2003-10-10

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last night the debate began on Bill C-38. It is a controversial bill. Yesterday the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford spoke on behalf of my party about this bill and outlined conditions which we on our side would consider for the decriminalization of marijuana, conditions that have not been fulfilled, that are some very serious issues which need to be addressed, and conditions by which many members of our party feel they could support the bill.
I want to address several issues that I feel are very important concerns that come out of this bill. There are five issues or reasons that come out of this bill and show that this bill is poorly thought out, poorly timed and a high risk for Canadians and for our society.
The first of the five issues I wish to address in the brief time allotted to me involves health. As members of the House, we should, I believe, be concerned about the health of Canadians. I think there are some very serious health issues related to the bill and to the use of marijuana.
The second issue is the effect that this bill would have on our young people and on children.
The third is safety. I am concerned about safety. There are some very serious safety issues. This bill would expose Canadians to significant risks.
The fourth is organized crime. There are some very serious concerns in this area.
Finally, the fifth is trade and the effect that this bill if implemented will have on our trade with our largest trading partner.
First, on the subject of health, the government is spending about $500 million taxpayer dollars on a health issue: trying to convince Canadians not to smoke cigarettes. That is a lot of money. We know that tobacco smoking is a very serious, undermining factor in regard to the health of Canadians, and it continues in spite of the warnings and the labels. Now, due to this bill, the Minister of Health is proposing to spend another $250 million trying to convince Canadians not to smoke marijuana at a time when we are making it easier for them to do so and lowering the consequences. I wonder if this is a good investment in our health care dollars.
If I had time to refer to it, I could quote the committee report, “Working Together to Redefine Canada's Drug Strategy”, from the committee chaired by the hon. member for Burlington. In the report, the committee correctly identified that marijuana contains tars and benzopyrenes far in excess of what cigarettes do. It is widely known or accepted that smoking two or three marijuana joints is the equivalent to smoking about 20 tobacco cigarettes.
I wonder if Canadians have had an open and thorough discussion about the liabilities we are exposing ourselves to if we increase and encourage this habit of smoking a product that is almost certain to undermine the health of long term users. These studies are not in place. I think Canadians deserve the right to discuss this more thoroughly before we take on liability for future health care costs and for future taxpayers.
I am concerned about the effect on children. The bill proposes a lower fine for young people aged 14 to 18 in regard to possession of marijuana. What kind of program is this? What kind of message does it send to our young people? We have heard about passing the buck, and that happens a lot, even in a place like this. There is a lot of passing the buck, but now we are passing the pot. I can see this encouraging older users to make sure there is a young person along with them so that if the police show up it would all belong to the young person. That is passing the pot. I think this is a very serious thing.
I am concerned about the effect that using these products has on our youth. There was a major article in the Vancouver Sun that talked about another drug, but I think it is related. It is called crystal methamphetamine. It is cheap. It is everywhere. It lasts for hours and does serious damage to the brain. It seems to be replacing marijuana for young people on the coast, and a lot of them, in fact, because it is cheap, readily available and is produced in many homes, in a dangerous fashion. However, for young people taking crystal meth, there is no place to deal with them. They are often paranoid when they come off this very nice high they get; they go through periods of paranoia and violence and have extraordinary strength because of the drug. Hospitals do not want them and care facilities do not want them.
I am concerned that the attitude the House would be projecting if we approve the bill would be to encourage young people, to say that drugs are okay, it is not a big problem, to use marijuana, but if it does not give them the high or costs a little too much or is a little hard to get, to try crystal meth. Once people cross that barrier of indulging in mood altering substances, it is a slippery slope with very nasty consequences.
On the safety concerns, we are closing our eyes to the fact that organized crime is very heavily involved in this issue, with billions of dollars. We estimate that in Canada, at least on the west coast, there are some 15,000 to 20,000 homes with illegal grow ops in them. They pirate hydro in a dangerous fashion. It is dangerous for the hydro workers and dangerous for the communities and neighbourhoods these houses are found in. It is dangerous to the children. It is estimated that one in four of these homes is rigged with illegal electricity, which creates fire hazards for our police and firemen going to these homes. Many of them are booby trapped, but there are children living in these homes. That is a very serious concern.
The fact is that there are billions of dollars going into this illegal drug trade. Do we think that by decriminalizing this we are going to undermine criminals' ability to earn profits from this? Or are we in fact increasing the market for their product?
An article from the Vancouver Sun of May 9 reports:

In every neighbourhood: Marijuana has transformed B.C. from crime backwater into the centre of a multi-billion-dollar industry that has crept into communities across the province.

The article states that the cultivation of marijuana is estimated to be worth $4 billion a year in sales. By increasing the market for these products, are we trying to encourage organized crime?
I know the justice minister will say that he is toughening up penalties, as if that would be a deterrent, and he says maximum penalties, by the way. If we really wanted to send a message, we would toughen up by increasing minimum penalties, because the same article goes on to say that jail terms were imposed in only 18% of the cases and the average length of the jail terms was just under five months. The consequences are too low for this type of crime.
This same article goes on to state:

High profitability, low risk, and relatively lenient sentences continue to entice growers and traffickers, making it difficult, if not impossible, for law enforcement agencies to make a truly lasting impact on the marijuana cultivation industry in Canada.

