2003-04-11

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has a point of privilege.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the 36th Parliament, parliamentary privilege has been increasingly and repeatedly attacked. Privileges are defined as follows by Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 11, and it is very clear:

Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental right necessary—

Later, on the same page, he goes on to state:

It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate power to protect itself and its members and officials in the exercise of their functions.

I would like to give a few examples of how these privileges are being completely disregarded.
We need only think of the pre-eminence of Parliament in terms of the rights of parliamentarians to be the first informed. Committee reports are leaked before they can be tabled in the House. Statements are being given outside the House, which means that the media are quite frequently more up to date on the work of committees than parliamentarians are.
This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. I already condemned this disturbing situation when I raised a question of privilege on December 12, 1998, about information leaked from a report on prebudget consultations prepared by the Standing Committee on Finance. I stated at the time that leaked committee reports are becoming common occurrences.
I will name a few instances that occurred during the 36th Parliament: the report on nuclear non-proliferation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; the report on amateur and professional sports in Canada by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage; and the report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.
This kind of leak is still happening on a regular basis. Recently, the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry himself expressed the committee's viewpoint as set out in a draft report. The same thing happened with the Standing Committee on Health. In fact, on December 11, 2002, the supplementary report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs was leaked. Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, almost 15 leaks have undermined the privileges of the House and for only a few of these were the culprits admonished.
And what about the government motion on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10 that deals with animal cruelty? Let me remind the House of that motion.

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concurs with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), but
that the House, while disapproving any infringement of its rights and privileges by the other House, waives its rights and privileges in this case, with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent; and
that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.

It has become so commonplace to infringe upon the privileges of parliamentarians that we have no qualms about referring to it in a motion. It does not matter if we say in a motion that it cannot be construed as a precedent. When we abuse someone, whether it is verbally or in any other way, we cannot argue afterwards that it never happened. These things hurt and are not forgotten.
The same applies to the privileges of parliamentarians. When can we expect another motion like that one, where we are told that it is not a precedent? Putting up with this kind of abuse, although we might not acknowledge it, does undermine our position.
Parliamentary privilege is not some sort of flexible concept. It is fundamental and essential to the work we do. To play with parliamentary privilege in such an odious way is to discredit the institutions in which we work.
Nevertheless, let us return to the case at hand and your ruling on Monday. The procedural irregularities that took place on April 1 and 2 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are yet another instance. We have a committee chair who permitted the moving of the previous question, despite this passage on page 786 of House and Commons Procedure and Practice :

The moving of the previous question is prohibited in a Committee of the Whole as it is in any committee.

You said, in your ruling on Monday:

—committees are also expected to adopt any such limits in a regular and procedurally acceptable manner.

Moreover, you quoted Speaker Fraser's ruling given on March 26, 1990:

—I would urge all chairmen and members of committees to try and strive mightily to ensure that the general rules of this place are followed as far as is sensible and helpful in those committees.

He also stated:

—chairmen ought to be mindful of their responsibilities and make their decisions and rulings within the bounds of the fine balance provided by our rules.

How can we expect the Chair of this committee to maintain order and decorum, pursuant to Standing Order 117, when he is the one creating disorder? He even invited a member of the government party to appeal his ruling with respect to the previous question, as if to say, “Go ahead and contest my ruling. You have the majority. We will hold a vote and you, with your majority, can reverse my ruling. Then you can move the previous question. And to hell with the Standing Orders”.
A committee chair who openly invites a committee member to contest a ruling based directly on the Standing Orders, and on a point of order into the bargain, is issuing a direct invitation to circumvent the rules that govern us, not once but twice, to serve his own purposes. That is, to put it plainly, dictatorial.
What is the implication of contravening the Standing Orders for members who are insulted in this manner? Let me quote once again page 786 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

—the moving of the previous question would prevent Members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.

To deliberately prevent a member from having the tools required to do his job is a breach of his privileges. I know full well, as you said in your ruling on the point of order that I raised last Monday, that committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This committee is led by a tyrannical chairman who decisions show no signs of fairness. In this case, the committee, particularly its chairman, through his actions, has shown that he must be brought into line because he very clearly contravenes the Standing Orders, preventing members, as the previous quotation shows, from appropriately and effectively doing their job.
Once again on the matter of order and decorum, the committee chairman assumes an arrogant and contemptuous air when some opposition members speak, when we try to ask for clarification on certain decisions. He also assumes an indifferent air during committee proceedings, slouching in his chair and even joking with his Liberal colleagues, detracting from discipline while opposition members are speaking. His attitude is quite different when his Liberal colleagues are speaking.
I would like to share with you another breach of my parliamentary privileges. At a committee meeting, I asked the clerk to clarify a decision the committee was preparing to take. The chair of the committee came between the committee clerk and myself in order prevent her from answering me directly, and by that very fact stopped her from providing me with an answer. The committee chair himself provided me with a cursory answer, with no explanation, as he stated this was not necessary.
Quoting from page 834 of Marleau and Montpetit;

The clerk of a committee is the procedural advisor to the chair and all members of the committee and also acts as its administrative officer. The role of the committee clerk is analogous to that which the Clerk of the House has with respect to the Speaker and members of the House. As a non-participant and independent officer, the clerk serves equally all members of the committee as well as representatives of all parties; clerks discharge their duties and responsibilities with respect to the committee in consultation with the chair. The clerk also acts as the committee's liaison with other branches and services of the House of Commons.

It is clear that, once again, my rights and privileges have not been respected and I have not been able to properly perform my duties as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon you today because I have been unsuccessful with all the recourses you invited me to call upon in your ruling this past Monday. I came to you with a point of order and complied with your request to return to the committee with a motion calling upon it to report on the procedural irregularities of April 1 and 2. This was disdainfully refused with cynicism and arrogance by the committee chair and the Liberal members.
Consequently, the entire matter remains unresolved. Yet it is very urgent to take action because the committee is still in operation. I am appealing to you as the guardian of my rights and privileges, because the chair of my committee has not been able to protect them, and on more than one occasion moreover. You, Mr. Speaker, are, to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice page 26:

—the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

In addition, on the previous page, we see that your duties:

—require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

We expect no less. This latter quote captures the essence of parliamentary privilege as well as of your role and duty to preserve the delicate balance between the power between the government party and the opposition.
You said you wanted to rule on my point of order in a timely fashion since:

—it may have some bearing on the work that the committee intends to take up this week.

