2003-03-26

The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 27, marks World Theatre Day, a day which encourages the world to recognize the universal importance of theatre. It promotes the ideals of peace and co-operation, the importance of artistic creation to cultural development, and the exchange of knowledge and practice in the performing arts.
This year the International Theatre Institute has chosen Tankred Dorst of Germany to deliver a message to the world on this important day.
Theatre plays a special role in fostering humanity “as long as we feel the need to show each other what we are and what we are not and what we should be”.
Throughout Canada, theatre groups will be celebrating this occasion by sharing their works with the Canadian public, special awards ceremonies, world premieres of new Canadian works, public readings of cherished plays and book signings by emerging and established playwrights.
As the former chair of the Canadian Stage Company in Toronto, I can attest firsthand to the important role the theatre plays in my community.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the constituency I represent has a long and strong U.S. relationship. We have nine ports of entry which is the most of any constituency in Canada.
Farm machinery dealers on this side of the border are now suffering financially. Almost daily, U.S. customers are phoning and cancelling their orders. The reason is the anti-American verbal insults they see on Canadian television and they hear on Canadian radio.
Personally, my biggest disappointment came last night in a phone call with my uncle who had served in the U.S. air force during World War II. For years, we have alternated our family visits between Canada and the United States but the families in the U.S. do not want to enter Canada and therefore this family tradition will be discontinued.
Statements made inside the House and outside the House are putting stress on decades of good relationships, both family and business.
Canada Pension PlanMr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently received a petition from 600 constituents in regard to old age pensions. These petitions were spearheaded by the work of Mrs. Adeline Butler.
I have heard too many stories of senior citizens who are living in poverty in this country. With so many of our valued elderly citizens living with restricted incomes, it is increasingly difficult for them to stretch their old age pensions far enough to pay for day to day expenses and also afford the necessary medical treatments that often become increasingly necessary as we age.
Given the catastrophic cost of certain drugs, many of our seniors find themselves caught between paying $3,000 for pharmaceuticals to take care of their health and being able to buy basic groceries. This is a dilemma no one should have to face.
To this end, I support a $40 per month immediate increase in the old age supplementary cheque for seniors. I believe it is our government's responsibility to be more supportive in our financial assistance to seniors.
Community TelevisionMr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence today and tomorrow on the Hill of CJSR, the riding of Portneuf's community television station.
Community television is essential because it contributes to community development and reflects local culture. With local access to the media, studios and equipment, community television also encourages individuals to get involved in programming.
CJSR is a very dynamic community television station that broadcasts 35 hours per week, 25 of which are devoted to local programming.
I wish to pay tribute to the perseverance and the creativity of the employees and numerous volunteers who work day after day to provide a quality local information network. I want to add that CJSR's personal style is helping the people of Portneuf to develop a true sense of community.
MulticulturalismMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 21, 2003, the students of Laurier MacDonald High School, situated in my riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, organized a one day celebration of multiculturalism entitled “One people, one destiny”.
The day's events included speeches from leaders of various community groups, as well as song and dance performers emphasizing the importance of respecting differences and sharing among all the cultural, ethnic and religious groups that together make up this great country.
Although recognition and appreciation of all cultures is important, it is imperative to partake and to actively promote culture acceptance in order for Canada to distinguish itself as a truly great nation.
I extend my congratulations, not only to the staff and administration of Laurier MacDonald High School, but also to the student members of the Multicultural Society who, under the guidance of their professor, Mr. Sookhdeo, have actively sought to promote acceptance and respect within their school and, in so doing, have modelled the very essence of what defines Canada.
Firearms RegistryMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has yet to provide Canadian taxpayers with a cost benefit analysis for the firearms registry program, or at least release the one that it has already done.
The new CEO of the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted last week that cabinet had refused to release the gun registry cost benefit analysis.
The Canadian public deserves to know why the government refuses to release this study. Could it be that the costs to go back and fix the gun registry are far too high?
Our frontline police officers and our hospitals are understaffed and poorly equipped. There are 1.5 million children in Canada living in poverty, yet the government continues to throw money at a gun registry that is totally out of control. Shame on it.
War Affected ChildrenMrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September 2002 Canada hosted an international conference on war affected children. It noted that two million children died in wars during the 1990s, an additional six million were permanently disabled or seriously injured, 20 million were uprooted from their homes and 300,000 were forced to take up arms as child soldiers. At the conference, war affected youth had this to say:

War destroys everything, our schools, our homes, our families, our communities, our jobs, our health and our souls. War destroys our childhood.

Forty-four per cent of Iraq's population is under the age of 15. A recent survey of Iraqi children by the NGO War Child found that 40% of Iraqi children surveyed do not feel that life is worth living. They are fearful, anxious and depressed. Many suffer from nightmares.
The Canadian government must work with the UN to provide not only food and medicine to meet the physical needs of Iraq's children, but also to provide support to address the psychological trauma these children will continue to suffer.
Oxfam-QuébecMr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Oxfam-Québec for establishing a fundraising campaign to assist victims of the war in Iraq. I would also like to commend the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Fédération des caisses Desjardins, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and the Union des producteurs agricoles for taking part in this humanitarian campaign.
The campaign organizers are counting on donations from the public and funding from international organizations.
The funds raised will help to provide drinking water, assist refugees as they arrive in the camps and build health care facilities, which Oxfam is doing in cooperation with various UN agencies in Jordan, Iran and Syria.
I join my hon. colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and Oxfam-Québec in making an urgent appeal for Quebeckers to show solidarity and give generously.
SportsMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, it gives me great pleasure and pride to announce Carleton University's recent athletic achievements.
Within the past week, the Carleton University women's ski team won its first national title, the men's ski team won its second national title, and the men's basketball team won the university's first Canadian interuniversity sports national title in 60 years of competition.
These achievements mark a great success not only for the teams' players and fans, but also for Carleton University's administration's strategy for excellence.
I am very proud of Carleton University's achievements. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the athletes on a job very well done.
Firearms registryMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last night the Liberal government approved another $59 million to be spent on the gun registration program. Meanwhile, a Library of Parliament research paper estimates the cost of enforcing the Firearms Act could easily reach another $1 billion.
When will this madness stop? The Liberals cannot and will not tell Canadian taxpayers what they have already spent on this program, yet they keep on approving additional funding.
The Liberal strategy of bafflegab is not working. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing their hard-earned dollars being sucked into the black hole otherwise known as the Liberal gun registry.
The Canadian Alliance demands that this legacy of misinformation and mismanagement stop now.
Poets for PeaceMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all around the world people are united in their desire for peace. This desire was clearly evident on March 5 when my constituency office served as the Canadian presentation site for Poets for Peace.
Some 11,000 poets for peace collected 13,000 anti-war poems through the Internet. Poems were submitted by eight Pulitzer prize-winning poets, professors, business people, homemakers and war veterans from around the world and were presented to the government representatives in 12 countries. Yesterday it was my great pleasure to present these poems to the right hon. Prime Minister.
I am pleased that concerned citizens from my riding and from across Canada and people around the world are speaking out and letting their government representatives know of their desire for peace.
All of us hope for a speedy resolution to the current conflict in the world.
Post-Secondary StudentsMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, deaf, deafened and hard of hearing post-secondary students are suffering due to government tax policy. They are being forced from school because of the double taxation they face for retaining sign language interpretation for their studies.
Deaf citizens pay their regular taxes as Canadians. They should not have to pay extra income tax on the money they receive from disability supports and out of country bursaries for funds used to pay for sign language interpreters.
This institutional discrimination can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 per student, per year. That additional cost means many cannot afford to pursue their studies and the number of deaf students in the system is dropping quickly.
This is a clear violation of the government's duty to accommodate deaf citizens in public services as set out by the courts in the Eldridge case.
I call on the government to immediately change the tax system so that moneys provided for a student's disability supports are not taxed as income. I urge the government to do this before the courts force it to do it.
IraqMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the Oscars Award Ceremony, Michael Moore denounced the war in Iraq. He described the Bush administration's attempt to establish a link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the events of September 11 without any evidence as highly immoral. Other award winners such as Chris Cooper and Adrian Brody also called for peace.
In Quebec, the voices of artists are also being heard as they declare “war against the war”. During the Jutra Gala, artists proudly wore white ribbons indicating their opposition to a war against Iraq while others marched in various public demonstrations to show their opposition.
Actor Luc Picard organized a telephone tree to mobilize artists in an anti-war movement, saying he would like to see Quebec artists react through their works.
The Bloc Quebecois commends artists who have mobilized against the war, and those from all walks of life who are saying yes to peace.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the war in Iraq and Canada's role in this unsettling and difficult situation. While Canadian ships are in the gulf supporting the coalition, Canada continues to fight terrorism with our American partners both at home and abroad and to seek diplomatic solutions to these issues. As a result of our long and close relationship with our U.S. neighbours and Commonwealth partners, Canadians feel immensely saddened by the loss of lives.
As a nation respected for its humanitarian aid and our common purpose for a better world, we are proud of our longstanding policy of peacekeeping and diplomacy, particularly in times of crisis. Together with thousands of Canadians across the country we are praying for our Canadian and American troops, for the coalition forces and for the success of the mission. Most of all, we are praying for a swift end to this war, peace to all of the regions in conflict and a safe return of all the forces serving in this conflict.
Canada Pension PlanMrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Globe and Mail reported that over 20,000 Canadian seniors have lost their entitlement to CPP benefits because deadlines have passed them by. These seniors were largely unaware of their entitlement or the application deadlines until it was too late.
What is particularly dreadful is that so many of our senior citizens are forced to live on tight budgets and very modest incomes. The extra money that they are now being denied could give them a much greater standard of living.
This entire situation is unfortunately similar to problems that continue to exist with the guaranteed income supplement. Many seniors, most living with great hardship, are oblivious to the fact that they have access to these types of assistance programs. Moneys properly owed to Canadians after a lifetime of hard work are not being given out, but are instead being wasted on the gun registry.
The government needs to make senior citizens a priority. It must rectify this horrible situation. I call on the Prime Minister to have a minister for seniors before it is too late.

Oral Question Period
IraqMr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me quote a distinguished Canadian, the former U.S. ambassador from Canada, Allan Gotlieb. He said, “The plain fact is that our government has chosen not to be at the side of the United States in this epoch-defining conflict. The plain fact is that a number of members of the government are saying ugly things about the Americans. The plain fact is that these comments are not being dismissed or denied by the Prime Minister. The plain fact is that our leader has failed to grasp how deeply our stance wounds Americans”.
Why does the Prime Minister fail to grasp that his stance is deeply injurious to our national interests?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States know very well that on September 11 in the first hour of their great difficulties, the Canadian people received in their homes 40,000 Americans who had no place to land.
The people of the United States and the government knew very well that when they asked us to fight terrorism, we were the first ones to go there and we put troops in to fight terrorism in Afghanistan.
The people of the United States are aware that we have had ships there for months protecting navigation in that very difficult place so that we can help in the fight against terrorism.
We disagree on one element but on most of--
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, none of that overshadows what we know and what the Americans know. We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein.
It is reported today that some Liberal MPs are actually suggesting recalling Ambassador Cellucci to Washington because of the comments he made in Toronto yesterday. This is from a government that refuses to recall Saddam Hussein's front man in Canada.
When is the government going to expel the remains of Saddam Hussein's evil regime from this country?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the diplomats who are in Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a very good answer on that subject a few days ago.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs' answer was that in the dying days of Saddam Hussein's regime, the government still wants to have a dialogue with that devil. That is unacceptable.
The government took months to outlaw the terrorist Hezbollah from Canada. Now it holds its relationship with Saddam's regime, even as it faces military defeat, executing POWs and committing war crimes.
Is not the government's position on Saddam another example of the same kind of moral bankruptcy that caused it to cling to Hezbollah?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, because we say that changing the regime is not the right policy, should I conclude that he is supporting the government of North Korea because we are not going to war against it? Is he supporting the regime in Zimbabwe because we are not declaring war against Zimbabwe?
