I can confirm for the hon. member that we will ensure, as has been the case in the past, that EI claimants will be able to request in advance a cheque before Christmas.
CbcMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last year when the CBC series Canada: A People's History was announced, the government took great pride in the quality of the show. However, I got an e-mail yesterday from a constituent which stated:

--I am a teacher at Pinetree Secondary in Coquitlam. I am currently the Humanities Dept. Head at the school. I would like to use the excellent video series Canada: A People's History at our school. However, the cost to the school (viewing rights) is $2,147.00.

Canadian taxpayers paid the CBC to create this series. Why is the government creating a disincentive for Canadians to learn about their history by charging them over $2,000 to watch what they have bought?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the independence of the CBC is guaranteed by parliament under the Broadcasting Act. Moreover, I would like to point out that section 39 of the Broadcasting Act provides that the board of directors is responsible for the day to day management and operations. As well, under subsection 46(5), programming independence is also guaranteed by the CBC.
I would submit that perhaps what the hon. member should be doing is asking the CBC the same question.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the government because it has the authority to do it. It brokered a deal with the province of Manitoba to undercut the prices so that Canadian kids could learn about Canadian history.
What is it about this government that it sees the need to tax taxpayers twice for the cost of learning about their own history with their own resources? Why is the government not stepping forward and showing leadership so that Canadians can learn about their own history?The government should step up to the plate and show leadership.
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, the government has been investing in the arts and culture, and in our children and our history. On May 2 we announced the largest reinvestment in the arts. We invested $560 million in our stories, our identity and our history. I would submit that we are investing in our children, in our history and in our identity.
Interest RatesMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada key interest rate keeps going down. It has dropped nine times this year, for a total of 3.5 points. The bank rate now stands at 2.5%, a 40-year low.
The gap between the Bank of Canada rate and the rates of the lucrative credit card market continues to widen and is now 16.4% in this unstable and difficult economic period.
Is the government going to continue to do nothing while financial institutions continue to rake in $34 billion in profits of various sorts, including unpaid debts, to the detriment of consumers in this period of recession?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there are many kinds of credit card, as the member knows. There are cards with much lower interest rates, and there are also cards with higher rates, which offer various options. What the banks will say is that this is a way they protect themselves against fraud and so forth.
That having been said, there should be a much closer relation between interest rates and the interest on credit cards.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, some commercial credit card interest rates are as high as 30% in Canada, while the average rate in the United States is 14.4%. U.S. banks have thus dropped average rates by over 2% this year.
Is the government going to continue to let financial institutions rake in profits on the backs of consumers this way?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there are credit cards with much lower rates. The rates really depend on the options these credit cards offer.
As I said, however, there needs to be a much closer relation between the decreases in interest rates and the rates charged on cards.
Softwood LumberMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, thousands of mill workers have been idle for months because of the softwood lumber dispute, with more than 1,000 in Port Alberni alone. The negative economic impact is spinning out of control. For example, E &amp; N Railroad serves a 181 kilometre route on Vancouver Island. It is our only rail service. Now reduced rail freight will force E &amp; N to close its freight division in January. This means more job losses.
While the trade minister sits on his hands, families face a bleak Christmas and a bleaker future. When will the minister stand up for our jobs and for our industry?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it takes quite a nerve to criticize the Minister for International Trade when that criticism comes from a party that did not bother to have a trade critic for weeks last spring. It is incredible for me to hear that.
We are proceeding on a two track policy of litigation. On Wednesday a panel was struck at our request at the WTO. At the same time, we continue with discussions with our American partner. The minister will be raising these issues today with Governor Racicot in Washington.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, that is great. The parliamentary secretary is complaining about the defence critic. He does not seem to get it. Our communities are in a stranglehold. When a person is choking it is a life and death matter. Sending help in a year and a half is a moot point. The funeral will be long past.
Dispute resolution is meaningless once our mills are gone. Closure of the E &amp; N freight division now threatens the future of the passenger service, the tourism industry and what is left of our fragile economy.
Since the trade minister seems to be sleepwalking, will the transport minister step in to help save rail service on Vancouver Island?
Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, let me try again. What I pointed out to my colleague was that he represents a party which last spring did not even bother for weeks to appoint a trade critic. Now all of a sudden when this issue is heating up, that party has some interest in finally raising some questions.
I have already indicated to the House that the Minister for International Trade is continuing to work very aggressively on this file, as is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has raised the issue repeatedly with President Bush, and it has also been raised by the minister at every opportunity.
Infrastructure ProgramNancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, the need for municipal infrastructure improvements in the new territory is great. On behalf of my constituents, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board if he would give us an update on the negotiations between the federal government and the territorial government of Nunavut on the Canada infrastructure program?
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut who has been such a tireless worker for her constituents of Canada's north.
I am pleased to announce that the President of the Treasury Board, along with her colleague, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as the premier of Nunavut, the hon. Paul Okalik, signed the Canada-Nunavut infrastructure partnership agreement yesterday.
The agreement will leverage over $4 million for green municipal infrastructure over the next two years. I am especially proud that this partnership agreement will help strengthen the economy of Nunavut, as well as enhance the health of its people.
Health CareMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the upcoming budget must be about priorities. If it is going to reflect the real priorities of Canadians, then there must be some real increase in health care transfer money. The budget leak suggests that the government will not announce one penny more for health care.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his government's dismal record on health care cuts and get his priorities straight?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member remembers the historic agreement the Prime Minister signed a little over a year ago which gave a $23 billion transfer to the provinces for health care and early childhood development. That money continues to flow. In fact, in many provinces, such as Ontario, it is only the federal money that allows the province to increase its funding because of its tax cuts.
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether passing the buck to the provinces is a good idea because the government has not put back the money that it took in 1994 to the level that it was then. The Liberals' answer to health care cuts is to pull the money out of the system and then study it to death.
Do members know how much the Liberals have spent on studies since 1994? They have spent $242 million.
When will the government stop the studying and resolve the health care crisis that it created?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to take a look at the facts. Right now health care transfers to the provinces are at an all time high. Equalization payments to the provinces, which goes to health care and other services, are at an all time high. That does not take into account the massive amounts of money that have gone into better practices, the health transition fund and health care research right across the country.
ImmigrationMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the recent joint declaration of co-operation between Canada and the United States, the concept of safe third country implies that a refugee whose application is rejected by the United States can no longer apply in Canada.
Can the Minister of Immigration confirm that, had this agreement been in effect in 1973, none of the Chileans fleeing the Pinochet regime would have found asylum in Canada had they initially been denied asylum by the United States?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
It is true that the Geneva convention permits the negotiation of a safe third agreement. It is also a fact that the United States and Canada have agreed to negotiate a safe third agreement. It is also a fact that the Government of Quebec has been supportive and has given unequivocal support to the development and the concept of a safe third agreement.
It is also true that this is the year 2001 and there are some people who would be stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact Canada and the U.S. have--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Canada-United States BorderMac Harb: Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events of September 11, what measures have been taken by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to improve the flow of goods across the border?
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Windsor border crossing the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue announced a new program called customs self-assessment. It is a pre-approved program for carriers and importers for the smooth flow of goods across the border.
American carriers told me that they not only think it is a wonderful program but they also praised Canada for being a leader--
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--South Langley.
Airline IndustryMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, in the last two years during the transport minister's watch we have seen an almost total collapse of Canada's airline industry.
Recently the minister was too late in amending the Air Canada Public Participation Act. He still refuses to change foreign ownership limits. He was caught off guard by the sudden demise of Canada 3000. He now refuses to consider Air Canada's proposal to expand open skies, instead thinking that he will save the industry by personally taking control.
Is the minister totally incapable of developing a strategy for the airline industry or is he--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has repeatedly said that he is prepared to do anything to increase competition here.
The member may be assured that we will continue to do everything to make the competition real, within the country, despite the public proposals that are sometimes made rather strangely.
Points of OrderPat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, for clarity, I may have inadvertently indicated that the Minister for International Trade will speak with Mr. Racicot in Washington today. Indeed, he will have a conversation but it will be on the telephone.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, as someone acquainted with the work that gremlins can sometimes do to amend the record of Hansard , I would like to ask the Speaker to pay particular attention to ensure that the Hansard report for today reflects accurately the response of the Minister of Industry with respect to the recession in Canada.
The Speaker: I am sure the Speaker, who will have some oversight on these matters, will be ably assisted by hon. members on every side of the House.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to six petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Advisory Committee on Labour-Management Relations in the Federal Public Service.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the standing committee entitled “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”.
At the outset, I would like to thank all the members of the parliamentary committee, as well as the staff, June Dewetering and John Christopher, and Paul Cardegna, the clerk of the committee.
Pursuant to Standing Order No. 109, the committee would like a comprehensive response to the report.
The core of the report says that we should have a new transportation act which has as its focus a secretary of state for transportation security. Within that framework, all the elements such as immigration, customs, police officers and all the stakeholders, including the air carriers and the staff of the air carriers, will work extremely hard to make sure that our airlines are safe.
It was a wake–up call on September 11 when an aircraft was used as a cruise missile. We do not ever want our aircraft to be not secure. Included in the recommendations are a stronger cockpit door with ISO standards, up to date screening systems, with the appropriate sniffing devices, using dogs, and improved technology, a better list—
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is a diligent chair of his committee and is fully conversant with the report but the presentation of committee reports is limited. I think that perhaps he is giving a longer than necessary summary at this point.
Criminal CodeHon. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce BillC-419, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce into the House an act to amend the criminal code (firefighters), which would increase the severity of punishment for criminal acts, such as arson, that injure or kill a firefighter. Specifically, the bill would create two new criminal offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder when the victim is a firefighter acting in the line of duty.
When I think back to the bravery shown by firefighters on September 11, I believe we have a legislative duty to protect our protectors.
I wish to thank the International Association of Fire Fighters for its support of the bill and for its ongoing efforts on behalf of our firefighters.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsVal Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from over 542 constituents in the lower mainland. They are upset with the amount of sex and violence that is presently on the television stations. They humbly request the House of Commons to urge the CRTC to reduce the sexual and violent content contained on television.
Questions on the Order PaperStephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: When the debate was interrupted for question period, the hon. member for Vancouver East had the floor. There remains 14 and one-half minutes in the time allotted for her remarks.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks and have nothing further to add.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute some remarks to the debate on Bill C-46, an amendment to the criminal code dealing with alcohol ignition interlock devices. I also appreciate the opportunity to express my gratitude to the government, which is something in my eight year history as a member of parliament that I have seldom had the opportunity, or one may even say, the will to express. I do thank the government for belatedly moving on this very important issue.
As has been said by a number of opposition members who have spoken to the legislation, there is universal support for it by all parties in the House of Commons. That is why there is agreement to move expeditiously today to deal with all stages of the bill and see it sent to the other place as quickly as possible.
The issue is of importance to me as an individual parliamentarian. I introduced a private member's bill on the issue on October 27, 1997, over four years ago, Bill C-266. For the interest of the House I will read the summary of Bill C-46, the legislation we are debating today, an act to amend the criminal code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs) and the summary of the bill I presented four years ago.
The summary of Bill C-46 states:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to allow the court to authorize repeat offenders subject to driving prohibition orders to drive, if they register in a provincial alcohol ignition interlock device program. The enactment provides that no authorization has effect until a minimum period of prohibition has been completed of 3, 6 or 12 months for a first, second or subsequent offence, respectively.

