2002-11-08

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, an act providing for controls on the export, import or transit across Canada of rough diamonds and for a certification scheme for their export in order to meet Canada's obligations under the Kimberley Process, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Natural Resources): 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Don Boudria: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today at the third reading stage of Bill C-14, a bill to provide controls for the export, import or transit across Canada of rough diamonds and to establish a certification scheme for the export of rough diamonds.
By way of background to the bill, it is important to understand the international concern that persists about the link between the illicit international trade in rough diamonds and armed conflict, particularly in places like Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
While conflict diamonds constitute a very small percentage of the international diamond trade, they have had a devastating impact on peace, security and sustainable development in affected countries. Having witnessed the devastation that occurred in Sierra Leone over the past number of years, this concern is not underestimated.
The Kimberley process is the principal international initiative established to develop practical approaches to the conflict diamond challenge. Launched in May 2000, the process was initiated by several South African countries in response to growing international pressure to address peace and security concerns, as well as to protect several national economies in the sub-region, including Namibia, Botswana and South Africa that depend on the diamond industry.
The process, which is chaired by South Africa, now includes 48 countries involved in producing, processing, importing and exporting rough diamonds. These countries account for 98% of the global trade in and production of rough diamonds and they include all of Canada's major diamond trading partners.
Canada has participated in the Kimberley process since its inception. Over the course of nine plenary sessions and three ministerial meetings, the process has developed an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. In March 2002 Canada hosted a meeting of the Kimberley process which achieved consensus on the scheme.
Since the House last debated the bill, the participating countries have met in Switzerland and renewed their commitment to the certification scheme and to the target implementation date of January 1, 2003. The proposed international certification scheme includes the requirement that all shipments of rough diamonds imported to or exported from Canada be certified under the scheme and it bans trade in rough diamonds with countries that do not participate in the scheme.
Bill C-14 would establish the trade regulation regime necessary to participate in the Kimberley process rough diamond certification scheme. The bill would provide the authority to verify that natural rough diamonds exported from Canada are non-conflict diamonds. It also would give the authority to verify that every shipment of natural rough diamonds entering Canada is accompanied by a Kimberley process certificate from the exporting country, again certifying that the diamonds have a non-conflict source.
A number of people in this process deserve thanks. I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister of Natural Resources and his staff, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade and their staff. Particular thanks are also in order to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, as well as to the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister for International Trade.
In particular, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for its work to improve the bill. The committee has clarified the offence provisions in the bill, improved the sections dealing with disclosure of information, dealing with access to property related to investigators and dealing with the issuance of Canadian certificates for the export of rough diamonds recovered from test samples of rock or concentrate not necessarily mined in Canada.
As well, the committee has strengthened the review and monitoring provisions in the bill. I have been very concerned about the issue of future monitoring and it was included in the provisions of a private member's bill that I introduced on this subject.
Canada will continue to pursue the Kimberley process internationally and domestically and will undertake a review of the provisions and operations of the act after three years. For the review, the Minister of Natural Resources has indicated that he intends to consult with stakeholders in the process, especially the NGOs who have been involved in the Kimberley process from its early stage, such as Partnership Africa Canada and the industry, including diamond exploration and producing companies and cutters and polishers.
The result of the review will be reported back to Parliament. I am sure that from the standpoint of especially NGOs, such as Partnership Africa Canada, they will not only be keeping a close eye on the implementation of the legislation domestically but they will also be keeping a close eye on the situation in places like Africa, the Congo, Sierra Leone and Angola.
Both the mining industry and the diamond cutting and polishing industry are dependent on access to export markets and, therefore, on Canada's participation in the Kimberley process. Passage of Bill C-14 will put in place all of the authorities required for Canada to meet its commitments under the international Kimberley process. The early passage of Bill C-14 will ensure that these authorities are in place by year end when the process is planned for international implementation.
In conclusion, I ask for the support of all members of the House in passing this important bill in order that Canada can be in a position to implement the Kimberley process in concert with our global partners.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-14, the Kimberley process. I have concerns with the bill, some which were addressed in committee through amendments. My main concern was with the rights to private property. I am happy to say that through different methods we got that changed in committee. For a change the government is starting to respect the rights of private property.
While Bill C-14 is needed, I have grave concerns with the way the bill has been drafted because it lacks toughness and teeth when it comes to sentencing people who are caught and convicted of using conflict diamonds.
The government has had time to work on the bill and to bring it forward to the opposition parties in the House. Why has it waited until the last minute to do that? It was a process that could have been dealt with through more consultation, more than we were allowed. Instead, it now is trying to ram it through the House. This seems to be a favourite habit of the government. It knows full well that such a bill is needed to keep our people working, particularly in our exploration and mining fields and in import and export.
Years ago we knew that the funds being derived from the sale of rough or conflict diamonds were being used by rebels and state actors to finance military activities to overthrow legitimate governments, to subvert international efforts to promote peace and stability and to commit horrifying atrocities against unarmed civilians.
During the past decade more than 6.5 million people from Sierra Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been driven from their homes by wars waged in large part for control of diamond mining areas. Millions of these refugees are eking out a very miserable existence in neighbouring countries. As well, tens of thousands of others have totally left the continent.
Approximately 3.7 million people have died during these wars. The countries caught up in the fighting are homes to nearly 70 million people whose societies have been torn apart, not only by fighting but also by terrible human violations.
Human rights activists, the diamond trade, as represented by the World Diamond Council and governments around the world have been working to block the trade in conflict diamonds. Their efforts have helped to build a consensus that action is urgently needed to end the trade in conflict diamonds.
We have known this for years and yet it is only today that the government has decided to rush the bill through.
We know that without effective action to eliminate the trade in conflict diamonds, the trade in legitimate diamonds faces the threat of a consumer backlash that could damage the economies of countries not involved in the trade of conflict diamonds and penalize members of the legitimate trade and the people they employ. Because of this, I probably will do something that I have never done before in the House, and that is hold my nose and vote in support of Bill C-14. I say I will hold my nose because the legislation lacks teeth. I do not see anything in the bill that will be a roadblock through penalties or fines in the area of conflict diamonds.
It just seems to be here in Canada that we believe even a weak law is better than no law so I have lots of concerns. Industry has some concerns but has been assured by the government that it will work to rectify those concerns.
I have talked to some people in the industry and I must say they have a lot more confidence in the government than I do when it comes to rectifying a number of concerns. They are accepting a promise of the government, and we all know the government has a tendency to break its promises and its word. Hopefully this will not be the case in this instance. I only have to go back and think of the promises of the government and its word to the lumber industry on the softwood lumber agreement. Look at what happened to many people employed in the industry.
Hopefully the government will be better at keeping its word under the Kimberley process and Bill C-14 than it has been for others.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill C-14, An Act providing for controls on the export, import or transit across Canada of rough diamonds and for a certification scheme for the export of rough diamonds in order to meet Canada's obligations under the Kimberley Process.
Not only will this bill have an impact on the way we do things in Canada, but in my opinion it also has an important role to play in protecting human rights in a number of countries. I am thinking in particular of countries with totalitarian regimes, which make use of a mineral resource, a natural resource, in order to finance entire armies. This enables them to commit atrocities and abductions and torture civilian populations. Later in my speech, I will not hesitate to name some of those countries.
When such major violations of the most basic of human rights are committed in certain countries, African countries in particular, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians in a democratic society to speak out against these atrocities, but also to engage in an international process to prevent such situations from occurring. That is the purpose of Bill C-14, with its 14 or 15 pages.
The enactment permits exports of rough diamonds to be made only to countries participating in the Kimberley process. The Kimberley process is the result of a consensus by 37 governments and NGOs who wanted to do away with the trade in what are commonly called “blood diamonds”. Some governments actually go so far as to use money from the diamond trade to finance and equip armies to crush civilian populations, often populations who are fighting for their freedom.
The atrocities funded by the proceeds from these conflict diamonds are well documented, as we know. It is therefore imperative to take action in order to put an end to them.
This process, moreover, means that diamond purchasing societies such as Canada end up financing the atrocities committed in those countries. It is our social and moral responsibility to take steps on this. This one is just a baby step, considering the terrible situation in these countries. Canada must therefore be consistent, and must step up its development aid and other actions as well in order to help Africa, and the countries in the most precarious positions. This bill is a beginning, but we have to go beyond it.
When I accompanied the Prime Minister to Johannesburg in September for the Earth Summit, I made three recommendations. One of them was to increase international assistance to developing countries. How can it be considered acceptable that a country such as Canada, a member of the OECD, refuses to provide a percentage of its GDP that is comparable to the average of other OECD countries? Obviously we need measures, such as the Kimberley process, which must be applied.
This bill, which would work towards implementation of the process, must be encouraged. We must also provide the funds necessary to help these countries to develop, to develop their abilities, and to truly promote the conditions required for establishing real democracy, and to prevent governments from using diamond sales and revenues to fund organized groups that violate the most fundamental human rights.
This is why the Kimberley process was developed, and one of the first meetings on the process was held here in Ottawa. Canada must also be consistent and adopt this bill, because in many ways, Canada hosted a number of meetings that led to the adoption of the Kimberley process.
The process sets up an international certification system. The process must be applied. However, it must apply from the mining operations all the way to the place of processing, in this case, the diamond cutters. This has to be the case from the moment the resource is developed. However, those who handle the resource, the diamond cutters, must be governed by the process. This is the only way to avoid loopholes.
Many countries apply some certification scheme. However, too many countries take advantage of certain loopholes between the time when the resource is mined and the time it is processed. The UN security council has prohibited, among others, diamonds from Liberia. It also has strong reservations about diamonds produced by Sierra Leone and Angola.
For example, the Government of Angola funds its action against UNITA by using other sources of revenues to buy its military equipment. Under the sanctions imposed in 1998 on UNITA by the UN security council, it is illegal to acquire diamonds from UNITA and to sell arms to that rebel group. Despite these measures, the illegal trade in diamonds by UNITA has not been stopped, even though it is not as active. The murders, acts of torture and kidnappings are continuing.
This is still a reality. It is also a reality in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Amnesty International estimates that several thousands, and even several tens of thousands of unarmed civilians have been killed deliberately and arbitrarily since August 1998 by armed forces engaged in the conflict.
No less than 2 million people, the majority of whom were living in and around mining areas, were displaced by armed forces. A large number of them died of hunger, cold and untreated diseases that they contracted while trying to escape from armed men.
Moreover, civilian populations living close to areas where mineral resources are mined—in this case it is diamonds—are the direct, and more so than others, victims of such action, which is in total violation of human rights.
The group Partnership Africa Canada estimated that the illegal trade conducted by rebel armies in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo represents about 4% of total world production, according the De Beers. Other estimates place the number higher. While not a significant part of the world trade, 4% of U.S. $7.5 billion will buy a lot of weapons. So, as those who are listening to us can see, there is a reality and this reality has a definite and significant impact.
It turns out that, in certain countries, certification is not uniformly rigorous throughout the process, that is to say that there were inspections, of course, at a few stages of the process before the diamonds are cut but not at all of them.
We must therefore support the implementation of the Kimberley process by passing Bill C-14, but we must not stop there. We must take this one step further. We must understand that the violence perpetrated in these countries, often against the population, is a reality of non-democratic regimes.
Canada must increase its assistance to developing countries. It must promote technology transfer. These countries' potential for democratic development needs to be enhanced. Without a process like the Kimberley process to protect human rights, and without new capital for developing countries, we will never be able to ensure that human rights are respected, and more importantly, we will never be able to give the people of these developing countries the possibility of leading the normal life led in a country where democratic rules and the most fundamental rights are respected.
The Bloc Quebecois will support any bill that will ensure that armed groups looking to crush civilian populations are not subsidized. This is the context in which we plan to support Bill C-14, a bill that will not only change our way of doing things, obviously, but also protect human rights internationally.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to indicate, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, our pleasure in supporting this bill. It is work that needed to be done for some time. It is a significant step forward in governing the responsibilities we have to control the illicit use of diamonds.
The certification process, that is being developed and would become part of the Kimberley process, would go some distance in avoiding the use of diamonds for trade in armaments. Historically some of the civil wars in Angola, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo have been or are still being fuelled by the use of diamonds for the purchase of armaments.
I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the member for Nepean—Carleton. He has done a lot of work in this regard. He has travelled to Sierra Leone and is a major reason why we are seeing this legislation come before the House now.
I also want to acknowledge the work that has been done by some of the NGOs, in particular Partnership Africa Canada. It has done an outstanding job of bringing this point up the political agenda and assisting in the actual drafting of the legislation in terms of some of the criteria that needed to be in it. The work it has done needs to be acknowledged in that regard.
It has worked extensively with Global Witness Limited, an international NGO. It has been monitoring the situation of the use of diamonds for illicit purposes around the globe and has brought the issue to the forefront internationally. It needs to be acknowledged and credited for all the work that it has done.
I have one final point in terms of acknowledgments and that is our former ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Fowler. Some of us have read some of the speeches that he gave at the UN and internationally. They were quite impassioned ones at times, and that is something we normally do not see from an ambassador, one of our international representatives. He felt strongly about the issue and was able to communicate that inside Canada but more important to the international community. His work needs to be acknowledged and commended.
The use of the certification process that has been established under the Kimberley round of negotiations is one that would benefit the diamond mining industry in Canada. We have never had a problem. Our diamonds have never been used to purchase armaments or in illicit trafficking. However, it will acknowledge that fact. It would allow Canadian diamonds to move forward as part of the international market. Our share of that market is growing and this process would only lend more credence to our industry and would allow us to expand even further. That has been a particular advantage to people from the western territories and would give them a much needed shot in the arm.
I want to address one of the weaknesses not so much in this legislation but in the process internationally. We must be clear that Bill C-14 is an internal law to regulate almost 100%, the use and trade of diamonds in this country. It only, in a rather small way, deals with the importing of diamonds; there are some provisions in the bill for that. What it does not deal with, and was not intended to but it will be the next step in the Kimberley process, is the major weakness that still exists at the international level, that is, an effective meaningful monitoring of the industry at the international level.
To date there are several countries in the world who are suspect in the trade of diamonds. They are shipping significant amounts of diamonds into the international market; however they have no mining industry for diamonds in their home country.
This process as it stands now does not deal with those countries, with how to monitor that and, more important, with how to enforce the Kimberley process to avoid this trade that has caused so much pain and suffering, particularly in Africa. That still needs to be done. I think the member for Nepean--Carleton is well aware of this, as is the foreign affairs department and a number of people at the international level.
The bill does have a provision for review in three years and then within six months of that a report to the House. Hopefully the government will not wait for that entire period of time to set in place our own monitoring to deal with other countries around the globe that are concerned about this, to deal with the NGOs like Partnership Africa Canada, Global Witness and Amnesty International, which are all monitoring this on their own at this point. Hopefully it will get information from them and perhaps move ahead with an international monitoring process that we would all contribute to and use and then have some type of enforcement mechanism against those countries that continue to trade in illicit diamonds.
I will conclude by again acknowledging the work of the member for Nepean--Carleton and those NGOs that have done so much to move this up the political agenda and get this law before us at this time.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-14. Normally when we bring up the subject of diamonds we do not think of conflict, misery and poverty, but the diamonds we are talking about today play a big role in those issues. These diamonds are often referred to, surprisingly enough, as conflict diamonds or blood diamonds. Especially in Africa, they have fuelled violence and conflict in many countries, such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone and more. The profits from the unregulated sale of rough diamonds have been used to fund the military and armed conflicts. As a result, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, mutilated or abducted. Whole countries have been destroyed with the use of the funds from these uncut and rough diamonds.
There has been very little control of rough diamonds and the bill is about bringing Canada into line with newly established international standards for regulation, control and certification of rough diamonds. The bill would bring Canada into line with almost 50 other countries and it should help stamp out the international trade in these illicit rough diamonds that are being used to fund violence.
On December 1, 2000, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict, seeking to break the link between the illicit transactions of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of these conflicts. In taking up this agenda item, the General Assembly recognized that conflict diamonds are a crucial factor in prolonging the brutal wars in parts of Africa and underscored the fact that legitimate diamonds contribute to prosperity and development elsewhere in the Congo.
In Angola and Sierra Leone, conflict diamonds continue to fund rebel groups such as the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola and the Revolutionary United Front, both of which are acting in complete contravention of the international community's objectives of restoring peace in these two countries.
In March 2002, an international agreement was reached on a plan to require a paper trail for diamonds to help throttle the trade in so-called blood diamonds, blamed for financing most of these bloody wars in Africa. As of January 1, 2003, all gem quality diamonds must be certified according to standards outlined in the Kimberley process or they will not be allowed into other countries.
Unfortunately, Canada does not have a diamond regulatory body. Canada Customs does not have a centralized port of entry for diamonds and does not require proof of origin for diamonds. Importers can simply declare them to be from the last port of call, such as a processing centre in Antwerp.
My colleague from the South Shore has been very much involved in this debate and on this issue. He has been following the topic very closely for some time. He has spoken on it many times here in the House and has been following it through the committees involved with the legislation. He has raised a particular concern on the point of entry and exit of rough diamonds in Canada. In doing so, he proposed an amendment in the clause by clause process, which was defeated. Clause 34 of the bill states:
designating any place as a point of entry for importing rough diamonds or as a point of exit for exporting them.
The member for South Shore was not satisfied that the clause referred to more than one point of entry or exit. Therefore his argument for the amendment was to designate two or more points of entry or exit. However, the government could not go along with this and it defeated the amendment. It did not feel that it was important to make that designation. It does not make sense for rough diamonds to be exported and imported through only one port in Canada and it probably will not happen.
This is a very important piece of legislation for many people. It is important for the people in such countries as Sierra Leone, Angola and Liberia because it will stop the conflict due to blood diamonds in these countries. It is also important to our country, because we are on the verge of mining production in Canada and we are becoming a major player in the diamond business. Canada's only diamond mine, the Ekati diamond mine, employs 650 people and produces three million to four million carats of gem quality rough diamonds each year. This is equivalent to nearly 4% of the current world diamond production by weight and 6% by value. We are becoming a big player. Another mine will begin operation in 2003. Two more projects will open in 2007. These four mines could provide direct employment for 1,600 people and could bring total annual production in Canada to approximately $1.6 billion.
Overall, this is a good piece of legislation and many will benefit from it in the true sense of the word. The Progressive Conservative Party does support the bill at third reading. Even though the member for South Shore proposed important amendments to improve the bill and they were not accepted, we feel that it is so important that the bill go through we will support it even without them.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 deals with the Canadian situation in terms of diamonds and certification of our diamonds in the international marketplace. This certainly separates the bill, in many respects, from conflict diamonds. We have a very serious circumstance with conflict diamonds, which are tied up with a lot of destabilization in the world, a lot of terrorist acts and a lot of human atrocities. One must separate what is going on there in terms of looking at this piece of legislation, which deals exclusively with diamonds of Canadian origin within the framework of an international certification system.
I would like to say right off the top that the penalties involved in the legislation in the Canadian context are rather toothless, I believe. It is one thing to deal with certification of diamonds whose origin is Canada, where we have well-established governance, rule of law and freedom of speech. It is quite different in many of the African diamond areas. We have estimates showing that at any given time approximately 20% of the world's supply of diamonds are illicit diamonds and it may well exceed that. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many because of squabbles over diamonds. That is occurring in areas of the world where lives are not valued the way they are in the developed and industrialized areas of the world.
One diamond found on the surface in fluvial areas in Sierra Leone can be worth millions of dollars. One can see the difficulties inherent in trying to establish rules of certification for that kind of resource in a country which has just gone from a prosperous democracy through a destabilization and a civil war and is now trying to rebuild itself. It does not have well-established rules of law and other safeguards for people. Therefore, in that jurisdiction, rules of origin are not going to be respected in the same way they are here.
I have some very good friends from Sierra Leone. I have watched the films that have been smuggled out of Sierra Leone which document the tragedies of the conflict. I have had many conversations. The horror of those films have awakened me to the problems of very tragic proportions.
There has been an important document produced about the Kimberley process. “The Case for Proper Monitoring” by Ian Smillie is an occasional paper of a the joint initiative of Partnership Africa Canada, the International Peace Information Service in Antwerp and the Network Movement for Justice and Development, in Freetown, Sierra Leone. This document is current.
I will read a part of the conclusion into the record because I think we have to recognize that the bill certainly does not solve a lot of the overall problem. The bill deals with the Canadian context for the most part. The conclusion reads:

In fact, of all the recent international agreements dealing with labour, environmental and security concerns, the Kimberley Process provisions for monitoring and verification are undoubtedly the weakest. Industry monitoring proposals remain vague, and the governmental provisions are virtually non-existent. In comparing the Kimberley monitoring provisions with those of other agreements concerned with human security it would appear that there are two standards. Where the security of industrialized nations is concerned, tough, unequivocal agreements can be promulgated quickly, with clear and detailed provisions for compliance and third party monitoring. Where African diamonds and African lives are concerned, however, the issue is treated as an abstract trade matter. Terrorism and human security in Africa are treated differently from terrorism and human security elsewhere, and are therefore accorded less urgency and lower levels of remedial and preventive action.

I will summarize some of the discussions I have had with my friends from Sierra Leone.
All of Sierra Leone's problems relate to diamonds. Sierra Leone was a democracy and technically is today, but there is a lot of electoral tampering and fighting resulting from the process. Many of Sierra Leone's problems emanate from Liberia. Liberia's rebels infiltrated the border between the two countries and became involved in the Sierra Leone diamond industry to finance their schemes.
There is not a diamond industry of any note in Liberia and the Liberians are using diamonds from Sierra Leone to buy weapons. Liberia used to export a few diamonds and Sierra Leone once had a thriving industry. Now the roles have reversed and diamonds are easy to smuggle.
The smuggling can never be stopped but it can be largely curbed. Government policy is part of the problem. This is where we need to go and have not gone with any international agreements or legislation to date. If legitimate miners buy the proper permits from the government, they have to take their gems to the government valuation office and pay taxes before selling them. The existing valuation process may be flawed, with miners having to pay disproportionate fees in order to be above board.
The real concern and what really needs to be addressed and is not addressed by anything so far is not related to certification nor is it related to enforcement. It is related to the business of buying and selling diamonds, the diamond exchange.
A system is required where those in the diamond business get a square deal. This will not occur in many of these African source areas unless there is an internationally supervised diamond exchange in situ, in other words in those countries. It is essential that it is profitable to sell diamonds through legitimate channels. That is the part that is missing from all of this so far.
As a consequence the banking system of countries like Sierra Leone does not have the foreign exchange or currency because of the lack of a legitimate exchange. This would bring tradable currencies into the nation. Consequently the diamond smuggling is impacting the whole country and all of society because the national treasury is deprived of American dollars, euros and other forms of currency that would allow the country to become more involved in international trade and to purchase commodities on the world market.
I want to talk a minute about the ties to terrorism and the ties to international destabilization. The trouble in Liberia stems from the country's leadership. The leader, Charles Taylor, before taking over the reins of the country was in a maximum security prison in the United States. Many postulate that the U.S. wanted the former leader in Liberia deposed and that is how Mr. Taylor was released.
Since his taking over the leadership in Liberia, he has created havoc through the region. This is ongoing. This year alone, 60,000 Liberians have fled to Sierra Leone. One of the reasons they are fleeing to Sierra Leone is that there are 17,000 UN peacekeepers in that country. Many of the peacekeepers come from other west African nations. The west African peacekeepers are very interested in the land mass where the majority of diamond extraction is going on. They had an agreement with the Liberian rebels regarding where mining could take place within Sierra Leone and it appears that some of the peacekeepers may be involved.
All of the diamonds in Sierra Leone are extracted from alluvial deposits rather than being mined deep underground. This contributes to the significance of the problem.
The Speaker: I hate to interrupt the hon. member but we will be proceeding with statements by members. He will have seven and one-half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when the debate is resumed on this bill.
Point of OrderThe Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Wednesday, November 6, 2002 and again yesterday by the hon. government House leader concerning certain questions put to ministers earlier in the day during the oral question period.
I would like to thank the hon. government House leader for having raised this matter.
I have carefully reviewed the objections made by the hon. government House leader and the questions put to the government on Wednesday.
As he pointed out, our practice does not allow questions to be put to a minister relating to his or her former portfolio, or concerning a minister's responsibilities which fall outside his or her current portfolio, or to any regional political responsibilities a minister may have.
With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, I must agree that the manner in which the question was phrased seems clearly to transgress our practice. I would ask all hon. members to be mindful of House practice in this regard and more judicious in their choice of words in phrasing their questions.
The Chair views the proper conduct of question period as especially important. I assure all hon. members that I try to be vigilant in enforcing House practice, though I seem to have missed an infraction on this occasion.
Concerning another question to which the government House leader objected but which was not clearly identified, I note a question asked by the hon. member for Roberval found on page 1346 of Wednesday’s Hansard . I have some difficulty with this question, as it appears to be directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in respect of a former portfolio, but this is not clear.
Yesterday, the government House leader made the same complaint about a question for the hon. member from Roberval. This question troubles me also but it is not clear to whom it was directed.
I would like to remind all hon. members of the importance both to the House and to all Canadians of conducting question period in an orderly fashion, respecting the rules and practices which the House has adopted over many years.
I would also like to thank the hon. government House leader for the assistance that he has provided to the Chair in drawing these exchanges to my attention.