There are international situations. We believe in multilateralism. We believe that the United Nations is there to play a positive role. We are not there to attack everybody. We are there to make sure that we have peace. We have worked very hard to have a peaceful resolution of that conflict.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has told the House that Canadian troops near Iraq are there to fight terrorists. We all now know that terrorist groups in Iraq are staging suicide attacks and killing innocent and unsuspecting people yet our anti-terrorism troops are not fighting them.
Does the Prime Minister agree, yes or no, that these murderers are terrorists? If he does agree with that, why are we not fighting them?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this conflict is going on and of course we are there doing our job exactly as the Minister of National Defence has said, to deal with the problem of terrorism which is related to Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. Canadians and Americans are totally united together in an attempt to destroy the danger that threatens us and we will continue to do that.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, hon. minister did not answer the question. The defence minister did tell the House that Canadian troops are there to fight terrorism. They are near Iraq to do that, yet they are not fighting Saddam's black-hooded Fedayeen militia. These are the people who pretend to surrender and then kill soldiers who are trying to show them mercy. They also are killing innocent Iraqis who are opposing Saddam Hussein.
I will ask the Prime Minister again, our anti-terrorism troops are there to fight terrorism. Does he agree this is terrorism and why are we not fighting it?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said repeatedly, the government as of September 11 has been fully committed to the war against terrorism. We went to Afghanistan, and our ships are still there fighting terrorists. We are going back to Afghanistan with the ISAF mission to maintain security in that beleaguered country.
In many countries in the world criminals are doing terrorist things. We cannot be everywhere, but Canada is doing more than our share in the war against terrorism.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister described the Canadian soldiers lent to American and British units as “fulfilling their duties as military personnel”. Clearly, the Prime Minister was confirming that there are some Canadian soldiers engaged in the war against Iraq.
Will the Prime Minister at last admit that Canadian military personnel are taking part in the war against Iraq without the go-ahead of the United Nations, contrary to the official position of the government?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made the government's position on this clear. These are soldiers taking part in an exchange with American, British and Australian troops, and their duties are performed within that framework. According to the information available to us, they are not part of the attack forces involved in the war.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said, the soldiers are on loan in an exchange arrangement with other troops, the British and Australians. They are at war. They are involved in logistics, like the U.S. soldiers who were recently captured. They are at war. We are not at war if we are not over there, but if we are there, then it is fairly obvious that we are taking part in a war, a war that the Prime Minister has termed unjustified.
How can we have soldiers taking part in a war when we are saying we are not at war. I am trying to understand, but it is pretty difficult.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just indicated very clearly what I had already indicated very clearly yesterday in answering this question.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence says that security reasons prevent him from telling us which foreign units Canadians soldiers taking part in the war against Iraq are placed in. The minister's statement does not make sense. One has to wonder how knowing where Canadian soldiers are located would change anything in this war.
The minister has no valid reason to hide from us where these soldiers have been assigned. Where are they?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I already indicated that the government knows exactly which units these persons have been assigned to. However, for security reasons, as I have said many times, we do not want to announce where our soldiers are every single day of the week.
Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Prime Minister are refusing to tell us where these soldiers are because they want to keep it from journalists. They want to hide what they are doing and their level of involvement. They also want to keep it from the public.
They are preventing journalists from doing their job. Given that the government said that Canada was not taking part in the war, having reporters following soldiers into battle and in combat units over there would make the government very vulnerable. It would embarrass the government, which has said that it was not going to war.
Today we have proof that soldiers are in Iraq and that the government wants to prevent journalists from finding out about it.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the government has nothing to hide, except things that are important for the security of the men and women of the Canadian Forces.
I think everyone would agree that we would never want to jeopardize the lives of our soldiers. That is the position of the government.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is time for clarity on why Paul Cellucci says that Canada is doing more for Bush's war than most coalition members. We know Canadian ships are escorting ships of war. Now we learn that Canadians are serving with tank brigades and helping to direct the bombings on AWACS. So much for not being involved in combat.
The government has already flip-flopped on regime change. Has it also now flip-flopped on Canadians in combat?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear position, and of course we have ships in the ocean there, doing their job in relation to the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. We have been there for a year and we will continue to do the duty that we have accepted, which is part of the war against terrorism. That is exactly what they are doing.
The people who are involved in flying in AWACS planes are covering many countries in their surveillance, not only one country. They are doing the job today that they have been doing for many months.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, complicity in Bush's war is contempt of Parliament and complicity in Bush's peace is contempt of public opinion.
Today we learned that Dick Cheney's former company has landed a $500 million contract to rebuild Iraq. Does the Prime Minister think that Iraq should be rebuilt by Bush's cronies or through the United Nations? If through the United Nations, what will Canada do to ensure that happens?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday in the House, our ambassador is working to ensure that aid and reconstruction will be done in a multilateral way. By the way, today the minister for international development will announce that the Government of Canada is making $100 million at the disposition of the United Nations to help with the humanitarian aid that is needed there.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ambassador of the United States criticized the Canadian government for abandoning the United States in its time of need. Our relationship with our closest ally, a $1 billion a day trading partner, is being allowed to disintegrate in a flurry of Liberal insults.
How did the government respond to Mr. Cellucci? Yesterday a senator was quoted in the other place as saying “Screw the Americans”. Add this to the list of long Liberal insults.
Has the Prime Minister suspended this member from caucus? Has he denounced or reprimanded him, or will the Prime Minister once again just let it slide?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote to the possible leader of the fifth party, and with their attitude they will remain in the corner for a long time, because this was what the chair of the Conservative caucus had to say about the flip-flop of the leader of the fifth party:

Well you know I felt very comfortable taking that position because we had taken the position back a number of weeks ago that we would not support Canada's involvement in this war without a UN Resolution approving it. And somewhere along the line, that decision became derailed and changed.

This is the position of the fifth party. It has absolutely no credibility.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the real question is, when will the Prime Minister show some leadership instead of crass political posturing and poll chasing?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough I am sure is putting his question. His preamble of course will be brief but I would urge hon. members to listen to the hon. member's question.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this is a pattern from the Liberal government: senators, members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, press secretaries and ambassadors. The Prime Minister says that the parade of insults will stop. When?
Does the Prime Minister not understand how injurious these remarks are to our relationship with our biggest and most important trading partner? Can the Prime Minister not control his caucus, or has he chosen not to?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member was not in the House when I gave an answer to that question yesterday. The way he is acting today, in a few months from now we will regret the departure of the member for Calgary Centre.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister finally has a legacy. He is the first prime minister in Canadian history to abandon our British and American allies at a time of need, and he has brought Canada-U.S. relations to their lowest level in modern times.
The C.D. Howe Institute, our former ambassador to the United States, and a poll of major business leaders all say that Liberal anti-Americanism is hurting our economic interests.
Why is the Prime Minister prepared to sacrifice Canadian jobs in order to placate the wacko wing of his own party?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the opposition members, they seem to have a desire that there be bad relations between us and the United States. They desire that.
Yesterday the ambassador said that the relations between Canada and the United States were so important for both of us that we had to keep the relations we have had, even if we have a disagreement. It is not the first time, but this country, in a situation like that, has the right to make the decision we made, like they have the right to make the decision they made. Among friends, sometimes we can disagree.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, anti-American bigotry is not an honest disagreement. On the very day the U.S. ambassador finally spoke out about Liberal attacks on his country, a senior cabinet minister told a reporter, reported in today's paper, that the Americans “frankly don't care about anyone else” and he sneered that the U.S. president was “an ideologue”, while Hansard recorded that Liberal Senator LaPierre shouted “Screw the Americans” in the Senate yesterday.
Are these continued anti-American slurs happening because the Prime Minister actually agrees with them or because his caucus members--
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Jean Chrétien: If that is what was said, it is completely reprehensible. I was not aware of it. If it was said, I reprimand that. I do not think that is acceptable to use language like that.
IraqMr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to tell us where the Canadian soldiers integrated with American and British battalions are, apparently for security reasons.
Has the Canadian military been participating in such exchanges with other armies for a long time? What countries are we exchanging soldiers with? Has Canada already participated in other conflicts, without the public's knowledge, in the course of such exchanges?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I can inform the House that, in fact, Canada has been participating in exchanges such as these for decades with our NATO allies, Australia, Great Britain, the United States and so on. We have done this with our allies because, when Canada takes part in military operations, it is always with our allies. Such exchanges are essential to improving the way we work with our allies. That is what we are doing now, as we have been doing for decades.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Defence for confirming that such exchanges have existed for decades.
Now, could he inform us if Canadian soldiers happened to participate, for example, in the Vietnam War, which took place not so long ago, when such exchanges existed? If we are in Iraq, a war we do not agree with, I imagine that, for the same reasons, we must have been in Vietnam and just never knew it.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, what I do know for sure is that our soldiers, who are participating in the current exchange with the Americans, are not seeing direct combat. They do not have the right to use force, except in self-defence. They are providing logistical support. There are 31 soldiers there. This is the information I have and can share with you at this time.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci said that the Prime Minister and senior Liberals appeared to be tacitly endorsing anti-Americanism by rebuking Alberta Premier Klein for publicly backing the U.S. action while failing to discipline the Minister of Natural Resources for his remarks.
This Prime Minister threatens to expel members of his own caucus for possibly voting against the firearms registry but takes absolutely no action against the anti-Americanism that is harming our trade and our security.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to take any action whatsoever against the anti-Americanism coming from his own caucus?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, they must be running out of questions because they are asking the same question that was asked yesterday.
Yesterday I said that at the caucus last week I invited all members of my caucus and I said that outside of the caucus too that they should moderate their rhetoric, that we had a disagreement about going into the war, but we are with the Americans in the other war, the war against terrorism.
We have been there more than anybody else and we will be going with thousands of people in the summer. We are helping them, but on the question of Iraq, we said a year ago that if they did not have the consent of--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, any so-called comments that the Prime Minister made actually had no effect because the Minister of Natural Resources said it on the very same day. Obviously he has no control over his own caucus or he does not actually mean what he is saying here in the House today.
The fact is the government's anti-Americanism has created a diplomatic mess that has put our trade and our security at risk. Eighty-six per cent of our exports go to the U.S. and 23% of the U.S. exports come to us. Clearly we as a nation are more dependent on U.S. goodwill than it is on our goodwill.
Why is the Prime Minister putting our jobs and our security at risk by tolerating anti-Americanism in his cabinet and in his caucus?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have the sense when we are listening to these members of Parliament that they are not in Canada. We are a independent country. We have the right to disagree with our neighbours. It is what we have done. We have done it in good faith. We have done it since a year ago. Our position has always been very clear, expressed here in the House, in the nation and to the Americans.
On the war against terrorism, as I said, I gave the list of the occasions since September 11 that we have been with them, but in this case we talked about the approval of the UN and we told them very clearly that the Canadian troops were not to be on the ground.
AgricultureMr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the Bloc Quebecois has been pointing out that farmers disagree with the structure of the income stabilization program proposed by the Minister of Agriculture.
Now the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture has indicated in a letter to the minister that he is amazed at the degree of unanimity among farmers in demanding that implementation of new programs be postponed.
When will the minister take off his blinkers and realize that we are right in demanding that this be put off for a year?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since December 31 of last year there has not been a disaster program in place for Canadian farmers. We all know that it is necessary. The funding is there for that. The work has been there to develop that. I have made it very clear from the start that we have time in order to do that.
We will continue to work with the provinces and the industry to make sure we have a very good disaster and stabilization program that will treat every farmer in Canada in similar circumstances exactly the same way.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture also invites the Minister of Agriculture not to repeat the error made with the disaster relief program.
Does the minister plan to bow to the wisdom of his Liberal colleagues, who are telling him that new programs need to be put off for a year?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone is saying that there should not be a program for this year. I know that all of the opposition members and the industry from coast to coast said very clearly in the past that the programs we had in the past were not as good as they should be and they wanted them fixed. They wanted them improved and that is exactly what we are going to do.
IraqMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has known that the aid money would be needed for some time and only today will it announce help. The government continues to play games with the lives of innocent Iraqis by announcing an aid package, but then stands by the decision not to help the coalition in its efforts to deliver this aid. The government would have been a bit more credible with the announcement if it had not voted against the Canadian Alliance motion on humanitarian aid yesterday. How does the Prime Minister expect this aid to do any good when it continues to refuse to work with the coalition in delivering it?
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, we are announcing today that the Government of Canada will be contributing $100 million in aid to help the vulnerable people of Iraq. Very clearly, we have already provided $5.6 million to a contingency planning fund to work through different multilateral organizations that have plans to deliver humanitarian assistance. We are going to be working with those organizations to ensure that our dollars go to providing the food, the health care and the water needed for the people of Iraq.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, shame on the government for not being on the ground helping that aid get in.
Yesterday the Liberals shot down the Canadian Alliance motion calling upon the government to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. The coalition is going to be responsible for moving billions of dollars of food, medicine and other aid into Iraq and once again the Prime Minister has abandoned our allies.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit that the only reason this aid will get to the Iraqi people is because of the work of our traditional allies?
Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the member's accusations are absolutely false. The government has been working very actively for a number of months on humanitarian assistance and how we could get that humanitarian assistance into Iraq.
Very clearly, I told the House and I have told everyone who has asked about the $5.6 million in contingency planning. Very clearly, the $100 million we are allocating today will be going through different UN and other multilateral organizations that have a footprint on the ground and that can deliver the food, the water and the health and security needs that are needed in Iraq.
Insurance IndustryMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for financial institutions. All Canadians have noted the rapid escalation of insurance costs in recent years. Farmers, school bus operators, charities and others have been particularly hard hit. The insurance for a community hall in a hamlet in my riding has risen from $250 to $2,500, with a reduction in the coverage involved.
Will the minister launch an inquiry into the insurance industry so that rate increases can be explained to the public?
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, in Canada the provinces regulate the market and business conduct of property and casualty insurance companies, including the manner in which they establish insurance premiums. Therefore, the decision to undertake inquiries into the cost of property and casualty insurance would appropriately fall to each of the provinces.
HealthMr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister knows that Health Canada officials have now confirmed that it is okay for a private company to charge $2,500 for PET scans for heart patients, but not for cancer. This means that the rich can buy access to clinical trials and it is an assault on the foundations of medicare.
Instead of denying access to this important diagnostic test, will the minister ban companies from charging for clinical trials? Will she clearly include these medically necessary diagnostic services under the Canada Health Act, as Roy Romanow has recommended?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to clarify the situation that the hon. member is referring to, which has arisen in Ontario. I think there has been some confusion in relation to this particular situation involving PET scanning. The pharmaceuticals that are used in PET scanning require Health Canada authorization. In the case in question, Health Canada determined that the Mississauga operation is conducting a clinical trial that poses a risk to patients. Under Health Canada direction this clinic has suspended operations.
Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it may have suspended operations, but it still said it is okay to charge $2,500 for access to these clinical trials.
My supplementary is for the same minister. Three years ago, 15 year old Vanessa Young died because she was not warned about serious risks from a drug called Prepulsid. Now there is another drug being peddled in Canada by Janssen-Ortho, Eprex, which is still on the market despite grave risks with subcutaneous use by anemia patients with kidney disease. Why will the minister not join many other countries in Europe and Australia in contraindicating this dangerous use of Eprex in Canada? Will it take another death before the minister finally acts?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, as the hon. member should know, my department some months ago created a new marketed health products directorate at Health Canada to increase surveillance, and especially post-market surveillance, in relation to adverse reactions and medication incidents. In fact, one of the reasons we did this was to ensure that we can in the future, working with physicians and others, avoid the kind of tragedy that befell Vanessa Young and her family.
IraqMr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, unlike Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre, who said yesterday, “Screw the Americans”, the Prime Minister insists that he is interested in the reconstruction of Iraq. Nonetheless, we are still waiting for the Canadian plan to rebuild what the war will have destroyed. Kofi Annan will meet with Prime Minister Tony Blair tomorrow to discuss the British plan.
Has the Prime Minister requested a meeting? Does he have a plan to propose to the UN or is he going to wait again for someone else to show leadership in this issue?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, clearly the member—a leadership candidate for his party—came here with a prepared question, because I already said that today we are making $100 million available. The cabinet and the minister for international development authorized this sum yesterday.
Our plans are already being discussed at the United Nations through our ambassador, who met with the cabinet about this yesterday.
André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Prime Minister has announced something without meeting with those responsible.
What is the Prime Minister doing? Is he going to meet with the UN Secretary General or is he going to do as he did with the war in Iraq and stall for months and months? When is the Prime Minister going to meet with the UN Secretary General to propose a Canadian plan for the reconstruction of Iraq? When will he do this?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are well enough connected at the UN for people to be very aware of Canada's position.
Louise Fréchette, second in command at the United Nations, is a former deputy minister of the Canadian government. I am certain that once we want to discuss our plans with the United Nations, we will be in a very good position to do so.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House fervently hope that the war to liberate the people of Iraq ends soon. The people of Iraq yearn for the freedoms they have been denied by their brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. It can be safely estimated that he has been responsible for the deaths of an average of 137 people per day during his 20 year regime.
The foreign affairs minister has stated that Saddam Hussein and his regime should be brought to justice in accordance with the rule of law. My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he support efforts at the United Nations to indict Saddam and his henchmen for crimes against humanity?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows we have agreed to an all party motion which addresses this matter. It was brought forward by members of the Canadian Alliance.
This is a complicated issue. There is a possibility, as I explained the other day, of a United Nations tribunal and there is a possibility of a mixed form of tribunal. We want to be active and make sure, as I have said before, that we act within the traditions of this House and of Canada in ensuring that international criminal conduct is punished by international criminal courts. I assure all members of the House that we will be active in that respect.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I am going to assume that was a yes. I am not quite sure. If it was a yes, I am happy to see that the government has finally found some backbone.
The question then is, where will Saddam Hussein be tried? Would he be tried in the Hague or in Iraq, where the people of Iraq would actually be able to bear witness and see the results of justice?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with this tricky business of answering yes or no to a question. I think the hon. member's recent question explains exactly why we have to treat complicated questions with complicated answers. To the hon. member, I am sorry about that, but that is a necessity of life and I think she raised a very valid point. When the international tribunal is set up, it will have to be set up under an international agreement which will address that issue. Canada will be active in that process.
FarmersMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food asked that more time be given to implement programs so that the concerns of stakeholders could be taken into consideration.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is wrong in wanting to impose his new net income stabilization program. Does he not believe he should agree to more time, in order to avoid confusing and angering farmers?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly to the standing committee the other day that there is more time and we will take that time. We will work with the provinces and the industry over the coming weeks to do just that.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is suggesting that it is farmers in Quebec who are resisting his program. However, the letter from the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food indicates quite the opposite.
Does the minister realize that all of the farmers in Canada want more time?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I just answered the question. They keep asking the same question and I keep giving the same answer. I said there is more time. We have time in the weeks ahead to do that and we will be doing it.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency quashed an interim report prepared by Moduspec, a consulting firm it had hired to decide if customs agents required firearms to protect themselves. The original interim report called for CCRA to establish an armed presence at southern Ontario borders, including Windsor.
However, before this recommendation could be discussed in Parliament, CCRA directed Moduspec to rewrite its final report, leaving out this finding. Why did the minister cover up this issue by asking Moduspec to rewrite its report?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong. We commissioned an independent report. Nowhere in the working documents was it ever suggested that customs inspectors should have guns. Further, in the working document it did say that giving guns to customs officers would be like giving 3,000 accidents an opportunity to happen. That was not in the final report that was issued.
It is important for the member opposite to know that RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli has said that customs officers should not have guns. The independent report--
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if the minister tabled the interim report so we could see for ourselves.
With a growing list of Liberal members, cabinet and senators bad-mouthing Americans, perhaps the minister can tell us, what are the chances of Canada obtaining an exemption on the 24 hour notice?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting and important question. When we talk about the 24 hour notice, there are a couple of different 24 hour proposals. One would relate to land crossings and the other to goods entering Canada via marine crossings.
I can tell her that we actually agree there should be 24 hour notice for those coming into Canada by ship. It is on land crossings where a proposal has been made that we have some serious concerns. It is only a proposal and we are working right now to ensure that the interests of both exporters and importers are taken into consideration when that final decision is made.
The EnvironmentMr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the climate change plan for Canada calls on all Canadians, governments, industries and individuals to do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How does Canada recognize the outstanding efforts and leadership of those companies, and individuals who are voluntarily reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night, the Minister of the Environment and I attended the sixth annual leadership awards ceremony of Canada's Climate Change Voluntary Challenge and Registry. This year's awards went to 22 Canadian companies, education institutions and individuals from across the country. For example, ALPAC, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc., the winner of the forest products award, reduced its emissions by over 36% since 1994 through innovative practices, such as the commencement of new forests by planting hybrid poplars on agricultural land.
HealthMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the number of people who will contract the severe acute respiratory syndrome is expected to dramatically increase over the next few days. Ontario today declared an outbreak to be a health emergency. Is the Minister of Health planning to increase the federal resources to the provinces to combat SARS?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. Let me reassure everyone that Health Canada is ready to respond to any requests for support from the provinces and territories.
Since the hon. member has raised the very serious situation in Ontario, I will direct my comments specifically to it. At noon today, Ontario's commissioner of public health indicated that there are 27 probable cases and five suspect cases. Health Canada has deployed five epidemiologists to assist in the investigation of the outbreaks. We have provided technical advice on infection control and clinical assessment. We are providing supplies for the isolation hospital in Toronto. At noon today--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yellowhead.
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, the SARS virus originated outside of Canada and the federal government has the authority to use the federal Quarantine Act to prevent further SARS cases from entering Canada. The health department said we are not in that situation yet.
My question is, under what circumstances would the health minister apply the federal Quarantine Act?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, this too is an important question. Therefore, I want everyone to understand the nature of the Quarantine Act. It provides the authority to detain persons, goods or conveyances, for example, possibly an airplane, on suspicion that the persons, goods or conveyances might introduce a dangerous communicable disease in Canada.
The authority under the act permits us to hold any individual, for example, for up to 48 hours to undertake medical examination. If detention is required beyond that period, we must present evidence for a continuation of the detention.
We are working very effectively with local health authorities. At this point we do not think it is necessary to invoke the Quarantine Act.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for eight years Human Resources Development Canada kept an elderly couple in the dark when it came to their eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement. However, within 15 days of the death of his wife, Human Resources Development Canada wrote to André Le Corre to tell him that because of his wife's death, he would no longer be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.
How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain that her department was silent for 15 years, but only took 15 days to verify information with CCRA, assess the case, make a decision and write to the claimant to tell him that he would no longer—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I itemized for the House three particular strategies that the government undertakes to ensure that Canadians who are eligible for pensions know about their eligibility. I can add to that list.
In 1999 we sent out 56,000 letters to seniors over 65 who are entitled but have not applied for CPP to remind them to apply. We have done another mail out to seniors over 65 and it has already started for this year. The hon. member will be interested to know that in the year 2001-02 we sent out 12.9 million statements of contributions to contributors to these programs.
We are anxious to be sure that--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Correctional Service of CanadaMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has absolutely no problem parading or exploiting the Canadian Police Association's position when it is in agreement, but he totally dismisses it when it disagrees. Yesterday, the Solicitor General not only ignored the police association's demand for an end to club fed prisons, but he basically told the association it was out to lunch and that no such resort prisons existed.
Golfing, fishing, whale watching off the Pacific coast, what does the Solicitor General call this, Liberal style hard time?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the Canadian Police Association on its well documented presentation to the members of the committee so that we can hear about the situation on the ground.
I made my position absolutely clear yesterday on club fed. There is no such thing as a club fed in Canada and we will not have club feds in this country.
