2002-06-07

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill at this stage, where we are considering amendments introduced by the government.
There is an amendment that seems particularly unacceptable to me, because it provides for this bill to be subject to examination of its implementation by the Senate.
I feel as if we were going back to the 18th or 19th century, because the elected representatives here in this House and the government itself wish for unelected people to review this legislation and its implementation after several years. This seems totally irrelevant to me, particularly since we are talking about issues related to pesticides.
It is very important that the people who have a say on the legislation, its content and its implementation be elected by Canadians rather than senators, who can be influenced by all kinds of lobbyists.
We know how these lobbies are powerful here in Ottawa, at present. If, on top of that, we give to a unelected chamber the responsibility for intervening and influencing the content of this legislation after several years, it is as though we were reaching a compromise with official lobbies and trade lobbies.
It is as if we were saying to them “There must be legislation; a conclusion must be reached; a bill must be introduced, but we will try to make it as painless as possible for you. If things calm down in two, three or four years, with the Senate's involvement, we will manage to revisit the situation”.
It is a great pity to have such an amendment in this bill, when the bill itself has the potential to improve the situation.
The Bloc Quebecois considers the bill itself—and not these amendments, including the one that makes it possible to review application of the law a few years later, but rather the bill itself—to be positive and the product of a spirit of co-operation. Overall, we intend to support it.
It does, however, strike us as important for members to reflect on this. Why suddenly come up with an amendment of this type? What is more, it is an amendment that, while not creating a total precedent, nonetheless creates precedents for the future. Why would there not be the same type of amendment in future to all manner of laws, particularly those concerning the environment?
I am very much surprised that the Minister of the Environment would accept such amendments, thus giving a say to people who have not been elected, not only senators but also the lobbyists that are behind them, the multinationals in this industry.
In a sector in which human health is at stake, in a context where recent knowledge makes us realize that we must minimize the impact of pesticides, it is inappropriate to have presented such an amendment.
The bill itself explains that the people of Quebec and of Canada are increasingly concerned by the negative impact on health of all kinds of pesticides.
There has been an exponential development in recent years of the pesticides available. Now we realize—and it was even on the news yesterday—that people are developing all manner of illnesses that may be linked to pesticide use, cancer among them.
Our children are affected, and far more in urban areas that might be expected.
However, as we use pesticides a lot, it is essential that the public be made aware of the situation. Governments too.
I repeat: why should we give the Senate a say when we are not required to do so? Why not keep that right for ourselves, for elected members of parliament? This seems much more important to me.
Furthermore, about this bill, the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides has said that we should not disregard the damages caused by pesticides.
“Toxicologists who used to say that pesticides are not terribly dangerous are now changing their stance”. This is what Édith Smeesters, a biologist and the President of the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, said.
Even the National Academy of Sciences in the United States is now saying that being exposed to pesticides causes serious neurological problems for young children. They have found that when a mother or a father plays with a small child on the grass, if pesticides have been repeatedly used on the grass, the parent could be contributing unawares to the development of certain ailments in the child. It is essential that we remedy this situation.
The bill now before us will at least partially improve the situation. We must keep on working toward this goal because we need legislation in this area.
It is said that pesticides have few short term effects, other than nausea and diarrhea, but that there is much greater long term risk. This is the most insidious type of illness. If we were to make a comparison, it is similar to tobacco and cigarettes. It is possible to enjoy smoking and to do so for several years, but it is the cumulative effect of the years of smoking and risk factors that diminish quality of life and increase the rate of mortality over the long term.
It is the same type of situation with pesticides. On a day to day basis, when we are on our lawns or in a public park, we are not necessarily aware of the immediate impact that pesticides can have, but repeated exposure to them causes serious long term problems.
We must also remember that the entire pesticide industry is important. We must keep this in mind when looking at the amendment that the Liberal majority is trying to get through right now, to give the Senate the right to review the legislation in a few years. It is at this point that the burgeoning industry will be able to intervene among unelected parliamentarians and propose amendments to the act that will be introduced in the Senate with or without the approval of the House of Commons.
As a result, it is very important that we reject this amendment. I think that the members of the Liberal majority and of the opposition parties should give serious thought to the appropriateness of this amendment and vote against it. In the end, we will still have a very positive bill and one that is better than if these amendments were included.
For example, let me quote Ms. Smeesters from CAP:

The residential lawn care industry has grown spectacularly in the last two years. This is a result of mass marketing. A well orchestrated ad campaign has convinced people that their happiness depends on a perfect lawn, that weeds are a serious threat and that pesticides will save them. This is a typically North American behaviour and we want to stop it. The growth in this industry is maddening, since lands are now polluted with pesticides.