Statements by Members
Canadian Women's Soccer TeamMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Saturday the whole country will watch with pride as Canada's women's soccer team takes on the United States at the women's gold cup finals.
Canada steamed through the initial rounds, outscoring the opposition 23 to 1.
Christine Sinclair is just one of many bright stars on our team. She led the tournament with seven goals. Captain Charmaine Hooper heads into Saturday's championship already with six goals under her belt.
I invite all Canadians to join me in wishing the Canadian women's soccer team the best of success. They are truly a source of inspiration for all of us.
Stan ZukeJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Executive Service Organization has been sending experienced Canadians overseas for 35 years.
One of my constituents, Mr. Stan Zuke, went on assignment to Lithuania at the request of a company that makes wooden pallets. The company asked him to provide advice on the management and operation of a sawmill that is still under construction. He provided information on management, accounting control, inventory management, marketing, basic forest policy and many other aspects of operating a sawmill and marketing its products. The client was especially pleased with the analysis he provided of the potential market for wood chips in Lithuania and abroad.
I have no doubt that Mr. Zuke represented Canada and his client very well. You see, Mr. Speaker, I know this because he was my boss before I entered politics.
Epidermolysis BullosaMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the week of October 28 to November 4 is Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) Awareness Week. In 1999 the city of Toronto proclaimed that week as EB Awareness Week. This is a special week set aside each year to recognize and increase awareness of this group of rare and genetic skin diseases for which there is no cure.
EB presents symptoms and affects patients in different ways, with the most severe cases requiring intensive nursing care similar to the treatment given to burn patients.
I would like to recognize my constituent, Kevin Campbell, for his determination and hard work for making EB awareness a reality. I would like to encourage everyone to support the EB Research Association efforts and events to increase public awareness of this disease.
Mr. Speaker, through these efforts I hope the day will come when this devastating rare skin disease is wiped from the face of the earth.
Wine IndustryMr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Yukon has great placer gold, but British Columbia has another type of gold. I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the wineries in British Columbia on winning 152 out of the 268 medals handed out at the Canadian Wine Awards.
British Columbia wines are recognized around the world for their fine quality and the strong showing in this year's competition confirms this. This was the second annual award ceremony sponsored by Wine Access magazine. Wineries from across Canada attended the ceremony at the Empress Hotel in Victoria. The wines were judged by a panel of eight Canadian wine writers and tasters in a blind test last August. The categories which included red wine of the year, reflect the increasing sophistication, diversity and quality of domestic Canadian wines.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating all the winners of this year's awards.
Parliamentarians for Global ActionMr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentarians for Global Action concluded its annual forum with the adoption of the “Ottawa Action Plan for the International Criminal Court”, whose centrepiece is the promotion and protection of the independence and integrity of the court from untoward challenges, including the attempt by the United States to immunize its nationals from the jurisdiction of the court, and to seek bilateral immunity agreements for that purpose.
The historic declaration, adopted unanimously by some 100 parliamentarians from 50 countries, constitutes an unprecedented international parliamentary declaration of support for the court. The declaration resolved also to launch an international parliamentary assembly for the ICC which will serve, inter alia, as an oversight body of the assembly of state parties, as well as a support system for the promotion of the universality and equitability of the ratification process, and the adoption of corresponding implementing legislation for the construction of a system of global justice for the 21st century.
The forum also expressed its support for the doctrine of the duty to protect, involving the prevention of mass atrocities, the intervention where necessary, and the obligation to rebuild. Rwanda is a case study of the failure to prevent, and the failure to intervene in a preventable genocide.
Entrepreneur of the YearMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Ernst &amp; Young Entrepreneur of the Year National Award for Canada was announced last evening.
The finalists were: Pacific region, Gregory Peet, President and CEO of A.L.I. Technologies; Prairie region, David B. Robson, Chairman and CEO of Veritas DGC Inc.; Ontario, Warren Goldring, Chairman and co-founder of AGF Management; Quebec, Robert Walsh, Chairman and President, Forensic Technology; Atlantic Region, Ches Penney, Chairman and founder, The Penney Group of Companies.
David Robson of Veritas in Calgary has been chosen the entrepreneur of the year from finalists of the best of the best in business across Canada, from the movers who drive Canada's economic growth. Mr. Robson will now go on to represent Canada at the international entrepreneur of the year awards in Monaco in 2003.
I wish to congratulate Mr. David Robson and the regional finalists for their tremendous contribution to business in Canada.
The EnvironmentMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Sheila Watt-Cloutier, President of Inuit Circumpolar Conference has been awarded the inaugural Global Award for the Environment 2002 by the World Association of Non-governmental Organizations.
The Global Award for the Environment 2002 was given to ICC in acknowledgment of the comprehensive work done by this international Inuit organization toward the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, which was the first global convention to single out the Arctic. POPs are a serious concern to the people of the Arctic and the work that ICC does is imperative to the health of all Inuit.
I thank the ICC for bringing international attention to the seriousness of this issue and I wish to congratulate Sheila.
Municipal ElectionsMr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, November 3, municipal elections were held in three municipalities in my riding. I welcome this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to those who were elected.
The people of Deux-Montagnes have placed their trust, for the fourth consecutive term, in mayor Pierre-Benoît Forget and, and Boisbriand residents re-elected Robert Poirier for a second term as mayor of that municipality.
I also want to point out that history was made when a woman was elected for the first time to run one of these municipalities. I am referring to Lucie Leblanc, the new mayor of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac.
Finally, I congratulate the candidates who won seats as councillors in these three municipalities.
National Seniors Safety WeekMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the week of November 6 to 12 is National Seniors Safety Week.
Seniors place a high value on their independence, and that means living in their own home for as long as possible. Unfortunately, independence can be greatly impaired by a simple fall.
Adaptations can be made to seniors' homes to prevent falls. It is important to limit risks, particularly in stairways and bathrooms. Help is available from various health and safety services in our communities. Seniors must not hesitate to contact them.
Given that the Canadian population is aging, our society must get in touch with the concerns of our seniors.
I therefore urge Canadians to ensure that the seniors around them are safe.
Prime Minister of CanadaMr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, thoughtful Canadians are shocked as they watch the Prime Minister drive the House of Commons to the basement level of relevance.
He is using this great institution as his toy. In a fit of petulance the Prime Minister has advanced the prospect of a general election to regain control of his fractious backbench. The unmitigated arrogance of his cabinet knows no bounds. His labour minister said, “Could we win an election with this Prime Minister? Tomorrow morning we could, look at his record”.
Well let us look at his record. He has terminated debate, shut up members of Parliament, and treated Liberal backbenchers as mindless voting machines more often than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada.
Issues like Kyoto ratification and health care are on this Parliament's agenda, but I fear the rubber stamp he expects from us. The Prime Minister's petulant outburst is an embarrassment to all of us who take democracy seriously. He has lost control of his party and the moral authority to continue to govern.
Why does he not do the honourable thing and leave, now?
Remembrance DayMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most of us will be in our ridings on Remembrance Day, November 11. Like millions of Canadians across this country, we will take part in local commemorative ceremonies. This is a rare opportunity to commemorate a common cause, the memory of the sacrifice and our gratitude for those who gave their lives to protect our country.
This day is a unique opportunity to reflect on the meaning of sacrifice and service. We must take this opportunity to discuss this with our children, teach them about Canadian history and learn more about it ourselves.
Words alone cannot express our gratitude to veterans. The least we can do is to look them in the eyes and promise that we will preserve the memory of their sacrifice.
Lest we forget.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, this coming Monday, November 11, as we gather to commemorate Remembrance Day in communities throughout Canada it is appropriate for us to remember the sacrifices of the thousands of Canadians who served our nation.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Dieppe Raid. Almost 5,000 Canadians took part in the raid. Over 900 were killed and hundreds more were wounded or captured. Many of those who gave their lives or were captured were members of the Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment, a regiment, as the name suggests, that comes from my area of Ontario. This summer the mayor of Windsor had a dinner commemorating this event and I was very impressed how those who had survived continued to contribute to Canada.
On Monday, and throughout the year, let us never forget those who have sacrificed their lives for the freedom of Canada. We will remember them.
Member for LaSalle—ÉmardMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an article that appeared yesterday in Le Soleil said that the member for LaSalle—Émard, and leadership candidate for his party, would increase funding for health care, education and social services if he were the head of government.
However, when he was Minister of Finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard cut more than $30 billion from provincial transfer payments, in addition to regularly pilfering from the employment insurance fund, to the tune of another $40 billion.
In this same article, he had the nerve to say, “I think it is unforgiveable that we have not established a program to provide services to people with disabilities”.
The member, when he was Minister of Finance, tightened the rules for eligibility for the disability tax credit, thereby forcing thousands of persons with disabilities to live below the poverty level.
The member for LaSalle—Émard, leadership candidate for the Liberal party of Canada, has been a member of this government for nine years. He is behind all of the drastic cuts that hit the most disadvantaged, the sick and people with disabilities.
I hope that people will remember this. Such hypocrisy.
Highway InfrastructureMr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the Quebec minister responsible for the Outaouais region, Sylvain Simard, concerning highway 50, generated confusion among Outaouais residents. The allegations made by the minister were not accurate.
I would therefore ask the federal Minister of Transport to inform the Quebec Minister of Transport that Quebec has the option of including highway 50 in the national highway system, since highway construction is a provincial jurisdiction.
Moreover, the Quebec government has not yet deemed it necessary to ask for the $108 million currently available under the strategic highway infrastructure program.
If Quebec wants to use the $108 million put at its disposal by the Government of Canada, it must have highway 50 included in the national highway system. Then, highway 50 can be included in the strategic highway infrastructure program.
Remembrance DayBill Casey: Mr. Speaker, every year November 11 is marked with ceremonies, wreaths and moments of silence for those who have served our country with heroic dedication and courage, those who have given up the precious gift of life for our freedom.
Much of the focus is on wars of long ago, but this year is the first that Canadians have actually been lost in battle. We are clearly reminded of the incredible contribution of our military personnel and the contribution they make to our country and their selfless dedication to our safety and security.
While all Canadians will pause and remember the efforts of our military on Monday, those in my riding of Cumberland--Colchester will feel firsthand the fresh impact of remembrance. Private Nathan Smith, 27, of Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, was one of the soldiers that was lost during the Afghanistan campaign. He was a young and heroic Canadian who like many before him served with dedication and whose sacrifice will never, ever be forgotten.
RamadanMr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Muslims in Canada a Ramadan Mubarak.
Wednesday marked the beginning of the month-long fast in which Muslims from all over the world abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset. It is a time when Muslims focus on family, communal prayers, alms-giving, self-reflection and community building. It is a time for peace and harmony.
Ramadan presents an opportunity for Canadians to learn more about each other. It is an opportunity to learn more about Islam and about the Muslim community in Canada. Canadians are committed to nurturing and cherishing our diversity. We share a vision of a country where diverse backgrounds of citizens are recognized and appreciated. The end of Ramadan will be marked by celebration and prayer on Eid ul-Fitr , or feast of the fast-breaking, on December 6.
The Speaker: Hon. members have already noticed that some of our lights have stopped working.
The Speaker can only say that I was concerned that our television viewers might not think that the House was as bright as it might be, but I was sure that the questions and answers would be no less dim than they would otherwise be with the lights in their current state. But now that all is illuminated again, all is sweetness and light, and we can continue with oral questions.

Oral Question Period
National DefenceMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's lack of priorities is putting Canada's security at risk.
The Coast Guard is parking ships because it cannot afford the fuel. Naval patrols have been grounded, leaving our borders exposed. The Liberal government is quite content to have the United States look after us. The minister said yesterday:

There is a lot of water around our country. It is always a challenge for both Canada and the United States to defend it. We will be working more closely together in the future to do that.