However, in talking to the Canadian Police Association members last night, where they did run into roadblocks was from that party over there when it talks about gun control because those members are not listening to the police association.

Routine Proceedings
Electoral Boundaries CommissionThe Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to lay upon the table a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Team CanadaHon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Team Canada Inc. annual report for 2002.
Committees of the HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the criteria for determining the items of Private Members' Business which will not be votable.
This list of criteria is established pursuant to the third report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons concurred in on March 17, 2003.
I also have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of the committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence of the 25th report later this day.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), the committee has considered and held hearings on the application of the Official Languages Act and the Contraventions Act and agreed on Wednesday, March 19, to report on it. This matter was brought to the attention of the committee by the member for Lanark—Carleton.
The committee's recommendation is that, essentially, Justice Canada take whatever legislative and regulatory means it has at its disposal to ensure that language rights protected under sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code and part IV of the Official Languages Act be respected.
Finally, the committee is asking for a response from the government.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I presented a dissenting report to this report. I agree with the general thrust of the report and I appreciate the cooperation of all the committee members in the preparation of the report. However, there was one element that I thought should have been included in the report, and that was, specifically, a reference to the matter that caused the issue of federal contravention notices, tickets, to come to the attention of the committee.
The fact of the matter is that the RCMP, at the time of the writing of the report and for several months before that, and to this day, continues to issue illegally and in violation of the Official Languages Act unilingual contravention notices within the boundaries of the National Capital Region in Gatineau.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Speaker: The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I again rise in the House to present petitions in support of Bill C-206, the caregiver legislation, which would employment insurance benefits to those who care for people under palliative care or severe rehabilitation.
Let it be shown that although the bill was debated yesterday, the family value party, the Alliance, its leader, as well as three-quarters of the Liberal Party voted against the bill to move it to committee to support and further debate. Let the record show that indeed happened.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of eastern Ontario and throughout Canada, we are asking that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations; that the facilities should stay in Arnprior; and that the government should up upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians as promised.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, on behalf of my constituents, a petition bearing the signatures of some 25 Calgarians calling upon the House to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which I note is consistent with the motion passed in this place three years ago.
Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents who 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 are outlawed.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer to the House literally thousands of petitions that call upon Parliament to review current legislation as it relates to child pornography. In light of the three charges today in Toronto, it is certainly timely.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 153, 154, 162 and 163.
Question No. 153Mr. Rick Casson: With respect to the Business Development Bank of Canada, what was the number of loans authorized for: ( a ) each province; and ( b ) each year from 1993 to 2002?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): The answer is as follows:
Note: All data restated in September 2002 to exclude BDC Global Line of Credit, but still includes student business loans.
Question No. 154Mr. Keith Martin: With regard to the government’s proposed cut to the armed forces post-living differential: ( a ) what are the government’s reasons for the cut; ( b ) what formula did the government use to calculate the cut to the post-living differential; ( c ) in what way, if any, does the government plan on compensating Canadian soldiers for this loss in income; and ( d ) will the government reverse its decision to cut the armed forces post-living differential?
John McCallum: The post-living differential is paid within Canada at locations where the local cost of living is assessed to be higher than the Canadian Forces weighted average cost of living for all members based in Canada. A post-living differential payment is not part of base salary; it is a supplement to offset higher local living costs. Runzheimer Canada, an internationally renowned company specializing in cost of living data collection and compensation development, collects the data for annual calculations. Rates are assessed annually and post-living differential payments are amended accordingly.
Approximately 47% of the regular force, 27,000 members, receives a post-living differential. In 2002, while certain locations experienced cost of living changes that reduced the differential between local costs and the weighted average Canadian Forces cost of living, other locations experienced differential increases. For instance, post-living differentials paid to Canadian Forces members living in Quebec City and Halifax were raised.
A post-living differential is not based solely on the local cost of living; rather, it is paid to offset the difference between various local living costs, and the Canadian Forces weighted average cost of living. Rates are based on several variables, such as local accommodation costs, and federal and provincial income tax rates. These variables are combined with other indicators to establish the local cost of living. These costs are then compared to the Canadian Forces weighted average cost of living. This difference between local costs and the Canadian Forces weighted average is adjusted by the provincial marginal tax rate and the resulting amount is published as the annual post-living differential rate. There is no need to provide additional income when post-living differential rates decrease because these changes only take effect after the relative cost of living has already decreased.
The Department of National Defence continues to monitor the post-living differential program to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all Canadian Forces members.
Question No. 162Mr. Art Hanger: Since the inception of the Canadian Forces Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), how many soldiers have requested and how many actually qualified for Accidental Dismemberment Benefit from SISIP for injuries sustained while in a Theatre of Operations or a Special Duty Area for which members would be in receipt of both the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) Pension (or a return of pensionable contributions) and the Pension Act pension?
John McCallum: Three key public and private sector institutions hold the requested information: the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada and Maritime Life. Compiling the data requires extensive interdepartmental and public-private sector co-ordination, and a manual search of existing and archival files. As a result, the information requested cannot be gathered during the time period allotted to respond to Order Paper questions.
Question No. 163Art Hanger: Since the inception of the Canadian Forces Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), of those soldiers that qualified for Accidental Dismemberment Benefit from SISIP for injuries sustained while in a Theatre of Operations or a Special Duty Area for which members would be in receipt of both the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) Pension (or a return of pensionable contributions) and the Pension Act pension, what is the range of financial compensation provided by SISIP in terms of amount and duration of the benefit?
John McCallum: Three key public and private sector institutions hold the requested information: the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada and Maritime Life. Compiling the data requires extensive interdepartmental and public-private sector coordination, and a manual search of existing and archival files. As a result, the information requested cannot be gathered during the time period allotted to respond to Order Paper questions.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 130 and 147 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 130Mr. Rob Anders: For the fiscal years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the constituency of Calgary West, including the name and address of the recipient, whether or not it was competitively awarded, the date, the amount and the type of funding, and if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?
Return tabled.
Question No. 147Mr. John Williams: With regard to the answer provided to Question 47 by the Minister of National Defence on January 27, 2003, regarding the rubric “Losses of Public Property Due to an Offence or Other Illegal Act” for the Department of National Defence as listed on page 3.24 of Volume II, Part II, of the Public Accounts of Canada 2001-2002 and the cases of theft listed thereon; of the information not provided yet which represents approximately $127,000 of the $220,000 addressed in Question 47: ( a ) what was stolen in each individual case; ( b ) what was the value of each individual item; ( c ) what was the location of each theft; and ( d ) were any charges laid?
Return tabled.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North has a point of order in respect of questions.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on January 23, Question No. 107 in my name was answered by the minister. Since that time I have looked into the answer that was provided, only to determine that it was not an answer.
I asked two questions. First: “How many federal government departments have access to the firearms registry?” The response I received was that only two had direct access. That was not the question I had asked.
Second: “What level of personnel have access to the firearms registry?” Again I was given a response that included direct access, which was not what I had asked, and it was very vague as to who had other access. In both cases, I am no further ahead.
I went to the CPIC website and got more information than I got out of the response to my question on the Order Paper.
I would ask the Speaker to rule that Question No. 107 be put back on the Order Paper for the minister to answer because I do not know any other way in which the Speaker can rule that does not give a green light to the government to not respond to our Order Paper questions with an answer that is meaningful. I would ask for a ruling from the Speaker, please.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware of my hon. colleague's dissatisfaction with his answer until this moment. I do not recall the question or the answer to the question as there have been many over the past couple of months. I would endeavour to look into this and I would like to reserve the opportunity to make an argument on it after I have had a chance to do so.
The Speaker: I think I can relieve the hon. parliamentary secretary's mind a little bit. There are two things. The Chair does not have much regard to, shall I say, the quality of either questions or answers. Some I am sure are pretty good and some are pretty rotten, but the Chair forms no opinion whatsoever on these matters and does not examine the questions or answers with a view to their quality or lack thereof.
It would be inappropriate for the Chair to somehow suggest that he agrees with the hon. member for Vancouver Island North that the question he got was a pile of rubbish. It is not for the Chair to make that kind of determination even if the Chair had an opinion on that, and, as the hon. member knows, the Chair has so few opinions these days that it is very difficult to come up with something on a question of that kind.
However, he is free to put his question back on the Order Paper. There is nothing in the rules that says he cannot ask the same question again or make a minor change in the wording of it, put it on the Order Paper and seek another response. He does have some assistance now from the parliamentary secretary who has said that he will look into the matter and get back to him. Perhaps after hearing from him he will be so satisfied that he will not even want to do that, but the option is his. As long as he does not have four on already, which is the maximum, he can put it on.
If I could pass on a trick that I know works sometimes, one of his colleagues, who does not have four on, might put it on for him, if that is the block, and away he goes and gets another answer for free. It is a real bonanza in that sense, and I am sure the hon. member would know that. I invite him to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded him by the rules rather than rely on a point of order to get the Speaker embroiled in the question of whether or not an answer was satisfactory, because of course the Chair has no opinion on the quality of either.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions for PapersGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notice of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 3.
Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my amendment to report stage Motion No. 86 of Bill C-13.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment to Motion No. 86 withdrawn)
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as we enter into this next stage of the debate on Bill C-13, specifically Group No. 3 amendments, I want to highlight several important issues.
The debate is a very important one. Frankly, I have been somewhat disappointed with the importance this issue has had in the past for Canadians all across the country and has sparked such little interest among the majority of members in the Chamber, for this debate will set the future for reproductive technology.
Yes, legislation can be changed but realistically how often does it ever happen? We just need to look perhaps at the most flawed legislation in Canadian history, the Indian Act. It is over 135 years old and the only changes to it over all that period of time have been relatively minor.
Yes, there are proposed changes before the House now on Bill C-13 but they are a long way from completion and yet the known problems have been in place since even before the legislation was drafted.
As the elected members of Parliament we have a responsibility to truly debate the issues of the day. Bill C-13 has strong science, health and moral implications within it. It is an arm of science that has been moving so incredibly quickly that I predict that there are many issues that we have not even considered at this time.
These issues will exist, not out of ignorance but simply because the technology of what we cannot do or even contemplate today will have the potential of changing for tomorrow. Let us not trap ourselves in a legislative box that we cannot get out of and adequately deal with in the future.
Therefore, I urge all members of the House to carefully consider the amendments and look to the future. As elected officials we are chosen by our constituents to represent them and to provide leadership here in this place.
I wish to speak specifically to this group of amendments and then make some closing comments on Bill C-13 at this time.
I will be opposing Motion No. 28 which deletes prohibitions on surrogacy in order that the prohibitions can be dealt with in the regulations. Unfortunately, the regulations are lost from the scope of Parliament. Yes, they are published and there is a procedure for the public to table support or opposition to them, but the fact is that they are not debated in Parliament. I cannot, therefore, support the notion that surrogate mothers should receive some form of compensation.
I note that the health committee report “Building Families” was united in wanting to end commercial surrogacy. It may seem altruistic but I do not support the premise of payment for children. These same principles apply to Motions Nos. 29 and 30.
While on the issue of surrogacy I would like to voice my opposition also to Motion No. 46 which would allow exceptions on prohibitions on procuring a surrogate, arranging a surrogacy and inducing a female to become a surrogate, namely, “except in accordance with the regulations”. As I have mentioned previously, I oppose leaving controls on commercial surrogacy to the regulations, for Parliament is the best place to have these debates and make these decisions.
Likewise, I oppose Motion No. 49. Opening the door to payment for gametes or in vitro embryos by leaving this to the regulations is not the correct way to proceed on this issue.
I must also oppose the motion to open the door to compensation to surrogates for work related loss of income as proposed under Motions Nos. 51 and 95. The health committee heard testimony that compensation for such expenses could be greatly inflated. There are just too many outstanding questions and issues surrounding this particular issue and, on this basis, the health committee recommended there be no such compensation for surrogacy. Surrogacy must be altruistic, not simply done for payment.
I support the premise of Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 which would prohibit the purchase of fetuses or fetal tissue, any part of the embryo or the transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials.