Do we really think that by making it more available we are going to help the police in this cause and will the judges impose anything other than minimum sentences and minimum fines?
Thus, there are very serious concerns related to organized crime.
Returning to the safety issue, the police have an opportunity to take a breathalyzer test for someone who is under the influence of alcohol, but we currently have no test to determine impairment from drugs or from marijuana. I know there are experiments with a blood test. It is one thing to take a breathalyzer test from someone at the side of the road. However, when someone is under the influence, it might be a high risk activity for both parties involved for a police officer to take a blood sample.
Blood is a high risk factor. I can imagine a police officer who is trying to take a blood sample getting a spurt in the eye. There could be serious health risks associated with that in this day of viral diseases, AIDS, hepatitis C and so on. What kind of risk are we exposing our officers to?
I am also concerned about trade issues. Our neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States, is clearly not going this way. We have huge trade, about $2 billion, going across the border every day and our country is very dependent on that. My riding is hurting right now because of hold-ups with the softwood lumber tariffs and we have other border issues that we are trying to resolve with the Americans.
What are we doing to our borders for the citizens who like to travel to the U.S.? The United States is certainly not going our way on increasing marijuana possession. We are creating another barrier for citizens who want to travel to the United States to visit their families, to holiday, to do business and for other reasons. We are putting ourselves at risk.
There are serious health concerns associated with the bill. Smoking anything is not good for us. I can well imagine the risk that the health minister is exposing us to with medical marijuana. Her department is sending out packets of marijuana seeds to medical doctors to dispense to their patients to grow their own.
I can see well-heeled liability lawyers who like to sue governments taking a class action suit when we find that down the road some of these people have been taking so-called medical marijuana with no proof that it will help anyone. What kind of liability are we exposing future taxpayers to?
We had a serious issue with hepatitis C and compensation related to that. What kind of liability are we exposing taxpayers to when people using this product develop cancer or some other serious debilitating element because of this?
These are serious issues that need to be discussed. I hope these issues will be thoroughly aired before a decision is made by the House.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak at this stage in the debate on Bill C-38 which, as you and I both know, is getting a lot of media coverage and is the topic of much conversation in the homes of Quebec and Canada, because this is an issue that really grabs people. Often the debate is based on preconceived ideas. I would therefore encourage my colleagues in this House to ignore any preconceived ideas and to address the problem in the most objective way possible, and not to be blinded by ideology.
There are two statements that need to be made at the outset. First, smoking, regardless of what substance is smoked, is not good for people's health. This is, in my opinion, a very obvious statement, unless one is blinded by some ideology, just as one can say that drinking alcohol is not exactly the healthiest thing to do either.
Second, the repressive approach used by governments, particularly those in North America, is not working. Despite the millions of dollars, the amount of effort and the law enforcement resources invested in the battle against drugs, there is no disputing that government repression has not worked. Just about everyone agrees on these two statements, I believe.
Having made those two statements, let us now look at what direction we can take to deal with the problems referred to. It must be pointed out that Bill C-38 is supported in principle by the Bloc Quebecois. We do, however, believe that any measures to soften the approach to cannabis possession must go hand in hand with preventive and educational measures aimed at the population in general, but young people in particular.
The provinces must be the ones involved in prevention, because—being education—it falls under their jurisdiction, and not the federal government as part of a so-called national drug strategy.
I must point out in this connection that the Bloc Quebecois agrees that possession of marijuana will always be illegal and that there will always be sanctions, though not under the Criminal Code. This is an approach the Bloc Quebecois agrees with.
We do have one problem, however, since we do not know the breakdown of the $245 million allocated to the national drug strategy. In order to be logical, within this federal system we are living in but want out of, this money ought to go to the provinces, and to agencies reporting to the provinces with expertise in drug education, prevention and the campaign against drug abuse.
There is one other thing that disturbs us about Bill C-38 and that is the latitude given to police officers. Members will recall that one of the reasons for suggesting that the penalty for simple possession of marijuana be changed—so instead of having a criminal record, it would be a question of fines—was that the law was being enforced differently all over Canada. Often, in large urban centres, the police, overloaded with other cases, ignored simple possession, while the same person in a smaller city would be charged with a crime. That introduces issues of geographic inequality into the enforcement of the Criminal Code.
Contrary to the committee's recommendations, the first version of Bill C-38 left some discretion to police in deciding whether to lay criminal charges for possession of 15 to 30 grams of cannabis.
We recently heard that the Minister of Justice wants to lower that quantity from 15 to 10 grams. I want to remind everyone that this is one third of the amount envisaged by the committee established by the House. I am eager to hear the explanation for lowering it from 30 to 10 grams, which leaves even more discretionary power to the police. I really want to hear what the Minister of Justice has to say to this. I hope he will have some very serious figures to back him up, studies that will demonstrate and explain the reasoning behind this decision he seems to have already made.
It is all very well to say he is open to amendments, but I do not think the minister is saying this out of the goodness of his heart; I think he was unable to resist the pressure from some of his backbench MPs and pressure from his American counterpart. Therefore, I hope he will have good answers to give us regarding the lowering of the quantity on which criminal charges can be based.
Furthermore, I am quite eager to ask the Minister of Justice questions about an inconsistency when it comes to small-scale growers. Individuals possessing small quantities could be fined instead of charged, but individuals cultivating small quantities would be charged and could face harsh penalties.
My question for the minister—and I am prepared to consider any number of solutions—is that in doing this, we are forcing infrequent users to buy their supplies on the black market, which is controlled by organized crime rings.
Do we want to help these criminals earn more, even if only indirectly? I am asking because this bill lacks consistency, and I am very interested to hear how the Minister of Justice will respond to what I see as this obvious inconsistency in the bill before the House.
Furthermore, if we consider Bill C-38 in a broader context, the decriminalization of simple possession is a measure that will have a limited impact on changing the foundations of the war on drugs. Decriminalization, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is not the same as legalization. One would want to control the distribution, quality and price of products, and ensure adequate supply. That is the avenue suggested by a senator in a Senate report.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-38. However, we feel that there are various inconsistencies that must be remedied and corrected. Our overall approach to this bill is to leave ideology at home and hold an open discussion in the belief that a solution can be found. We hope that the Minister of Justice is doing likewise, and we are looking forward to working in committee to ensure that Canadian law is more responsive to the problems I raised at the beginning of my speech.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-38, the marijuana bill.
As we look at the title of the bill, the marijuana bill, one wonders why on the eve of the Prime Minister's departure from politics we are debating a marijuana bill as if it were one of the biggest priorities we have in the country. It seems to me that if the Prime Minister and the government have brought in this bill because they have run out of ideas, then maybe the Prime Minister should just pack up and go home? Canada could then get on with the business of governing and moving forward.
When we look at the marijuana bill, the optics look good. It would decriminalize the small use of marijuana but still control it through summary fines which would not be appear on one's record.
However, as we look deeper into the bill, we realize there are serious flaws. I will point out those flaws today and give the reasons the Canadian Alliance is opposed to the bill.
In election 2000 one of the candidates running against me was a young fellow from the Marijuana Party. I actually thought he was a very intelligent gentleman. His purpose for running against me was to bring out the issue of medicinal use of marijuana.
As well, about two weeks ago a gentleman from my constituency came to my office and we discussed at length the medicinal use of marijuana. He suffers from MS and said that marijuana gives him some relief.
I want to go back to the gentleman from the Marijuana Party because he did get his point out. However it obviously was not a priority with Canadians because he hardly got any votes. This makes one wonder why the government would bring forward Bill C-38. Bill C-38 does not address the issue of medicinal use of marijuana. It just talks about removing criminal conviction for a certain amount of this thing.
When I was a student we used to ask for student discounts when we bought something because we were always short of money. It seems that kind of thinking has crept into the bureaucracy and out from bureaucracy into the bill.
A youth between the ages of 14 and 18 would actually get a discount on the fine. Can anyone believe that? An adult would have to pay $150 but a youth would only have to pay $100. The youth actually gets a student discount on fines. Something is flawed with the bill.
The government says that it will put in $10,000 for the drug strategy. The drug strategy has its own issues out here.
What is the point of the bill? It is not a priority for Canadians. There are other issues. The medicinal use of marijuana is a bigger priority than this issue. I even heard the Prime Minister talk about this bill on national television saying that we should not judge people who use small amounts of marijuana.
Now we do agree on the optics. Even the Canadian Alliance agrees but we have come up with an amount that is not quite as big as the amount in the bill. We think that having five grams should not require a criminal investigation. We understand that, however, if one is in possession of 30 grams, which is more joints, who are we pleasing?
The bigger concern we have, with the discount that I talked about, is what kind of message are we sending to our youth?
On one level we are fighting tobacco by asking people not to smoke. On another level, we are opening up other issues that go along with that, for example, after how many joints will someone become intoxicated? Will the person be driving a car and will the police have the resources to test for marijuana substance in the blood?
When we have so many other issues it becomes very difficult for someone like me, who even had, as I said, an individual run against me in my election and understood its point of view, to support the bill as it is presented.
The Alliance would like the bill to go back to the committee where we can think about it. The bureaucrats have mistakenly brought forward this bill and the Prime Minister is in a rush to push it through before he departs. Why? Only he knows the rationale for that. What is the rush? This is not a priority on the radar screen. There are many other issues that have a higher priority for Canadians, such as health care and all the other issues, than a marijuana bill.
The Canadian Alliance has called for amendments to the bill and has asked that it be sent back to the committee where we can rethink it and, when we have nothing else to do, discuss the bill again.
Mr. Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently introduced Bill C-38, the proposed cannabis reform legislation, and I am pleased to debate the bill.
As the House is undoubtedly aware, countries treat cannabis possession in different ways. Some countries tolerate certain forms of possession and consumption, certain countries apply administrative sanctions or fines, and others apply penal sanctions.
However, despite the different legal approaches toward cannabis, a common trend can be seen, particularly in Europe, in the development of alternate measures to criminal prosecution for cases of the use and possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use. Fines, cautions, probation, exemption from punishment and counselling are favoured by many European justice systems.
Some Australian states and territories have also adopted cannabis decriminalization measures. Some of these measures are similar to what is being contemplated in Bill C-38. I would like to take a few moments to describe the situation in South Australia, the first Australian jurisdiction to adopt cannabis decriminalization measures.
Reform of the cannabis laws in South Australia came with the introduction of the controlled substances act amendment act, 1986. This amendment proposed a number of changes to the controlled substances act of 1984, including the insertion of provisions dealing with the expiation of simple cannabis offences. This represented the adoption of a new scheme for the expiation of simple cannabis offences, such as possessing or cultivating small amounts of cannabis for personal use, or possessing implements for using cannabis.
The cannabis expiation notice, CEN, scheme came into effect in South Australia in 1987. Under this scheme, adults committing simple cannabis offences could be issued with an expiation notice. Offenders were able to avoid prosecution by paying the specified fine or fees ranging from $50 Australian to $150 Australian within 60 days of the issue of the notice. Failure to pay the specified fees within 60 days could lead to prosecution in court and the possibility of a conviction being recorded.
Underlying this scheme was the rationale that a clear distinction should be made between private users of cannabis and those who are involved in dealing, producing or trafficking in cannabis. This distinction was emphasized at the introduction of the CEN scheme by the simultaneous introduction of more severe penalties for offences relating to the manufacture, production, sale or supply of all drugs of dependence and prohibited substances, including offences relating to larger quantities of cannabis.
The CEN scheme was modified by the introduction of the expiation of offences act, 1996, that now provides those served with an expiation notice the option of choosing to be prosecuted in order to contest being given the notice. Previously those served with a notice had to let the payment of expiation fees lapse in order to secure a court appearance to contest the notice. In choosing to be prosecuted, however, people issued a notice have their alleged offence converted from one which can be expiated to one which still carries the possibility of a criminal conviction.
The expiation system for minor cannabis offences in South Australia has been the subject of a number of evaluation studies. The impact of the implementation of such a system is therefore best seen there. As I mentioned, the South Australian cannabis expiation notice, CEN, system began in 1987. The main arguments for an expiation system were the reduction of negative social impacts upon convicted minor cannabis offenders and the potential cost savings. Implicit in the former view was the belief that the potential harms of using cannabis were outweighed by the harms arising from criminal conviction.
None of the studies upon levels and patterns of cannabis use in South Australia found an increase in cannabis use that was attributable to the introduction of the CEN scheme. Cannabis use did increase in South Australia over the period from 1985 to 1995, but increases in cannabis use were detected throughout Australia, including in jurisdictions that possessed a large prohibition approach to cannabis.
In fact, the largest increase in the rate of weekly cannabis use across all Australian jurisdictions occurred in Tasmania, a strict prohibitionist state, between 1991 and 1995. A comparative study of minor cannabis offenders in South Australia and Western Australia concluded that both the CEN scheme and the more punitive prohibition approach had little deterrent effect upon cannabis users.
Offenders from both jurisdictions reported that the expiation notice or conviction had little or no impact upon subsequent cannabis and other drug use. However, adverse social consequences of a cannabis conviction far outweighed those receiving an expiation notice. A significantly higher portion of those apprehended for cannabis use in Western Australia reported problems with employment, further involvement with the criminal system, as well as accommodation and relationship problems.
In the law enforcement and criminal justice areas, the number of offences for which cannabis expiation notices were issued in South Australia increased from 6,000 in 1987-88 to approximately 17,000 in 1993-94 and subsequent years. This appears to reflect the greater ease with which police can process minor cannabis offences and a shift away from the use of police discretion in giving offenders informal cautions to a process of formally recording all minor offences.
Substantial numbers of offenders still received convictions due to their failure to pay the expiation fees on time. This was due in large part to a poor understanding by cannabis users of the legal implications of not paying the expiation fees to avoid a court appearance and due to financial difficulties. Most CENs are issued for less than 25 grams of cannabis. Half of all CENs issued were received by people in the 18 to 24 age group.
There has been strong support by law enforcement and criminal justice personnel for the CEN scheme. The scheme has proven to be relatively cost effective and more cost effective than the prohibition would have been. The total costs associated with the CEN scheme in 1995-96 were estimated to be around $1.24 million Australian, while total revenue from fees and fines was estimated to be around $1.68 million Australian. Had a prohibition approach been in place, it is estimated that the total cost would have been around $2.01 million Australian, with revenues from fines being around $1 million Australian.
A report on the CEN scheme noted that it appeared to have numerous benefits for the community, not the least of which were the cost savings for the community as a whole, the reduced negative social impacts for the offenders, greater efficiency and ease in dealing with minor cannabis offences and less negative views of the police held by offenders.
The Australian Capital Territory in 1992 and the Northern Territory in 1996 introduced similar expiation schemes. Victoria implemented a system of cautions for minor cannabis offenders in 1998 and Western Australia has followed with a similar scheme.
The changes made in the cannabis laws in Australia are not technically decriminalization measures as cannabis possession still remains a criminal offence in all Australian provinces.
What has been changed is the reduction in the penalty for possessing small amounts of cannabis for personal use to something less than imprisonment, which is what is being proposed in Bill C-38.
I would like to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I will conclude my brief remarks by indicating that this piece of legislation goes a long way in the right direction.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not as high on the legislation as is the hon. member who just finished speaking.
I listened to the member's description of what happened in Australia. If this legislation is approved, I am not sure whether the result will be positive or negative. I am completely confused by some of the results of the study that was done in Australia. I do not think a very close analysis was made of that study, but in any case, the information is certainly not clear.
I will not be supporting the legislation as presented. That is not to say that by the time it comes back to the House we will see the same legislation simply because we have heard there is pressure within the Liberal Party to make changes to it. Every piece of legislation before us these days has been changed because one-half of the party supports it and the other half of the party which supports the other leader does not support it. This results in a stalemate and numerous amendments. It seems we are seeing that again.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: How do you unite the right?
Loyola Hearn: Let me deal with that. We talk about unification. There are all kinds of precedents for unifying two entirely different entities. What is really confusing is trying to unify one party. How can one party be unified? Unifying usually means bringing together two or more entities into one. But when there is one entity, and they are trying to bring it together into one entity, that is extremely confusing.
That is what the government is doing to the country. That is what it is doing to this legislation and other legislation. This is another carryover of what is going on within the great Liberal Party these days.
I will not make a blanket statement and say police generally do not support the legislation, but every police officer to whom I have spoken is against it. We have to ask ourselves what we are doing to society. When are we going to stop opening up the door, getting the thin edge of the wedge in, to destroying the type of society we have in Canada? Bill C-38 is an example.
Some people have said there will be less work for police officers. They have other things to do besides chasing after people who have a joint in their pockets, but the police are already chasing them to see if they have three or four joints in their pockets. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. People will still want to use marijuana. People will still want to sell marijuana. The door is now open for those who want to get involved in the illegal drug trade much more so than before because they have a ready market and there are all kinds of ways to cover up illegal activities. The work for our police forces will not be decreased. The door will now be open, the thin edge of the wedge will now be inserted, and our young people will have the opportunity to participate in activities from which they would be much better removed.
The government is creating a society which is not for the betterment of Canada. If we start allowing illegal activities, what will be next? Will we overlook a break and enter because only $50 was stolen or because only one window was broken? Is that not going to be considered a criminal offence any more?
Right is right and wrong is wrong. Laws are made for the protection of society, but in particular for the protection of our young people until they understand what society is all about. Legislation like this is certainly not going to help.
I will not go any further than that, except to say that I am entirely against the legislation. I do not think it is good for society. It is the thin edge of the wedge. It is just a cop-out by the government to get away from the type of work that it should be doing. It should fund our police forces properly. In Newfoundland for instance, there is talk that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is so underfunded that quite often in order to go to the scene of a crime, they have to hire a taxi. This is terrible.
The RCMP will tell us that they are not funded properly. They do not have the staffing levels to do what has to be done. They are saddled with bureaucracy. It is almost as bad as HRDC, and we will talk about that a little later.
If the government properly funded our police forces, we would not have to worry about saying “They do not have the bodies, they cannot do the work, so let us give them less work and the criminals will have a field day”. It is time the government put things in proper perspective and this is certainly not the way to start.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague who just spoke because he had words of wisdom, words that need to be heard across the land. Let us not get all excited about doing something new.
For example, when I first came to the House we were spending millions of taxpayers' dollars against the use of tobacco but at the same time we were taxing tobacco. Let me make a forecast that within a very few years we will be spending millions of dollars and advertising against the use of a drug which cannot and will not be controlled. We will not have any income from it either.
This is a dangerous move. Like my colleague who just spoke, I have 12 RCMP detachments in my constituency. Three or four of them have highway patrols. Members should ask any one of the highway patrols about the use of marijuana. They should ask them upfront, in private, and they will say that marijuana is more dangerous on the highway right now than alcohol.
A car can be completely out of control and a driver can be pulled over, but the test given will show a blood alcohol content of only about .02. Yet the driver could be worse off and have less control over the vehicle than had he or she blown more than .08.
Members of every single detachment tell me the same story. I do not want to hear these crapped up figures that people have come up with from some supportive scientists who want to see this situation continue. If we were to go to the Province of B.C., we would find unquestionably that the largest cash crop in the province comes from the illegal sale of marijuana. That is a fine statement for a province that is growing, and that will continue.
What else will continue is the actual uncontrolled amount of the acidity in the marijuana grown. It can be doubled or tripled. So one joint next week or a year from now will do three times as much damage as what we have at present.
I served as a justice of the peace for 25 years and I had these young people come before me. I was situated right in the centre of an area with four detachments. It was very convenient, 24 hours a day, to act very quickly. I felt sorry for these young people. They would come in and the fine was $100 plus $4 in costs. I never saw them ever take the money out of their wallets. They always had the money in their pockets. I felt badly for them but it was the in thing to do.
Instead of pushing this bill, the government should be taking money to advertise the growing danger of this drug to society. That is what we should be doing. We should be getting concrete scientific evidence as to what it could do. The government is so in favour of trying to reach out to get young votes at the cost of destroying their lives.
When I go home at night from here, I often stop at Tim Hortons and have--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: A donut.
Roy H. Bailey: No, a cup of cappuccino and a bagel. I too often see, not so much when it is a little chillier, youth out there. I know quite a bit about youth and I can pretty well judge their age, 14, 15 and 16 year olds. It is not a pretty sight.
I know what I did, and others did no doubt, out there sucking on the obnoxious weeds of tobacco. All this bill will do will increase the use of another obnoxious weed.
People cannot tell me that their lungs are not harmed when they inhale smoke. That is absolute nonsense. Why do we have masks for spraying? Why do we have masks for firefighters? Why do we have masks for any number of things? It is to protect the lungs.
I had the privilege to sit in an operating theatre and watch a lung removed from someone who had been smoking. It was the most grotesque thing I had ever witnessed in my life. There was even an odour to it.
Yesterday I went to watch the new film that will go out to every Royal Canadian Legion in the country entitled A Pittance of Time . It was a beautiful production. However, on the way back I took a shortcut because I was going to be late for a committee meeting. I watched some 15 year old youth or they may have been a little older. I could smell the marijuana. I can smell it just like I can smell sweet grass burning.
Hon. Steve Mahoney: What did you do, pull up a chair?
Roy H. Bailey: Do not make a joke out of this, sir. This is serious business. It is nothing to be laughed at.
What I saw was what I have seen many times in my life. It was to watch people who were not in control of themselves.
Let us go back to the drawing board and let us have more scientific proof. Let us have it come from this country and not from the imagination of some country abroad.