Especially at this time of year when we honour our military, why is the government abandoning the military and turning our security over to others?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last thing the government is doing is abandoning our military.
Cooperation with the Americans in the defence of North America goes back to 1940 and the Ogdensburg treaty signed by our prime minister of the day and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We have been in a joint venture with the Americans since 1940 to defend the continent and there is nothing new in that.
In terms of the navy, we have cancelled absolutely non-essential matters such as temporary duty travel expenses, which will be reduced. The core function of the navy to defend our coasts is very much intact.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to have joint action, but joint responsibility is quite another; to turn our sovereignty over to somebody else. The government's lack of foresight and planning has resulted in something very specific. The military says that it has a shortfall of $100 million this year.
Is it not interesting that the Challenger jets, the luxury jets chosen by the cabinet, just happened to add up to that exact same figure? Why did the cabinet choose luxury jet instead of looking after our military, a real priority?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of the war on terrorism, we have already received an additional $295 million from the centre. All of this is very normal. In terms of the $100 million, discussions are ongoing with Treasury Board and finance.
In terms of handing over sovereignty, the member is absolutely and totally wrong. This planning group with the Americans will protect the lives of Canadians and Americans but it will not put our troops or sailors under American control, not whatsoever.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I think we could turn the lights off again with that answer. Last year the former minister of finance said, “We will provide whatever funding is required for national security”. Obviously the former finance minister failed.
The government simply did not budget properly for the military. Here is the question that I asked before, and I want the defence minister to answer this question. Why did the government choose $100 million for luxury jets, when our military has said that it is $100 million short? Why?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the last budget being inadequate for security, may I remind the hon. member across the hall that we put in no less than a number exceeding $7 billion over five years, some of which went to the military and some of which went to other security measures. He may think that $7 billion is not a lot of money. In my books that is a substantial sum.
IraqMr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there has been some ambiguity in the past on Canada's position relative to Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with UN resolutions related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
In an historic vote at the United Nations only moments ago, the United Nations Security Council by a vote of 15 to 0 approved a resolution demanding unfettered access to UN inspections and consequences for non-compliance.
Will the Prime Minister now stand and give clear, unequivocal support for this UN resolution?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the Prime Minister earlier this morning and he certainly commends the United Nations and the secretary general for all the work in getting this resolution through. He also conveyed those same sentiments this morning to President Bush.
I do not think there is any ambiguity on the part of the government with respect to our position on Iraq. We have stood behind the international body that needs to deal with these issues, the United Nations, and we are very happy with the resolution today.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that final clarity on this very important issue. As we approach November 11, remembering over 100,000 Canadians who gave their lives in the last century to fight for peace, a statement has also come out saying that if war is to be averted, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with its obligations.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what steps the government has taken to communicate to the Ambassador to Iraq and Saddam Hussein Canada's 100% support for the resolution?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be making a public statement, if it has not gone out already. We certainly support the UN and the UN resolution. I am sure those people in Baghdad understand that we are resolute in standing behind the UN on this issue.
Government ContractsMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, four weeks ago the Prime Minister said that he reserved the right to take steps himself to punish ministers guilty of a breach of ethics. One may well wonder about the Prime Minister's real intentions, as the evidence against the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport continues to pile up and we continue to wait for some concrete action from him.
Does the Prime Minister intend to do the only thing called for under the circumstances, that is to require the former Secretary of Amateur Sport to step down?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that all procedures and rules were complied with in this case. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I wish to state that he strongly supports the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is a good minister.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
David Collenette: He is a good minister, and I believe I speak for all hon. members on this side of the House when I say so.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister himself who put ethics on the agenda, and to clearly show his determination, he pointed out that he would deal with it personally. The government is feigning a desire to deal with the ethics challenge, because it claims to be aware of the public criticism. The former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport's behaviour is one more test for this government.
How many e-mails and how many comments will it take to make the Prime Minister see reason and demand the resignation of the former secretary of state?
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, again I would explain to the House and to the hon. gentleman that, in respect of the legal matter of a contract existing and coming into force, the requisition was dated May 29. The contract was dated May 30. If there were any activities undertaken by anyone in the private sector prior to those dates that was entirely the responsibility of those individuals and without risk to the government.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an e-mail dated March 17 confirms that the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport intervened to impose Everest. A workshop, on April 10, 2000, identified Everest as a key player in developing the plan for the former secretary of state's tour. Two weeks before being awarded the contract, Everest had completed the Internet site and, three days after having been awarded the contract, on June 2, Everest launched, in Fredericton, the former secretary of state's tour.
What more does the Prime Minister need as grounds for the dismissal of the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are the ones who released the e-mail.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the facts are there for everyone to see. The former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport intervened to secure the contract for Everest, the firm run by his friend Claude Boulay. The misguided actions of a single minister reflect on the government as a whole.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to ask this minister to resign now?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, whatever a company may have done in anticipation that it might receive a contract is entirely at its own risk. As experience has demonstrated, sometimes that risk indeed comes to bear upon the company. I would point out to members of the House the recent example of this summer when a moratorium was imposed upon certain activities. Some people had anticipated work and did not get it because of a government decision that said they should not.
HealthMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the profiteers and privatizers of health care are rushing to try to put the nails in the coffin of medicare before Roy Romanow has a chance to report. Today we learn about Ontario trying to pull ahead of B.C., which is trying to catch up to Alberta, by opening the cash register for for profit private hospitals. This even though we have all kinds of evidence, including the research from the Romanow commission, that says private hospitals do not deliver better and more effective care.
Is the federal government going to stand silently by and award the trophy of medicare?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. It is certainly a topic of current interest these days.
It is obvious that the Government of Canada has always made it clear: the Canada Health Act will be respected. Necessary health care will be made available to anyone who needs it. This is why, on this review, the government commissioned the Romanow study, and we should have the official report in hand by the end of the month. We will examine this report, and that of the Kirby commission. On that basis, we will make the necessary decisions to ensure that all Canadians have access—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the government the question Romanow put yesterday: Where is the beef? Is there no clear statement of concern in the face of this fundamental erosion of our health care system? Just yesterday we learned from the College of Family Physicians that 4.5 million Canadians are waiting to get access to a family doctor, the very first entry point to our health care system, a bedrock, fundamental part of our health care system.
Is there a plan of action to ensure Canadians have access to non-profit, quality health care services?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of what is going on in the medical community. We know full well that, in recent years, there have been changes in the way physicians practice medicine. I was there; I saw the changes.
This has definitely created some turbulence in the system. That is why, in 2000, the first ministers agreed to inject $800 million to ensure better access to primary care. We will continue in that direction, and I can assure my hon. colleague that we will be there, keeping a close watch on things.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we debated the government's new citizenship act, Bill C-18. The problem with the last two bills the government tried to introduce, Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, was that both created two classes of Canadian citizens: those who are born here and those who are naturalized.
Why does the new citizenship act, Bill C-18, continue to support two classes of Canadian citizenship?
Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is totally inexact. This is not a two measure system. It is very simple. The new law states that those who are adopted from abroad will obtain immediate citizenship. That is good news for prospective people who want to adopt.
Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, the problem is about due process of law. Under section 17 of the new bill, the minister still has a right to take away the citizenship of naturalized Canadians during the first five years. There is no equality of citizenship between those who are born here and those who are naturalized.
Why does the minister continue to support two classes of citizenship in this country?
Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, once again I believe that the member is erring. It is very clear that there is judicial process in this. It will be debated and I am sure that the member will get all the answers concerning this issue.
Firearms RegistryMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians in Toronto are increasingly vulnerable to gun related crimes. Over the last weekend in October, four people were killed by gunfire and another five wounded in three separate incidents of gun violence.
Instead of the government going after law-abiding hunters and gun owners with its $1 billion firearms registry, the Liberal government should get tough on the criminal misuse of guns.
When will the government introduce legislation to ensure that mandatory minimum sentences for criminals convicted of using a gun in the commission of a crime are upheld?
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently spoke about looking at the Criminal Code in its entirety. In that regard, last week he held a round table to look at the future of the Criminal Code. We will be looking at all these issues in the coming months.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, round tables and looking at things are simply not good enough for the people of Toronto or anywhere else in Canada. It is clear that rather than wasting time and money registering a hunter's bird gun, the government should be passing laws getting tough on criminals who use guns.
Toronto Police Chief Fantino blames the increased violence in his city to “guns, drugs and gangs”.
Instead of targeting law-abiding gun owners, why will the Liberal government not enact consecutive sentences for firearm related crimes?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, the review process, which is ongoing with the minister, will look at issues of this nature. We have been providing tools for the law enforcement agencies and the law enforcement agencies are working with those tools. If more tools are needed, we will provide them.
Kyoto ProtocolBernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the other place said this week that the House of Commons and the Senate would soon be voting on the principles of Kyoto. However, at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the Prime Minister made a promise to ratify the Kyoto protocol before Christmas.
Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly what we will be voting on? Will we be voting on the principles of Kyoto, or on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware that the ratification itself is an executive function in Canada. This is in our Constitution. This House, of course, will vote to ask the government to ratify the protocol. This is what the Prime Minister said.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the situation is just as ambiguous as before I asked the question. Will the government commit to holding a debate, once members return to the House on November 18, on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol so that on November 21, when the Minister of the Environment meets with his provincial counterparts, he has the support and mandate from the House of Commons to ratify the Kyoto protocol?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just asked a question that is the same as the answer that I gave to his previous question. Why he did this, I do not understand. As for his request to have the House debate the matter prior to consultations with the provinces, I think that most Canadians would be against that idea.
Child PornographyMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the progress of Canada's children in the millennium report of January 2000 estimated that there are 100 child sex trade offences every day in the City of Vancouver.
The City of Coquitlam recently passed a resolution that calls on the Liberal government to:

--ensure the right of children to be free of adult sexual exploitation by amending the Criminal Code to state that no adult can engage in sexual activity with a child under 16 years of age.

The current age of consent is 14 years.
Will the government raise the age of consent from 14 years, yes or no?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work in every way possible to avoid the sexual exploitation of our children.
One of the issues that has been looked at over the last week has been the raising of the age of sexual consent. However it appears that what would be a better approach may be to deal with legislating against the predators themselves, and that is where we will look.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing preventing the government from doing both.
A federal justice department paper of November 1999 recommended raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 or 18. I personally prefer 18. There is a huge difference between 14 and 16 years of age and 16 and 18 years of age in terms of people's maturity.
Under the law in Canada today, it is perfectly legal, for example, for a 55 year old man to prey upon and have sex with a 14 year old child.
Why is the government tolerating laws that allow a 55 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old kid?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with this week at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings. In reviewing this, there obviously is a great deal of difference of opinion on whether that is the appropriate way to go.
From our perspective, we are looking at the broader nature of the problem and trying to deal with those would be predators.
Foreign AffairsMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, up until yesterday the Government of Canada was advising its citizens not to travel to the United States if they were born in one of eight particular countries, because of the special discriminatory treatment awaiting them at the border.
Yesterday, Canada lifted that warning on the grounds that it was reassured by the U.S. Attorney General's announcement that, in future, those targeted would “qualify for, or meet criteria that is intelligence-based that relates to preventing terrorism”.
How can the Canadian government claim to find these words by John Ashcroft reassuring, when they confirm to us that U.S. agents will still be able to make arbitrary decisions?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the question was asked, if only to convey what the minister has conveyed to the House. The minister was assured by what Mr. Ashcroft said yesterday in being advised yet again, pursuant to his own discussions, that the question of country of birth will not trigger NSEERS. What Mr. Ashcroft said yesterday confirms that is so.
We are pleased and we will continue to monitor, but that has settled and confirmed our concerns for the moment.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner has proposed the removal of place of birth from Canadian passports in order to avoid this type of discrimination.
Will the minister not acknowledge that if he followed this recommendation by the Privacy Commissioner, it would be far more difficult for the Americans to practice discrimination at the border?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, the question as asked leaves me a little perplexed. I believe at this time we have not changed in any way our approach to the issues that are being discussed as a result of his article and his views expressed in the article.
We, too, as a sovereign country, are asking for visas in certain cases, even from other countries, with regard to landed immigrants, even when those countries are Commonwealth members. Like the United States, we have our rules and we attempt not--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the environment minister have often stood in the House and said that Kyoto will have little cost effect on most Canadians. They have used figures like 3¢ a barrel for conventional oil and 13¢ a barrel for oil sands recovery.
Will the environment minister today stand in the House and agree to provide Canadians with a written warranty that the federal government will pay any costs in excess of these fictitious figures?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the future 10 years out, we try to give the very best economic information we can. However, as we discovered this year, the rate of growth of the Canadian economy was three times what the private sector told us it would be only a year ago.
We are doing so much better than the private sector forecasters expected that it is a little difficult to give the kind of precision 10 years hence that the hon. member is looking for.
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, industry says that those figures are totally unrealistic, that it could not possibly get to those figures.
The environment minister produced a PowerPoint presentation in preparation for the meeting several weeks ago in Halifax with the environment and energy ministers. The presentation was long on fluffy rhetoric and very short on detail.
Could the minister advise the House if he will be providing details on the costs, details on the implementation plan and details on accompanying legislation for the meeting with the provinces on November 21?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing exactly what those private forecasters were doing yet a year ago. They were saying that we could not possibly reach the figure but after 10 months into this year 459,000 new jobs were created in Canada. They thought it was impossible but this government did it. That is what they just do not understand.
He talks about not possibly reaching the figures that we have set forward. I assure him that when we put out figures like that, based on very careful analysis of the provinces, territories, ourselves and the private sector, we fully intend to reach them.
The EconomyMr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada recently released some very good economic news about employment in Canada. Opposition parties, until very recently, were in the dark about the good economic performance of the government.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could perhaps enlighten some people as to the economic news released yesterday.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to provide the member with some good economic news and put the opposition in the light.
First, because of the sound economic policies and fiscal management of the government, coupled with a strong, vibrant private sector, the unemployment rate is now down to 7.6%. In practical terms, 33,000 new jobs were created in the month of October and 459,000 new jobs this year alone.
The government has found the right formula and we are on the right track.
IraqJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, as we heard earlier this morning, the UN Security Council voted to adopt a U.S. sponsored resolution on Iraq.
The resolution calls upon Iraq to comply with earlier UN weapons inspection resolutions or face serious consequences. It does not, however, authorize the use of military force without further UN consultation. That is not the position that the U.S. government has taken saying that it does not prohibit the use of military force. That is its position.
Does the Canadian government share the view of the United States that this resolution permits the use of military force without further authority from the United Nations?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes the success at the United Nations this morning as the Security Council resolution 1441 on Iraq was passed. It contains all that we felt was vital. It makes very clear that the onus is on Iraq to comply with Dr. Blix's team and to be very open and transparent on what is or is not in Iraq.
Any indication to the contrary will return the issue to the United Nations Security Council, and that is just the way it should be.
Border SecurityJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, the Canadian government rescinded its advisory for Canadian travellers to the United States. We know now that was premature since Canadians continue to be humiliated at the border.
Will the government agree to set up a border task force to report on racial profiling and report back to Parliament on what we need to do to protect our Canadian citizens?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned about some of the stress and lines that have been shown at the border. However, I think it is very important not to be overly negative.
Yesterday Mr. Ashcroft confirmed exactly what we wanted to hear: the country of birth on our passports will not trigger NSEERS. One should really have some confidence in the expertise of our department and know that we will be monitoring carefully any special incidents. If any of those incidents occur we look forward to them being reported, and we will respond, as we should.
National DefenceRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question of my friend, the member for Macleod. The Minister of National Defence jumped around and would not answer the question directly. Let me give him a chance again.
The minister said that the navy was not allowed to exceed its budget, yet the cabinet was allowed to exceed its budget by precisely $100 million on new Challengers, against the advice of all government officials.
Why is the navy bound by limits when the issue is national security, while the cabinet can ignore those limits when the issue is personal luxury? How does the minister explain this disgraceful double standard?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard whatsoever. The right hon. member ought to be aware that the $100 million for the Challengers does not come out of the defence budget. It is returned to the department. Therefore there is absolutely no connection between these numbers other than they happen to both be $100 million.
Conflict of InterestJoe Clark: Mr. Speaker, and that is the minister who is going to find new money for the military, failure after failure, week after week.
I have a question for the acting Prime Minister. Earlier this week the Prime Minister told his caucus that he had received job offers from seven different law firms. The rules for public servants on these matters are clear. Article 39 of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for the public service states:

Employees must: disclose, in writing...all firm offers of employment that could place the employee in a conflict of interest situation--

