2002-04-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to amend certain Acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-43 is to make minor technical amendments and corrections to various statutes and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
The enactment would make technical corrections to the Access to Information Act, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, and a number of acts that come under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Finance.
The government announced in December 1994 that it would streamline government agencies, boards and advisory bodies. Much of the so-called streamlining simply removed appointments from parliamentary scrutiny by what had been order-in-council appointments. Following the December 1994 announcement the board ceased operations on March 31, 1995.
This is the third time the repeal of the Fisheries Prices Support Act has been before parliament. It was first introduced in June 1996 as Bill C-49 but did not get beyond second reading prior to the call of the election. The repeal was reintroduced as part of Bill C-44 in June 1998. Once again Bill C-44 did not get beyond second reading and was not reintroduced prior to the last election. The repeal of the act has had a low priority for the government as have all matters relating to the fishery.
The Fisheries Prices Support Act was passed in 1994 establishing the Fisheries Prices Support Board which was responsible for investigating sharp declines in fish prices and, where appropriate, recommending price support. The board was empowered to purchase fish products, to sell or otherwise dispose of these products, and to make deficiency payments to producers. The intent of the act was to protect fishermen against sharp declines in prices and consequent loss of income due to causes beyond the control of fishermen or the fishing industry.
The board has not undertaken any significant price support activities since 1982 except for the purchase of fish as food aid for distribution by CIDA.
Bill C-43 can be considered a hybrid of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. Bill C-43 contains a number of provisions omitted from the draft of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, MSLA, Bill C-40. The miscellaneous statute law amendment program was initiated in 1975 to allow for minor, non-controversial amendments to federal statutes in an omnibus bill. A draft version of Bill C-40 was submitted to the standing committees on justice of the House and the Senate.
The MSLA process requires any item objected to by a Senate or House committee to be withdrawn from the bill. To be included, the proposed amendments must meet certain criteria. They must not be controversial, not involve the spending of public funds, not unfairly affect the rights of persons, not create a new offence, and not subject a new class of persons to any existing offence.
The procedure is designed to eliminate any potential controversial items ensuring quick passage of the bill. Bill C-43 contains items objected to in Bill C-40 and also contains new items regarding the repeal of the Fisheries Prices Support Act as well as items that did not make it into Bill C-40 on time.
While Bill C-43 contains minor technical changes similar to an MSLA bill it cannot be treated as an MSLA bill since a few of the amendments did not meet the criteria for an MSLA bill. Quick passage could not be granted and a committee hearing was deemed necessary.
Both the House and Senate committees objected to clauses in Bill C-40 that appear in Bill C-43 as clauses 2, 3 and 4 because they allowed the minister to enter into agreements with the government of any province or provinces in Atlantic Canada respecting the carrying out of any program or project of the agency. This is a change from cabinet authority to ministerial authority.
The Senate and House committees objected to a clause in Bill C-40 that appears as clause 21 in Bill C-43 because it would require royal recommendation. Clause 21 would repeal a section of the National Film Act that limits the National Film Board's ability to appoint staff with salaries of over $99,000 without seeking the approval of cabinet. The clause is viewed by the film board as an unnecessary administrative requirement. The original intent of the provision dates back to 1939. The change would not increase the film board's budget that is approved by parliament.
We in the official opposition support Bill C-43. However it is the first fisheries legislation the government has enacted since coming to office in 1993. It would repeal the defunct Fisheries Prices Support Act that has been little used since 1982 and whose board was shut down in 1995.
The Canadian Alliance would support a fisheries policy that protected the public fishery, fish stocks and fish habitat. We would support a policy that provided for a fishery with equal access for all, healthy sustainable stocks, and a habitat that ensured stocks for the future. The CA supports the strategic purchase of surplus fish products by CIDA for use as part of Canada's food aid programs. The continued existence of the Fisheries Prices Support Act with its defunct board has not contributed to nor has it been a necessary precondition for a healthy fishery.
Bill C-43 is a reminder that fishermen, fisheries legislation and fisheries policy have not been a priority for the government.
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.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActHon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): 
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-33, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
Hon. members are familiar with the legislation. It is back before us today so we can consider an amendment moved by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and approved by the Senate. I am pleased to advise the House that the government will accept the amendment which does not alter the intent of the legislation or affect any of its provisions.
Bill C-33 remains an important bit of unfinished business for Canada. It is important for Inuit and for the future of Nunavut. I will give members a bit of the history. The agreement was signed in 1993. Yet here we are in 2002 still trying to get legislation for the bodies created under the land claims agreement. It is important that the bodies have a legislative base.
Today I will be asking hon. members to support the legislation as amended so it can proceed quickly to royal assent and proclamation. I will address the amendment in a few minutes. First, I will remind hon. members what the government is endeavouring to achieve with the legislation and why it deserves our support.
Bill C-33 would establish the legislative framework for two institutions of public government: the Nunavut Water Board which is responsible for licensing the use of water and the deposit of waste in Nunavut; and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal whose role is to resolve access disputes between landowners and those who want and need to use the land. As hon. members know, preliminary versions of both institutions were created in 1996 under the authority of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The land claims agreement also requires Canada to establish in law the power, duties and functions of the institutions.
Bill C-33 would meet this requirement. The bill is one of empowerment. Nunavut residents would be guaranteed representation on both the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, thereby bringing decision making closer to the people. Bill C-33 would help give the people of Nunavut, some 85% of whom are Inuit, opportunities to become economically self reliant and build relevant institutions of government.
I will talk a bit about what we are doing in Nunavut. It is very much parallel to what the government of Nunavut is doing. We talk about Nunavut becoming economically self reliant and becoming a government on its own. It is a long struggle which becomes harder if we do not have the resources, legislation and tools in place.
I see Bill C-33 as one of the tools that would help us move a bit further down the road that has been three years in the making since April 1, 1999. I am proud to say the people of Nunavut have risen to the challenge and made the last three years exciting. Great progress has been made. Because of the great challenges we face we have a lot further to go, but I can honestly say we have made changes in the last three years. If we keep working the way we have it is a good sign for the future. The last three years are a good example of the determination of the people of Nunavut to make things right.
By supporting Bill C-33 at second and third reading hon. members have shown they agree with the government on these matters. As I noted at the outset, the legislation requires our attention once again due to an amendment approved by the other place. Specifically, the other place has amended Bill C-33 to remove the non-derogation clause.
Inuit rights provided for within the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are not only constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Clause 3(1) of Bill C-33 says that in the event of any inconsistency between the bill and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement would prevail.
The intent of the non-derogation clause was neither to diminish nor enhance the constitutional protection given to the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. The government's goal was to signal that enactment of Bill C-33 would not abrogate or derogate from the protection provided by the Constitution Act, 1982 to aboriginal and treaty rights.
Non-derogation clauses are not uncommon in federal statutes. Their intent is always the same: to remind the reader that aboriginal peoples have protected rights under our constitution that must be taken into account when exercising legislative authority. It is for this reason that aboriginal people often request that such clauses be included in bills for their comfort.
Unfortunately, some Inuit representatives cannot accept this explanation for the non-derogation clause in Bill C-33. The issue of the non-derogation clause has become somewhat of a debate among lawyers vying for their legal opinions to be heard. The magnitude of the debate has been blown out of proportion.
The courts have not yet made any interpretations regarding non-derogation clauses. Some groups do not share the government's interpretation that such clauses are a signal of constitutional protection because statutes are subject to protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 whether or not such clauses are included. For that reason when Bill C-33 was before the standing committee some witnesses expressed strong opposition to the clause.
The obvious solution was to remove the non-derogation clause from the bill. While our goal was simply to flag aboriginal rights which are already enshrined in the constitution, we acknowledge that if some Inuit people found no comfort in the clause and it made them uncomfortable, there was no reason to leave it in the bill. That being said, hon. members should be aware that removal of the clause in no way impacts the application of Bill C-33 or the protection of aboriginal rights. In short, neither the bill nor the Inuit will suffer because of the amendment.