We will have to be on guard against this lobby. This is why we must vote against today's amendment introduced by the Liberal majority.
We must ask ourselves why and how the government could be convinced of the need for such an amendment. Members of the House of Commons are elected by the people. In the Senate, we have people who are not elected, who represent different lobbies and are influenced by them. Many people owe their appointment to the fact that they were once bagmen, that is of people collecting funds from companies for the Liberal Party of Canada, for the Progressive Conservative Party and the other parties represented in the Senate. Why would the government and the elected members of parliament give a voice to a chamber of unelected people, when all the necessary expertise can be found in the industry and in the pressure groups that want a tougher stand on pesticides?
As for the Senate, when it was created its role may have been to ensure the quality of legislation to compensate for a certain lack of training of members of parliament. This is no longer the case. In this House, we have all the necessary skills to determine whether legislation is appropriate. This is why I believe it is important to defeat the proposed amendment. I think it is important for the public and members of the House to know that we want to make a very constructive contribution to the bill. The proof of this is that we will be voting in favour of the bill, but this amendment does not improve it in any way.
For these reasons, I will vote against the amendment that would allow the Senate to review the legislation, but I will vote in favour of the bill.
I hope that we will continue to improve this bill in the most acceptable fashion possible to ensure that it is adequate, so that we can say in 5, 10 or 15 years “We did good. We made the corrections at right time and now there are fewer illnesses resulting from the use of pesticides”.
In that sense, as legislators, we will have done our job properly.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, before being elected to represent the constituents of Surrey Central, I was in the business of pest control and the marketing of pesticides. I do have some experience dealing with pesticides and I hold a degree in agriculture.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development when it studied pesticides, we tabled a minority report on behalf of the official opposition.
With this background I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests. In the report stage, only Motion No. 1 and No 7 are up for debate and vote. The others were ruled out of order. Motion No. 1 reverses the PC amendment and is merely changing an “and” to “or”. It likely makes no difference either way. Motion No. 7 reverses a broadly supported subamendment at that committee which adds the “Senate or both Houses of parliament” instead of a committee of the House of Commons only to conduct a mandatory review.
Those are very straightforward amendments so I will not make much fuss about them. However the legislation intends to control the import, manufacture, sale and use of all pesticides in Canada.
All stakeholders recognize that there is room for improving the transparency, efficiency and accountability in our pesticides management system. The official opposition advocates promoting a balanced approach toward dealing with the issues relating to the management and regulation of pest control products, and to offer recommendations on how the Pest Management Regulatory Agency can improve on fulfilling its mandate to protect human health and the environment.
Regrettably, the government lacks balance and does very little to promote partnership and understanding between stakeholders, farmers and property owners. It fails to recognize the tremendous efforts and successes achieved by manufacturers and users of pest control products to make those products as safe to human health and the environment as they are effective in controlling pests and protecting crops.
In the May 1999 report, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development dealt with a number of issues relating to identifying, managing, and reducing pesticide risks. The environment commissioner's criticisms of the PMRA included concern over inefficiencies in its regulatory operations, timeline delays within re-evaluation activities, a lack of information sharing and lack of co-operation with industry.
Unlike legislation in other jurisdictions, as part of the approval process the bill requires manufacturers to show that their chemicals are effective. This adds unnecessary cost and time to review the process. New product registrations should not be delayed. The PMRA should only be concerned with safety and the market will decide if a pesticide is efficient or not.
The responsibility for risk management must be shared between the PMRA and industry and they should agree on the principles and ground rules guiding risk management. The stakeholders are eager to work with government to ensure the improvements in risk management practices and processes are implemented in Canada.
The efficiency of the PMRA's registration operations has a direct impact on Canada's ability to remain competitive internationally. Such a transparent process would go a long way toward enhancing public confidence and accountability in the regulatory system.
We asked the government to amend the bill to include specific approval procedures for minor use chemicals. We asked the government to align Canada's risk management practices with those of our trading partners and through Canada's membership in organizations such as the OECD.
The environment commissioner expressed serious concern over the credibility gap that exists between talk and action in the federal government's environmental agenda. The lack of co-operation in federal interdepartmental information sharing is a systemic and chronic problem that has persisted under this Liberal government.
The re-evaluation of scientific evidence should not result in a duplication of the work conducted by other OECD countries. Opportunities to accept OECD decisions or to co-ordinate re-evaluation activity among other industrialized countries with regulatory systems similar to that of the Canadian systems should be fully utilized.
Given that 50% of Canada's agricultural production is exported to the United States, priority efforts must be made to align re-evaluation activities with those of the United States.
The PMRA should step up work with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to harmonize data requirements with NAFTA partners and those of other OECD countries.
The official opposition believes that a clear understanding of environmental regulations and research responsibilities between federal and provincial governments and the private sector must be achieved.
The new act authorizes the exchange of confidential business information, including trade secrets, and creates the potential for intrusion into the area of intellectual property rights, or a violation of fundamental individual and corporate freedoms. A more thorough investigation of these issues is necessary.
There are also fears that aircraft dusting pesticides may potentially be used by terrorists. Canadians need assurances regarding security and safety.
Bill C-53 ignores addressing the problems faced by Canadian farmers. For instance, pesticides banned in Canada are not banned in many other countries around the world, including the United States of America. However agricultural produce, fruits and vegetables, from these countries continue to be imported for consumption by Canadians. Not only does this pose a risk to Canadians but such produce is cheaper to produce since the banned chemicals are usually cheaper in price. Canadian farmers, on the other hand, have to use chemicals that are expensive and therefore are at a competitive disadvantage.
The use of pesticides in non-agricultural settings has also become a subject of controversy. The government has done very little to further the understanding of the need for pesticides in urban environments and to recognize the importance and role of the products in non-agricultural sectors in controlling weeds, insects, fungal and other diseases. Pesticides are important to allergy sufferers in minimizing the risk of related disease or damage associated with weeds, pollens or moulds. Pest control products are one tool to create healthy environments and increase the aesthetic value of land.
The official opposition is supportive of developing and using proven alternatives in urban environments. Everyone agrees that the health of Canadians should be paramount. Increased efforts to protect the health of children and pregnant women are to be commended.
A moratorium on pest control products should not be put in place until there is a substantial amount of conclusive scientific evidence that unequivocally links such products to human disease or ill health.
The official opposition also believes that proven sound science, domestically and internationally, should continue to be the cornerstone for the development of a public policy that is balanced and reasoned.
The official opposition encourages a national pest management education program with the industry that will further the knowledge of Canadians surrounding pest management challenges and the tools to deal with them. The Canadian Alliance believes that the single agency model of the PMRA provides for greater accountability and efficiency in pesticide regulations.
The Canadian Alliance supports the general intent of the bill but believes that the amendments I have mentioned should be made to reflect changes within the industry.
The official opposition advocates promoting a balanced approach toward dealing with issues relating to the management and regulation of pest control products.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like my address today to be designed in two or three parts, some specifically on a couple of the amendments that the department has moved subsequent to the committee's work, which again represents the attitude of the government that the committee work generally is useless work, that it is to be ignored, that any changes to legislation that are sent from the bureaucracy or the minister's office, or in some cases the PMO, are sacrosanct, not to be altered by the plebeians of the House of Commons in the form of members of the committee, in this case the health committee.
It shows up in what was really a fairly important but small amendment that was made by the health committee with regard to the giving of information to the public, requiring producers of these pesticides to disclose in detail the contents of the product they were putting out for consumption in the general marketplace and which many times has a negative impact on our natural environment, as well as the health of Canadians.
In that regard, it was simply saying that we, as intelligent members of society, citizens of Canada, have a right to know what is being placed in the natural environment. We have a right to make decisions as to whether we will expose ourselves or our dependent children to these chemicals. If we are going to make intelligent decisions we need to know the contents, not just the main ingredient, which the bill does provide for, but all the other ingredients.
The first motion today in effect makes that much less likely to happen as a result of the intervention by the minister and the department to reverse the work done by the committee, a committee which was working not just from this bill as drafted by the department, but also from a lengthy report that was done a year and a half to two years ago by the environment committee which had put forward in great detail the type of legislation, set out what the problems were as far as regulating pesticides and set out in very extensive detail what would be required in legislation to provide a legislative and regulatory system to protect Canadians and our natural environment.
To some significant degree the bill does not represent the recommendations that were in that report. One of those recommendations was to give individual citizens who would be exposed to these chemicals as much information as possible. This would have been just one way they could have done it. As I said, at least that was accepted by the health committee. However it is now being reversed by this subsequent amendment from the government.
We need to appreciate the significance of this. There are other parts of the bill that do not go far enough. For example, it does not go far enough in giving workers who will be using these chemicals and who will be exposed to them quite extensively, in some cases, on a daily basis, such as horticulturists and farmers, sufficient information they need. As well, it does not give the doctors who will be treating those workers should they develop health problems enough knowledge about what they have been exposed to.
As I say, the position of the government is that we are forcing producers to tell us the main ingredients. I heard an example used at the health committee. This is like saying to an individual who has a very high intolerance level to the peanut, “Here is a salad. There is lettuce in it”, and then forgetting to tell the person that ground peanuts are also a part of that salad. Therefore the person has a very negative reaction to the salad. We are doing exactly the same thing. We know there is a major chemical in the pesticide but do not mention all the other ones.
We have to consider, with this proposed amendment, the whole question of the cumulative effect. We may have a chemical that forms 75% of the product and three or four others that form 5%, 6%, 7% or 8% of it. How can a researcher analyze the impact of the cumulative effects of 5% of this chemical and 2% of that chemical on the human body, on animal tissue and on the natural environment, when this information is not available? Researchers, whether they be biologists or medical researchers, will not be assisted at all in their ongoing scientific work and analyses when they do not know to what people, animals and the natural environment have been exposed. The bill does not require that to occur.
We have to put this in context. There is something like 6,000 to 7,000 chemicals that are regulated and permitted in Canada as pesticides. We must think of the potential cumulative effect of those and the potential danger from interaction. We now know more and more about the potential danger, and in many cases real danger, of the ill-effects of the interaction of various chemicals, whereas in the past we ignored them. A small amount of one chemical acting independently may be of no concern to human health, animal species or to the natural environment. However, if it is combined, sometimes in a very small proportion, with another chemical there might be a very negative impact on human health.
Another point I want to make is a more general one. We would have liked to have seen in the bill a regime for phasing out the use of pesticides by general consumers on gardens and around households and schoolyards, basically in an urban-suburban area. One major recommendation in the report of the environment committee of couple of years ago was that the phase out and absolute ban of cosmetic pesticides be a cornerstone of any legislation of this nature.
I sat in on some of the hearings of the committee. It was really quite sad to hear about people who were on occasion confined to their homes. They could not go outside due to danger from cosmetic pesticides.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill at report stage. I ask that the House not approve the amendment contained in Motion No. 1.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.
It was time for the legislation regulating the use of pesticides to be modernized. It has been talked about for years. For years, there have been proposals on the table.
For years, many scientists have been warning the public that using pesticides is not a trivial matter and that pesticides are products which carry a health risk.
More and more studies are showing the long term impact of pesticides on human health. There is particular emphasis on the effects of pesticide induced illnesses among young children, who have more contact with pesticides because they tumble around on the lawn and often play outside, in close contact with the elements of nature, which may contain vapour from pesticides, insecticides or herbicides.
More and more epidemiological studies are showing beyond any doubt that, in the medium and long term, pesticides can definitely have an impact on human health, not just in a sporadic way, such as dizziness or vomiting, but that they can even actually cause cancer.
The use of pesticides has become routine and their danger played down to the public over the years, often by the companies which sell these products. The practice of using pesticides is not a trivial matter. In Quebec alone, 8,200 tonnes of pesticides were spread in 1997. Even in the ornamental horticulture sector, there has been a 60% increase since 1992 in the use of pesticides by ordinary citizens, who often lack information about the dangers of using these products.
As I mentioned earlier, there has been a greater attempt at raising awareness in the past few years coming not from governments but from scientists—particularly in American publications—who are warning the public about the dangers of using pesticides, particularly for improving the appearance of lawns, a popular practice since the mid-1970's.
As the old saying goes, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. We always want to have the greenest lawn in the neighbourhood. It is a matter of pride in our modern life. We want to be able to say our lawn is greener than the Jones' and that it is free of weeds and dandelions.
Attitudes are changing, though, and so much so that the federal government wants to modernize the Pest Control Act by implementing several recommendations of the committee, and that the Quebec government has also introduced a bill and done some promotion and education to help the public understand the risks of using pesticides.
In the last several years, municipalities have regulated the use of pesticides within their jurisdictions. But that kind of regulation is a brutal attack against the markets of big corporations that not only produce pesticides but also spread them on the lawns for consumers.
ChemLawn and Spray Tech have challenged before the supreme court the right of the municipalities to make regulations on the use of pesticides, and they lost. It is a huge victory because these companies which are backed by the manufacturers of pesticides like Monsanto and CIL all too often control the information and the market. This is happening not just here, but also internationally.
The situation is so serious that a major debate has been going on for some 15 years regarding the fact that these companies control not only the pesticides, insecticides or herbicides that are used for agriculture, which accounts for 80% of their use, or for cosmetic purposes, but also control related seeds. Through cross-breeding and genetic manipulations of the seeds, they have managed to ensure that these seeds cannot reproduce themselves. Therefore, it is not possible to keep some of the seeds harvested at the end of the crop year to start the following crop year. These seeds and the plants they produce are also subject to very strict requirements regarding the use of pesticides and pest control in general. The result is that, first, farmers no longer have control over their production and their future. This is happening here.
Second, they are forced to buy from these companies, which have an upstream and downstream monopoly on agricultural production and sales.
Third, these companies are often transnationals, such as CIL and Monsanto, and they take advantage of their presence all over the world to organize the market, depending on local regulations.
This has happened in the past. It happened with DDT, a pesticide that was used massively by farmers in Quebec and in Canada. The product was banned here after being banned in the United States, because it was proven to be a strong cancer causing agent. Several years after it had been banned in the United States and Canada, this product was still being used in South America. South American farmers were once again being exploited by the large companies that were producing DDT. They were not warned of the dangers related to DDT, a product that had been banned for a number of years already in Canada and in the United States.
It is high time that these corporations, which not only control pesticides, but the very future of agriculture in Quebec and in Canada, and even throughout the world, were brought into line. It is time to break their monopoly on the future of humanity. When one has such perfect control over food production, one also indirectly has perfect control over the survival of the human race.
This being said, we deplore the fact that, with the two amendments that were presented, the government only did 80% of the work. It could have improved its legislation and made us 100% happy.
First, when we talk about the legislation review process by the Senate, there is something wrong there. The Senate is asked to continue legislative measures or to stop them, while it is for the House of Commons, comprised of elected members who vote, to do its job as lawmaker. It is not legitimate to ask a non elected chamber to decide on the continuing or not of a public policy bill like this one, when it was passed by elected members.
Second, we would have liked that one of the main recommendations of the committee be included in the bill, that is promoting alternative products to chemical pesticides. There are organic pesticides everywhere. We can blame Canada, as was the case in the 1980s when I was an economist at the Union des producteurs agricoles, for its slow approach in registering pesticides, compared to what is happening in the United States. It is totally different there. The process is very slow here, while American producers now have access to alternative pesticides that are not harmful to the environment. They have a competitive edge over our producers. We should model the registration process and the related resources on the United States. This is what needs to be done here.
Third, we deplore the second amendment proposed by the government on the confidentiality of business data. The government could have ignored this type of consideration, especially since there is a problem with public information about the danger of pesticides when the companies are asked to conduct analyses on the possible effects of their products on health, and these analyses are kept confidential and the public cannot have access to them.
We will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill, but we would have liked the government to do 100% and not 80% of its job.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Friday mornings are often full of nice surprises and I do consider it a nice surprise to be able to speak today to a bill that deals mostly with public health.
I worked directly with sick children for many years, so everything that has to do with the health of children is a priority of mine, even more so since I have become a grandmother.
I would like to make a comparison to explain the significance of this bill. I do not think it has been done yet in the House, so it should be very worthwhile.
Antibiotics were developed in the 1950s. They were considered a great thing because they were healing patients. Very serious studies had been carried out. In the end, they concluded that the benefits outweighed the side effects.
I would like to tell the House about two types of antibiotics that were widely used at the time. The first one was called chloromycetin. Park &amp; Davis shareholders made a lot of money on this drug until a lengthy study showed that it had catastrophic side effects on blood cells, namely the red blood cells which carry oxygen, the white blood cells which are our body's defence system, and the platelets which prevent us from bleeding to death when we hurt ourselves.
Chloromycetin lost all its virtues, since its side effects far outweighed any benefit it could provide.
The second antibiotic I want to talk about also had serious side effects. it was called gentamicin and was prescribed to patients with cystic fibrosis. Everyone has heard of cystic fibrosis. Everyone knows that Celine Dion lost a niece to cystic fibrosis. This wonderful antibiotic had irreversible side effects on the auditory nerve. So, people lived a little longer, but went deaf. These are just two examples.
One of my colleagues was talking about DDT recently. I remember seeing cans of this product in my house, in my little village of Vaudreuil. It was fantastic, extraordinary. However, we have since discovered that DDT had terrible effects on the environment and on people's health.
In any bill dealing with health, there is a very important principle known as the precautionary principle. We are now using pesticides for several reasons. In the last 10 to 15 years, the most obvious one for all city dwellers is to have a beautiful lawn. Everybody wants to have a beautiful lawn that looks just like the green carpet here in the House, although it does have a few spots. A green carpet is quite nice. But a few spots on the lawn will not kill anybody. It is essentially a question of appearance.
I find it quite ridiculous to threaten people's health for cosmetic reasons only. This makes no sense at all in terms of what is really important in life.
However, when we talk about pesticides in agriculture, we know that we all have to eat and that we all want to eat healthy products that are not dangerous to our health. I feel it is important that the pesticides used to ensure good quality products be as harmless as possible.
We therefore need quality products, products that have been carefully evaluated and that are still regularly evaluated, even once they have been recognized as safe enough.
I really wonder about what the government is up to with its amendment to re-examine the entire legislative process, which is the normal thing to do, but give that role to the Senate.
It is true that since our senators are appointed for life, or rather until they reach 75 years of age, some will probably recall certain pesticides they knew when they were young. They said “Obviously, they are no good”. There may certainly be an element of truth in this, but I personally do not think that it is a good reason.
Each time we talk about fundamental issues like public health, I always think that this is a responsibility that belongs to duly elected parliamentarians. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vigorously oppose the Liberal government's amendment.
The second amendment is also quite disquieting. I do not have to remind those who are listening today that, for a few weeks now, there has been a momentum in favour of transparency all over the country. I think it goes against the required transparency to say that some documents will remain confidential to protect the competitiveness of businesses.
We know very well that competitiveness, if it is necessary, can also be the source of extremely serious abuses. People can deliberately hide things they know are tremendously harmful just to continue raking in the profits. We have seen some recent examples of this.
When I was very young, people smoked and it was not dangerous; it was sort of trendy, fashionable and everybody did it. Now, as we know, the situation is quite different. U.S. companies, and maybe even some Canadian companies, have been sued for having caused cancer.
So, if we are not careful about the whole pesticide issue, if we do not invest more in research to find natural agents to control pests and parasites, one day we will have to deal with major health problems, there will be lawsuits and, in the end, the public will pay for the government's bad decisions.
Bill C-53 which is now before us is good legislation. It is not perfect, but, thank God, I am a Quebecer and happy to be one because Quebec has, in this area as in many others, legislation which is slightly ahead of Canadian legislation. Therefore, the gaps we see in Bill C-53 will be filled in a responsible and intelligent manner by the Quebec legislation, which meets the public's expectations.
It is no accident that a small suburban community west of Montreal was the first to ban lawn care products. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever been to Hudson, but there you will find fine homes on beautifully landscaped lots. In this small community, they have perhaps understood that health is far more important than a manicured lawn and that weeds are not really all that ugly. After all, they are a life form.
Thus Hudson did a service to Quebec and Quebecers and I think this community also helped open the eyes of the rest of Canada since, as my colleague said and everyone knows, the supreme court confirmed that Quebec municipalities were entitled to regulate the use of pesticides within their boundaries.
In conclusion I would like to make the connection with the famous GMOs, genetically modified organisms. There was a lot of talk about these products, but we have not talked about them for some time now.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we talking about the Liberals?
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, we are not talking about the Liberals, because if they were genetically modified, it did not work.
The public is askin for safety and has left this up to the men and women who were elected here. If we are able to work properly with regard to pest control products, I greatly hope that, with regard to GMOs, we be able to stand up in Quebec and Canada.
I am sure the hon. member representing New Brunswick, who is looking at me and is very concerned about health issues, will applaud what I just said. I am watching him.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have spoken to this issue. I know I do not have much time left, although you will probably give me extra time to finish my speech after oral question period.
For several years, I was the environment critic for my party. Other colleagues have since acted in that capacity. As we know, the pesticide industry is a very big industry here. Jurisdiction over the industry is shared by the two levels of government, the Government of Quebec and the federal government.
We know that in the pesticide industry, registration is left entirely to the federal level. In some regards, I am very happy that this bill has been introduced because the two levels of government will have to find a way to co-operate more closely and in a more harmonious way.
At present, many pesticides are registered on an almost industrial basis, while there are significant difficulties concerning the use of pesticides all over the country and Quebec.
As an example, let us look at the small municipality where I live, Prévost, which has taken important decisions on pesticides. If you live within a certain distance of a lake, pesticides are absolutely prohibited.
In my case, this is not always easy. I live very close to a lake and I am not allowed to use pesticides on my lawn. As the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, who does not like dandelions, was saying, we are sometimes forced to make do because there are laws.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Dandelions are good in salad.
Monique Guay: Yes, they ares very good in salad. I will have him taste some. However, we must abide by the law and this forces us to use the lawnmower more often and to treat our lawn differently.
We are increasingly focusing on the development of environmentally friendly technologies. Those technologies are better for the environment and offer better alternatives.
Since the time I have left before members' statement is running out, I will stop here and continue after oral question period.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for always being so co-operative. She will have seven and a half minutes after the question period, and maybe a small bonus, which will give her eight minutes.