Has the Prime Minister disclosed in writing to the ethics counsellor the offers he says that he has received--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I can see now why the hon. member has chosen to retire. I do not think anyone with any ounce of intelligence would give any shrift to that kind of question.
Canada Elections ActMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we routinely suspend the constitutional right to liberty for those convicted of a criminal offence. Outraged Canadians are saying that individuals incarcerated for violating the Criminal Code should not have a hand in writing it by being allowed to vote.
The Canadian Police Association has asked the government for a royal commission into the prison system in general and to immediately remedy the injustice caused by the Supreme Court decision ruling on the voting rights of prisoners. Will the government honour the request made by 28,000 police officers?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked two different questions. I will answer the one about the Canada Elections Act.
That issue is being examined right now by officials. I have indicated that in the past, because of course it is an issue that concerns a number of members, including the hon. member for Provencher, who, by the way, when he was the provincial minister in Manitoba, permitted provincial prisoners the right to vote. He forgot to say that the other day.
Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision stunned Canadians by giving federal prisoners the right to vote last week. Defenders of the decision say that the relatively small number of inmates will make no electoral difference. This is not about numbers. It is about principle.
Killers take away the voting rights of their victims forever. Why is it such a stretch to suspend their right to vote while they are incarcerated? Will the Minister of Justice immediately introduce a constitutional amendment to rectify this affront to victims of crime and to all law-abiding citizens?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is a Supreme Court decision. It is not even one that can be overridden by, as he knows, the notwithstanding clause, the way his critic was suggesting the other day, while forgetting that, at the same time, when he was the provincial minister in Manitoba, he was permitting provincial prisoners the right to vote.
This is still of concern to us. I told the hon. member that we were examining the situation very carefully. It is one that is of concern to the government, and not just the kind of nonsense we are hearing.
Agropur Plant in ChambordMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec did not meet the expectations of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. They want to keep their plant and they want to continue processing their products locally. An exceptional situation like this one requires an exceptional solution.
Does the secretary of state realize that existing programs are unacceptable and inapplicable to an emergency situation?
Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said this week in the House, meetings were held with the Economic Development Agency, on November 4 and 5. We are working with stakeholders. I would appreciate it if, instead of looking for someone to put the blame on, the Bloc Quebecois member would work with local people to find solutions to help the region. This is how we should work and this is what we are committed to doing on this side of the House.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take any lessons from the secretary of state. I have always looked after my region. This is why we had highway 175 in the Parc des Laurentides.
The last time the secretary of state tried to apply regular programs to an emergency situation, the result was catastrophic.
Does the secretary of state realize that much more than regular programs will be required to save the Chambord plant and prevent its dismantlement?
Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to congratulate our colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who worked very hard to ensure the completion of highway 175, with the help of the Canadian government.
Decisions are not made by the opposition, but by the government. It is we who showed that we cared about highway 175 and the development of the region.
This is what we will do with workers from the Agropur plant when the meeting with them and Agropur takes place to decide what will happen next. We will support these people in their decisions, along with the stakeholders and the Economic Development Agency.
National ParksMr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister does not have an action plan to eliminate tuberculosis from the Riding Mountain National Park elk herd.
Because of Liberal inaction, cattle producers in Manitoba are incurring added costs for testing live animals for TB before they leave the province. These costs are a direct result of the minister's inaction on the tuberculosis issue.
Will the government commit to paying the added cost to farmers?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, we passed a law in the House a couple of years ago on the question of the ecological integrity of parks. It would be absolutely ludicrous for a minister of the crown who has no experience in veterinary or medicine to be making decisions on tuberculosis. In fact, those decisions are made by scientists.
I would certainly be very happy to sit down with anyone who feels aggrieved by this process, but the suggestion that I should be making decisions on TB is not very logical.
National SecurityMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, reports this week suggest that Iraq and North Korea have the smallpox virus. The U.S. has a plan to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the United States within five days of an outbreak.
It takes six months to produce a new vaccine and we have not even ordered it yet.
The Americans take this threat seriously. Why do we not take it seriously?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the hon. member would say that we are not taking this threat seriously. Since September 11, we have been taking very important measures to ensure that, in the unlikely event of a bioterrorist attack, we can deal with the situation.
As for the specific issue of smallpox, we are well aware that, should an outbreak occur, our part of the world would not be the only one affected. This would be a planetary problem. This is why we have begun to make representations to countries all over the world to ensure that if such an outbreak were to occur, we would share information and use a joint approach to control it.
InfrastructureMac Harb: Mr. Speaker, municipalities are faced with a very serious problem when it comes to water and sewage systems and transportation. They are wondering whether or not the government plans some initiatives in order to lower the burden on Canadian municipalities.
Could the secretary of state responsible for rural development tell the House what he has in his coffers for Canadian municipalities?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canada infrastructure program, the $2.1 billion, I am happy to say that $680 million of that is being invested in Ontario. To date 318 projects have been announced in the areas of water, waste water, health and safety projects and many others. To date this is a $461 million investment.
We realize this is a work in progress. That is why in the Speech from the Throne we have committed to a new 10 year infrastructure program in the future to help municipalities and others.
National ParksJim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable hostility between Parks Canada management and parks users. Property owners and lease holders providing services in our parks consistently state that the interests of environmental and native groups have considerably more weight with parks officials than do the concerns of parks users.
When is the government going to see Parks Canada as parks instead of exclusive preserves?
Sheila Copps: I think one of the issues, Mr. Speaker, relates back to the question that was asked about tuberculosis. One of the mandates of Parks Canada, which actually was conferred by this Parliament, is that above and beyond any other concern the question of ecological integrity is paramount. Obviously ecological integrity means putting the environment first.
Of course Parks Canada is very happy to meet with groups, individuals and others who feel that their issues do not coincide with those of the environment, but I think Canadians expect Parks Canada to put the environment first.
Search and RescueMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the decision to use a civilian helicopter not intended for search and rescue missions led to the deaths of Captain Colin Sonoski and Captain Juli-Ann Mackenzie on July 18 of this year.
Under this minister's watch, rescue efforts were further hampered by the fact that the C-146 is painted camouflage green. Since 1996 there has been a request to paint the Griffon helicopters yellow so that they are easier to find when they crash.
Is not the reason the Griffon helicopters were never repainted that the military was waiting for the Sea King replacements to use as search and rescue helicopters?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question. It almost sounds as if it is a planted Liberal question, because the fact of the matter is that a couple of weeks ago I was in Goose Bay and met a corporal who was involved in that incident and who made a personal plea to me to have those helicopters painted yellow.
I have issued the instruction that the search and rescue helicopters in Goose Bay be painted yellow, so it is happening.
Financial InstitutionsYvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the proliferation of private ATMs is a cause for concern. They are totally uncontrolled and may, according to the Sûreté du Québec, might conceal money laundering activities, the cloning of cards, and the illegal recording of PIN numbers.
Will the government commit to passing legislation as soon as possible to limit the expansion of private ATMs, adopt tight regulations for them, and strengthen provisions of the Criminal Code to thwart counterfeiters and protect consumers?
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, the banking payment system in Canada is one of the most sound in the world. The government does not generally regulate the pricing of financial institutions' charges for their services.
AfghanistanLarry Bagnell: This is my question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla stood in the House and stated that a year after the September 11 attacks a Canadian presence is needed in Afghanistan to visibly work with agencies to restore and protect school programs for young Afghan children and women. He also stated that Canada should now help build and maintain the programs that will make liberation in Afghanistan a reality for generations to come.
This gives the impression that the government is not doing its share to help with Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation please outline what the Government of Canada is doing in this regard?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through CIDA, Canada has been and continues to be present in Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts. Since 9/11, Canada has committed over $160 million to Afghanistan. Of that amount, $22 million has been provided for reconstruction and development initiatives, including vocational training for women and primary education. CIDA does work on the ground with reputable organizations like UNICEF, CARE Canada and the Red Cross.
Before the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla makes such misleading statements, perhaps--
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
Government ContractsMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, after 30 years here, I have found out that they plant questions on the other side. It is amazing.
I will guarantee the House this is not a planted question. I would like to ask the acting prime minister, with regard to the issue hanging over the head of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, could the government confirm that the matter has been referred to the ethics counsellor and could it confirm that has he reported or when he will report on this whole issue? We are going on a week's break. I think the public would like to get this issue over with.
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I replied to a similar question yesterday and stated that there has been a complaint filed by a member of the opposition to the ethics counsellor. I assume that he is looking into that matter and will report in due course.
What I said earlier, I should also say in English, that is, the Prime Minister and all of us on the Liberal side of the House have the utmost confidence in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the great work that he is doing.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more and more complaints are being received from people who cannot draw employment insurance when they have left a job in order to care for a family member who is ill. In the last throne speech, the government made a commitment to remedying this problem by allowing people to look after family members who are gravely or terminally ill “without fear of sudden income or job loss”.
When does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to follow up on this commitment made in the Speech from the Throne?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, the government does indeed consider it a priority to help Canadians strike a proper balance between work and family life.
As outlined in the throne speech, the government is going to bring in changes to these programs in order to provide Canadians with the necessary support when they need to be off work to care for a child, partner or parent who is seriously ill or dying.
Our main objective will be to provide an appropriate and effective response to the needs of Canadian workers and their families.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Geoff Plant, Attorney General and Minister responsible for Treaty Negotiations, from the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Remembrance DayThe Speaker: As this is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day, I invite all members to rise and observe a moment of silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
Points of OrderSheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the hon. member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage got up to ask a question, I neglected to congratulate him for his unanimous election to the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He has done such a great job he had the support of all his colleagues. It is nice to see that we have a committee that works by consensus.
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, along the same lines, now that we have learned that the Liberals plant questions, I wonder if the answers are the fertilizer.
The Speaker: I do not think that was a point of order, with all respect for the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

Routine Proceedings
Technology Partnerships CanadaMr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32, I have the honour to table in both official languages, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, the annual report of Technology Partnerships Canada for 2001-02.
Government Response to PetitionsGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's responses to 10 petitions.
Criminal CodeChuck Cadman: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-464, an act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code and was numbered Bill C-464 in the previous session.
This amendment would create a new .05 blood alcohol content offence. It has been said many times before but I think it bears repeating that drinking and driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. It is also 100% totally preventable.
I believe that this amendment, if passed, will be a valuable tool for police to use in their efforts to, at best, eliminate but at the very least reduce the tragedies associated with alcohol related crashes.
Mr. Speaker I have spoken with the other parties and with your permission, I would seek unanimous consent to have this bill numbered Bill C-464 as it was in the previous session.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to have this bill numbered as Bill C-464, notwithstanding its order of introduction?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to change the names of certain electoral districts.

