2005-05-20

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseHon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties concerning today's scheduled debate on the motion to concur in the fourth report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the debate on the motion from the Member for Calgary—Nose Hill be deemed to have taken place, the question put and a recorded division requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Wednesday, June 1.

The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)

Government Orders
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec ActHon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak on Bill C-9, which is a legislative measure of great importance to fulfilling the mandate of my department. Since July 2004, in fact, I have been responsible for this department, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, more commonly called Economic Development Canada.
Numerous debates here and in the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology have made it possible to amend the wording of this bill, to make it clearer and better. After months of work, we now have a bill in our hands that is not only better, and better adapted to the situation and needs of today's Quebec, but also and above all the best possible synthesis of the views of the various parties in this House. I say best possible because, as Picasso said, if there were only one truth, it wouldn't be possible to paint 100 variations on the same theme.
I would therefore like to express my very warm thanks to all those who have been a part of this debate and have enriched it with their respective points of view.
The bill we are being called upon to adopt is more inclusive. The concept of social economy enterprise is now included in the concept of small- and medium-sized enterprises which was the terminology in the first version of Bill C-9. This amendment to the bill and to the mission of the agency is a recognition of the constantly growing role played by the social economy in Canada, and in the communities of Quebec in particular.
Social economy enterprises will thus find partners for their own development and for the revitalization of their communities in Canada Economic Development, its programs and its services.
I add that this amendment appears especially important given that Quebec constitutes one of the primary promoters of the social economy in Canada.
A few weeks ago, when I was visiting the Carrefour de l'économie sociale Angus to announce two major contributions by my department, I had the privilege of meeting a group of promoters and workers in the social economy, who spoke eloquently of what the social economy had done for their communities. I would very much have liked for members to share this magic moment with me. I wish as well that members could have seen the light in their eyes and feel the enthusiasm they exuded.
The bill we are being asked to pass is encouraging for regions in Quebec experiencing difficulty and for vulnerable communities. It confirms, in the object, powers and duties of Canada Economic Development the importance of supporting regions where slow economic growth is prevalent and where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate. This is an essential component of my department's mandate.
Because economic diversification is still in its early stages, many of these regions remain too dependent on a single resource or product, which fluctuates beyond our control in the context of globalization. With an eye to fairness and to the fight against regional disparity, Canada Economic Development partners regions having difficulty adjusting to the global context.
The recent budget provides for an increase of $800 million in funding for regional economic development agencies for Canada. We have to be clear. For Quebec, it means a budget increase of more than $300 million over five years. We will use these funds to support vulnerable communities and single industry communities, as we do now, for example, in Huntingdon and Asbestos. The increase is of course dependent on the passage of the budget.
In another vein, passage of Bill C-9 will also mean that the agency will work to promote ever closer cooperation with the Government of Quebec and the communities of Quebec under its object, powers and duties.
Cooperation does not mean subordination. It serves to increase the complementarity of federal and provincial interventions. Complementarity does not mean subordination, either. Let me give you an example of cooperation and complementarity.
A few weeks ago, following the Government of Quebec's decision to restructure forest management, a very courageous decision I might add, I made a commitment to allocate roughly $30 million a year to alleviate the impact of this decision on the communities affected. In addition, I eagerly agreed with Quebec's finance minister, Michel Audet, to include Canada Economic Development in a coordinating committee for our mitigation plans. That is cooperation and a respectful complementarity of our respective obligations. It is an effective complementarity.
We all know that such cooperation between the federal government and the provincial government is continual and productive.
The development of support measures for social economy enterprises, for example, has given both governments the opportunity to work together to ensure the complementarity of their programs.
To give you another example, on January 27, I went to Chandler, where my colleagues from the Government of Quebec and I made a joint announcement of various measures to promote the economic diversification of that Gaspé community.
The $1.15 million boost from Canada Economic Development will go toward a development strategy and the implementation of the promotional tools needed to attract new businesses to Chandler or to encourage existing businesses to stay. The Government of Quebec issued an action plan for the transportation, tourist accommodation, health and social services sectors.
In the wake of this cooperation with Quebec, and within the framework of the bill we are talking about today, the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development will be able to conclude cooperation and sectoral agreements with his Quebec counterparts or with one of the agencies.
This provision in Bill C-9 fully meets the wish expressed by a number of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee. I am thinking in particular of Mr. Raymond Giguère, who is the director general of the CEGEP in Rimouski. He said, and I quote:

It would be necessary to maintain the capacity to foster a collaborative approach with stakeholders from other orders of government.

While the approach used by the Economic Development Agency of Canada promotes complementarity and a better synergy of initiatives, it also seeks to promote joint planning between the various levels of government and the community's movers and shakers. This approach is primarily based on the regional intervention strategies developed by the agency in each of Quebec's regions, through an interconnecting relationship with the community. These strategies are developed with and for the community. They are based on the regions' economic strengths, their industrial and institutional structures, their competitive advantages, and their areas of excellence.
Ms. Manon Laporte, the president and chief executive officer of Enviro-Access, in Sherbrooke, made this comment when she appeared before the committee:

The presence of the regional offices of the Economic Development Agency of Canada ... allows for networking amongst the partners in the community. It also means that particular needs can be supported rather quickly.

It was also before the Standing Committee on Industry that Ms. Randa Napky, the director general of Tourisme Abitibi-Témiscamingue, described in those terms the close relations of its organization with the agency:

We decide here in the region on the priorities and development themes we want to adopt, in concert with a major partner such as CED. Its role in our community is not confined to project funding, which is of course necessary, but extends to its presence and participation in a multitude of activities, its expertise and knowledge of the region's dynamics and characteristics, its solidarity, and its desire to develop the regions and guide them in their development.

The Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which is present in every region of the province with its 14 business offices, is close to the residents of those regions. This proximity, this sensitivity, this intimate knowledge of local and regional issues, makes a real difference when it comes to regional development.
The role of this department, which I have the honour of managing, was already enshrined in the 1982 Constitution. Indeed, section 36.1 is very clear regarding the Government of Canada's responsibility to fight regional disparities. Now, this responsibility is reaffirmed in Bill C-9.
Beyond the statistics and even beyond the political aspect of all this, what really counts is the pride of a woman who wants to start a business and has our confidence. It is a young researcher in Rimouski or in Sherbrooke who speaks passionately about his professional future in his native region. It is the head of a social economy enterprise who introduces her staff, a swarm of busy bees who have found dignity through work. It is Montreal, a city that sparkles, that vibrates and that plays host to the rest of the planet.
That is what I am working to achieve with my officials at Canada Economic Development, and I must say they are an extraordinary group of people. Therefore, I invite all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-9.
I will conclude my remarks with a message to the members of this House. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats support this bill.
I want to invite the Bloc Quebecois to show its commitment to Quebec's economic development, to agree to change its position, to stop opposing this bill, to put the economic interests of the regions of Quebec before its own dogmatic interests and to vote in favour of this bill.
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister. We have been working very hard on this bill to try to change and improve it. That being said, I would like the minister to provide me with an answer on one thing.
Currently, the existing economic development models in resource regions such as Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean must be reviewed. We must work on that. Until now, the government has undertaken, through a Quebec summit on regional economy, a reassessment of this whole approach to economic development. What we are hearing now deals with decentralization. We are talking about directly providing regions with financial means to take their destiny in their own hands.
Consequently, I would like the minister to tell me why he did not take advantage of this important bill — I know he has worked hard on this bill — to tour the regions and have consultations with the economic development leaders. I think this government missed a great opportunity.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, need I remind my hon. colleague that the people of the regions, themselves, will confirm my sustained and focussed presence in the regions ever since I was appointed to this position?
Ask the people of Chandler. Ask the people of Saguenay, in the member's region. Ask the people of Rimouski. Ask the people of the Eastern Townships. Ask the people of the Magdalen Islands. I have toured Quebec several times, precisely because I think that one cannot run a department like mine without being in touch with the everyday realities in the field. Be it in Quebec City, in Montreal or in the regions, I have consistently been just as welcome.
We have 14 regional offices, which are involved in all the recovery and revitalization committees wherever they are necessary. We have always shown our support unconditionally for projects from the regions. When I travelled to Saguenay, I had the pleasure of announcing the Aluminum Technologies Centre, which we know will, on the one hand, provide an incentive for young people to stay in the region and, on the other hand, promote the development of businesses for the secondary and tertiary processing of aluminum, among others. The same is being done for lumber.
We are there to provide support. We do not want to shirk our responsibilities by transferring funds without maintaining any control over how they are managed. The Government of Quebec is making the decisions, and that is fine. Therefore, once these funds have borne fruit, we will be there to support the projects that stemmed from them. That is the way in which we want to help. Once again, I am referring to the fact that we are consistent in ensuring the necessary complementarity in our actions.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an information brief on the website of Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec states the following:

The bill does not make any changes to the agency’s role... Whether it is a government department or an agency, the minister faces the same obligations, responsibilities, powers and duties... The existing programs will remain in place. The act will have no impact on the agency’s present programs or clientele in the immediate future.

Based on what is written on department's own site, it is impossible to identify the purpose of this entity, unless it is once again to give someone keys to a limousine and subject the regions to propaganda, through departmental announcements. Since this bill does not change the agency's mission or clientele in any way, why is it before us at this time?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I will set out the reason for this bill, and its impact.
Its impact is not to change the vocation of federal intervention in regional economic development, but to ensure that, instead of decisions coming under the jurisdiction of another minister, the Minister of Industry, they will be made autonomously by Quebec, for Quebec and with Quebec.
I am not the one that politicized the debate. I brought in this bill as a technical bill. The Bloc Québécois seized on an opportunity to try to politicize the bill. The point of their interventions was to get us to transfer Economic Development Canada funds to Quebec, purely and simply, and to have no more to do with them.
I refuse to do that. I refuse to abdicate my responsibilities. They are the ones who have politicized the debate. What I find interesting in what was said is the reference to propagandizing the regions. I do not think they can give us any lectures on humility. They are, I think, always there when we make announcements. They never miss a photo op. It is bit silly, this business of the pot calling the kettle black.
As far as politicizing the debate is concerned, what I would have liked to have seen, and what three political parties understood in the same way, is that we were taking advantage of this welcome debate to progress further and to reflect together on the best way to help Quebec develop economically.
However, unlike the other three parties in this House, the Bloc got obsessed by the idea that the federal government should be out of it completely. They want no more federal presence. They want to use the back door to get what they did not manage to get at the front. That is all very fine, and it is their right, their privilege and prerogative, but I and my Liberal government also have the prerogative to say that we refuse to abdicate our responsibilities just because the Bloc would like us to.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the minister answered the question of our colleague from Jonquière—Alma. We clearly understood that he has been in touch with each of the regions. But what the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma asked was whether he had consulted the bone and sinew of each of these regions? Indeed, there is a difference between announcing one's plans to the public through the media and conducting consultations and actually asking the public what they think about these plans.
In that respect, I can testify that, in my riding and in neighbouring ridings, the minister's address was in fact made by the media. There has been no true consultation of the bone and sinew of the populations concerned.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member across the way may have put this question to please me.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every time I travel to a region, I meet with the local stakeholders and local authorities. We have debates and discussions with them, and I listen much more than I speak. I listen to what they have to tell me about their concerns, their priorities, their goals, their dreams, and so on.
Ask the mayors of Chandler, Rimouski, Rivière-du-Loup, Baie-Comeau and Saguenay, and in the Magdalen Islands. Everywhere I go, regardless of whether or not I have an announcement to make, I take the time to listen carefully to the local authorities and stakeholders.
Whether in Sherbrooke or in Baie-Comeau, chambers of commerce are very important forums of reflection on economic development. Local authorities have a responsibility. They are the ones closest to the everyday reality. What they have to say is extremely important for me to understand what needs to be done. I do not go there to dictate what to do, but to listen to what people have to tell me.
I suggest that my hon. colleague do something very simple. He should just ask all these mayors and municipal councillors I have met with over the eight to ten months I have been in charge of this portfolio. They number literally in the hundreds. Clearly, the question I was just asked either completely ignores the reality of my work in the field, as confirmed by the local stakeholders, or it is pure demagoguery.
Mr. Réal Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit concerned, because I was the mayor of my municipality for 21 years. I was the reeve of the Bellechasse RCM for nearly three years, and I was very involved in issues affecting the Chaudière—Appalaches region, such as the development of the Massif du Sud regional park, the former Monk railway line and a bike path in Bellechasse.
The RCM, CLD and the CRE reached a consensus. Everyone agreed to develop these three areas. Obviously, the further south you go in the Chaudière—Appalaches region, the less likely it is that people will go into farming, given the physical geography. So, there was a potential market for recreational tourism.
I must say that the provincial government, both under the Parti Québécois and the Liberals, collaborated on all three areas. Since we cannot name names here, I have to say that, when I had to work with ministers, both Liberal and provincial, the federal government would not give us any more money.
Given this consensus, I want to know why the federal government has yet to make a commitment.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague does not object, I ask the Chair's leave to table later today in this House a list of all the initiatives that Canada Economic Development has undertaken in the Chaudière—Appalaches region, and I think that my colleague will have to recant.
There is a difference between the projects that some people want supported and the mission of Canada Economic Development. It has a very specific framework, which is to support projects that fit the criteria set out our department's mandate. I must stress too that its initiatives build on regional strategic initiatives. All our initiatives in the Chaudière—Appalaches region, except in relation to the textile industry, which I could say more about, were developed with, for and by the local community. My colleague will be quite happy to hear—and I am surprised that he has not already—about all our initiatives.
So, I will table in the House before the end of the day an official written list of the initiatives that Canada Economic Development has undertaken in the Chaudière—Appalaches region.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate on behalf of my party in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9. This bill's short title is the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, and all it does is create that agency from an Industry Canada portfolio program.
On November 5 last year, during the second reading debate on this bill, we spoke of putting the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec on equal legal footing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, but this bill focuses primarily on cosmetic changes. As a result of this bill, no one will change their responsibilities or phone number. This bill is just about changing letterhead and business cards to signal a new legal status.
Our party also said that, as a matter of fact, changes provided for in the bill have already been implemented. For example, the minister responsible for this agency, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie was named July 20, 2004 nearly nine or ten months ago, and we still have not approved the creation of his department.
The Liberals' arrogance shows through, since they are presuming on the cooperation of a minority Parliament. Nonetheless, the Conservative Party is in favour of this bill because it agrees exactly with paragraph 33 of the Conservative Party of Canada's policy declaration, which reads:

The Conservative Party recognizes that regional development policies are an important part of any comprehensive strategy to assist the regions of Canada to meet the opportunities of the new global economy. Regional development agencies, like ACOA, WED, FEDNOR and CED-Q, must be depoliticized and focussed on attracting new private sector investments.

Since this bill deals generally with administrative changes, there is no reason to reject it. Besides, we have found some elements that deserve our support. First, it puts the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec more or less on a level playing field. Like our critic said on November 5, we are still aware of important differences in the goals of the four regional development agencies, but Bill C-9 is a step forward.
Moreover, as modified by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology Bill C-9 can serve as a model for other regional development agencies. For example, all Canadians want to take the politics out of regional development. All non-Liberal Canadians want to take the politics out of regional development.
One of the Conservative amendments at committee prohibits announcements during an election campaign. The new subclause 5(3) reads:

No grant or contribution shall be announced from the date that a federal election has been called until the day after voting day.

Preventing regional campaigning with regional development money during a federal election is simply the logical thing to do. It should not even need to be said but the behaviour of the Liberal government and in particular of the sponsorship scandal confirms the absolute necessity of depoliticizing at all times the spending of public money.
In this way the new subclause 5(3) that the Conservative member has proposed is a huge step forward and should serve as a model for the other regional development agencies.
Another clause of Bill C-9 that the Conservative MPs proposed and that should be extended to other regional development agencies is the new clause 10(2), which demands better cooperation between the Canadian and Quebec governments. This clause reads:

10(2) In carrying out its object, the Agency shall take such measures as will promote cooperation and complementarity with Quebec and communities in Quebec.

The new spirit of cooperation in clause 10(2) is found in various other amendments that the committee made to Bill C-9.
Of the various regional development agencies across Canada, only one, CED, is focused solely on one whole province.
In western Canada, the Department of Western Economic Diversification promotes the development and diversification of the economies of the four western provinces.
In the east, ACOA promotes the economic interests of the four provinces in Atlantic Canada. In both cases, these agencies have to work with four different provincial governments. By contrast, CED exists only in Quebec and its responsibilities are limited to Quebec's boundaries.
Given that the department's territorial responsibilities coincide exactly with those of Quebec's democratically elected government, there is a possibility of conflict between the goals of an agency filled with Ottawa appointed bureaucrats and the goals of the Government of Quebec. For this reason, it is particularly important to ensure compatibility between the department's actions and those of the Quebec government.
In fact, the record of turbulent relations between Ottawa and Quebec and the distrust which is the root of the impressive growth of the sovereignty movement confirms a sad reality; we must at all costs protect a Quebec provincial government, whatever its stripes, from unwarranted federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Our Constitution divides powers between the federal and provincial governments. Sadly, the track record of past federal Liberal governments does not inspire confidence.
In fact, the fiscal imbalance is one of the main reasons why Quebeckers tolerate the existence of CED. As we all know, the federal government collects roughly two thirds of the taxes paid in Canada, while the provinces have to provide the most expensive services such as health care, welfare and education. The gap between provincial sources of revenue and the costs of meeting their obligations is the main reason for shared programs such as medicare.
While we must support the bill over the long term, we must address the root problem which is the fiscal imbalance. Until that situation is addressed, any regional development policy is really just a symbolic gesture. In fact, given that Bill C-9 does not require the spending of an additional dime in the development of Quebec's forest regions, it is important to underscore again that Bill C-9 is only a token gesture.
In a similar way, our support of Bill C-9 is a clear demonstration of the Conservative Party's strong desire to encourage a tighter and more productive cooperation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. The new clauses proposed by Conservative MPs that demand a tighter and more productive cooperation between Ottawa and Quebec City with respect to Quebec's regional development are the main reasons why our party supports the bill. They are inspired by paragraph 14 of the Conservative Party's 2005 policy declaration which reads:


A Conservative Government will work co-operatively with the provinces to improve the lives of Canadians while respecting the division of powers and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution.