Statements By Members
Anglican Diocese of the ArcticMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently members of the Anglican Diocese of the Arctic met in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut.
During their 10 day meeting, the first Inuk Bishop of the Arctic was elected, Andrew Atagutaaluk.
Andrew will succeed Chris Williams, who is retiring after serving in the Arctic for 42 years. Chris and his wife Rona came to the north from Cheshire, England and brought up their two children, Ron and Julia, in various communities in Nunavut. Chris has dedicated his life to the Anglican Church, serving Inuit in Inuktitut respectfully and thoughtfully.
I would like to ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Andrew Atagutaaluk, who will be ordained as bishop in September, and in thanking Chris and Rona Williams for their lifetime of service and wishing them a very happy retirement.
BaseballMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Surrey's Adam Loewen, who, at 18, was selected fourth overall in major league baseball's first year player draft. This is the highest a Canadian has ever been drafted. Adam, a 220 pound six foot, six inch, left handed pitcher with a smoking mid-90s fastball, plays with the Whalley Chiefs, a team with a long, proud history of baseball in Surrey.
As a child and youth, my son played baseball. I spent a number of years coaching. I vividly recall the wide eyes, the flushed cheeks, the dusty faces, the skinned knuckles, elbows and knees, the broad smiles and the high fives after a difficult catch or a good hit. Many had dreams of the big leagues, but as they matured, followed other successful paths in life. I still see them today, now fathers themselves, some coaching their own children.
Adam Loewen is one of the rare few who, through dedication and hard work, have brought that boyhood dream within reach. We wish him success and look forward to that day when the dream is fully realized, the day he throws his first major league pitch.
Millennium ScholarshipsMr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that three of my constituents have received millennium scholarships from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
Created by the Liberal government, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation provides opportunity to 100,000 Canadians in need every year. The foundation has one objective: to help our best and brightest young Canadians fulfill their academic potential at a Canadian institution.
Ashley Dunlop received a national level scholarship; Shea Loewen received a provincial level scholarship and was also the recipient of my own Member of Parliament Canadian Student Award; and Daryl Godkin received a local level scholarship.
I offer sincere congratulations to three outstanding young Canadians.
Official Languages ActMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to praise Mr. Louis Quigley, a resident of Riverview, New Brunswick. Mr. Quigley took on the proverbial city hall and won. City hall in this case is us: the House of Commons, its Board of Internal Economy and the Attorney General of Canada.
On June 5 the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the House of Commons was obliged to respect the Official Languages Act. Can members imagine? What a revolutionary concept: We legislators are subject to our own laws.
The court ruled that the House is obliged to ensure that our debates are available in English or French as per every Canadian's choice. I hope the House will accept the wisdom of this decision and proceed to its implementation.
I say bravo to Mr. Quigley, an exemplary Canadian.
Petits chanteurs de Laval and Voix boréalesMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two choirs, the Petits chanteurs de Laval and the Voix boréales, have once again had a hugely successful season both in Canada and abroad.
After China and Japan, the Petits chanteurs de Laval and the Voix boréales will be in concert throughout the summer, in just about every part of Canada, performing numbers from their 20 years of repertoire.
Their performances feature songs in French and in English, but they also have songs in numerous other languages, such as Chinese and Zulu.
This fall, these young singers from Laval will perform for New Yorkers in Carnegie Hall.
These experiences provide the young people with a great deal of pleasure as well as the opportunity to be part of a group. These experiences will prepare them to be Canadian citizens who are well prepared to take an active part in the life of our beautiful country.
Blood Samples ActMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, three years ago I tabled a bill that would protect the rights of professionals and good Samaritans who risk contracting a disease when exposed to someone else's bodily fluids.
Isobel Anderson, an Ottawa police officer, was one of the bill's earliest supporters. At committee meetings, community events and press conferences she told the heart wrenching story of how she was stabbed with a blood filled needle. Yet there was and is no law that compels a suspect to give a blood sample to help determine a course of medical treatment. Her efforts helped push the good Samaritans act to the committee stage twice and onto the agendas of the Attorneys General of Canada and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.
Like other police officers, Ms. Anderson does more than just enforce the law. Her colleagues look up to her and she is often a source of advice and comfort for others facing similar nightmares. Her outstanding achievements have been recognized by her peers and she has now been nominated for the Ontario Women in Law Enforcement Award.
We wish Isobel Anderson the best during the selection process, but more important, we thank her and thousands of other police officers who give of themselves every day to make our lives better.
National DefenceMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to an event that occurred last fall with virtually no media attention and no opposition questions here in the House.
That event was the beginning of a new era as far as Canadian search and rescue is concerned. Last October, the 442 Squadron of Comox, British Columbia, officially accepted the first of a series of helicopters, the Augusta-Westland CH-149 Cormorants.
The Cormorants will provide Canada with one of the best search and rescue capacities in the world. Their acquisition will greatly enhance the capacities of our armed forces.
Military experts are unanimous in their praise of the Cormorant, citing its utility in a country where extreme climatic conditions make search and rescue operations the most difficult in the world.
Crews testing the CH-149 were quick to realize its virtues and its great suitability for emergency situations.
Transition from the Labrador to the Cormorant will be a gradual process, with the last Labrador phased out in 2003.
Oceans DayMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, this year's theme of Oceans Day is “Give Ocean Life a Safe Harbour From Climate Change”. It reminds us of the role that oceans play as a source of life throughout the world.
First proclaimed ten years ago during the United Nations Earth Summit, the World Oceans Day is seen as a means to educate people about the health of oceans.
In the riding of Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, the Norjoli school and les Jardins de Métis have come together to develop a project to highlight the importance of the St. Lawrence River and the oceans. The objective of the project is to raise awareness among youth and the public of the resources found in the river and the oceans and of the need to preserve and protect them.
The St. Lawrence River, estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence contain a great diversity of animals and plants. The resources and the majestic lands along its shores influence the lives of thousands of people and provide for a variety of activities: fishing, swimming, boating, industry and ecotourism. It is the responsibility of each and everyone of us to preserve their beauty and health.
Seniors MonthMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind my colleagues in the House and all Canadians that in many provinces June is celebrated as Seniors Month.
It is a time to recognize the contribution that seniors bring to our communities and to reflect on the impact that Canada's aging population will have on our society. The implications of an aging society will be profound and enduring, and we need to work together to address this significant social change.
This was the focus of the Second World Assembly on Ageing held in Madrid in April. The conference provided Canada with an opportunity to share its knowledge in the area of aging, to learn from the experience of other countries and to build a stronger direction for the future.
Canada is well positioned to respond to these challenges. I encourage all of us to draw from the contributions of all of our citizens, young, old and very old, in order to build a stronger society for all ages.
AgricultureMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, next week five farmers will go on trial in Lethbridge, Alberta for exporting their own grain into the United States. The sad and hypocritical fact is that if they had lived in Ontario or Quebec they would not have broken any laws. On March 4 a National Post editorial titled “Prairie Injustice” pointed out the real problem:

It is unconscionable that farmers may not legally sell the fruits of their labour to whomever they please--

The Liberal government simply overrides fundamental property rights whenever it suits its agenda and fails to understand the concept of freedom of contract.
Here is another outrageous example: Organic farmers in the prairies are forced to sell their grain to the wheat board and buy it back before they can sell it to their customers. This, despite the fact that the board does not even market organic grains. Bill and Myrita Rees in my riding estimate the cost to them on a 1,000 bushel load of grain is $2,800.
When is this government going to start treating prairie farmers just like other Canadian farmers?
TourismMr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and share with the House some of the successes of our province.
Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in Atlantic Canada, with its annual rate of growth outpacing all traditional sectors. It is estimated that tourism salaries and spending inject some $3.8 billion into the economy of our region each year. That is why the ACOA agency has made tourism a strategic priority and supports local initiatives such as the root cellar project in the town of Elliston in my riding of Bonavista--Trinity--Conception.
Elliston is a small community of approximately 400 people located on the northeastern tip of the Bonavista Peninsula. Once a busy fishing settlement, it is now a popular tourist destination known as the root cellar capital of the world. With 135 documented root cellars, some of which have survived nearly two centuries, Elliston is a cultural centre for those who want to understand early Newfoundland subsistence.
Promotion of the cellars has resulted in national and international recognition. Each summer Tourism Elliston Inc. hosts a four day festival which attracts up to 14,000 visitors--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair.
CrtcJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, by refusing to overturn a seriously flawed CRTC decision ignoring its own guidelines in the granting of a broadcasting license to Craig Broadcast Systems Inc. the cabinet has shown a complete disregard for the local programming and Canadian content requirements of the Broadcasting Act.
As a result of this fundamentally flawed decision already underserviced communities like Windsor, dominated by American programming, could see and probably will see a substantial decline in local programming. The decision completely ignores the needs of communities in southern Ontario like Hamilton and Kitchener--Waterloo. If not reversed it will result in the falling by the wayside of local programming and services over the next decade.
The Liberal government has once again shown a complete lack of commitment to promoting local content and diversity in broadcasting in the country.
Wharf MaintenancePaul Crête: Mr. Speaker, today residents of Trois-Pistoles came to ask the Minister of Transport to put an end to the horror story that has put the 2002 Basques ferry season on hold, due to the federal government's irresponsibility in allowing the wharf to deteriorate over the past five years.
The minister must today announce that the 2002 season will be saved and that the wharves of Trois-Pistoles and les Escoumins will be repaired. Otherwise the minister will have adopted an inexplicably arrogant attitude, and his negligence will have deprived 30 crew members and others who work in the region's tourism industry of their livelihood.
The federal government owns the wharves. The federal government is responsible for the deterioration of the situation. It must provide the service, or else compensate the population and those who have lost their jobs because of the Minister of Transport's inefficiency.
Skate Canada Hall of FameMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute today to Elvis Stojko, three time world champion in 1994, 1995 and 1997 and two time Olympic silver medalist in 1994 and 1998. I am pleased to announce that Elvis Stojko will be inducted into the Skate Canada Hall of Fame in 2003. After representing Canada so well for 10 years, Mr. Stojko announced his retirement shortly after the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
In addition to Elvis Stojko the following individuals will also be inducted into the hall of fame at a ceremony that will take place at the Canadian Figure Skating Championships in Saskatoon on January 13, 2003: Tracy Wilson and the late Rob McCall, Olympic bronze and world championship bronze medalists in 1998; coach Michael Jiranek who was the mentor behind Kurt Browning's international successes; and Barbara Graham, a lifelong dedicated administrator in the sport.
I congratulate all of them.
FisheriesMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the government insists it is patrolling overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, so let us take a look at the record.
From 1990 to 1993 when this government was not in power there were 65 seaborne surveillance missions and 500 air surveillance missions. From 1993 to 1997 that average started to drop once the government got in power until there were 58 sea surveillance missions and 475 air surveillance missions. From 1997 to 2000 it dropped again until there were 40 surveillance missions by ship and 450 by air.
Let us look at the record in 2001 when the government said it was protecting the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. In 2001 there were 31 sea surveillance missions and 467 by air. In 2002, and let us understand that the year is half gone, there have been only 10 sea patrols and 166 air patrols.
That is a sad and sorry--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Thyroid MonthMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that June is Thyroid Month in Canada.
Approximately 15 million North Americans have thyroid disease and many do not know it. An untreated, abnormally functioning thyroid can lead to cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression.
The Thyroid Foundation of Canada, a non-profit registered volunteer organization with 23 chapters across Canada, promotes awareness and education about thyroid disease and raises much needed funds. Health Canada has funded the development of a thyroid assessment questionnaire to open physician-patient dialogue on thyroid symptoms and has developed a special program to ensure the accuracy of thyroid testing.
I invite hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Thyroid Month in Canada.