Statements By Members
Child Abuse Prevention MonthMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind all members of the House that October is child abuse prevention month.
Unfortunately, some parents struggle with mental health issues, substance abuse, family violence or other serious issues. This impacts their ability to care for their children, and often abuse and neglect are the result.
Family and Children's Services Niagara, which has a branch in my riding of Niagara Centre, will be participating in the 11th annual purple ribbon campaign to help raise public awareness about the issue of child neglect and abuse. In the past year FACS responded to nearly 5,200 child protection concerns.
Agencies such as FACS need our support so they can raise awareness of this problem. Let us do what we can to protect our children.
Cattle IndustryMr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the BSE and the crisis that it has caused in our beef industry, but unless one is really connected to the agricultural industry, it is difficult to fully appreciate the magnitude of the disaster and the human toll that it is taking on our farm families. Unable to sell their cattle, they have no income. Their bills are going unpaid.
It is Thanksgiving this weekend when Canadian families all across this great country will come together to celebrate the gift of plenty which Canadians have come to enjoy. Turkeys will be in the oven and children will be playing. There will be much delight and much to be thankful for, but one animal testing positive for BSE has ruined the farm families of this country.
There will be no turkey this weekend for them. It may even be hard to get winter clothes for the children this fall. Christmas is not far off when farm families will be doing without and other children will have gifts galore.
I ask all parliamentarians and, indeed, all Canadians to remember the farm families this weekend.
Canadian Executive Service OrganizationMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable contribution of a volunteer in my riding, Francine Dumont.
Ms. Dumont was appointed by the Canadian Executive Service Organization, CESO, to create a national education policy for public servants in Bolivia.
CESO, a volunteer based and not for profit organization, is financed in part by CIDA and by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. It promotes the economic and social growth and well-being of aboriginal Canadians, and of the peoples of developing nations and emerging market economies.
Thanks to organizations like CESO and volunteers such as Ms. Dumont, Canada has a reputation throughout the world of being a helpful and generous nation.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating CESO, Ms. Dumont and its volunteers.
Community Care Worker WeekMr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that October 12-18 is National Community Care Worker Week.
The health care professionals, para-professionals and volunteers who provide care in the community are an integral part of our health care system.
Community care workers represent many groups and disciplines and carry out various functions. These include: nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, homemakers, home support workers and volunteers. These are the vital front line workers who provide home based care, facility based long term care, meal programs and community support programs.
As the delivery of many health care services shifts from the hospitals to the community, community care workers are increasingly called upon to assist in the transition and ensure a continuity of client centred care.
To honour these front line workers and acknowledge the invaluable contribution they make to the health care of Canadians, the Canadian Association for Community Care has initiated the community care worker award, which is presented to the winner in the community every year during community care worker week.
Steel IndustryMr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Government of Canada announced that it would not implement surtaxes on the import of certain steel products, as recommended by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
Over one year has passed since the tribunal made these remedy recommendations. Despite concerns about the World Trade Organization's reaction, Canada should have taken the same position as the United States and Mexico against offshore imports. I am very disappointed the government has not chosen to act on the inquiry findings determined by the CITT.
The steel industry in Niagara has suffered significantly from this lack of safeguard action. Atlas Specialty Steel and others have either collapsed or are on the verge of collapse. About 550 dedicated Atlas workers in the region of Niagara are now without work. These are real people with real families facing an upsetting and uncertain future.
While I am pleased that the newly formed North American steel trade committee will look at many of these pressing issues, I fear that it may be too little, too late for the Canadian steelworkers.
We need to ensure that a North American steel accord is developed and put into place immediately. We need to revisit safeguard action on steel imports now. We need to take whatever actions we can to preserve the steel industry in Canada for Canadian workers.
Falun GongMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last October this House voted unanimously to instruct the Prime Minister to take advantage of the APEC conference to privately raise with the president of China the matter of the imprisonment by the Chinese government of 13 Falun Gong practitioners who are members of Canadian families.
As a result of this unanimous motion and follow-up work by our embassy staff in Beijing, 8 of the 13 were released. Some are now in Canada, where they are model citizens. Tianxong Peng, for example, was freed on Christmas Eve and now lives with his sister Helen here in Ontario.
Sadly, a year later, as the Prime Minister prepares for another APEC conference, the situation in China has become worse, not better. These few releases have been accompanied by the arrests of thousands of non-violent Falun Gong practitioners. Today, 17 individuals who are the brothers and sisters and the parents and the children of Canadians are imprisoned in China.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister to take advantage of the upcoming APEC conference to raise the issue of these 17 peaceful individuals so that they too may be allowed to come home to their families here in Canada.
Monsignor Marc OuelletMr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II's appointment of Monsignor Marc Ouellet as a cardinal surprised many in his village of La Motte in Abitibi.
No one was more proud or more moved than the mother of Quebec City's Archbishop, Mrs. Graziella Ouellet, who said, “It warms a mother's heart, but it is also emotionally overwhelming. It will be a daunting task and I hope the Lord will help him”.
Monsignor Ouellet is a very cultured man; he speaks five languages and earned a PhD in theology in the 1980s. Monsignor Ouellet said he was pleased with this honour, but that he was especially pleased for Quebec and Canada.
Monsignor Ouellet, the people of La Motte, Abitibi and Canada congratulate you, wish you an excellent tenure as a cardinal, and thank Pope John Paul II for your appointment.
Taiwan's National DayMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this day, October 10, we are proud to celebrate Taiwan's National Day. Following the election of its first social-democrat president three years ago, this state has turned a new leaf and boldly moved toward democracy by enhancing human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Unlike its neighbour, Communist China, Taiwan has made giant strides in building democratic structures that have paved the way for a modern and dynamic society, a model for the entire Asia-Pacific region.
As a sovereignist, I am proud to note that, like Quebec, Taiwan is striving for recognition as a country and for its place at the table of nations. In that sense, I hope that the Canadian government will acknowledge the democratic values promoted by that country and will encourage Taiwan to sit as an observer at the World Health Organization, as well as recognize the right of the 23 million citizens of the Republic of China to be represented in the United Nations system.
To all Taiwanese, happy national day.
Izzy AsperMr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember a great Canadian and renaissance man, Izzy Asper, who loved life and was larger than life, who not only transformed the communications face of this country but was a top lawyer, distinguished parliamentarian, mover of the first Manitoba Bill of Rights, and a civic benefactor sans pareil, whose contribution to the arts, education, culture, health, sports and the prospective Canadian Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg will be an enduring legacy for all Canadians and beyond.
It is not only his public achievements that bear recall, but his private virtues: a loving husband and devoted father and grandfather, whose family love of him will be his most everlasting legacy; a loyal friend; a courageous advocate; an abiding commitment to the sister democracies of Canada and Israel and to his most beloved Winnipeg; and a jazz enthusiast as repose for the soul.
He will be greatly missed and is much loved. We will not see the likes of him again.
Northwest Corridor DevelopmentMr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, next week the port city of Prince Rupert will host the annual meeting of the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation. This group has a mandate to promote east-west transportation routes along the rail, highway and pipeline systems from central North America to tidewater in Prince Rupert. This less utilized but extremely viable transportation option can and will over time alleviate pressure and congestion at major ports to the south.
In Prince Rupert, a new container facility is in the planning stages, along with required rail upgrades to handle double-stacked rail cars. The offshore oil and gas potential is very real. New pipeline projects to the coast are under discussion, and currently a cruise ship dock is under construction.
Despite current economic woes, the future of northwest British Columbia looks positive. Groups such as the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation assist greatly in bringing reality to this dream. I wish the group every success at its annual general meeting next week.
Ottawa International AirportMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I was involved in setting up the local airport authority, which took over the management and development of the Ottawa International Airport.
Next Sunday, October 12, Canada's capital city starts using its brand new terminal. Having toured the facility, I can tell my colleagues, many of them frequent users of the facility, that it is quite impressive: impressive in the quality of its construction; impressive in the intelligence of its design and architecture; impressive in its amenities and services to the travelling public; and equally impressive is that it was completed six months early and under budget.
I wish to congratulate all of those who believed in the early days that setting up the local airport authority was the way to go. I also wish to congratulate the members of the Ottawa International Airport Authority and its president and CEO, Paul Benoit, on a job well done.
Now let us get on with expanding the Congress Centre facilities.
Government of CanadaLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard is chomping at the bit to take over the Government of Canada, but the Prime Minister stands in the way.
Liberals are telling us that the Prime Minister is staying just because he wants to celebrate his 70th birthday at 24 Sussex Drive.
More likely, it is because he intends to spend the time between now and February travelling the world, unable to make binding commitments, unable to put forward principles that will be worth anything, unable to solve problems, just able to indulge himself in the trappings of a vacant office.
The House of Commons can solve that problem. We can deem tomorrow to be January 11, 2004, right across the country. Let us say happy 70th birthday to the Prime Minister and let us get on with the business of Canada.
TaxationMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, in this House, the Liberal members, beginning with the Prime Minister, rejoiced at the difficult financial choices facing the Government of Quebec.
The fact that the provinces are headed for a combined deficit of nearly $10 billion while the federal government will be running a surplus in the billions is a glaring illustration of the fiscal imbalance masterfully orchestrated by the former finance minister.
What exactly did the Liberal members from Quebec applaud last Tuesday? The cuts imposed on Quebec for health, education and social services, or the pillaging of the EI account?
Was this maybe the Liberal members' way of showing disagreement with the choice made by the National Assembly to support young families in Quebec by implementing a progressive family policy that is the envy of all, or are they perhaps opposed to the tuition freeze?
The Liberal members' applause ill conceals their desire to diminish Quebec, and that is a disgrace.
Foreign AffairsMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that Maher Arar is back in Canada, out of harm's way, we must act to clear away any cloud hanging over his and his family's heads.
I was encouraged by this week's news that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is considering holding an inquiry in the public interest. I encourage the commission to do this.
We must find out whether American claims are true that information provided by the RCMP played a role in Maher Arar's detention and deportation and whether RCMP sources played any part in his continued incarceration in Damascus at the same time that the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister were making every effort to have him returned to Canada.
His family's terrible ordeal with not be over until these and all uncertainties surrounding the last year are fully and publicly resolved.
National Co-op WeekMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, next week Canadians will observe National Co-op Week, and Credit Union Day will be celebrated on Thursday, October 16.
We have in Canada about 10,000 co-operatives, which employ more than 150,000 people and engage thousands of volunteers.
Co-operatives are major economic contributors to our community. They capture wealth locally, returning dividends to members, and they provide good jobs paying good salaries.
Co-operatives play a role well beyond the strictly economic. They develop leaders for civil society and they invest in a wide array of worthy community projects.
Our modern co-ops owe a lot to the Antigonish Movement led by Father Moses Coady, who encouraged people to come together in study groups to empower one another.
I would also like to applaud the work of the local credit unions in my community, the Heritage and the Atlantic Credit Unions. I wish to congratulate the work of co-operatives and credit unions in my home province and throughout Canada.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the government's response to a report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the provincial nominee program agrees with a vast majority of the recommendations made by the committee.
The committee's report was positive about the program in general and identified it as an important tool in encouraging the settlement of immigrants across the country.
We on this side of the House are committed to ensuring that all Canadians in every region benefit from immigration, both today and in the years ahead.
The government therefore shares the committee's enthusiasm for the expansion of the provincial nominee program across the country, according to the availability of existing resources and the ability of other levels of government to participate in this wonderful project.
Beacon HeightsMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Beacon Heights Elementary School in Edmonton, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.
The school is particularly noted for its excellent literacy program, while serving a varied student population of 150 in 8 classes from kindergarten to grade 6. The principal and staff at Beacon Heights School believe that children should be given the opportunity to achieve their ability levels and to develop a strong positive sense of self-worth and that these opportunities be provided to each student every day. These are admirable goals of an admirable school.
I congratulate the school on 50 years of academic excellence, 50 years of community learning, and 50 years of educating Edmonton youth. May the Beacon Heights Elementary School principal, Judy Welch, the teachers and staff, the students and the many parent volunteers continue their years of success.
World Day Against the Death PenaltyMs. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is the day that has been declared by civil rights activists as World Day Against the Death Penalty, a day to mark a worldwide campaign for a moratorium on executions.
Canada has observed a de facto moratorium on the death penalty since the early 1960s. With the removal of the death penalty from the Criminal Code in 1976 and from the National Defence Act in 1988, Canada became a de facto abolitionist state.
The Government of Canada encourages the abolition of the death penalty internationally and supports all efforts to ensure respect for safeguards in its application. Canada calls upon countries that have not abolished the death penalty to do so or to at least consider a moratorium on its use.
Canada further urges those governments maintaining the death penalty to ensure that any death sentences are carried out in accordance with international law, in particular by not imposing the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18, and to respect the right to consular assistance for foreign nationals.