We see these new clauses as a precedent to be enshrined in other bills. Thus Bill C-9 could help us to build a stronger and more united Canada.
Nonetheless, Bill C-9 is nothing more than an insufficient first step. A name change in itself does note create a single additional job or stimulate the economy of any the disadvantaged regions of Quebec.
We should not forget either that the Liberal government finds itself in a scandal without precedent in Canadian history. The sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister's relationship with Claude Boulay, his relationship with Earnscliffe, the government's contracts with his old company, CSL, reveal a government the depth of which true corruption is still unknown.
We have to replace the government and Quebeckers, more than any other Canadians, are cognizant of this fact.
While Quebeckers prepare for a federal election, I want to underscore that our support for Bill C-9 is based on three principles: first, our commitment to Quebec's regional development; second, our dedication to keeping politics out of regional development in Quebec and in all other regions of Canada; and third, our insistence that the federal government respect at all times the division of powers and responsibilities outlined in the Canadian Constitution. We offer them truly, for the first time in a decade, the possibility of a government that is honest, pan-Canadian and inclusive of Quebec's point of view. I invite them to consider it.
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, first, it would have been a surprise to see money being allocated in Bill C-9. This is not the purpose of this kind of legislation. Money is allocated through the budget, and let me remind you that, over the next five years, there is an increase, for Quebec alone, of 307 million dollars. I did say an increase of 307 million dollars. Regarding expenditures, to have an idea of the financial contribution of the Government of Canada in this respect, let us just say that we have a total budget equivalent to about $1 billion for the next three years. Obviously, the amounts are not specified in Bill C-9. They are in the budget bills. Bill C-9 defines the structure through which the money can be delivered.
Second, if I may, to answer my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse, I announced that I would table a document of interest to him. But it is even better than what I promised. I said that the document would be about the region while in fact, it is about his own riding. Investments by my department, Canada Economic Development, between April 1, 2004 and January 15, 2005, in the Lévis—Bellechasse riding alone, amount to $3,196,350. I have here the list of supported projects, which represent globally an investment of $10,196,000 in the region. I would like to table this document officially.
Third, in doing so I would remind you that Canada Economic Development works with members of Parliament who are willing to cooperate, in spite of those who are not very helpful.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am actually not the critic for the ministry. I am the critic for a parallel ministry, FedNor, which is an agency that provides economic development in Ontario.
Given that the minister's question really was not related to my comments, it is somewhat difficult for me to respond. He was carrying on an earlier conversation with a member from the Bloc Québécois.
However, I thought I might to talk a bit about the way in which the federal government, through its agencies, has politicized the spending of money. I want to give an example that actually occurred in my own backyard, in the beautiful counties of Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington and in other beautiful counties in eastern Ontario.
The very day before the last election there was an announcement of $10 million in development money for eastern Ontario, very welcomed money. It was given through a very effective and efficient model of distribution known as the Community Futures Development Corporations, a model that should be expanded upon and should become a greater proportion of regional economic development money in Canada. I think that would work in all parts of the country just as well as it does in the areas where it currently is in place.
It was very good that the money was given. What was interesting about the money and about the timing of the money was it came one day prior to the drop of the writ in an election where a number of Liberal held rural seats in eastern Ontario were very much at risk. These included seats held by Larry McCormick the Liberal MP who I ran against, Joe Jordan, the ex-Liberal MP for Leeds and Grenville, and several other seats, all of which were lost by the Liberals with one exception, the seat of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. It was striking.
Whereas in the prior election in 2000, when these seats were not seen as being at risk, although two of them were lost to the Canadian Alliance, there was no interest in giving out money. Nor was there in the 1997 election. What we saw was only when seats were in danger was the money forthcoming and then it was only forthcoming right before an election.
This is the pattern of politicization. Money is offered when it is seen as a way of buying seats that are at risk for the Liberals, whether this is happening in Ontario, in the west, in Quebec or in the Atlantic. That is a great shame. This is what we hope, through the amendments made by the Conservative MPs on the committee, to bring to an end, or at least to reduce as much as possible, in Canada's regional development activities. They should be focussed on improving the local economies, not at improving the prospects of Liberal candidates.
Réal Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, what I said earlier did not mean that there have been no federal investments for specific projects in my riding and my region. What I meant is that there are some specific issues where there is consensus and even unanimity among regional stakeholders. That is why I question the role of the new department. If projects on which there is consensus are not eligible for funding by the department, I wonder if those which received funding were necessarily approved by elected officials and community representatives.
That was the thrust of my comments.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from the Bloc. I think that what he said could be the follow up of a conversation with the minister. His comments were sensible.
Seeing as that too is not really a question directed at me, I will return to the theme I was dwelling on of the politicization of these moneys.
I mentioned the case of the money for eastern Ontario, which is not a unique case. It is simply the one that happened to involve me most closely because it was my riding, among others. The announcement was forthcoming, but once it turned out that the Liberals had lost those seats, the money was not forthcoming and there were constant delays. All the moneys before Treasury Board needed approval, it was not meeting, it could not get it on the agenda. Month after month that went on and the money was not available.
Finally, in October I had my office called one of the corporations, the CFDC, to see ask what was happening. That was at 9 a.m. on Friday. I had instructed my office to say that I would be raising a question about it at 11 a.m. in question period. Almost immediately following the conversation between my staffer and the folks at the CFDC, an email announcement was put out by CFDC saying that the money would be forthcoming and that I would be asking a question about it.
The extent to which the politicization has gone on here and the extent to which money will only be given if it is something to the partisan benefit of the Liberals is extraordinary. With the amendments we have made, we hope to reduce that. Frankly, I think all members in the House should want to have the regional development money in Quebec, Ontario, wherever, be issued for the advantage and benefit of those who are in the regions and not for the advantage of Liberal contestants for public office.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of the following. I find this government tendency a bit worrisome. In Quebec as in other provinces, but particularly in Quebec, there is a tendency to constantly add new levels of government, which costs a fortune. I do not know if the hon. member has any idea of the cost of that duplication. Apparently, the new department would have about fifteen offices in Quebec only.
Could the hon. member tell us how much that duplication would cost not only in terms of civil servants and administrative work in general, but also in terms of linkage and follow up between the different levels of government?
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, bureaucratization is a problem in all federal departments and economic development agencies. It is indeed a real problem.
I think these agencies need to have a number of offices. I do not know if 15 offices is the appropriate number for the regions of Quebec. However, there is a need for a large number of offices since this agency's purpose is to serve the regions of the vast province of Quebec.
As for the duplication of services provided by the Quebec government, which has a real interest in the development of its regions, it is possible to do some realignment within the department to reduce the number of bureaucrats and thus reduce the costs related to those bureaucrats, not those related to the beneficiaries of the services provided by the department.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I expect my speech will be interrupted for members' statements.
I would like first to salute the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, especially those who work for regional economic development, including the officials of Canada Economic Development and the volunteers and officials of the CFDCs and the CLDs. A lot of people are working very hard for regional economic development.
Quebec's resource regions face major problems, specifically such important crises as those of softwood lumber and mad cow disease and the closures of plants in a number of sectors, such as textiles and aluminum. The origins of this bill have to be understood. Past regional economic development models generated employment. Raw materials could be collected and processed at full throttle. However, today, they are obsolete and should be thoroughly reviewed.
With this bill, a fine opportunity to visit the regions of Quebec, consult people working in regional development and elected officials has been missed. The government has created a structure but neglected the most important aspect, that of looking to see if today's tools are effective and will carry us through to the future.
I would also like to say that we have worked very hard on this bill. We thought we could improve the fate of the regions and substantially change this bill to benefit Quebec and the regions. I would also remind the minister and the government that, at no point, did we obstruct parliamentary proceedings in order to delay this bill. I recall that, for a month, we even discussed with colleagues from the other parties in order to negotiate amendments and proposals. This shows a clear desire, which is important, to look after regional development properly.
I can only regret certain statements by colleagues, among others, those of the member for Gatineau. At one point she said that our voting against the bill meant we had no concern for regional development. I think that in this House it is possible to have debates, oppose bills or try to improve them, but never would I say to any of my colleagues that they oppose regional development.
Currently, especially in resource regions such as mine, hard hit by various crises, petty politics would be counter productive. I would not dare do it. There is too much at stake.
I must say that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-9 today, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that the bill ignores some fundamental principles, such as respect for what is being done in terms of regional development, all across Quebec.
There is nothing to get excited about in this bill. It does nothing more than create a structure. I refer to the Department's own documents regarding the Economic Development Agency. When we ask what will be the impact of this bill on the environment, we are told that it does not make any changes to the agency’s role and places the emphasis on promotion, development and diversification. It is clearly stated that the bill will bring no change.
A little further in the same document, the question is asked in the following terms: will the agency act affect existing programs and, by extension, the clientele the agency serves? The answer is a clear no. The existing programs will remain in place and there will be no impact.
This means that even if the House does not pass this bill, there will continue to be some economic development. We as members and the regions will continue to get the money to which we are entitled. This money is in Ottawa. The agency may take credit for delivering it to regions, but it still is our money. It is money to which citizens are entitled and which must be returned to resource regions.
As we know, there has been much debate on this bill. Things have been said, work has been done. However, the important thing is that the Bloc Québécois has gained something. There is an important premise in the bill which is different than under the former agency, and it was essential we did not support it. It is the whole concept of designated areas. Let me explain.
Through an order in council, the minister could target a specific region by giving it priority because it is lagging behind in terms of employability, or at least economically. What does it mean, “the minister may, by order”? Does that mean that depending on his mood, whether he is politically sensitive to certain people or situations, he could target or prioritize one region over another?
We feel Canada Economic Development has to operate fairly. There has to be fair distribution of the money allocated and fair intervention methods in Quebec that are based on real needs. Where are these real needs? They are in the regions that are lagging behind in terms of employability, in regions that have lost many jobs or that have a high unemployment rate due to plant closures. Those are the true concerns. It absolutely should not have been left to the mood of this minister or this government. What is this, if not a lack of vision, or at least a flag waving extravaganza, or yet another attempt to buy Quebeckers with a rash of spending?
We are pleased because we fought the battle and won. In addition, all the witnesses agreed that this designated area concept was dangerous. You have to understand that there are many regions where balanced distribution of funding is needed. Abitibi cannot be chosen to the detriment of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, or Gaspé to the detriment of the North Shore, or Huntingdon, where they are in a crisis over the textile industry. There has to be a concern for fairness and loyalty toward these people who need it and who have contributed for years to creating this type of structure through the taxes they have paid.
Other points were raised in which we made gains. I want to commend the Conservative Party for working with us on this. We agreed that no spending should be announced during the election campaign. This kind of announcement left too much room for partisanship to the detriment of regional development. This issue was raised and agreed to. There will be no announcements during that period.
Officials in the regions need to have free reign in order to do their work without political obstruction.