I believe that life begins at conception and therefore cannot nor should not be bought and sold. Life is a precious gift from God and one that cannot be reduced to the level of a common commodity that can be bought and sold on the open market or profited through the stock exchange.
Motion No. 44 is an interesting one and worthy of support. Rather than the destruction of embryos, they could be adopted. Embryo adoption is a possible alternative to the destruction of or research on so-called excess embryos, though not without its own complications, I admit. This is an area that could have future consequences. As I mentioned earlier, let us not trap ourselves in a legislative box that we cannot get out of or adequately deal with in the future.
I feel strongly about Motion No. 45. I support this motion which specifies that there should be no research on embryos for reproductive research except as provided in the regulations. I oppose research on human embryos for any purpose and therefore support this motion.
Due to scheduling of committee travel, it appears that this may be my last opportunity to speak to Bill C-13. Therefore I would like to offer some additional thoughts on this important matter.
I have the privilege of knowing two very dedicated people on this important issue. Shirley Pratten, who lives in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, and her daughter Olivia have both appeared before the standing committee on more than one occasion along with Health Canada officials and interested media. They particularly urge the House to move to an open gamete donation system.
I remind members of the House that the committee talked to several international researchers and professionals who spoke about the success of open systems in other countries such as Sweden, Austria and New Zealand. It is also my understanding that Australia and Holland are moving along in that direction over a two year transition period.
Hon. members of the House should also know that should Bill C-13 go through as it is currently written, that is legalizing anonymity, there will then be a legal challenge in British Columbia where adoption records are open. Discussions have already taken place with one of the lawyers who was involved with opening the adoption records in British Columbia and he is keen to take this on, with the adoption community in this country firmly behind him. With this in mind, there are several offspring in British Columbia who will be part of this challenge.
In short, I believe that if Bill C-13 is passed without change, there will be a serious court challenge starting in the province of British Columbia and probably continuing on through the Supreme Court of Canada. I wonder if the government really wants this. Is this in the best interests of Canadians?
I have stated before and repeat now that the bill is about improving human health. I am reminded that this is not only about physical health, but also emotional and psychological health. If members of the House deliberately deny people the knowledge to know where they have come from through an anonymous system, I believe that we are knowingly compromising their psychological health.
I have some insights into the adoption process, having one adopted child and two through private guardianship, so I know of what I speak. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard the emotional and psychological health as well as the physical health of Canadian citizens. We need to put the interests and protection of the children conceived through reproductive technology first. Let me repeat this because I believe that this is tantamount to our discussions today and throughout the debate in the past few weeks. We need to put the interests and protection of the children conceived through reproductive technology first.
I acknowledge that Bill C-13 states that this is in the preamble, but it fails to address this need in the bill by sanctioning an anonymous system. Anonymity is not in the best interests of the people who are being conceived. If we really mean that we need to put the interests and protection of children conceived through reproductive technology first, then the bill must actually do what it says it will do.
There are of course very strong lobby groups that attempt to influence the government and the legislative process. In this case the government is not only allowing the desires of some parents to come before the needs of the children, it is also putting the desires of the medical profession above the children.
It would appear that the government has caved in to the terrific power of the medical lobby whose interests in keeping the status quo are both self-serving and for financial motivation. It will take a strong government to stand up to the medical lobby and endorse the standing committee's recommendations on all aspects of the legislation. I really question whether the present government is strong enough to accomplish that.
I realize that my time is nearly up in addressing Bill C-13 but whether my time is up or not, when the House passes this legislation, the legislation will become the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Whatever we pass today and after third reading will have long-lasting consequences.
In the continuum of witnesses, who is most important? It is always the children. I urge all members to seriously consider this as we vote on this issue today.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-13 at report stage. This is a very important bill.
I want to point out to members that the bill and the amendments can strongly affect Canadians with disabilities by supporting the drive that biotechnology firms are creating in the medical marketplace toward producing the perfect baby. I will return to this issue at the end of my address. I would first like to talk about the progress of the work on the bill that the NDP has tried to accomplish.
This is my first opportunity to speak to this legislation. I want to add my voice to all of the voices of Canadian women who know that the need for legislation is urgent. This urgency is underlined by recent sensational news stories about experimentation with human cloning.
The urgency for me has also been brought home by a recent conversation which I had with a health expert who informed me that there are hundreds of new assisted reproductive technologies and drugs that are aimed at the Canadian market and will be arriving in the next year. We really cannot afford to leave this very critical area of public health to the mercy of the biotech market.
During the committee's examination of Bill C-13, New Democrats attempted to introduce amendments to strengthen the bill in areas that we believed needed improving. Some of our concerns were addressed, but several important proposals were voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee.
My caucus colleague proposed 13 amendments during committee stage and succeeded in gaining several improvements to the bill. We wanted the protection of the health and well-being of women added to the principles. We wanted the donors to be provided with independent information before participating and that the public be informed of the risk factors relevant to infertility. As well, we wanted the board of the assisted reproduction agency of Canada to consist of a minimum of 50% women. We wanted the addition of a comprehensive conflict of interest clause governing the board as well.
We were unsuccessful in adding the precautionary principle to make safety an overriding concern. The committee also voted down our amendment to tighten up the commercial sale of reproductive materials and to make the agency more accountable by stipulating what it would do rather than what it may do. We tried and failed to facilitate donor identification in recognition of the needs of children born through reproductive technology.
If the government had seen fit to simply follow the wisdom of the committee which had spent time, expertise and energy to review the bill, we would be seeing improvements to this legislation. Sadly, we are seeing steps backward instead.
We have seen the failure to include the basic safety provision of the precautionary principle to safeguard women's health, together with the reversal of our gender parity and conflict provisions for the agency's board. Measures needed to keep biopharmaceutical corporations at bay has left the NDP no choice but to vote against the bill at third reading. This is despite our desire to have a long overdue regulatory framework in place as soon as possible.
I would like to re-examine the principles involved here.
Our first concerns were for health protection. Women involved in reproductive technologies ought to be assured that the drugs and treatments they take are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. As well, they must have access to independent information and counselling at critical times when they may be vulnerable to promoters of technologies that may put their health at risk. We succeeded, although not in as decisive wording as we had hoped, with the formal acknowledgement that the health and well-being of women must be protected in the application of these technologies.
We were not successful however in securing that protection through the instrumental inclusion of the precautionary principle in the bill. We sought to include the precautionary principle in the principles and application and interpretation sections and again in clause 13 through which it would have been applied to all controlled activities covered by the act.
To further the objective of informed decision making by those participating in reproductive technologies, we proposed, and it was accepted, to require all those licensed under the act to provide donors in advance with independent information provided by the assisted human reproduction agency.
Commercialization is another of our big concerns with Bill C-13. Much of reproductive technology remains the private reserve of giant life sciences and drug corporations with patent protection taking precedence over the public good and with private for profit interests dominating the field.
We attempted to tighten up the bill's prohibition against commercial gain by extending the ban on purchasing ova and sperm to include offering them for sale. This would correspond to the treatment given embryos under the bill. The amendment, as well, was defeated by the Liberals.
I would like to return for a minute to concerns that persons with disabilities have around this bill and the whole issue of reproductive technology, biotechnology and the new era we have entered of designer babies.
I would like to raise some important issues which have been posed to me with regard to the whole issue of prenatal genetics testing.
I have spoken with women who have received prenatal testing. This testing has shown, for example, high possibilities of giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome, or a child with spina bifida or with a cleft palette. After this testing has been done, they find themselves presented with a barrage of very negative counselling about the need for termination.
This is a very disturbing situation because what we are seeing is thousands and thousands of times each year in doctors offices women being faced with decisions around terminations of pregnancies without being given the kind of honest and neutral counselling about the values of having a child with a disabilities and about persons with disabilities who are living and contributing in the world.
The question that is raised as soon as we realize we have the ability to “screen out” Down's syndrome, cleft palette, spina bifida and bipolar disorder is this. What does that mean to the people who now live on the earth, who live among us and who are in our families who have disabilities? What does that mean to the value that they see given to their own lives?
I would like to take this opportunity to read a declaration which has been put forward by the Disabled Persons International on this subject, which I think is very germane to the topic. It states:

The right to live and to be different.
Up until now most of us have been excluded from debates on bioethical issues. These debates have had prejudiced and negative views of our quality of life. They have denied our right to equality and have therefore denied our human rights...
We are full human beings. We believe that a society without disabled people would be a lesser society. Our unique individual and collective experiences are an important contribution to a rich, human society.
We demand an end to the biomedical elimination of diversity, gene selection based on market forces and the setting of norms and standards by non-disabled people.
Biotechnological change must not be an excuse for control or manipulation of the human condition or biodiversity.

In closing, I and my party believe in that declaration. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has put forward a very strong private member's motion on the importance of a national strategy around genetics and genetic counselling which will bear in mind and keep front and centre the value of persons with disabilities and will respect the dignity of their lives.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member from the NDP who just spoke. I certainly agree with her in terms of the slope we go down when we want to do away with because there is some risk of somebody being disabled. In addition, not only diminishing the value and the life of a disabled person, often they are wrong. We have often found them to be perfectly healthy babies with no defect or disability at all. That is why we cannot go down that road.
I am thankful to have the opportunity to express why changes to Bill C-13 are required to restore dignity to human beings, as well as to remove the possibility of future problems in interpretation due to some ambiguous terminology and a restricted view on the progress of science as reflected in this bill. Particularly, I wish to draw the attention of the House to support Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36, 39, 44 and 45 in Group No. 3 which are crucial to the positive outcome of the bill.
I remind the House that one of the overall goals of the bill is to ensure that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction are given priority. We must remember that these children, who are born through assisted human reproduction, do not gain their status as human beings through the process of birth. Rather, in fact, their humanity existed from conception on, when their genetic makeup was intricately formed in the womb of their mother.
I draw members' attention to this because, when dealing with the ethical questions that are presented before us today, we must not limit our good intentions to the well-being of a human after birth, but also before birth, when they are subject to these very medical procedures that we are discussing today. This means that Bill C-13 should treat all stages in life with the same respect and care that we show one another.
I would especially urge the House to consider Motion No. 45, as sponsored by the member for Mississauga South. The motion specifies that there must be no research on embryos for reproductive research, except as provided in the regulations. Under the current wording of the bill, research and experiments can be taken on a human embryo provided that it is “necessary”. That is a slippery word and a flawed word.
We are well aware that what one person deems or judges to be necessary might be completely different from another person's definition, from my definition. With such an important decision, with a human being's life at stake, how can we allow such ill-defined terms to remain in the bill? It is an embarrassment to the House.
Once again the bill leaves open the possibility to be interpreted according to the desires of the individual or the institution that wishes to benefit from the experimentation on human embryos.
By not at all permitting the experimentation or harvesting of embryos, we would be recognizing that human life always deserves dignity, even at its earliest stages, from conception on. We have no right to conduct any experiments that do not benefit the subject and especially without even having their consent. We recognize that crucial principle when we look with horror at the experimentation done in the concentration camps in Europe during World War II. We said no experimentation without the consent of the subject. Why do we now permit this experimentation based on our justification of what we consider as progress? If it was wrong then back during the days of Nazi Germany, then it is wrong now.
By closing the door to embryonic experimentation, we are by no means closing the door entirely to the promising future of adult stem cell research. There are fascinating studies that are clearly showing the effectiveness of adult stem cells as treatments for many diseases that make life so difficult.
For example, a study reported by New Scientist Journal in January 2003, as well as a study by Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota, revealed that special cells could be isolated from the bone marrow of mice and could then be turned into virtually any type of tissue. New Scientist Journal also reported that autopsies on four women revealed that stem cells in bone marrow could develop into brain cells. Originally it was believed that they could only form blood or bone cells. The point is simply that with the promising discoveries related to adult stem cell research why are we even discussing experimentation on human embryos?