Oral Question Period
National DefenceMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, our troops in Afghanistan are in need of armoured vehicles. A soldier on the ground had this to say, “The vehicles we patrol in, they're junk. They have no blast protection. The second of October is a prime example.”
Why were our troops sent to Afghanistan without proper equipment?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly, including in a speech on September 12, that the government would spare neither effort nor money to make sure that the army had everything the army required.
I have set up a line of communication with General Leslie so that he will tell me if that is not the case. I spoke to him a half an hour ago. He assured me that the army had at every time received what it needed and what it had requested.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, the government has deprived our troops of the equipment they need. The battalion commander in Afghanistan has requested more armoured vehicles. High risk patrols have been halted.
When will our troops get the armoured vehicles they need in order to do their job?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the general in command of our troops in Afghanistan said to me a half an hour ago that they have always received exactly what they have requested.
At the same time, circumstances are evolving. Our military, as well as the military of other allied nations, including Germany, U.K. and others, are in the process of reviewing the situation, reviewing their needs. When they have completed that review, they will inform me. At that point we will respond, as we always have responded, as quickly as possible.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, there are also questions as to how the new equipment will even get to our troops. Canada's Hercules fleet is in critical condition. Two-thirds of our Hercs are grounded.
The government cannot Fedex armoured vehicles to Afghanistan. How does the minister plan to get new equipment to our troops and how long will it take?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, all of the equipment and the people for this very major Afghanistan mission were sent efficiently and received at the appropriate time. Should more equipment be required, it will be delivered as fast as possible.
As I have said in the House before, the increase in the serviceability and the usability of our Hercules fleet is a top priority for me. I have directed the department to find means to improve it. We have already as a consequence increased the usability of our Hercs by 50%, which is a significant achievement. We are working further on those issues.
Gasoline TaxesMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House voted in favour of the Canadian Alliance motion that called on the government to “initiate immediate discussions with the provinces and territories to provide municipalities with a portion of the federal gas tax”.
On Wednesday the Prime Minister reminded the House that the finance ministers would be meeting today, Friday. They met. They started at eight o'clock this morning.
I want to know and taxpayers want to know. Taxpayers are sick of the Liberal government's gas tax rip-off. They are sick of it and they want to know if the gas tax agenda will be on the finance ministers' agenda.
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am sure the meeting will be a very worthwhile one. It is very important for ministers of finance at the federal and provincial levels to consult and to always improve on federal-provincial relations as they relate to a number of issues, including tax issues.
Of course equalization is on the agenda. There is also other business on the agenda. One of the issues may be the one cited by the hon. member.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, that is the government that preaches to Canadians about a democratic deficit.
The House voted 202 in favour and 31 against giving gas tax dollars to the provinces.
If the government wants to kill the democratic deficit, the minister and the government can commit today to having gas taxes on that agenda. For every dollar in gas taxes that British Columbia sends to Ottawa, it gets 3¢ back. For every $2 that British Columbia collects in gas taxes provincially, it spends $3 on roads. The gas tax rip-off by the federal government is appalling.
I want the government to understand that the motion called for immediate gas tax dollars to go to municipalities. What is it about the word “immediate” that the government does not understand?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot the government understands. One of the things it does understand is that a reduction of $100 billion in taxes was the largest tax reduction in the history of this country. That is what we understand.
We also understand what job creation is all about. We also understand that by reducing the debt, reducing taxes, making strategic investments in innovation and productivity enhancement measures, economic growth occurs. That is what we understand. More important, that is what Canadians understand.
Employment InsuranceMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, extending transitional benefits is clearly an insufficient response to the needs of the seasonal workers who, to use the expression of Alain Lagacé of Action-Chômage Kamouraska, remain on life support. The government has known this for a long time and it still refuses to act. What is the government waiting for to lower employment insurance eligibility requirements for seasonal workers, as was recommended in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a report which it has had in its hands for over two years?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange way to say thank you.
The Government of Canada has just announced that it is going to extend for one year the benefits that help certain regions of our country. The hon. member has perhaps spoken about this herself in the past, and today, instead of recognizing the positive gesture toward the workers, this is all she has to say.
Talk about a contradiction.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to travel across Quebec to hear what the ordinary people have to say.
Even Dany Harvey of Action-Chômage Charlevoix says that the wound is still open, even with these transitional measures. Michel Savard of the Table des groupes populaires de la Côte-Nord adds that the government's strategy is purely electoral.
Instead of being satisfied with measures that will melt away with the next election, what is the government waiting for to completely overhaul employment insurance and truly help the unemployed workers of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspé, Charlevoix and the North Shore?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has made a poor choice of words when she says that we should know what the people of Quebec want, especially considering her political party's poll results.
The government has extended the benefits by one year. That is the first thing. Secondly, yesterday the Prime Minister announced the creation of a task force to look into the problem of seasonal workers and try to find a long-term solution. That is what she is asking for—a long-term solution—and that is why the Prime Minister has established this task force.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is announcing the creation of yet another committee that will consider the effects of EI policies on seasonal workers. I want to remind the minister that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled a unanimous report containing 17 recommendations, not one of which the minister retained.
Rather than create yet another partisan committee, if the minister really wants to help seasonal workers, why does she not simply implement the 17 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities? The solutions are there; the government needs to act.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just explained that the government has just extended the program by one year, as the workers expected and that, in the meantime, the Prime Minister has appointed the task force to find longer term solutions for seasonal workers.
That answer is extremely clear: we are moving forward. We have just announced additional benefits. The hon. member, on behalf of her constituents and other stakeholders, should be pleased.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of reports and studies on the EI program; in fact, there are too many. First the standing committee, and now the Canadian Labour Congress and Statistics Canada are criticizing all the EI program failures.
Instead of wasting time with another committee, the minister has everything she needs to implement the necessary reforms. What will it take for the government to act?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is not about wasting time. On the contrary, we have improved benefits, as the minister announced yesterday. There is now a task force and, furthermore, this morning's news about unemployment is once again extremely encouraging. There are 10,000 more Canadians working this month. The government is continuing to look out for all Canadian workers.
HealthMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the provincial finance ministers are meeting in Ottawa today.
At least two of the provinces will be forced to run budget deficits unless the government honours a commitment to provide an additional $2 billion for health care. The federal finance minister has suggested that money could be freed up if the political will exists. He has to answer his own question.
The real question is, will any monetary commitment made by the outgoing Prime Minister be honoured by the incoming prime minister? This is provincial purgatory. Does the commitment exist or not?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the good health of our federation, I urge the leader of the Conservative Party to agree that the commitment was to give $2 billion additional above the contingency reserve if a surplus exists. He should not distort the agreement because then he is not helping the federation.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the incoming prime minister is the one who has put these provinces in this position. It is imperative that the provinces know if stable health care funding is going to be made available. The question is one of priorities, not politics.
The Naylor report released this week had very harsh words for the government in the way that the SARS crisis was handled, saying it was marked by a lack of leadership and a lack of collaboration between levels of government.
Will the government commit to work with the provinces on developing a national strategy to deal with a SARS outbreak, should that happen, and will it commit to a health emergency contingency fund?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, we said that we want to work with the provinces. That is why we have asked for a review of what happened about SARS. It is our duty to identify for public health what is the federal responsibility, what are the provincial responsibilities and how we may work together to help in this difficult situation.
Government ContractsMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to re-engage the Minister of Industry with respect to the contract given to Lockheed Martin for the Canadian census.
Yesterday the minister said on the way out of the House that the trade agreements made him do it. He knows that the trade agreements did no such thing. The trade agreements do not force the government to contract out the census to anyone.
I want to ask him why he is hiding behind the trade agreements. While he is at it, if he takes the trade agreements so seriously, can he tell us why the government does not take arms control treaties seriously enough that it is participating in star wars and negotiating with the Americans over NMD? If it took those treaties seriously--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. gentleman has just said, the project in question does indeed fall subject to the rules of the NAFTA and the WTO. Industry participation, according to the rules of the trade agreement, were sought by a letter of interest.
The RFP was published on the Merx system from September 4, 2002 to the closing date of November 4, 2002. Proposals were received. The proposal from Lockheed Martin was judged to be the best of those proposals at the best price. It was indeed adjudicated by an independent third party.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the trade agreements do not force the government to put out an RFP in the first place. This is something that could be done by the government, by Statistics Canada. There is no need to contract it out in the first place and the trade agreement does not force the government to do that.
I want to ask the minister in charge, does he not think that the knowledge by Canadians that this is going to be done by a big American multinational will cause them concerns about confidentiality and about privacy? Does he not expect that there will be a lot less compliance with the census than there has been in the past? Given the mistake that the government is about to make, will it rescind this contract immediately?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there are in fact stringent provisions in the contract to ensure that the security of Canadians is properly respected and that the whole process with respect to the census is conducted with complete integrity.
EthicsMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the guest book at the lavish Irving fishing lodge must read like a who's who of the Liberal caucus. Yesterday we learned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was flown into the lodge on the Irvings' private jet. Now we know that the Minister of Industry and his family also enjoyed the Irvings' generous hospitality, first class, first hand, free of charge.
Federal conflict rules forbid ministers and parliamentary secretaries from accepting gifts worth more than $200. Clearly this gift was worth more than $200. Why did the industry minister break the rules?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the trip took place in the summer of 2001 when I was minister of health.
Once named Minister of Industry, after I was made Minister of Industry I informed the ethics counsellor of all the particulars relating to the trip. He gave me advice with respect to how I should conduct myself to avoid conflict and I followed his advice to the letter.
Jason Kenney: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that when he was health minister, he was sitting on cabinet committees that had dealings with companies owned by the Irving family which is clearly contrary to section 20 of the conflict guidelines.
It is like déjà vu all over again. Remember the scandal when the government House leader lost his job as public works minister because he was caught with the keys to chateau Boulay. Given that he lost his job, what sort of disciplinary action will the Minister of Industry face?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the member, I was minister of health at the time the visit took place. When I became Minister of Industry I spoke to the ethics counsellor. I told him all about the visit. I received his advice with respect to avoiding conflict in those circumstances. I have followed his advice completely ever since.
Employment InsuranceMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government House leader will say just about anything and is implying that it is the Bloc Quebecois that is interfering when we ask questions about these new transitional measures that are designed exclusively to get votes.
I would like the government House leader to tell us what he thinks about the comments of Dany Harvey, coordinator of Mouvement Action-Chômage Charlevoix, who said:

It is a band-aid solution until we have an equitable system for all workers.