Referring us to committee resulted in our being subjected to an illegitimate gag order, which breaches our privileges as parliamentarians. Of course, the chair of the committee did not allow a motion to censure the disorder in that committee.
How can a chair who ignores the procedure and practice of the House be expected to allow me to move a motion to report to the House what happened in committee?
Discussing the matter at the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons is inappropriate. The suggestion by the government House leader was dishonest. This matter must de decided now.
What is at stake today is respect for the privileges of parliamentarians and the rights of opposition members to do their job properly without the sword of arbitrariness being held over their heads.
If the procedural irregularities that took place during the consideration of Bill C-7 at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are allowed to go unchallenged, this will create a dangerous precedent. How can we trust after such a affront that it will not happen again? How will the work of the committee be managed from now on?
These questions are all the more pressing because since you handed down your ruling in response to my point of order, the work of the committee has been done in a permanent climate of tension that has been exacerbated by the smug and contemptuous attitude of the committee chair, an attitude that even affects the public that attends the meetings.
On Tuesday, the day after your ruling, the attitude of the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources provoked a strong verbal reaction from two first nations representatives who were present. The chair abruptly ordered their removal, and had it not been for my intervention, these perfectly peaceful women would have been subjected to the humiliation of being forcefully expelled by four security guards. When I was heading out the door with the two women, the committee chair hurled abuse at me and ordered me to mind my own business, using language that was disrespectful, irreverent and unworthy of a member of Parliament.
Since your ruling on my point of order, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has also demonstrated bias and used a double standard in his decisions. For example, on Tuesday he would not allow first nations members to take photographs in committee, and then on Wednesday, he was quite happy to let constituents from his riding take all the pictures they wanted, even extending an invitation to two students to sit at the table during the committee's hearings.
Given the importance of the issues being examined, it is imperative that the committee chair be rigorous, have decorum, be professional and especially impartial. I wonder how the House would have reacted if this type of behaviour or these types of injustices had occurred here in the House.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, since the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has violated the Standing Orders by his cavalier management of debate and his complete lack of decorum, to recognize that there has been a prima facie breach of my privilege, of my right to do my job properly. I am therefore prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This morning the other side of the House wandered all over the procedural map. First, the hon. member challenged the Speaker's rulings with regard to Bill C-10A. In fact, he challenged pretty much everybody, spoke ill of other hon. members of this House, and, to top it off, made gratuitous accusations about me because, in the past, I volunteered to help improve committee procedures in the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons on which we all sit. Finally, he made all kinds of accusations about the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
As we are all aware, the hon. member for Nickel Belt chairs the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. Recently he has faced long debates, sometimes up to 10 hours or more on such topics as the committee's agenda. It has been difficult for a number of hon. members.
This issue was brought before the House. You and your colleagues who sit in the Chair felt that the committee should, of course, first report on its work and then action would follow, if necessary.
Once again, this ruling is challenged. However, this does not mean that a parliamentarian who sits on a committee would be authorized to do just about anything since no report has been submitted to the House. Of course not.
The accusations made against the hon. member are very serious. This is why I think that, before the Chair makes a ruling on this issue, the hon. member for Nickel Belt who, right now, is not available to provide an immediate reply, should at least be given the opportunity to defend his actions. He probably did not get a notice informing him that this issue would be raised. In fact, I myself as House leader was not notified. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was probably not given that courtesy either.
I am sure that he will want to reply. Should the Chair decide to investigate this matter with the committee, then I would ask the Chair to also look at the other side of the coin, that is the accusations made by some members against the chair of the committee, who told the House about being the object of physical threats and so on.
Should the Chair of this House decide to investigate the issue, he should not look at just one component. It would be important to look at both sides. Indeed, based on what the hon. member for Nickel Belt told the House a few days ago, there is another version to this whole affair. Therefore, it would be important to hear it if, of course, the Chair decides to take a closer look at this matter.
I will conclude by saying once again that, in light of the seriousness of the accusations made, the hon. member should at least have the right to give his version before the Chair rules on this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their interventions.
The Chair totally agrees that, before a ruling can be made, the member for Nickel Belt should be given the opportunity to present the facts that he may want to share with the House.
From what I understand, the committee is no longer sitting in camera. Therefore, the Chair will examine all the documents that are available. After the intervention that the Chair anticipates from the member for Nickel Belt, it will be ready to rule on this matter. For now, the matter is taken under advisement.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 10 consideration of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 at report stage, the statutory review of the environmental assessment legislation.
Bill C-9 and its precursor, Bill C-19, came about as a result of the requirements of the mandatory review requirements set out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, also known as the CEAA, or Bill C-13, which was proclaimed in 1992 and came into force in January 1995.
Section 72 of the current act required that the minister undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the act five years after its coming into force. It also required that within one year after the review the minister submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any recommended changes.
At the outset, we believe the review was fundamentally flawed. Although participants indicated some progress in improving environmental planning, there remained significant deficiencies in a variety of areas, including sustainability, regional planning and policy coordination, alternative development options, traditional land use and aboriginal participation, and perhaps most significant, the lack of practical enforcement measures.
New Democrats had reservations about the bill as it was introduced because it did not adequately address these and other severe problems associated with the act. Our initial opposition was based on the assertion that the bill failed to address three principal criteria.
The current CEAA did not go far enough to protect our environment and the changes proposed in Bill C-9 would further weaken that legislation.
Bill C-9 attempted to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment and review process seemingly to the benefit of developers and industry instead of protecting the environment and the public.
The bill did not substantively address the measures needed to strengthen and improve safeguards to protect the environment.
During debate of the bill and throughout committee hearings we raised those and other concerns over the lack of effectiveness, transparency and efficiency in the EA process.
By listening to my own constituents in Dartmouth, I am very aware of what the community wants and, I believe, has the right to expect from federal environmental assessments.
I would like to provide an example of the lack of transparency which this process now has in place.
The reasonable expectations of environmentally aware and community-minded people are often dashed due to the deficiencies of the environmental assessment process, deficiencies which are not corrected in the statutory review of Bill C-9.
In Dartmouth, for example, we currently have a coast guard base on a large wharf on the Halifax harbour near Dartmouth Cove. I dare say that the red and white coast guard icebreakers, such as the Louis St. Laurent and the John A. Macdonald , are almost as much of a local landmark as the naval yards are on the Halifax side of the harbour. In my mind the base is another part of the bustling activity of one of the world's great working harbours set in a magnificent natural beauty.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decided that it eventually will be moving the coast guard base down the harbour to the site of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. I have no reason to believe that such a move would impair the important functions of the coast guard. If it can save money and allow for better search and rescue then all the better. However, one issue that is outstanding is what will happen to the current coast guard base. That is where the environmental assessment issue comes in.
The local municipality, the HRM, has for decades wanted to build sewage treatment plants throughout the municipality, including one near Dartmouth. I have supported these general plans because I am opposed to the dumping of raw sewage in the harbour, as is everyone in our community.
About 10 years ago the then municipalities of Halifax and Dartmouth proposed a number of cites for sewage plants, including one on the island in the middle of the harbour to take the Dartmouth sewage. An assessment was done that looked at the impact of the possible island sewage treatment plant. It is no real surprise that the result of that environmental study showed that building the plant would result in better water quality. The plant, however, was never built. It is now 10 years later and the municipality wants to put another plant on the current site of the coast guard base.
The Halifax regional municipality believes that this site is accessible to both the main sewage pipes from Dartmouth and it can also take the sewage from the cruise ships that are starting to frequent our harbour, and it will be available on the right time line in terms of when the base is moved by the coast guard.
The coast guard base is nestled right beside a residential community. There is a very limited amount of traffic going up and down the steep and narrow road to the base and the current base generates very little noise or odour.
Understandably, the neighbours around the coast guard base are not convinced that this would be the case with the sewage treatment plant. They have concerns about it. They worry that the plant will smell because it will only be about 100 yards from their homes. They worry about the noise and danger of heavy vehicles during the construction, and the noise and danger of the sludge trucks which will go up and down pass the area when the plant is operating. They worry about what this will do to the quality of their lives and their property values.
They have a right to worry about these things, and because the land is owned by the federal government, they have a right to look to the environment assessment process to make sure their concerns are dealt with.
I, as the MP, thought this would happen, that there would be an assessment because this project would involve the disposal of federal lands and that of course would automatically trigger an assessment.
I thought the environmental assessment would deal with the local concerns, which would have been communicated to both the municipality and to the federal department responsible. I expected that the assessment would look at the condition of the base, the concerns of the neighbours and would suggest ways for the plant to deal with concerns raised. I guess I was naive to believe that the system would be accessible and transparent for my constituents.
The environmental assessment screening that was done was released in January and it did not discuss many of the issues raised. It set limits on noise and odour for a plant. It was vague on how compliance would be enforced. It did not look at the condition of the base. It did not deal with the specific concerns raised by the community, or by me, to the department. It had not left anyone feeling that the environment was better served.
The basic problem is that it was not a transparent process. It did not even deal with the actual proposed site in Dartmouth but discussed guidelines for three sites around the HRM. It did confirm that having sewage treatment was better than not having sewage treatment, but there is no surprise in that. It took comments from the consortium trying to build the plants pretty much at face value. It did not seek or obtain community input. My office, which had written to the minister on the site and the assessment, was not even made aware of the assessment's release.
The municipalities public relations meetings have not been satisfactory to the community. As a matter of fact the report says that 19 submissions were received of which 5 were supportive. The report says that the local concerns have been dealt with but many of them were not.