(Motion deemed adopted)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), I wish to have this bill returned to its previous status before prorogation.
There are a number of changes to the names of certain ridings and this bill simply implements what members of the House from all parties have requested.
The Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-441 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 37th Parliament. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.
(Bill deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House)
Telecommunications ActJohn Duncan: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (restrictions on telemarketing).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a means for anyone who does not wish to receive telemarketing calls or faxes to place their telephone number on a list maintained by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission . This list is to be published quarterly in electronic form and must be respected by telemarketers. It would be an offence not to do so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsCheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke. They request that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior, which is used for training Canadians in emergency situations, stay in Arnprior and that the government upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training for Canadians.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents of Okanagan--Shuswap.
They call upon Parliament to condemn the creation and the use of child pornography. My constituents are demanding clear legislation that will curb child exploitation by severely punishing those who promote or glorify this material, as well as outlawing all materials containing child pornography in Canada.
Questions on the Order PaperGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act providing for controls on the export, import or transit across Canada of rough diamonds and for a certification scheme for their export in order to meet Canada's obligations under the Kimberley Process, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: When the House broke for question period, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North had the floor, and he had seven and one-half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to raise in terms of Bill C-14, the blood diamonds bill.
I want to talk about how terrible it really is. The ugliest part of the blood diamonds conflict is that children have been conscripted by the rebels. They are then forced to commit atrocities against their own people. The children are often addicted to drugs by rebels or placed in compromising positions to spare their own lives, such as killing family members or amputation, which is a common approach used to force one's will upon the oppressed youth.
Sierra Leone has the highest rate of amputations in the world. Part of the problem is that thumbprints have been used as identification for the illiterate in the country's elections. Rebels use amputation as a draconian method of assuring that a portion of the population cannot cast votes.
The social dynamics in Sierra Leone have changed tremendously. It used to be the hub of west Africa, featuring the first university of the region. It was a leader in other cultural and social trends. It also has great wealth and great riches and should be the wealthiest country in Africa, perhaps even the wealthiest in the world on a per capita basis.
To go along with this it also has the third deepest and largest natural harbour in the world. The harbour has been used by many nations during armed conflicts. The British used it during the Falklands war.
What we have to recognize and not underestimate is the role that blood diamonds have played in terms of the development of terrorism and other acts. The western world has a vested interest in ensuring that this does not perpetuate itself.
For instance, in the 1980s Libya used training camps for terrorists to destabilize governments in west Africa. The problem started in 1990 in Liberia and immediately there was an upheaval in Sierra Leone beginning in 1991. Last year it was alleged that al-Qaeda had purchased diamonds from Sierra Leone's RUF rebels to conceal their assets after September 11 but before the crackdown on their funds. We do know that when the discussions on the Kimberley process began in 2000, they were much accelerated once the events of September 11, 2001 unfolded.
That is the crux of the matter. We need to ensure that we have a diamond trade in the world where legitimate diamonds are the way that people will choose, not through coercion, not through enforcement, but because there is a natural marketplace that will be a natural incentive for people to use. That requires more than what is in Bill C-14 and more than what is in the Kimberley process. What it requires is an internationally supervised diamond exchange that will be sourced or located in all of the areas where there are conflict or blood diamonds.
That concludes my remarks on Bill C-14.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in the debate on Bill C-18. First, I want to make some general comments and then I want to refer to a couple of specific examples in the riding of Palliser that could have a general application to a number of other members of Parliament from across the country.
There are several predominant concerns evident in the bill. It is an effective response to the issue of war criminals and perpetrators of human rights abuses who seek shelter behind Canadian citizenship. It is important to close loopholes and to close the doors to organized criminal activity. We must meet the level of security expectations in the post-September 11 atmosphere. Our caucus does not challenge these objectives.
We intend to ensure however that others are not unfairly denied citizenship for lack of due process or inadvertent error. We intend to ensure that there is one Canadian citizen with one set of rights and that Canadian citizenship is encouraged for all in an equal way.
As with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, there is much government talk of openness and welcoming, but we see here a bill that creates some barriers to the realizations of those worthy goals.
Overall Bill C-18 is similar to its predecessor, Bill C-63. There have been some improvements made in response to previous criticisms but there are also areas of concern that remain unaltered. Contrary to the spirit of clause 12, and we heard this in the House today during question period on the equality of rights and responsibilities of all citizens, there remains the inequitable treatment of citizens born here and those who have acquired citizenship at a later date. In addition to the language requirement and tests which are not applied to born citizens, the bill would permit the revocation of citizenship within five years but only for naturalized citizens.
The residency requirement may still be considered too stringent by some.
The language requirement and not being able to use an interpreter remains a proposal. Knowledge of one official language may indeed be a worthy objective in the settlement and integration of citizens, however in practice it may present a barrier to some otherwise qualified applicants. Those would include: older family members, homeworkers and refugees who may have been traumatized in a previous country.
Canadian citizenship is the highest right that we, as a democratic nation, can confer upon those living within our borders. These rights and responsibilities define the egalitarian and democratic values that we hold. No one has legal or political rights extending beyond citizenship. A citizen's right to vote and run for political office are our basic and fundamental democratic rights. The rules for defining citizenship run right to the heart of who we collectively are as a nation.
Canada's multicultural citizenship, our multicultural heritage, is unique and has become a defining characteristic of our nation in the eyes of the world. Certainly in my lifetime, the evolution of Canadian citizenship truly reflects our evolution as a society from our ethnocentric past to our multicultural present and future.
Since its passage the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become instrumental in enforcing citizenship rights. We must ensure that this standard is rigorously applied, especially to something as fundamental as the citizenship act.
The wake of September 11 has presented the most significant challenge in recent years to our rights and freedoms as citizens. There are those who, in reaction to the horror, would severely restrict the rights and freedoms that this terror aims to destroy. We must carefully guard the balance between security and freedom in this defining legislation.
We believe it is unacceptable for some Canadian citizens to be singled out for discriminatory treatment. The rise in the occurrence of racially or religiously motivated hate crimes is profoundly disturbing.
We have raised in this caucus, for example, the recent case of Maher Arar, a 32-year-old Canadian citizen arrested during a stopover at New York's Kennedy airport in late September. He was travelling to Montreal from Tunisia. He was promptly deported by American authorities to Syria. That brought home just how fragile our citizenship rights have become in this electrically charged era that we are in.
Similarly, we have the well-known author, Rohinton Mistry, who was born in India. He has cancelled a speaking tour in the Untied States because he fears continuing harassment by U.S. airport security authorities. We find that regrettable and unacceptable.
Canada continues to rely on immigration. We have completed a parliamentary discussion and debate to finalize the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The government's stated objective is to increase Canada's openness to immigrants. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, earlier this year, reported and studied on that. Everybody on both sides of the House acknowledged that the future of Canada's prosperity depended on our success in attracting immigrants.
I want to speak about a couple of specific instances that have occurred in recent months in the community of Regina. By way of introduction the community offices that I have in both Moose Jaw and Regina probably have more immigration cases than any other category of cases that come before the capable staff who work in those offices. I am sure that is not a unique situation and that other members of Parliament would find that they have a similar intensity on this issue of immigration and trying to get people here on visitors' visas and the like.
The two specific cases that I want to indicate to the House are quite different, but both are troubling.
One involves a gentleman named Charlie Smoke, who is a native North American. He says that he was born in Ontario but does not have a social insurance number. He currently resides in Regina. He was working a few years ago at an inner city school, the Kitchener school. However the only way that he could be employed and on the workforce was to have a social insurance number, so he used his wife's number to qualify for work at the school.
He had never denied that he used his wife's social insurance number. He did not use it for fraudulent purposes or anything else. That was the only way that he could work in a school that had a high proportion of aboriginal students, and he was doing good work at that school.
However, on June 19, 2001, Mr. Smoke was visited by Citizenship and Immigration. His troubles began then and have continued ever since. Mr. Smoke asserts that the Canadian government's harassment is a continuation of colonial practices that have robbed indigenous peoples of their self-determination by usurping their land thus destroying their livelihoods and denying their self-identity.
The Canadian immigration department alleges that Mr. Smoke was actually born and raised in South Dakota and has come to Canada since then. The department tried to deport him last year but the Americans would not accept him when he was taken to the border crossing, so he was brought back. He was out on bail, which was posted for him last year.
He recently had his social insurance case dismissed. However he continues to struggle against the harassment by Human Resources Development Canada and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials in Regina. One wonders where this will end for Mr. Smoke. He is out on a speaking tour these days. There is a growing awareness of the issue of an aboriginal person who insists that the borders between Canada and the United States should not impact upon this individual or upon aboriginal peoples who were here long before those frontier lines were drawn. That is, in essence, the case of Charlie Smoke.
The other case involves a person of Algerian descent. His first name is Ahmed. He came to Canada in 1995 and sought refugee status from Algeria. He was in Toronto for a couple of years. He moved to Calgary where he married a Canadian woman and subsequently moved to the city of Regina where he continued to work for four years. He worked in a couple of upscale Regina restaurants as a cook and, like Mr. Smoke, never ran afoul of any of Canada's laws. His application for landed immigrant status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was rejected.
In recent months he was brought in to see immigration officials to have his case reviewed. Immigration officials visited him at his home and insisted that his marriage was not bona fide, but a marriage of convenience.
I became involved in this case and spoke directly with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I was told by the minister that the department would be looking at Ahmed's case specifically. What I did not know was that on the very day the minister told me that when he was in Regina, Ahmed was brought in to the Canada immigration office in Regina. He was fingerprinted and cautioned, and told that the next time he would be picked up and probably detained while awaiting an extradition order.
He was so traumatized by this that Ahmed subsequently left the city of Regina. He continues to live in Canada. His place of residence now is the city of Montreal, although I do not know that for sure. He has committed no crime. His crime was that he wanted to apply for Canadian citizenship and to continue to reside and work in the city of Regina.
There continues to be harassment toward both Ahmed and Mr. Smoke with regard to citizenship. It raises the matter that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has correctly identified, that we have many people in this country who choose to come to Canada, who were not born in Canada, but choose to settle in the major cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. There are many Reginas and Moose Jaws across the country, places that need and would love to have increased population.
Here are people, Mr. Smoke and Ahmed, who have made contributions to their communities, have never had difficulty with the law except as it pertains to their citizenship rights, but certainly have never run afoul of the law in terms of any charges being laid. Yet they are being pushed away and rejected.
I agree with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that we need to find some way to bring people like these to less populated communities.
Saskatchewan has a population of just under one million citizens. It was just about that in the 1930s. The population of Saskatchewan has been steady for 70 or 80 years now around that basis. I think everyone in the province would like to see Saskatchewan grow and not remain stagnant. However it will grow only with an older white population. It will grow only with the assistance of a different outlook on immigration and by trying to direct some traffic to less populated communities. That is what we have been trying to seek in these cases.
It is terrific that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration convened a meeting last month involving his counterparts in the provinces and territories. It is absolutely astounding, practically incomprehensible that it was the first such meeting in 107 years. It speaks to the need for the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments to work together on this and see if we cannot develop some ways that people can be designated to come to other locations than our major Canadian cities. That is the concern we have.
To go back to the case of Ahmed, I am pleased that the minister is looking at the situation of a similar Algerian family that sought refuge in a church in Montreal. He says that he will deal with that. The indications are that the government is in the process of dealing with that. I am taking him at his word that whatever applies in the province of Quebec will also apply in the other provinces and territories and in the case of the Ahmed, who approached our office, that he will feel sufficiently protected to return to Regina and have his case heard there. Obviously he is at large in the province of Quebec and presumably would be unable to work there given the decision he made to leave Regina because of the threat of imprisonment and deportation to Algeria.
I think the government has badly misread the Algerian situation. It has argued that it is safe for people from Algeria to be returned to that country. Obviously the Algerians who are in Canada do not agree with the assessment. That is why they are seeking refuge in churches and leaving the Reginas to go to larger centres to disappear while this is being sorted out.
I encourage the government to look at this, deal with it and deal with it in a fair way that allows people like Ahmed, who has made a contribution in the City of Regina and wishes to continue to make a contribution in our community and our province, to have the right to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you seek consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so that we may begin private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: 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
Special Joint Committee on KyotoJoe Clark: moved:

That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze the regional, sectoral, consumer, environmental and provincial impacts for meeting Kyoto targets as set out by the Prime Minister in 1997; invite the provinces and territories to provide their estimates of impacts and effects of the ratification or non-ratification of Kyoto on their economies; consider the effect on Canada of the ratification or non-ratification of the Protocol by the United States; determine if specific adjustment programs would be required to help Canadian provinces, regions, individuals and businesses adjust if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified; commission and receive a comprehensive and independent legal opinion on the constitutionality of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol without provincial agreement; and provide recommendations whether Canada should ratify the Protocol;
That seven Members of the Senate and sixteen Members of the House of Commons be members of the Committee with two Joint Chairpersons, to be named at a later date;
That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of Commons of the Committee, be effective immediately after a notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the Committee;
That no change in membership be permitted without the consent of the Member or Senator being replaced;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly, examine relevant research studies and literature and review measures being used or developed in other jurisdictions;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;
That a quorum of the Committee be twelve members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such sub-committees, all or any of its power, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee be empowered to webcast its meetings;
That the Committee operate an interactive website to enable full participation of all Canadians;
That the Committee Reporting Service provide the same overnight service for transcripts as is provided for the House of Commons Hansard;
That the Committee present its final report no later than November 30, 2002 ; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that House accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to discuss the merits of motion M-82. I would also like to thank the member for Fundy—Royal for his support on this very important issue.
Of all the issues facing this country today, none is more unpredictable and none is more potentially divisive than the decision we are being asked to take on the Kyoto protocol.
Virtually everyone in the House recognizes the need to address the issue of climate change. With the possible exception of health care, no single decision of this Parliament will have a greater impact on the welfare of future generations than the actions we take on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It is precisely because this is so important that we need to ensure that there is the widest possible base of consultations, not simply to gather the information but also to build the kind of consensus that would make any agreement possible.
It is precisely because this is so important that we need to know the facts. We cannot afford to make these decisions blindly. We must know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what the impact will be, not just on the country as a whole, but that too, but also upon individual provinces, individual industrial sectors and individual regions of the country. We must have, on an issue of this magnitude, federal-provincial cooperation and agreement. There was some of that some months ago. It has been wasted by the way this process has proceeded over the last several months. There is still time for us carry out the consultations, for us to publish the facts, for us to achieve the kind of cooperation that is essential for any well based national initiative.
The motion proposes to let Parliament, through a joint committee of this House and the other place, do the work that the Government of Canada has so far failed to do with respect to Canada's obligations regarding Kyoto and the most effective path which Canada could follow in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of carrying out that kind of broad consultation, the government is forging blindly ahead. There is no impact analysis. The cost estimates that have been prepared by the government are not even made available to ministers of the crown when they are considering what should be done on this issue. The support that had existed initially in concept among the provinces has virtually dissipated now. Very few provinces support the proposal and there is no plan that the government can bring forward at this stage.
I want to draw five years of history to the attention of the House on this issue. We have a situation here that is worse than the government failing to seek cooperation with the provinces. The government actually broke an agreement with the provinces that would have made it possible for us to proceed together on Kyoto and on the question of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Then it wasted five years in which a consensus could have been reached by the government that gave real priority over time to the development of that consensus.
Let me make the point sometimes forgotten. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of the environment and ministers of energy met in Regina in November 1997 and they came to an agreement on Kyoto.
At the end of the conference, the ministers agreed on the strategy Canada would have to take during the negotiations on what would become the Kyoto protocol.
They agreed that domestic implementation was linked to the need to have a clear understanding of the implications of any package of measures, both in terms of environmental impact and economic impact. They agreed that emissions trading needed to be examined. They agreed to work collaboratively to develop an implementation plan. They agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010. That was all agreed to five years ago this month in Regina in a federal-provincial process.
Then the Prime Minister decided not to honour the commitment his government made to the provinces. He decided to go it alone. What was his excuse? The then minister of resources said that the Government of Canada has the jurisdiction to sign treaties, that it does not need the provinces.
That is an argument I have heard before. I heard it when I was lead minister negotiating the free trade agreement. We were told by theorists that we did not need the provinces because it was strictly a federal jurisdiction.
Of course only the federal government under our law can sign treaties, but the practical reality is that in order to give effect to any major international obligation, Canada needs to have the cooperation of the provinces as well as the agreement of the federal government.
The government of the day broke the agreement it had with the provinces on those ideological grounds. It has left us in a situation now where we do not have the kind of consensus we need.
Then the government went to Kyoto. What was the basis of the agreement Canada made? What was the scientific basis of our agreement? The basis is simple. The Prime Minister of Canada said he was going to be tougher than the Americans. That was the basis upon which we went into the Kyoto protocol agreements to which our signature would make us obliged right now.
The issue is very clear. We must have decisions that bring the provinces in, not divisions that drive the provinces away. We cannot make so complex a treaty work if Quebec is shut out, if Alberta is shut out, if Ontario is shut out and if the other provinces are shut out.
There is a real alarm in the country about the economic consequences of these obligations and not simply, may I say, the economic consequences. In my own province, a province bruised by its experience with the national energy program, there is more talk about separation than I as a firm, committed federalist feel comfortable with. It is inspired directly by the concern that Albertans are seeing in this approach, the same kind of ham-handed, damn the consequences approach that was taken with the national energy program.
As a former foreign affairs minister, I have to say there is a grave danger here that we will be signing an international accord we are not able to honour. Not only will that make us subject to international penalities, it will also besmirch the name of Canada internationally. We are a country whose strength is that our word can be counted on. We are being asked to sign an accord here that we do not know whether we can honour.
Regardless of what can be said about it, the debate on Kyoto is no longer a debate about reducing greenhouse gases. Kyoto has become a symbol of Ottawa's approach when it comes to the provinces. After having done nothing for five years, the federal government is now getting ready to make a commitment to the international community without the support of the provinces, which it needs if it wants to meet the requirements of the accord.
After five years of inertia, the Prime Minister is rushing Parliament and the country into ratifying Kyoto. Rather than encourage a full debate, rather than address the concerns of those who are reticent to ratify without knowing the consequences or reticent to sign on if we cannot keep our word, the country is now faced with an artificial deadline of the end of this year.
It is time that Parliament did the work the government has failed to do.
Where the government will not hear arguments, let Parliament become the forum to which Canadians can come with their perspectives and their concerns. Where the government will not publish its impact analyses, let Parliament order those impact analyses to be published. Let Parliament receive the analyses done by others. The Prime Minister will not meet with the premiers. Let Parliament make sure that the views of and the alternatives from the provinces are heard.
The motion proposes the immediate creation of a joint special committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and you, Sir, in introducing the motion have read the details. It is a detailed motion. It talks about the matters that would be considered.
On Tuesday, the leader of the government in the other place confirmed that while a general motion on the subject of ratification will be presented to both Houses before the Christmas holidays, the enabling legislation, the details, the facts about what it is we are going to be doing, will not come before Parliament until the spring. We are being asked to vote before December without any information. We are being asked to cast a blind vote in December, but we will not know the facts or the implications until some time later in the spring.
Parliament is therefore presented with an even greater need to collect and consider carefully the data on Kyoto. We have an obligation to ourselves and to our constituents to know the implications before we cast a vote.
We have a period of time, not a long time but a period of time during which it would be absolutely feasible to hold meaningful consultations and hearings and report back to this place before each of us is called upon to make a decision on the legislation.
I have already spoken with representatives of certain provinces about taking part in such a committee, to ensure that we have the opportunity to consider and debate the different perspectives of the provinces. Some provinces are prepared to participate in such a joint committee.
I urge members of the House to please not give in to the government's temporary view that Ottawa knows best on these issues, to not give in to the tradition of the fédéralisme dominateur that has caused so much difficulty in this country, that was at the birth of the national energy program, and that could have, had it been followed, undercut the free trade agreement.
This is our opportunity as parliamentarians to assert and to honour our responsibility to ensure that there is informed debate, to ensure that for Canadians, before we commit ourselves to one of the most significant, extensive undertakings the country will consider in the next decade, there is an opportunity for us to have some certainty that we know what we are doing, that we are not acting blindly, or that we are not acting with the federal government against the provinces in a way that builds in the kind of division that has always proved so destructive in this country and is giving every sign of proving destructive now on the Kyoto question.
To paraphrase Edmund Burke, we owe our constituents much more than just our votes on this issue. We owe our constituents our judgment. It has to be an informed judgment. None of us here can honestly say that he or she knows enough about the implications of this proposed accord to make an intelligent vote without hearing more facts.
Let us use the opportunity of the motion to give ourselves the tools we need to enhance our knowledge of the consequences of the vote that is being thrust upon us. Let us give ourselves the opportunity to see if there is some better way for Canada to contribute to the response to greenhouse gas emissions. Let us give ourselves the opportunity to see if there are some better ways for us to use our international reputation and, indeed, to protect our international reputation and not put ourselves in a position where we sign an agreement we cannot honour.
Given the critical importance of this issue, and given that two days ago the House changed the Standing Orders in order to extend the opportunity to make private members' business votable, I would ask for unanimous consent to make this item a votable item in the House.
I thank the House for its attention. I look forward to debate and to a decision on my request for unanimous consent to make the motion votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. member for Calgary Centre have unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Motion M-82, proposed by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
This motion, should it be adopted, would express the opinion of the House on the creation of a special joint committee to examine the impacts of the Kyoto protocol. One of the problems with this motion is that the Senate would have to approve the creation of such committee. The House alone cannot strike a special joint committee.
The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has certainly heard about the ideas expressed recently by members of the Senate concerning the creation of joint committees and the problems that it causes for both Houses.
That being said, he worked diligently on his motion to create a special joint committee that would have the mandate to examine and analyze the regional, sectoral, consumer, environmental and provincial impacts of meeting Kyoto targets; to encourage the provinces and territories to provide their opinions as to the effects of ratification; to consider the effect on Canada of the ratification or non-ratification of the protocol by the United States; to determine if specific adjustment programs would be required; to obtain a comprehensive legal opinion on the constitutionality of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol without provincial agreement; and to provide recommendations as to whether Canada should ratify the protocol.
The government has stated its support for the ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, but the position of the right hon. member is less clear.
For the government's part, we have been consulting extensively with the provinces, industry and the Canadian public on the Kyoto protocol.
A chronology of activities may help members of the House. Activities on climate change date back at least 10 years when Canada agreed to the United Nations' framework convention on climate change in 1992, at which time, I would note, the right hon. member was seated on a different side of the House. I would note that at that time he and his party did not advocate the establishment of a joint committee to study that matter.
After the conclusion of international negotiations on the Kyoto protocol in 1997, Canada's first ministers agreed to begin examining ways of meeting our climate change commitments and tasked their energy and environment ministers to design Canada's national implementation strategy for the Kyoto protocol.
Ongoing discussions with the provinces, territories and other stakeholders have thus been underway for many years. In June 2001, at the G-8 summit in Italy, the Prime Minister indicated that a decision with respect to the ratification of Kyoto would be taken by the end of 2002. The government has taken significant efforts toward this goal in 2002.
In May of this year the government released a discussion paper on Canada's contribution to addressing climate change, presenting options to meet our commitments. The discussion paper was considered by federal and provincial energy and environment ministers at their meeting on May 21, 2002. There were consultations with approximately 900 stakeholders in June.
More recently, the government tabled in the House a draft plan on October 24 which outlined how Canada would meet its Kyoto commitments. The Minister of the Environment stated in the House:

What we have put forward is an approach built on the best ideas to come out of the five years of constructive consultations with the provinces and territories, with private industry, with environmental groups and with the Canadian public.

This approach is based on principles on which I believe we can all agree, including: made in Canada within an international framework; collaboration and partnership; fairness; sharing, and no unreasonable burden; and transparency.
The Minister of the Environment noted that the government had tabled in the House its draft plan to engage in further substantive discussions with the provinces and territories. It should therefore be obvious that the government would have supported the October 24 opposition day motion that before the Kyoto protocol is ratified there should be a plan that Canadians understand, with costs, benefits and targets.
I understand that environment and energy ministers are scheduled to meet again on November 21 to further shape this plan. This will be their fourth meeting in 2002.
As the Speech from the Throne stated, the government will bring a resolution later this fall to Parliament on the issue of ratifying the Kyoto protocol.
In his address in reply to the throne speech the Prime Minister stated:

We have no choice but to act. It is our moral responsibility and it is in our enduring interest.
We are working hard with Canadian provinces and industries to develop an approach that will work for everyone. We will call for a fair contribution from every sector of society. We will have to reward innovators. Invest in new technologies. Be more efficient and productive. We can reduce the costs and maximize the opportunities. Citizens and consumers are ready to adjust their behaviour. Obviously, it will not be easy. We are grappling with very difficult issues. But I have no doubt that, working together, we will do it. We will have a strategy in place that allows us to meet our obligations by 2012.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre wants to divert attention from the issues of the Kyoto protocol by the notion of a joint committee process. This is certainly not the case for all opposition members. For example, our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP have been urging the government to ratify the protocol.
My question is this: Does the right hon. member have a position on the Kyoto protocol? If so, let him state it clearly and not hide behind the diversion that he has put before the House today.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the government asked if the right hon. member had a position. I must ask whether it is fair to ask any member of the House if they have a position on something if the government cannot give us the details of what it is all about.
We do not know the costs of Kyoto. We do not know what effect it will have on jobs. We get phony figures from the Minister of the Environment all the time. It is not fair for the government to ask where an individual might stand on an issue. My party has a position. We are opposed to this. We have done our own research and it shows that this is not good for the House of Commons and not good for Canadians.
Canadians are growing more apprehensive every day about the dire consequences of the Kyoto accord. All the soothing assurances of those on the Liberal side, all their spin and fearmongering about the future of the planet, is being ignored. It has as much influence as what was said by a previous government about the benefits of the GST. The fact is, like the GST, the more Canadians learn about the Kyoto accord the more they fear and hate it.
Here is where we stand today. The Liberal government has committed Canada, without the permission of Canadians, to the Kyoto accord.
A week ago in New Delhi, as was pointed out by Diane Francis in a very perceptive and pointed column yesterday, the developing nations have opted out of Kyoto. If the developing nations are opting out of it at a furious pace, why is it that a developed and industrialized country like Canada is staying with this ill-advised and economically dangerous scheme?
Canadians know what the impact on their lives will be when the price of a litre of gasoline doubles. It will be disastrous for most Canadian families but not for ministers of the crown, or for the Prime Minister, or for the owner of Canada Steamship Lines because they ride around in chauffeur driven cars or, in the case of the owner of Canada Steamship Lines, he has enough money that $3 a litre probably would not be a problem.
I hope Canadians, who are busy preparing for Christmas and doing their Christmas shopping, understand that under the Liberal's Kyoto scheme, Christmas will be a lot less merry in the future. Their Christmas turkeys will probably triple in price because of increased production costs.
The government always asks where we get our figures. Well I say, just look at the gun registry which was originally going to cost $80 million but is now close to $1 billion. The Liberals do not know how to plan. I hope Canadians will remember who the turkeys were who introduced this wild-eyed scheme called Kyoto.
Heating the House at Christmas will likely be costly. It will probably double what it is now thanks to the Liberal Kyoto scheme. Driving out to visit friends at Christmas will double or triple because of the increased cost of gasoline.
Canadians surely will not understand why Canada is leading the charge on Kyoto when China and India are exempt on emission limits. Canadians know that those two countries spew out, as Diane Francis said, as much CO
2
in a day as Canada does in a year. Why should we be any different? Our friends to the south are not joining Kyoto. They are trying to solve other serious environmental emission problems.
If the Liberals would come clean and admit that Kyoto is basically just a worldwide welfare scheme to transfer wealth from the developed and industrialized countries, then Canadians could decide whether to support it on the merits of its basic purpose.
Canadians should be told and they should understand that the Prime Minister is going to jam Kyoto through, force it on them without their approval and without any regard at all for the consequences.
When the Prime Minister finally reaches the end of the longest retirement in political history, his pension will cover the astronomical costs of Kyoto. What about people on lower and fixed incomes? How will they heat their homes and feed their families at costs that soar into the high heavens? Not all Canadians go to Florida compounds to get away from the winter chill. The Prime Minister will leave them in the lurch in the cold with his Liberal Kyoto scheme.
We in the Canadian Alliance Party intend to support the motion, not because we think like the hon. member for Calgary Centre that another special committee is the answer to everything, but because we want to use this opportunity to alert Canadians.
The truth about the Liberal Kyoto scheme must be told by somebody. The Liberals, because it is their scheme, will not tell the truth on this matter, so it falls to the official opposition to do so.
Canadians must know that already major investments are being delayed or perhaps cancelled because of the Liberal Kyoto scheme. How can we expect people to invest in new industry in Ontario or anywhere else in Canada when they have no idea what the hidden costs of the Liberal Kyoto scheme will be?
Canadians should also know that of all the parties in this House, only the Canadian Alliance stands four square opposed to Kyoto. Our friends to the near left like it. Their neighbours a little further to the left love it. Their neighbours further away on their left will embrace it because they are trying to muscle in on the support of the parties that separate us from them.
The right hon. member wants a special joint committee of the Senate and the House to tour the whole nation to talk to everybody who will be hurt by Kyoto and report back by November 30. This means that the committee would talk to 30 million Canadians, thousands of executives from our corporate sector, union heads, school bus drivers, and hockey and soccer moms and dads, and report back in 22 days.
However we will support it with amendment because it might help delay Kyoto for a few hours and that at least will give Canadians a few more hours of memories of what Canada was before the Liberals destroyed our economy.
One company alone in the west might cancel planned spending of $300 million because of Kyoto uncertainty. That flushing noise we hear is more jobs disappearing down the Kyoto black hole.
Corporate uncertainty in Ontario is stalling job growth. What do the Liberals care? When the full impact of the Kyoto disaster is felt, the Liberals will blame the member for Calgary Centre for composing a motion that did not deter them from wrecking the economy.
The Liberal Kyoto scheme promises to be the disaster of the millennium. I want it known and on the record that every Liberal who sits behind or beside the Prime Minister is supporting this destructive and ruinous scheme. And I want every Canadian to remember that in the next election.
We certainly will be reminding them that the only friends Canadians had inside the House of Commons were the members of the Canadian Alliance who stood shoulder to shoulder against the Liberal's destructive Kyoto accord.
I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “November 30, 2002” with “March 28, 2003”.