Bill C-266, an act to amend the criminal code (alcohol sensing ignition control for automobiles), had first reading four years ago on October 27, 1997. The summary of that very short bill stated:

The purpose of this enactment is to allow a judge, in sentencing a person for an impaired driving offence, to suspend part of any fine, imprisonment, prohibition or probation order if the offender undertakes to install an alcohol-sensing ignition control on every motor vehicle the offender operates. Failure to comply with the undertaking would reactivate the suspended part. The court may also make such installation a condition of a probation order.

As I said, I commend the government for moving on this issue. It certainly is something that has been supported not only by me by putting forward private member's legislation, but by a lot of people over the last number of years. I think it was the member from the New Democratic Party who referred to the CBC program Marketplace . Back in 1996 and 1997, in a similar timeframe to when I was drafting my bill, it did programs on the issue and how it would help to keep dangerous drunk drivers off our nation's highways and roads.
The issue is why it takes the government so long to enact something which obviously has universal support among all parties.
As previous speakers have said, it is something that unfortunately does not happen very often in this place. Given the seriousness of a lot of issues facing Canadians from coast to coast, we would think we would see more legislation coming forward that could be unanimously supported and put through this place in a timely fashion. However that does not seem to be the case.
It is especially important, as others have noted, that the legislation would receive all party support at this time of the year. Everybody is well aware that one of the unfortunate byproducts of the holiday season is an increase in the number of people who drink and drive. The unfortunate reality is that we also see an increase in the number of injuries and fatalities on our nation's roads because of that.
It is almost rare to find a Canadian family that has not through its extended family and friends suffered a serious injury or a death from drinking and driving. Young people are paralyzed and spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs because either they were hit by a drunk driver or they made the tragic error in judgment of getting into a vehicle where the driver was impaired. They pay an horrendous price for it.
It is appropriate that the government has chosen to bring forward the legislation because of the particular time of year. It is also appropriate that all parties in the House would be supportive of it.
I would like to explain the alcohol ignition interlock device. It is a sophisticated breath alcohol testing instrument which is installed in a vehicle in such a way that links its operations to that of the electrical ignition starter and other onboard systems in the vehicle. The instrument is similar in size to and closely resembles a microphone or car phone. Users must take and pass a breath test before the vehicle can be started or driven.
Retests are also required at random times as long as the engine is running. In other words, if drivers have this device installed in the vehicle, not only do they have to blow into the breathing apparatus in order to get the vehicle started but also at random times during the operation of the vehicle, especially if it is a prolonged trip. There would be a warning light or horn sound and at that time drivers would have to blow into the device again to check that they had not been drinking and driving.
Val Meredith: Who gets the devices?
Jay Hill: The hon. member asks who gets the devices? Obviously people who have been caught drinking and driving. This legislation would deal with repeat offenders because unfortunately all too often the biggest amount of damage done to innocent people in society is by repeat offenders.
Bill C-46 would allow provinces that have this legislation in place to apply it for repeat offenders. This was not the case prior to the introduction of Bill C-46. We have an amendment to the criminal code that would allow that to happen. We hope to see a decline in drunk driving once this becomes widespread.
The legislation would put the stamp of approval by amending the criminal code on these programs at the federal level. It is the hope of people such as myself and organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, that we would see similar programs in place in all provinces so that we would see rates for drunk driving decline. If habitual drunk drivers were unable to start and operate their vehicles then hopefully this would keep them off the road.
There are a number of other areas that one would hope the government would act upon. I mentioned the MADD organization. It should be given credit for the bill today. It was through its lobbying efforts and those of other organizations and individuals across the nation that the government was made more aware of the importance and urgency in bringing forward legislation like Bill C-46.
There are other suggestions that MADD is making which warrant debate and hopefully legislation. The MADD suggestions and policies include important federal-provincial legislative changes to streamline laws, enhance police authority and increase the effectiveness of enforcement for drunk driving. We need vigilant enforcement of laws and increased support for the police and judiciary. We need greater consistency in enforcing the laws and sentencing offenders.
There is one suggestion which I have discussed many times in my riding of Prince George--Peace River. Other MPs have also discussed it with law enforcement agencies and police officers in their ridings, whether urban or rural. It is the problem police officers experience when they stop someone who is obviously impaired and charge them.
There are problems in making the charge stick in court, getting people off the road, ensuring that they pay the penalty in court and prohibiting them from driving for a period of time. It is hoped that this interlock device would ensure that persons drinking in the future would be prevented from driving vehicles.
Other programs and policies include effectively educating the social drinker and providing treatment and just punishment for hard core drinkers and repeat offenders. If provinces do not have interlock programs in place they could pick up on this issue and have them in all provinces and territories across the nation. It would make quite a difference in keeping repeat offenders off our roads.
Another suggestion is to increase education and public awareness of the seriousness of impaired driving. I speak from experience in my home province of British Columbia where both the provincial and federal governments have been doing a reasonable job. I commend them for the job they have been doing in educating the public on the dangers of drinking and driving.
Operation Counter Attack in British Columbia has been making great strides in keeping drinking and driving to a minimum. Unfortunately the reality is that on average four and a half deaths a day per year are attributed to drinking and driving. People lose their lives to drinking and driving at twice the rate of those who are murdered. That is a horrifying statistic. It points to the importance of what we must do.
I was encouraged by the brief statement made by the justice minister in bringing the bill forward today. She said she did not view the legislation as a magic bullet against drunk driving. I agree with her.
I hope that comment was a signal to all parliamentarians, organizations like MADD and Canadians in the real world outside the Ottawa bubble. The minister intends to bring forward additional legislation in the near future to deal with drinking and driving. Perhaps that legislation would include some of the suggestions I made today in my remarks on Bill C-46.
I conclude by imploring Canadians as we enter the holiday season to travel safely. At this time of year our roads can be dangerous even when the driver is cold sober. With our unpredictable weather conditions we often get freezing rain, especially in the northern areas of the country, and fight snow drifts and blizzard conditions. Roads are dangerous.
On behalf of all parliamentarians I say to people who drink alcoholic beverages over the holidays, as so many of us like to imbibe from time to time, that they should not drive. I ask them to stay off the roads not only to protect themselves and their loved ones travelling with them but to provide an element of safety for all other Canadians who are also using our highways and roads during the holiday season.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, this is one occasion I rise in the House when I am particularly disqualified from speaking. On the other hand I think I have a great qualification. I made a personal pledge when I was a youngster never to drink alcoholic beverages. I have kept the pledge to this day.
I have made a couple of other interesting pledges. One was that I would go through life without ever getting a ticket while driving. That means speeding, stop signs, stop lights and things like that. I am humbly proud to announce to the House that at this stage in my life I have never yet had a ticket. I am some 62 years old and have been driving almost 50 years. It is incredible.
Mr. Jim Gouk: I have a few he could have.
Ken Epp: My colleague is willing to give me some of his.It was a matter of principle. As I said, I did the same thing with alcoholic beverages. I said I would not drink them.
This came about in a strange way. When I was a youngster we were quite poor. Members who have heard my speeches in the House have heard some of these stories. I made my spending money by picking up beer bottles other people had spread in the ditches, bottles which would not have been there had people not been drinking while driving. Not only did they drink before they were driving. They were drinking while they were driving and tossing the bottles out. It gave me a meagre income. I remember it distinctly. We got 18 cents a dozen, one and a half cents a bottle. I picked them up and used them for spending money.
One time my father provided for me to make restitution for a loss I had been part of. That story has also been told in the House. It took over a year of picking up beer bottles to raise enough money to pay for some broken windows, but that is another story.
During the time I was picking up beer bottles I learned to strongly dislike the smell of beer. It was only many years later that a friend of mine told me there was a substantial difference between a nice cold beer out of the fridge and one that has been laying in the hot sun for two or three weeks. I had a bit of an advantage in the sense of being turned off from that deal.
I am disqualified in the sense that I do not drink. I will never be involved with drunken driving as long as I keep the pledge. I am eminently qualified because I believe very strongly that people must make decisions and follow through on matters of principle.
One matter of principle I strongly believe must be that we do not drink and drive. It impairs one's ability to manage a vehicle, which is a lethal weapon when it gets up to speed on a highway or city street. If there is a lack of ability to control the vehicle for whatever reason the person should be severely restrained by law.
The same principle applies that I have spoken about frequently in the House. It is impossible to pass a law to make people good. The purpose of the law is to restrain those who would do evil. It is evil to drive under the influence of alcohol or anything else that inhibits one's ability to manage a vehicle.
I happen to live out in the country. My riding is mostly rural. We have lots of intersections where there is a stop sign in one direction and free flow in the other. A number of my friends have been severely injured and one was killed because people coasted through stop signs. Whether they were sober or inebriated they went through the stop sign and caused a collision.
There was a young man a couple of miles from our house who was travelling home having visited some family. He and two of his children were instantly killed when someone went through a stop sign. To me that is unconscionable. My wife and I have had several occasions where we had to screech the brakes to come to a stop because someone violated that rule.
When we accept the privileges of which we have so many in our country, many of them have an attached responsibility. That responsibility should be kept and delivered on as a service and as a result of our concern for fellow citizens.
Most people have been speaking in favour of Bill C-46 today. I have severe questions about it. As people who have been watching know, the bill is, among other things, an authorization to use an interlock connect with the ignition so a vehicle will not run unless the person operating it and blowing into the tube is free of alcoholic content in his or her breath.
I am concerned about the authorization. The bill states that it:

--has no effect until the expiry of a period fixed by the court
(a) of at least three months, for a first offence;
(b) of at least 6 months, for a second offence; and
(c) of at least 12 months, for each subsequent offence.

When will we put an end to this? When will we say to people who get picked up driving while under the influence of alcohol that they cannot do that? We can catch them once, twice or three times and the bill simply says “for each subsequent offence”.
I read in the paper not long ago that someone was arrested for drunken driving and it was his 14th offence. There comes a time when we must say to these people that since they have shown a complete lack of responsibility we will remove their driving privileges because they are a danger to everyone else on the road.
I would like to see the offences strengthened. The bill would disable a vehicle from running if the person driving it was not sober. This might prevent someone from driving a vehicle when he or she is not capable of making that judgment. However we need to be careful not to give too much credit to the action we are taking here today.
How about a person who is irresponsible and willing to drive when inebriated? Will that person avoid taking a vehicle that has such a device? I am sure we will have penalties for driving a vehicle that does not have the device if the person has entered into the agreement. On the other hand there are people who drive regularly although they have been disbarred from driving. They do not take responsibility. How about people who might have a friend blow into the device for them?
Those are just some of the ways of circumventing the device. Can we trust these people? They have proven, by the fact that they have driven even once on the road while inebriated, that they are not willing to take responsibility.
This is a crazy story and one I probably should not tell because if the guy who is the object of it hears it I may get into trouble. I was driving in one of my little towns which had a two lane road in each direction divided by a median. As I approached an intersection the road turned from two lanes into four with the addition of right and left hand turning lanes.
I was following a half ton truck on the two lane portion of the road and the driver was literally bouncing off both curbs. He would hit the right curb and then drift over across two lanes and hit the left curb. I realized we were heading out into the country and there would be no other way of stopping him if we did not get a red light at the intersection. Fortunately we did.
I stopped behind him, threw on my four way flashers, jumped out of my car and did something rather bizarre. I ran up to him, opened his door, put my rather substantial body in front of his, reached over and took the key out of the ignition. I know he could have assaulted me but at that stage I was ready to take the risk because we were going out onto a country road with two lanes, one in each direction. The way he was driving I was quite convinced it would result in an accident and possibly even severe injury or death because we were getting into highway speeds. I did it because it was my civic duty.
Hon. members would not believe what the guy said to me. Hansard would not be able to print the words, but I will say that he spoke with slurred speech when asked me what I was doing. I told him that he was going nowhere because he obviously could not drive. He said that he was okay but I told him that he was not and I took away his key. He was so stunned he could not raise any objection.
To shorten the story, in due time the RCMP arrived. When the RCMP officer asked the guy to get up and stand on one foot he could not. As a matter of fact, he could not stand without holding on to his half ton truck. He had to be led by the arm into the police officer's vehicle.
I like to think I saved a life that day. I took a risk but I saved a life. That individual did not take responsibility. We should do everything possible to take people like that off the roads.
I rather doubt anyone in the House or in the country does not have a relative or at least a close friend or acquaintance who has not been affected by drunk driving. I have several. One of my colleagues at NAIT where I taught for many years had the grief of having his young sister killed by a drunk driver. She had just started university. She died as a result of drunk driving. People do not recognize how important it is to stop drunk driving because they do not think it impacts on lives or takes lives.
Another couple I know well was struck on the highway by a vehicle driven by a drunk driver. Their young son who was about 10 years old, a beautiful, brilliant young guy who did well in school, was reduced essentially to being a dependant all his life. He is now in his early twenties and he is still not able to function as an adult. That was taken from him by a drunk driver.
We hear of drunk drivers taking lives, particularly of high school students at graduations and other parties. Thinking of young people, I was given a poignant poem which I will read as part of my speech. It underlines how damaging the activity of drunk drivers can be. I ask members to listen to the poem:

Close to the door he paused to stand as he took his class ring off her hand all who were watching did not speak as a silent tear ran down his cheek and through his mind the memories ran of the moments they walked and laughed in the sand but now her eyes were so terrible cold for he would never again have her to hold they watched in silence as he bent near and whispered the words... “I LOVE YOU dear” he touched her face and started to cry as he put on his ring and wanted to die and just then the wind began to blow as they lowered her casket into the snow... this is what happens to man alive... ...when friends let friends... drink and drive.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-46 because it is a completion of a number of steps that have been taken. There are more steps, but in the fight against impaired driving, every time we take a positive action in the House it is another step that will go a long way to saving lives and injuries as a result of impaired driving.
Back in the 36th session of parliament, I introduced a private member's motion recommending that the government have a complete review of the criminal code and how it affected impaired driving. We sat on the committee as it was being discussed and had some interesting debate.
That private member's motion then became a votable opposition supply day. For the first time in 13 years in the House of Commons, the federal government, took some very good leadership in allowing the motion eventually to become a reality. A review was made of the criminal code with respect to impaired driving and changes were made. I congratulate the government on that initiative.
At the same time, I have to point out that 13 years was a long time to drag our feet toward dealing with something as important as this, particularly when organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving had been petitioning members of parliament on a regular basis pointing out the need for the overview.
A profound change in thinking took place as a result of that exercise in dealing with the impaired driving issue. I congratulate all members of parliament for this change of attitude toward drunk driving. I believe that, until we got into looking at it in the House and in committee, there was a wide ranging attitude among many people, including parliamentarians, for whom perhaps impaired driving was described as a social ill. I do not fault them for that. I think it is more a lack of education than anything else. By the time we were through the exercise of dealing with impaired driving in the criminal code, I think it became clearly evident to every member of parliament, and indeed a whole lot of Canadians, that impaired driving was a serious crime.
If we have accomplished something in going from one broadly endorsed attitude to another, that is a very positive step. Again, I want to congratulate and commend organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the people who support that organization. I and a number of parliamentarians support it both financially and in spirit.
In the two previous bills we took some great leaps ahead in the fight against impaired driving. Keep in mind that impaired driving kills well over 1,000 people every year and injures in excess of 50,000 every year, just because someone gets behind the wheel when impaired and drives. I heard it incredulously called a mistake in the House a little earlier by a former colleague of mine. Driving while impaired is not a mistake. It is a crime.
The culpability or responsibility for getting behind the wheel begins the moment someone makes a decision to have a drink of alcohol. I do not accept the excuse, and I know the Ministry of Industry does not accept the excuse “I just wasn't thinking”. There is a time to think and that is before we take that first drink. The idea that it was an absence of thought, or a mistake or something just does not fly. It is a crime and if we commit that crime, there are consequences to it.
This bill will remind people of their culpability because they will know that if they get into their vehicle after drinking, they will to have to blow into this device. In fact, there would be a mapping device which would prevent someone else from blowing into it. My colleague from Elk Island had some concerns about that. However the first time people blow into the device they set the standard. It is like an eye scan or a fingerprint. No one else can blow into that device and try to trick it.
Of course we will support this bill. It is a good bill. It is another step in the fight against impaired driving. As parliamentarians know, this is very high on the wish list of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has presented mountains of evidence as to why this device will do the job. I personally, as well as many parliamentarians, have seen the effectiveness of this. We know it is about as foolproof as we can possibly get. The records are there to show how it will stop impaired people from driving.
We will support the bill, as we supported Bill C-18 and Bill C-82.
Just before I close, there is another issue that is very high on the wish list of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. That is the lowering of the BAC, the blood alcohol content, which determines whether a person is impaired or not. MADD has a very good case.
The problem we have is the BAC is at .08 right now. Every study in the world declares that at .08 we are impaired and should not be driving a car. Unfortunately, the courts and the legal system have allowed a margin of error of .02 or .03. Even though there exists no margin of error in the devices which record the blood alcohol content, through courtroom tactics defence lawyers have been able to build in this margin of error which means people cannot get a conviction on impaired driving unless the readout is at least .01.
Therefore, we maintain that if the legally impaired level is .08, let us take into consideration that .03 margin of error, lower the BAC to .05, let them have their .03 and we can start convicting at .08, where we should be, because these people are legally impaired and should not be driving.
I want to congratulate the government for introducing Bill C-46. I hope that it is passed speedily through the House and given speedy royal assent in the Senate. I encourage the government to follow this with another bill calling for the reduction of the BAC to .05. Let us get it to committee, get the experts and let us prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the BAC level should be lowered to .05.
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with interest and I am glad to hear that the Canadian Alliance is also supporting this legislation.
One thing that concerns me about this is it has taken so long to come forward. It is a very innovative, technological device that will save lives. The earlier this initiative can be brought in, the better. The hon. member talked about other things that need to be done as well.
At the general council meeting of the Canadian Medical Association a resolution was adopted that urged the federal government to work with provincial and territorial governments to develop pilot projects for the use of breathalyzer ignition interlock devices so this approach would be available as a conditional sentencing option in the courts of Canada.
Is the hon. member aware of other organizations that have supported this initiative? CMA support of this legislation is a very important demonstration of the broad support in the community for this kind of device and that it needs to be brought in quickly. Perhaps we are beyond the point of doing pilot projects and this should be undertaken on a national basis as quickly as possible. Could the member to comment on that?
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, it was indeed quite a while before this legislation came before us. The issue of the interlock device was part of the original supply day motion discussion which became a government bill. We talked about this in committee. For whatever reasons, arguments developed in committee between some legal minds, and as everyone knows that whenever lawyers debate with each other things can be held up forever. This bill slipped through the cracks in the discussion of Bill C-82.
As far as support is concerned, I am sure we would not find a parliamentarian in this place who would not supportive of this bill. I know Bloc members have had some concerns about it, but at the end of the day they will be fully supportive of it because it is a good bill.
I will mention again without hesitation Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This is one of the most dedicated and hard-working organizations in the fight against impaired driving. However, there are a lot of other organizations with the similar vision of eradicating our highways of impaired drivers.
The more we can do on this issue, the better we will feel about the safety of our streets and communities. We will all sleep soundly and be proud that we contributed in the fight against drinking and driving.
Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance had to say. Quick passage of this legislation is essential because we are at the time of year when drinking and driving, unfortunately, is a very serious factor of everyday life. If I had it my way, it would not be .05% either. It would be if people drink, they do not drive. I have seen too many people injured or killed because of drunk drivers behind the wheel. However drinking and drinking, specifically, is a great social cost to our country.
To educate our people as to the seriousness of this issue, we should be doing more at the school level. Unfortunately, more and more young people are drinking before they are legally allowed to and many of them end up behind the wheel.
First, would the member agree that this legislation should be passed quickly and hopefully implemented for this coming holiday season? Second, does he think we should educate our young as to the dangers of drinking and driving?
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I am sure we could pass the bill right now.
My. hon. colleague spoke about education in the schools. I believe, and the government can correct me if I am wrong, that there is a provision in the bill or a recommendation in the committee report that funding would be provided to various organizations to ensure there is early education.
It should be a co-operative effort between the federal and provincial governments, with the federal government providing some obligated funding, which I think it certainly does not have a problem with, the provincial government is throwing in some. We will all work together and get this thing beat.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there has been consultation among all parties, and I want to thank in advance all colleagues for their co-operation on the bill. Following that consultation, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