Statements By Members
Nestlé CanadaMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week the people of Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry were devastated by the news that Nestlé Canada will close its factory in Chesterville, Ontario some time in mid 2006.
In one form or another the Nestlé plant has been at the centre of the economic community in Chesterville since it opened in 1918. The company's decision to close its doors will cost the people in my riding 300 quality jobs, but the net effect on the business community will be much larger.
As elected representatives of the Canadian people, we in the House must take a serious look at the challenges facing Canadian business so that we can find new ways to support our industries and curb the exodus of Canadian jobs abroad.
We in the Conservative Party believe that we can generate more wealth, create more jobs, further diversify our economy and create more opportunities for Canadians.
As the member of Parliament for Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry, I urge the government to do everything in its power to assist the Nestlé plant and its workers. I certainly will.
Community CareHon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Community Care is the best named organization in Peterborough. In the city and county its caring services include caregiver relief, the caremobile, diner's club, home help, home maintenance, income tax clinic, information and referral, in-home and telephone friendly visiting, intergenerational programs, meals on wheels, medical equipment loan registry, personal distress alarm, telephone reassurance, transportation, wellness and health clinics, workshops and seminars.
This is community care indeed. It has bases in Apsley, Chemung, Harvey, Havelock, Keene, Lakefield, Millbrook and Norwood as well as Peterborough.
Community Care has a dedicated staff who are supported by 800 volunteers. Thank you, Community Care Peterborough.
Screen Door ProductionsHon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the notable success recently achieved by Screen Door, a film production company run by two of my constituents, Mary Young Leckie and Heather Haldane.
Screen Door, formerly known as Tapestry Pictures, won the Sprockets Audience Choice Award at the Sprockets Toronto International Film Festival for Children with its film Spirit Bear: The Simon Jackson Story . The movie depicts the courageous campaign of Simon Jackson, a teenage boy from Vancouver, who embarks on a mission to save a rare white kermode bear known as Spirit Bear. Spirit Bear was the only Canadian film to win an award at this year's festival. It is the first Canadian film to win an audience choice award.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mary and Heather on their achievements and salute them for their contribution to Canadian culture by telling our stories.
City of LévisRéal Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the residents of the City of Lévis, which was named City of the Year at the Gala des Mercuriades. It received this award from the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce and the Revue Commerce magazine, on April 27.
The City of Lévis is a thriving tourism destination, and the various services that it provides allow its residents to enjoy quality recreational activities.
Lévis is a place where companies, industries and businesses operate in a personalized environment that promotes harmonious and sustainable development.
Lévis has community organizations that are close to the public, and that work to improve the quality of life of those who are not as well-off.
This recognition is testimony to the city's economic and social vibrancy. We thank the numerous stakeholders in Lévis, including its business people, its entrepreneurs and its community representatives.
The City of Lévis is a great place to live. Congratulations.
Diamond IndustryMr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's rise to prominence in the diamond industry began in 1998. The industry currently provides an estimated 4,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, with about 38% of the mines' workforce being aboriginals.
Diamond mine production in 2004 is estimated to be valued at $2.1 billion, making Canada the world's third largest diamond producer by value.
In addition to diamond mining, a small diamond cutting and polishing industry has grown in Yellowknife, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and in Matane, Quebec. These operations have an important training component.
Contrary to the trend observed in most other Canadian mineral and metal industries where production is falling, more diamond mines are scheduled to begin production in the coming years. These include the Jericho mine in Nunavut in 2006, the Snap Like mine in the Northwest Territories in 2007, and the Victor mine in Ontario in 2008.
These mines will help build a strong economy and a prosperous future for many regions, including aboriginal communities, and the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.
VE DayMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour and the privilege of attending various ceremonies commemorating VE Day, the end of the second world war and the liberation of the Netherlands by our Canadian soldiers.
I participated in ceremonies in Tara, Hanover, Durham and Owen Sound in my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound. I felt an overwhelming sense of pride in our military. The sacrifices made by the men and women who left their homes to travel to an unknown place and an unknown danger are horrific and unimaginable. They deserve our utmost gratitude.
I also participated in the Remember Yom Hashoah ceremony on Parliament Hill by presenting a wreath during the Canadian Community Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony on Parliament Hill. I was honoured to take part in the very solemn ceremony and to lay a wreath at the eternal flame alongside three Holocaust survivors. They, along with the thousands of others around the world who suffered horrendous atrocities, deserve to be remembered and recognized.
The Holocaust was a tragic event which left a black mark in our history. While I was attending the ceremony and as I watched the survivors, all I could think about was what they must have gone through. I hope we never experience anything like that again.
Holy Trinity Anglican ChurchMrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 175th year that Holy Trinity Anglican Church has provided continuous service and worship in my riding of Thornhill. The church was co-founded by Benjamin Thorne and William Parsons. Mr. Thorne was a founding father of the Thornhill community. The church is only part of his tremendous legacy.
To celebrate the anniversary, there are many events, ranging from musical performances, summer picnics and a gala banquet to be held in October. The year-long celebrations will end with a Christmas concert in December. The music at the concert will be provided by the internationally renowned Cantabile Chorale of York Region.
The church is committed to the well-being of our community and for the last 175 years has played a vital role in that regard. The history of Holy Trinity Anglican Church is a history of Thornhill itself. In essence, Holy Trinity is a testimony to Thornhill and generations of dedicated people who have made significant contributions to our community.
I would like to congratulate all those who have been involved with Holy Trinity Anglican Church over the last 175 years. I wish the church another 175 years of exceptional service to our community.
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the greenhouse gas reduction plan presented by the federal government ignores a legitimate demand of Quebec, which wants to be in charge of implementing Kyoto within its jurisdiction.
Under this plan, the federal government would use public money to buy foreign credits. These credits are necessary to make up for the reduction efforts that industries will not be asked to make.
So, instead of promoting the polluter-pays principle, this government has decided to put forward the polluter-paid principle.