It is time to move forward with the legislation. There has been a lot of debate on the issue. It has been divisive for some people in the territory. The debate is becoming larger than the bill itself. I have spoken a bit about what is happening in the territory. There are so many things going on at the same time that we want to move forward. I do not want the groups that are trying to move forward and deal with the challenges to be held back because they have no legislation with which to do their work.
There have been exhaustive consultations. We hope they have resulted in a bill that would further implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, protect the Arctic environment and create certainty for the resource industry and others who may wish to invest in Nunavut.
Hon. members have heard me talk as much as I can about the natural resources available in the territory. We hope we will be able to draw investors in the future. We are doing so today because of the territory's promising natural resources such as diamonds and precious metals.
We hope to use those resources to move forward and become contributors to Canadian society. It will also benefit us in the form of jobs and training. We want our communities to become industry based instead of government based as it is in so many communities.
We hope our young people will go back to school to pursue careers that will help them take advantage of all the natural resources available in the new territory.
The mining industries have stated that it is difficult for them to invest in our territory unless there is absolute certainty and they know the playing field. I have had a couple of people tell me that they really wished Bill C-33 would go through because it would create a more certain field for them as far as an investor is concerned.
As I referenced earlier, the bill is a key part of the government's commitment to the Inuit of Nunavut through the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement Act. With that in mind, I urge hon. members to join me in voting in favour of Bill C-33 as amended.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage--Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow on the comments of my colleague, the member for Nunavut.
This is my first opportunity as a critic for this portfolio to add some comments to the record on an issue of great importance to the Nunavut people, an issue that has been long standing before the House. Now at third reading we have the opportunity to perhaps move forward.
The amendment that has been brought forward is one which will give closure potentially to the legislation. The times we live in are exciting times for all of us but they are especially exciting for the people of Nunavut. The opportunities that this legislation may open to them are opportunities that many other groups within our society have had for a much longer period of time, opportunities to exercise governance and leadership within their own jurisdiction with a recognized authority and a recognized structure of that authority that has not been there in the past.
The bill addresses the water resources and the surface rights tribunal aspects of the Nunavut agreement itself. What we are talking about today is the amendment which has come back to the House from the Senate. The amendment proposes to delete subclause 3(3) on page 4 of the bill which reads:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The use of derogation clauses has been open to debate by members of the legal community in other contexts for some time. The reality of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is that it has in itself answered the larger questions about who owns the land and who owns the resources of the eastern Arctic.
What is necessary at this point is to give greater consistency or assuredness to the people of Nunavut and to the people of Canada about the resource management regime that will exist in Nunavut. Water management and surface rights are key aspects of that management regime.
I believe it is critical that we do everything in our power to remove the barriers that stand in the way of people achieving their potential and being able to participate in the economic benefits of a vibrant Canadian economy. It is an economy that has been made somewhat less vibrant because of the mistakes of the government, but nonetheless it has been a vibrant economy at times in the past and we hope the Nunavut people will be able to fully participate in it in the future.
In terms of the economic growth potential and the self-sufficiency that we hope to see achieved in Nunavut, the passage of the bill with the proposed amendments would assist in creating a greater opportunity for full equality and full participation of the people of Nunavut in the Canadian economy.
The bill would provide greater assurances and certainty to industry. Industry is critical to achieving the full participation of the people of Nunavut in our economy. It will provide the job opportunities that will give the Nunavut people the abilities, which most Canadians now enjoy, to sustain themselves and their families.
We will support the amendment that has been proposed in this case because we want to see those goals achieved for the people of Nunavut.
I want to dwell a bit on the non-derogation clause because I think it is important to understand. I am told that in the past non-derogation clauses have been included at the request of aboriginal and Inuit leaders who wanted to make sure that it was clear within the legislation that there would be no infringement on the rights of those peoples. The non-derogation clause has also been included in other legislation.
We have been told by the government in this case and in these other cases that non-derogation clauses are not meant to assign rights nor are they intended to diminish rights but are simply declaratory clauses. In other words, they would give credence or recognition to the need for other documents to be supported and recognized that would give such rights. The other document in this case would be the constitution.
It is interesting when one reads the clause and one looks at the comments that were made by some of the witnesses at the committee. Hon. Paul Okalik, the premier of Nunavut, has said that he does not want this clause. He does not feel it needs to be there. I will quote from his comments before committee:

The first item I would like to address is the so-called “non-derogation clause” of the current legislation. Having looked at the text, I find this clause very offensive. I feel that it is an attempt to provide a new term that I would like to introduce to you today: It is what I would call an “Inuit-giver” clause. It has the potential of undermining a modern treaty that we negotiated in good faith with the federal government.

The premier seems to think that the intent of this clause is not declaratory. He reads much more into it than the government has said it intended to be there. I can understand the government's willingness to support the Senate amendment, given the fact it is certainly far from being requested by Inuit leaders. It is actually a request of Inuit leaders that it not be part of this piece of legislation.
The goal of the Canadian Alliance is to make sure that there is equality of opportunity for all Canadians. Now that this agreement and the larger agreement from which it stems have gone forward, we want to do everything in our power to ensure that the people of Nunavut and the people of all Canada's groups have that opportunity for equality. They need to know that their government will be accountable to them and that it will operate in a transparent manner. They need to know that their government will be chosen by them as people who should have the right of equality to vote in elections for example. Right now numerous Indian bands do not exercise such governance. Many of the country's aboriginal peoples are not able to vote in elections.
These are changes we will fight to achieve in this country. We want to see the equality of opportunity and the equality in terms of franchise and individual rights a reality. We do not want to see it sacrificed.
Transparency, accountability, equality of opportunity are worthy goals. These are the goals the Canadian Alliance has stood for and will continue to stand for. Because of that, we will support the amendment as proposed and we will support this legislation.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today on the Senate amendment to Bill C-33. I shall not speak very long. As hon. members are aware, my party's critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, is quite knowledgeable on this matter. I shall limit myself to a few remarks on the government's motion.
It must be said immediately that we are in favour of Bill C-33. I need not remind hon. members that the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, which we have recently supported, provides more self-sufficiency to the communities. We believe it is a step in the right direction and we supported it unconditionally.
Overall, Bill C-33 represents the implementation of certain elements of the Nunavut land claims agreement concluded between the Inuit of Nunavut and Her Majesty in right of Canada. The bill before the House at this time therefore brings to completion the last aspects of this historic agreement. Let us keep in mind that this bill was passed by the House of Commons last November and has stagnated with the Senate every since.
We realize what the workload of our colleagues in the other place is, but is it acceptable for this bill to stagnate, to remain dormant, if I may use that term, for six months in the other place, just so that this legislation, which will empower the communities, can be implemented?
I have trouble understanding why, after six months, the only recommendation the other place can come up with is to take seven lines out of the bill. Worse yet, the proposed amendment does not even concern the body of the bill, but rather the preliminary definitions and the mechanisms for application of this legislative measure.
I could go on and on about the role of the senators and the legislative process, but I will spare the House this needless suffering, which would be boring to them as well. The amendment to Bill C-33 proposed by the Senate consists in deleting from application of this new legislation a fundamental provision relating to the negotiations that in fact led to the conclusion of the and claims agreement between the government and the Inuit of Nunavut.
In the treaty providing the framework for the agreement, which was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993 by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, care was taken to specify the scope of the agreement and the fact that it did not take precedence over prior legislation.
Clause 3(3) of Bill C-33 is consistent with the spirit of the 1993 legislation. However, the Senate is trying to remove this important aspect, the product of years' of negotiations leading to the accord and now, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, the Senate wants to strike them from the treaty implementation act, which is the final stage of this effort that has lasted so many years.
We find this situation unusual, and rather embarrassing for an institution such as the Senate, which has had to deal with serious credibility issues. Not only do senators want to undo twenty years of work, but their changes do not even appear to make any sense.
It is unfortunate that the House is required to waste precious time pondering an issue that is as useless as the Senate itself, rather than spending this time to further the cause of first nations.