To deem Bill C-46 to have been referred to the committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
(Bill deemed considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-23.
This motion was reviewed, and the Chair is of the opinion that it meets the criteria stated in the note to Standing Orders 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon by itself.
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: moved:

Motion No. 1
That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:
“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:
77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.
(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.
(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.
(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.
(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.
(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.
(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.
(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”

Madam Speaker, I suppose you are rather surprised to see me rise to speak to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, at report and second reading stage.
As you know, I am much more comfortable dealing with issues regarding health, culture, citizens' relationships and pedagogy. But the House being a forum for pedagogy, you will see that I am very comfortable talking to Bill C-23.
Every day, as private citizens, we are faced with competition. With globalization and the opening of markets, competition is often fierce, and it is not rare to see the little guys being swallowed up by the big guys, at the expense of consumers. Competition is a rather neutral concept. It all depends on how we use it. We all know that this neutrality is all the more delicate as the interests involved are greedy.
I often go for advice to my friends the dictionaries, Robert and Larousse —you know, the one that scatters to the winds . They are a wealth of information that never cease to enrich me. Here is the definition of competition that can be found in the Larousse dictionary.

Competition: Competing interests between several persons creating a competition and, in part, between merchants or firms trying to attract clients with the best price, quality, etc.

It goes on to say:

Free competition: An economic system without any intervention from the state to limit industry and trade freedom, and under which producers coalitions are viewed as a crime.

That is it for definitions. In the end, competition is a bit like what Aesop said about the tongue as being the best and the worst of things. A twisted tongue is as troublesome as unfair competition.
As a matter of fact, Bill C-23 is aimed at improving, albeit slightly, the competition framework. In this area as many others, rules are needed as people should have access to quality products and services at acceptable prices instead of being the victims of practices favouring the corporate bottom line.
If I may, I would like to take a minute to read the summary of Bill C-23, which goes like this:

This enactment amends the Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act. The amendments include the following:
amendments to facilitate cooperation with foreign competition authorities for the enforcement of civil competition and fair trade practices laws;
amendments prohibiting deceptive prize notices;
amendments streamlining the Competition Tribunal process by providing for cost awards, summary dispositions and references;
amendments broadening the scope under which the Tribunal may issue temporary orders; and
some housekeeping items.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the objectives of Bill C-23 because they are in the interest of the public, since the parameters set in the bill should respond to the legitimate needs of small and medium size businesses and protect the rights of consumers to enjoy the benefits stemming from healthy competition.
Recent events have given us a telling example of what can happen when competition turns into a trade war. Indeed, the softwood lumber issue that comes up regularly, where the Americans impose excessive surcharges on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United-States, clearly shows the negative and unfair consequences of decisions made in the context of fierce competition.
Another example, just as flagrant as the previous one, is the poor state or even the non-existence of air service to remote communities due to the fact that Air Canada has a quasi-monopoly on air service in this country.
The only way to calm those with an insatiable appetite for profit is to legislate both domestically and within international trade organizations and to be ever vigilant in all spheres of human activity.
Everyone recognizes that Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction, but we could go even further. Indeed, many aspects should be considered by the legislator, including price fixing practices and the merger review process, as well as proceedings before the competition tribunal.
In that spirit, I will read an excerpt from testimony given before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on October 17 by a representative from the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole. He raised a real concern with regard to the fact that, and I quote:

—access to the Competition Tribunal [would be closed] except in situations of “usual trade terms”. We put it to you that suppliers of petroleum products would only have to illustrate that they cannot supply products because of abnormal trade conditions to stall access to the Tribunal.
We propose instead that the new provisions for access to the Tribunal provide for markets where trade terms are not usual. For example, should there be a relative shortage, supply should be provided to all undertakings on a prorated basis, in keeping with the way that the market usually operates. If, for instance, the amount of product available makes it possible to respond to only 80% of normal needs, the majors and the independents should each be able to obtain 80% of their regular supply. In this way, both types of undertakings would be subject to the same conditions and none would be forced into bankruptcy because of a lack of stock. Given the uncertain international situation at the moment, such a situation might easily arise.

Therefore, it was my great pleasure to introduce in the House, seconded by my colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, an amendment to respond to the concerns of small independent retailers. Since the Speaker did not treat us by reading the amendment in her lovely voice, I should like to take a moment now to read it for the House:

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:
“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:
77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.
(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.
(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.
(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.
(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.
(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.

There are two sections left that I will read quickly:

(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.
(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”