What will the government House leader say to Alain Lagacé from Action-Chômage Kamouraska, who says we are still under—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of State.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that this is not a vote seeking scheme. The government has not decided to say, at least not in recent days, that this program will conclude on Saturday. What we have done is defer it by a year.
This is the first step and it does not stop there because the government, through an action by the Prime Minister, announced the creation of a task force that will provide us with measures and suggestions for the long term with respect to seasonal workers. Therefore, it—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the government has to understand that what we are asking for, and what the unemployed are asking for, are not little piecemeal reforms or changes that are pushed through on the eve of an election in order to buy votes.
What we want to know is, when will there be a real overhaul of the employment insurance program that will take into account the needs of the unemployed?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this indignation is justified by the gesture that was made yesterday.
In the interest of giving more time to adjust to the new system, the government has chosen to once again extend the deadline for this transition. That is the first step—the first after all the previous ones.
Then, a second announcement was made, namely the creation of this task force to make additional recommendations with respect to seasonal workers.
EthicsMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the ethics counsellor has already come to the rescue of the Minister of Industry. There is only one problem. His argument does not hold any water.
The minister took a free family trip, compliments of the Irvings. The conflict of interest code clearly states that ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not to accept gifts worth more than $200. He sat in cabinet while dealings with the Irvings were discussed, violating the code.
When the former public works minister breached these rules he was fired. Why is the industry minister not held to the same standard?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make it clear when the trip took place and the role I played in government at the time. When my role changed, I made full disclosure to the ethics counsellor. He took into account all the circumstances. He gave me advice that I took very seriously. I followed it completely to the letter, and I continue to do that.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, the minister remained in cabinet while discussions with the Irvings were held around the cabinet table. His excuse simply does not hold any water. He broke the rules and accepted a gift of over $200. The former public works minister lost his job for doing the same kind of thing.
Why is the industry minister not being held to that very same standard?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, what I am doing is following the advice of the ethics counsellor who has given that advice in light of all the facts that I have disclosed. It is advice which he believes will keep me from conflict. I have followed that advice and intend to continue to do so.
TaxationMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the agreement on the $2 billion for health was entered into by the federal government, Quebec and the provinces in February, the Minister of Finance has constantly been playing a cat and mouse game. The public has had enough of this unjustified waffling. The minister knows full well that the surplus will exceed the $5 billion required.
While the federal government is raking in money at the rate of $1 million an hour, as Quebec's finance minister Yves Séguin pointed out, does the Minister of Finance not think he should commit now to providing Quebec and the provinces with the $2 billion promised?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member could perhaps stick to what the provinces were promised at the time and to the terms of the agreement. I should read them because they have been completely distorted, and he knows it. The agreement reads as follows, and I quote:
The Government of Canada committed to provide up to an additional $2.0 billion for health for the provinces and territories at the end of fiscal year 2003-04, if the Minister of Finance determines during the month of January 2004 that there will be a sufficient surplus above the normal Contingency Reserve to permit such an investment.
That is what was agreed, and the hon. member knows it full well.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, what is despicable is that the Minister of Finance is making it sound like there could be a deficit, when the only real danger of running a deficit comes from a dramatic increase in the spending of the federal bureaucracy, which has increased by more than $3 billion in the past year, at the expense of what really matters to the public, health for instance.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, we must help one another. Should the Government of Canada show an unexpected surplus, it should naturally help the provinces. That is how things are done in a federation, when we show solidarity, and that is what we are doing.
To claim that there is no fiscal pressure is to ignore what is going on around the world, to ignore that the other G-8 countries are showing deficits, and to ignore that just yesterday, France was called to order by the European Union because of its unexpected deficit. Is the hon. member living in the clouds?
Member for LaSalle--ÉmardMr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Lansdowne Technologies is based right here in Ottawa and received $12 million in Public Works contracts. Yet the next Liberal leader claims he did not know anything about this company, even though it is sitting right here under his nose.
He wants Canadians to trust him, but how is that a company sitting right here in Ottawa, doing millions of dollars of government business, was removed from his declaration of assets?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when this issue is raised in the House, the opposition does not bother to raise it with the appropriate authority, and that is the ethics counsellor. However the member for LaSalle—Émard did raise it with the ethics counsellor. To ensure that the matter was properly dealt with, Mr. Wilson is examining the issue and he will report in due course. That is the proper way to deal with it, if members are interested in answers. If members are just interested in flap, then follow the opposition.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, that excuse does not cut it. The former finance minister signed that declaration list, and he is responsible for his signature on that list.
Lansdowne Technologies is a subsidiary company connected to the next Liberal leader. The company is based right here in Ottawa. The purpose of the company is to gain procurement of government contracts. Its clients include Transport Canada, National Defence, Foreign Affairs, Health Canada and Public Works.
Why was it removed from the disclosure list of the new Liberal leader?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wilson will report on that in due course. However Mr. Wilson has already said that because this company was a subsidiary of a firm that was listed on the declaration, the blind trust provisions would apply in any event and, therefore, the matter was already covered.
The EnvironmentMr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was delighted to participate in a display of Canada's leading companies in hydrogen technologies. I was even more proud that the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources announced $215 million to help Canada's leading role in this industry.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell us how this will help solve the world's climate change problems and create a more innovative and sustainable economy for Canada?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his interest in this issue.
The Minister of Industry and I announced $215 million to be invested in the hydrogen economy to ensure that Canada continues to be a leader in the hydrogen economy and that we develop a foundation so when the rest of the world is looking for energy, which is clean burning and which can help us in Kyoto, Canada will be there, leading.
I know the Alliance members do not understand what it is to invest in the country. They are only interested in cutting.
Fisheries and OceansLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago a Russian flag boat with an Icelandic crew, the Olga , was caught in the NAFO zone with an excessive amount of cod. The boat was sent back because the Canadian government could not do anything with it.
Recently a reporter in St. John's, under freedom of information, asked what happened to the Olga . The minister's department replied that it did not know.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans found the Olga in Iceland. The owner is a friend of the minister and is landing fish in the minister's district--the Icelandic minister.
If the committee could find it, why could the minister's department not find it?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member of the Canadian Alliance's rump for clarifying that it was the Icelandic minister and not the Canadian minister.
I would thank him for congratulating the Canadian delegation to the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization for having made great advances. We continue to take any infraction very seriously and work with our partners internationally to reduce those amounts. We have in the past and we will in the future.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have a clue what happened because he has no authority and he does not want any authority. However let me ask him another question.
He does have authority to protect our inland waters, the salmon streams and rivers. Year after year the guardians on the rivers are being cut.
How can the minister justify cutting protection on rivers that he is responsible for seeing are stocked and maintained properly?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we have maintained that program. It is a very good program. We take it seriously. We have good cooperation from the communities. We always want to work with the provinces. However we have to work to ensure that we use our resources as best as possible and as efficiently as possible for the good of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties preach. That is what this party practises.
Foreign AffairsHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government has refused to provide any information on the Maher Arar case. The RCMP is not providing any information as well in terms of its participation. Meanwhile, Lloyd Axworthy has said, “Canadians are being treated like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed fertilizer”. The foreign affairs committee now has invited the American ambassador to testify.
Could the government explain why it resorted to inviting the American ambassador to testify about the role of the RCMP, which is our national police force, in its involvement with a Canadian citizen? Why can the government not answer that question?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking why a committee invited someone to appear before it. I hate to remind him, but Standing Order 108(2) enables committees to do exactly that.
Status of WomenMrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
The Minister of Transport suggested at the environment committee that both the Commissioner of the Environment and the Auditor General are too political and should go back to their knitting. The minister might as well have said they should return barefoot and pregnant to the kitchen. This is a blatant attack on two women who play an important role in holding the government accountable.
When will the minister demand an apology for this unashamed, sexist attack from within the Liberal cabinet?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to verify whether the allegation as stated is precisely what the hon. member said. I gladly will inform the minister, if such is the case. However, I do think it should be verified more accurately to determine whether that is what was said and meant.
FisheriesMr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in late August of this year, in an advertisement in the Prince George Citizen , an Indian band offered sockeye salmon for sale at the band office. It claimed the sale was authorized by DFO as part of treaty negotiations. By what authority was it authorized?
The House was advised a year and a half ago by the committee for the scrutiny of regulations that separate native commercial fisheries were illegal. A court in B.C. ruled such fisheries illegal this summer, so by what authority did the minister allow for this fishery?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to get a question from the critic, particularly on a Friday.
He should know that the regulations do remain in force. The private sales were deemed to be illegal by the provincial court. That is being appealed and I will not comment on that further.
However he is talking about an advertisement that pre-dated that. I do not know all the details of that advertisement. I certainly will check it out and give him further details.
John M. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer on a Friday, this Friday, to the question. The question is quite simple. There is no authority to allow for these separate commercial fisheries, and treaty negotiations are not an excuse.
In last summer's decision, the court rejected including special commercial fishery rights and treaties, calling the notion rash and imprudent. Why does the minister continue to break the law?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, no law is being broken. The private sales agreement has been terminated. That decision is being appealed. We do not see the private sales as a panacea. I think improvements can be done to that type of arrangement. However we always seek to have fair, equitable access by all Canadians, including native Canadians, to the commercial fishery.
AgricultureMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has forced cattle producers into poverty by refusing to extend assistance past September 1.
What answer can the minister, who is so boastful of his agricultural policy framework, give to the Fédération des éléveurs de bovins du Québec, which points out that this does not meet the expectations of farmers here since it does not cover all losses, but only 70% of them?
How can he justify not covering the other 30%, when we know very well that businesses are being forced into bankruptcy because of lack of income?
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the hon. member. We have a strategic policy framework. It has been signed, and makes $5.2 billion available over the next three years. Cattle producers can access those funds immediately, because the APF was signed yesterday morning.
So I do not understand the hon. member's question at all.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Such cynicism, Mr. Speaker.
Laurent Pellerin, the head of the UPA, has said, “This does not suit us at all”, referring to the agricultural policy framework. He went on, “Quebec has 25% of the population of Canada, and 20% of agricultural production, yet we are getting a mere 10% or 11% of the envelope”.
Thirty seconds after he has brushed aside the concerns of the cattle producers, is the minister going to step his cynicism up a notch by doing the same to those of the entire agricultural industry of Quebec?
Claude Duplain: Mr. Speaker, my colleague likes to quote people, so I will give her a quote as well. Had she read on a bit further, she would have seen that Mr. Pellerin also said, “This will be excellent news in the long run, however, because of the efforts to dovetail the federal program and the farm income stabilization insurance program”.
He went on to say, “Quebec producers should be at the same level as before, once they have access to the best of both worlds—”.
What could be better than that?
Aboriginal AffairsMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, how does one spend $2.5 million for three days of meetings? Just ask the heritage minister who is planning a three day feel good aboriginal tourism conference at Whistler Resort in B.C., just a few miles down the road from poverty and joblessness at the Mount Currie Reserve.
The people live in poverty while the minister eats cake. She wins the Olympic gold medal for wasteful spending. When will the minister stop abusing native people and Canadian taxpayers?
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the gathering will focus on aboriginal communities in Canada. We believe in aboriginal tourism on this side of the House.
We think it is a noble cause because bringing people together will certainly improve the dialogue of cultures in Canada.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Marie Antoinette was out of touch, too.
The government paid $300 million to move 600 Inuit from Davis Inlet to Natuashish, Labrador. This is a $500,000 per person and the government has completely botched the job.
Gas sniffing and alcohol abuse are worse now than they ever were at Davis Inlet. New community leadership is being called for and four months ago the majority of eligible voters demanded that the minister call new elections for chief and council.
When will he listen to the people and--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really shocked at the message that the hon. member has brought to the House.
We have attempted to work with the people of Davis Inlet. We have developed a new housing program for them. We have had certain difficulties. But for him to condemn those people the way he did today is certainly a shame to our Parliament.
Job CreationJohn Maloney: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has released its labour force survey for September 2003. Would the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions advise the House as to the results of the survey?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House that we are indeed pleased to see the increase of 46,000 new jobs in the month of September. It means that since the beginning of 2002, over 650,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. The majority are full time jobs.
On behalf of the government I want to thank the hard working men and women of the country for helping us build Canada's economic renaissance.
International AidDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, CIDA gave $50 million in bilateral aid to the government of China. The government of China ranked number two on CIDA's list of countries receiving bilateral aid. At the same time, the Chinese government is spending billions of dollars on its space program.
Will the minister call on the Chinese government to do its part to reduce its own people's poverty?
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in international development.
I would like to make it clear that no funds have been transferred directly to the Chinese or Indian governments. We are working to fight poverty. There are international organizations under the guidance of the United Nations, such as the World Food Program and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are very proud of the work we are doing to help the 250 million Chinese people living in poverty.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, next week the Chinese government is planning to launch its first manned space flight. China will be joining countries such as the Russian Federation and the United States that have accomplished this great feat.
Why does the minister not tell the Chinese government that fighting poverty in its country should be its number one priority? Why does he not do that?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is currently one of the experts in international aid. He knows very well that the United Nations consider poverty as one of the priorities of their program. Pockets of poverty affect hundreds of millions of people, and by going through the international organizations, we are assured of not making errors in any action we take.
HealthMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week the commissioner of the environment told us that only six of the 405 pesticides on the market have been fully re-evaluated, a process that took over ten years. As a result, use of all six pesticides has been restricted or banned outright for public health reasons.
How can the minister justify re-evaluations taking so long when it is a matter of public health?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, the Pesticides Act was passed last December. Since then, we have better tools with which to re-evaluate all the pesticides currently available.
We must however be realistic; things are not going to change overnight. There is a process in place. To date, more than 61 pesticides have been re-evaluated, and this work is ongoing. We have a schedule, we are following it, and we will meet our deadline. My hon. colleague is well aware of that fact; he is simply trying to cloud the issue.
Electoral ReformMr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that some members are getting ready for the next election. In fact, I read this morning that the member for Halifax held her nomination meeting last night.
Could the government House leader provide the House with an update as to the plans for Bill C-49, a government bill designed to address some of these anomalies with riding redistribution?
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question.
I am pleased to inform colleagues that the government intends to proceed with Bill C-49 on the Monday following the Thanksgiving recess. Given the new interest in nominations, I am sure her NDP colleagues will want to support the bill. Then the member for Halifax will have an opportunity again to be nominated.
ImmigrationMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Immigration recognized, in agreement with the Bloc Quebecois, that he has to implement an appeal process for unsuccessful refugee claimants. Nonetheless, the minister does not seem to view enforcement of his own legislation as the best solution.
Will the minister explain his objections to the refugee appeal division provided for in the Immigration Act, that he himself had passed by Parliament, and his reasons for reneging on his commitment to the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the appeal procedure?
Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. member knows, the Government of Canada and CIC follow the exact procedures set by the House of Commons whenever we have the obligation to do it. We do a very good job.
Government AssistanceMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to face a number of very serious challenges, from the carnage of hurricane Juan on the east coast, devastating forest fires throughout the west, to economic crises such as the decimation of the Canadian cattle industry and excessive tariffs imposed on softwood lumber that are killing the industry.
In light of this, the current government is expected to recess the House in the very near future.
My question is for the government House leader. Why is the government abandoning Canadians and forcing them to deal with these disastrous situations?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a question that was thoroughly researched.
I have announced the legislative program for the government for several weeks to come. I am continuing to work in cooperation with all hon. members to ensure we can get out of here in time on December 12 for the Christmas recess.
The hon. member may be very enthusiastic about recessing earlier. He might want to cool his ardour for a little while yet.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of deep cuts to vital services, Nova Scotians are worried about drowning under a rising tide of broken Liberal promises.
We are now told we owe hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government because too many Nova Scotians have gone down the road to Toronto for jobs. That is roughly equal to the estimated damage from hurricane Juan.
Will the minister guarantee that Nova Scotia will not be forced to cough up these funds in order that it can pay for vital services like health, education and disaster relief?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Finance is presently meeting with the finance minister of Nova Scotia.
We are always looking for better ways to deal with finances here in Canada, but as always, we do that with a great deal of fairness.
Forest IndustryJames Lunney: Mr. Speaker, for two and a half years communities in my riding have been crippled by mill closures and thousands of laid off workers.
The promised federal aid is more smoke and mirrors. The result is that many families have had to leave coastal B.C. just to survive. Now, struggling workers are so distraught that 12,000 IWA workers are on the verge of a strike over outsourcing of the remaining work.
Will the government ever take the plight of B.C. forestry workers seriously and bring about a resolution while there is still an industry to save?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are investing in communities. Let me give the hon. member some examples.
In the riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin, $2 million was invested under the community adjustment program. In the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, $310,000 for a community adjustment program was invested. In the riding of Vancouver Island North, $230,000 was invested.
These are investments in those communities. By the way, all of these investments are in Alliance ridings.
HealthHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in her latest report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development notes that in 1994 the federal government committed to setting up a database on pesticide use and that it has still not done so.
Can the Minister of Health inform us as to when a pesticide sales database will be set up by Statistics Canada?
Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.
As I mentioned earlier, the new Pest Control Act was passed in December 2000. I said that it was an important tool for determining how we will deal with pesticides in the future.
Department officials are currently drafting regulations to allow us to implement the legislation. We expect that, as early as next year, with the regulations, we will be able to set up the database my colleague is referring to.
House of CommonsThe Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I have the honour to lay upon the table the performance report of the House of Commons administration for the period 2002-03.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsGeoff Regan: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 67 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsAileen Carroll: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-EuropeParliamentary Association, regarding its participation in the meeting of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, held at OECD headquarters in Paris, France, on June 20, 2003, and its participation in the third part of the 2003 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, France, from June 23 to 27, 2003.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation from the Canadian branch of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association concerning its participation in the 32nd meeting of that association, held in Paris, Angers and Vannes, France, from July 6 to 15, 2003.
Committees of the HouseMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
In accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, September 25, 2003, your committee has considered and held hearings on Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans, and agreed on Thursday, October 9, 2003, to report it without amendment.
In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee, during its consideration on October 9, 2003, of Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans, unanimously adopted a motion.
If I could have the indulgence of the House to read the two sentence motion involving veterans, I would be happy to provide it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the House give its consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
David Pratt: The motion reads as follows:

That the committee supports the decision of Veterans Affairs Canada to extend from one year to a lifetime the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) benefits provided to surviving spouses of Veterans who were in receipt of such benefits at the time of their death. However, the members of the committee unanimously agreed that the Government should take all possible means to provide lifetime VIP benefits to all qualified surviving spouses, of Veterans receiving such benefits at the time of their death, not just to those now eligible for such benefits following the amendments made in June 2003 to the Veterans Health Care Regulations.