Oral Question Period
Government ContractsMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it just keeps getting worse. Nearly two years ago, just prior to the release of the audit that began to expose all the problems in the government sponsorship program, the Prime Minister ordered his people to get together and devise a plan for damage control. The Prime Minister had a choice then: correction or cover-up. He chose door number two.
Why did the Prime Minister not order a suspension of the entire program back then instead of allowing millions of precious tax dollars to be wasted on a program that is now completely discredited and is the subject of multiple RCMP investigations?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the internal audit that was conducted by the internal audit section of Public Works and Government Services Canada was an initiative launched by the department itself. The auditor general has described that work as excellent, courageous and a critical piece of work in this whole process. I think the audit section deserves a lot of credit for doing its job extremely well.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, we know that officials meet regularly to address issues, so that is not the trouble here. It is the direction they took. Faced with a choice of fixing it or fudging it, they chose door number two.
To compound the problem, department officials met with the supplier companies to work out ways to keep the gravy trains running on time. Two of these companies are now under RCMP investigation and are still eligible for additional government work.
Why does it take the government so long to fix its messes when it is plain to everyone that something is drastically wrong?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, immediately upon the conclusion of the internal audit, the department prepared an action plan to respond to that audit over the following 12 to 18 months or so. There was a review in the spring of this year to determine whether or not those audit recommendations had in fact been implemented. That review confirmed that corrective action began immediately after the year 2000 and had proceeded progressively through all of this period of time to deal with the issues.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in 2000 prior to the snap election, a public works department audit exposes problems with the sponsorship program. The PMO works a cover-up plan. The department colludes with the sponsorship companies to keep the cash for contract scheme alive. The minister gets shipped to Denmark.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: We want the facts.
John Reynolds: If he wants facts, listen to more of them. The auditor general is called in to investigate. She calls for reinforcements from the RCMP. Now two ministers later we still cannot get a straight answer.
Canadians deserve better. When can we have a full public inquiry?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, let me again remind the hon. gentleman of all of the steps that have been taken.
Indeed the internal audit was conducted at the instigation of the department of public works itself. The action plan was developed and implemented. My predecessor confirmed in the spring of this year that the action plan in fact had been implemented as promised. The auditor general did her work. There is an internal review continuing by my department. Treasury board is conducting a government wide examination of the management framework, and whenever and wherever issues arise that require the attention of the RCMP, that is given.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this government had a detailed knowledge of the obvious problems at the department of public works. However, instead of making real changes, it hid the problems.
Why does this government invest so much energy in covering up for itself and why does it make so little effort to deal with the real issues and the real scandals?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, again I reject the insinuation that is contained in the hon. gentleman's remarks. He says there was secrecy. I would remind him that an executive summary of the internal audit was in fact posted on the Internet and all ATIP inquiries about that audit have been duly responded to.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, here is an opportunity for the government both to get around the secrecy and an opportunity to live by a higher standard. We want to know. We do not want any lawyerly answers. We just want a straight yes or no answer to a very simple question.
Will the minister tell us if the government in its entirety, not just public works, will stop doing business with Groupaction immediately, yes or no?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the approach that I have taken is a careful approach, a steady approach, a step by step approach. I want to be certain that every step is the right step on a solid foundation and that it will withstand any challenge from anyone. That is important. This process must be completed and I do not want any false steps to foul it up.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in August 2000, the internal audit report of Public Works Canada revealed irregularities in the federal government's sponsorship program. This resulted, close to two years ago, in a meeting between the manager of the sponsorship program and the presidents of Groupaction, Everest, Coffin Communications and Gosselin Relations Publiques.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify that the person responsible for the program chose, after being informed of these irregularities in the sponsorship program, to have a meeting with those who were directly involved, those who fully benefited, so much so in fact that a number of them are the object of a police investigation as we speak?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, with respect to two former officials in particular, the auditor general obviously has indicated her deep concern with their approach to certain issues. The government shares that concern. That is why we have acted promptly not only on our internal audit but also upon the advice given to us by the auditor general. We are as anxious as the auditor general is to resolve this issue and to make sure that in future this kind of thing does not in fact happen.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what is even more interesting is that following this meeting, the Prime Minister's closest advisors met on September 28, 2000, to prepare communication guidelines in case the issue became public. Guidelines were also prepared to fight separatism, to correct the problem and to deal with administrative problems, but not the political problem.
Considering that the Prime Minister's advisors developed their defence strategy almost two years ago, how can the Deputy Prime Minister deny that the Prime Minister knew about this issue since the beginning, before the last general election?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the internal audit in the year 2000 obviously called for corrective action. The department instituted a plan to deliver that corrective action.
In the spring of 2002 we invited the internal auditor once again to go back in and make sure that the corrective action had been taken. In fact it had been taken and the auditor general describes the work of the internal audit as excellent, courageous and critical to solving this problem.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the serious thing about this whole affair is of course the fact that the Prime Minister knew and that many people were taking advantage of the sponsorship system. And yet, far from wanting to curb the misuse of public funds, the Prime Minister continued to make lavish use of his sponsorship program, as we learned yesterday in connection with the Montreal Grand Prix.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain today that, even though the Prime Minister knew, the system continued on stronger than ever, with his blessing moreover?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the use of agents is now very much under reconsideration.
As I have indicated many times over the last couple of weeks, I believe there may well be more effective ways to deliver a sponsorship initiative internally through direct government programming rather than relying on external agents. That is the way we are headed.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was perfectly well informed about the rip-off going on at Public Works Canada. His close advisors were working on damage control plans, in case it became public knowledge. Several ministers had very close ties with the presidents of the firms involved. The system kept right on operating, until now.
How, in these circumstances, can the Deputy Prime Minister deny that what we have here is an organized system, a system which involves the entire Liberal government, including the Prime Minister?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the question alleges that the previous system that existed prior to the audit in the year 2000 continues up until now. That is in fact not correct. Immediately upon the conclusion of the audit, corrective measures began to be implemented.
It has been verified in the spring of this year that in fact those corrective steps were taken. The Prime Minister's reaction based upon the audit was to begin fixing the problem and to do it as rapidly as possible.
The EnvironmentJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Canadians, including 72% of Albertans, are concerned about climate change and want the federal government to ratify Kyoto.
The provinces want to engage in a national debate. The environment minister has repeatedly said that there would be a full and open consultation so all Canadians could be heard.
Why then are the current consultations taking place behind closed doors, closed to the public and by invitation only?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be a series of consultations over the next few months.
The particular consultation to which the member is referring is essentially one for experts in the field who have been working with the federal, provincial and territorial governments over the last five or six years, perhaps some indeed for the last 10 years, on the issue. It is essentially a technical hearing. The numbers in each depicted community are limited to about 75 to have the most effective dynamics for such technical discussions.
I can assure the hon. member there will be full public discussions later this year.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I would feel more confident because of some other things he said. The minister said earlier this week that the national progress report on sustainable development, which should have been submitted to the UN by now and he has it, could be a valuable resource in the consultation process. Yet the minister is keeping it under wraps and out of sight from the public.
If the minister is really serious about this consultation, he should open it up. Why can it not be made public and why can this parliament and the public not have access to it?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two things. First, the discussion of his first question is about the technical hearings that are going on on the four options put forward by the federal government and, I might add, any other option that any other province or territory might like to put on the table in their respective jurisdictions.
That is quite separate from the second report that he is talking about, which in fact is not part of these technical discussions. We will release that in due course. It is done in a somewhat different manner than normal. It involved outside people having the control of the process and analyzing the government's performance. We will present that to him just as soon as it is ready.
Government ContractsRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister of public works last night told the public accounts committee “I can't account why there were no documents” in the Groupaction sponsorship files that have led to an RCMP investigation.
I have a straightforward question for the minister. Are there any other files on sponsorship or advertising contracts where payments have been made and documents are missing?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, my department for sometime now has been reviewing all of the sponsorship files between the year 1997 and the date of the audit in 2000. It is going over them one by one. Where there are issues that arise, it draws them to the attention of the appropriate authorities. That may in some cases be the auditor general. It may in other cases be the RCMP. It is pursuing every one of the files to make sure that they are properly done.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume from that bafflegab that there are considerably more than those that we know about. He said every one, I do not know if there are hundreds, thousands, or how many files there are where documents are missing.
May I ask the government were there occasions other than September 28, 2000 when senior officials of the Prime Minister's Office met officials of the department of public works or other departments to change the public details of an internal audit?
Several of the activities relating to sponsorship files are under RCMP investigation. In the specific case of the September 28 meeting to sanitize the public works audit, is any aspect of that meeting under RCMP investigation?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, when issues arise that are matters that raise legal questions, in the proper course of events, those matters are referred to the RCMP. Obviously the RCMP determines what it will investigate.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, according to public accounts, it pays to donate to the Liberal Party.
Groupaction received over $26 million in business contracts but only since its Liberal friends came to power in 1993. The Liberals claim this is a reputable company but the auditor general says Groupaction's photocopying is substandard. Besides that the report is still jammed in the photocopier because no one can find it.
How can the minister justify that winning big contracts is directly tied to donations back to his party?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, first of all I deny the allegation contained in the gentleman's question about the linkage.
On the issue of the quality of the work done, obviously the auditor general has expressed reservations and the government has expressed reservations. We do not defend substandard contracts.
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, someone took those contracts because they paid the bill. I guess that means they accepted them.
Claude Boulay was right when he stated that it helps to be a Liberal in order to win these big government contracts. In 1997 Groupaction gave $49,000 in donations to the Liberals. Public accounts at the same time show that Groupaction was awarded $10 million in business for that $49,000 investment. Good return. In 1998, the next year, it donated half the amount of money and received half the amount of contracts. There is the linkage. It is there.
Is it not true that the more one gives, the more one receives?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no such linkage whatsoever. Whenever a matter comes to my attention that raises a legal issue, that matter is put in the hands of the proper police authorities. They will investigate and the investigation will take them wherever it will.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only did the Prime Minister know, but the government has continued to hand out contracts, dozens and dozens of them, since August 2000, when the Prime Minister was informed of the situation.
The newspapers have reported more examples today involving the Montreal Grand Prix. To top it all, he appointed the same minister again, Alfonso Gagliano, to continue the whole operation.
Is this not proof that, far from wanting to rectify the situation, the Prime Minister had decided to keep it going?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it was the department of public works itself that launched the internal audit. That audit resulted in corrective action beginning immediately upon the conclusion of the audit work. That corrective action has been taken all the way through the intervening years. A subsequent review confirmed that it had in fact been taken as it was promised.
This government has been determined to find out what is wrong here and to fix it.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the attitude and answers in the House of the Prime Minister, who expressed surprise, who said he wanted to tighten up the ethics code, who denied the ties between his ministers and the communication firms, when today we find out that all his answers were part of a previously hatched communication plan to limit the damage?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the House on several occasions, I have serious reservations about the use of the agencies in relation to a sponsorship program. I think we can deliver a better program at lower cost without the intervention of agencies and that is the direction I am pursuing.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, prior to 1993, Groupaction received no business service contracts. After the Liberals come to power all of a sudden Groupaction miraculously starts to make millions of dollars, yet it has been business since 1983.
How can the minister justify that Groupaction, a company that had been in business for nearly 20 years, only began receiving contracts when the Liberals came to power?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge of those periods of time directly, but as the hon. gentleman knows, the matter has been covered by an internal audit. It has been covered by the auditor general. A process is ongoing now that wherever there is any question that merits a police investigation that reference is automatically made.
We are determined to resolve this issue in the public interest.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about internal inquiries. Maybe it is time for a full public inquiry.
Any legitimate business would cut off the supplier when it failed to deliver a service. The auditor general said that the delivery of service was appalling, but the government tried with all its might to justify Groupaction. On Tuesday, the minister said:

The government does not accept or condone work that is clearly substandard or deficient in the variety of ways that have been identified.