This is an amendment in which we recognize the great work done by our colleague from the riding of Ajax—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: —Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. All these riding names are complicated and very long. He has worked very hard and I believe that the bill before us is the concrete result of his commitment to work for the good of Canadians and Quebecers.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I too will join in the debate at the report stage of Bill C-23 and on Motion No. 1 which seeks to amend the bill.
We believe the issue brought forward by the member for Laval Centre would benefit the bill and strengthen the intention of the amendments put forward at the committee stage.
I would like to remind all members that there was a great deal of co-operation at the committee stage. We agreed with the general thrust of the motions brought forward at that time. I see nothing in this motion that does anything but augment the direction in which we wanted to go at committee. I admire the hon. member for taking the trouble to introduce it at this stage.
I noticed that sections 75 and 77, which the hon. member seeks to amend, would have the effect of strengthening the private access to the Competition Tribunal for the offences that she mentioned: tied selling, market restrictions and exclusive dealing, and a number of the issues that came forward as being offensive to most Canadians and most Canadians I think wanted the industry committee to deal with these issues in a very strong way.
We look forward to the motion getting the same sort or co-operative support that many of the other amendments received at the committee stage. We hope to approve the amendment as it has been brought forward. I extend my compliments to the member for Laval Centre.
Brian Tobin: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take the opportunity to participate in report stage consideration of Bill C-23. As colleagues have said, this is a bill that is a result of a great deal of very good work by members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. No doubt the bill has been very much improved as a result of the collaborative approach that members have taken and their commitment to working together to make this a much better bill.
The main elements of the bill comprise the prohibition of deceptive prize notices, enhanced mutual international assistance in civil competition matters, streamlining improvements to the Competition Tribunal process, broadening the scope under which the tribunal may issue an interim order, a limited right of access to the tribunal and specific measures to protect competition in the Canadian airline industry.
On the issue of private access there has been a great deal of debate. There have been a great many witnesses and those who spoke who were diametrically opposed to each other with respect to the right of private access. I will come back to that issue in just a moment and refer specifically to the amendment being proposed by the hon. member who spoke just a few moments ago on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.
First , I want to talk about deceptive practices. The amendment to prohibit deceptive prize notices addresses unscrupulous promoters who mislead their victims into believing they have won a prize without disclosing the excessive costs associated with collecting the prize. The commissioner has testified that this is a growing problem in Canada and the bureau, quite literally, receives thousands of complaints each year.
We have all heard of Canadian seniors receiving scratch and win cards in the mail. People scratch the card and discover they have supposedly won a prize. They then follow instructions and place a telephone call in order to claim their prize. However, they are not forewarned and they cannot know or be aware that the cost of placing the call is generally greater than the value of the so-called prize.
In short, senior citizens across the country are being targeted by corrupt and unscrupulous individuals seeking to quite literally take advantage and to steal their saved, hard-earned monies.
The approach proposed in Bill C-23 sets out a balance between capturing improper conduct and the legitimate practices of the majority of the business community. No doubt there are legitimate prize contests that do in fact treat citizens appropriately.
With respect to foreign evidence gathering, Bill C-23 proposes amendments that will facilitate the gathering of evidence from foreign jurisdictions with respect to civil competition matters. This is similar to what already exists for criminal matters under the mutual legal assistance treaty to which Canada and several dozen other countries are signatories. I believe these amendments will help us do a better job in a wide variety of areas but notably with respect to these corrupt so-called competitions or prize scams.
On a more technical side, the bill proposes to streamline the tribunal process and broaden the powers available to the tribunal. First, the amendments will permit the commissioner and the person who is the subject of an inquiry to refer to the tribunal any question of law in relation to the application or interpretation of the act. This is also available to private parties that agree to refer a question to the tribunal related to part VII.1 through to part IX of the act.
Also, the tribunal will be able to assess costs. The initial position of the government was limited to the assessment of cost by the tribunal in the case of frivolous or vexatious litigation intended to hinder or delay procedures before the tribunal.
Many witnesses before the committee urged the adoption of the ordinary cost rules of commercial litigation in order to have a proper deterrence against strategic litigation. Therefore the government tabled a motion to reflect this concern. Other changes permit the tribunal through summary disposition to rapidly deal with unsubstantiated matters.
The last amendment proposed with respect to tribunal improvements addresses interim orders. We have heard that certain anti-competitive practices cause irreparable harm to the Canadian economy.
Up until now the commissioner could not apply to the tribunal during an inquiry to obtain a cease and desist order to stop anti-competitive conduct. First he had to obtain sufficient evidence to make a case before the tribunal. The problem is that these inquiries are time consuming and they are resource intensive.
The amendments proposed will now allow the tribunal, when certain conditions are met, to render an interim cease and desist order. The order will be issued for an 80 day period with the possibility of extension where the commissioner has not received the information necessary to complete his inquiry and to determine whether an application should be made before the tribunal.
I want to address the matter of private access. Under the current system, the commissioner is the only person who can submit an application before the tribunal. This monopoly has been the subject of several studies over the past three decades. Many proposals have been made to permit the right of private access to the tribunal without involving the commissioner. One of these proposals was contained in a private member's bill tabled here by our colleague, the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, and was part of the public policy consultation.
A great deal has been said about private access, during the consultations and again during the committee hearings. There were strong views expressed and, I think it is fair to say, a division, primarily between those who belong to the small and medium sized business community and those who belong to Canada's largest corporations, those that are members of the chamber of commerce. On the one hand, there is a concern for a right to private access, and on the other, the concern that Canada not become a litigious society where strategic litigation occurs primarily for reasons of corporate warfare rather than genuine need or concern. The committee worked very hard to try to resolve both, on the one hand the request for private access, and on the other the concern about not creating an overly litigious corporate environment in Canada.
The amendments that we now see and the manner in which private access is described is very much the result of the good work of the committee and very much the result of the compromise which has been reached between the parties that had diametrically opposing views on the matter as they testified before committee. It is for that reason, because we now have, I think, a measure of harmony and a measure of agreement after a great deal of hard work, good work, by members on all sides of the House,. that I would submit that further amendments or further changes at this stage of the game may very well undo, although that would not be the intention, the consensus and the compromise that has now been reached.
There is one other matter I want to speak to during the time that is available to me and that is that the last set of amendments added to Bill C-23 are specific to the airline industry. This industry was severely affected by the tragic events of September 11. Canadian airline passenger volumes have dropped. Airlines have lost passengers to alternative tourist transportation methods. In the midst of this turbulent period, airlines in Canada and abroad are trying to continue normal operations while adjusting to the impact of the events of September 11.
All the airlines have been affected. At the time of the collapse of Canada 3000, the commissioner had sufficient evidence to issue a temporary cease and desist order against Air Canada for abusing its dominant position to the detriment of Canada 3000. Air Canada's competitors, starting with WestJet, identified shortcomings in the Competition Act that could and, they submitted, should be remedied.
The events, as we all know, attracted much media coverage and commentary across the country, especially after the news that additional amendments would be added to Bill C-23 to address the airline industry specifically. We need to remember that since the coming into force of Bill C-26 in 2000, the Competition Act has included a specific regime for domestic air transport. The amendments tabled today will close a potential gap that was created by Bill C-26 and will encourage compliance with the abuse of dominance provisions of this act.
The commissioner has indicated that based on his experience in the use of the temporary cease and desist power he obtained in Bill C-26 it was possible that the order would expire before an application could be made before the tribunal. The commissioner has an 80 day window in which to determine whether to make an application before the tribunal with respect to an abuse of dominant position by a dominant air carrier, but that determination is dependent upon having the necessary information in his hands.
The perverse effect of the rules as they currently work is that if information is not forthcoming and if in fact an investigation is not completed, the dominant carrier to whom an order is made can return to the abusive conduct the day after the commissioner's order expires. Hence, we have amendments designed to extend the cease and desist period, amendments designed to give real teeth to the powers available to the commissioner, amendments which are timely in the context of returning Canada's airline industry to a stable operation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23 at report and second reading stage.
First of all, I would like to say that we support this bill. Amending the Competition Act, certain provisions of which go back to the last century, is a step in the right direction.
However, we find it somewhat unfortunate that every time there is an opportunity to improve a situation, to improve a bill, to give it more teeth, and there are often arguments in favour of a complete overhaul, the government prefers a strategy of baby steps.
As I mentioned, this bill is a step in the right direction. But it is the same as the reform of the criminal code, where the government had to take two runs at it before it finally came around to what the Bloc Quebecois had been arguing for a long time.
So it is with the Competition Act. It is entirely to the minister's credit that he accepted these amendments to the Competition Act, which is toothless in Canada, if we compare it to the U.S. legislation. But the government could have gone much further.
As for what is good about this bill, one good idea is encouraging private access since, in the previous legislation, competitors were not allowed to take a case directly to the competition tribunal on their own behalf. I think that this is one notable improvement. It also improves the effectiveness and handling of complaints.
This is limited to four areas. However, they are major ones, if compared to all the complaints referred to the competition tribunal in recent years, including complaints regarding the refusal of suppliers to sell in an anticompetitive context, exclusive dealing, tied selling, and market restriction.
Tied selling is a very important matter. There was a loophole in the legislation with respect to the definition of tied selling, as well as the precise situations in which tied selling could be said to exist, and the measures which were proposed to reduce the risk of the practice.
I will give an example of just how important tied selling is. You are clients of a financial institution. You go to this institution for a loan and you are forced, or strongly encouraged, as a precondition to obtaining the loan, to buy insurance or other financial products offered by the same financial institution.
This kind of tied sales strategy by financial institutions or others is illegal. In that regard, we now have an additional tool to at least reduce the possibility of tied sales, without eliminating it completely, of course, since that is practically impossible.
The fact that interim orders can be issued in cases where a business is suspected of anti-competitive practices is a good idea. Monetary penalties also give more teeth to the legislation, particularly with regard to air carriers.
As I was saying, this is not enough. A few moments ago, the minister promised to continue reviewing the act and to look at further amendments. I would like to mention to him that the first improvement that should be made concerns section 45 of the act. This section, which dates back to the end of the 19th century, allows some form of collusion between multinationals to fix prices or to carry out other anti-competitive activities, such as predatory practices or market segmentation. These practices are totally shameful when one considers what has happened over the years in the oil industry.