The Bloc Quebecois has made good relations with aboriginal peoples a cornerstone of our political program and campaign platform. Like the government of Quebec, we firmly believe, and reiterate this today, that there must be harmonious relations with first nations, as demonstrated by the recent nation to nation agreements that have been concluded with the Cree and the Inuit.
We are determined to work together with the government to respond promptly to the governance wishes of the Inuit from Nunavut. However, the Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to the motion presented by the Senate, and we will be voting against the motion.
In closing, I would invite my colleagues from the other parties to consider this carefully and to carefully weigh the pros and cons of such an amendment. To finish, I would like to add that it is unfortunate that this bill was held up in the Senate for six months only to come up with this provision, when we could have accelerated the pace and the process to provide more governance and more autonomy to communities.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my caucus to participate in this debate on Bill C-33 and, in particular, the amendment being proposed by the Government of Canada.
At the outset I will reiterate the position of our party on the bill and echo the words of my colleague, the aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has worked long and hard with other members in the House on advancing the bill and pushing for an expeditious resolution of this matter.
As my colleague has noted on numerous occasions, the bill is long overdue. It is well noted in the House that in fact there were several predecessors to this bill, specifically Bill C-51 in the 35th parliament in 1996, and then again in the 36th parliament, Bill C-62. Both those bills died on the order paper despite the fact that there has been a long recognized need for legislation in this area and despite the fact that the people of Nunavut have called persistently for action from the government.
It is clear, and I am sure the member for Nunavut acknowledges, realizes and lives with this on a day to day basis, that the people of Nunavut have waited patiently for a very long time to see a bill finally come through all stages in the House of Commons. Obviously we are committed to and interested in seeing this process come to an end and seeing the action taken that is so desperately needed.
Clearly the whole issue of Nunavut land claims settlement in the areas of land use, water and environmental assessment boards is paramount and critical. It is in fact scandalous that nothing has happened since June 1993. Of course we want to see the bill move through the House and action taken. However, we are concerned today with the announcement from the government that in fact a very important clause in Bill C-33 is recommended for deletion to the House of Commons.
I have listened carefully to the debate and have tried to understand the rationale for the deletion of this clause and have yet to appreciate any significant rationale for this initiative. I listened to the member for the Alliance suggesting that in fact this is in the best interests of the people of Nunavut and that this deletion of the non-derogation clause is according to their wishes and intent.
My understanding of the situation is that in fact the people of Nunavut would like to see some form of a non-derogation clause in the bill. Perhaps the wording of this one before us today poses some difficulties, but I think it would still be concluded that it is better than nothing. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre indicated that this issue was discussed thoroughly at committee stage and he was pleased to see that there was at least something in the bill around non-derogation.
I think it is particularly important that we understand the historical basis for such a clause and appreciate the reasons for the need to include a provision like this in a bill of this nature, especially today when we are on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in our constitution in section 35, part of the Constitution Act. It is a very important development in the history of Canada which actually recognized that aboriginal rights are part of our history and must be entrenched in the constitution and that those inherent rights cannot be signed away by any document. It was felt that a bill of this nature should surely include a non-derogation clause. It has become standard practice in legislation dealing with aboriginal and treaty rights.
To quote from the speech of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, he noted for the House that:

In anything dealing with aboriginal rights, a non-derogation clause has become standard practice, in that nothing in this newly signed agreement will derogate or in any way diminish rights that are inherent within the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution. The inherent rights that aboriginal people enjoy cannot be signed away by any document.

That is the spirit behind this amendment.
It was noted at committee that the wording of the particular clause dealing with non-derogation was problematic. I think the leadership of Nunavut did indicate problems with that non-derogation clause. There was an attempt to change it to be more acceptable and responsive to the wishes of the people of Nunavut and in fact it was recommended that the clause should actually be rephrased to state:

Nothing in the bill should derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1982.

That proposed amendment was in keeping with the wishes of the delegations from Nunavut. It was simple and straightforward but unfortunately did not succeed at committee stage. We are left with the non-derogation clause as outlined in Bill C-33 which is now being proposed for deletion. That represents a concern for us and does temper our support for Bill C-33.
I want to register those concerns and to indicate that we will be listening closely throughout the remainder of the debate for a better understanding of why such an amendment is being proposed. It would seem to us that anything we can do as a House of Commons to recognize the long struggle of aboriginal peoples to pursue the fundamental notion of their inalienable rights being entrenched in the constitution and to encapsulate the spirit of that constitutional provision is absolutely vital and must be pursued.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendment to Bill C-33. I first looked at this bill when it was C-62, Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act and again now when it is C-33, the same title, Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
This bill is long overdue. It has been on the books since 1992-93. It is high time that we actually pass it through parliament. Ten years is long enough for any piece of legislation to be passed in this place.
There are some important questions to be raised regarding the deletion of the non-derogation clause. In conversation with the Inuit Tapirisat and the people in Nunavut they raised a number of questions about the bill. None the least of which was the long standing concern that the people of Nunavut had over the requirement for ministerial approval of applications. Certainly the intent, and a noble intent, is to have more control or more power vested in the jurisdiction and the people of Nunavut.
There was a problem with the authority of the governor in council to make regulations in areas that the Inuit felt should be the authority of the water board or the surface rights board, especially the water board. The legislation did not expressly recognize Inuit water rights. The bill states that is subject to Nunavut rights in the Nunavut Act and the rights invested in the crown. Possibly there should have been another amendment looking at water rights specific to the Nunavut area.
Another concern raised was that the $20 million liability factor. It should have probably been higher. However, all those issues and the non-derogation clause aside, this legislation is long overdue. It should have been passed long ago.
It has the support from the member for Nunavut and the premier of Nunavut. It is not up to us as parliamentarians to hold this particular piece of legislation up whether or not we agree with the amendment. The amendment has been passed in the House. It will be my intent to support the amendment in the House. It is incumbent upon all members in the House to look at this piece of legislation carefully to make sure that it is pushed forward and to absolutely make sure that it is passed because it does give more rights to the people who live in Nunavut. That is extremely important.
Maybe at some point in the future we should come back and look at this again but let us get the legislation through. Let us pass it. It is a good piece of legislation. It is timely and it is long overdue.
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]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until the usual time of adjournment on April 15, 2002.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the whips and there is agreement to further postpone the vote from the normal Monday deferral to Tuesday at 3 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Statements By Members
Middle EastMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the violence in the Middle East has escalated and civilians continue to lose their lives. I deplore war and violence and call on Canada and the United States, and the international community, to accelerate their active roles to provide a safe environment for the peace process to continue.
It must be a peace that is just, comprehensive and lasting, and that can guarantee the right of both people to live in harmony, safety and security. The continuation of violence and terror can only result in the loss of more innocent lives.
We are fortunate in Canada to live in a society that protects the rights of individuals to live without discrimination based on religion or place of origin. I deplore the acts of hate against Muslim institutions after September 11. I also deplore the recent acts of hate against the Jewish community centre and temple in my community. These types of acts are meant to undermine our Canadian values.
I call on all community and spiritual leaders and on our law enforcement officers to be proactive and vigilant. I join with my colleagues in calling for an immediate ceasefire and a resumption of peace talks in the Middle East.
Waste ReportMr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, patronage is continuing to raise its disgusting head in the Liberal government.
In my latest waste report available on the Internet at www.canadianalliance.ca/waste I reported that the Canadian Human Rights Commission paid $4,000 to the wife of the Minister of Industry and $8,000 to the wife of former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy while he was still a minister of the crown.
It may not be illegal but it brings up the rule of who one knows rather than what one knows as the basis for hiring decisions in Ottawa.
Now the Minister of National Defence has become involved in the patronage racket. His former senior adviser, Tony Genco, has landed a plum position as the interim president and CEO of Parc Downsview Park Inc. The land at Downsview is owned by DND and the park just happens to be located in the riding of, yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence.
I guess Liberal membership has its privileges.
The Queen MotherMr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the riding of Halton I rise to offer our condolences on the passing of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
The Queen Mother served as Colonel-in-Chief of three Canadian regiments, one of which, the Toronto Scottish Regiment, recently received the honour of the additional title Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Own, the only military unit in the world to carry her name.