I say these things to highlight how unsatisfactory the assessment process was for these local Dartmouth residents. They feel that the environmental assessments are something that exists for high price consultants and for developers and not for public input.
I have since learned that getting an assessment to a public panel stage, where members of the community can actually get a formal hearing, are so rare that it is virtually impossible.
After reviewing the legislation and in consultation with a variety of environmental, aboriginal and legal experts, the NDP submitted more than 50 amendments to Bill C-9. These amendments attempted to address some of the identified shortcomings of the act. While there was some success in getting several amendments, many more were defeated, as the House knows.
In conclusion, we cannot support Bill C-9 in its present form or the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It must be made clear that the NDP supports the goals of improving the environmental assessment process to make it more accountable, more transparent and to strengthen the protection of our environment.
Therefore it is with regret that because of the inadequacies of CEAA that we were not able to bring about meaningful amendments, we will have to give our dissent on the bill at this time.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the first group of amendments that we have before us at report stage reflect the essential problem the New Democrats have with the legislation.
The bill, as we heard from the member for Dartmouth, has had a lengthy history in terms of trying to improve the environmental assessment process in this country. There has been a great deal of criticism of it since it was actually incorporated into legislation following a series of what were, in effect, cabinet and ministerial directions on environmental assessment dating back to the 1970s, if we go back far enough, but certainly through the 1980s and 1990s until it became law.
The primary concern has been the lack of detailed hearings, if I can put it that way, which has resulted in us not having a body of law grow up under this legislation because we have had so few of the hearings. I think we were up to 12 as of the time the amendments were before the committee. That would be in the context of thousands and thousands of proposals that came before the government for assessments, but were dealt with by way of what, in most cases, were very summary screenings of the projects.
I will use one example of what did not receive a hearing and a panel review. We have developing now the largest depository of nuclear waste in the country and probably in the world. The expansion of this depository here in Ontario, up in the Bruce Peninsula, was screened and a decision was made that there would be no panel review, in spite of very strong demands by the environmental community and, I suppose, even more important, by the residents in the Bruce Peninsula for that type of review. It simply did not occur, nor will it at this time. There were several more examples given to us at the time that the committee reviewed these amendments.
I think there is another major problem with the proposed amendments by the government. We have to appreciate that we were working within a very limited confine of the amendments that were proposed. Because of that, we were not able to address a number of the issues. One of the major issues that should have been addressed was that of the enforcement of the legislation because there really is, in effect, no enforcement within the existing law and certainly not within the amendments that are being proposed.
To come specifically to the group of amendments that we have proposed before us in Group No. 1, they reflect the government's approach on this. I have to say that some of these amendments are purely technical and are an improvement to the bill as it went through the committee. There are a couple of amendments in this group that, and I am not quite sure what happened here, I believe, are in a bit of a different form. They are amendments that were proposed at the committee stage, were voted down by the majority of the Liberals on the committee and are now showing up in a somewhat different form, but they are improvements over the original part of the bill. Several of them, although not very many, are improvements for which we would be supportive.
Unfortunately, several of them, and I would address my comments specifically to the proposed Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 21, are retrograde over the work that the committee did and will make environmental assessments less meaningful, less effective and less protective of the environment.
In a summary if I can encapsulate what the amendments do, is they limit the ability of people in local communities, or municipalities or environmentalists who have reservations about the proposed development to respond. In some cases the four amendments place fairly restrictive time frames on the ability of people who are opposing proposals to get information and to respond.
What the committee did, and I believe it was astute on its part, was to say that in some cases there should be no specific time limits within which the minister could give final approval to a proposal. There would be guidelines for when he or she would do that based on providing sufficient information, either through the department or by the proponents themselves, to the people who were concerned about the development.
What some of these amendments do is put a 15 day time limit within which this information can be dispersed to the opponents and then the minister can proceed. The minister in effect only has to wait 15 days.
We have to appreciate, and I am perhaps wearing my lawyer's hat for a moment, what that does to opponents. We had one example of one group that came before us to give testimony. It was being faced with a very short time frame, I think it was 30 days, and had access to thousands of pages of material, scientific study in particular, some of it very technical. It was required to respond and to put forth its position within that 15 or 30 day period. It was literally impossible for it do that in that time frame.
What the committee recommended in some of these sections, the government is now proposing to change through the amendments in Group No. 1 with very specific time limits being placed on them again. This is in spite of what we had proposed based on the experience we had under this legislation and experiences prior to that in Canada, as well as the experiences internationally.
It is simply not possible, given the scope of some of these proposed developments, for concerned citizens to respond in a timely fashion when they have a 15, 20 or 30 day time frame. Oftentimes the concerned citizens are required to retain lawyers, which some may already have, or other experts, and that is usually where the problem is, to do a meaningful assessment of the reams of material so they can respond in some type of informed way.
I go back to environmental assessments. If we are to have an effective and meaningful system for environmental assessments, the concerned citizens of the country, the citizens who will be directly impacted by these proposed developments, need to have meaningful input. That oftentimes means reasonable notice, an opportunity to involve themselves in the process by retaining experts and the framework of the legislation to do that.
Unfortunately, in many respects it is going in the opposite direction, particularly with the four amendments I mentioned. They are limiting in very significant degrees the rights and capabilities of concerned citizens to be involved in this process.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will make some very brief comments on the first group of amendments on the review process.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is undergoing a mandatory review. The CEA process itself is to ensure that the impact of projects under federal government decision making authority are properly assessed. The act was first passed by the Conservative government in June 1992 but only came into proclamation in 1995.
The review leading up to Bill C-9 was launched in 1999 and it was conducted by CEA. The review entailed the commissioning of background papers, consultations with interest groups, specialized work groups, a parallel consultation process with aboriginal organizations, consultations with provinces and with federal departments and agencies. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are based on the consideration of the views presented during that consultative phase.
The stark problem with that process is the fact that the Minister of the Environment, prior to reviewing this act, had the sole authority to determine which aspects of the act needed to be reviewed. The scope of what we are actually discussing is only a very small section of the act in general.
Some amendments in Group No. 1 deal with the timing of environmental assessments. A second group of amendments also are encompassed in the Group No. 1 motions which deal with minor technical changes, including amendments to ensure proper concordance between French and English. The third group of amendments deal with the machinery of government and the agency's role to ensure that we have compliance of the act itself.
I would like to speak primarily to Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 21.
The standing committee passed an amendment stating that no decisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including environmental assessment decisions, could be taken until 30 days after the posting of the last document on the Internet site of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.
There are those who believe this amendment would create significant delays because the 30 day period was not tied to a specific point in time. The time clock would restart with each posting of each new document. In addition, there are those who believe having a 30 day requirement for all projects does not recognize the difference between relatively small screening levels of assessments and assessments that are conducted through a comprehensive study, mediation or a panel review.
The government has proposed amendments to clause 12 so that decisions for simple screenings could occur 15 days after the notice of commencement and a description of the scope of the project has been posted on the Internet site. For more complex screenings with public participation, decisions could only occur 15 days after the scope of assessment or description of how to obtain it has been posted on the Internet site.
There are some missed opportunities here. Fifteen days is simply too short. Posted documents are only notification of commencement of an environmental assessment. We will not know what pieces of information on which the assessment itself will be based. The government will not be posting documents that are relevant to the final decision of the environmental assessment. A 30 day requirement is applied in other jurisdictions, such as the provinces, without bringing the process to a standstill.
The government of Ernie Eves, formerly that of Mike Harris, has a 30 day requirement on environmental assessment. I do not think business is coming to a standstill in that province. I think most members in the chamber would understand that the Ontario government is definitely pro-business.
I do not know why the Liberal government wants to be less environmentally friendly by having a further restriction by pulling it back to 15 days from 30 days.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are aware as a veteran of this chamber, that 99% of all environmental assessments are done under screenings. That means that 99% of all environmental assessments will only have a short 15 day window to have any public consultation or intervention and we would still not know what tool kit the government utilizes when it formulates its assessment in general.
For comprehensive studies, the government motion would create a minimum 30 day period between the public release on the Internet site of the comprehensive study report and the minister's environmental assessment decision. The text of the proposed amendment refers to other documents that must be included on the Internet site before decisions can be taken, such as a notice of commencement and the scoping information. There are some missed opportunities here. The government did not make any changes to this. However remember, going back to the screenings, that 99% of all EAs are performed through screenings, not comprehensive studies.
The approach it has taken on comprehensive studies would be a more prudent one if it were adopted for the screening process. I do not believe it would bring the process to a complete standstill in terms of environmental assessment. If the provinces want to provide more flexibility in 30 days, I do not see why the federal government would want to have such a restrictive and less permissive system for public input. We should have a bit more transparency.
Those are the amendments we are reviewing. To be fair to the government, this is an improvement over the current act but it is a pull back from what the committee did. It has not gut it to the same degree as we have seen in other approaches, such as amendments that were reversed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, or the species at risk legislation.
There was a bit of moderation in this reversal by the government. I give the officials and the minister some credit for at least having some flexibility. However there is a missed opportunity which the Government of Canada could have had by providing more flexibility. If the provinces can provide 30 days for public input, why can the federal government not provide 30 days as opposed to 15?
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 carried. Therefore I declare Motions Nos. 4 to 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23 and 24 carried.
(Motions No. 3, 4, to 7, 13, 14, 16, 18,19, 23 and 24 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 8. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 10. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands deferred. The recorded division on Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 20 to 22 also stands deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 carried.
(Motion No. 11 agreed to)