Is it not true that the only reason the government refused to cut off Groupaction was that it was a significant contributor to the--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Ralph Goodale: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, Groupaction was cut off from the sponsorship program in March of this year by my predecessor and I obviously indicated similar action yesterday with respect to other advertising work.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, in response to opposition questions, the Prime Minister tried to lay the blame on public servants, as if they were the ones really responsible for all these scandals.
Today, we realize that the situation goes far beyond the public servants. Decisions came from the highest political level.
How can the Prime Minister justify his persistence here in the House in dumping the blame on public servants, when he knows very well that his office has been the one directly handling this business for nearly two years now?
Ralph Goodale: Again, Mr. Speaker, let me review the chronology of events. It was the department of public works itself that launched the internal audit. It was the internal audit that revealed the deficiencies. A corrective plan was initiated immediately. It was implemented progressively over the following 18 months.
In the spring of this year the internal auditor was sent back in to verify that the action had in fact been taken, and that verification was there. In addition, we have called upon the auditor general and, where appropriate, the RCMP to make sure that this matter is properly disposed of, transparently, in the public interest.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, now we have a better understanding of why the Prime Minister was so anxious to find the ones responsible for the leaks.
Is it not precisely because he know that these leaks would make it possible to trace everything back to his office, from which the whole thing has been orchestrated for the past two years?
Ralph Goodale: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is twisting and turning to try to make a case with respect to the Prime Minister that simply is not there.
The auditor general indicated what her concerns were with respect to certain aspects of the contracting process. The government has acted upon her initial recommendations. She has made references to the police. So have we. She will be conducting a government-wide inquiry of all advertising and sponsorship matters. The treasury board is engaged. My department is engaged. We will solve this issue.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the latest public accounts tell the tale of favoured treatment for favoured Liberals. The big winners in business service contracts with the government were major Liberal donors: Communication Coffin, Compass, Groupe Everest and Lafleur. Groupaction alone received $4.5 million in business services.
Canadians would like to know: What business service worth $4.5 million did Groupaction provide the minister's department?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general examined certain files with respect to Groupaction. She indicated her dissatisfaction with the condition of those files. She took certain steps in relation to a police investigation and she has also launched a government-wide inquiry with respect to all advertising and sponsorship matters.
The government is co-operating with that initiative on every front. We are just as concerned as Ms. Fraser to solve this issue once and for all.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, the problem will be solved when they start cutting off their friends.
Last year big Liberal donors received $12 million for business services to the government, but that is not the end of the story. Media IDA Vision, which already has received 75% of all government advertising in the last 12 months, got another $25 million in business service contracts last year from the minister's department.
Is it not time to shut down the Liberal pipeline to Liberal friends?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the use of agencies has obviously raised serious concerns on the part of the auditor general, on the part of the internal audit section of Public Works and Government Services Canada and indeed throughout the government.
I am concerned. I know the President of the Treasury Board shares that concern, as does the Prime Minister and every member of the government.
It is important that the work of government be transparent, accountable and full value for money. That is what we are determined to achieve. We do not condone any of the actions from the past that appear to be substandard or wrong. We will find the corrective action. We will implement the corrective action.
Aboriginal AffairsNancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
First as an aboriginal and second as a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I am very interested in any developments in the Marshall decision.
Could the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us what progress is being made on treaty rights with regard to the Marshall decision?
Hon. Stephen Owen (Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this important issue.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is today signing on behalf of the Government of Canada an agreement with the government of Nova Scotia and 13 first nation Mi'kmaq chiefs. This agreement demonstrates the commitment of our government to negotiate aboriginal and treaty rights. The agreement today demonstrates the progress that is being made.
Patent ActMrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the end of an already long 20 year patent protection, brand name drug companies are able to file for automatic injunctions against generic companies.
The industry minister, when he was health minister, indicated a willingness to change the regulations to end this unacceptable practice. Will the minister do that? Will he end this unfair practice against generic companies?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1998-99 we undertook a review of the Patent Act and notice of compliance regulations and the way they both interact. At that time, the industry committee heard from all the stakeholders from all points in the spectrum. It made recommendations that resulted in changes to the regulations, changes which we believe addressed some of the problems in their administration
Obviously we are always alert to issues here and elsewhere, and if there are particular problems the member has in mind she should bring them forward.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times it can be brought forward.
Current laws allow drug companies to claim patent on DNA sequences. These are not sequences they developed. These are sequences found in human beings that drug companies now lay claim to.
Now one company is maintaining it is the only company that can test for a DNA sequence that appears in women predisposed to cancer. The test, which cost $800 in B.C., now costs $4,000 through a U.S. drug company.
When is the government going to legislate to protect the health of Canadian women rather than allow profit at their expense? When is it going to quit treating women like Harvard mice?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, human genes cannot be patented. The fact is that the Patent Act is there to protect innovation, creative ideas that can advance science and in fact lead to cures and treatments for illnesses.
Just this week we received the report of the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee on this and related subjects. There is also a case before the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify the legal implications of all of this.
We will be following that carefully, considering the recommendations of the committee and bringing forward any changes we deem are necessary in the public interest.
Government ContractsMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have asked several times for the full details of the agreement between Parks Canada and the solicitor general's good friend, APM president Tim Banks.
While the P.E.I. project may have merit in its intent, the government has met each request with evasion and insulting answers despite the concerns that also were raised by the auditor general.
I ask again, will the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance agree to release all the details of this deal between Greenwich Development Inc., APM and Parks Canada?
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite rightly points out that there was information tabled in this very House by the auditor general about that project, providing constructive advice to my department. We are following that advice. As well there are statutes in the House that the hon. member can receive additional information under the Access to Information Act.
I would, however, point out that if the hon. member would like to continue, he can either simply say that it is not so or say it outside, because he continues to make scurrilous accusations against a member of the P.E.I. business community, which I quite frankly find--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, maybe the ACOA minister will meet me outside after question period.
I have a copy of the lease. The terms of this highly lucrative contract that I have obtained reveal that, if fully realized, APM, owned by P.E.I. Liberal president and friend of the solicitor general, will receive $17 million for a project valued at $3.5 million.
ACOA then threw in $1.3 million to build it, so we pay for it, then we rent it back.
While fierce Liberal loyalist Tim Banks is reaping huge rewards from this outrageous contract, who is looking out for the taxpayer? How can the government justify this deal?
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the member's preamble is that he does not include the fact that, following extensive community consultations, Parks Canada established management guidelines for the development of the Greenwich facilities which, among other things, called for the use of public-private partnerships in the establishment of the interpretation centre.
There were consultations with community groups. Everyone was very well aware of the development path for the Greenwich properties and of course there were many prospective businesses that were involved in that project. APM was ultimately involved and of course it was done--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Foreign AffairsMr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that African development aid needs to be linked to democracy and the rule of law but his words need to be linked with action.
Two years ago Canadian courts awarded a Calgary firm a $90 million judgment to compensate them for a gunpoint kidnapping-robbery and a draining of company accounts by Nigerian officials in Nigeria. The convicted defendant is the Nigerian government itself. It refused to appear in court and totally ignored the ruling.
Will the Prime Minister advise the Nigerian government that it will be dropped as one of his leading partners in Africa unless it--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member has raised with the House what the Prime Minister is doing in respect of the NEPAD initiative which he is to advance at the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis. It is an extremely important initiative for our country. It will enable us to deal with issues of this kind and enable us to speak to African governments and tell them that they must live up to the rule of law.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that we do this in all our relationships with all our trading partners. We will continue to advance Canadian interests in all respects with all trading partners. We will particularly--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the question is not the agenda, it is the follow through with the commitment. The Prime Minister's own words are that aid to Africa will be linked with respect for the rule of law.
Now we have a Canadian case with rule of law saying that the Nigerian government must compensate these Canadians who were kidnapped, robbed and had their bank accounts drained.
Will the Prime Minister stop the increase of the transfer of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to the Nigerian government until the Nigerian government respects Canadian courts and compensates these Canadians? This--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, what the government will do is use the leverage we have to ensure and advance the rule of law throughout the world, in all our relationships with all governments. That does not necessarily mean doing exactly what the hon. member wants to do in a specific case.
What we need to do is what the Prime Minister is doing with his leadership at the G-8, which is to bring the African partners into a respect for the rule of law because they recognize that it is in their interests to do so. We will continue to press that aggressively with them and in the interests of all Canadians.
Government ContractsMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since there is no longer any doubt about the Prime Minister's responsibility in the sponsorship problem, and since the government's defence is essentially part of a predetermined communication plan aimed at limiting political fallout, does the Deputy Prime Minister still consider that the answers we get from the government here in the House are credible and will help us see the full scope of the problem?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the minister has taken charge of Public Works and Government Services Canada, he has indicated very clearly to the House that where there are administrative problems they will be corrected. Where there are overpayments, they will be recovered. Where there are allegations of criminal activity, they will be referred to the proper authorities.
The member should know that Canadians and members across this House have said that the minister is doing a credible job in protecting and safeguarding the assets of Canadians.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, considering the updating of the government's strategy, simply in order to limit political fallout, and considering the seriousness of the Prime MInister's involvement, what other forum is there outside of an independent public inquiry that can provide us with the proper information on the extent and gravity of the situation, which involves the entire government?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the public inquiry is going on. That public inquiry is under the auspices of the auditor general, an officer of this parliament who enjoys the full confidence of the Government of Canada.
Reproductive TechnologyMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the commodification of human life is a serious concern. The health committee was unanimous in calling for a prohibition on the patenting of humans as well as any human materials. Why has the health minister ignored her committee?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, just yesterday we received the report of the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee and we will be examining its analysis and recommendations very closely in the period ahead.
Taken together with cases which are before the country's highest court, these issues have to be considered by the government and by the House. Therefore, I assure the member that we will be looking very closely at these recommendations to see what is in the public interest.
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer from the Minister of Health.
Yesterday the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee recommended that patents on human bodies should be prohibited at all stages of development. However, in January we were shocked to learn that Industry Canada had been issuing patents on human genes for years, so human life has become a commodity in Canada.
Is the government comfortable with that practice or will it do something about it?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, we asked the advisory committee to look at this issue for that very reason. We want to ensure that our regulation reflects Canadian values and the public interest.
We have now received the report with recommendations. We will consider it. As I have told the hon. member, we will be certain to look carefully at all these issues in the public interest.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this country is surrounded by oceans. About 10 years, June 8 was declared oceans day at the earth summit in Rio. Tomorrow Canadians in their activities will be celebrating our oceans.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans inform this House and all Canadians what progress the government is making in its oceans agenda?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hillsborough his fine question. Over the past four years the Government of Canada has worked hard to promote sustainable oceans development through the Oceans Act. We have launched 21 integrated management pilot initiatives across the country and contributed to dozens of stewardship activities and international events.
I am quite proud of the work done by DFO employees, together with Canadians from all regions, to manage our oceans resource.
I ask the House and all my colleagues to join me in celebrating oceans day.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the story of the Virginia Fontaine treatment centre is a sad one. It is a story about the abuse of trust. It is a tragic tale of cruises, condos and corruption. It is a story about reprehensible people who use the plight of aboriginal people and young aboriginal children addicted to substances to line their own pockets.
Yesterday the government said that it had overpaid the provinces and it wanted all the money back. Therefore, in the interests of consistency, I ask the government this. How many of the dollars that were stolen from troubled aboriginal children has it recovered?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, as soon as it became known to him that there was an alleged misuse of public funds, took immediate action. We are now relying on two national firms of chartered accountants to conduct audits in accordance with professional standards.
It is very clear to us that this is indeed a troubling and difficult situation. We are acting expeditiously to ensure: first, that these kinds of things do not happen again; and, second, that--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not acceptable. There have been zero charges laid, zero dollars recovered, zero steps taken and zero demonstration that the government has learned anything from its past failures.
This week the government quietly reopened the facility. Aboriginal leaders I have spoken with have justifiable fears of recurrences.
In its haste to download responsibilities on to aboriginal communities without appropriate training, without appropriate safeguards in place, why is the government abdicating its responsibility to aboriginal children?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, we are not abdicating our responsibility. As I said, as soon as it became known that public funds may have been misused, action was taken. We are proceeding. We have taken two court actions against the Virginia Fontaine addiction centre.
Let me reassure this hon. member that we take this situation very seriously. We will do everything in our power to ensure that aboriginal children and others are not put at risk.
Government ContractsMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House that a public inquiry was not needed. He said “We cannot be any more open than we are being right now”. Yet today we learned that the Prime Minister knew there were serious problems with the sponsorship program.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the Prime Minister telling us that he wanted to provide all of the information to the House in response to our questions, when in fact, for two years, he did everything possible to ensure that this affair did not become public knowledge? Such hypocrisy.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of the internal audit that was commissioned by Public Works and Government Services Canada, corrective actions were taken.
As a consequence of further irregularities being found, the department instituted corrective actions. We now have a management framework review by the treasury board. We have a review by the public accounts committee. We have a complete review by the department itself. We have a formal review by the auditor general in addition to investigations that have been referred to the RCMP.
AcoaMr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of State for ACOA explain to us how Atlantic Canada is attracting new investment and why the Alliance members are so wrong when they claim that the defeatist attitude in Atlantic Canada impedes economic growth?
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is very right to be proud of the performance of Atlantic Canada.
While the Canadian Alliance is spreading a tale of defeatism about Atlantic Canada, myself, the four Atlantic premiers and 65 business people were in New York City. We talked to New York City business people who were looking to invest in Atlantic Canada. Those people told us that Atlantic Canada had one of the most entrepreneurial climates that they had ever seen. They are very proud of Atlantic Canada.
We are carrying on that winning relationship. It has been reinforced that Atlantic Canada is a fabulous place to do business.
TerrorismMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this week 34 ministers of the Organization of American States, pledging to collectively fight terrorism and increase security across the western hemisphere, signed an anti-terrorism agreement. Canada was not one of the signatories.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Why did the government neglect to sign the inter-American convention against terrorism?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion and the pride to represent our country at that meeting. I made it clear to all the participants at the meeting that Canada will sign that agreement. As was put to me by the secretary general of the organization itself, Canada is ensuring that we have everything in proper order in our own house before we do so.
We will get this through cabinet. This agreement will be signed. We have full co-operation with every nation in the Americas in the fight against terrorism.
Government ContractsStéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, for two years the Prime Minister's office knew of the problems with the sponsorship program. As soon as the internal investigation was launched in 2000, the PMO could have put an end to the shenanigans.
However, the Prime Minister's close advisers preferred to spend their energy covering up the affair instead of ordering a real administrative reform and dealing with the guilty parties.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister, who is strangely silent in defence of the Prime Minister today, still say that an independent public inquiry is not necessary, when clearly it is the only way to truly find out what really happened, and more importantly, who was pulling the strings?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, since the first internal audit in 2000, corrective action plans have been taken. There have been numerous referrals to authorities and the auditor general is involved.
The new Minister of Public Works and Government Services has been decisive in his initiatives and actions. In addition, he has been respectful of the House of Commons by being forthright and constructive in his answers.
Members over there should be proud and Canadians should be--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy--Royal.
Species at Risk ActMr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has tabled 11th hour amendments on critical habit and scientific listing closer to the Progressive Conservative position. However the minister also knew if he did not, the Liberals likely would have voted down his bill, not only costing the bill but likely his cabinet position along the way.
If the minister is willing to table amendments, why will he not table amendments to have more clarity with the compensation regime? Why is the minister still willing to sell out rural Canadians and Liberal backbenchers by not providing more clarity about when we compensate and when we do not?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member's support for the amendments that were tabled yesterday.
It is important to recognize that there is some difference here. The issue of compensation has been looked at closely. We had an excellent study done by Dr. Peter Pearse, professor emeritus of resource economics at UBC.
The difficulty of outlining in advance the rules for compensation proved to be beyond our ability to handle at this time. After we have had some experience with the process that we have put in place in the bill, we expect we will be able to put in clear rules for compensation.
The Speaker: Order, please. During oral question period today, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve used a word that I did not quite hear. I believe he said hypocrisy.
I can only advise hon. members that hypocrisy, as they all know, is quite foreign to this place and I would urge greater caution in their choice of words in question period in future.

Routine Proceedings
Members' ExpendituresThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table a document entitled, “Individual Member's Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002”.
Order in Council AppointmentsMrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Government Response to PetitionsKaren Redman: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Business of the HouseHon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), I move:

That on June 11, 2002, the House shall consider, in accordance with Standing Order 53.1, a motion “That this House take note of the review of the Canadian health care system by the Romanow Commission”.