Bill C-13 is also flawed in that it allows the use of non-human life forms in the human reproductive process. Cows and others are involved here. That would really be a degradation of the intrinsic value of humanity. Furthermore Canadian society recognizes, and rightly so, that there is a clear difference in the value of the genetic makeup of humans and that of non-humans. Clear guidelines must be in place for all stages of humanity and all forms of genetics so that there is no confusion between human and non-human life forms. The dignity of humanity also applies to the very core of our genetic makeup.
Bill C-13 permits the combination of the human genome with that of a non-human species when permitted by a licence. That is a very dangerous process and the unknown implications can be detrimental to humanity. Transgenic or recombinant gene research poses a grave threat to the integrity of the human gene pool. This bill is intended, as we said before, to benefit humanity and, as such, must ensure that any desire to combine the human genome with a non-human genome must not be permitted since it would desecrate the value and sanctity of human life.
The possibility of combining the human genome with that of an animal or other life forms contradicts one of the main purposes of this very bill, which is to preserve and protect human individuality and diversity and the integrity of the human genome. How can humanity and the human genome be protected if it is combined with other types of genomes?
It is of utmost importance that this bill does not in any way permit other possible forms of cloning either. Dr. Dianne Irving, professor of philosophy and medical ethics and also the former bench research biochemist for the National Institute of Health, was asked by the clerk of the House of Commons health committee to present an analysis of this legislation. She makes it very clear that due to the absence of necessary and relevant accurate scientific definitions, as well as the linguistic loopholes that exist in the bill, it can allow many forms of cloning techniques on humans.
If this bill fails to address the multitude of techniques for producing a human clone or if it improperly defines a technique and then restricts itself to that one improper definition, it is possible that future cloning techniques will not be addressed by this legislation. That will open the door to cloning in Canada, even if that was not the intention of Bill C-13.
Dr. Irving also makes it very clear that only internationally approved scientific terms and definitions, as approved by the International Nomina Embryological Committee, should be used to produce a bill that is not open to a vast array of misinterpretations or misuse. By supporting certain amendments that are before the House today in Group No. 3, we will help ensure the well-being of Canadian society by trying to prevent deviations from the intention of this bill.
The progress of science in this realm does not automatically entitle us to make use of whatever we are capable of doing . The scientific community works hard to make these discoveries, but it is our responsibilities as elected members of the House to ensure that guidelines are put in place so that these amazing discoveries work to benefit humanity rather than pose a risk of harming it. For these reasons, it is essential that we support Motion No. 45 to ensure only ethical research on humans.
I would like to now address Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 in Group No. 3. These motions ensure that the purchases of fetuses, fetal tissue and embryos or parts of embryos are prohibited. Human life is not a commodity that we can buy and sell. It would be outrageous if we even considered the sale of babies. Why then does this bill allow for the sale of human beings at a yet younger stage? The legislation of the government must in no way contribute to an industry of selling humans or human parts. In good conscience, how can we allow the commodification of human life? I urge the House to support Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 39 to show that we believe in the value of persons of all ages in our society, those who are pre-born as well.
In good conscience we must oppose a number of the motions that are presented in Group No. 3 as well. I would like to draw attention specifically to Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30, 46, 49, 51 and 95. These motions would allow payment for surrogacy. We must not allow commercial surrogacy in Canada. As a government, we should be seeking to promote the health of Canadians. We must not allow an industry of selling reproductive materials and promoting an industry of commercially using humans to advance reproduction.
In conclusion, I urge the House to consider the implications of this bill as it stands. Without adopting Motions Nos. 32, 33, 36, 39, 44 and 45 in Group No. 3, it is open to some pretty serious and negative consequences that defeat the intention of this bill because of some very vague, ambiguous terminology. We need to make wise laws that chart the direction for us and our future generations. We must not only look at the ground before us as we walk but into the horizon to avoid the stumbling blocks that will hinder us later.
I urge the House to change Bill C-13 to uphold the dignity of human life and remove the possibility of future problems due to our restricted vision of the progress of science.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just to make it clear what we are debating today, it is the Group No. 3 amendments on Bill C-13, which deals with human reproductive technology and other issues, extremely important and sensitive issues.
I want to start by referring to a particular motion in Group No. 3, Motion No. 45. There are some others related to it. Motion No. 45 specifies that no research on embryos or reproductive research should be done except as provided specifically in the regulations. I think that this is extremely important and I want to talk a little about why I see this as an extremely important and sensitive issue and why it is such an important amendment, which simply must be made, I believe, before we can pass the bill in good conscience.
I certainly have concerns, as do many colleagues in the Canadian Alliance and certainly some members in other parties. When we are looking at this whole issue of embryonic research, we are getting into an ethical area that is extremely difficult to deal with. It is a sensitive and very emotional issue and members can understand why. It does divide Canadians. We have seen that through several different petitions that have been tabled in the House. These petitions have pointed out the divisions in Canadian society which have to do with this issue.
When we look at the issue of reproductive technology, it is such an exciting issue to even talk about because the potential of the research in this area, the potential cures, the potential for dealing with very difficult diseases that our friends, our families, and people we know in our communities are suffering from, is almost unimaginable. It is truly an exciting area to be talking about. To me, it seems that it simply is not right to put this very difficult ethical issue into the mix when it is unnecessary, and I want to explain that.
Embryonic stem cell research inevitably results in the death of an embryo, which is early human life. For many Canadians this violates a very important ethical commitment to the respect of human dignity, human integrity and human life. I believe, as do many Canadians, that it is an incontestable scientific fact that an embryo is early human life. The complete DNA of an adult human being is present at the early embryo stage. Whether that life is owed protection or not is an issue that is in some debate and brings up this controversial ethical issue, which again I argue is completely unnecessary to bring into the mix. Again I want to explain why I say that.
I say that because adult stem cell research has proven to be so successful. In spite of the fact that research has been done on human embryos for a much longer period of time, and I know that some very large companies have invested millions and millions, probably billions, of dollars on embryonic research, it has not borne results. There has not been one cure. Not even one individual has been dealt with in an effective way to lessen the symptoms of a disease, to make it easier for a person to live with a terrible disease. There is not one example of that.
Yet with adult stem cell research, which has been dealt with for a much shorter period of time, and it is new research by all measures, there have been terrifically exciting results from it. Knowing this, why do we want to get into the difficult ethical issue? What the motion calls for is a three year moratorium on research on embryonic stem cells. It seems like a very reasonable approach. It stays away from the ethical issue and it encourages research on an area that has proven to be so successful, that is, adult stem cell research.
There are so many advantages to adult stem cell research and I just want to talk a little about them. Adult stem cells have proven to be safe. They are a proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. The sources of adult stem cells are, and this is important to note, umbilical cord blood, skin tissue and bone tissue. It is quite broad. It can certainly be obtained from any human quite easily.Adult stem cells are easily accessible and are not subject to immune rejection.
This is one of the real drawbacks of the research that has been done so far on embryonic stem cells. First, in all cases they are obtained from another human being and there is a rejection problem. Any individuals receiving embryonic stem cells into their bodies will have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. They are very expensive drugs that have quite a remarkable impact on the body. They are not something to be taken lightly. That problem of immune rejection is a very serious problem, a problem we do not find with adult stem cell research simply because adult stem cells come from the same human being who is being treated.
There is a very important distinction between the two that has proven to be a remarkable advantage and that I think will lead to a future in adult stem cell research which simply will not be there in embryonic stem cell research. Of course we have found from the embryonic stem cell research done to date that the cells are so unstable that very strange things happen, including completely unanticipated tumours in experiments done with animals where embryonic stem cells were used. That type of thing is caused by the instability of the cells themselves. Adult stem cells simply do not have that problem.
I think it is important to note again that embryonic research has not led to a single cure to date, whereas already adult stem cells have been extremely successful, in spite of the shorter research period. I think that should lead us to do what the committee called for originally, which was to put in place a three year moratorium on embryonic stem cell research. By that time, I would suggest, it will be clear that there will be no need and in fact no reason to use embryonic stem cells for research.
For those reasons, I want to again encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 45 from Group No. 3, which deals with this very important issue.
There is one other issue I want to deal with. There are several motions in Group No. 3 that deal with the issue: Motion No. 28, put forth by the member for St. Paul's; Motions Nos. 29 and 30; and there are some others as well that were put forth by members of the Liberal Party.
Motion No. 28 is a motion which would delete prohibitions on surrogacy in order that they can be dealt with in regulations. I am a person who believes that if there is an issue of this magnitude to be dealt with, this issue of surrogacy, that issue should be dealt with in the legislation itself, not in regulation where it can be manipulated quite freely by the civil servants dealing with the issue. I simply do not think that is acceptable. I think Canadians expect parliamentarians, on important issues like this, to in fact have them dealt with in legislation, not in regulation.
I will oppose Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
I know that my time is up, but I really want to encourage members of the House to support Motion No. 45 and to oppose Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30. These changes, along with some others, are extremely important and if they are dealt with we can have an extremely exciting piece of legislation that will lead to unbelievable things in the future. Those of us who see our family members, our friends and people in our community with diseases like Parkinson's disease can at least look with hope to some remarkable cures in the near future.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-13. I have spoken to all of the other groups, I believe, and I am taking an active interest in this bill. At this time I would like especially to commend my colleague from Yellowhead for his tremendous efforts on this very opaque bill that involves of course great questions of moral import as well as areas of science which normally are not the purview of members of Parliament. I would also like to commend my hon. friend opposite from Mississauga South for his efforts and the many constructive amendments which he has brought forward.
Let me turn, then, to the motions before us and say that first there are Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30, all of which jointly and separately seek to eliminate the prohibition in the bill against paid surrogacy. It is my view, and in fact it was the unanimous view of all five parties at the Standing Committee on Health's review of the original draft of Bill C-13, that legislation ought indeed to prohibit paid surrogacy. There is a very broad consensus on that point in this place and indeed among expert witnesses who have appeared before parliamentary committees on this question.
Why is that the broad consensus? Because there is something fundamentally offensive with the notion that the act of human reproduction can and should be commodified, that it can and should become a market service, that to compel somebody, through financial incentive, to bear someone else's child in a sense cheapens the invaluable act of motherhood upon which a price cannot be placed. Of course paid surrogacy would likely lead to many abuses, where low income women would be, in a sense, financially exploited for the rental of their wombs. It seems to me that this would open the doors. Were we to permit it and pass these amendments in Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30, it would be denigrating the inherent dignity of women and the reproductive process. For those reasons, I will oppose these three motions.
I also would like to specifically note that Motion No. 29 seeks payment for legal services in arranging surrogacy, et cetera. It seems to me that we ought not to be concerned about lawyers' fees in commodification of the process of human reproduction; rather, we should be concerned about human dignity, both of women and of nascent human life itself.
I also will support Motions Nos. 32, 33 and 36 in the name of the member for Mississauga South, which seek to prohibit the purchase of fetuses or fetal tissue or fetal parts and which add a prohibition on the sale of fetuses or fetal tissue. Similarly, Motion No. 39 would prohibit the transfer of ownership of embryos or reproductive materials, thereby supporting the goal of preventing commodification around assisted human reproduction.
The notion that we can and should be able to buy and sell human beings, living or deceased, or the parts of their bodies, reflects a fundamental philosophical error in terms of our understanding of what man is. Human beings are different in kind from all other living species. Human beings are different because they possess an inviolable dignity which is not granted by the state or a court and which cannot be traded on any market.
It is an inviolable dignity understood in theological terms expressed by all of the great religions as human beings created in the image and likeness of God, and understood in secular philosophical terms as the only rational being which possesses a special and inherent dignity which cannot be violated.
Regardless from which theological or philosophical perspective one comes, except for a brutally cold Huxleyan and utilitarian perspective, it is in my view impermissible to see the human body as a commodity to be chopped up and sold on the market to the highest bidder, which the bill currently permits with respect to embryos, fetal parts, et cetera.
I will support Motion No. 44 as a provision that adoption of embryos should be restricted, except as provided in the regulations, that is to say that we should carefully govern the transfer of the ownership of embryos as currently worded in the bill. The biological parents would theoretically be permitted to transfer ownership of their child, which is the embryo. It is the successful result of the reproduction of their genetic material and it is a nascent human being.