Statements By Members
LiteracyMr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Library Association I wish to inform the House that April 6 to 12 is Information Rights Week in Canada. The theme of this year's celebration is literacy, and honours lifelong education that should be available to all.
Libraries have an important role to play in promoting literacy and lifelong learning. Of adult Canadians, 26% have problems understanding simple documents. Libraries across Canada are working with their local partners to respond to these needs. Furthermore, literacy is a basic human right and creates the conditions by which citizens can participate in decision-making in all areas of society, including economic, political, social and cultural activities. Information Rights Weeks celebrates local libraries that promote literacy and lifelong learning.
I wish to congratulate the Canadian Library Association in its efforts to support literacy.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a fire truck pulls up to a blazing house on the Long Plain Indian reserve. The crew works feverishly to get the inferno under control. In the middle of a group of onlookers sits a man on a couch and beside the couch is a television set. The fire chief approaches the man and inquires, “Is this all you could get out?” The man looks up and slowly replies, “In a couple more payments, I will own these”.
Most of Canada's on-reserve aboriginal people do not own their houses. For all intents and purposes the chief does. The result is that chiefs regularly receive calls to repair window screens and doorknobs. On-reserve aboriginal Canadians have been made permanent tenants by a flawed system.
This week the Auditor General detailed the massive, visionless failure of the old Liberal approach. The Canadian Alliance says that we need a new approach. We need an approach that gives aboriginal Canadians what we all take for granted, the opportunity to own their own homes.
Organ DonationsMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 20 to 27 is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, which gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the importance of organ and tissue donation, and to show our support for the nearly 4,000 Canadians waiting for organ donations.
Organ and tissue donation is important to all Canadians. As members of Parliament, we should encourage our constituents to consider this gift because each year more than 100 Canadians die waiting for a transplant.
The serious gap between the number of organs and tissues donated and the number of people who need them is growing as the population ages. We need to shorten this gap. That is why, in September 1999, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health set up a committee to establish a pan-Canadian strategy on organ and tissue donation and transplantation.
Our donations may save or enhance a life. Thousands of Canadians, children and adults alike, are counting on our generosity.
World Hemophilia DayMr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that April 17 is World Hemophilia Day.
Hemophilia is a hereditary disease spread primarily from mother to son. There are approximately 3,800 hemophiliacs in Canada.
April 17 is the birthday of Frank Schnabel, a hemophiliac and founder of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the World Federation of Hemophilia.
The Canadian Hemophilia Society is dedicated to assuring better care for all people with inherited bleeding disorders, like von Willebrand disease. This disease is the most common of all inherited bleeding disorders and can affect up to 1% of the population, hitting both men and women, who, for the most part, are not diagnosed.
I invite everyone to join me in congratulating the Canadian Hemophilia Society on its remarkable efforts and wishing it all the best on this World Hemophilia Day and on its 50th anniversary.
The EconomyHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employment figures released last Friday show full time employment in Canada increased by 23,000 jobs in March, a remarkable achievement considering the time of year and the war in Iraq. By contrast, the economy south of the border showed a loss of 108,000 jobs. Evidently the war is having an impact on the U.S. economy.
Canada's economy is healthy. The U.S. economy is on a slippery slope. The official opposition and its real allies, big business, do not seem to realize that acting in Canada's interest means resisting military conflict, working for peaceful solutions, reducing Canada's huge dependence on the U.S. economy, and building, expanding and strengthening economic ties with Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development conducted a charade of consulting with first nations on Bill C-7. He then made a big show of providing the bill to the standing committee after first reading with the pretense that the committee and the witnesses would thereby have “greater opportunity for open discussion”.
Within three days of completing cross-country hearings we were required to submit all amendments. That left committee members precious little time to analyze and synthesize thousands of pages of briefs and committee transcripts. Can members understand why people get their back up? The minister intended to have the clause by clause work completed and the bill reported back to the House by the following week.
Does the minister not understand that ramming this bill through at such a breakneck pace will cause first nations to further mistrust the Liberal government?
The EnvironmentMr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since a National Wildlife Week was declared by Parliament in 1947, this event has highlighted to Canadians the importance of conserving our wildlife. April 6 to 12 marks National Wildlife Week this year, a great opportunity for Canadians to pay tribute to a national treasure.
The beaver, the loon and the polar bear on our coins, and the maple leaf on our flag, are symbols that epitomize the richness and diversity of this country's wildlife. These symbols help bind us together as a nation.
This year's theme for National Wildlife Week is “Native Species, Nature's Choice”. It highlights growing concerns about the devastating impacts of invasive alien species on Canada's wildlife and the environment. Although some of these species may be benign, others are harmful and are taking a huge toll on our wildlife habitat.
The federal government has a long history of action in addressing invasive alien species and is developing a national plan to better prevent the introduction and spread of such species in Canada.
Guy DesmeulesMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the 21st Gala de l'excellence, the Jonquière chamber of commerce named as its business personality of the year Guy Desmeules, owner of GD Musique and the hôtel Richelieu.
Mr. Desmeules has been in business for 40 years, and it was his love for music that led him to start his multi-faceted business offering such services as band management, festival programming, conference organizing and instrument sales.
A true businessman who started from nothing, Mr. Desmeules has been very successful, and his company's reputation goes far beyond Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Desmeules is the epitome of a successful businessman who has succeeded in creating his own company. I congratulate Mr. Desmeules and wish him many more years of success.
EducationMr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, plans for an international francophone college in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu are on track.
I would like to congratulate the promoter of the project, the Cégep de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, especially its director, Serge Brasset, for his energy and determination.
The college would be affiliated with the United World Colleges network, which currently numbers some 10 different colleges. The Collège international de Saint-Jean would be the network's only French language institution and would be located on the Fort Saint-Jean campus.
This is an excellent plan that would allow students to follow the international baccalaureate program in French.
It is important that we give them our support, like my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, who has been supporting this project for several months now.
Organ DonationsMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, over 3,500 Canadians are waiting for an organ transplant and 150 of them will die every single year. Tragically, we have among the lowest organ donor rates of any country in the developed world. Six years ago the government passed an action plan to fix this problem, yet it has not been implemented.
The following are the most important recommendations: first, make an organ donor form available in every patient's chart in every family doctor's office in Canada; second, set up a real time database for potential organ donors and recipients; third, appoint a national organ transplant coordinator and ensure that brain death reporting to that coordinator is mandatory; fourth, ensure a pool of funds is available to ensure that all transplants are carried out; and fifth, make EI available for all living donors during their convalescence.
April 20 to 27 is organ donor week. It is a good time for the government to implement this plan.
Steel IndustryMr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has long been a strong supporter of the Canadian steel industry. That is why the government, with the support of the industry, initiated action before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for safeguards to protect Canadian steel producers and steelworkers from the market distorting effects of unfairly traded offshore steel.
The government is well aware of the serious damage caused to the Canadian steel industry by these distortions. The government is also aware of even greater surges in recent months of offshore steel imports which are now at critical levels.
Representatives of the United Steelworkers of America are in Ottawa this week to add their voice to the call of the Canadian steel producers for immediate government action in the form of imposition of adequate tariffs on a wide range of steel products against a number of offending countries, specifically excluding United States steel producers.
We stress the need for the government to continue its strong support of the industry and for this action to be taken now.
Persons with DisabilitiesWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with members of the Canadian Association for Community Living, who work to make our communities inclusive for persons with disabilities. They are concerned that when the Canada health transfer replaces the Canada health and social transfer in 2004, the social side of this crucial funding will be quietly cut back, leaving important social and disability programs even more vulnerable than they already are.
This cannot be allowed to happen.
It is critical that the federal government make clear that the social transfer must remain intact and earmarked for its intended purpose. In fact, the restructuring of the transfer program is an ideal opportunity to build in a disability supports transfer that will guarantee funding and pave the way for social inclusion and equality for all Canadians.
Marie-Mai BouchardMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to congratulate a young and talented resident of Boucherville, Marie-Mai Bouchard, on her participation in the popular show, Star Académie .
Immersed since her early childhood in the world of music, Marie-Mai developed a wonderful voice and exceptional skills as a composer, which makes her a very well-rounded artist. Through iron-willed determination, an infectious sense of humour and her mastery of her art form, Marie-Mai has charmed tens of thousands of Quebeckers in only a few short weeks. She was, in fact, the only woman on Star Académie who was not once on the chopping block.
There will be a large gathering tomorrow, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. at the Carrefour La Seigneurie in Boucherville, to support Marie-Mai for the girls' finals, which will take place on Sunday. I invite all of her supporters and everyone to take part to show their support.
For Marie-Mai, Star Académie will have been a great adventure. But this is not the end, it is only the beginning. From now on, she can reach for the stars and even become one herself.
I say bravo Marie-Mai and break a leg. No matter what happens, she will always be our star.
EritreaMr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after three consecutive years of drought in the Horn of Africa, more than half of the four million Eritreans are threatened by famine. Many farmers have had to sell their cattle and eat the seed intended for planting.
Canada is responding to the urgent need for food and water in all parts of Eritrea. Through the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, Canada has committed to providing $3 million worth of emergency aid to the population of Eritrea.
This aid is divided as follows; $1 million to the Canadian Food Grains Bank, $1 million to the World Food Program, and $1 million to UNICEF. These bodies will work in conjunction with the Eritrean government departments responsible for emergency feeding.
Parkinson's Awareness MonthMs. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform hon. members and all the people of Canada that April is Parkinson's Awareness Month.
Parkinson's is a devastating disease characterized by tremors, rigidity and loss of balance. At the present time, approximately 100,000 people in Canada are affected by Parkinson's. More than half are diagnosed before retirement age.
The Parkinson's Foundation raises funds for research and treatment, and ultimately the discovery of a cure. Volunteers across the country provide training, counselling and workshops for patients, natural caregivers and health care providers.
Let us all wish the Canadian Parkinson's Foundation and its many volunteers a highly successful Parkinson's Awareness Month.
Veterans AffairsMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of Canadian veterans of the Korean war. These veterans are not authorized to wear the Republic of Korea War Service Medal, which was awarded to them by the South Korean government in 1951.
So far they have received little help from the Government of Canada. I understand that when this medal was first issued, Commonwealth countries jointly decided to issue their own medal recognizing the sacrifice and courage of Commonwealth soldiers.
I have been working on this issue for several months and have found that other Commonwealth countries have allowed their veterans to wear this medal. Australia and Britain, and more recently New Zealand and the United States, have all allowed their veterans to wear this medal.
I have contacted the Chancellery of Honours, which informed me that it is looking into the matter.
Alzheimer SocietyMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with Miss Sandy Riley, president of the board of the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia.
Alzheimer's is a progressive, degenerative brain disorder that destroys vital brain cells. It is not a normal part of aging; it can strike adults at any age. There is no known cause or cure, although some of the symptoms can be cured by medication. The symptoms of the disease include the gradual onset and continuing decline of memory, changes in judgment or reasoning and an inability to perform familiar tasks. As the baby boom generation ages, it is estimated that by 2031 over 750,000 Canadians will have Alzheimer's and related dementia.
This society provides support and educational programs to families and caregivers as well as promoting public education. The Alzheimer Society symbol is the forget-me-not. Let us not forget those with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers.