I might at the same time, in the good spirit of the matter that was passed in the House this week to make all private member's business votable, ask for unanimous consent that Motion No. 82 be votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Let us deal with the matter of unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in the debate on Motion M-82 put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre concerning the Kyoto protocol and the establishment of a joint committee.
Before getting into my comments on this motion, I would like to qualify what the member for Calgary Centre said, for at least three-quarters of his speech, about the provinces appearing to be opposed to the ratification of Kyoto.
I think he is making a historical as well as a technical error. It is important to separate the ratification of the protocol from its implementation. In this regard, I would remind hon. members of the Premier of Alberta's failure to create a Canadian coalition of provincial premiers to oppose the ratification of Kyoto at the last federal-provincial environment ministers meeting.
The Canadian consensus of the provincial environment ministers is not about not ratifying Kyoto, but rather about not implementing it. If the hon. member takes a look at the 12 points on which they agreed in Halifax, he will see that what the provinces are asking for is not that the Kyoto protocol not be ratified by the federal government, but rather that there be an equitable sharing of the Kyoto objective. They want the efforts made in the past by industries and by provinces like Quebec and Manitoba, which took it upon themselves to put in place action plans dealing with climate change, to be taken into account; they are asking the federal government to factor into the sharing of the Kyoto objective the different economic realities across the country.
We agree on the fact that, in Halifax, the provinces did not oppose the ratification, but rather the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. The Alliance member was absolutely right when he gave the central element of the real objective of this motion. He supports this motion because it will delay the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Since 1995, several consultations were held under the National Action Program on Climate Change. In January 2002, I checked the various consultations that have been held in Canada. As of January 18, 2002—not including the federal consultations in all Canadian cities on the four options put forward by the federal government—14 cities were visited, including Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver; 450 experts were consulted and there were 16 issue tables over a period of five years. Of course, this does not include all the conferences and meetings of federal and provincial ministers. I think the will to ratify the Kyoto accord has been clearly expressed.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Calgary Centre would like us to discuss the impacts of Kyoto. This will allows us to speak about these undeniable impacts in the House today.
The question that begs to be asked is why we should start all over again all the work that has been done on the environmental impacts of the implementation of Kyoto in Canada and its regions. The UN International Panel on Climate Change has told us climate change impacts will be floods, more frequent droughts, irreversible damage to natural areas, and a higher prevalence of several infectious diseases.
This 2001 report deals with the impacts of adjustment and vulnerability to climate changes. In Quebec, the impact will be catastrophic. The water flow in the St. Lawrence River will be reduced by 15 to 20%.
There will certainly be an environmental impact associated with climate change. Why launch another consultation and create a joint committee just to have it confirm what the UN Intergovernmental Panel has already confirmed?
The member also wants us to talk about the economic impacts of implementing the Kyoto protocol. Many studies have been done on this. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce conducted a study, as did the Pembina Institute and the federal government, but the impacts are real, including for Quebec.
The impact on Quebec will be at least neutral, if not positive. Why? There is a theory that applies here. The Porter theory says that energy efficiency, or efficiency of any sort, is synonymous with competitiveness. How could a company which is more energy efficient be less competitive? Would energy efficiency make a Canadian business or a Quebec business less competitive than an American one, just because the Kyoto protocol had not been ratified in the United States?
Could a Canadian company not profit from the decisions made in Delhi last week? A company which exports its technology and transfers clean technology could receive credits under the clean development mechanism.
Would a business be penalized if it is based in Europe and can sell on the tradable permits market?
In fact, if the United States does not ratify Kyoto, but Canada does, it will be quite the opposite. These companies will want to sell the permits on the market. The price of those permits will change.
Ratification of the Kyoto protocol will have some economic benefits. There will be technological transfers. So, clearly, if the West tries hard enough, it can succeed.
We had an example of this last week when a gas company bought a wind energy company. It is quite telling. Half of the potential for wind energy generation is concentrated in western Canada. Our resource communities could depend on this incredible resource. If we turn our back on progress, we will be unable to keep up with the rest of the world. I do not want Quebec and Canada to lose ground. We need to go forward. We have to be efficient. We have to promote innovation, which will in turn bring us wealth.
Those who argue today that ratifying Kyoto will make Canada lose ground are living in the past. They are cutting themselves off from technological developments and completely ignoring the need for Quebec and Canadian companies to be more competitive on an increasingly global market. Kyoto gives us an incredible opportunity.
Canada will also have to take into account the shared goals we have to set for ourselves, but which can however be achieved differently. That is the issue here. I support and will always support Canada's goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. This has to be done fairly, in a way that takes into account the potential for efficiency in the various provinces. Since western Canada has major potential for wind energy generation, its demographic and economic situation must be taken into consideration. Climate conditions, which vary from coast to coast, must also be taken into consideration. It is a well-known fact that the weather has an impact on energy consumption.
So it is not true that sectoral objectives will be established for Kyoto. I strongly support the consensus of the provinces, in Halifax, where they joined forces and told the federal government “We want to do our share, we want a shared, but separate objective that will take into account the economic realities of the different regions. We want territorial, bilateral agreements”. This is what the Bloc has been suggesting for a year.
Last week, in Halifax, the provinces rejected the sectoral breakdown that Canada wants to impose, and they asked for a territorial approach. This is what we have been asking the federal government for for weeks and months, and we are pleased that this struck a chord in Halifax the other day.
I will conclude by pointing out that a distinction must be made between ratification and implementation. I think we must remove all the constraints that would prevent Canada from ratifying the Kyoto protocol. However, we must achieve a consensus in the House on a fair breakdown of the Kyoto objectives, based, among other things, on the European model. Fifteen sovereign countries which are members of the European Union have agreed on a model of fair territorial breakdown that establishes different objectives within the European Union. This is a shared and separate objective that we wish to apply here in Canada.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking the right hon. former Prime Minister for introducing the motion to the House today. While we may not agree with the substance of the motion, I want to indicate to the member for Calgary Centre that we really appreciate the opportunity to debate the issue today because it is so critically important. We are talking about one of the most fundamental issues facing the future of our planet.
While I may not agree, and I think I speak for all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, with the main thrust of the motion, we appreciate the sense of frustration that is behind the motion and the concern that is being expressed by the member for Calgary Centre with the inadequacies of the government with respect to the environment and the Kyoto protocol.
At the outset we are in opposition to the motion because for us it represents a delay in what we consider a fundamental step toward solving very serious environmental problems in our society today.
Also we appreciate the concern with the bungling on the part of the Liberal government throughout the whole development of the Canada strategy pursuant with the Kyoto protocol but do not believe that this country can accept any delay in the ratification in principle of the Kyoto protocol.
We heard in the House today members suggest that we cannot possibly begin to consider ratification of a protocol if we do not have the complete plan and strategy developed, worked out and presented to the House. It would wonderful if we had the complete plan. It would be wonderful if the government had not delayed for so long, if it had consulted earlier on in the process with all the provincial and territorial governments and groups concerned and had brought a plan to the House by now. However the fact of the matter is that we are in a time squeeze. We have to ratify the protocol as soon as possible.
While I appreciate the concerns expressed by the member for Calgary Centre, I think it means a delay in that timetable, a delay that will have some very serious ramifications for not only Canadians but for our obligations internationally. It has been said, especially by the member from the Alliance, that before we look at the Kyoto protocol and Canada's plan for implementation, we have to dot every “i” and cross every “t” .
It is a lovely idea and great sentiment except that we are dealing with the practical reality of Canada's signature being required for the ratification of the Kyoto protocol to happen. All of us know the facts. We have debated time and again that the protocol is binding once it has been ratified by 55% of the signatories representing 55% of developed countries' carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.
Canada's signature is needed for us to achieve that target. Canada's participation is absolutely required in the process.
I believe that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the House, the Government of Canada, has to occur as soon as possible. We have to accept the principle and move on.
It is fundamental to this whole area that one has to have a principle and from that principle, policies, programs and strategies will flow. Policies, strategies and programs do not create the principle so let us just start with the basic fundamental issue at hand today. What is the position of the House and of Canadians with respect to the principle behind the Kyoto protocol? Let us move on that issue and then put all we have into developing the plans, strategies for implementation at full speed ahead.
I think there is a real sense of urgency about this matter. I say that because of the kind of information and evidence we have received from the point of view of the health and well-being of Canadians. If one simply looked at the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change issues in the context of health and well-being, one would feel compelled to act as quickly as possible.
It is not just New Democrats raising these issues. Over the last number of months and years, medical experts in the country have made the direct link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change with numerous and serious health problems in our society today.
I do not need to put it all on the record, but let me remind hon. members that we are talking about some very serious health consequences, such as 16,000 Canadians who die prematurely every year from intensifying air pollution. We are talking about ozone depletion, exposing all of us to higher radiation levels and cancers and creating other consequences of that exposure. We are talking about rising temperatures leading to new tropical diseases and contributing to nearly 100 deaths a year in Montreal and Toronto alone.
We are talking about serious expert advice from the Canadian Medical Association which passed two resolutions pertaining to the ratification of Kyoto, one in 1997 and one again in August of this year, because of its concern with the government's delaying tactics and bungling of the issue. It passed a motion urging the federal government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to adopt a strategy that would reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. It passed that motion because it is very concerned about the impact on Canadian health and well-being.
The association said that the tailpipes and smokestacks that emit greenhouse gases are responsible for smog and other toxic pollutants. It went on to say that reducing these emissions would provide significant health benefits, not only in terms of the number of adverse health effects that could be avoided, but also the economic cost of illnesses due to these health effects. An unhealthy workforce does not lead to a strong economy.
In addition to the Canadian Medical Association, we know that doctors and health experts have organized into coalitions and are sending clear messages to the government each and every day about the dangers of not ratifying Kyoto and not moving on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I want to refer specifically to Dr. Alan Abelsohn who is with the Ontario College of Family Physicians. He has stated that hundreds of reports consistently show that exposure to air pollution and smog affect death rates, hospitalizations, complications of asthma and bronchitis and lung damage in children and adults.
I also want to refer to Ron de Burger, director of Toronto Public Health's healthy environment program and a member of the Canadian Public Health Association, who has said that the Ontario Medical Association has calculated that smog costs more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeism in Ontario alone.
These experts talk about the impact of burning oil, coal and gasoline products emissions that cause both global warming and air pollution. They go on to talk about the fact that heat and sunlight cause the emissions from vehicle exhausts and smokestacks to undergo chemical reactions and form smog.
I could go on with all kinds of expert testimony and the views of witnesses about the impact of both climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in terms of health and well-being, which cost all of us in terms of human health and economic health.
I would suggest to the member for Calgary Centre that he join with us in urging for immediate ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Let us cross this bridge and get on with developing the plans to put in place a just transition and a responsible program in response to those international and necessary commitments.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on speaking to this private member's motion but I have to talk for a minute because the last speaker is doing what so many people are doing in terms of trying to sell the Kyoto accord. They are making statements about air pollution and smog that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO
2
. The generic discussion that develops is doing a great disservice to the Canadian public because there is obvious confusion.
Everyone is in favour of clean air. What we are talking about with Kyoto is a very specific emission, CO
2
, a greenhouse gas. It has absolutely nothing to do with the other symptoms and pollutants the member is speaking of.
It is a very unfair characterization and one that makes for lesser debate rather than greater debate. It is one that would indeed lead me to believe that supporting the motion is absolutely the right way to go so that the public can become informed rather than misinformed, which is the way things have been going most recently.
In particular the proponents of Kyoto become more and more desperate when they see that as people become educated, their education about the real impacts of Kyoto correspond almost identically with opposition to the accord because it is not in Canada's best interests. It is not even productive in terms of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. It will probably achieve the exact opposite because it will displace greenhouse gas emissions from our jurisdiction to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards than our own, either because we would be transferring our financial resources to those jurisdictions or we would be buying emissions credits which would allow them to continue on with their dirty industries and allow us to do the same.
That concludes what I wanted to say. I am very thankful that we have a motion which, if amended in the way the Canadian Alliance is suggesting, would be a very good motion indeed.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the amendment proposed by the House leader of the official opposition certainly would be acceptable to us.
There was a question raised by the parliamentary secretary as to whether the other place would agree. We should not assume it would not. Certainly if we took an act of leadership here, there are plenty of indications that the other place would follow, so that in itself is not an objection to the House of Commons moving on that.
I was interested when the parliamentary secretary said the government was going to be seeking a legal opinion on the constitutionality of its acting alone. That must indicate it has some reservations about that. I certainly do. I think it is an open question. In fact, it is not a legal question at all. It is a very practical question.
We can have the jurisdiction set out. The practical question is, can we make this work? The reality is that in a country like this, where the Constitution is not perfect and does not reflect reality precisely, unless we have agreement between levels of government, we are not going to be able to give effect to things that we might be able to agree on.
I was very interested in the parliamentary secretary's selective chronology. I am extremely proud that it was a government of which I was part that took the initiative at Rio. In fact, when one looks back at most of the environmental progress made in the country, it was made by the government of that day.
We faced major issues. There is no question that we took initiatives then that provided Canada with an opportunity to go to Kyoto in 1997 with an agreed position that could have made a constructive contribution to dealing with greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, the government of the day broke the agreement it had with the provinces and did not take advantage of that opportunity.
I was somewhat taken aback by the comments of the Bloc Quebecois member, for two reasons.
First, I think that he was not accurate regarding the Halifax conference, because participants did not support ratification. The hon. member was silent on the issue of ratification. He did mention the disagreements with the plan, and there are a number of them. Allow me to quote, for example, a letter from Quebec minister Boisclair to federal authorities:

The impacts of this plan will be particularly disadvantageous for Quebec, where the manufacturing sector is very active--

He goes on to say:

I am flabbergasted to see the treatment that your government is about to give to Quebec--

Finally, he says:

Today, I am asking you to make representations to your government, so that it changes its plan--

I do not know why or how the Bloc Quebecois, here in the House, can support a blind approach, when the government of its own province is trying to know the details before there is a Canadian consensus.
I agree that the two things are different, but they both need to be spelled out, to be supported by facts. Here, we do not have the facts we need to make an educated decision.
Quebec has taken exception to the plan. Several other provinces have taken exception to the plan or to ratification. Most provinces have: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. There is no consensus on this plan from the provinces that in many cases will have to give effect to its implementation.
The question here really is this: Should we ratify something when there is so much uncertainty about what the consequences would be? Do we not have a higher duty to know what we are doing before we sign on to a ratification?
I was very struck by the observation of the member for Winnipeg North Centre who made the point that we are dealing with a time squeeze. When she talked of a time squeeze, she talked about the calendar by which nations sign on, or do not, to the international accord. That is one of the things we have to consider.
But the other thing we have to consider is, when will we be acting here in Parliament? We know that the implementation legislation will not be available to Parliament for another four or five months, so why are we rushing to meet the Prime Minister's deadline? Why are we rushing to make a decision by December when he cannot get an implementation bill in here before March or April? Why should we not wait to see the facts before we are asked to make a decision on ratification? That really is the question. Why are this Parliament and the public being asked to make decisions without the facts?
The parliamentary secretary quoted the Prime Minister as saying that we have no choice. I hear the echo of the 1984 election campaign in regard to having no choice. I remember John Turner saying that we have no choice. He lost an election over that.
Democracy is about choice. Democracy is about making informed choices. Parliament cannot make informed choices unless we have more facts than we have available to us right now. The question is, how will we use the time before Parliament has to decide? Will we go on ignoring the provinces, allowing splits to develop, which could, as I said earlier, have political implications that none of us want to see? Or will we take the responsibility that is uniquely before us now to have Parliament step in where the government has not acted, to allow us to make decisions based on facts?
I see you are properly restless, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity and I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to hear the debate.
I rather wish, as all members do who introduce private members' bills, that there had been a vote on this because I think we would have found support for the motion had there been a vote on all sides of the House, but I thank the House for its indulgence.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 1.40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 18, 2002, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24 and 28.
(The House adjourned at 1.40 p.m.)