One of the greatest satisfactions in my early life was to earn the title Queen's Scout, the highest earned award in scouting. It meant that I was ready to serve my Queen and country. Her steadfast commitment to public duty has remained with me during my years in public life.
The power of the singing at services in her honour was a fitting tribute to her strength and dignity, and we will always hold the Queen Mother in a special place in our hearts and memories.
Chin Wing Chun Tong SocietyMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 13, the Chin Wing Chun Tong Society will be celebrating their 84th anniversary in Vancouver. Established in 1918 the Chan Society has provided a great deal of support for the Chinese community in Vancouver.
The educational and cultural programs of the Chan Society are an important part of its work in the community. Its service to the community includes supporting a Boy Scout troop, running an active women's program and providing computer and ESL classes for many members.
I invite all members of the House to join with me in congratulating the Chan Society on its 84th anniversary. I am sure it will have many more.
Canadian Cancer SocietyMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that April is the Canadian Cancer Society's campaign month.
The mission of the Canadian Cancer Society is to eradicate cancer and to enhance the quality of life of people living with cancer. The society, working with the National Cancer Institute of Canada, achieves its mission through research, education, patent services and advocacy for healthy public policy.
In 2001 an estimated 134,100 new cases of cancer and 65,300 deaths from cancer occurred in Canada. Health Canada works with the Canadian Cancer Society to decrease the rate and burden of cancer in Canada.
I ask hon. members to join me in wishing the Canadian Cancer Society and its volunteers every success in its activities during this month.
Grands Prix du tourisme québécoisMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last month, Tourisme Laval disclosed the names of the winners that will take part in the 2002 edition of the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois.
Since then, the various regions of Quebec have been designating their laureates, and the gold medal winners of the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois will be known on May 10.
I am extremely pleased to salute the recipients of Laval and to wish the best of luck to Le Saint Christophe and Les Menus-Plaisirs restaurants, to the Notre Maison sur la Rivière bed and breakfast, to the Récréathèque and to the Festival de TROIS. Together, they show that the quality of Laval's restaurant, accommodation and recreation services, combined with its dynamic cultural activities, make our city a choice destination.
Come and visit us. You will like what you see.
Airline IndustryMrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the elimination of 40 jobs this week at Halifax International Airport is just the tip of the iceberg for what is to happen to the air industry in Canada thanks to the Liberal government's new government security tax, another GST on air travellers.
Halifax International Airport is the eighth busiest airport in the country and a critical hub for economic development. Tourist air activity pumps 37% of the $925 million into the economy each year. Tourist travel is dependent on discretionary income and is especially vulnerable. For every 1% of price increase sales decrease by 1.2%.
The $54 billion tourist industry in Canada generates some $17 billion in tax revenue that goes to federal, provincial and municipal governments. Almost half of that is generated by the air industry. The 5% decrease in air travel resulting from the Liberal government's newest GST will cost municipal and provincial governments some $350 million to $400 million.
The federal government will more than make up its lost tourism revenue with the money it is taking out of the pockets of air travellers. The writing is on the wall for our air industry and tourism dependent on this industry, a future of continued job and service losses.
The new government security tax on air travellers was an ill-conceived idea that needs to be repealed immediately before anymore economic fallout happens throughout Canada.
The EnvironmentMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday, April 22 is Earth Day, a day to recognize the continuing care needed for the well-being of our planet, a day to recommit to making a difference locally and succeeding globally.
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970 in the United States as a way to increase people's awareness of the environment. Now, more than six million Canadians will join some 500 million people in over 180 countries staging events, projects and addressing local environmental issues.
To commemorate Earth Day in Burlington, the 4th annual community clean-up challenge will take place on Saturday, April 20. All residents of Burlington are invited to join Mayor MacIsaac and me in collecting litter, improving and beautifying our city. We are encouraging individuals and local organizations to clean up their own neighbourhoods and improve our local environment.
I encourage all members of the House to organize similar events in their communities. Earth Day is a wonderful opportunity for family and friends to join together to care for our environment. We can make a difference.
Child PornographyMrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians witnessed the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that has as its purpose to guarantee the equality and safety of our people.
I know that all members of the House will agree that we compromise the integrity of that great contract with Canadians when we allow it to be used to protect child pornographers instead of children. I am of course making reference to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of B.C. in the matter of the crown and John Sharpe, a decision that has shown us a critical weakness in our system of laws.
When sexual predators and pedophiles can use the charter and the laws of Canada to shield themselves from criminal punishment it is our duty as lawmakers to offer changes. Where there is vagueness we must ensure clarity. Where there are loopholes we must fill the cracks.
I make this appeal as a parliamentarian, but mostly as a mother and a grandmother. Above everything else let us never forget that our role is to protect those who cannot protect themselves, those little children.
Order of CanadaMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Gordon Russell on his recent appointment as a member of the Order of Canada.
For the past 50 years Mr. Russell has helped to create positive outcomes for many of Edmonton's young athletes, troubled youth and children at risk. With the assistance of local businesses such as Crystal Glass of Edmonton and Motor Village Group, Gordon Russell co-founded and directs the Gordon Russell Crystal Kids Youth Centre.
He continues to contribute much to the social welfare of Edmonton's inner city youth, primarily through encouraging participation in athletics, including his particular forte, boxing. In 1999 Gordon Russell was honoured as citizen of the year by the Native Counselling Services of Alberta. He has been inducted into Edmonton's Sports Hall of Fame and is on the honour roll of the city of Edmonton's Boxing and Wrestling Commission.
Mr. Gordon Russell is a very deserving recipient of the Order of Canada. I ask the House to join me in congratulating him.
ExportsMs. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 3, the Secretary of State responsible for Canada Economic Development announced the renewal of a three year agreement designed to promote exports from businesses in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
This funding agreement, which is the result of a successful initial partnership, will allow 48th Nord International to carry on its support activities for small and medium size businesses from the Abitibi—Témiscamingue, in order to, among other initiatives, increase the number of small and medium size exporting businesses, while developing new markets and thereby promoting job creation.
As we know, our country's increased competitiveness impacts significantly on Canadians' quality of life. Canada's growth and prosperity depend directly on an increase in its exports and, in this sense, the Canadian government's efforts have produced impressive results. Indeed, over the past few years, our country has enjoyed a marked increase in its exports.
This is another actual example of our government's initiatives to ensure the economic development of the regions of Quebec.
HarassmentMr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this past Monday a 14 year old junior high school student in Halifax shot himself. His friends say it was because of bullying.
Because of bullying, students are being forced to quit or transfer or endure a tremendously miserable existence at schools. Principal Charlie O'Handley said “There's a bullying problem in every school. There's a bullying problem in the adult world. It's universal”.
I want to direct the House's attention to a constituent of mine from Craik, Saskatchewan, Kim Ehman. Kim is the mother of four school age children and has been deeply affected by school tragedies. In the last three days she has addressed students in 13 different sessions. She has a deep and powerful message to parents and students alike. She has written and produced a video entitled Unknown Wounds for her use in presentations. I would like to give a great big thanks to Kim Ehman for her personal attention to a national issue.
Emergency Medical ServicesNancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, the volunteers who take part in search and rescue missions in Nunavut are highly respected for their bravery and courage in locating and helping anyone stranded on the land or at sea, sometimes in severe conditions.
On Wednesday night, paramedics from Ottawa Emergency Medical Services, students from Nunavut Sivuniksavut and other interested volunteers packed up boxes of uniforms donated by the EMS paramedics to send to search and rescue teams throughout Nunavut. My office has taken on the task of sending the donations to the communities of Nunavut.
I would like to thank the paramedics of Ottawa Emergency Medical Services. Their generosity will be greatly appreciated, and it is another great example of Canadians reaching out to other Canadians. I know the links that were formed Wednesday evening will continue with great benefit to all involved. Thanks also to the Nunavut Sivuniksavut and my staff for their hard work.