Oral Question Period
IraqMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada missed out on liberating the people of Iraq. We did not have any role in the joy on those faces, but we do now have an opportunity to participate in the reconstruction there. Has the government been in direct contact with President Bush or Prime Minister Blair to offer Canada's help for reconstruction?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in close contact, as the minister said yesterday, with American and British authorities and many others, including the United Nations, to discuss and help in the reconstruction of Iraq. This has been repeated a number of times. Frankly, it is somewhat difficult to understand this whole new focus on the part of the Alliance Party on humanitarian aid and reconstruction, this big switch from guns to ploughshares, but we are working--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, what a cheap partisan shot that is.
We now have an announcement from Poland that there will be a conference on reconstruction in Iraq. Guess who is invited: only those countries that were on the ground.
Here is my question for the government. Will it pick up the phone and offer our help for reconstruction instead of simply idly waiting for a call?
Aileen Carroll: I beg to differ, Mr. Speaker. President Bush has made it eminently clear that he sees a role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq. He has made it clear that there is an international community responding to a post-war conflict. Our reputation is clear. Our position and experience in this area are very well known. As I have said, our government and our major ministers of course have been involved with their counterparts on a daily basis.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, we did miss out in helping to free Iraq from a tyrant. We can still fulfill a positive role. That is what Canadians want.
I am not quite sure I understand the reticence to get on the phone and offer our help; for instance, like a police force similar to the police force that we offered in Haiti. Why in heaven's name would the government not do that?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is becoming repetitive. We have been in touch. I have informed the opposition, as has my minister, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, that our relations are such that there is a very good dialogue and communication. We are offering, through our humanitarian commitment, $100 million. We are ready and willing to participate. All of the players involved realize that and will be looking to Canada for our expertise.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for somebody who criticizes the front-runner in the Liberal leadership race for walking in ambiguity, it appears that the Deputy Prime Minister is slouching in the same direction.
This lack of government clarity is on almost every position related to Iraq and it continues to diminish Canada's influence around international tables. Will the Deputy Prime Minister defy Liberal tradition and live up to his own billing by telling us, yes or no, if the Liberals still accord some legitimacy to what is left of Saddam's regime? Yes or no.
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that what needs to be clear here is this: that Canada throughout this has given no sympathy and no comfort to the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Speaking of clarity, when asked by Don Newman the other day about whether he believed that for both the United Nations and NATO as ongoing entities that kind of approach in foreign policy is passé, the leader of the Alliance Party said, “I do...”, the United Nations is passé--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Stockwell Day: He is going to have to understand, Mr. Speaker, that if he wants to be prime minister one day he is going to have to start speaking for himself, not other people.
This question of legitimacy is important. Saddam's regime is being compared to the Nazi third reich, not only for its methods of torture, terror and death, but also for its fascination with recording its atrocities and its methods.
Knowing the importance of this type of information for prosecution of war crimes, what specific legal steps has the government taken to apprehend all documents in Iraq's embassy in Ottawa? Or are the Liberals applying the same policy of catch and release to documents--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, Canada is maintaining compliance of course as ever with the Vienna conventions. In keeping with diplomatic practices, Canada continues to diplomatically recognize a state and not the government. As such, we continue to have diplomatic relations with the state of Iraq. When a new Iraqi government is established, it will be up to it to determine if Iraqi diplomats serving abroad and the embassies in which they serve will be continued or withdrawn.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to international assistance organizations, by doing nothing, the American and British forces may well be contributing to making the current humanitarian crisis in Iraq worse.
Given that, under the Geneva conventions, occupation forces are required to provide the Iraqi population with food, water and adequate medical care, does the government intend to call on the United States and Great Britain to meet their international obligations?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. As hon. members know very well—and the Prime Minister has always stressed the importance of bolstering the credibility of the United Nations—we are cooperating with all donor countries around the world to provide assistance that will be effective, through United Nations organizations, and the World Food Program in particular, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. A lot of emphasis is put on the importance of organizations under the UN, which have a great deal of expertise in this area.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, the government has been saying repeatedly that it has written a cheque, but assistance has to reach the people in need. At present, the vast majority of humanitarian relief supplies and material are still in storage outside Iraq, far from the Iraqi population.
Will the government remind the United States and Great Britain that they are bound by the Geneva conventions and must therefore meet their international obligations? This is an emergency.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the supply problems caused by the war. We hope that very soon, the United Nations will be able to have an effective involvement, in cooperation with all partners, including the United States, Great Britain and all coalition members.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week, during a scrum, the Prime Minister justified Canada's non-participation in the war in Iraq by saying that it was a matter of principle, since this operation had not been approved by the UN.
Can the government assure us that it will also make this a matter of principle?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of a potential conflict, the Prime Minister of Canada was the first politician in the western world to insist that the UN should be in charge, and we will continue to apply this principle.
Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the conflict in Iraq, Canada's position has characterized by a very convenient vagueness and principles have varied depending on the events that were taking place.
Can we now get the assurance that principles will prevail to preserve the UN's fundamental role in the reconstruction of Iraq?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, as for having principles that vary depending on the events that take place, the Bloc Quebecois is an old hand at this, as we have seen a number of times with that party. The Canadian government, through the leadership of the Prime Minister, will ask the United Nations to assume leadership regarding this issue.
TaxationMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He is the minister who for nine years has been one of cabinet's biggest cheerleaders for massive tax cuts, who brags to the Alliance that the Liberals spend $100 billion on tax cuts, in his words “the largest tax reduction package in history”, and who cut capital gains taxes in his budget while single mothers in poverty got their child tax benefits clawed back.
Yesterday he said that we must “galvanize the national will around ending child poverty”. How did he say that with a straight face?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is thinking of another budget. We were not able to cut capital gains taxes in the 2003 budget.
We were able to break through the welfare wall with the largest increases in the national child tax benefit in history. We were able to create a $900 million fund for early childhood development, which has enabled the Minister of Human Resources Development to obtain agreements with the provinces to support regulated child care across Canada. This was an important budget for advancing the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that is absolute rubbish. As a direct result of his policies, there are 1.139 million children living in poverty today.
Some 4,885 days ago, that minister voted in favour of eliminating poverty when he supported Ed Broadbent's motion, but for 3,443 of those days, while kids lived and died in poverty, he was in cabinet bragging and smirking about his tax cuts. On the 3,444th day, he said it is time to end poverty.
Here is the test. Will he delay his capital gains--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, she keeps talking about capital gains tax reductions. We did not do any.
Maybe we can have a little briefing session for her on the budget so that she can get caught up to date. Instead, she sits over there grinning and smirking, thinking she knows something about the tax system.
What we need to do in Canada is we need to understand that the creation of wealth goes with the ability to distribute wealth. That is something that has always escaped the understanding of the New Democrats.
IraqRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister.
Regarding reconstruction in Iraq, yesterday the foreign affairs minister said we have not yet exactly got a request yet.
Lester Pearson did not wait for a request in the Suez. We did not wait for a request on apartheid or in dealing with famine in Ethiopia. Leadership is about taking the initiative. That used to be Canada's trademark in the world. Now we are the country that ducks.
Our historic reputation is still strong enough that we can make a real contribution on the role of the United Nations in reconstruction.
What in the world is the Government of Canada sitting back and waiting for? Why not take a Canadian initiative--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, the government is not sitting back at all. Just this morning if the hon. member had an opportunity to listen to our Prime Minister, he would have heard him say once again how ready the government is to assist.
We have advised our allies of that. We are in close contact with the United Nations and the coalition, the United Kingdom and the United States. They know where we stand on this. They know what we will bring to the table.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, rebuilding a democratic state in Iraq without destabilizing the region will be a complex and difficult task. The chances of success will be better if the interim government is established under the aegis of the United Nations. Some have suggested holding a conference on the future of Iraq, as was done for Afghanistan.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us if Canada approves this concrete proposal? And would the government be prepared to propose a Canadian site for such a conference?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly frank, I cannot speak on matters of which I am not cognizant, although it does not keep anyone else from doing that.
I would assure the House that all efforts are being made, that all openness that can be delivered on the question is being done.
We are open to assist, which is consistent with Canada's reputation to which the hon. member has referred.
Airline IndustryMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, much of the Canadian airline industry is hanging on by a wing and a prayer.
Those in the industry are begging the government to change the policies that have driven them out of the skies. They are asking the government to eliminate the air security tax, to suspend the airport rental fees and reduce the excessive aviation fuel tax.
The Canadian Alliance has been asking for this for at least two years. Now apparently the transport committee is asking for the same thing.
Would the government finally do the right thing and move to help the airline industry by eliminating the security tax and the taxes and regulations that are driving this industry into the ground?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we debated this to some extent yesterday in question period. I think it is important to recognize that the industry is not only in difficulty in Canada. In fact, we have had a number of other factors arise recently that have impacted the use of air services. Certainly it is causing difficulties for the industry.
The Minister of Transport is monitoring that situation very closely and developing alternatives. We will consider those alternatives as they come forward.
I give my assurance to the member that we will indeed respond in an appropriate way.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is monitoring this industry into the ground. There have been eight airlines that have gone broke since he has supposedly looked after this portfolio.
The key word here is eliminate with a capital E, do away with the tax, take a pen and write a zero and make sure there is nothing there. Eliminate the taxes so that the industry can get back into the air again and become a healthy industry for the sake of all Canadians.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is not responsible when U.S. airlines go bankrupt, but that is what in fact has been happening. There is a problem in the industry, which they do not perhaps recognize.
We have disagreed with the Alliance on this for quite some time. We believe that the users of the industry ought to bear the burden of the cost. They think that the ordinary taxpayer, who perhaps never takes the occasion to use the airline industry, should bear the cost of measures that are used by others who are in fact using the service.
TaxationMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance created the fiscal imbalance by cutting off funding to Quebec and the provinces. Now the Deputy Prime Minister is denying the existence of the fiscal imbalance, but wants to use the surpluses he has available to encroach freely on Quebec's jurisdiction over education.
Is that where the Deputy Prime Minister is leading us?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, our position on the alleged fiscal imbalance which the Bloc raises every day is still the same and it has not changed; it is well known.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, in his leadership campaign, that Canadians have the right to know what their leaders think. Thus, I am asking him the question.
Is there a fiscal imbalance or not?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, there have been frequent discussions here in the House and in committee about the alleged fiscal imbalance the Bloc talks about. And our position is always the same.
IraqBrian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, the reconstruction of Iraq must include rebuilding not just buildings but also institutions, including the justice system.
Given the longstanding discrimination against ethnic minorities especially in Iraq, and given the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to clarity in his answers, I would like to ask him, will he support the establishment of a justice system in Iraq which ensures equality to all of its citizens?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my hon. colleague understands that Iraq is a country at war. Therefore, we must answer the most urgent requests for vital needs such as food, medical care, and the like.
Canada has shown leadership in this matter by participating right from the start, even before hostilities began, investing $6 million in international aid planning, and we will continue to make a contribution.
JusticeBrian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, what Iraqis do not have, Canada does not have either and that is a justice system that treats all its citizens equally.
The Liberal Criminal Code now instructs judges to provide more lenient sentences to aboriginal offenders specifically. Given that the majority of the victims of those crimes are aboriginal people themselves, how could that possibly be fair to the victims of those crimes?
The Deputy Prime Minister yesterday attacked his rival for being ambiguous and vague and he has the chance to quit doing the seven veils dance here and answer a clear question. Does he support a justice system that is blind to race?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, essentially the hon. member is referring to the Criminal Code. To be more precise, he is referring to a principle about sentencing. We find those principles about sentencing in a section of the Criminal Code. I would just like to say that that does not apply when it is a mandatory minimum penalty.
As well, I would like to invite the member to read the Supreme Court case of Regina v. Gladue. In that case there is a good explanation of that section of the Criminal Code and the reason we are using such criteria in the question of sentencing.
TaxationMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois had expected, the federal government has once again underestimated the surplus, which is now $14.8 billion this year, although last October the Minister of Finance had forecast a surplus of only $4 billion, a difference of $10 billion.
Is the Minister of Finance not using this difference as a reason to deny the existence of a fiscal imbalance and an excuse to infringe upon areas of Quebec's jurisdiction, particularly education, as he stated yesterday evening?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is clear, in considering the monthly fiscal balance, that the government typically reports a considerable deficit in March. As of today, I can say, based on figures available to date and on the fact that the budget announcements have not yet been included in the public accounts, that this year's surplus will be very similar to our budget forecast.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance truly wants to set himself apart from his predecessor and be clear and transparent, he must acknowledge the existence of a fiscal imbalance. Should he refuse to do so, we will be forced to conclude that he is just like his predecessor and that he is prepared to feed us the same lines, hide the surplus, ignore Quebec's needs and interfere yet again in areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I will also say that this very week, the International Monetary Fund revised its projections for world economic output, including Canada. Canada's growth rate fell from 3.4% to 2.8%.
I think that our prudent approach to the budget will stand us in good stead if the economy is slower than anticipated.
Organized CrimeMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, each year millions of dollars worth of property and assets are seized under the proceeds of crime legislation. As there is no requirement within the law for the reporting of seizures, the system is therefore open to serious abuse.
Will the Minister of Justice introduce legislation to ensure the sale of property seized from criminals is recorded and sold through an open system that ensures public officials do not improperly benefit from such a sale?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that he is referring to a specific case, so I will not talk about that specific case.