Then there are price fixing practices. Our legislation does not have enough teeth to prevent that. We may have our doubts about certain price fixing practices, but we do not yet have the necessary tools to lodge formal complaints in that regard. We saw that in the oil industry in particular.
There is another element missing, namely the merger review process.
Two years ago, there was a major debate on mergers, particularly bank mergers. The debate was very productive, because it gave us a better understanding of what was going on in the industry and what its future might be in light of globalization and the opening up of markets.
On that point, we discovered some flaws in the legislation dealing with competition and we also discovered that parliament lacks the authority to review these merger issues, other than through the Minister of Finance's office, which has the final say on any merger plan and on the analysis resulting from its refusal or approval.
Moreover, when mergers are approved, we do not have the required criteria, analysis mechanisms or legislative tools to deal with any unfair practice that might occur once the mergers are completed.
The minister should examine the issue more thoroughly and maybe, in a way, copy the U.S. legislation, which offers several more remedies than the Canadian legislation.
Finally, as the minister mentioned earlier, the Liberal member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge put forward amendments pertaining to normal trade conditions.
In the legislation, with regard to suppliers, for example, who are in a monopolistic situation where businesses have to buy their input from them, or in an oligopolistic market where three or four suppliers control most of the market, a provision allowing recourse to the Competition Tribunal, which requires, however, that complaints be made in a context of normal business conditions, is not good enough for this kind of market.
I will give an example. In the oil industry, the major oil companies control 85% of the wholesale market for oil products. Then what are the normal conditions in their case? Can they rely on the fact that there are abnormal market conditions, which prevent them from supplying independent retailers, small retailers for example, with crude oil or more refined oil? They can argue that conditions are abnormal, but they forget that they are the ones setting the conditions, determining the market conditions.
So, we would have liked the minister, right from the start, to accept the amendment, which came initially from one of his colleagues and which was picked up by the Bloc, because we are non partisan when the time comes to stand up for the interests of consumers and the industry.
We accept the notion that a Liberal can have a good idea. It happens from time to time. But we would have liked the Minister of Industry to accept this amendment of ours right away. There is still time to do so.
The minister could accept this amendment, which would better protect independent retailers, particularly in the oil industry. It is not really any big deal, just a small additional amendment for the government—the minister is able to do it—to remove the issue of normal conditions, and that is all.
But you can rest assured, Madam Speaker, and I would ask you to speak for us to the minister, that we will make a positive contribution to improving the legislation, because it has needed to be updated for years. It needs to be given some muscle, more teeth, in order to better protect independent retailers in a market often dominated by the big boys. We especially need to protect entrepreneurs and consumers, ultimately, from anti-competitive predatory practices, such as price fixing, as we have seen over the years in the oil industry.
By the way, the price of gas today is at 55 cents per litre, approximately. But we are still not protected—due to shortcomings in competition legislation—from practices that we believed to be predatory in the past, and that allowed gas prices to be set at unprecedented levels, to the detriment of consumers, independent truckers and the economy as a whole.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-23. The bill has had a lot of work, as many members have already identified.
Four main components were originally identified in Bill C-23. They are: the co-operation between Canadian and foreign competition authorities; the prohibiting of deceptive notices of prizes; streamlining of the tribunal; and also the broadening of temporary orders. We have added an important fifth category, that of right of private access. The Bloc members are trying to make some amendments today through Motion No. 1, which I want to speak to in a moment.
It seems to me that the amendments to be made to Bill C-23 regarding co-operation between Canadian and international authorities really just are a reflection of the nature of business. More and more business is international in scope and therefore we need co-operation in these areas. These amendments concern the civil competition matters and essentially mirror existing arrangements that we already have on criminal matters with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. This just applies to the civil aspect.
The change will assist the Competition Bureau in gathering information it needs to make decisions affecting competition in Canada. It will ensure that the decisions about domestic competition matters are made in Canada. We support that.
We are a little more ambivalent to the second category of prohibiting deceptive notices of prizes, We cannot hold people's hands; they have to take some responsibility for their own lives. If this would help, I guess we could go along with it. There needs to be more individual responsibility. When people get a phone call and are told that they have won $100,000 but they are going to have to send in $5,000 to get it, they should be pretty wary of what is coming at them.
The third category is the streamlining of the Competition Tribunal process by providing the tribunal with the power to award costs. I think this is an excellent one especially as we move into the area of private access in order to make sure that no frivolous actions come before the tribunal. It needs that.
It also has the power to make summary dispositions and hear and determine references. The summary dispositions essentially just mean that the tribunal can consider whether it wants to hear the case or not. If it is a trivial matter or one designed to find out what the competition is doing, the Competition Tribunal can dismiss it out of hand.
In order to deal with a couple of other aspects of broadening the powers of temporary orders, that is important, especially in the case of the airline industry where a huge industry can be put out of business in a matter of a few months. The cease and desist orders do need to be strengthened with perhaps longer periods of time. This is also aimed at putting severe penalties against those companies which embark on practices essentially to put a competitor out of business. If they ignore the cease and desist order they will be hit with severe penalties.
These are all important elements. However, I would suggest that competition law, although very important, is no substitute for competition. Sometimes Liberal members on the industry committee and here in the House tend to reflect on the idea that we do not need to have healthy conditions to allow business to operate here in a very competitive manner; we can just substitute that with regulation and intervention. If that were to work in the airline industry, this country would have a thriving airline industry. We know that it has not worked.
Intervention and regulation has hurt the airline industry. It hurts most industries. I believe that competition will flourish if we have the necessary business environment to allow that to happen. That means low taxes and low regulation. Also, things like interprovincial trade barriers have to be eliminated so that we can do business inside our country as well as we can do business outside our borders.
It seems to me that while we need to have this competition law, for those who will not abide by the competitive process, it is no substitute.
I want to deal for a moment with the Bloc amendment to Bill C-23. Our concern is that we think several of the amendments are redundant because they are already in Bill C-23. They are specifically subclauses 1, 3, 4 and 5.
In regard to subclause 2, currently under the refusal to deal provisions, the tribunal can order a supplier to do business with a distributor under usual trade terms. If the amendment were passed, it would cause the tribunal to become a trade regulator which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
It seems to me that the people who came before the committee and who probably caused this amendment to happen were from the independent petroleum producers. I asked them whether the right to private access satisfy them. They agreed it would. They said that in the past the competition commissioner would not take their case up and bring it forward. He was acting as a gatekeeper. I asked specifically if they had the right to take the case directly to the tribunal, would that satisfy them. The answer was clearly yes. Having said that, they should pursue that option and not try to make more regulations. Let them make their case before the tribunal and determine who is right or wrong on the issue and live by it.
Subclause 6 would limit the commissioner's ability to participate in a private access case. He would get 30 days to intervene and after that he could only do it if the tribunal requested it. That is not necessary.
Subclause 7 would require consent agreements to be filed with the tribunal. Then it would be as though the tribunal had ordered an agreement.
We disagree with those aspects. The others as I named before, subclauses 1, 3, 4 and 5, are already in the bill. We do not support the amendments to the bill that are presented today.
Largely, we believe that the competition policy is serving us well. It is not meant to protect a competitor; it is meant to protect competition throughout the country.
It is very clear to the Canadian Alliance that there is no substitute for a healthy business environment. All the competition policy and law in the world, all the regulation, is not going to accomplish what we can accomplish by allowing as many competitors as possible to be in business. That is the best insurance that there is good, healthy competition across the country, lots of companies competing on a healthy market basis. They will provide the kind of assurances that we need in terms of competition policy.
Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand during second reading of Bill C-23, the amendment to the Competition Act, and speak not only to the amendment of the member for Laval Centre but to the entire bill.
As mentioned by the Minister of Industry, the amendments were proposed to make it easier for the government to co-operate with foreign competition tribunals. In the global economy it is important that governments have the ability to co-operate with each other when dealing with multinational organizations.
The bill was also introduced to prohibit deceptive notices of prizes. The member for the Canadian Alliance mentioned that it was the responsibility of the individuals receiving such notices to know there was a scam and that they were being set up. A lot of the people who respond tend to be elderly people who are lonely, who are by themselves, who do not get much mail and who in many cases are not completely aware of what is happening in the world and have no reason to suspect a it may be a sham.
For a lot of our older generation that is not part of the culture it grew up in or is one of which it is aware. It seems to be a relatively new phenomenon that letters go out telling people they have won a prize but must put money into it to collect. It is important that we have measures to limit and legislate against that kind of deception through the mail.
Bill C-23 was also introduced to streamline the Competition Tribunal process. Lord knows that any process dealing with quasi-judicial bodies needs to be streamlined. It was interesting to hear the minister's comments about not wanting to establish a culture of unnecessary litigation. His government seems to think it is quite all right to take Canadians to court and get into the litigation process. It will be interesting to see whether the government will take note of the amendments it has put into the Competition Act to limit unnecessary litigation.
The bill was also introduced to broaden the tribunal's ability to issue temporary orders. I know from my days as transportation critic that the competition commissioner and tribunal need to be able to react immediately to situations, even if the actions are temporary, to put cease and desist orders in place and allow some kind of remediation to occur.
Bill C-23 has already been to committee. It was dealt with at the committee level. Witnesses from the business community and elsewhere appeared at the committee to give their impressions of how the amendments might affect them. Two additional amendments were recommended at committee so we now have two amendments to the legislation that was originally put before committee.
One of these concerns is the private right to access. We have heard how important it is for companies, corporations, small business people and individuals to have the ability to advance their causes even though the Competition Tribunal may not think they are as important as other issues. As in many cases, once something is put on the back burner the damage is already done before it can be dealt with. It is important that private right to access be added to the legislation.
There are also tough new measures to deal with anti-competitive practices in the airline industry. Canadians across the country know the difficult times the airline industry has been through. We have recently seen the demise of the second largest air carrier in Canada, Canada 3000. Although the competition commissioner was prepared to put a cease and desist order, the process of applying for the order and having it put in place is often not quick enough to stop the damage that takes place through predatory or overtly anti-competitive practices.
The private right to access is extremely important. It allows private parties to apply directly to the Competition Tribunal for remedies concerning refusal to deal, tied selling, market restriction and exclusive dealing.