I believe that this nascent human being, by virtue of being a human being, is created within a family, meaning by and within the relationship of a mother and a father. It is therefore wrong and impermissible to trade or exchange its ownership to a biological laboratory which wishes to experiment on and/or destroy that nascent human life. This would create greater regulatory oversight of embryonic adoption.
I am strongly in support of the principle of embryonic adoption where the idea is to give that embryo the opportunity to realize its potential as a full human being through implantation into the womb of a mother who is infertile and who seeks a fertilized embryo. There have been hundreds of cases of successful embryonic adoption and implantation in the United States, not paid surrogacy but embryonic adoption, which vitiates the argument put forth by the Minister of Health that so-called surplus embryos created ostensibly for reproductive purposes will be thrown in the trash if they are not used by researchers. The cases in the United States make it plainly clear that there is an alternative to destroying these embryos and that alternative is embryonic adoption, properly governed and regulated.
I will also oppose Motions Nos. 46, 49, 51, and 95, which again seek to liberalize the bill with respect to surrogacy and again to commodify the reproductive process.
In closing, I am hopeful that all members have taken very seriously the time of debate that we have had on these amendments and will vote with their conscience tonight. I hope that all members will vote in a free vote. In particular, I call for members to look closely at my motion, Motion No. 17 in Group No. 2, which seeks to ban the odious practice of embryonic stem cell research and to assert thereby the inalienable dignity of innocent human life.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The first question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(Motion No. 28 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 28 lost. Therefore, I declare the amendment to Motion No. 46 lost and Motion No. 46 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(Motion No. 29 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 29 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(Motion No. 30 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 30 lost. Therefore, I declare the amendment to Motion No. 49 lost and Motion No. 49 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on Motion No. 32 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 39. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on Motion No. 39 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on Motion No. 44 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on Motion No. 45 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on Motion No. 51 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 95.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, National Defence; the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Foreign Affairs.
The question is on Motion No. 4 at the report stage of Bill C-13.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would find consent that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with the Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to apply the vote just taken on report stage Motion No. 5 to report stage Motion No. 7.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote on Motion No. 5 to Motion No. 7.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the vote on Motion No. 7, and if you would please be patient, there may be people who wish to change their vote from the first vote on Motion No. 4.
However, there have been discussions and therefore I am asking for the consent of the House that the vote on Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin be applied to Motions Nos. 9, 82, 83, 85, 86 and 89.
The Speaker: I suggest we proceed with the vote on Motion No. 7 since it is unaffected and it is the next one.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we have 40-some votes and a whole bunch of them under that member's name. I am wondering if we are going to stand here and vote for every group. I was under the impression that we had an agreement that we would apply some of these votes or a good portion of them.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is my intent to apply the vote just taken to 40 other motions. There are, however, two additional motions that other members in the opposition did want to speak on, so I cannot do the entire 40 in one shot, but I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to apply the vote just taken to report stage Motions Nos. 9, 10, 55, 75, 77 and 80, all my motions.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 55, 75, 77 and 80?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, we would have some problems with applying the vote just taken to Motion No. 75, because we will be voting differently than we did on Motion No. 7.
As for Motion No. 9—
The Speaker: Perhaps the Chair can be of assistance. The question before the House is on Motion No. 9.
Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on Motion No. 7 to Motion No. 9?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is there unanimous consent of the House to apply the vote just taken on Motion No. 7 to Motion No. 10?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Motion No. 10.
So, we are not voting as we did on Motion No. 9.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote on Motion No. 9 with the Bloc members voting yes and all others remaining the same?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: We are on Motion No. 10, applying the vote taken on Motion No. 7, which we just recorded a few minutes ago. It was the last one. On Motion No. 10 there are going to be some changes.
The whip for the Bloc Quebecois indicated that the members of his party would be voting in favour of this motion.
Are there any other changes? If so, I will hear them.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are voting no.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 10 members of the Canadian Alliance will be voting yes.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, I want to be sure that the vote being recorded will represent the votes as they were split, because the members for New Brunswick Southwest, Cumberland—Colchester, Gander—Grand Falls, Saint John and St. John's East should be recorded as voting yes.
The Speaker: The hon. member indicates that he wants it changed, so we will leave it as it was on Motion No. 7. That is the vote that is to be applied on Motion No. 10.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 52.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to Motion No. 52 carried. The question, therefore, is on Motion No. 52 as amended.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on this motion that has just been amended, I believe you would find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on this motion with the Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting yes. I would like to add the member for Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote against the motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote against the motion.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the motion.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I abstained on the previous vote but on this vote I would like to be recorded as voting with the government.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas votes against the motion.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, like the member for Scarborough Centre, I abstained on the previous motion but I would like to be recorded as having voted with the government in this vote.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I need clarification. Was the vote just taken on Motion No. 52 as amended?
If so, the members of the NDP vote in favour of this motion.
The Speaker: Yes, the vote was on Motion No. 52 as amended.
(The House divided on Motion No. 52, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 52, as amended, carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 53.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek the consent of the House that those who were recorded as voting on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yes, with the addition of the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote yes and I would like to add the name of the member for North Vancouver.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote against the motion.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote in favour of the motion, as does the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the motion.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that my vote on Motion No. 53 is the same as my vote on the amendment of Motion No. 52, which is no.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as being in favour of the motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 53, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 53 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 55.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I think you would find agreement that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on Motion No. 55 with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will vote yes, unless there are some who would like to vote otherwise.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on Motion No. 55.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party vote yes on this motion.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes, with the exception of the member for Fundy—Royal and the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who will vote no.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the vote of the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
The Speaker: Members who are arising to indicate they are not voting in accordance with the expressed view of their whip will now be recognized.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting no.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting no.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 55, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 55 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 71.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with Motion No. 71, on which I think there is agreement that we want a standing vote, I would request the consent of the House to apply the vote just taken on Motion No. 55 to Motions Nos. 100, 104, 33 and 45.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, just as a clarification because I could not write fast enough when my whip was speaking. I believe Motion No. 100 was mentioned and I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of Motion No. 100. I believe she also mentioned Motion No. 33 and I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of Motion No. 33. I would also like to be recorded as voting in favour of Motion No. 45. Were there any other motions?
The Speaker: The hon. member will have to pay close attention, it is Motion No. 104.
Tom Wappel: I cannot write that fast.
The Speaker: Well I managed and she spoke quite slowly. We are wasting time. Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the application of these votes?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 100, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 100, 104, 33 and 45 lost. The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest will have his voted noted in the appropriate record.
The next question is on Motion No. 71.
(The House divided on Motion No. 71, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 71 carried. The next question is on Motion No. 72.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am getting messages that there would now be consent.
The Speaker: Order. Whatever the source, I am sure the House will want to hear the chief Government whip.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, Motion No. 72, with the Liberal members voting as they voted on the previous motion.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members would vote no to this motion.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on Motion No. 72.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP are voting no.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no, with the exception of the member for Fundy—Royal who will be voting yes.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be counted as opposing this motion.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as opposing this motion as well.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, there was a miscommunication with my deputy whip and I will in fact be voting no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 72, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 72 carried.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in this newfound spirit of cooperation, I would ask that the results of Motion No. 9 be applied to the following motions: Motions Nos. 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 93, 105, 106, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 40 and 47.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you added two more motions to that list which the whip for the official opposition seems to have forgotten, Motions Nos. 39 and 44, you would still find consent.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed as outlined?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my vote to those motions.
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation I would like to ask that on the whole last group of votes that my votes be recorded as no on only the following motions: Motions Nos. 82, 83, 85,86, 88, 89, 24, 27, 40 and 47.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be recorded in the negative on the following motions: Motions Nos. 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 40, 47, 39, and 44.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be recorded as no on Motions Nos. 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 16, 20, 27, 40 and 47.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with the government on each of the present motions.
Mr. Andy Savoy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as having voted with the government on these applied motions.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no, with the members for New Brunswick Southwest, Cumberland--Colchester, Gander--Grand Falls, Saint John and St. John's East voting yes.
The Speaker: The vote on Motion No. 9 was applied. Do the hon. members not split on Motion No. 9? Is it necessary therefore to make changes? Are they not voting the same way they did on Motion No. 9?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ensure that we were voting the same way as we voted on Motion No. 9.
The Speaker: On Motion No. 9 there were five members who voted yea in the hon. member's party, and there were three members who voted nay, if that clarifies matters for him somewhat.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, it is only to obtain a clarification. Are Motions Nos. 88 and 89 included?
The Speaker: Yes, they are.
(The House divided on Motion No. 82, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 93, 105, 106, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 40, 47, 39 and 44 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 74.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent that the vote taken on Motion No. 53 be applied to Motion No. 74.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 74, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 74 carried. The next question is on Motion No. 75.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, again I believe you would find consent in the House to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 5 to Motion No. 75 and also to apply the same vote to Motions Nos. 80 and 32.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Joe Peschisolido: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my vote to that.
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 80, I would like to be recorded as voting no.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the name of the member for Winnipeg Centre.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes, with the member for South Shore and the member for Fundy—Royal voting no.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 80, I would like my vote to be recorded as no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 80, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 80, 32 and 75 lost. I also wish to advise the House that the vote taken on Motion No. 32 applies to Motion No. 36 and accordingly it is also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 77.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe that both the opposition whip and I made a mistake. You will find that the vote on Motion No. 9 will also apply to the vote on Motion No. 77, with the consent of the House of course.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the vote on Motion No. 9 apply to Motion No. 77?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Andy Savoy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting for the government on Motion No. 77.
Joe Peschisolido: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting yes on this motion.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting yes.
Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting yes.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remove the name of the member for Peace River from that vote.
(The House divided on Motion No. 77, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 77 lost.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, would you please remove from the previous vote the name of the member for Gatineau who just left the Chamber.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 84.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 carried. Accordingly, Motion No. 84 is also carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 81.
(The House divided on Motion No. 81, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 81 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 103.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on Motion No. 103, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on that motion Canadian Alliance members wish to vote yes.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote no to Motion No. 103.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be voting no and I would like to add the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes with members for Richmond—Arthabaska, Fundy—Royal and South Shore voting no.
The Speaker: There will be a number of members changing their votes from what was stated by the whip, so we will try to do this.
The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.
Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes to Motion No. 103.
Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting yes.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes for Motion No. 103.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on Motion No. 103.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Speaker, I also will be voting yes on this motion.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes to the motion.
Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, in our parliamentary parlance: ditto.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 103, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 103, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 103 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 13.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House wishes a standing vote on Motion No. 13, but perhaps before proceeding with that we could seek the consent of the House to apply to Motion No. 14 the vote just taken on Motion No. 103.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote on Motion No. 103 to Motion No. 14?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost. The next question, then, is on Motion No. 13.
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was carried on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 carried. The next question is on Motion No. 17.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 51. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 95.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberals by and large voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(The House divided on Motion No. 51, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 51 carried.
I therefore declare Motion No. 95 carried.
Anne McLellan: 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I would like to apologize to the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for being short with him during the proceedings earlier this day.
I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' hour this day.
The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting.
I understand that the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North would like the unanimous consent of the House to have his vote recorded as a yea on the vote just taken. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Business of the HouseMichel Guimond: Madam Speaker, I had indicated to the table clerks my desire to raise a point of order before debate was resumed.
There has been consultation among all the parties and I believe that you would find unanimous consent, in connection with Bill C-230, a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Manicouagan, for the order to be discharged and the bill withdrawn.
There is consent among all parties on this.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Adjournment Proceedings
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to elaborate on my question about the issue of the new maritime helicopter procurement. At the time the defence minister replied to my question which had been directed to the public works minister, but the genesis of the whole issue is whether we are getting the best value for the new dollars we are going to spend.
After 10 years of foot dragging on this issue, the cancellation of the EH-101s which the previous government had ordered, we find the government is now in a hurry to be seen to be doing something but it has really given up the pretence that it is out to get helicopters as fast as possible. There have been 10 years of the government dragging its feet.