However, on a general basis, on the notion to which he is referring, many departments are involved. The Solicitor General's department is involved as are the Department of Public Works and Justice Canada. The three departments are working together. I would also like to tell the member that the existing legislation is under review.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the case. Allegations have been made that an Ontario Provincial Police officer received a great deal on a house seized from a drug dealer: two riverside lots with a home on them. This has brought the whole justice system into disrepute.
Will the justice minister restore citizens' faith in the justice system by introducing full public disclosure under the proceeds of crime legislation?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, as the House and all Canadians know I cannot comment on a specific case.
However, if we look at the legislation to which the member is referring, it involves many departments. It involves the Department of Public Works, the Solicitor General's department and Justice Canada. The three departments are working together. As I have already said, the legislation is under review at the present time.
HousingMr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of the House joins me in congratulating the brand new minted Secretary of State for Selected Crown Corporations.
In his new capacity, I would like to ask him to update the House on the national affordable housing plan. Could he please provide us with the progress that has been made with the selected provinces?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for Selected Crown Corporations.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Secretary of State (Selected Crown Corporations), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as people know, we announced a $680 million affordable housing agreement in partnership with the provinces. We have signed agreements with seven of them and three territories. Newfoundland, P.E.I. and New Brunswick will sign in the next few weeks.
It is clearly my intention to work with our provincial counterparts, who I will be meeting in Winnipeg next week, to talk about how we can see affordable housing on the ground and get this money spent so we can help the people who need that help.
Persons with DisabilitiesWendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister announced that his Liberal leadership campaign will focus on social issues, yet his record shows that he is a long way from understanding the needs of poor Canadians.
Instead of respecting a recent all party vote in the House of Commons calling for humane treatment of persons with disabilities, his recent budget brought in new restrictions on the disability tax credit and only a fraction of what is needed for child care and low cost housing.
Why does the Minister of Finance have to wait until he is prime minister to show his humane and compassionate side?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to point out that in addition to the $80 million of additional support for the disability tax credit that we included in the budget, we created something for which the disabled community has been asking for a long time, which is a committee to advise both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue on issues related to disability issues.
We again funded important programs to help members of the disabled community to have access to employment. We created a new credit for disabled children--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
Foreign AffairsJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister can stay on his feet because my question is for him.
As he is aware, the Japanese foreign minister is in Europe today seeking support for a UN resolution on reconstruction. The resolution could put reconstruction under UN auspices, which is where it should be.
Does the government have a position on the Japanese resolution, and will Canada take a clear stand that reconstruction must be done under the UN, not under George Bush?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a direct response on the Japanese initiative but I certainly can repeat what my minister has said, which is that we strongly support a role for the United Nations in reconstruction. We have been consistent from day one on that.
As others have asked today, we also are talking to the coalition partners, the U.K. and the United States, in planning for the rebuilding of that country which is in difficult times.
We are completely in support of a global, multilateral approach to reconstruction in Iraq.
IraqMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest needs in Iraq today is hospitals and hospital services.
Is it not time that the government inserted itself into the picture and provided a field hospital and the associated services that the people so badly need?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are working on right now. We just freed up $20 million to help UN organizations with direct intervention on the ground in terms of food, the World Food Programme, UNICEF and Care Canada.
All in all, it is clear that we want our actions to be as productive as possible. We have to keep in mind that the country is in the middle of a war right now. Despite this, volunteers on there to ensure that our work is as effective as possible.
Veterans AffairsGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
On behalf of Canadians veterans of the Korean war, I ask the minister to use his influence with the honours Chancellery of the Governor General to allow Canadian veterans of the Korean war to wear the Republic of Korea War Service Medal.
This medal, presented in 1951, has been recognized by Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, and yet the Canadian government still refuses the veterans of the Korean war the right to wear that medal.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs work on behalf of Canadian veterans and help them to acquire the right--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be participating in a series of events commemorating the armistice of the Korean war. I have the greatest support for all Korean veterans. In fact, the Government of Canada has issued its own Korean medal.
The commitment of the government to the Korean war veterans is unwaivering and will be there forever.
AgricultureMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has taken the agriculture minister two years to come up with a risk management program which so far is a complete disaster for producers. Canadians farmers were hopeful they would finally have long term stability in their safety net programs.
Could the Minister of Agriculture explain why he waited until the implementation date to hire private consultants to then assess the already beleaguered APF program? Just how incompetent is the minister and his department?
Claude Duplain: Mr. Speaker, just recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came up with examples. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, showing that he has an open mind, wanted to demonstrate again the benefits of the new agricultural policy framework and agreed to prove, with this private firm, that the APF is a very good program.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, those presentations were made back in February. This agriculture situation makes absolutely no sense. It has taken a $5 billion department two years to create a program that now needs to be assessed by a private consultant. If this is not incompetence, then this abysmal failure must have been by design.
Why has the government left farmers standing alone just as they are going back into their fields? What is the real agenda here?
Claude Duplain: Mr. Speaker, it has not been an abysmal failure. As the member just pointed out, we have spent two years developing a new policy framework. Everyone was consulted, including the federation. The federation recently came up with new examples to show that the APF is not good. Our response is that their numbers are wrong. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, once again, has agreed to examine them with a private consultant to prove to the federation that the APF is indeed a good program.
Aboriginal PeoplesYvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the latest auditor general's report raised a serious problem of unhealthy and mould-contaminated homes on aboriginal reserves. Mould leads to acute health problems.
Can the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs tell us what he intends to do to solve this problem?
Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware that this year our government has committed some $137 million toward this program. Over the last few years, in fact since 1996, we have built nearly 2,600 new houses annually and have repaired some 3,300 on an annual basis.
We have made a strong effort to work with first nations.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State has not understood me. The auditor general has put her finger on an acute problem that must be settled without delay: the problem of mould in houses currently occupied by aboriginal people. She has said that $100 million is needed promptly to solve this problem.
Can the government commit to freeing up this $100 million in order to provide aboriginal people with a healthy environment, as well as a safe and secure one?
Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, I speak a different language and I hope the translators have done well. However I have pointed out to the House that we have committed $137 million this year toward first nations housing.
I think that is quite adequate for now, but we certainly need more. Our government is working closely with first nations to improve the situation.
Financial InstitutionsMr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada's banking community is anxiously waiting for a response from the Minister of Finance to the bank merger report.
The banks do not have the luxury of time, as the minister does, to simply wait around while the minister fights his leadership race or his party plans for the next leadership convention.
Will the Minister of Finance realize the urgency of this situation and fast track his response to the finance committee's bank merger report? Will he do that?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the committee has already asked for a more rapid response than the rules of the House provide. We will endeavour to respond within the timeframe for which the committee asked.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the minister, obviously, does not understand that the banks have already been waiting about five years for some definitive response from the Minister of Finance.
It is now crucial that a response is forthcoming immediately. The minister knows that a huge amount of investment capital is at risk of leaving the country and a huge amount of investment capital is being held up by the tier two banks.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize the urgency? Will he recognize it truly and respond to the bank merger report before the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, first, I have said that we will respond within the timeframe for which the committee asked, which is more rapid than the House rules provide.
Second, I do not know what his concern is about the last five years. Bill C-8 was introduced, was adopted by the House and provides a clear set of rules to deal with mergers.
We have asked the committee to provide greater clarity about one aspect of the elements required for a bank merger to be considered.
Research and DevelopmentMr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Industry.
Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us what the government is doing to assist the commercialization of university research across Canada?
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that the government intends to make Canada the most innovative country in the world. The universities have a very important role to play insofar as research is concerned. For example, university-based research generated royalties of $44 million as well as 680 derivative companies in 2001. This represents a 57% increase in royalties and a 30% increase in derivative companies, and is clear evidence that government action around innovation will ensure that Canada becomes one of the most innovative countries in the world.
FisheriesMr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
There is interest in the Queen Charlotte Islands and coastal B.C., particularly my riding of Skeena, in initiating a commercial seal hunt based on financial viability and seal population stability. Is the minister willing to take the necessary steps to initiate such a harvest, yes or no?
Mr. Georges Farrah (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague is raising a very important point concerning the seal hunt on the west coast.
As hon. members know, before making a final decision in this matter, naturally we must examine all the advice both about the biology and from the stakeholders. This could certainly be an interesting option, and I am convinced that the minister will consider it favourably.
Andy Burton: Mr. Speaker, if the fishery had been managed properly, that information would be available now, so I think it is time to move.
Ministers in the Liberal government are actively working against any reasonable developments for B.C. It is okay for the east coast to develop its offshore oil and gas reserves. What about the west coast? It is okay for the east coast to continue its seal hunt. What about the west coast?
Why will the minister not stand and make a decision for fishing and native interests on both coasts, and agree to developing a west coast seal hunt today?
Georges Farrah: Mr. Speaker, I am taken aback by the hon. member's comments. He said that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did nothing for the Pacific coast, yet he himself congratulated the minister on the hake fishery issue, among others. We need no lesson from anyone. The west coast seal hunt is undoubtedly a very important issue. But before making a final decision, we must consider carefully all the implications.
Cartagena ProtocolMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of the convention on biodiversity, speaking about the Cartagena protocol on biosafety, said, “Ratification is certainly one thing we are entitled to expect from Canada, since it hosts the secretariat of the convention on biodiversity”.
Does the federal government realize that, by delaying ratification of the Cartagena protocol—even when the secretariat that implements it is located in Canada—it is sending a very poor message to the international community?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the protocol is very important. But before signing, before ratification, we must have the support of Canadian industry and particularly the agricultural sector. I am convinced that he will agree with me that we will soon be in a position to make a final decision. But first we must undertake the necessary consultations to get industry's support.
Arts and CultureEugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, last week, thousands of Canadians and hundreds of artists converged in Ottawa for the Juno Awards to celebrate Canada's music recording industry and the country's best musical talent.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can she explain the Canadian government's role in making this strong and vibrant cultural industry a success?
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate all the artists and volunteers who helped make last weekend a success in Ottawa. Canada is the second largest producer of musical talent in the world, and clearly the government has played an essential role. The Canada Music Fund has gone from $2 million to $28 million this year, and, since 1993, we have been awarded 16 diamond, 561 platinum and 455 gold albums.
Canadian ForcesJoe Clark: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of National Defence told the defence committee that Canada's deployment to Afghanistan will be delayed to August or September. When the minister first made the announcement in February, senior military officers either resigned or told reporters that Canada would need NATO's help to honour the commitment.
Has the deployment been delayed because the minister has been unable to secure enough support from other NATO countries? If not, what is the reason for this latest mistake by the minister?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not a mistake and it is not a delay. We had the approximate date and we are coming in at the next rotation. Whether it is August or July remains to be seen. There is absolutely no delay. We are coming in on schedule at the time of the start of the next rotation.
Second, NATO is there and we want NATO to be there to ensure continuity of the missions to support Afghanistan in future years. That is the reason for our support for NATO. In no way does it reflect a diminution of Canada's enthusiastic commitment.
HousingMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, $753 million has been spent over three years to help the homeless. The homeless counts are up 60% and no homes have been built. The member for Mississauga West has specifically stated in the House that he does not support homes for single persons. Yet the Prime Minister appoints him for CMHC's housing.
Several homeless singles have died this past winter--and the Liberals applaud--on Canada's streets for want of a clean, warm, and affordable room. How many more homeless singles will die next winter waiting for a government and a minister of housing who cares about housing?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week the hon. member stood and made a statement in the House that with $775 million we had two shelter beds in Edmonton.
Let me clarify this. In his riding, not all of Edmonton but his riding, there are 97 shelter spaces, 75 room and board accommodations, 31 group homes, 129 apartments, and 18 townhouses, duplexes and fourplexes.
ShippingMr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, the government made public its vision for the future of Canada's marine transportation network. On the one hand, it is expressing a desire to focus on improving services and partnerships with the private sector. On the other, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is adopting a confrontational technique with shipping companies in connection with St. Lawrence dredging fees.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stop this harassment, which is likely to endanger the St. Lawrence shipping industry?
Georges Farrah: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, there has been a user-pay agreement in place since 1997 in connection with dredging of the St. Lawrence. At the present time, we are involved in discussions and negotiations with the parties involved.
I can tell you that what these people want in particular is a long term agreement so that they will be able to predict costs and thus be more competitive.
We are taking all of the information under advisement and when the negotiations are over we will be in a position to announce our decision.
FinanceJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday we asked about a court ruling in the United States that ordered Visa and MasterCard to repay their cardholders $800 million U.S. because they were gouging them with hidden foreign exchange charges. The size of that surcharge is 1.8%. Its value to MasterCard: priceless.
Yesterday the minister said he did not know about the details. Hopefully he now does. What will he do to protect Canadian cardholders from these hidden charges?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, under Canadian law it is required that federally regulated financial institutions disclose “the nature and amount of any non-interest charges”. Provinces have similar requirements.
Under the federal system we have created the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada in order to deal with any complaints about such matters. I can assure the member that I will ask the agency to determine whether such is the situation in Canada.