Ordre des francophones d'AmériqueMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 18, in the national assembly, the Prix du 3-juillet-1608 and the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique were awarded for the 24th time. Instituted on July 3, 1978 and awarded annually, their purpose is to pay tribute to those who make a notable contribution to the vitality and development of the French language in North America and throughout the world.
This year, the recipients of the Ordre, who were presented with their badges by the Premier of Quebec himself, are Maria Chaput, Youri Afanassiev, Gérald C. Boudreau, Guy Matte, André Marier, Jean Paré and Warren Perrin. The Prix du 3-juillet-1608 went to the publication Québec-Français .
The recipients' perseverance in helping the French fact to flourish and grow is a source of inspiration and pride for people. Congratulations to all those who received awards, especially Warren Perrin from Louisiana who, ten years ago, launched a movement seeking an apology from the British Crown for the deportation of the Acadians. The battle continues, Warren; we must hold on to our belief that one day the exile will end.
Long live the French language.
Timothy EatonMr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the homecoming of a Timothy Eaton statue to St. Marys, Ontario.
The statue is one of two identical likenesses of Timothy Eaton and is currently located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The other identical statue, which used to adorn the Eaton's store in Toronto, is currently located in the Royal Ontario museum.
The eminent retailing pioneer, Timothy Eaton, first began his empire in the St. Marys area. Hence, the town will make an appropriate final resting place for one of these great historical monuments. A suitable location for the statue will be found, perhaps between the town hall and the public library on Church Street.
Timothy Eaton will join former Prime Minister Arthur Meighen as the second pioneer of historical significance to be honoured in statue form by the town of St. Marys. Congratulations to the citizens of St. Marys and the constituents of Perth--Middlesex.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Surrey, I want to recognize the recipients of the Surrey RCMP Detachment Commendation Awards for their contributions to public safety in our community.
Unfortunately time does not permit me to relate the individual acts of heroism or outstanding public service, but their names are: Citizens, Pakkin Lee, Yu Feng, Benson Ma, Gary Hedberg, Linda Rust, Lance Fraser, Daniel Page, Matthew Troughton Shannon Gilroy, Ursula Nowosad, Len Reich, Mark Meditz, Tae-Young Gwag, Alex Jae-Shik Yun and Mark Sanders; Citizenship and Immigration Canada's, Dave Chand; Customs inspectors Nick Vatic and Jasbir Randhawa; Delta Police Constable Warren Brown; Surrey RCMP Constables, Ed Roberge, Wendy Mehat, Doug Johnston, Scott Marleau, Steve Lovelace, Margo Halliday, Alan Ling, John Kassam, Derek Evenson, Mike Spencer, Mike Greenway and Kevin Krygier.
Congratulations to all. Their community thanks them.

Oral Question Period
Government ExpendituresMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's purchase of two unneeded executive jets has raised more questions. To most of us as taxpayers, spending $101 million is a fairly major purchase.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Why did such a purchase take place without a full, thorough cabinet discussion?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the appropriate processes were followed in this. What really needs to be underlined is that when either the Prime Minister or quite frankly when ministers travel, especially internationally, we take a lot of pride in the efforts we make to brand Canada as an advanced technological country. Doing that in the best Canadian made aircraft in the world is something that I think the opposition ought to be applauding.
Presumably they think we should be travelling in--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, that argument has been used before. We are replacing Canadian made jets with Canadian made jets, so that is nonsense. The other problem we see is the sole source contracting. There are rules that should be followed.
First, there should be an emergency. Second, the product should be less than $25,000. Third, and this is interesting, there should be top national security concerns. In my view the luxury of the cabinet is not a top national security concern.
Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not just say no to breaking the all the rules on sole source contracting?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, again, I hope it is not true that the hon. member never got to travel on a Challenger jet in his time in parliament because many of his colleagues did, and they know very well that this is not a question of luxury. It is frequently a question of convenience. It is often possible to get to places one otherwise cannot get to.
The hon. member does know that not only was the process respected, but also the outcome of this is that Canadian ministers are able to travel non-stop to Europe. They can land in places in Canada that the previous planes could not and they are the best Canadian--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, it makes us wonder if these planes will be able to land close to a certain spot called Shawinigan.
The other problem that relates to this big issue is that the Prime Minister said just yesterday that he would not use these planes. He said he needed bigger planes to travel with the media.
If the Prime Minister will not be using these jets, will they be made available for challengers for the Liberal leadership race? Is that what they are for?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, frequently, as the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister travels with a media delegation and would therefore use an Airbus. He also may know that when the Prime Minister was leaving Sweden last June, the Challenger cabin depressurized and the plane was forced to land in emergency circumstances. Medical advice was that the Prime Minister should not have flown again for something like 48 hours.
I am sure he would want to know that in using these planes--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeland.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, government reports have said clearly that the Challengers we have are perfectly safe, that we simply do not need new Challengers and that the ones we have are just fine. Three government departments said that we should not buy them. The Prime Minister said yesterday he will not use them.
Who ordered these luxury jets that we clearly do not need?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, this is mister hair shirt again who basically does not protest against any kind of conveniences that apply to any member of parliament or to ministers or to the Prime Minister.
The truth is, and many members on that side know this, much of the work that we have to do on behalf of the government is only made possible by the availability of aircraft that can go places at times when commercial alternatives are not available. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we would have planes that are the best Canadian technology currently available.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, it is about priorities. An official from public works said that they were asked to put together a deal on these luxury jets quick and fast. It took just 10 days for the government to buy these jets. Yet it has taken 21 years so far to find a replacement for the Sea King and we do not have it yet.
Why does the government continue to put the comfort and convenience of politicians ahead of the safety of our soldiers?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. We are proceeding with a replacement of the Sea King. The Sea King itself is still giving excellent service, as it is doing in the Arabian Sea at this very time. The process for the replacement is not in any way changed or detracted by the purchase of these Challengers.
Softwood LumberMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for one month now, the Minister of Human Resources Development has been unable to tell us what specific measures she intends to take to help workers affected by the 29% duty imposed by the Americans on softwood lumber.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development aware of the impact of 100 workers being laid off in a community with a population of 600? When a sawmill shuts down, it is a disaster for workers, for families, and for the entire area.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that the government is working closely with our partners, monitoring the impact and potential impact of the softwood lumber dispute on Canadian workers. That means we are working with the provinces, the industry itself, their unions and individuals. We will continue to do so.
However at this point we feel and are encouraged that the strength of the employment insurance system is there for these workers, as it has been for other workers in other sectors like the airline industry. It has worked well for them and I anticipate it will work well for the softwood lumber industry.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is facing an unprecedented trade war that jeopardizes the very existence of that industry and, consequently, of numerous regions.
The minister's answers are telling us that she does not seem to understand that she must act now.
Is the minister's refusal to travel to Quebec regions, as suggested yesterday by my colleague, not evidence that the minister is insensitive and that she does not want to understand the disastrous and direct consequences of her inaction on many communities, on villages and on several regions of Quebec?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the government is acting now. We are acting through the employment insurance system. The premiums are there for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without income. The part II funds are there. The provinces are administering those on behalf of Canadians.
We are working very closely together. There are programs like work sharing and other strategies and we want to ensure they are flexible, efficient and useful to those who may find themselves in difficulty as a result of this trade dispute.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's attitude is unjustifiable. When it comes to taking taxpayers' money, the government is very quick to act, but when the idea is to help people out, as is the case with the softwood lumber industry, the government lets the clock tick away and the situation deteriorate.
Does the minister not realize that, by not acting quickly, she is sending to workers, communities and regions the message that she is totally indifferent to their plight?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. In fact, the employment insurance system is there and it is working now. I would remind the hon. member of the changes the government has made to the employment insurance system that specifically support seasonal workers.
I would also remind the hon. member that I have travelled to the province of Quebec to announce community solutions for seasonal workers that really make a difference in expanding the shoulder seasons for those particular industries. Our record is clear and we will continue to be there for Canadians.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, the minister takes comfort in boasting about the existing employment insurance programs, when the social reality experienced by the regions affected by this crisis is nothing less than their closure in the short and middle terms.