The effort asked of the automotive industry is very inadequate. This is also tantamount to giving a blank cheque to the federal government, which reserves the right to set up a permit system through regulations that will not be subject to the scrutiny of the House.
The Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to this plan, which helps emitters, at the expense of taxpayers.
Pontian Greek GenocideHon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 19 is the date designated by the Greek Parliament and by Canadians of Greek origin as the Pontian Greek genocide remembrance day.
“Pontus” means sea in Greek and it is located in the southeastern coastal region of the Black Sea. Its connection with Hellenism stretches back to prehistoric times, to legends of Jason and the Argonauts and of Hercules, but for the Greeks living in Pontus, it all ended in tragedy in 1922. Over 350,000 were killed at the hands of the Ottomans.
I have always spoken up against these types of atrocities, these crimes against humanity, and I have fought for the recognition of genocides, including that of the Armenian genocide, on which I rose a month ago to draw attention to the first anniversary of the House's recognition of it. I will continue to speak up until the international community also recognizes the genocide of the Greeks of Pontus.
I close with the 1997 quote of Richard Beeston, diplomatic editor of the U.K. Times : “The efforts may be modest, but the importance of keeping the memory of the victims alive is more than simply an argument over history”. Member spoke in Greek and provided the following translation: ]
Long live their memory.
We will never forget.
Government of CanadaMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what has happened in this, the people's House, over the past few weeks is cause for sadness.
Yesterday a corrupt government was given more time to govern. Its corruption has been revealed not by allegations, as the Liberals like to say, but by confessions from top Liberals giving sworn testimony.
We saw the immigration minister make charges of racism and impropriety against members of the opposition and then admit he was wrong in a half-hearted apology. He then went on to allow confidential documents to be released to the public for political gain, but he is still in cabinet.
The Liberals then went on a desperate shopping spree using taxpayers' money, the people's money, to buy votes in this House in order to cling to power. This behaviour by the Liberal government simply must stop.
The tone in this House is set by the government and its behaviour, its honesty and integrity, or the lack thereof. Sad indeed.
Forestry AwardMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to address the House today to recognize a student from my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, Trevor Connors.
On February 10, Trevor was awarded a silver ring from the Canadian Institute of Forestry, Maritime Section. The silver ring distinction symbolizes the achievement of completing a recognized forestry program. Trevor is part of the class of 2005 in the Bachelor in Forestry at the University of New Brunswick.
I would like to congratulate Trevor for the distinction he received and wish him the best of luck in all of his future projects.
Congratulations to Trevor, and the best of luck for the future.
The BudgetMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the first time in months Canadians are going about their business today with confidence that Parliament, their Parliament, is once again working constructively on their behalf.
The reason? The passage of the NDP budget bill last evening, with its new funding for people and the environment. It has funding for affordable housing for families, lower tuition for students, training to help build skills and get jobs, a better environment through public transit, and global poverty relief.
Canadians have been waiting for this day for a long time. This marks the first federal NDP budget in the history of Canadian politics, going back to the founding of our party, the CCF, in the dark days of the Depression in 1933. That moment marked new hope for Canadians then, and today marks new hope for Canadians who are counting on us to expedite the budget bills and make this better balanced budget a reality as soon as possible.
FinanceMr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks Canadians have witnessed an unprecedented orgy of spending by the Liberal government of almost $1 billion a day. The two most notable examples are the $4.6 billion deal with the NDP and the $5.75 billion deal with Dalton McGuinty.
All this caused me to wonder, how much is a billion dollars? A billion dollars is one thousand million dollars. It is enough to pay a reward of $1.8 million for every murder committed in Canada last year. It is enough to run every courtroom in this country for a year and still have enough left over to buy new MRI machines for 20 needy hospitals.
The Prime Minister boasts that he developed a reputation as a prudent fiscal manager during his 10 years as minister of finance. Over a mere three week period, Canadians have witnessed him single-handedly destroy that reputation in his desperate attempt to cling to power.
The Prime Minister should not misunderstand what happened in the House last evening. He did not receive a pardon for his inexcusable actions. He merely received a stay, because it is only a matter of time before Canadian voters deliver their verdict on his shameful misconduct.
25th Anniversary of the 1980 ReferendumMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today, Quebec held its first referendum on its political future.
Forever engraved in our memory is the image of René Lévesque trying to ease the pain of thousands of sovereignists by leading them into Gens du pays and, in his hoarse voice, telling them, “If I understand you correctly, you are saying, 'until the next time'.”
Since 1980, Quebec has continued to move forward. Remaining true to itself, it has grown in unity and confidence over the past 25 years. It has become a society that is even more open to the world, even more diversified and even more inclusive.
Despite the attempts to set them back, Quebeckers have never stopped progressing. Today, Quebec is more ready than ever to take charge of its destiny and to speak for itself within the community of nations.
AgricultureMs. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): Sadly, Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of the U.S. border closing to Canadian cattle, beef and other ruminant products. Throughout this time, producers and those with whom they do business have endured untold personal and financial suffering.
They have suffered greatly at the hands of free trading mercenaries south of the border. They have suffered at the hands of protectionist politicians. They have suffered at the hands of the Liberal government, which has mismanaged this agricultural crisis, one of the worst in Canadian history.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend all cattle and other ruminant producers for their resilience during these trying times. Their concerns have not gone unheard. They can rest assured that my colleagues and I in the official opposition are committed to continuing our work to find constructive solutions to help reposition this industry.
Bloc QuébécoisMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with a logic that would have surprised even George Orwell, my colleagues opposite are preparing to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the sovereignist movement's crushing defeat in the 1980 referendum.
Despite losing two referendums, my Bloc Québécois colleagues continue to deny democracy and reject the will of Quebeckers.
Nevertheless, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning in Le Devoir , even the sovereignist camp now espouses liberal values.
The Bloc colleagues and their PQ acolytes are now trying to appropriate the ideal of the inclusive multicultural society, in which individuals of all races, languages and religions live in an environment that fosters development.
Better late than never, I suppose, but I bet that the public will remember the true origins of this philosophy. I remember the two diametrically opposed camps, not so long ago.