The Speaker: Did the hon. House leader indicate that he had consulted with other House leaders with respect to this matter?
Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition from many individuals in the Port Hope area within my constituency.
The petitioners are very concerned about VIA Rail and the ceasing of service to a number of Ontario commuter stops. They encourage the House to continue the service going into Port Hope.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of almost 1,000 people, mostly truck drivers in Canada, in relation to the Minister of Transport's suggested changes to the hours of service for truck drivers.
There is great concern nationwide, and certainly from truck drivers, about allowing 14 hour days and up to 84 hours of driving per week. This is unacceptable to them as well as to the safety of people on the roads.
I will add this petition to the number of numerous signatures on petitions that have already come in on this issue.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from many of my constituents calling upon parliament to condemn the creation and use of child pornography.
They call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promotes child pornography are outlawed.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and constituents in the surrounding area.
The petition states “that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians; that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment”.
The petitioners, therefore, call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sadomasochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Questions on the Order PaperKaren Redman: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 152 and 154.
Question No. 152Mrs. Elsie Wayne: With regard to the submarine Victoria: ( a ) when did the Minister of Defence first learn of the structural dent in the submarine; and ( b ) what structural assessments of the hull of the submarine were undertaken prior to its purchase, and by what firms?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (a) A briefing note on various submarine issues, including the structural dent, came into the possession of the Minister of National Defence between 11-16 April 02.
(b) Canada accepted the Victoria based on Royal Navy standards, as reflected in the UK ministry of defence’s certificate of safety. This certificate included a structural strength assessment and hull surveillance documentation based on inspections and surveys conducted April 1999 to March 2000.
BAE systems, the original manufacturer, conducted the hull examinations when the submarine was docked during reactivation. This was done with UK ministry of defence oversight, as well as Canadian project staff observation and review.
Question No. 154Mr. Richard Marceau: What was the full decision-making process that led the command at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier to consider closing down entirely downhill skiing at the Castor Centre; and in regard to this: ( a ) from what budget envelope were the funds for construction and development of the infrastructures at the Castor alpine ski centre originally taken; ( b ) from what budget envelope were the funds used to operate the Centre (e.g. electricity, heating) taken; ( c ) how and when was the public, both military and civilian, consulted, and using what sampling; ( d ) what recommendations were considered to avoid the decision to close; and ( e ) at what point did the Minister of National Defence endorse the decision?
John McCallum: It was recognized in the early 1990s that a problem existed with aging downhill ski equipment at the Castor Centre, and that without significant investment, final closure of the facility would take place within six to eight years. However, there were insufficient non-public funds at Canadian Forces Base, CFB, Valcartier to allow for measures to extend the life of the equipment or to plan for its replacement.
In 1998 the commander of 5 area support group and the personnel support program manager produced a business case on the long term future of downhill skiing at Valcartier. The business case identified two options for the future of the Castor Centre involving either a massive investment of financial resources or closing the centre in the short to medium term. From a financial standpoint, the most optimistic scenario envisaged the need for a $1.1 million grant from a source outside the Castor Centre and the only outside source was the non-public funds at CFB Valcartier.
In 1999 the double chairlift was repaired at a cost of roughly $150,000 to correct problems noted during inspections.
In 2000, 503 Canadian forces members were surveyed on various personnel support program services and plans for the future. Downhill skiing ranked ninth of the fifteen projects presented, in terms of priority. Upon receipt of the survey results, the executive committee for non-public funds at CFB Valcartier, composed of officers and senior non-commissioned officers, requested an analysis of the options. This analysis was carried out by the construction engineering officer, the personnel support program manager and a senior officer of the ranges and training areas. Several possible replacement options were analyzed and the committee’s ultimate recommendation largely correlated with the conclusions of the 1998 business case. Another option, managed downsizing, was also analyzed, however the committee concluded that further extending the downhill ski operation would cost the base non-public fund roughly $80,000 a year and that the situation would probably have to be reassessed on an annual basis.
The analysis prepared in 2000 was submitted to the executive committee for consideration in 2001. The executive committee decided that funds should not be invested to replace the mechanical lift. The committee also decided that it was not prepared to spend $50,000 to $80,000 a year to retain downhill skiing. This decision was supported by the Conseil d’orientation des fonds non-publics Valcartier, Valcartier non-public fund advisory board. This decision meant that downhill skiing would cease almost immediately, since the existing lift cable had failed to meet industry safety standards.
The co-chairs of the Conseil d’orientation, that is the commander of 5 area support group and the commander of 5 corps mechanized brigade group, were aware of the impact this decision would have on the community and referred the decision to the Commander Land Force Quebec Area before making the closure official.
The Commander Land Force Quebec Area supported the local decision to close the facility, but at the same time decided to extend the operation for one more year to allow alternative solutions to be developed and to mitigate the impact on the community. Implicit in this decision was the need to purchase a new lift cable.
The community was informed of the decision in late 2001 and the various alternative solutions were outlined in the local newspaper.
(a) Non-public funds were originally used for the construction and development of the infrastructures at the Castor alpine ski centre. Non-public funds are a type of crown controlled funds established pursuant to sections 38 to 41 of the National Defence Act and to which the provisions of the Financial Administration Act do not apply. These funds are non-appropriated crown moneys that are separate and distinct from appropriated funds.
(b) The electricity and heating are paid for by the Castor Centre. The Castor Centre is a non-public agency of CFB Valcartier. With respect to the downhill ski operation, the necessary funding was obtained through fees charged to the customers. These revenues, however, were insufficient to effect repairs or to make major investments in the facility. The major repairs of recent years had to be subsidized by the Valcartier fund. These non-public funds were procured through other non-public activities, such as the Canex stores and the Sport Loisirs plan.
(c) In 2000, 503 Canadian forces members were surveyed on various personnel support program services and plans for the future. Downhill skiing ranked ninth of the fifteen projects presented, in terms of priority. In addition, the executive committee for non-public funds at CFB Valcartier consulted the members of their respective units regarding their needs to gain a clear insight into the views of the group they represented and to make informed decisions.
(d) Two options were entertained: either the replacement of the mechanical lift, which would have generated deficit of roughly $80,000 per year, or an average annual investment of $50,000 to $80,000 to prolong the life of the existing equipment.
(e) The decision did not require the approval of the Minister of National Defence.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurentides had the floor before oral question period. She has eight minutes left to complete her presentation.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me these eight minutes to address the issue of pesticides.
As I said earlier, this issue is very important to us. I am very pleased that we are revisiting the legislation through Bill C-53. It gives us the opportunity to better protect not only our environment but also, as I mentioned, the health of our children and pets, because pesticides are often used on lawns.
As this issue affects several jurisdictions, we need to find a way to work in co-operation with the various levels of government.
Earlier, I mentioned Hudson, the first municipality to make an important environmental decision to ban the use of pesticides.
I also mentioned that, in a riding like mine, if there is one priority that municipalities must have, it is to protect lake waters. It goes without saying that lakeside residents, those who live around lakes, love to have a beautiful lawn. They often use pesticides that can be extremely dangerous, not only for the water in our lakes, but also for the health of bathers and fishers who eat the fish that lives in these lakes.
So, if we pollute the environment with pesticides, we also pollute lakes, fish and ourselves, because we eat the fish. We must take this into consideration. We must have bylaws that protect the land around lakes. This is the case in several municipalities.
I have the good fortune of living on the shores of a lake where the municipality passed a bylaw banning the use of chemicals, not just pesticides, but also fertilizers, so as to protect the quality of our lake water. Very stiff fines are levied if people do not comply. This is one way to ensure that regulations and bylaws are well respected.
It was worrisome to see how the registration of pesticides was done here on the Hill by the agency responsible. An incredible number of pesticides have been registered in recent years. In this regard, we must be careful, because when a pesticide is registered, its impact is not always measurable in the short term, but often only in the mid term or the long term, with the result that we often realize after the fact that a product that was registered is in fact very harmful to health, or even to the environment.
So, we must be very careful when registering products. I think we should also invest in research to find products that will be less harmful to the environment and to health.
I know people who work in this area and they are increasingly looking at natural sources, at environmentally friendly products. Let me give an example. Some environmentally friendly products are now sold on the market to treat plants and rose bushes. These products are much less harmful to health. I have personally used them.
We can go to a garden centre and ask for these ecological products. Unless we do, nothing will happen. I think that there will have to be a new vision in the future with respect to pest control products. We have relied on them too much and now we must think of our children's future and go back to much more ecological products.
I will give another example. Just a few short years ago, in regions such as mine, I remember that it was very popular for golf courses to have absolutely perfect greens, and that is understandable. In fact, at one point, this was all the rage in the Laurentides, where people went for lawn care packages involving four or five treatments with just as many pesticides as fertilizers.
I recall vividly how, when these companies came to treat your lawn, they left little signs with the following warning “Keep pets and children off the grass for the next 24 hours”. If they leave a warning like this and instruct people not to use the lawn, there is some sort of risk.
I myself remember that my children had rashes after the lawn was treated, because the products used were very strong and could cause nausea or even rashes. One cannot keep children from playing on the lawn.
I mention all of this to make the point that it is high time that this legislation be reviewed. However, we said that we agreed with the bill, but that we would not support the amendments. Those listening already know why. My colleagues have spoken at length about this and I do not think that it is up to the Senate to make decisions. It is the job of those who have been legitimately elected to this chamber to make decisions, and to do so in consultation with the public. We are here to represent the public.
We must also take into consideration the fact that the production of pesticides is a big industry. There will be a lot of lobbying. We will have to stand fast and stand together to make sure this lobbying will not have an impact on our decisions on health and environmental issues.
A short while ago, Quebec was mentioned. Personally, I would really like us to work together and harmonize all regulations. Quebec has made regulations and passed laws in this area. There are also regulations or laws at the federal level and bylaws in many municipalities. I hope that municipalities in the regions, which have lakes, rivers and other important environmental assets, will eventually have similar regulations to really protect our environment in a consistent manner. We will have to work in harmony.
We see more and more products on which the public wants information. Somebody talked about GMOs earlier. People want to know what they are eating. More and more, they want to know about the mid term and long term impact of the products they buy. With a review of the legislation and Bill C-53, we will be able to deal with this in a practical manner.
Government members can count on our support for this bill, but we will vote against the amendments.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate as the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, but most of all as a citizen concerned with the future. I am 55 years old, but there are also younger people than us, and also our children who are the future of our society.
We talk about hazardous products and while the risk of using them is not always scientifically proven, I think we have an obligation to use products which we know for sure are not dangerous. In a way, this is the principle we should use for the consideration of this bill.
Two years ago, I replaced my colleague from Jonquière at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Environment during which we reviewed the committee's report on this matter. The evidence we heard and the documents tabled on the risks of those products convinced me of the necessity to have more stringent legislation on pesticides.
Often, supporters or participants of the Liberal Party tell us “Members of the Bloc Quebecois are always against everything”. Amazingly, we are against things which are not right. In this case, we support the bill although we are against the amendments suggested. So, we can agree. We are not against everything as a matter of principle. First, we look at a bill and we assess its importance.
I for one believe that there are always two or three criteria. I admire my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve who, during the little time he has left in a week, studies law. The most remarkable thing in his case is that he often shares his knowledge. He truly does it by solidarity, and I say this because it is very nice to work as a team with people who have the desire to share.
Now, speaking about sharing and solidarity, if we believe in sustainable development, we have to be very vigilant and very cautious about products which can pose a health hazard.
This is a subject that concerns the current Bloc Quebecois environment critic, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, as well as my colleague, the health critic. We must rise above party politics on this issue. It is extremely important.
I come from an agricultural region, and my father was a farmer. I worked with the former minister of agriculture in Quebec, Jean Garon—
Réal Ménard: He is the mayor now.
Antoine Dubé: —now mayor of the new city of Lévis—whom I would like to greet in passing—which makes up 95% of my riding.
Sometimes the agricultural sector is said to have reservations about this, because they need pesticides, and I believe the bill allows for this. It is not about getting rid of, or restricting them altogether. Once again, caution must serve as our guide.
On the subject of new cities, my area is now an urban area, with the exception of the municipality of Saint-Henri. In urban areas, is it really necessary, in terms of aesthetics, to use so many pesticides on lawns?
I remember when I was in charge of parks and recreation in Saint-Nicolas, there was a contest for cities and towns in bloom.
I do, in fact, support ornamental horticulture. I support beautifying cities, but at the same time, one has to weigh beautiful lawns against the health of children and the public. I may be a golfer, but I do not believe we should sacrifice our health for beautifully green golf courses. Some may criticize me, saying that I am forgetting certain allies.
I take this issue seriously. As legislators, when an important issue is raised, we must rise above purely electoral considerations. Yes, we must consider opposite views, but we must also return to real values and principles.
In my opinion, two very important values frame this bill. First, there is the environment and why we want it to be healthy. This is first and foremost for the health and survival of planet Earth. Yes, we are talking about lawn pesticides. I do not remember who wrote this, but there is a saying. Think globally, act locally. We have to make our contribution to the environment. Every action, however small it may be, is important.
In an urban setting, there is an analogy to the situation with the recycling of paper, plastics and other materials. This is very important. During the Montreal municipal election campaign, some candidates got in trouble for not complying with the recycling bylaws. This is kind of the same situation. Everyone must make an effort. If we recycle,and if we are careful about pesticides, we are contributing to a better environment and a sustainable environment. We are helping to leave a clean environment for future generations.
As far as health is concerned, we know how costly this is to society. I do not want to get into unsubstantiated claims, but it is a cause of considerable concern that so many people have cancer or other serious conditions. I am not saying that there is a link with pesticides, but neither has it been proven that certain pesticides do not play a role.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It is in the food chain.
Antoine Dubé: As my colleague says, it is in the food chain. At a certain point it is not just a matter of breathing in pesticide residue, it can go as far as to involve the foods we eat. Our health can be affected by what we eat.
I wish to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his work on the environment, as well as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. They informed us in caucus and raised our awareness of the issue. I would not go so far as to say that they harassed us, but they were pretty tenacious. They explained that it was worthwhile supporting this government bill. Of all the provinces in Canada, I think Quebec has the best legislation in this area. Quebec's municipalities are very concerned about this aspect. When it comes to federal legislation, in this case, the shared responsibility must be recognized.
We have no objection to voting in favour of this bill because, even if it is not perfect, our colleagues will try to improve it. The values involved, that is health, the environment and sustainable development, are important to the Bloc Quebecois. We have therefore decided to vote in favour of this bill.
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.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. 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.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Order, please. The House was scheduled to proceed at this time to a deferred division on the report stage of Bill C-53. However, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 10, 2002, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
The Deaf and Hearing ImpairedCaroline St-Hilaire: moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed-captioning.