John Maloney: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, September 23, 2003, the committee has considered Votes 1(a), 5(a), 10(a), 30(a) and 40(a) under Agriculture and Agri-Food in the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, and reports the same.
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the designation of Bill C-447 as a non-votable item.
PetitionsLarry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first petition is signed by several hundred Yukoners who support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman and they oppose any change in that definition.
Larry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is signed by a number of people from Manitoba, the largest number being from Brandon. The petitioners would like more access to non-drug preventative medicine options. The petitioners would like to obtain more information on those options and would like clarification of the definitions in the 1927 and 1952 Food and Drugs Act. The petitioners also call upon the government to enact Bill C-420.
Leon Benoit: Madam Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today on behalf of several Canadians which calls for the reinstatement of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. The petitioners feel that the Canadian Airborne Regiment was wrongly disbanded by the government for the actions of a few when the regiment had in fact behaved in an exemplary fashion. For that reason, the petitioners want the reinstatement of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
John M. Cummins: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today with signatures gathered by the Wreck Beach community, friends and visitors. The petition relates to the Coast Guard and the purchase of a 20 year old British hovercraft for use at the Sea Island Coast Guard base. The petitioners note in regard to the purchase that this new hovercraft will not be able to effect medevac or to be used as a dive platform because it lacks a bow ramp. The petitioners call upon the government to provide the Coast Guard with the necessary new vessel capable of performing those operations.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions with over 300 signatures from across the country. All three of these petitions call upon the government to defend the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman even to the extent of invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Scott Reid: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House today, one that is signed by several hundred members of my constituency. The petitioners call upon the House to respect freedom of expression and freedom of religion by voting against Bill C-250. The bill has passed through the House now but it has not passed through the Senate, and perhaps our friends in the other place will take note of this petition.
Questions on the Order PaperGeoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate about Bill C-38, a bill that would change how the judicial system deals with possession and production of marijuana.
My colleagues across the way have told us about the good intent of this bill: that it will decriminalize the actions of millions of Canadians; that it will provide opportunities for young people who might otherwise be burdened by a criminal record; and that it will relieve some of the congestion in our courts.
But I have to ask, at what cost will this be achieved?
I have several concerns about this bill and the government's attempt to fast-track it through the system, concerns ranging from the amount of marijuana that is decriminalized to the penalties and sentences for various offences. There are also numerous logistical issues involving the practical side of enforcing the proposed new law, which I feel must be addressed before legislation is passed.
Finally and most importantly, I am gravely concerned about the message that Bill C-38 will send to Canadians in general, but to our youngest and most vulnerable citizens in particular. I intend to explore each of these concerns in greater detail during the next few minutes in the hope that these issues will be noted and perhaps highlighted in the committee setting.
The bill establishes a new system of guidelines for the decriminalized possession of marijuana. From what I understand, the government has based these numbers on what it considers appropriate or reasonable amounts of marijuana for personal or recreational use.
Let us look at these numbers. Possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana gets one a $150 fine if one is an adult. Possession of between 15 and 30 grams of marijuana could get someone a fine or perhaps a summons for a summary offence. Possession of one gram or less of cannabis resin is good for a fine.
The implication here is that having between 15 and 30 grams of marijuana is considered reasonable for personal use, that the drug would not be meant for trafficking. Grams seem like a tiny unit of measure, and 15 to 30 grams does not sound like a lot to most of us. But depending on how much marijuana is used, that same 15 to 30 grams translates into 30 to 50 joints.
I know there are many parents and grandparents in this chamber. How many of them would think it acceptable or reasonable if they were suddenly to find 50 joints concealed in their son's or daughter's book bag or clothing? Unless that son or daughter were smoking up day and night, I think I would find myself wondering if some of those joints might be for sale or for purposes other than personal use.
Decriminalizing up to 30 grams of marijuana is the government's idea of responsibility. In contrast, my opposition colleagues feel that this number must be reduced to a maximum of 5 grams of marijuana if this bill is to become even remotely tolerable. This would equal between 5 and 12 joints, an amount far less likely to be for the purpose of trafficking. I personally believe that even 5 grams is too much and that Canadians are better served by a government that does not take lightly illegal drug use of any kind.
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the penalties for possession and production of marijuana as outlined in Bill C-38 merit considerable questioning and review.
The proposed fines for possession are negligible and, as such, I suspect they will not act as an effective deterrent. An adult possessing less than 15 grams of marijuana will face a fine of $150, or $300 for possession of between 15 and 30 grams. That is about the same as one could expect to pay for a traffic infraction such as speeding. One look at the Queensway or any other major thoroughfare will give us a pretty good idea of how unintimidated drivers are by the prospect of such a small fine. Marijuana users will likely be similarly undeterred, making the fines ineffective.
Young people between the ages of 14 and 18 will get an even better deal from the government if they are caught with marijuana. Youth fines, as proposed, are one-third less than the adult version. I question the reasoning behind this decision which takes already nominal fines and reduces them so they are more affordable for drug possessing youth.
The government should take a cue from the world of marketing, where it is known that young people often have access to more disposable income than adults and are less cautious in their spending. They wear expensive designer clothing, shoes and accessories, and they tote the latest in high tech communications devices and gadgetry.
The notion that a discount fine will deter youth from possessing marijuana is an absolutely ridiculous idea.
Still on the subject of sentencing, I have heard rumours that the minister may consider tougher minimum sentences for marijuana growers and for repeat offenders. I sincerely hope that this is more than a rumour because these issues have not been adequately addressed in the bill.
From a logistical standpoint, the government is trying to fast-track the bill through Parliament without ensuring that the provinces, municipalities and authorities have the proper tools in place to implement it. From what I have read, the bill does not provide extra money for policing, fine collection or any of the other inevitable administration costs.
As I mentioned earlier, my greatest concern about the bill is the message it sends to Canadians, particularly our youth. I hope this issue will be studied in great detail by the committee.
Before the bill was introduced there was a lot of talk about decriminalization and legalization: Which would the government choose?
When I talked to people in my riding, both adults and youth, I was disturbed to note that the terms were used interchangeably. I worry that should the bill pass, our young people will not differentiate between two definitions and as a result they will come away with the idea that buying, possessing and smoking marijuana is okay. That is a behaviour actually endorsed by the government.
I suggest to the House that it is irresponsible to even contemplate passing a bill such as Bill C-38 without first establishing a clear and comprehensive education campaign to inform our young people about what the bill is intended to do.
In Saskatoon, the city council is in the process of discussing a ban on public smoking. Similar bans have been adopted here in Ottawa and in other cities and towns across the country. It is a health and safety issue and, as such, the cities are trying to do what they can to discourage smoking. By virtue of making it okay to possess a smokable drug, decriminalizing marijuana is a backward step in this fight for improved health.
The government is sending mixed messages. It is telling Canadians not to smoke because it is bad for them and cigarette companies not to advertise because it can influence our young people, but marijuana, that is not criminal.
Yesterday the minister described Bill C-38 as the launch of a real reform. I suggest that the bill needs some real reform.
Leon Benoit: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill which deals with the issue of decriminalizing marijuana.
I want to make it very clear that I absolutely cannot and will not support the bill. It is certainly not supported by most of my constituents.
I have examined and will continue to examine the issue of decriminalization under certain circumstances but under the terms laid out in the legislation, it is completely unacceptable, and I will explain in a little bit why.
However I first want to deal with the contradiction that the legislation, as it is presented here, provides for Canadians when we have heard so much talk about the importance of dealing with the seriousness of drunk driving.
Every day in Canada five people are killed and more than 200 people are injured due to drunk driving. There has been a great public effort to try to cut down and eliminate drunk driving, period.
After all the work on drunk driving, the government is proposing to decriminalize the use of marijuana in large amounts, up to 30 grams, and, at the same time, doing it before we have any kind of roadside test or reliable roadside assessment to deal with someone driving while under the influence of marijuana. It just seems absurd that any government would propose such a thing. All we are doing is expanding on the serious problem of drunk driving to include another very serious problem of driving while under the influence of drugs. To me it seems totally irresponsible that the government would propose that.
So much effort on the one hand to cut down on drunk driving; so lightly the government would put in place legislation that would make it so easy and, in effect, encourage driving while under the influence of marijuana. I believe that issue has to be dealt with before anyone will seriously consider supporting this legislation, and that certainly should be the case.
Certain requirements would have to be put in place before I could ever seriously consider any legislation to decriminalize marijuana and, as I said, they certainly are not in place in this legislation as it has been presented to the House. The legislation does not reflect the proposals put in place by the committee which spent months studying it.
The minimum requirements for change that would have to be made to this legislation before I could consider seriously supporting it are the following. First , when it comes to summary conviction fines, they would apply to five grams or less, not to the 30 grams, which is a very large amount of marijuana and is an amount more commonly connected with someone trafficking, as some of my colleagues have mentioned.
Second, we would need a clear understanding with the provincial governments, and in fact with the legal industry which would have to exist to consistently deal with criminal offences under the decriminalization amounts. In other words, someone caught with 35, 40 or 50 grams would face criminal convictions in the courts of all provinces. We would have to be comfortable with the set limit.
The government is proposing a limit of 30 grams. I can imagine what would happen in court if someone were charged with the possession of 32 grams. The judge would probably say that under the Criminal Code it is unfair to charge someone who has 32 grams even though the law put the limit at 30. The amounts would certainly come into play. It is critical that does not happen and therefore the provincial governments would have to agree to the level that is set, which certainly should not be, in my opinion, more than five grams, and not the thirty grams proposed in the legislation.
Another requirement would be for a progressive fine schedule to be put in place. Fines and penalties would increase based on the number of convictions and not just the same fine again and again.
The proposal in the legislation that young people receive a lower fine for possession of amounts under 30 grams than older people is absurd. What kind of message does that send to our young people? It sends a message to them that smoking marijuana cannot possibly be harmful, and I absolutely disagree. Marijuana is a very dangerous drug and our young people should be discouraged from using it. However, this legislation would, in effect, encourage young people to use marijuana because it sends the message that it is not harmful. That is wrong and I think that has to be changed before the legislation can be supported.
A national drug strategy would have to be in place. One would think that with all the good work the committee did and all the minds that have been working on this in the justice department, they would have focused on putting in place a national drug strategy, some kind of an overall, overarching strategy to deal with the very serious problem of drug use in this country.
So far what has been the government's response to this serious drug problem? It has opened up a shoot-up site in Vancouver so people can legally break the law right on the streets of Vancouver. I do not think that is appropriate. There are some very serious problems with that and we have seen them in other countries.
That is not a drug strategy. That is admitting failure. That is government saying that it cannot deal with this serious problem and it simply cannot win, so it will not even try. That is absolutely unacceptable and it is shameful that a government would say that about a problem as serious as drug use. We know all of the social hardships that are a result of drug use and yet the government's response is to open up shoot-up sites with no national drug strategy. I think that is absurd.
To focus on the problem of marijuana use first without focusing on other serious drugs, in some cases more harmful drugs, is another case of the government setting the wrong priorities. We cannot try to deal with a problem like this bit by bit, piece by piece, in a completely unorganized fashion. That is not something that will work. Canadians know that. I am surprised the government does not know that.
Another issue which I think will be even more difficult to deal with if this legislation actually passes is the issue of drug trafficking and grow ops. We know these problems have damaged and caused great hardship in many communities across the country. Certain areas of our towns and cities have been harmed quite dramatically by having grow ops and trafficking in the area.
The law of the country has to be clear and workable to where grow ops and trafficking are considered to be and are serious criminal offences. When one is talking about decriminalizing the possession of amounts up to 30 grams, the line will be blurred between those who have marijuana for their own use and those who have marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. That is just making the problem more difficult to deal with. It is not really helping to fix the problem.
For those reasons and others I will not be supporting the legislation. We will continue to encourage the government to make amendments to fix these things and deal with the problem of trade with the United States. The Americans have made it clear that if we decriminalize, as is proposed in this legislation, we will have more trade problems, problems in moving goods across the border. We already have trade problems that are devastating the agriculture industry and the softwood lumber industry. We do not need that to be broadened out to other industries. Yet the Americans have said that this will do that.
Let us deal with these problems. If the government were to deal with all of these issues I mentioned, then I would consider the legislation. I still think that decriminalizing marijuana sends a message to our young people and Canadians that it is not as harmful as in fact I believe it is.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
I have found the debate very interesting today. There are many concerns with the bill that the NDP shares with many other members of the House. It is a contradictory and confusing piece of legislation at the present time. It has widespread criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.
A case in point, the bill was introduced by the government on May 27, 2003, just one day after it launched an appeal against an Ontario court ruling declaring that people with medical exemptions have legal supplies of the drug. It was a very obvious contradiction right at the outset.
The bill seeks to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana but toughen penalties on large marijuana grow operations. At present, being arrested for possession or carrying marijuana is an up to seven year jail sentence.
We would like to look at what implications the bill may have on possibly unexpected persons. The provisions of the bill are quite simple. Cannabis possession and production will remain illegal in Canada. The current criminal court process and resulting criminal penalties would be replaced with fines for possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana and one gram or less of cannabis resin.
The bill would give law enforcement officers the discretion to give a ticket or issue a summons to appear in a criminal court for possessing 15 to 30 grams of cannabis.
We have a new four tier method of punishing people. An individual found growing one to three plants would face a summary conviction offence with a fine of up to $5,000 or 12 months in jail. For 4 to 25 plants, it would constitute an offence punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 or 18 months in jail. Growing 26 to 50 plants would result in a sentence of up to 10 years and the sentence for growing more than 50 plants would be up to 14 years, which is double the current maximum penalty.
It is rather an odd way of going about things. It is saying that a little bit is all right and a bit more is less all right. It seems to miss the point in terms of sending messages to people in terms of the use of marijuana.
The bill misleads Canadians and it perpetuates the myth that the criminal law can resolve the problems relating to drugs. The NDP would say that there may be a fear that increased penalties on cultivation could in fact push the price of marijuana up making it more difficult for people who use marijuana for medical purposes.
We would say that a stiffer regime of penalities may ironically reinforce organized crime and force out the small operations, and that there is still an emphasis on enforcement. We have a concern that ticketing will actually increase the demand of police resources at the local level.
There are no provisions in the bill for amnesty for Canadians who currently have a criminal record from cannabis convictions. There are approximately 600,000 Canadians who have criminal records for simple marijuana possession. There may in fact be people in the House who have criminal records for marijuana. I have not done any checks but that is a possibility and certainly there are members of our family who may have it.
As we move ahead and begin to understand marijuana in a different way then obviously we must have some kind of mechanism in place to clear the record on some of these supposed criminal offences.
Bill C-38 presents a contradictory and confused approach. That is the fundamental message that we want to send. On the one hand it purports to offer a measure of decriminalization, but the political rhetoric and system of penalties outlined actually points to a tougher and wider enforcement stance.
Another objection is that we fear that increasing penalties on growing marijuana will push up the price. For medical purposes this could cause even more problems for people who are in need of it for pain management.
There is too much emphasis on enforcement in our estimation. It is feared that ticketing would increase the demand for police resources at the local level.
Approximately 100,000 Canadians use marijuana. There is no evidence that the ticketing scheme or tougher sentences would reduce that number.
I wish to conclude by speaking a little about the medical use of marijuana. The Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs did not deal with marijuana for medical purposes. The NDP wishes to draw attention to the serious problems and flaws in the federal government's medical marijuana program. The current regulations of the program are very restrictive, overly bureaucratic, and severely limit the access for Canadians who have a legitimate need for therapeutic purposes. The NDP believes that these unnecessary restrictions should be lifted.
The recommendations of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in this regard make very good sense and we would like to see them adopted.
The bill still needs work. The NDP has been very supportive of the work done by the committee on drug use and has worked hard on a consensus basis to bring about more progressive laws on this front. We will continue to work to make this a better bill in committee.
Larry Spencer: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the notion of decriminalizing marijuana. I do so at a time when it is probably bringing more confusion not only to this country and especially to the teenagers of our nation but also to the nation south of us.
I have been involved in some meetings in high schools over the past year and that is one of the very hot topics there. Students are quite anxious to see this happen and just to prove it they have already ramped up their use of marijuana. It is a known fact that marijuana use in high schools has already increased because of this proposed legislation.
John Walters, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the White House, recently remarked about our Prime Minister. He had something to say that we should listen to very carefully. He said that Canadians are concerned about the behaviour of their Prime Minister and the joking that he has done with this issue. Our Prime Minister said:

I don't know what is marijuana. Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal. I will have money for my fine and a joint in the other hand.