What is preventing the minister from acting before such a catastrophe occurs, instead of after?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again I would remind the hon. member that the employment insurance system is structured so that it can respond to different levels of unemployment region by region.
I would also remind the hon. member that earlier this week a number of the cabinet met with the Premier of British Columbia. When he left he said “The message I'm taking back...is we've got a future in forestry and that the federal government is working with us to have a forest industry in B.C.”
The same is true for Quebec.
Government ExpendituresHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is about the $101 million purchase of two Challenger executive jets by the government.
I want the minister to explain precisely why the government decided to buy these jets despite a memo from three officials of three departments recommending that the government did not follow proper procedure if they did so, and why did they do this without a full cabinet discussion?
Is this real or is this the Liberal version of air farce one and air farce two?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister has already pointed out, there have been difficulties with the Challengers.
With regard to the $101 million, public works, in order to sign a procurement contract, requires cabinet approval. Cabinet did approve the Challenger purchase.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they will also be paying the $24 security tax when they fly on the Challengers.
Industry Canada, a year ago on March 12, approved a $100 million project for Pratt &amp; Whitney and yet no details of the project were announced to the public.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and he is looking around now for the answer I see, but I want to ask him, as the Deputy Prime Minister, how can the government spend $100 million of the public's money and yet not tell the public why that money is being spent and what it is being spent on?
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member opposite that all the projects approved by PWC are made public, through press releases, press conferences or public documents.
So, this is nothing new. It is something that was already in the October 2001 public accounts. It might be in the hon. member's interest to read the public accounts.
G-8 SummitRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, we will see if the Deputy Prime Minister will deign to answer this question.
The decision to have the G-8 meeting in June split between the two sites means an increased security risk and an increased cost. Before the decision was taken to run these extra risks and costs, did the government receive written security assessments from the RCMP or other agencies on splitting delegates in two sites in Alberta? Further, was there advice from the RCMP or others which recommended against Ottawa as the first choice for the site for the summit? Will the minister table both those recommendations?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member should know from the experience that he has that we cannot get involved in the operations of the RCMP.
With regard to the question of the G-8 and the site as well, we do know that each and every time we have such an operation the RCMP, for example as a parallel with the customs department, are working based on a risk assessment basis. They did proceed with a good risk assessment. They have an operations plan in place, and of course depending on the threat and the risk assessment, they are flexible.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows this decision was taken by the Prime Minister on a whim without getting security advice or cost advice from anybody, and that is running a great risk for Canada.
I would like to ask the dumbstruck Deputy Prime Minister, is there a minister responsible for arrangements for the Calgary Kananaskis summit and, if so, who is that minister?
Second, will there be a zone for demonstrators in the Kananaskis region? How close to the summit facilities will this zone be and who will be in charge of the security arrangements, the RCMP or the army?
Martin Cauchon: First, Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions involved in the question that I do not know exactly which one I should answer.
One thing I know is that we are proud as Canadians to have the G-8 taking place in June in Kananaskis. It is going to be a wonderful event indeed. Of course we do know that the RCMP is a fantastic police force. Its reputation is well known all over the world. We are proud of the work it is doing.
As I said, they are professionals and they did proceed with a good risk assessment. We are not getting involved in their operations but I know that they are doing wonderful work and we are going to have a great G-8 summit meeting.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's bungling of security for the upcoming G-8 summit has called into question Canada's ability to host international meetings.
Can the solicitor general or the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians if the RCMP reviewed the blueprint for terrorists before it was placed on the Internet or only after others found it and raised the alarm?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member should not question the work of the RCMP. As I said, it is very professional.
Second, we all know, and the hon. member knows as well, that we are not getting involved in the operations of the RCMP.
Third, the RCMP is working on a risk assessment basis and of course we do know that its members are professional, they are flexible, they will react based on the threat and they have a very good operation plan in place. We do trust the work of the RCMP. This summit will be a huge success.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot hide behind its canned answers forever. Security experts are unanimous: this blunder has undermined Canada's ability to protect foreign dignitaries and Canadians who live near the summit.
If nothing was wrong with the blueprints the government placed on the Internet, why were they taken down so quickly yesterday?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, of course if there is an organization that is seen not only in Canada but all over the world as expert in that field, it is by far the RCMP. As Canadians, we are very proud of the work done by the RCMP.
I said as well, and the member knows full well, that we are not getting involved in the operations of the RCMP, but let me say it has all the tools necessary in order to proceed with fantastic services and with good risk assessment. We have to bear in mind that over the past two years the government has provided the RCMP, CSIS and all police forces with an additional $2 billion in order to fulfil their duties and their work.
We are proud. It is going to be a success and that is why they do not like--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Airline IndustryMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the federal government introduced a new air travel tax. This tax will have a devastating impact on the airline industry, regional development and all related sectors, such as tourism and travel agencies.
On behalf of all those who have unanimously expressed their firm opposition to this new tax, I again ask the government to simply drop it.
Hon. John McCallum (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to understand the opposition's complaints about the economy. It is a fact that last month saw an increase of 88,000 in the number of jobs, the highest increase since such statistics have been kept. The increase in the first quarter was the highest in the country in 14 years.
And not only that, but Canada had an increase of over 100,000 jobs, while the United States lost one million. So things are looking good.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I would like someone serious in the government to answer a question as serious as this.
The International Air Transport Association, the IATA, has also just criticized the introduction of such a tax, saying that Canada is the only country in the world to try to offset all the costs of airline security through a tax.
My question for someone serious is this: will the government see the light, abandon this new tax and use its huge budgetary surplus from this year and the next four to pay for increased security?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I have just given a very serious answer, which is that the Canadian economy, including that of Quebec, is doing extremely well. The number of jobs in Quebec has increased even more than the average for the country as a whole.
As we have repeatedly said, the total cost of security for $7.7 billion. It is therefore very reasonable to have users pay $2.2 billion out of $7.7 billion.
National DefenceMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been at his post for five years. There is no new equipment. The Sea Kings are no closer to being replaced. Social engineering of the forces has accelerated. Personnel are leaving in droves. Instead there are Challenger jets to fly the Prime Minister and his cabinet around in luxury.
How does the minister respond to a soldier who says “the military has lost its mental and physical toughness to be an effective force”?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member simply does not know what he is talking about. If he had visited the troops in Afghanistan he would have seen that they are making a very significant contribution. They do have combat capability.
Also, we have increased the budget by some 20% over the last three to four years. We are spending over $2 billion a year on new equipment. Yes, the replacement of the Sea Kings is advancing. I have said before in the House that by the end of the year we will have identified what in fact the replacement will be for the Sea Kings.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I wish they would not borrow each other's answers.
Last August the government put a rule in place saying that soldiers were not allowed to leave the service without six months' notice. Why was the government locking our soldiers into the Canadian forces? Today we found out. One soldier, asked if he would return to the forces, responded “Not if I was eating from a dumpster”. The social engineering policies and the lack of funding has our soldiers voting with their feet and they are marching out the door.
Will the minister admit that he is a complete disaster?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a complete disaster. A handful of comments from people who are leaving the service is not indicative of the entire service. He cannot generalize that kind of comment.
The fact of the matter is that attrition is actually down some 20% in the last year. We have one of the lowest attrition rates of any of the forces in NATO.
The EnvironmentBernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have on numerous occasions reiterated their commitment to ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of 2002.
The minister has even given two possible dates, namely June at the time of the G-8 conference, or August at the time of the EarthSummit in Johannesburg . Yet yesterday the Minister of the Environment did a flip-flop and indicated that he had no timetable for Canada's ratification.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that there is a lot of improvisation going on here, and that we are entitled to know, today, when Canada is going to ratify the Kyoto protocol?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong. There is no flip-flop. What the government has said is very consistent. We want to make sure that we do the consultations with the provinces, with industry and with stakeholders. We want to review and make sure we have all the facts on the table.