Madam Speaker, first, I thank my colleague from Laurentides for her support in bringing forward this motion.
Indeed, I am very pleased to rise today to debate the important issue of defending the deaf and hearing impaired. This is a problem that has been dear to my heart for many years and that I have raised several times here in the House.
The purpose of motion before the House is to implement various measures to correct a very complex situation that directly affect the daily lives of millions of people.
In Canada, more than 3 million people, including 750,000 in Quebec, have a hearing problem. Hearing impairment is the handicap that is suffered by the greatest number of people and the worst thing is that this handicap is invisible.
One person in ten now suffers from this problem. In the face of alarming figures like these, we cannot remain indifferent. And as the population continues to age, matters will only grow worse.
More than ever, we must address this phenomenon and take tangible action. Last week, as part of Hearing Month, I organized a press conference to draw attention to the magnitude of the problem. I had the pleasure of sharing the podium with Richard McNicoll, general manager of the Regroupement québécois pour le sous-titrage.
This organization, which is devoted to the defence of closed-captioning, is doing a remarkable job. Mr. McNicoll and his team are extensively involved in efforts to move things forward. It is now up to the federal government to get involved as well and to ensure that tangible progress is made for the deaf and hearing impaired.
The government has certainly had plenty of opportunities. In the past, we suggested a number of possible solutions. Despite two motions passed unanimously in the House, these motions have not resulted in any legislation or action.
As the House will recall, in May 1999, parliamentarians ruled unanimously in favour of a motion recognizing the importance for the public and private sectors to provide deaf and hard-of-hearing persons with the tools required for them to take their place in the world.
On May 30, 2001, parliamentarians again gave their unanimous consent for a motion which I introduced through the adoption of the Report on the Broadcasting and Availability of the Debates and Proceedings of Parliament in Both Official Languages.
This report recommended closed-captioning in French of oral question period in the House of Commons, as is already done in English. A year will soon have passed and there is still no closed-captioning in French. Yet there are 750,000 Quebecers, most of them francophones, who are not entitled to the same service.
It is completely inconceivable that in a country which claims to respect its two official languages, and worse still, in parliament, that it is taking so long to get closed-captioning in French.
This shows the magnitude of the problem. It also shows that, despite the unanimity of parliamentarians, the federal government has still done nothing.
But there is certainly no lack of suggestions. This is the purpose of my motion, which calls on the government to take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired. One such measure is closed-captioning.
To that end, I urge the federal government to draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed-captioning.
Is it necessary to repeat that television plays a major role in the lives of a great many people who are deaf or hearing impaired? For some of them, it is the only means of communication; not everyone can afford a computer and access to Internet.
Depriving these people of this source of information and entertainment can isolate them, and I am not even talking about the safety aspect of the issue. Since they cannot listen to the radio, television remains their only source of real time information.
These are only a few examples showing the complex differences between someone who can hear and someone who cannot. I remain optimistic in spite of everything. My goal is to obtain full 100% closed captioning of all television broadcasts, both in French and in English, for the deaf and the hearing impaired.
There is another problem with French programming. The CRTC requires that English television channels provide closed captioning for their programs but does not impose the same requirement on French television.
Therefore, the French speaking deaf and hearing impaired have access to a mere 40% of the SRC programs whereas the English speaking public in the same situation has access to 90% to 100% of the programs being shown on TV. This is the type of justice and equity we get from the federal government. Those are highly troubling statistics.
In a country which claims to respect both official languages, it is unthinkable that French closed captioning should be so far behind closed captioning for English programs. In my opinion, some legislation is required; we need measures to solve once and for all that complex problem of access to communications for these three million individuals and 750,000 in Quebec. The federal government can easily and quickly enact legislation to solve that problem.
But this is only a start. It is only one way to truly promote the integration of the deaf and the hearing impaired in our society.
We have to beyond that, and another important element of my motion refers to the promotion of research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning, particularly through a real funding program. This would help make technology more available and affordable. For example, the Centre de la recherche informatique de Montréal has launched a research program on speech recognition. This project will allow live closed captioning. The Quebec government has offered financial assistance, but to this date, the federal government has not shown any interest in supporting this research project.
It is not as though the government did not have the means to do so. This would really not be much compared to the huge surpluses in the federal budgets year after year.
In conclusion, I call upon my colleagues to support my motion so that we can send the government a clear and unequivocal message that the will expressed by parliamentarians has to be translated into government policies.
In supporting this motion, I ask the federal government to be consistent and to turn commitments into action. The government can do something, and more than three million people are counting on it.
The fight will not be over until these three million Canadians have access to policies ensuring their complete integration into our society. But more than anything else, the fight will not be over until the federal government understands that closed captioning is not a privilege but rather a right, and that it allows the deaf and the hearing impaired to read what others hear.
This situation is urgent. The will is one thing, but without action, we are going nowhere. I therefore call upon my colleagues to support this motion.
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my support of the motion. I wish to commend my colleague for introducing it. I also wish to commend the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who worked diligently on encouraging as many of her colleagues to support this important initiative. The parliamentary secretary has asked me whether or not I would support the motion. She encouraged me to do so, and I am willing to support it.
The motion would support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired and set up a fund to research and develop the technologies required to assist in this endeavour. The government is already committed to ensure that all Canadians have access to our broadcasting system.
Television has become an integral part of our lives and one of the primary sources of information for all Canadians. Can members imagine seeing an important event on television but not being able to hear what was being said or reported, or hearing the newscast or program but not seeing the visual images? This was the world for many hearing and visually impaired Canadians until the discovery of closed captioning and voice print.
What is closed captioning and how does it work?. Closed captioning translates the audio portion of a television program into subtitles, also known as captions. These captions usually appear at the bottom of the television screen and generally scroll in unison with the program being viewed. To view closed captioning the viewer requires a caption decoder chip in the television set or a separate decoder.
Let us look at the National Broadcasting Reading Service and La Magnétothèque. They are providers of services for the visually impaired, also known as voice print. Voice print is provided by the National Broadcasting Reading Service and La Magnétothèque via a newspaper reading service 24 hours a day, along with other programming to assist persons who are blind, visually impaired or print handicapped. Generally voice print is delivered over a secondary audio programming service, SAP.
How do we ensure the growth of these important services? We do so as we implement a variety of tools to ensure that our hearing and visually impaired citizens have access to our diverse stories. It only makes sense that as the dependence on television increases so should our resolve to provide the hearing and visually impaired with access based services.
An example of this resolve is included in subsection 3(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act which states:

programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

To this end the Government of Canada has undertaken many initiatives to ensure that this service continues to grow in both official languages. Currently closed captioning is a mandatory requirement to obtain funding from the Canadian television fund.
The CRTC, the body which regulates our broadcast airwaves, makes it a requirement to provide these services and has set out clear goals that Canadian broadcasters are expected to meet. For example, major broadcasters such as CBC, CTV and Global must caption at least 90% of all programming during the broadcast day as well as local news, including live segments.
Medium size broadcasters and smaller stations are encouraged to meet the same standard while specialty services must also work toward that 90% goal.
Challenges for captioning in French include a small market base and the fact that captioning technology was initially developed for the English language market.
Other examples of resolve include the simplification of the Canadian film or video tax credit as announced in the February 2000 budget. The Department of Canadian Heritage now requires that all certified productions be closed captioned for the hearing impaired. This is an especially important point because now even more Canadian stories that are set to film are shared with even more Canadians, thanks to services like closed captioning.
It is important to note as well that even with these positive measures in place, we face challenges that call for even more resolve. For instance, closed captioning in French is within a small market base that was originally designed to facilitate an English language market.
It is a fact that television has become an essential tool in the debate and exchange of free ideas. These ideas are the very same ones that help sustain and grow a democratic society such as ours without exclusion. All Canadians, including those who are hearing and visually impaired, deserve to be joined in debate and exchange ideas.
I support the initiative to commence with discussions on the important issue of closed captioning. I suggest to everyone that they make their concerns known to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the course of its review of the Canadian broadcasting system.
I conclude by congratulating the minister and her very able parliamentary secretary who have brought this issue to our attention, as well as the member of parliament who proposed the motion. It is my hope the motion will be adopted unanimously by members of parliament.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, Motion No. 367 presented by the member for Longueuil states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed captioning.

I am very pleased to address the issue in the House for a number of reasons.
I am sure that every member in the House as a member of society comes across people who are hearing impaired. I remember one of my first personal experiences was with a friend who had grown to adulthood with a deaf parent. I was quite intrigued as I observed him using the American sign language as a communication tool. In his family that was the norm. He and his siblings all used sign language to communicate with their father .
The subject today is not about American sign language, it is about closed captioning on television. However it does bear considering the needs and the concerns of the deaf and being sensitive to those who are hearing impaired in our society.
I personally have been very impressed with the American sign language. If I may be allowed, I will go on for a moment about that.
The hearing impaired are able to communicate very well using sign language. On a ferry trip from Nanaimo to Vancouver I remember seeing a group of people who turned out to be constituents communicating using sign language.
I am quite keen to have someone do signing at our town hall meetings. We explored that possibility but were not successful in arranging it. We are still working on it. If there are people out there in my riding who have the skills to do that, I am looking for them.
Communication is a privilege that we enjoy as human beings. We like to think we are intelligent human beings, but even that can be the subject of debate in the House. It is a privilege to be able to paint a picture with words, to be able to discuss a subject such as the one we are debating today that does not involve those of us here who are not hearing impaired but we are able to identify with, that takes us into the lives, the hearts and the minds of people who have a disability that we do not have.
I wonder if we do not take our communication skills for granted sometimes. What a tremendous advantage it is for us to be able to communicate intimate thoughts, our thoughts about beauty and the wonderful world we see around us, to be able to describe what we see when travelling along the coast, a tide pool, a sunset or a wave breaking on the shore.
Communication is such a wonderful tool. It is such a wonderful opportunity that we have to express ourselves and to receive fulfillment in this world.
The issue the motion addresses is about access to information. It is about opportunity to engage in society and understand what is going on in the world. It is about inclusion. It is about personal development.
A few facts were presented by the hon. member for Longueuil and we appreciate that. She mentioned there are about three million people in Canada who are hearing impaired. I have some statistics that include the United States. Approximately 28 million people in the U.S. have some degree of reduced hearing sensitivity. That puts us at about the 10:1 ratio, which seems to be standard in so many issues between Canada and the United States relative to our populations.
Over one million children in the U.S. have a hearing loss. One in 1,000 infants born in the U.S. has a severe or profound hearing loss. In the first instance we are talking about the one in 1,000 infants born with a severe or profound hearing loss, but by the time they are school age children, a severe or profound hearing loss occurs in about nine children out of every 1,000.
Some of the information I was able to glean in trying to enter the world of the deaf and understand it a little better was information I received from Deaf and Mental Health Services in British Columbia. It did a survey recently. It gathered information by reviewing relevant literature on previous reports. It consulted with a community advisory committee and interviewed over 160 community members, family members and service providers individually and in small groups.
The statistics showed that of the target population of British Columbia, 8,000 children and adults from all ethnic and family backgrounds are deaf. I will quote a paragraph from its conclusions:

Although all Deaf people face tremendous communication barriers in a world designed for people who hear, this small population is very diverse in terms of pattern of deafness, communication preferences, signing skills, speaking skills, educational experiences, literacy, and abilities. About two-thirds of the Deaf population (about 5,000 BC residents) communicate primarily through American Sign Language (ASL) and are more or less oriented toward...the Deaf community.

It is important to recognize that it is not just the deaf person that is involved. Family members are also influenced. There are probably four people in an average household who are affected along with the deaf person.
I have just one more set of statistics to offer. About 90% of deaf children are born to parents who can hear and about 90% of children born to deaf parents can hear.
There is another segment of society that is very much influenced by this and it is those who suffer from adult onset hearing impairment. In my riding there are many people with this. There is a huge retirement community on Vancouver Island. Also affected are many of our World War II veterans, Korean war veterans, many of our mill workers who have been exposed to industrial noise, our bush workers, forestry workers and operators of heavy duty equipment.
I spoke with one audiologist in my riding. I was interested to find out that it takes between 80 decibels and 90 decibels for eight hours to create a hearing loss. I was surprised that something as innocuous as a hair blow dryer produces 90 decibels. We have to wonder about other noises we are exposed to in society. Perhaps we should consider having a debate on noise pollution.
I am concerned about the young people that I see driving down the street with boom boxes blaring in their cars that rattle not only their own vehicles but those across the street and perhaps even people in buildings across the street. I remember being in my office in Parksville, a small community on Vancouver Island, and actually feeling the building tremble. I went out to see what was causing it. It was a boom box in a young person's car out in the back lane. The noise was actually shaking the building. My receptionist and I were quite surprised to feel the impact of that.
I understand that the noise level from a boom box is about 140 decibels. At 140 decibels, that puts it right up there with what we might experience if we were standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier or if we were within 25 metres of a jet taking off, which is about 150 decibels. At those levels a person's eardrums can actually rupture.
This is a very serious issue that the member has raised. The issue is very important to members of our society.
I came across some information from the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. It did a study in June 1999. It identified three main issues associated with closed captioning on television: accessibility; quality of programming available to the hearing impaired; and awareness. Regarding quality, there are still some technical difficulties with closed captioning. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. As far as awareness issues, one-third of the Canadian general public cannot describe what closed captioning is and therefore are unaware of the issue.
In closing, any day that we learn something new is a good day. I appreciate that the member has brought this motion forward to raise the awareness of the issues relating to the deaf. The member's motion is about learning and opportunities to learn. It is about inclusion. It is about development. It is about helping people achieve satisfaction in life. It is about relieving a sense of isolation.
If I may be allowed, just in a nutshell, there is another metaphor that I personally have found very fulfilling. It has to do with learning. Being an islander, I relate to this: “The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder”.
This is about sharing knowledge and communicating knowledge. It is about helping a segment of our population enter fully with the rest of us into this marvellous experience in life of learning and growing together.
I am pleased to support the motion. I encourage all other members of the House to raise awareness of the deaf and the hearing impaired in our society.
Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I too am extremely pleased to join in this debate today. I want to acknowledge my colleague from the Bloc who over the last number of years on a regular basis has tried to remind us of some of the difficulties some people face in Canada.
I still recall the very first time that she took the time to sign in the House. Quite frankly, I was totally amazed that she had any type of disability whatsoever. It was not until that very day that I realized she did. She obviously has worked really hard to overcome her difficulties and she has been instrumental in having a good number of us recognize disabled people in Canada. I have a hard time even recognizing my colleague under the terminology disabled, because she certainly does not seem to have any greater problem in getting her message out than any of the rest of us, her message being to make us aware that there still are issues out there.
As technology has developed over the years there are those of us who have a tendency to think there are no problems for disabled people any more. There are organizations that represent the blind. There are organizations that represent other disabled people, whether they have ambulatory disabilities or otherwise. There are organizations that represent the deaf.
We tend to think that everything is looked after. There is tremendous technology in this day and age. We can send people to the moon. We can transmit from one community to another what a human body looks like so that a doctor can see it and decide what type of treatment should be proceeded with. Medical operations can be performed with robotics and tiny little instruments. Tremendous things are happening in the world of technology, so it is hard for some of us, unless we are affected, to realize that everybody does not have the same opportunities. It is hard for us to understand that not every program has closed captioning. If we do not need closed captioning, we just do not realize the need for it.
I have to admit that until the motion came up I did not realize all the specific things that are available to assist people, but I also did not recognize that they were not available to everyone. I did not realize that it was not something that was already happening, whereby every program would have closed captioning.
This is a very good time for the member's motion to come forward. My colleague from Dartmouth has been our representative on the disabilities committee and also on the heritage committee of the House. She has tried on an ongoing basis to keep us abreast of different things that are happening. She has made it very clear that the heritage committee has been dealing with a lot of issues on the Broadcasting Act. She feels that this is an extremely timely moment for the motion to be coming forward, because the committee is making recommendations for changes within the Broadcasting Act.
It was great to hear today from my colleagues on the government side that the government is open to addressing these concerns. I hope they are not just voicing their concerns and recognition but are going to make an honest to goodness effort to address the issue and ensure that recommendations and some legislation are put in place requiring broadcasters to bring forth closed captioning in all programming.
My colleague from Dartmouth also indicated that one of the thoughts out there for broadcasting companies is that they may not be open to legislation ensuring closed captioning. Right now they sell the service of closed captioning to advertisers so they are able to make some money from it. That is not to say that it is not wonderful to make money. We recognize that things need to be sold and that people want to buy them. There are business opportunities and there are entrepreneurs, but there are entrepreneurs and then there are those who want to make a profit from others' hardship and at their expense.
Quite frankly, it is important that we not only do research, promote technology and make legislation for profit but that we make it because it will be beneficial for society and for individuals.
It is crucial that the government, with the support of all parliamentarians and in recognizing that we represent Canadians who would support this as well, is given the dollars needed to promote technology and research in the area of providing more broad scoped closed captioning and other specific improvements that would benefit those less fortunate. It should not just be done on the basis that someone will not be able to make a dollar.
I have been serving on the industry committee and I have a bit of a hard time because I, quite frankly, think there are some things that people should not make a profit from. It is a matter of doing something because it is the right thing to do.
I wonder where we would have been in our society if Banting and Best had only been doing research to make a profit. Would they have really gone forward? I think they did their research with the intention of improving the lives of people in Canada.
I do not recall his name, but about a month or so ago I read about the fellow who first brought about canola production and the changes to the plant that we now know as canola. He did so without making a single penny. That was an issue of principle on his part. He was improving this crop to benefit people, not to make a buck. He has much higher regard in my books than a company that would go out and make a crop from which we could not grow from its seed. They could restrict who bought it and who could produce it so they could make a profit. I do not see this as beneficial to society. I do not see that as where the government should be going.
I want to reflect again on the issue of investing in research and technology. It is important that the government look at investing in those areas but not solely on the issue that if we invest in those area we will make a profit. The profit we make will not just be in dollars. It will be in the fact that we will be providing people who are less fortunate with the opportunity to broader knowledge education and to become equal partners in all aspects of society.
I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for bringing forward this very good motion. I certainly hope she gets the support of not only the majority of the House but all the House.
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 367, brought forward by my our colleague, the member for Longueuil.
The motion before the House today asks the federal government to, and I quote:

(a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired;

Closed captioning involves printing on the screen, in sub-title format, the oral part of a television program, that is the dialogues and the narrative. This allows hearing impaired viewers to read what they cannot hear.
To access closed captioning, they have to decode a broadcasting signal known as “line 21”. To that end, the television receiver has to be equipped with an integrated closed captioning decoder for the hearing impaired or be upgraded by the installation of an external decoder.
I think that it is important to specify that parliament has made the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the independent public authority responsible for regulating and monitoring the Canadian broadcasting system.
The CRTC has already issued specific requirements for closed captioning because it is convinced, just like you and me, that television has a fundamental role to play in the public debates and the free circulation of ideas that enrich a democratic society.
Under the Broadcasting Act, and I quote:

Programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose.

I believe it is important to remind the House that because of the higher cost to closed caption French language programming, private sector French language broadcasters do not provide the same level of closed captioned programs as English broadcasters. Even though they do not have the same requirements as English language television stations, they have always been encouraged to increase the number of hours of closed captioned programming that their station airs per year.
Allow me to explain the reasons behind the difference between English and French broadcasters.
Unlike their English counterparts, French broadcasters cannot purchase foreign programs that have already been closed captioned, because the closed captioning technology used in many French speaking countries is incompatible with the technology used in Canada. Furthermore, the cost of closed captioning in French is approximately 2.5 times greater than the cost of closed captioning in English.
As well, given the small size of the French market, the limited use of the service generates very few sponsors, and as a result, a weak return on investment.
According to many broadcasting specialists, these numerous obstacles mean that this type of service, despite its benefits for the hard of hearing, does little to benefit the competitiveness of French broadcasters.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the member for Longueuil, in the press release she issued on the day the motion was brought forward, said, and I quote:

--French networks, which are not required by the CRTC to meet the same closed captioning criteria as English networks--

In its 1999 television policy, the CRTC recognizes explicitly that the closed captioning requirements should be the same for both French and English broadcasters and is now applying this principle when renewing licences for French broadcasters.
Since 1999, the CRTC expects French broadcasters to gradually reach closed captioning levels similar to those of English broadcasters.
In developing its overall strategy with regard to closed captioning, the CRTC considered the fact that all licensees do not have the same financial resources.
Indeed, the requirements that may be just fine for a large station in an urban market could be a heavy financial burden for a station in a smaller market. So equality with regard to closed captioning will come gradually, slowly but surely.
For example, since 2001, the largest French private television network, TVA, knows that it will have to raise its closed captioning levels to 100% for its news programming by September 2004 and to 90% for all its programming by 2007.
Among the requirements of the Canadian Television Fund, closed captioning is compulsory for a production that includes narration, dialogues and songs, unless the program is intended for children under five, or is in an aboriginal language that does not use the roman alphabet.
The Government of Canada is committed to social inclusion and access for all Canadians to a broadcasting system that meets their needs. The principles underlying Motion No. 367 are unquestionably very laudable, but they do not, in the opinion of this government, require additional legislation or an amendment to the existing act.
In conclusion, I would invite the hon. member for Longueuil to inform the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of this important issue. It would be very appropriate for the author of Motion No. 367, to make representations and present her arguments to this committee.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil. I get the impression that a number of members of parliament have family members who are hard of hearing.
For example, many people know that, in his last years as governor general, my father had a lot of problems hearing from his right ear. When I go home, to New Brunswick, and my father is there, the volume of the television set is turned quite high.
I believe, like many of us, that Canadians who live with these difficulties and handicaps must have access to television and be able to learn from, to hear and to enjoy a society that they are also a part of.
John Herron: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate in support of Motion No. 367 brought forward by the hon. member for Longueuil. I commend her for raising public awareness of those individuals with disabilities, particularly people with disabilities related to hearing.
I had the opportunity last week to participate in a forum during disability week in my own province of New Brunswick. I was escorted around in a wheelchair throughout the upper Saint John region. We are aware of the necessity to ensure that we have the appropriate accesses to rooms and elevators for those individuals who are physically challenged. We think we have made great inroads in our society, and the truth is we have.
However there is an awful lot that we must do. Any motion that we have before the House helps raise the awareness that there are initiatives the Government of Canada must take and that we as a society must take to ensure that those persons with disabilities have the right to participate in our society to their fullest capacity because they want to as well.
The motion we are debating states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired; (b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning; (c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed captioning.

According to Statistics Canada hearing loss and deafness affects millions of Canadians with 2.9 million Canadians experiencing some form of hearing loss. That is one in ten. The statistics are probably on the low side since most of the research and statistics gathering rely on self-identification and inconsistent use of terms and definitions. It is common for people to deny their hearing loss, as we might understand.
The Canadian Hearing Society along with other groups supports the motion and so does the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The reality is that deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians continue to experience violations of basic human rights without regard to public broadcasting. Let us be clear. The need for and right to communications and language is fundamental to the human condition. Without communication an individual cannot become an effective and productive adult or an informed citizen in our democratic process.
Studies have proven conclusively and repeatedly that captioning assists both children and adults in learning literacy skills and in developing second-language skills. In 1987 the Canadian Association of the Deaf estimated that one-third of the populace could benefit directly from captioning. Considering this, one might assume that captioning is presently being provided by all television broadcasting as a matter of course, a matter of self-interest by broadcasters or a matter of regulatory requirements by the CRTC. This is simply not the case.
In November 2000 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the CBC had indeed discriminated on the basis of disability or deafness and ordered the CBC to caption everything it broadcasts on the first reasonable occasion. The CBC has chosen to challenge the decision. It will likely argue that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter because the CRTC is legally mandated to rule on broadcasting.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too. The industry cannot be exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act and have the CRTC stripped of the power to regulate and require captioning. However it is important to note that the CBC and CTV are the best achievers among Canadian broadcasters as far as captioning is concerned.
The technology is not only capable of supplying the demand but it is already in the hands of the broadcasters. Even community cable channels have access to the equipment itself. It is important to point out that the Liberal government itself has agreed that closed captioning is of vital importance.
On May 30, 2001, parliamentarians gave their unanimous consent to a motion to adopt the report on the broadcasting and the availability of the debates and proceedings of parliament in both official languages. This report recommended, among other measures, the closed captioning in French of oral question period in the House, as is already being done in English. However, the government, as per usual, did not take any action.
Unfortunately, this is another chapter in the book called the Liberal government that does nothing and it is Canadians that pay. In this case there are individuals who have hearing losses or deafness and do not have the opportunity to participate to the degree that they should.
I would say to all members of the House that this is a mere motion. It is not a bill. It is not an actual piece of legislation. When the House approves a motion, Madam Speaker, and you are well aware of this particular aspect, it is expressing the will of the House to move in a direction to meet the intent of the motion. It may not be exactly as the member has worded it in the motion itself but the principles are followed through.
If Canadians are concerned, not just in principle but in reality, and if members of parliament are concerned beyond supporting the principle of the motion but not liking one comma that is in the sentence, then I ask all members of the House, regardless of what party stripe they yield from, to support Motion No. 367.
I wish to commend the member for Longueuil for her ongoing commitment to this most worthy cause. I ask all members to support the motion. The best way to do that is to put it to a vote. We can end the debate right here and now. Let us not filibuster this issue. There is no need to do that. I suspect that we have the support of the mover of Motion No. 367. If all members are concerned about this particular issue I would ask them to stay in their seats. Let us end the debate now and put it to a vote.
Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil urges the government to take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communication for the deaf and hearing impaired. I am pleased to speak to the importance of closed captioning for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and to inform the House of some of the steps being taken to meet their needs.
It may interest members to learn that while service to the hearing impaired community was the impetus for closed captioning, it is not the only community that benefits from the service. Educators have discovered that captioning can help children learn to read by assisting them in word recognition and comprehension. In addition, for the nearly five million Canadians who are functionally illiterate the service is a valuable tool in helping them learn to read. For many new Canadians for whom neither English nor French is their native tongue, closed captioning is an exceptionally useful tool in learning the idioms of the language as well as pop culture.
It is a tribute to previous members of the House that subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act sets out that:

(p) programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose--

Section 3 of the act also indicates that the needs and circumstances of all Canadians should be taken into account by the broadcasting industry through its programming and through the employment opportunities that arise out of its operations. Broadcasters' actions as they relate to employment equity and closed captioning must reflect this policy objective.
In the past four years there has been a requirement for all television stations with more than $10 million in annual advertising revenue and network payments to provide closed captioning on all local news including live segments. This is relatively recent. It is a clear indication of the importance of continuing to expand and improve this service. It is no easy task. Our broadcasters should be commended for the efforts they make to fulfill this requirement.
When a program is produced well in advance and the actors or performers use a script it is relatively easy to take the words and time their appearance on the screen so it corresponds with what is seen. This is often called off-line or post production. For much of the programming produced for the mass market this can be done with relative ease.
However the challenge facing local or live action broadcasters is very different. They must do what is called real time captioning. This involves stenographers who transcribe live programs such as news or sports events as they are broadcast. It is a tremendous challenge as well as a wonderful achievement.
Some programs use what is called live display. This is a subset of real time. It allows scripted portions of a program to be fed into a computer for translation into captions but omits any spontaneous or unscripted segments.
In short, steps are being taken to ensure that as technologies evolve and opportunities arrive so too will services to Canadians with hearing impairment evolve and improve.
The quality of the services being provided to Canadians is a source of pride to all of us, but that does not mean we can rest on our laurels. As we know, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the relevance of the Broadcasting Act. It is a most opportune time to revisit the quality of the services being provided and examine ways they can be improved. I therefore applaud the initiative to discuss the important issue of closed captioning. I urge all who are concerned to let their concerns be known to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
In my own community I spent seven years with the independent living centre as a puppeteer with Kids on the Block. One of the puppets was hearing impaired. At the time I was able to do sign language. It struck me what an important communication tool it was and how important it was to we make sure that when we provide services in Canada they benefit all Canadians.
Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have a minute to offer my thanks to the hon. member for Longueuil for her work on the issue and for her motion.
The hon. member opposite and I were elected in 1997. For one of the statements she made in the last session of parliament the hon. member for Longueuil got up and gave her S.O. 31 in sign language. It was the only time in the history of parliament it had been done. It was quite commendable. I thank her for that and for her work in this area.
We have been dealing with the issue at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as part of our review of the Broadcasting Act. Last week at the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages the issue was raised by Senator Gauthier of the other place when Mr. Rabinovitch of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appeared before us.
It is an important issue. The member's motion is timely because we are in the process of amending the Broadcasting Act. Her motion provides impetus to our study. We hope to be able to come out with a solid recommendation that keeps very much in mind what the hon. member has brought before us today by way of her motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 1.31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m.)