Routine Proceedings
House of CommonsThe Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report on plans and priorities for 2003-04 of the House of Commons administration.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Alan Tonks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
Criminal CodeMartin Cauchon: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association OSCE to the second winter session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly held in Vienna, Austria on February 20 and 21, 2003.
Committees of the HouseMr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport entitled “An Industry in Crisis: Safeguarding the Viability of the Canadian Airline Industry”.
I would like to thank the committee members who worked so diligently on this file. I particularly thank the clerk of the committee and his staff for working through the night in order that I could table this document today.
The are four recommendations contained in the report so I will read them:

Recommendation No. 1:The federal government wind-up the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and establish a multi-modal Transportation Security Authority. The operating costs of this Authority, as well as expenses associated with providing safety and security, should be funded out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This Authority should report annually to Parliament on the state of transportation security within Canada.
Recommendation No. 2: The federal government eliminate the Air Travellers Security Charge.
Recommendation No. 3: The federal government suspend rental payments by airports for a two-year period and the airports shall pass the rental savings to air carriers.
Recommendation No. 4: The federal government, for a two-year period, reduce by 50% the federal aviation fuel excise tax rate.

When we return from the break, we will be analyzing the NavCan situation and how HRDC can assist with those people in the airline industry who will be subject to the problems that they are all facing.
In closing, I know that this crosses between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this document to the Prime Minister asking him, since this industry is in crisis, that he act--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Petitions.
PetitionsClifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I have a set of petitions presented by many Canadians in my riding and across Canada indicating that the codes pertaining to the current child pornography law have not been applied in a way which makes it clear that sexual exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children be outlawed.
Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I have another set of petitions signed by many citizens from various parts of Canada stating that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for illnesses and diseases, and that non-embryonic stem cells which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by concerned constituents from my riding of Crowfoot, more specifically individuals from areas of Stettler, Alix, Erskine and Morrin.
The petitioners call upon the government to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being that of the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in the attached petition and I take a great deal of pleasure to introduce this to the House.
Questions on the Order PaperAlan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 167 will be answered today.
Question No. 167Grant Hill: With respect to the Ethics Counsellor: ( a ) how many times did he formally meet with the Minister of Finance from February 1, 1994 to June 1, 2002; ( b ) what were the dates, subject matter and location of these meetings?
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): The ethics counsellor has met with the former Minister of Finance on many occasions between the period February 1, 1994 to June 2002. All of these meetings with the former minister were in relation to his compliance arrangements under the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. The dates and locations of such encounters, as well as the subject matter at such meetings are considered to be personal information which is protected under the provisions of the Privacy Act.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsAlan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 103 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 103Mr. John Cummins: With regard to programs and all other special expenditures for aboriginals in Delta—South Richmond, what was the total expenditure by department for fiscal years (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) thus far in 2002-2003 for each band or aboriginal organization?
(Return tabled.)
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 2.
David Anderson: moved:

Motion No. 25
That Bill C-9, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 42 on page 37 with the following:
“31. Section 62 of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (d) and by replacing paragraph (e) with the following:
(e) to promote, monitor and facilitate compliance with this Act and the regulations;
(f) to promote and monitor the quality of assessments conducted under this Act;
(g) to ensure an opportunity for timely public participation in the environmental assessment process;
and (h) to engage in consultation with aboriginal peoples on policy issues related to this Act.”
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-9, in Clause 32, be amended:
(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 3 and 4 on page 38 with the following:
“the end of paragraph (b), by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):”
(b) by replacing lines 7 to 11 on page 38 with the following:
“this Act.”
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-9, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 39 with the following:
“34. The provisions of this Act, other than section 32.1, come into”

Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to rise on Bill C-9. I again would like to thank the members of the committee on behalf of the minister for the manner in which they have addressed the proceedings of the bill in committee and with the amendments that have been brought forward attempting to reflect the spirit of the debate and the many deputations that came before the committee.
It has been pointed out that there is a thin line between the two groups of resolutions that have been brought forward. Today we are talking about the matter of compliance.
In Motions Nos. 25 and 26 we are trying to come to grips with wording that was incorporated in the amendments made through committee that would ensure the legislation passed in the form of Bill C-9 would be obeyed and respected. It would be an understatement for me to say that it is the hope in good faith that all laws which are passed by the Parliament of Canada would be respected by the institutions that have carriage and responsibility to carry them out.
In that vein, the committee recommended that the word “ensure”; that compliance with the legislation would be ensured. The amendment the government has put forward is more reflective of the role of the agency that is charged with responsibility to carry out the intent and substance of the bill.
The technical problems that would be created have been accommodated by changing the wording from, “ensuring that compliance would be achieved” to the words, “that the agency would be required to promote, monitor and facilitate compliance with the act”. I hope all members of the House would agree that this provision will better reflect the type of activities the agency will be involved in under the revised act.
Finally, I have a few comments with respect to points that have been raised. I sense these will also cross between the two sets of resolutions. On the issue of provincial jurisdiction, it should be understood that companion legislation also is a backgrounder for any legislation passed by the House.
In terms of provincial jurisdiction, paragraph 2.2 of Bill C-9 signals the importance of co-operation and co-ordination between the provincial governments and the federal government. That comes within the context of the 1998 Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization and the subagreement on environmental assessment.
Further, with respect to concerns that have been raised on crown corporations, it is understood that there will be a three year delay with respect to the intent of the legislation covering crown corporations, and there are good reasons for that. I will use one illustration.
For example, requiring an environmental assessment for the thousands of relatively small loans by the Farm Credit Corporation to family run farms could create hardships for farmers resulting from delays, et cetera, without any corresponding environmental benefit. This is a small illustration of the kind of implementing problems that might result. We need a little time to adjust to them.
Finally, I want to refer, under compliance, to the point raised by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis with respect to screenings, and also has been raised from time to time. I want to emphasize, as the member did in fact, that public participation, and I quote him, “is the key to everything”.
I cannot overstate the case that the bill, with the establishment of the registry, with the different criteria established, with the strengthening of the whole process of providing information and with the number of days that have been designated for minimal screenings to those that are at a higher level, is in the interest of facilitating citizen participation. Even the terms of the scoping in respect to why there is an hierarchy of screenings is being provided through the registry so that the citizenry, be it individuals or special interest groups, have the information and can cross-examine the whole nature of why discretionary authority is being applied. I hope that satisfies the member for Lac-Saint-Louis because he has raised a good issue.
The spirit and intent of the bill are to provide citizens with the information not only make the legislation inherently compliant but allows citizens the opportunity to be part of the oversight to assure that compliance with the spirit and intent of the bill are achieved in the interest of a greater and better legacy for future generations through the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 at report stage of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
As I mentioned when I spoke to the motions in Group No. 1, it is important to remind members that we are still opposed to the original act, and today we are looking at Bill C-9, which amends that act. Indeed, this bill amends the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to which Quebec has been opposed from the start.
Let us keep in mind that this act was passed in 1992, but Quebec expressed its opposition as early as 1990. During consideration of the environmental assessment bill, Pierre Paradis, who was Quebec's environment minister at the time, sent a letter to his federal counterpart, Jean Charest, to explain to him or to try to explain to him that Quebec was against this initiative, that this kind of duplication in terms of the environmental process was unacceptable to Quebec.
Since the Minister of the Environment is in the House today, I would remind him that in this letter dated February 28, 1992, Quebec indicated that the bill that had been introduced on the federal environmental assessment process was already creating a great deal of insecurity among stakeholders who would have to contend with a great deal of duplication. The letter also said that provisions in the bill to eliminate any possibilities of overlap were far from adequate and that these provisions must allow for concrete agreements to be reached on the terms and conditions of the application of their respective procedures.
As early as February 28, 1992, Quebec's environment minister was against the initial legislation, which Bill C-9 would amend. On March 18, 1992, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion voicing strong disapproval of the federal government's bill, the Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, because it went against Quebec's interests. The assembly was therefore opposed to the federal Parliament passing the bill.
So already in 1992 Quebec was against any environmental assessment process. Why? Was it because Quebec did not want any environmental review of projects? No. It was because Quebec already had had its own environmental assessment process in place for a long time, one that worked well and one that was even recognized by the federal government as a good process.
Back in 1978 Quebec established its own environmental review process under the Environment Quality Act of Quebec. Quebec also set up its BAPE in 1980, which is basically the institution that assesses projects through public consultations, and that is important.
In fact, so far, when we compare the Canadian environmental assessment process to that of Quebec, we see that Quebec's process provides for broader and more comprehensive consultations. With the federal process, 99% of the projects are screened, rather than subjected to a comprehensive review, as is done by Quebec's BAPE.
All this makes us wonder why the federal government would want to improve the act today and give it more teeth.
Projects implemented outside Crown land or federal jurisdiction could be subject to a double environmental process. If the process put in place by Quebec was not appropriate, I might understand, as I said yesterday, but the example of the Toulnustouc dam shows that this process is working well. The result has been delays in the implementation of a number of environmental projects, including a hydro electric project which is a renewable energy project.
This is why I think that strategic environmental assessment is important. Sustainable development is essential; it combines the social, economic and environmental aspects. If this double objective, which is essential to the development of communities and societies, cannot be achieved through double safety nets, then we are not meeting our goal.
We believe this is a dangerous bill, because it creates overlap. What we want is adequate protection through a rigorous environmental assessment process, which unfortunately, this bill does not provide. To some extent, creating a double safety net, creating triggers, and increasing the discretionary power of the minister is likely to hamper the implementation of some projects.
For instance, clause 22 of the bill is clearly intended to reinforce the federal government's power to intervene in Quebec's jurisdiction. Thus, the minister assumes discretionary power by using the words “the Minister is of the opinion”. This distortion is evident in section 46 of the act.
In our opinion, clause 8, creating the position of Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator, clearly shows the federal government's desire to interfere with Quebec's process. Because the federal government intends to act in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction, it feels the need to create a coordinating position. If the federal government stayed within its own jurisdiction, it would not need such a function or position.
Why are we opposed to a federal environmental assessment process? As I said, it is because Quebec's environmental process is working well. All stakeholders from Quebec agree. I was listening to Jean Charest a few weeks ago—he was the minister responsible for the initial legislation—and during his election campaign he said that his goal was to bring the environmental assessment process back to Quebec and that he was prepared to do battle with the federal government to block the federal environmental assessment process.
There is some double-talk. On one hand, it is recognized that Quebec wants all the projects in the province, whether the federal government is involved or not, subjected to its own environmental review process, which is implemented by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec.
Why is that? Because the Quebec environmental process is more transparent in terms of public involvement than the process put forward by the federal government. It is independent from the self-assessment philosophy of the federal government. It also excludes less projects to start with, and extends a more comprehensive protection to the environment. It is also less complex than the federal process.
It is a more transparent and simple process and it invites public involvement more than the present federal process. It is also more uniform and, hence, more predictable, since it is under just one entity instead of several departments. Finally, it provides clearly set time limits, contrary to the federal process, which never gives any precise time limit.
To conclude, we will obviously oppose Bill C-9. I can understand that, on public lands, the federal process will apply, but we want to be sure that, in Quebec, on provincial public lands, the Quebec process will apply.
Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to talk about the federal government's right to do environmental assessments on Canadian territory in general.
In fact, my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, whom I much admire because of his dedication to the environmental cause and who is in fact a friend, disagrees with me on this subject. However, I would like to remind him first of all that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the federal government has a fundamental right to act in the matter of environmental assessment in cases under its jurisdiction. Moreover, the Supreme Court has even said that the federal government has not only the right, but also the obligation to do so.
We have all heard about the Oldman case. The federal government wanted to withdraw from an environmental assessment case that had gone to court and eventually to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had a fundamental responsibility to act in the matter of environmental assessment.
To confirm that, what better could I do than quote the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois who was then the opposition leader. I could quote many statements that he made regarding the James Bay case where, as environment minister, he had said “No, no, the federal law has to be applied”. It was on Quebec territory. He was very clear on this.
During the 1993 election campaign, in an interview with Le Point he said, “I support this initiative”. In 1994, in an interview with The Gazette he described the federal environmental legislation as “my baby”.
Maybe we should work in cooperation. Mr. Bouchard's baby is now—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: A federal piece of legislation is encroaching on one you yourself created.
Clifford Lincoln: I believe that it disturbs them that the former opposition leader, the Bloc leader, supported this legislation when he was here. There seem to be some contradiction somewhere.
However, I am a great supporter of the Quebec's environmental assessment legislation. I find the process is working quite well. It is open. I truly agree with my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, namely that it is open to the public, public participation is positive and part of the tradition. The act has been accepted by all parties concerned. I believe that the BAPE is doing a great job.
At the same time, that does not mean the federal government should not have its say in the environmental assessment process. That is what we are saying. We are not saying that Quebec's legislation is no good, on the contrary.
There is always room for accommodation. We could proceed as we did in the case of James Bay and elsewhere, namely that whenever Quebec is conducting an environmental assessment, the federal government accepts that it takes precedence over any others.
We truly agree with that. However, we still have a difference of opinions. I believe in a consensual positive federalism, which is impossible for my colleagues to accept. That is where we differ.
In no way do I want to denigrate Quebec's legislation, on the contrary. As a former environment minister who was passionate about the issue, I truly agree with my colleague's comments regarding the merits of the legislation.
With regard to the motions in Group No. 2, I would like to make a few comments regarding the facts that were brought to our attention.
First of all, no changes were made to the self-assessment system of environmental assessment. No arm's-length authority for overseeing and enforcing compliance with the act was considered. No enforcement regime was established, which is a pity. We had a big chance to do this.
Consequent amendments at report stage have watered down the amendment passed by the committee that would have imposed a duty on the agency to ensure that proponents and federal authorities, including responsible authorities, would comply with the provisions of the act and the regulations. Now, according to clause 31, the agency is simply required “to promote, monitor and facilitate compliance with the act and its regulations”.
I believe that besides the lessening of the obligation itself, it will now be required to promote, monitor and facilitate, instead of imposing a duty. Certainly the insertion of the words “facilitate compliance” lowers significantly the tone of the requirement. We have missed a great chance to reinforce the committee's amendment which was to impose a duty. This is now a different requirement from a requirement to promote, facilitate and monitor. It was an unfortunate decision to reverse this committee amendment.
At the same time, fair is fair, and we must give credit where credit is due. Regarding Motion No. 27, the government has accepted the committee amendment that the next review of the act be done by a joint committee of the Senate and an appropriate committee of the House, which is a great step forward. It has also accepted and improved the amendment in regard to the effective date of this review. Instead of putting it into force at a date to be decided by the government, the legislation has withdrawn the clause indicating that the review would start seven years from the date of royal assent of the bill.
This is a big improvement and a step forward. I recognize and thank the government for having agreed to have a joint committee of the House and Senate look into the review of the act. A review of the act carried out by Parliament is far more independent and more objective than one carried out internally by the very authorities that are supposed to monitor and govern the legislation. This is a big step forward and we will be the better for it.
At the same time, between now and the seven years to come, which is a long time, the government should take into account the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding Bill C-9 in its aftermath and look into the possibility of amendments to the act which have been brought forward by the committee in its report. It should not wait for seven years to make improvements to Bill C-9 for which we could find consensus on all sides of the House. That, too, would be a big step forward.
Finally, government must be praised for having kept the significant committee amendment to bring crown corporations within the orbit of the environmental assessment process. It was completely logical that the government, being responsible for environmental assessments in all its ministries, would have all crown corporations, which depend upon the government and which sometimes are so numerous and carry out such important tasks for the ministries, included in the legislation. That is another big step forward for which I commend the government.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make similar points, perhaps with greater emphasis on what we just heard from the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I wish to echo some of the comments he made and perhaps add some.
In the course of reviewing the environmental assessment legislation, and even more so than what we see before the House in the way of amendments, in some of the discussion we had in committee there was a great deal of concern about the lack of enforcement provisions in the bill. In what is in effect the existing section 62 of the act, there was a variety of amendments proposed by all parties, I believe, certainly by most of the parties represented on that committee.
It was clear that when one stood back and took an objective overview of it, part of what we were trying to do was get at that issue of how we at least could be sure that in the legislation, which as I have already said in the House on a number of occasions is inadequate and relatively weak, what is there would be carried out and enforced, so that as much protection as possible that could be garnered for the environment would in fact be garnered by this legislation.
Various proposals were put forward specifically around monitoring and enforcing, making sure that both the act and the regulations, and I think that is an important point, were in fact carried out, both in the wording that is there and in the spirit that is intended by the act and the regulations.
Most of the amendments, the more strongly worded ones in particular, were voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee. We did end up with what we now find as Motion No. 25, which is a compromise, I would say. It is better than what we have in the law now. The amendment will be an improvement.
I have to say, perhaps as a warning to the government, that this is being monitored by the opposition parties, by the environmental community and by other people who have followed the course of environmental assessment legislation. They are going to be watching very closely, because this compromise was in effect a statement by the government, which was saying, “Trust us. This wording is strong enough. There is enough direction in this wording in these amendments that in fact we will see to it that the law, limited though it may be, at least will be carried out”.
I suppose what I am saying to the government today is that it should be aware that the environmental community is watching this part of it very closely to see if the government is going to be true to its word and is in fact going to enforce and carry out the terms and the spirit of the law.
With regard to Motion No. 27, there are a couple of points. The committee was very clear, I think, that it was concerned about the length of time before the next review of the legislation would be done. There was a good deal of evidence, which we took from a number of witnesses, that the amendments were not going to be sufficient to deal with the problems that accrued since the act was originally passed seven years ago.
A number of specific amendments were proposed for a shorter review period. It is now seven years from the time of royal assent. There were proposals for as brief as one year all the way up to five years. Ultimately, the amendment now before the House is the one that was sent forward from the committee, again under a vote from the majority party.
The comment I would make to the government is one I heard the member for Lac-Saint-Louis make. We do not have to necessarily wait those seven years. The minister responsible at any given time and his or her department have to monitor this on an ongoing basis to see whether the proposed amendments, most of which we expect will ultimately pass, are sufficient to deal with the problems that have accrued. If they are not, I urge the minister not to wait out the seven years and to use this period of time wisely. If problems continue to be pointed out that we have already experienced, we should review the law and pass the necessary amendments so that the environment is protected by way of a valid environmental assessment process.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 25. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 25 stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 26 carried.
(Motion No. 26 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 27. 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 27 stands deferred.
The recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, April 28, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to further defer the recorded division on report stage of Bill C-9 to the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 29, 2003.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the deputy whip have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some members: Agreed.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to consider that it is 1:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is not present to move the order as announced in today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It begin 1:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday April 28, 2003, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24(1). Happy Easter.
(The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.)