I do not know why this hon. member is against consultation with the provinces or consultation with the territories or consultation with industry. Why does he not like consultation with Canadians?
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the French minister of the environment, Yves Cochet, appealed to the Canadian government to ratify the Kyoto accord before June, as the Quebec coalition has also called for, and as the Prime Minister had promised.
This intervention by France is proof that our international partners' trust in Canada has been severely shaken.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to heed France and make a firm commitment before this House that Canada will ratify the Kyoto protocol by this June?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, we do not take instructions from Paris or Washington. We take instructions from Canadians and that is why we will be consulting with Canadians.
The solution will be what is right for Canada. That is why it is important to consult. We want to make sure that we are making that decision with full consultation and make sure that it is the right thing to do for Canada.
TerrorismMr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we all know how important it is for Canada to consistently denounce not just specific terrorist acts but also specific terrorist organizations. The Prime Minister of France, who could never be accused of being blatantly pro-Israel, has now denounced Hezbollah specifically as a group and its activities as acts of terror.
We know our government denounces terrorism generally and we know that it will denounce today's murderous terrorist attack, and rightly so, but does our Prime Minister share the position of the prime minister of France relating specifically to Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and to its activities as acts of terror?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Prime Minister but I can speak for the government. I will repeat what I said yesterday. It is not what France does or what the United States does. It is how we analyze in Canada what is taking place here. The government has been very conscientious in examining at all times what activities are taking place.
We have examined this with great care and have decided that we should not at this time do anything other than to stop Hezbollah's military arm from financing in this country. We will continue to do that but if the member has proof that there are other activities going on in this country which are illegal--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan--Coquihalla.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting shift that ministers of the crown no longer speak for the government. It is fascinating.
The government refuses to accept past warnings from the RCMP, CSIS and intelligence experts who all agree on the danger of Hezbollah funding in Canada going to support terrorism.
My question is for the solicitor general. Will he tell the House whether the RCMP or CSIS have undertaken recent investigations into the fundraising activities of Hezbollah and, if so, will he immediately report those findings to the House?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that I cannot comment on any operations of the RCMP. We are not commenting on any specific group but, generally speaking, we know that within Canada there are people involved in terrorism just as there are anywhere else in the world. It is a global problem within a global context.
However we have to bear in mind that over the past two years the government has provided the RCMP with an additional $2 billion to fulfill its requirements. It has also been provided with additional tools such as Bill C-36 and is doing everything in its power to bring those people to justice.
Research and DevelopmentPaddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, the government has announced major funding in genomic research across Canada. In fact just this week it made a significant investment in Ontario.
I wonder if the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development could tell the House how funding in genomic research will improve Canadians' quality of life.
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada intends to make this country a world leader in genomics because we understand its great potential.
This week at Toronto's sick children's hospital I made an announcement for 13 new research projects valued at $118 million, $59 million coming from the federal government through Genome Canada, which means that we have invested approximately $300 million in Genome Canada.
We are well on our way to making Canada a top ranking, innovation based economy. When it comes to achieving excellence in this area, we are focused like a laser beam.
Employment InsuranceJudy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister talks about the government's clear record on EI. Well, that it is. The government received more money last year from the employment insurance fund than all the workers together who actually lost their jobs in Canada. It keeps padding its budget surplus with dollars taken from the lowest paid workers and it continues to penalize mothers working part time who just cannot qualify under the government's backward system.
When will the government get with it, start to understand the reality of women juggling work and family responsibilities and start addressing the real needs of Canadian workers?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the government is very proud of its record in supporting Canadians who lose their jobs with a strong employment insurance system.
When it comes to women in particular, I would remind the hon. member, that it is this government that has doubled parental leave for Canadian families so that parents can be at home in that very important first year of a child's life.
I would also remind the hon. member that through the family supplement Canadians of low income receive 80% of their earnings as opposed to 50% and this primarily benefits women heading families.
Airport SecurityBev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, air travellers using the Windsor airport are faced with a new $10 airport fee to cover loses as a result of decreased traffic. Now, thanks to the Liberal government, they face a $24 government security tax.
When will the government put the brakes on itself and stop this tax grab from air travellers? When will it get the message that this tax is hurting the air and tourism industries in the country?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, first, it is not a tax, it is a charge. As we have pointed out many times in the House, the charge was brought in soon after September 11 when we were afraid traffic volumes would be low. The matter will be re-examined in the fall. Should the situation change, the government has said many times in the House that we will lower the charge.
FisheriesMr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues pointed out yesterday to the minister of fisheries, the abuse of our fishery by our fellow NAFO countries is rampant. Canada pays 50% of NAFO costs but when it comes to the enforcement of NAFO quotas we get minimal enforcement. We cannot allow that to continue.
When will the government put a stop to this looming ecological disaster by asserting custodial management of our continental shelf outside the 200 mile limit?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government takes this matter very seriously and has been very consistent in working to ensure that NAFO regulations are followed by all member countries. We will continue to do that.
I do not think there is any service made to the public of Canada by pretending we have a magic wand, that Canada can take over all of the oceans in the world. We are a partner country with NAFO. We will work with our member partners and we will get the regulations respected.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been anything but serious or consistent. My supplementary is also to the minister of fisheries.
Recently the Newfoundland ACOA minister said that Ottawa wants to build its partnerships to shape a prosperity agenda for Nova Scotia. Is the minister including Canso in that agenda? All the work toward diversification will have been in vain if the anchor of this town, the Seafreeze plant, does not reopen.
Since the fisheries minister rejected the redfish proposal, will he allocate shrimp quota to Canso and Mulgrave to return jobs, dignity and hope to these hardworking citizens of his home province?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, we have been working closely with the owners of the plant in Canso. We have pointed out to the owners that some resources are available that they could process at that plant, that resources are available for purchase on the open market in a private sector entrepreneurial fashion to operate that plant if that is a decision they wish to make.
It would be unreasonable and irresponsible for me to shake up the whole industry and destabilize the industry by taking from one province to give to the other and from one company to give to the other. His government did that and now we are in trouble.
Research and DevelopmentMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, science fiction is quickly becoming science fact. Today's headlines report another group has begun cloning humans. This is not the first headline that we have seen this week.
Scientists linked to a group in Quebec claim that they have already implanted the first human embryo in women. If they are experimenting in Canada there is no law to stop them.
Could the health minister assure the House that cloning experiments are not already happening in Canada?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were obviously aware that this was coming. Science is moving ahead very quickly. That is why the Standing Committee on Health, of which my colleague is a member, worked very hard to table a report in the House.
The minister promised to introduce a bill before May 10. This will be done. We are going to proceed, but we must do so in a reasonable and comprehensive manner, and not just take a patchwork approach.
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, we warned the government last fall that this would happen. We called for an immediate ban then but it refused to listen. A royal commission reported back in 1993 and it went nowhere. Bill C-47 died on the order paper in 1997. Meanwhile, human cloning is becoming a reality and in fact may already be too late.
Will the government promise that its long overdue legislation will not die on the order paper this time?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that, again just recently, guidelines were introduced by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Our colleagues were not happy because they claimed it was not a step in the right direction. I am very sorry to see this.
Once again, the bill will be introduced and we hope that everyone will co-operate to make it law as soon as possible.
Middle EastMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under the plan proposed by Germany to restore peace to the Middle East, only a political approach with the active support of the international community can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Given the UN secretary general's call this morning for an interposition force to be sent the Middle East, which is what the German plan is also recommending, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what real measures, and I do not mean vague hopes, Canada has come up with so far—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently said specifically that, in the right circumstances, Canada is quite prepared to do what it has always done, and co-operate with the international community to establish peace. We will do so in the future as we have done in the past.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, given that there was yet another suicide bombing this morning in Jerusalem, with many innocent victims, does the minister agree that if the international community and Canada want to give the peace process a chance to work, they would do well to support the proposal put forward by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, we are always ready to consider proposals put forward by the UN secretary general. The UN is a component of our foreign policy and we will continue to work together with it.