I am really concerned. Does the minister understand that the best price and lowest dollar is not necessarily the same as best value? We have to talk about the lifetime of the contract, the helicopters in place, maintenance of them and fleet commonality. A lot of those things come into best value when we start to describe it.
Best value is called for by the Auditor General, Treasury Board guidelines, the public works manual and of course the new finance minister in his 2003 budget. If the minister will not deny that bureaucrats are using lowest cost compliance to choose a contractor, then how can the minister explain the dumbing down of requirements for the potential new helicopter? I will run through the points where the government has weakened the bid.
Does the new chopper need twin landing gear? The old Sea King has it. Does it need to take off with a full load in zero wind conditions? The Sea King can. Does it need to fly more than two hours and twenty minutes? The Sea King, even at 40 years of age, can still do it. Does it need to carry more than one little torpedo if it is warm out? There is the load capacity. The Sea King can carry two now, formerly four. Does it need to cruise faster than 120 knots? The Sea King can still maintain and sustain 151 knots. Does it need to be able to handle new equipment in the years ahead? Apparently it is acceptable that its performance falls off.
What is listed as specs for the new helicopter does not even compete with the 40-year-old Sea Kings that we have today. The government has lowered the requirements to try to bring in a cheap price to justify the cancellation from 10 years ago. It is a terrible way to operate a procurement procedure.
Canadian taxpayers, and of course we in the opposition, would like an explanation why the government is looking for a helicopter that is slower, smaller, less safe and less capable than our 40-year-old Sea Kings.
A lot of it seemed to come to pass when the Prime Minister's Office made the cancellation. Now it seems to be muddling up the requirement process in the new procurement. It was debundled under the former public works minister who is now an ambassador. We hope he is doing a better job as an ambassador than he did as public works minister. He debundled it, split it apart. He took the airframe and got bids on that, and then got bids on the whole mission suite and the guts of the unit from someone else. Everybody said that was not the right way to go, that it was totally wrong-headed.
The government has rebundled it under the new ministers who are in place. That is a good idea but it seems to us to have more to do with the Sikorski-Bombardier partnership than it does with the common sense that is required in this type of procurement.
The bottom line is, who is holding it up? Why? Why are we flipping and flopping on this? Why is the government not talking about fleet commonality the same as it did with the Challengers?
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for giving me the opportunity to participate in my first adjournment debate as parliamentary secretary.
Canada has long been a country dedicated to peace and security, and an important part of that security obviously are the Canadian armed forces. We have demonstrated this commitment time and again and, in many circumstances, the men and women of the Canadian Forces have been an essential part of preserving the security and peace of Canadians.
The Canadian Forces also have the capability to respond to a wide range of operational requirements with respect to Sea King helicopters. As I said, time and again the Canadian Forces have demonstrated their ability to meet the requirements asked of them by the government, both at home and on missions abroad.
Our shipborne helicopters, currently the Sea Kings, have been an important part of the success of the Canadian Forces. In recent years, the Sea King fleet as a whole has performed very well in peace support, in maritime surveillance and as a secondary requirement in search and rescue operations.
That being said, the government has recognized that there are limitations with respect to the current Sea King fleet and that is why the goal of the government is to upgrade the Sea King fleet and, ultimately, and we hope quickly, replace the Sea Kings.
The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster referred to the single tender approach that the minister announced in December. We believe this single tender approach will accelerate the procurement process, involve less risk and reduce the cost to Canadians.
The minister has stated time and again that his wish is that this procurement proceed quickly and on a priority basis. In fact, last Friday the government received letters of interest from four companies interested in being potential prime contractors for this project.
It is the government's responsibility to carefully manage all major crown procurements and the steps in this process are designed to ensure fairness, openness and, of course, transparency.
Not only is the valuation methodology for the new maritime helicopter consistent with Treasury Board policy, but the office of the Auditor General has stated that “There is more than one way to achieve best value”. She goes on to say “In these circumstances a lowest cost compliant approach to this type of procurement could give rise to best value”.
Our approach allows us to meet the operational needs of our military as specified by the military at the lowest life cycle cost to taxpayers. That is an important statement. The operational requirements for the maritime helicopter project have been determined by the military and at no point have we changed the operational requirements for this procurement.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity given to me by the hon. member to congratulate and thank the Canadian Forces for their extraordinary work carried out in situations that are often very difficult. These men and women make a daily contribution to our country and our collective security. We are all very proud of them.
Gerry Ritz: Madam Speaker, of course all of us in the House agree on the great job our men and women in the armed forces do and, in a lot of cases, do in spite of the rambling, old equipment with which they are forced to work.
There is an old axiom in real estate. There are only three rules in real estate: location, location, location. There is really only the same type of axiom in purchasing and procurement: best value, best value, best value.
We saw the helicopter issue debundled and chased around the block for 10 years under the Liberal government. We have now seen it rebundled. The government says that it has four inquiries of potential bidders, which is fantastic, but the big point it is making here is life cycle cost. I guess it just goes beyond all reason that we did buy the best ones in 1963 because they had to do double duty. They have extended their life cycle by double. Instead of a 20 year life cycle, they have been extended to 40 years. Therefore if we had bought the cheapest ones in 1963 they would not have lasted and performed as they have.
I would ask the government to make sure it gets past this lowest price compliance attitude that it has and think about best value for that life cycle that it will probably extend again.
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern and support for the men and women of our forces but on this side of the House we strongly support the decision of the minister and the outstanding job that the minister is doing in accelerating this procurement process.
We recognize that the Sea King fleet needs to be replaced. However there are a number of common misunderstandings with respect to the replacement. To use the word cheapest helicopter or to say best value as a way to exceed the operational requirements as determined by the military is not entirely accurate.
It is well-known that the debate around best value in this procurement is fueled largely by one private sector company which is free to pursue, in whatever way it wishes, this procurement process. However the government has been consistent and it has been clear. The operational requirements for this procurement have been determined by the military. They have not been changed. We believe that the contracting process currently underway will lead to the best possible helicopter as quickly as possibly, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, Kurdish Canadians, indeed Kurds around the world, are deeply concerned about the potential for grave tragedy throughout Kurdistan.
On December 13 of last year I asked the Solicitor General a question in the House concerning the listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, now known as KADEK, which stands for Kurdistan Democracy and Freedom Congress. I asked the government why it was now criminalizing Canadians who want to support the peaceful struggle of the Kurds for justice and human rights, for respect for their language and culture and for an end to the jailing of Kurdish MPs like Leyla Zana. I asked the government why it added this peaceful organization which quite some time ago renounced the armed struggle for justice for the Kurdish people. The answer from the Solicitor General was totally unacceptable.
I want to highlight today, in the brief time I have, a number of other very serious concerns affecting the Kurdish community. Recently Turkey banned a legal party known as KADEK. It was a deliberate provocation by the Turkish government, there is no doubt about it. It was hoping that Kurds in Turkey would react violently, thereby giving the Turks an excuse to crack down and for invading Iraqi Kurdistan to “root out the terrorists”. Five KADEK mayors in Turkey have already been jailed. Others have been interrogated and/or detained, but so far there has been no violent reaction from the Kurds in Turkey.
We all know that the Turks have a terrible history of repression and brutality directed at the Kurds within Turkey. They have destroyed villages. Currently Human Rights Watch has pointed out that they are refusing to allow thousands of villagers to return to their homes three years after the hostilities have ended.
Now, with the United States led invasion of Iraq, there is a very serious concern that the Turkish government may take advantage of this to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. This would have a disastrous impact on the Kurds in northern Iraq.
I am here today to call on the government to not only revert its decision with respect to the listing of KADEK, but to call on our government to speak out forcefully and call on the Turkish government and all other neighbouring countries not to intervene militarily in Iraqi Kurdistan for any reason.
Our government must also call for the protection of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan from a possible retaliatory use of chemical and/or biological weapons by the Iraqi regime. Our government must call as well for the recognition of the right to self-determination for the Kurdish people.
This is a critical time for the Kurdish people, particularly in northern Iraq. They have carved out communities there in which there is a degree of autonomy, and we must not allow the Turkish government to move in and destroy that.
It is also critically important that the Kurdish government and international relief organizations receive the desperately needed aid to handle the thousands and even tens of thousands of Iraqis who may cross into Iraqi Kurdistan at any time.
Today once again I want to appeal to our government to speak out. Its silence has been deafening. It should call on the United States and on the United Kingdom to demand that Turkey not in any way take advantage of this opportunity. It should make sure no deals have been done between the United States and Turkey to allow the United States to overfly its territory in exchange for a licence to the Turks to invade Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Kurds were betrayed once in 1991. They must not be betrayed again.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his comments. I will limit my comments to the question that he asked in December because he found the response unsatisfactory.
The member for Burnaby--Douglas is dissatisfied, unhappy, and disagrees with the fact that the federal government, through the Solicitor General, has listed the Kurdistan Workers Party, otherwise known as PKK and which is now commonly referred to as the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress or KADEK as the member for Burnaby--Douglas mentioned, pursuant to the Criminal Code on December 11, 2002.
What does that mean? It means that under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which received royal assent on December 18, 2001, the government has the ability to create a list of entities.
Under the Criminal Code, the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada, establish a list of entities if the governor in council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity, or is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with an entity that has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity.
PKK was also listed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs pursuant to Canada's United Nations suppression of terrorism regulations on November 7, 2001, in other words, more than a year prior to the listing under the Criminal Code based on the recommendation of the Solicitor General.
The member has not mentioned that the PKK is known to have led a campaign of guerilla warfare and terrorism by attacking Turkish armed forces, diplomats and businesses in western European cities, and by attempting to destabilize tourism in Turkey by bombing resorts and kidnapping tourists. Such behaviour is clearly terrorist in nature. The listing of the PKK is one more means to ensure that such behaviour is not supported or facilitated from Canada.
It is clear that the Solicitor General, when making such a recommendation to the governor in council, has done so on clear information that has created reasonable grounds to believe that PKK or KADEK, as it is now known, is currently in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act in the sense that it has either knowingly facilitated, participated in, acted at the direction of terrorist activities, or facilitated such activities on the part of a terrorist organization.
Canada does not list entities lightly. We have had opposition members who have been really unhappy that we have not listed--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, it is clear that it is pressure from the Turkish government that is driving this policy because KADEK is a democratic and peaceful organization. I would point out that the PKK, as the member knows, renounced any armed struggle over three years ago.
I am concerned that since Canada placed KADEK on the list of terrorist organizations Kurds in Canada have been suffering. CSIS has hassled them. Many of them have been denied citizenship or other immigration status or documents because of past involvement in what is now considered a terrorist organization.
I am concerned that possible involvement with HADEP, the legitimate, legal political party that Turkey recently banned, may give rise to a harassment of those Kurds in Canada who have supported the work of HADEP, work which I strongly support as well.
Does the member not recognize that CSIS and the government are acting on outdated information here, and that they are acting in a way that is causing extreme hardship and unfairness to the Kurdish community in Canada?
Marlene Jennings: No, I do not, Madam Speaker, and I find it offensive that a member of the House would intimate that our government would act under pressure or that an independent intelligence service agency of our government would act under pressure from another government to list an entity based on no evidence whatsoever; I think that is shameful.
I would like to inform the member for Burnaby—Douglas that he may wish to inform PKK or KADEK, if he supports them that highly, that any listed entity, be it under the Criminal Code or the United Nations suppression of terrorism regulation, can apply to the Solicitor General asking to be removed from the list or lists. Under the Criminal Code, provisions also exist for a listed entity to have the listing decision reviewed by the judicial system. If the member is so convinced that there is no evidence to justify the listing of PKK or KADEK, he should inform KADEK or PKK of the possibility of asking for an appeal of that decision. He should do that.
I believe that the government has acted wisely. I know that the Solicitor General would not have made such a recommendation if reasonable grounds did not exist to believe that KADEK or PKK should be listed pursuant to the Criminal Code.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:53 p.m.)