That is something like going to the airport and saying “Yes, I have a bomb in my shoe and one in my hip pocket”. We know not to do that. It would seem to me that a Prime Minister of a nation would know not to make that kind of joking remark in any place in the world where it might be reported back.
I believe that was a harmful statement and it is misleading to our youth. I believe it is degrading to our nation, this Parliament and to the Prime Minister himself. I was quite sorry to hear that he would make that kind of a statement.
John Walters of the United States also said:

Canada is the one place in the hemisphere where things are going the wrong (way) rapidly. It's the only country in this hemisphere that's become a major drug producer instead of reducing their drug production.

That is very true and it is a sad commentary on our nation. It is a sad commentary on our government and on those who want to push this relaxation of the war on drugs through the House.
Recently in committee, my hon. colleague from Langley--Abbotsford admitted and said to the committee that this is a touchy issue when it comes to border relationships with the United States. After our experience with BSE and our experience with other agricultural subsidies placed on products by the United States, it would seem that we would learn our lesson. It would seem that we would try to be decent and good neighbours to those to the south and not be so insulting to them as what we have found ourselves being.
The hon. member from Langley--Abbotsford also said that there is little point in developing a process in this country when we offend everybody south of us. That is extremely important and one of the major problems with the idea of decriminalizing marijuana. It is going to create all kinds of border problems and relationship problems with our friends in the United States.
This bill says that it is okay to smoke and possess 15 grams or less of marijuana, or at least it is not a criminal offence. It is okay to smoke it, but it is not okay to possess too much. It is not okay to grow. It is not okay for a lot of things and so the message is very mixed. One of the messages that concerns me more than perhaps any of the others is the mixed message or the reverse message that is going out related to the health of people who use marijuana.
We have all kinds of misinformation coming to us that says this practice is not harmful. We all know that is not true. We know that it has to be harmful.
I am reminded of a time, back in the last century, in the 1950s. I was not too old at that time, but I remember as a young lad going to church. I do not remember which man said it, but I remember being taught that should I take up the habit of smoking cigarettes, it would be harmful to my body.
We know from the fifties all the way to the nineties that was disputed. There were many people of supposed wisdom who diffused that claim. Then all of a sudden, we began to reckon with all the cancer deaths from smoking cigarettes. Finally, we had a number of class action suits against tobacco companies because of the harm that tobacco smoke had caused so many people. Now this was a known fact and they were suing the tobacco companies because there was no warning label.
This is one of the most ridiculous things that has ever happened in the history of enlightened society. For a half century anybody with, as my dad used to say, the sense God gave a goose would know that cigarette smoke could not be helpful to one's body, that it would be harmful.
As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, we, including firemen, use masks and guards to protect us from all kinds of other fumes and smoke. We know it is not helpful to breathe that into our lungs, yet we are allowing our teenagers to believe it is quite all right.
It would be a tragedy if the House of Commons were to adopt the bill and send that skewed message to the young people of our nation who will then, no doubt, be returning to ask for help through the health system because of the long term problems this will no doubt cause with the new high power brand of marijuana which can now be produced in grow houses.
The lingering effects of marijuana smoke are something far more treacherous than alcohol. When someone drinks alcohol and becomes intoxicated, it is only a matter of hours until the body cleans itself up, the intoxication is gone and the body is back to normal. I am told the effects of marijuana smoke linger for days, not just hours, and a person could literally be intoxicated from marijuana smoke for all time. That would therefore decrease the performance of our students, decrease the ability to handle automobiles, machinery, to do jobs, to think, to speak, all these things.
My colleague from Calgary East pointed out that it was a student discount.
I recently bought a new automobile. One thing that caused me to buy that new automobile was a discount on the penalty for buying it. In other words, for not having cash, I could now get a very discounted rate on the interest I would be charged if I bought it before I had the cash. Therefore, because the penalty for buying it early was lessened, I bought it.
We have thousands of teenagers. Because they see the penalty is lessened, they are getting the student discount. Because it is no longer a criminal offence, they are buying into the false idea that smoking marijuana is just fine. I cannot support such a discount.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 20 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and there is agreement to re-defer the recorded division requested on the motion to refer Bill C-38 to committee before second reading until the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 21.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's motion, Motion No. 293. The government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act.
As the multicultural critic for the Canadian Alliance, I must start by saying our multicultural policy has been highly successful. It is viewed around the world as being one of the most progressive policies of countries that have people of different cultures living together. This of course allows an expression of culture, which is excellent, and promotes, like any other cultures, innovation and creativity. One would tend to agree with the motion because it recognizes diverse creativity among the artistic community.
A civilization's maturity is also reflected in how far it has developed its culture. Canadian culture is very highly respected around the world, be it the French culture, the English culture or the aboriginal culture. We have a diverse culture. Across this nation we see this fabulous creativity from artist from all walks of life. It is a matter of great pride and support.
We would like to support the motion wholeheartedly. However aside from the fact that we would like to support this cultural advancement, and we will support it, the difficulty with the motion is it asks that artists be treated as a special group. It asks that they have an exemption from income tax.
In many of the gripping notes I have received, mention has been made that artists have to struggle a lot before their work is recognized. I think that is a given fact not only in Canada but everywhere else. However to change the Income Tax Act to try to assist them in that way leaves us with this question. Where, how far and why only them?
I have a partial list of people with special status. It includes people with disabilities, caregivers, people employed overseas, people who have stopped earning an income, people who are buying RRSPs and so forth. It is a partial list but it is big. When we see the government using taxpayer money to promote its friends, like Bombardier and some other businesses, then one would not be surprised that somebody like my colleague from the NDP, who is from the artistic community, would also want that. There is nothing wrong in her bringing forward that motion.
We have had three private members' motions, particularly this week, asking for the same thing. As a matter of fact one of my colleagues, whom I supported, brought forward a motion asking for an exemption for firefighters. Then we had my colleague from the NDP asking for income tax exemptions for those who participate in sports. Now we have this. Where do we go from here?
The Canadian Alliance believes the solution to all this lies with having lower income tax for everybody, because every group, one way or another, has a need. A lot of seniors live in my riding. They face terrible times because of their fixed incomes. Calgary being a booming city, the rents are rising and so is everything else. They are having a hard time. Groups, such as minor hockey teams, are looking for some kind of relief. Everyone is looking for relief. How much can the pot be spread before there is nothing left?
In my party's view, a very simple solution to better address these issues would be to cut the unnecessary expenditures. Let us get rid of the boondoggles at HRDC and the gun registry. Cutting out the unnecessary expenditures would allow the Government of Canada to reduce taxes overall. Then every Canadian would benefit, be they in the artistic community, in the business community, anywhere.
An overall tax cut would give the initiative to all Canadians, including artists. It would meet the objective that my colleague has put forward to help the artists that need assistance. An overall tax reduction across the board would assist everyone, including single mothers. We seem to forget single mothers. Single mothers have a difficult time raising their children. They have jobs which do not pay enough. In my riding the last time I was out knocking on doors I came across many single mothers who had returned home to live with their parents because they could not financially make ends meet.
There are pockets of homeless people in our cities. To come up with a band-aid solution for this group or that group will not solve many of the issues. Why would we say yes to one group and no to another group? How could we differentiate between the groups? They all make a solid contribution to our Canadian mosaic.
The solution is an across the board tax reduction. That can only happen if the government controls its expenditures. If the government does not control its expenditures, then there is nothing we can do.
The same party that has put forward the motion has said that our foreign aid commitment should increase by 0.7%. That is a very nice thought, but where would the money come from? There is only one taxpayer and there are other issues to be addressed.
If the government reduced its expenditures, it would be able to reduce taxes. Then everyone in society would benefit, including the artists.
It is with difficulty that we must say we do not support the motion. It is not because we do not recognize the value of the artistic community; it is because we think a better approach would be a reduction in overall taxes.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, it might surprise members to hear me speak on Motion M-293 today because I am the Bloc critic on citizenship, immigration and the status of persons with disabilities.
Obviously, we all have favourite subjects. To some extent, we are all critics at heart when it comes to our special interests. Some people are passionate about sports, recreation, science or technology. In my case, it is health and culture. My past experience in health care explains my interest in the former, and my passion for arts and culture justifies my special love for the latter. Today, I want to talk about culture.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth for having drawn the attention of the House to the important issue of supporting artists and various cultural stakeholders.
The motion before us today states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act to exempt creative and interpretive artists from paying income tax on a percentage of income derived from copyright, neighbouring rights, and/or other income derived from the sale of any creative work.

Before I continue, I want to clarify that my hon. colleague for Drummond has moved an amendment to replace the word “Canada's” with the word “a”. Later, I will talk about what this means.
The Bloc Quebecois will be pleased to vote in favour of the motion by the hon. member from the NDP. Once again, this demonstrates our support for artists and creators.
There is an obvious paradox between our daily lives, the place of culture in our lives and the status of artists. Who does not have at home books that make for a good read from time to time, to escape into another world, either real or fantasy, leaving behind the hustle and bustle of everyday life? Who does not watch television or videos once in a while? How many people enjoy a night out at the theatre or at a concert? How many CDs do you have in your collection at home—and I hope there are more real ones than illegal copies? This goes to show that culture is an integral part of our way of life, our reality, and wherever we turn, whatever we do, it never leaves anyone indifferent.
What about the individuals in the many professions in the cultural sector, though? What about the artists in particular, who are self-employed for the most part? If culture is everywhere and we consume culture daily, does this make artists some of the wealthiest members of our society? With the exception of a few comedians, singers and actors, the majority are very badly off, financially speaking.
Given this situation, are we unable to change anything? Some thought has to be given to this by both individuals and lawmakers. Allow me first to call on individuals. Our artists are not poor only because of a limited market or greedy production company agents.
I would be curious to know how many illegal copies of CDs we could collect if we searched every household in Quebec and Canada. How can one claim to appreciate the work of an artist, but not feel it is worth paying $20 or $25 to buy the CD and listen to the music or songs performed as often as we want to? Copying an artist's work without paying is disrespectful, ungrateful and unfair. We have a collective responsibility to prevent artists from being robbed, and robbery must not be trivialized “because everyone is doing it”, as some put it.
What can the lawmakers do? Of course, we have a responsibility to creators and performers. We cannot ignore the fact that most often they are financially hard up,if not living below the poverty line.
Moreover, they are often self-employed, which means they cannot receive certain benefits provided for in the Labour Code.
Looking at various factors that influence an artist's work and living conditions, there is no doubt that positive government action is essential.
In Quebec—this will come as no surprise—we already have provisions similar to those in Motion No. 293. At first artists were eligible for an annual exemption on copyright revenues based on a sliding scale up to $30,000. This has now been raised to $60,000.
Except in cases when artists enjoy a resounding success, it is difficult for them to predict what their future will hold and what their tax return will look like the following year. In this case, the past is not necessarily an indication of what the future will be like.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts, or the CCA, has been asking for tax breaks on copyright revenues for a long time. In its budget proposal to the finance committee in September 2002, the CCA asked for a tax exemption equivalent to the one granted in Quebec. To that effect, recommendations 3 and 4 stipulate:

That the government of Canada give serious consideration to supporting Canada’s professional artists and creators, the cornerstone of Canada’s cultural industries and institutions, by exempting up to $60,000 of annual copyright income.
That, following the implementation of the above-mentioned tax exemption on copyright income, the government of Canada give serious consideration to extending such an exemption to apply to up to $60,000 per annum of all artistic income.

Since there is no question of the legitimacy of these demands, and since artists deserve additional government support, at least through tax measures encouraging their artistic endeavours, we support the motion of the member for Dartmouth.
As I have already said, a motion in amendment has been submitted by my colleague from Drummond, seconded by the member for Matapédia—Matane. It reads:

That the motion beamended by replacing the word “Canada's” with the word “a”.

I m sure that you will not see this as an undisguised attempt at trouble-making or petty politics. On the contrary, we want to make this motion into a more inclusive parliamentary initiative, one that better reflects the reality of the culture of this vast territory north of the American border.
By deleting the word “Canada's”, we are acknowledging that there are different cultures within this vast country, and that all deserve the same recognition by the federal government. To name but a few: the Quebec culture, the English Canadian culture, the French Canadian culture, and those of the aboriginal, Acadian and immigrant communities.
In closing, I raise my hat to all those who, day in and day out, bring colour to our lives through their cultural creations. Thanks to them, our lives are touched by imagination and fantasy. Often the ups and downs of life seem more bearable when our spirits can soar with the help of music, poetry or a good book.
As André Malraux put it:

The entire history of art, of genius, should be a history of deliverance: for history strives to transform destiny into awareness, while art strives to transform it into freedom.