As regards the terrible events that took place this morning in Israel, we reiterate our great sympathy for the victims and their families. People on both sides of the conflict continue to die as a result of this violence. We call for an end to the violence and a return to peace talks. This is necessary for the negotiations—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.
AgricultureMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the department of agriculture has become a bureaucratic mess that is out of touch with Canadian farmers.
Currently the minister of agriculture is spending $15 million to travel across the country informing industry groups about the proposed agricultural framework plan. His meetings are closed to the public, leaving farmers out in the cold. Meanwhile, the Deputy Minister is sightseeing in Europe talking about his farm plan.
Will the minister of agriculture admit that the outcome of his $15 million travelling road show will make absolutely no difference to Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very sad that the party that says we should talk to the agricultural industry and Canadian farmers is now telling us that it does not want us to do that. I am sorry to disappoint the member but we will continue to do that.
People, including those in his own party, have said that the country and the Government of Canada need an agricultural policy and an architecture for the industry for the future. We are going out with the broadest dialogue with the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry that has ever taken place to ensure that when we take action we have listened to Canadians.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal cabinet minister would believe that closed door, invitation only meetings are grassroot consultations.
The minister is squandering $15 million behind closed doors. Canadian farmers who wish to give their opinion are told to call a generic 1-800 number. In other words, they are being told to take their concerns elsewhere. Meanwhile, this tired government insists on spending millions on fireside chats and personal jets.
When will the minister realize he needs to listen to all producers not just a handpicked few? When will he take back control of his own department?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the dialogue is taking place in consultation with the provincial governments. We talk to them and make sure that every organization and every farm group in the sectors are represented in these discussions.
I can assure the hon. member that whether he thinks so or not, this is the broadest consultation that has ever taken place.
Research and DevelopmentMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.
The government aims to move Canada into the top five countries in the world for R and D by the year 2010. Time is short. To achieve this goal we must invest now in our researchers, especially our young researchers.
What is the government doing to attract and promote the best and brightest research minds?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, recently at the Montreal Economic Institute I announced $84 million in scholarships and fellowships to graduate students, Canada's most promising researchers. The $84 million was awarded to over 2,100 researchers studying in various areas of basic research, like physics and biochemistry, and applied research like engineering and software development.
This investment is extremely important because it is vital to the current and future innovation capacity of Canada.
Crown CorporationsJohn Williams: Mr. Speaker, there is a dark cloud of patronage abuse hanging over the government.
Tony Genco, the former senior advisor to the Minister of National Defence, received a soft landing as the president and CEO of Downsview Park Inc. Downsview Park Inc. manages land owned by the Department of National Defence and, yes, the park happens to be in the riding of the Minister of the National Defence.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Besides being a loyal Liberal and a friend of the minister, what are Mr. Genco's qualifications to be the president and CEO of a crown corporation?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, we are reviewing the composition of the board of directors of Parc Downsview Park Inc. It is an important element of defining the future of a crucial part of metropolitan Toronto. We believe that it can offer great potential for future generations. We are confident that as we move forward we will have in place the administration that is able to deliver that vision.
Employment insuranceMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the surplus in the EI fund has reached an unprecedented high, the government of Quebec has had to take the federal government to court to recover employment insurance premiums in order to implement its parental leave program.
Nevertheless, Minister Goupil says he is still prepared to reach an out of court settlement, thus extending his hand to Ottawa.
Is the minister finally going to take the hand that is being extended and resume negotiations, thus enabling Quebecers to benefit from a true parental leave program?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, for 30 years the Government of Canada has been supporting Canadian parents through maternity benefits and for the last 10 years with parental benefits. I would remind the hon. member that we have doubled those benefits and we have improved the system in an ongoing fashion.
As we have always said, if a province chooses to add to our strong platform it is welcome to do so and we encourage it do to so.
Fisheries and OceansGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, since the minister still refuses to assert Canadian custodial management outside the 200 mile limit, will he agree to increase coast guard and DFO presence inside the 200 mile limit?
It is absolutely shameful that the minister expects one coast guard vessel to patrol all of the Grand Banks inside the 200 mile limit. What is he going to do about it?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is reviewing the questions of custodial management and of extending the 200 mile limit. Those are very important questions and deserve a full hearing. I look forward to the advice that the committee can provide to me.
As far as surveillance is concerned, we have increased our air surveillance. We recognize that the more surveillance we have, the better it is. We are gathering more information to work with our partners within NAFO to get proper enforcement.
Canadian HeritageMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Canada's paralympic and olympic athletes made all Canadians proud with their performances at the recent Paralympic and Olympic Games which were held in Salt Lake City. How does the Minister of Canadian Heritage plan to honour these fine Canadian athletes?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am pleased to invite all Canadians to come to the Museum of Civilization on Monday, April 15 from 12 to 1 p.m. so that we can honour, celebrate and meet our paralympians and olympians.
In addition I am pleased to announce to members that we will have the opportunity to actually welcome these Canadian heroes into the House of Commons at which time we can show how proud we are of their accomplishments.
RailwaysMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the 116 year old Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway is about to close because of bureaucratic inefficiency. To save it, CP and VIA must get out of the picture.
Will the Minister of Transport and his delegates call a meeting with CP, the province of British Columbia and VIA to get CP and VIA out of the picture so this railway can get into the hands of a private company that can run it profitably?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the current situation has occurred because RailAmerica, Inc. has now found that the lack of freight traffic means that the railway line is not justified from a profitable point of view.
From VIA's point of view, it has a contract with RailAmerica, Inc. If RailAmerica, Inc. cannot maintain the security on the track, then obviously VIA cannot continue to operate the service. VIA has offered some extra money until May 15 for local groups to have the time to get together to organize a response, working with stakeholders in the region. I hope everyone can come together for a business plan to keep this valuable service operating.
The environmentMr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every spring the banks of the St. Lawrence are damaged by the spring runoff, the ice breakup and the wash from passing vessels, thus dangerously accelerating the erosion of its islands and shores. Since the Liberals took over in 1993, only a pittance has been invested to protect these banks, while Toronto has received $1 billion to revitalize its lakeshore area.
When is the government going to create a similar program, in conjunction with the government of Quebec, for the protection of the banks of the St. Lawrence, and particularly for the protection of those living along the river?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is not in the House today. I shall advise him of the question and he will get back to the House on it in the near future.
Softwood LumberBev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, the NDP was the first to call for an aid package for softwood industry workers who have had their lives shattered by illegal U.S. tariffs. The Liberal government flatly refused. It said that the existing employment insurance program which it has hacked and slashed to bits was enough. Now it has admitted that our tattered wreck of an EI program is not enough.
This week the government began making vague assurances that help is on the way. Vague assurances will not put food on the table for the workers caught in the middle of this international dispute.
What specifically is the government doing to assist workers affected by the softwood lumber dispute?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that the employment insurance system is very comprehensive. There are a number of tools that are there for us to use at this particular time.
The hon. member will be interested to know that close to $300 million is transferred every year to the province of British Columbia for specific use in support of laid off workers. She will also know that we have work-sharing programs. The income support benefits are there.
We are working closely with the governments in the affected provinces as well as the industry. We will continue to do that. We are watching this file extremely closely and we will respond as--
The Deputy Speaker: This concludes question period for today.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsSarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to six petitions.
PetitionsMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, currently the federal Supreme Court Act does not permit a justice to consider a case where there has been participation in a lower court. I am pleased to present a petition from 154 of my constituents calling on parliament to reinforce the federal Supreme Court Act by legislating an amendment requesting a mandatory review when evidence of prior participation has been presented to the Minister of Justice as the head of the judicial review committee.
Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from constituents who are concerned about kidney disease as it relates to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. They know that the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes, which is one of the Canadian institutes network, does fine work toward kidney research. For example, it supports research to enhance health in relation to diet, digestion, excretion and metabolism. My constituents feel that fine work would be better received by the public and better known in the public if the words kidney research were included in the title of the institute.
The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
Questions on the Order PaperSarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it, you will find there is unanimous consent to see the clock as 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 12.06 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11.00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.06 p.m.)