As I mentioned earlier, it is important for people to be able to challenge what is considered to be unfair practices by a competitor trying to put out a smaller competitor simply through the use of these kinds of tactics. It is very important to the well-being of members of the small business community to be able to fight back. This legislation will provide them with an opportunity to challenge larger businesses that are trying to put them out of business. It is a very healthy thing in the bill.
Private access also means that if the competition commissioner feels that something is not as important as, say, airline restructuring, it can still go through the process and it is not be tied up for years.
The legislation will create additional case law that will provide the business community with a better understanding of what the laws of the land are and how they might fall under the practices considered not to be in the best interests of competition. It will develop case law that can be used for the furtherance of fair business practices.
The amendments will allow for new penalties, including fines of up to $15 million for an airline acting in an anti-competitive manner. One of the concerns we heard in reaction to Canada 3000 going under and other complaints before the commission, was that the legislation had no teeth to allow the competition commissioner to respond in a way that would stop predatory behaviour. It is nice to see that the legislation will finally contain teeth so the competition commissioner will have some meaningful input into keeping anti-competitive behaviour at bay.
The ability of the competition commissioner to extend cease and desist orders beyond the current 80 days is very important. Because of the time it takes to prepare a case and to bring the complaint against a competitor, it is very timely and sometimes the application has not been processed before the cease and desist order expires. We are very pleased to see this extension because it will make the process more meaningful.
I want to bring up the fact that Air Canada is objecting to the amendments. It feels that it is not right that the competition commissioner or Competition Act would single out one industry, it being the industry being singled out.
Letters were sent from one of its bankers to members of the transport and industry committees claiming that this amendment will prevent the issuance of new equity shares to assist the airline in raising new funds. It should be noted that this would appear to have been very poorly handled by the company seeing as it was the Prime Minister's former chief communications officer who forwarded the letter to members of parliament. The letter which was forwarded to members and both the transport and industry critics was seen by some to have the appearance of a threat. From my discussions with many government MPs, it would appear that there is not a great deal of fondness for the message from the Prime Minister's former chief spin doctor.
The airline is concerned that these amendments were tabled after its appearance at the industry committee. I would think that is a legitimate complaint.
Some have sympathy for the airline because it was not given an opportunity to respond in kind to the industry committee after the fact. The industry committee would probably be wise to allow Air Canada to appear before it and have its case heard.
This is important legislation. We must make sure there is competition, particularly in the airline industry. The coalition will be supporting Bill C-23 at second reading.
Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23. Before I begin, I will say how happy I am to have this opportunity, as this legislation has been in the making for a long time.
First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Laval Centre. The amendment she put forward is, in my view, quite relevant and interesting. By putting forward this amendment, I believe she proved how competent and multi-talented she is. My colleague from Laval Centre excels in a number of areas, including culture and health care, as she said herself. But I did not know she had such expertise in the area of competition. I want to congratulate her and tell her how happy we are to be able to debate this brilliant amendment in the House today.
That being said, we must give credit where credit is due. Although the government is unable to do so, for our part, we routinely recognize the value and merit of our opponents' work. This bill is the result of the work done by a number of members who do not belong to cabinet. They put forward private members' bills that caught the eye of the government to such an extent that it decided to include them in what I would call an omnibus bill, as it deals with various aspects of the Competition Act, with a view to amend and improve it.
The bills I refer to are Bill C-402 inroduced by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Bill C-438 by the member for Kitchener Centre, Bill C-471 by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Bill C-472, again by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
I am not sure that we need to conclude from this listing of the work by members, which the government has decided to use as a basis for drafting is Bill C-23, that the government is not interested in, or does not take into consideration, or does not choose to use, anything but suggestions from its own members. We must, however, be glad that the work done by MPs on an individual basis, or in other words the private members' bills and motions can gain momentum and end up with a positive outcome in the House, as is the case with Bill C-23.
I hope that the minister is lending an attentive ear to what we are saying this afternoon, because his very careful attention to the first speeches was obvious. Let us hope that same attention has been given to the last ones. I think he was justified in pointing out that the bill is the outcome of conscientious and non partisan efforts by departmental staff, of course, but also and primarily by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. For some months now, the committee has been addressing a potential review of the legislation and of the options and avenues that might be envisaged to tighten up Canada's Competition Act .
It is fortunate that, at the conclusion of this work, we were able before its examination to debate Bill C-23, which, as I was saying, is intended to act on certain suggestions.
However, it is unfortunate that the bill did not go further and that this pre-examination did not allow us to go further. The pre-examination should have allowed us to do so, because we had not accepted the principle of the bill. We could therefore have possible expanded the scope of concerns and the various amendments that could have been proposed.
It is also regrettable that the minister, while his speech was very carefully worded, if I can put it like that, set a rather partisan tone at the end of the debate, because, as he had indicated, up to that point the debate had been non-partisan.
We worked together as a committee to improve the bill. I think the amendment by my colleague from Laval Centre would have had the effect, the advantage, of improving the bill substantially. But since this amendment, it appears, did not come from a government member, arguments that I consider fallacious were cited to reject it, politely, I must say, but reject it nevertheless.
But it is not quite true that this amendment came from a member who is not a government member. And no, I am not announcing publicly that my colleague has decided to cross the floor of the House. However, her amendment was largely based on the work done by the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. This work resulted in certain provisions being included in Bill C-472, which sought to protect small retailers, particularly in the oil industry, and small businesses against bigger ones.
In this regard, when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the representatives of the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole mentioned—and the minister should reread their evidence—that some provisions in Bill C-472 seemed to promote their interests, including their access to the resource.
Right now, we have a quasi-monopoly in which the resource—crude oil, oil, gas, refined product—is provided by a very small number of companies. These companies are in a position to drive independent retailers out of business.
Bill C-472 included provisions which eliminated this power of the major oil companies over the small independent businesses. The Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole had just one small reservation and its concerned the expression standard market conditions used in Bill C-472, which it wanted to see removed from the bill.
Why? Because the standard market conditions are defined by the major oil companies in this instance. These companies determine what these conditions are. So, they could have argued before the competition tribunal that the demands of the independent companies went against the standard market conditions they themselves established.
Also, as I said, with extraordinary prescience, my colleague from Laval Centre took from Bill C-472 the relevant provision but without the expression standard market conditions. She presented this amendment, which the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge had himself considered, to the House.
Therefore, the minister should be more open to this motion in amendment since it came initially, not from an opposition backbencher but from a government member.
I invite the House to vote in favour of this amendment, which I believe is important for small businesses, independent distributors and everyone who is faced with a monopolistic or oligopolistic situation. I hope all members will support this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion lost.
Don Boudria: 
moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage and read the second time.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Don Boudria: 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: The yeas have it?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am just checking if everybody is awake. We are going very fast. In my opinion the nays have it.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: The nays have it?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Let us start all over. In that way we will get it right.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour will say yea; all those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Well, the yeas have it this time.
On division, since there is only one member who stood.
(Motion agreed to)
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am well aware that I cannot challenge the Chair, but I question conducting a vote twice when a decision was already called.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member has the right to challenge the Chair, I agree. On the other hand, it was not clear who was standing and who was not standing in the House. If the hon. member wants to take it up with the Speaker, he can take it up with the Speaker, I believe.
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Don Boudria: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, my remarks are brief. All members of the House supported the bill at second reading. I thank them for that. All members of the House of course also supported the bill in committee, at least in the form it was when it eventually left the committee. I want to express my appreciation to all members.
The bill deals with a number of technical amendments. I thank the entire House for its support. Those will conclude my comments.
As I was saying earlier, this is a bill that only brings technical amendments to some bills. Since it has been supported by parliamentarians at all stages up until now, I take this opportunity to thank all members of the House for their support.
Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, to listen to the government House leader speak about the bill it is as if there is nothing to it and we should just say yea and leave here. I guess it does not matter whether we say yea or nay, we will have to say whatever the government side wants us to say anyway, it appears.
There are a couple of very interesting points in the bill. Under clause 4, subsection 19(1) of the act is about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is what a lot of people refer to as the government engine in Atlantic Canada. It is an agency that over the years has done a tremendous amount of good, but it is also an agency that has been manipulated by the government to carry out its wishes rather than fulfil the needs of the people who live in the Atlantic region.
When we hear members in general and the public talk about government abuse of money and about all the money dumped into Atlantic Canada, quite often those of us from Atlantic Canada can stand up and defend what the government is doing, but there are times when we cannot because of the manipulative processes the government uses in funding through agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, it is an agency that has tremendous potential to help Atlantic Canada.
A couple of years ago, my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, the pre-Canadian Alliance Reform Party, talked about the sinkhole in Atlantic Canada. They were referring to Hibernia, into which went a lot of federal government money. Today, since we have educated them on the potential of Hibernia, they realize that the project now returns and will return manyfold the amount of money that the government has put in or will put into it over the years.
There are times when areas such as Atlantic Canada, parts of Quebec and the western regions in the country, maybe not in marine sectors but certainly in agricultural sectors and in oil development, need a boost from government agencies simply because the magnitude of the investment is too great for the private sector, or the start-up risk is too great. Government incentives are needed. That is when government can play an extremely important part.
In the case of Hibernia, it did play an extremely important part. At the time, the private sector could not finance a project of that magnitude. It was not money being thrown into a sinkhole. It was money being put into a region to develop a project that has now shown how beneficial it is, not only to the region but to the country. In fact, I would say it is more beneficial to central Canada than it is to the region in which the project was developed and is operating, because the greatest amount of money coming out of that project comes to the coffers in Ottawa and certainly does not go to the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is an engine which, properly operated, could provide tremendous assistance to the region.
What is happening in the bill? In clause 4, subsection 19(1) of the act is replaced by the following:

The Board shall meet at such times, but at least once in each year, and at such places as the President may select.

What that says is that the board now has to meet only once a year.
The board of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, like the board of Marine Atlantic or any other government agency or crown corporation, should be the group of individuals that directs policy, selects projects for funding and that independently keeps an eye on what money is being spent, where it is being spent, and the benefits that would accrue from such investment.
If the board is a relatively important or influential board, then undoubtedly it will cause some problems for manipulative governments and manipulative ministers. I certainly do not want to say that the minister responsible for ACOA is a manipulative minister, because we understand that the junior minister, the Minister of State for ACOA, is a very good fellow. In fact, he is so good we understand he might be made minister of fisheries shortly.
I hope that prediction comes true, because the individual, coming from Atlantic Canada, would probably know something about the fishery, completely unlike the person who sits in that chair today who would not know a codfish from a bakeapple. That is part of the problem and of course--
Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering what this statement has to do with the bill. I think the member is on a little bit of a rant.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for St. John's West.
Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, all the hon. gentleman wants to do is distract me from issues which are very pertinent to the bill but somewhat embarrassing for the member and his party.
I was saying that the minister really responsible for ACOA is the Minister of Industry. Now, knowing that, in case some people did not, do members think that a person in such a position might manipulate ACOA or the funds that flow through it? I leave it up to hon. members to answer that question.
However, clause 4 of the bill states that the board of ACOA can meet only once a year. To suggest that the board of such an important agency meet only once a year downgrades the agency and its potential and shows that the real decision making power is in the hands of government. The ironic thing about this is that on same page the bill creates an act establishing Telefilm Canada. The clauses describe the constitution of Telefilm Canada, a new agency that the government is putting together consisting of six members to be appointed by the governor in council. It goes on to say the board shall meet at least once every three months, so Telefilm Canada, now being created by the government as part of the bill, is important enough to meet every three months while the board of ACOA is now downgraded to meeting once a year.
I wonder if my hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island, whose area has benefited greatly from ACOA, now sees how importantly his government looks upon this agency which has been so helpful to our region. Maybe he, like I, will protest this downgrading of the board's authority.
The other interesting clause in the bill is about wiping out the old Fisheries Prices Support Board. If members were to speak to anybody in the fishing industry they would say that they have no objection to that, simply because the board has outlived its usefulness. With free trade now and competition factors affecting the industry, not only in relation to Canada dealing with the United States but Canada dealing with the world and vice versa, the Fisheries Prices Support Board and others are certainly no longer relevant. The deletion of that board would not have a negative effect on the fishing industry.
However, again, here we are a couple of days before the House closes for Christmas and we are spending time talking about deleting a board that is no longer relevant. I wonder why the people from the department of fisheries and the minister in particular are not here in front of the House. As I say this, I am presuming that my friend from Prince Edward Island, the chair of the fisheries standing committee, will stand up and agree with what I will say, because he more than any of us realizes the lack of impact on fisheries policy the minister has.
We have a Department of Fisheries and Oceans for which the funding has practically been totally eliminated. The only saving grace that the minister has had at all in recent years is the extra amount of money put into his department to buy out licences from people who are trying to get out of the fishery.
It is an amazing kind of mathematics that has been carried out. Hundreds and hundreds of licences have been bought out and millions and millions of dollars have been expended to do this. Yet when we total up the numbers there are more people fishing today than there were when the process was started. I am not sure what is happening here. I am certain, however, that the minister is not sure what is happening either.
If the minister is to bring something before the House, where is his request for funding to deal with wharves, harbours, dredging and sheltered basins for fishermen? Where is the request for funding to deal with the coast guard problems? If we fly into Canada today we go through all kinds of scrutiny. If we come in by road we are lined up at the borders. However, if we have anything from a dory to an ocean liner we can land anywhere in the country and nobody would know we were coming unless we called ahead.
These are the issues along with the aquaculture problem we are facing. While our aquacultural industry is on the verge of collapse because of competition from Chile, our Minister for International Trade sits by and does nothing. Shrimp fishermen in Atlantic Canada are trying to get their product into the European market. They are hit with a tariff while the Minister for International Trade sits by and does nothing.
It is frustrating when there are so many problems in the department to see that the only contribution of the minister in this session to our fishing industry was to wipe out the Fisheries Prices Support Board. Perhaps it is best to say nothing. What is the good of it when people we talk to do not understand the process anyway?
Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do we have questions and comments on this legislation?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): That was a 40 minute speech with no questions or comments.
Points of OrderKen Epp: Madam Speaker, I raise a very important point of order with respect to procedure in the House just a few minutes ago when you called for a vote. It was a correct ruling on your part that on the voice vote the noise from the nay side far exceeded that on the yea side. You called it correctly by saying “In my opinion the nays have it”. At that stage Liberals stood five demanding a recorded vote. According to the rules of the House, such a vote is automatically deferred, this being a Friday.
I think your procedure by conducting it again and changing the outcome is such that the present debate should be precluded. I think you should revert to the decision already made and called. The Liberals having responded, that decision was made and it was clear.
That is what we should simply go back to. That is my very strong suggestion, plea and, if I may use a union term, demand.
Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on this point of order.
I must say that when you asked for the question the first time, I heard you say “In my opinion the yeas have it”, but you pointed to the nay side.
I am told and the rebroadcasting suggests that you said indeed “In my opinion the nays have it”. At that time, we did see the Liberals stand to ask for a recorded division.
The point of order raised by our colleague from Elk Island is quite relevant, in the sense that it raises some concern, after what happened a little earlier, that is that the Speaker, as objective as she may be, may in some circumstances reverse the result of a vote properly taken earlier.
I do not know what to say in these circumstances, except to suggest that we be informed of the result of the first vote, which, I believe, was conclusive.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I find it strange that we should be having this debate on a bill that has had the support of all members at every stage of the process so far.
I realize that this is not the issue, but it is nevertheless strange to have such a debate at this point, since we started from the premise that we were in agreement. At the beginning I understood much the same thing as what the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes just suggested.
When I heard the Chair the first time, it said that the yeas had it, but it pointed to the nays. It was not clear. To clarify the situation, the Chair put the question to the House a second time. Then, things seemed clear.
This is how I saw it, rightly or wrongly. But the first time I clearly heard “the yeas have it”, while the Chair was pointing to the nays. We were told that the yeas had it, but the Chair pointed to the nays. It was not clear. This is how I saw it.
To clarify the situation, the Chair put the question a second time. This seems normal to me.
Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The House leader may have selective hearing. I was under the impression you said when you stood that the nays have it. Then you pointed quite clearly to the nay side and said that the nays have it.
This could be a dangerous precedent. Maybe everybody agreed with the bill. I have no problems with that. However, if government is showing that “If we don't get the vote our way by a little bit of a push we can get the Speaker to change his or her mind”, that is extremely dangerous.
You made a ruling, Madam Speaker, and unless you stick to that ruling, I think we are setting here today a very dangerous precedent which puts all of us, certainly on this side, in jeopardy in relation to votes on any bills in the future.
Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order in support of my opposition colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc and my colleague in the coalition who just spoke. Very clearly I heard you state that the nays have it. You clearly pointed to this side of the House.
As my colleague from St. John's just said, regardless of the premise of the bill that we are dealing with, what we really are dealing with on this issue is a matter of principle. If this principle is not sound and not intact, whereby if the ruling of the Speaker can be changed at the whim of the government and basically just call for another vote, then it really calls into question everything we do in this Chamber in the sense that it puts the opposition at a distinct disadvantage.
Madam Speaker, I think that if you seek perhaps some advice from the clerks at the table, they may be able to enlighten you as to exactly what transpired and what course of action would be appropriate now.
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber when no doubt what the opposition was saying, that you said nay and you pointed to that side, was correct. I have said that. I stood. However it should also be acknowledged that because there were some discussions going on both sides of the House there was not great clarity and the Speaker--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, excuse me, perhaps the opposition would be quiet and respectful of my right to speak and not disturb me. I have always been respectful to the opposition.
May I continue, Madam Speaker. Then you sought the permission of the House--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I apologize to the secretary of state but we are not going to make this a debate. I would like him to finish and then I will in fact rule.
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, in fact I am concluding. Then at the point you wanted to create greater clarity you sought to call the vote again and there was an implied consent because in the vote taken both sides participated in the nays and the yeas. In fact they gave implied consent, Madam Speaker. The Speaker made the right ruling and the yeas in fact won the day.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I thank all hon. members for trying to enlighten the Chair. There was no intention on the part of the Chair in any way to influence the members' vote or to influence the actual outcome of the motion.
The fact was that from the point of view of the Chair there was not clarity, maybe there was for the members sitting down, in terms of the nays and the yeas. I apologize if that has caused any problems.
On the other hand, I would like to point out for the hon. member for Elk Island that when in fact I did say shall I start again, there was no one who said no.
We can check. There are two ways the Chair can proceed. I also want to mention, and the blues can be checked if the hon. member would like, I did not rule on the first part. I asked only, shall I then take the nays and the yeas again. I did not say it is agreed. I did not say on division. So There was not a ruling actually on the vote. We can check the rules. We can check the blues, if you wish. The Speaker then has the right to rule on Monday.
I think, if I may be so bold to say, we can check them or, if you would like, I can rule right now that the decision here is--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We can be here all day, if you like.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Rule it 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is 2.30 p.m. We are running out of time, as I am told. As you well know at 2.30 p.m. we adjourn the House. I apologize again, but when I did ask if there were five members on the opposition side to rise there was only one member who indicated so.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)