That freedom is what I wish for all the artists and other creative members of our society.
Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, I have just a few words on this motion, the principle of which I certainly support. For many years I have been a strong supporter of artists of whatever type, whether it be visual artists or painters or musicians across this country. In fact, on numerous occasions I have had the opportunity to work directly and indirectly with a number of individuals and groups in promoting the great history and culture of our country, which can be done more explicitly through the art form than perhaps any other way.
Some of the best ambassadors we have had for our country, and we can say individually from our provinces, have been our artists and our musicians. In my own case, I can think of a group of very good friends of mine, a band called Great Big Sea, which is known from coast to coast to coast. These young men, long-time friends of mine, have done a tremendous job of representing not only Canada but specifically Newfoundland. If one watches any show in which they perform, some time during the show, in fact quite often many times, they will mention, promote and sing about the great province from which they all come.
I look at my friends from the Bloc next to me here. Some of the strongest artists and performers we have in this country of course come from Quebec and over the years they have done a great job not only of representing the province but in preserving that unique history and culture of the great province of Quebec.
Yet is there some way we can help them? Because all of them are not successful. I mentioned Great Big Sea. People are saying that those guys are making a lot of money these days, so why would they want breaks? Of course they are not asking for them, but there certainly was a time; they did not just appear on the national scene. They performed as students, actually, trying to work their way through university by making a few dollars entertaining, and it was a few dollars. Like it is for any group, it takes a while to gain the attention that gives a group the bookings or the buy-ins or whatever in order for it to start making money.
For many of our young artists, in particular our writers and painters, it takes a long time to prove themselves, to have their work accepted. For many of them, because their names are not recognized, unfortunately, it does not matter how good the work is. Unless somebody is really keen on interpreting the works of these writers or artists, their work quite often goes unnoticed. For many of those who are successful, their breaks come through luck or the support of some very conscientious people who are constantly looking for a good product, and consequently the performer or artist makes it on the scene.
Unfortunately many do not, but yet in their own ways they contribute. If we did not have our artists, if we did not have our actors, if we did not have our musicians, again I hesitate to try to understand how our heritage and culture could be promoted and preserved. One of the ways that we learn about history is from verse. I am sure it is from the old ballads that were passed along long before history was written by several cultures; the stories, the ballads, the poems, that is how we learned about our past. The same is true today.
Again, in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador there is a very rich culture and history. Much of it is preserved through art forms, certainly not by the dedicated efforts of any government trying to write a proper history. Those who do that work for us and get little in return certainly should be helped in any way. Is an exemption in the Income Tax Act the way to do it? It is quite possible it is, and I would have no problems with that.
However, the danger is of course that we would get people from other groups that make low wages in their professions asking why a young evolving artist who hopefully will eventually do exceptionally well should get a break, when those in the trades at the lower end or working on a farm as a labourer or whatever the case may be would not. They would say, “I am not going to get that break and I will be here until I die”. They would ask why they should not get a break when they are not making any more money than the people we are talking about exempting and when they have less of an opportunity to advance.
We cannot overlook any groups in our country who are making minimal wages. If only we had proper exemptions; our party has recommended that at the least we should have a $12,000 ceiling on income tax so that families and individuals who are making low wages would not have to pay income tax before they reached that bracket. That would give many low wage earners a break and we would not have to ask for exemptions for specific groups because they would automatically have it. Nor would we be getting complaints from individuals whose earnings are similar to those for whom we are requesting breaks.
We would avoid all of that by having a realistic taxation system in our country, with a base whereby low income people would not be harmed, and also through other exemptions like capital gains and so on, because many of the artists and writers eventually get into promoting and selling their products and really become entrepreneurs.
Generally, yes, we support the motion. If it is one way to help, we certainly support it, but perhaps collectively we should look for a way to help not only these people who do so much for us but also to help others who cannot do so much for themselves.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak in support of Motion No. 293 put forth by my colleague, the member from Dartmouth. It is absolutely a terrific motion and I think it has had very strong support across the country. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act to exempt creative and interpretive artists from paying income tax on a percentage of income derived from copyright, neighbouring rights, and/or other income derived from the sale of any creative work.

I am very proud to represent a community, the riding of Vancouver East, that is home to many artists. Many people have written me or e-mailed me about this motion, and people I have met in the community have spoken to me about it. They have tremendous support for the work the member from Dartmouth has done.
I do want to say that the member, who is our culture critic in the NDP, has been a very outstanding advocate for arts and artists in this country. She works in a very quiet but very powerful way in persuading people about what needs to be done. I want to thank her for her dedication in continuing to bring forward issues that affect artists, but they are also issues in a broader public policy sense in our country.
I think this motion today is a reflection of the kind of work she undertakes to start moving the wheels of government toward recognizing some simple things that could be done to support artists right across the country.
I think there is a huge issue about lack of federal funding for the arts. We do know that every year the Canada Council for the Arts has to turn down over 75% of the applications for individual support. In fact, artists can only apply twice every four years, so we know there are big issues around lack of federal funding. In Vancouver, which generally is a city that represents a very strong arts community, there have been numerous reports through the Greater Vancouver Regional District and through the City of Vancouver that have actually exposed the lack of support given to B.C. and to Vancouver for artistic endeavours compared to other provinces.
We certainly have our share of issues and complaints about the lack of federal funding for arts and culture. I put that forward as a context that there is a larger issue we are dealing with here, and that is the cutbacks by the federal government in its support for arts and culture.
But I think the motion before us today is an opportunity to do something that will provide very tangible and real support to individual artists. It would mean that hopefully they could still access all the other programs that are available, but by saying that we would be willing to consider a part of their income tax exempt it would be a very important initiative.
I think of organizations in my riding like the Vancouver East Cultural Centre or the Video Inn or Headlines Theatre, or a very popular event that takes place in the fall called the East Side Culture Crawl, where members of the public in the thousands visit various studios in east Vancouver, talk with artists, look at their work and have a dialogue. It is an amazing event.
I think of places like Gallery Gachet or the Western Front, which is a very well known artist-run co-operative, one of the oldest in the country. I think of these venues and places in my own community where artists are able to come together to perform, to speak, to paint and to display their artistic endeavours, and where the community can also learn, understand and participate. It is something that we in east Vancouver find very empowering. It is a very important part of our community. It is very much a part of the fabric of east Vancouver.
In fact, the City of Vancouver zoned particular areas to encourage what we call artists' live/work studios, because of course one of the issues is that artists never can find affordable housing, particularly if they are doing studio work where they use industrial chemicals and paints. They need a place where they can live and work, so the City of Vancouver changed its bylaws to allow that to happen.
We are very proud that in east Vancouver we have this incredible vitality of artistic creation and endeavour. What always amazes me is that there is a very common misconception that the government is subsidizing the arts. I think it is the other way around. I think that artists are subsidizing us. If anyone ever sat down and did a proper financial accounting of the hours and years of work that artists put into their creative endeavours and the actual monetary value that artists get, it would be pennies per hour.
I think of an artist that I recently met in Vancouver, Nathaniel Geary, who just premiered his new film On the Corner at the international film festival. It is a very powerful film about the downtown east side, about the drug issues and the sex trade. It is an incredible film. It has had wonderful reviews. It is difficult for him to do the distribution for that film even though it has been critically acclaimed.
At the opening night when he spoke to the audience, who gave him an ovation for his work, he told us that it had taken him three years to write the script and then another year or two to actually do the filming, so there are four or five years of work. He did get some funding support but if he ever sat down and counted up what he put in, in a monetary sense, it would literally be pennies per hour.
That is just one example. There are tens of thousands of artists in this country who work as a labour of love on creative expression, on artistic output. Artists are not asking for a lot, which in some ways is a sad thing. They are not asking for very much. The arts community is asking that they be acknowledged for the value of their work. There is a monetary value. There is a value in terms of our society and what it represents in terms of our history and our culture.
As the member from the Tories mentioned earlier, and I agree with him, artistic expression can communicate in a much more powerful way the ideas, concepts and issues and the passion that people have about different things than we can by standing in the House and making a speech.
The motion before us today is about the principle that the value of the work produced by artists individually and collectively as a community is something we should recognize, and we should recognize it at different levels. One way to recognize the value of their work is to ensure that there is some mechanism within the income tax regime so that they can deduct some of their income from copyright and from their creative work, so that they have some benefit.
This concept is not new. It has been done in other places. The example most commonly used is Ireland, where artists are allowed to use a 100% deduction. That is not being suggested here. We are only talking about a partial deduction or a percentage of income derived from copyright, neighbouring rights or other income. We are not talking about 100%. There is a well established process that has already worked in other jurisdictions, so it is very feasible and realistic that it should be done here in Canada.
I have received quite a lot of e-mail on this issue from artists in my own riding. Kevin wrote to me and said:

This motion is not only about improving the living standards of all artists and arts institutions and nurturing the development of arts and culture in this country, but more importantly it is about the recognition and respect for the artists and arts institutions in Canada, who are presently significantly undervalued.

I would wholeheartedly agree with Kevin.
I have another e-mail that I received from Marita who wrote that if this motion were approved it would have a great effect on her life and standard of living. She wrote:

I hope that the House will see beyond the petty party lines and support this motion that not only benefits artists, but Canadian culture and forge our distinct identity.

I have another--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bagnell): Order, the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that our government is seeking to ensure the vitality of all Canadians. That is one reason I am taking this opportunity to make a few remarks about the motion tabled by the hon. member for Dartmouth.
In order to maintain its mandate as the representative of the Canadian people, the government must, among other things, consider the diverse culture that is so unique to our country. It is an important characteristic of Canadian society and it should not be otherwise.
It is with this in mind that the Government of Canada is trying through a variety of means to stimulate the industry that reflects the character of our nation. For this reason, the initiative from the hon. member is certainly of some interest. Nevertheless, as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has said before, there are many government agencies, institutions, programs and policies that are focused in whole or in part on this goal without creating or promoting unfairness in the collection of taxes.
As was mentioned earlier, the motion proposes to reduce the tax rate applicable to income earned by literary artists. While I do not deny that this would be a financial benefit to people working in this sector, it would be difficult to justify this type of approach to other taxpayers. Among other things, I do not see how we could explain applying such treatment to one group of Canadians while refusing it to another. Moreover, there is no indication that all writers actually need this type of benefit. While it might be beneficial to low income writers, we would be hard pressed to explain why such an exemption should not be applied to high income earners.
It is not hard to understand that the government would indeed be swamped by an avalanche of demands from various groups of Canadians, and understandably so. Given the limits and priorities of our system, we would inevitably have to deny most, or perhaps all, of those requests. How then would we explain one refusal to one profession after giving special treatment to another without any particular reason? No sufficiently valid justification can be offered in this regard, and I do not see how we could find a satisfying response to this question. Needless to say, in a society like ours which promotes social and economic justice for all, this type of practice would be unacceptable.
The consequences of amending the tax system should not be taken lightly. That is why using the tax system as suggested would not be an appropriate way to help a single sector of society, considering all of the undesirable repercussions that would flow from the decision.
In addition, in several respects, the motion does not have enough detail to justify straying from our usual practice. For example, there is no indication of the amount of the reduction in the tax rate that would apply, nor are definitions suggested as to who would be considered “creative and interpretive artists” and what would constitute “creative work”.
Lastly, we must not forget that there already exist various programs and incentives that stimulate the creation of Canadian cultural product. There is a tax credit for the labour cost of creating a Canadian film and video production, including the cost to hire screenwriters. There is the possibility for an artist to immediately deduct the cost of a work of art that the artist has created and is holding for sale, rather than waiting until it is sold. There is the availability of a business deduction for the cost of Canadian artwork. The non-taxation of capital gains earned on cultural property given to museums is another incentive.
Added to all of those incentives is direct and indirect assistance provided by the government to a variety of sectors to support creative work.
I would like to summarize by mentioning that there are, for example, support programs for certain cultural products and a host of grants, awards or bursaries of all sorts. Direct expenditure programs allow the government to address more directly the various specific needs within the artistic field than can be achieved through the tax system. In this way, the assistance offered by government is more easily justified to other Canadians.
I must also point out as a further reminder that the 2003 budget continues the implementation of the government's five year plan to reduce taxes for all Canadians. Unquestionably, this plan better meets the government's current objectives. These reductions apply to all taxpayers, but especially to middle and low income families with children. Of course, the reductions apply equally to families in the artistic community as they do to other taxpayers.
While I respect the hon. member for her support of Canada's creative literary artists, I must emphasize that the motion before us today is not the most effective way of achieving this objective.
Given what I said earlier, and notwithstanding the fact that the motion tabled is certainly based on honourable intentions, I must ask that the motion not receive the support of the House at this time.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have been able to turn the attention of the House to the issue of the artists in the country. It has been a privilege. We heard some interesting things in the course of the debate.
I think that we heard from all sides that there is a sincere concern about the continuance of real support for people in the arts. My motion is quite symbolic. It simply says let us now look at the economic state that people in the arts face in the country.
I appreciate the comments by my colleague from the Bloc who in fact is an artist herself. She is an eloquent spokesperson for persons with disabilities and also for culture.
I also appreciate the comments that have been made about the need to really examine our tax system to see who it is in fact it represents and examine the idea that people who are making under $15,000 are there. We have to make sure that we are not taxing the wrong people. All of these things are excellent ideas.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts has put forward some strong suggestions on how we can support people in the arts. One of the them is tax breaks for copyright income. Another one is an income averaging system. The third one is really careful fine tuning of the employment insurance system which would allow artists to be part of that and get some security.
The point has been made that the artist is no different from the mechanic or many other people in the country who work and are critical to the existence of the country. The point was made that an artist can in fact work at something for years on end and not find any financial benefit until three or four years down the line. It is very different. It is not a wage situation. They do not get a paycheque at the end of every two weeks and that makes a big difference.
Everything has been said today. I have received some wonderful comments from artists from across the country. I want to take the last few minutes to put a couple of things on the record.
Ingrid Jenkner, the curator of the Mount St. Vincent Gallery in Halifax, wrote:

Artists do not constitute a “special interest group” comparable to powerful corporate lobbies. They are neither wealthy nor well-organized. They are undersupported, period. The incomes of visual artists are especially pitiful. I am speaking as a Dartmouth constituent and as a public art gallery director who has worked with visual artists for 25 years. Let's get this motion passed and prove that Canada is a civilized country.

Emily Bickell of Globe Studios wrote:

It is a constant struggle for artists to meet financial requirements while making a serious attempt to have a professional arts career. Emerging artists in particular have a very difficult road ahead as they strive to create artwork without financial support or a body of work as “stock” which they could sell to finance future endeavours.

Leslie Smith wrote:

As president of the Toronto Chapter of the Periodical Writers Association of Canada, PWAC, I can tell you that things have gotten worse for the freelance writers who provide so much content for Canadian newspapers and magazines. Media convergence, the rise of the Internet and just plain stinginess on the part of publishers have meant that our real incomes have nosedived over the past 50 years.

I will read something from Alberta's Lieutenant Governor, Lois Hole, which I think is really germane to the argument. She said:

The contributions of artists are as vital as those of the entrepreneur, the police officer, the doctor, the custodian, the child care provider and the construction worker. Artists are just as important because they are our greatest teachers and questioners. They give us the means to think critically, with a keen eye for both the smallest details and the big picture.

She asked us to imagine how different the world would be if we did not have our singers, painters, writers and sculptors serving as our eyes. She went on to say, “Frankly, I think we would enjoy a more saner, more compassionate society, one that keeps a better eye on the details that can make or break a culture”.
We have an opportunity today to support the arts in many ways. We can support them by putting more money into the Canada film fund, into the CBC; by funding our Canada council better; and by putting some special mechanisms into the unemployment insurance system that would take into account the needs of people working in the arts. We could do this through some kind of tax relief for copyright income for artists, and with things like income averaging.
What we have to do is say that it is art that legislates the heart of a nation. That is where we have to begin and that is where we will end.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members have risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 22, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
It being 1:38 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 20, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:38 p.m.)