Oral Question Period
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall, the man who is now paid to print money at the mint, was hired by Vickers &amp; Benson to use his influence with former colleagues to lobby for more sponsorship money for a television program that aired only in China. Now there is a good use of sponsorship money.
This was in direct violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act. The former public works minister was so successful that in March 1999 he received $60,000 in reward money.
The Prime Minister did not wait for the Gomery commission report to fire Chrétien cronies like Jean Pelletier, André Ouellet, Marc LeFrançois or Alfonso Gagliano. When is he going to fire David Dingwall?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, as with any allegations before Gomery, we will investigate and we will ensure that prudence is taken and that the interests of Canadians are served. At the same time, we will not conduct a witch hunt based on unproven allegations.
At the end of the day we will do the right thing, and we will ensure that both the reputations and interests of individuals are protected and that we at the same time defend the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Peter MacKay: I note, Mr. Speaker, that today the face of the government is yellow.
The government said yesterday that the Liberal Party intends to put money in a trust fund in the very near future. Of course we also believe in the tooth fairy, another mythical figure who drops off money. In reality, promises like this and others from the government are as empty as the rhetoric in the account. There is another order from the House that the Commons voted on and the government continues to ignore: to set up that fund.
The Liberal Party is going to receive over $2 million from Elections Canada. When will the Prime Minister honour that motion from the House? When will he put these funds in a trust account? When will the government show us the money?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear and the party has been clear. Any inappropriate funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. The establishment of a trust fund and the placement of $750,000 in that trust fund is an offer of good faith. That is an interim step.
Again, it is important to recognize that we cannot actually complete the transaction, the repayment to the Canadian taxpayer, without all the facts. That is why it is important that we allow Justice Gomery to complete his work.
Peter MacKay: What would that member know about good faith or trust, Mr. Speaker?
Will the government commit today to putting the money that Elections Canada refunded the Liberal Party into the trust fund it claims to have created?
Will it finally show us the money or was that just another empty promise?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that if the party has received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.
It is not possible to do that without having all the facts. The establishment of a trust fund is an important act of good faith from the party that is doing the right thing to ensure that we get to the bottom of this issue and that the Canadian taxpayer is treated fairly.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, only when a possible election stared them in the face did the Liberals bow to an order of the House to put ill-gotten gains by the Liberal Party into a trust fund.
No, wait, there is no fund, because the balance in the account is zero, maybe to match Liberal credibility. Will the government explain how an empty account complies with the House order for a trust fund?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to today's National Post editorial. It states:

Leading up to the vote, the Conservatives indicated that they would live with the result either way. Now, it's time for them to make good on their word. Rather than trying to create the winning conditions for a non-confidence vote in the next few weeks, all opposition parties should do their best to contribute productively to the business of Parliament.

Asking the same question over and over again is a waste of time on the floor of the House of Commons. They should be talking about health care, about education, about investing in housing, about some of the positive major changes--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are waiting for a straight answer from this minister, they are certainly wasting their time.
Let us try again. The government should actually have called this a “trust us” fund, but this House ordered the fund because trust was broken in the dirty ad scam money mess, which the Auditor General said broke every rule in the book. Is it not true that the recent bogus trust fund announcement amounts to nothing more than an empty PR exercise?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, the party has been clear from the beginning that any funds received inappropriately will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. Beyond that, the party has cooperated fully with Justice Gomery. We are working with Justice Gomery's auditors. We are looking forward to cooperating with him and to achieving a result that is in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Again, these are serious allegations, and anybody who used the brand of the Liberal Party for financial gain inappropriately ought to face and will face the full extent of the law.
Employment InsuranceMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the 28 recommendations on employment insurance made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the government is still refusing to respond to Quebec's interests by implementing the improvements proposed by the committee, while more than half the unemployed have no access to EI benefits.
Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development intend to make some adjustments, improve the program and create the independent EI fund as recommended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development?
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, if I could take some extracts from the committee report and the response of the government, the improvements we have made to EI are: the extension of maternity and parental benefits; the elimination of the intensity rule; the elimination of multiple waiting periods for apprenticeship programs; the new compassionate care benefit; and three new pilot projects expected to benefit 220,000 each year that will run in regions where unemployment is very high.
Those are a few of the examples of the improvements which this government has made to EI.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why half of the jobless still do not have access to EI benefits.
The government is refusing to act in the interests of Quebec. After breaking election promises, after having its hand forced into amending the throne speech, after voting in committee in favour of the creation of an independent EI fund, it is now shoving aside the recommendations in the committee report. As well, it rejected this question during the negotiations with the NDP.
What is keeping the government from proceeding with this fundamental reform which is in Quebec's interest?
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, in this budget alone, the one we voted on yesterday, there is $300 million in addition to the EI fund, helping 225,000 families across the country.
Further improvements include calculating EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks, increasing the working while on claim threshold to allow workers to earn more while they are receiving benefits, continuation of a second year of a pilot project providing an additional five years of EI benefits in regions of high unemployment, extension of the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Chambly--Borduas.
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the amendments do not meet the needs of the unemployed.
I would, moreover, remind the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that she has already voted in favour of the amendments to the throne speech and also supported the creation of an independent EI fund. I imagine the minister did not do so lightly, but was aware of the impact of her vote.
I would call upon the minister to show some consistency. Does she intend to proceed with these reforms without delay, in the best interests of the unemployed?
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fund, we have increased transparency. We have increased its independence.
I would point out to my colleagues, who frequently reference the Auditor General when speaking to us, that the fund is a part of the general revenues of Canada on the basis of advice of auditors general.
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, over the last eight years, $47 billion have been diverted from that fund. It is high time it became independent again.
The time for studies has come and gone. The time has now come for implementation, for putting in place the measures on which the minister has already voted. The seasonal gap is hurting seasonal workers now. The minister has both the power to act and a duty to do so.
I am therefore asking what she is waiting for before showing some consistency and putting measures in place on which she has already indicated her agreement.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, we cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, we have increased the power of the Auditor General. The Auditor General now produces reports every three months and the government responds to them.
In this particular case, the Auditor General said that this particular fund was a part of the general revenues of the Government of Canada. It has been so since the 1980s. We have made it more independent and more transparent but it is still part of the general revenues of the government.
The BudgetHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the final adoption of the budget bill that was adopted yesterday. We worked very hard to improve that budget and now it has moved on to the next stage. We are prepared, certainly in our party, to work as long as it takes this spring to have this budget adopted and not have it dragged along like budget bills usually do.
What process, what strategy and what timeline is the government willing to commit to that will ensure that we are able to see this budget fully implemented this spring or early summer?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment to ensure that the budget bills pass before the end of this session has been steadfast and has not wavered. Last night members of Parliament in this House passed the budget bills. They were approved in principle. They have now been referred to committee. They will go through the usual legislative process.
Members of Parliament in this House showed support for cities, child care, the environment, affordable housing and post-secondary education. We will do everything possible to ensure that this House gets these bills through and the budget becomes law before the end of this session.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response. However, the problem with budgets and such bills is that it takes a long time for them to be passed at third reading.
We want to hear once more what the government is going to do exactly to ensure that these bills are passed in this session. We will be here to work. Is that the government's intention too?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, naturally, the government is pleased with yesterday's vote, as are all Canadians. I appreciate the question by the leader of the New Democratic Party.
Now this bill is in committee. I can assure you that the government, through its leader, will do everything needed to advance its passage, as the legislative process requires of us.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals repeat daily that they are waiting for the Gomery report before they finally act. At the same time, they are doing everything they can to discredit the work of the commission. They are wrongly intimating that the commission will cost more than planned and question Justice Gomery's impartiality.
Why is this government trying to discredit and put an end to the inquiry by Mr. Justice Gomery into the Liberal scandal?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the statements by the member opposite are completely false. Not only did this government establish the Gomery commission, it is supporting all of the work done by Justice Gomery. The government is prepared to assume all the costs required to put the facts on the table for Canadians before they decide on what went on in the sponsorship file.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts. The Liberal government is engaged in another round of smearing reputations and this time it is Judge Gomery.
During yesterday's testimony, Justice Gomery made it clear that he was coming under budget despite leaks from the government complaining about the inquiry costs. In fact, the government exaggerated the cost by $40 million. This is clearly an attempt to hurt the credibility of Justice Gomery.
Why is the government trying to undermine the sponsorship inquiry?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I am on the record as saying that the cost of Gomery is well worth it for the Canadian taxpayer because we are changing a culture of government. We are able to pay for generations of dividends to Canadians by getting to the truth and making fundamental changes to governance for Canadians.
I support, our Prime Minister, our entire government and our party support the work of Justice Gomery. The fact is that there is about $40 million of additional costs contributed by Public Works, Justice, the Treasury Board and the PCO to cooperate with Justice Gomery, which explains the discrepancy.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano, the Prime Minister's friend, is now joining forces with the former prime minister to shut down Gomery.
It seems some Liberals are not as anxious as some other Liberals to get to the truth. The Prime Minister has sung the praises of Mr. Gagliano in the past. Will he now ask him to stop this attempted cover-up?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, once again, the government's position has been clear. We want to see Justice Gomery complete his work and reach his conclusions so that Canadians have the truth.
Yesterday's Toronto Star said that Ontarians welcomed the Prime Minster's decision to cancel the sponsorship program, to fire people linked to it and to appoint Gomery. It went on to say:

[The Prime Minister's] budget, too, was well received, even by [the Leader of the Opposition] initially. And Ontarians recoil from the Conservative-Bloc Quebecois alliance....Few beyond politics-mad Ottawa relish an election now. Many just want Parliament to get on with the job of governing, by first passing the budget.

They voted against the interests of Ontario yesterday when they voted against that budget.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, while Canadian and Ontario voters are told that Justice Gomery will get to the bottom of the Liberal scandal, behind the scenes the Prime Minister's friend is making all efforts to silence Gomery, as is the former prime minister.
While the Prime Minister has in the past shown his admiration for his buddy, Alfonso, has he picked up the phone to tell this disgraced minister and the former prime minister to back off?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, it is also important to recognize that this was the Prime Minister who fired Alfonso Gagliano. This also is the Prime Minister who established the Gomery commission and supports, unequivocally, the Gomery commission.
There are allegations against other parties, including the Conservatives, including the Bloc or the separatists in Quebec. Those parties have ignored those allegations and are not taking them seriously.
We are taking these allegations seriously. We are addressing them thoroughly. We will ensure both our government and our party does the right thing while that party simply tries to make cheap political points on the floor of the House of Commons.
AgricultureSébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec estimates that Quebec producers have suffered $280 million in uncompensated losses since the mad cow crisis began. Michel Dessureault, the president of the federation, considers that the aid provided by this government does not meet Quebec's needs. Again this week, he stated that federal programs are not working. However, the purchase of the Colbex abattoir by producers would resolve the cull cow problem in Quebec.
When will the minister stop hiding behind the lack of flexibility of his programs in order to avoid doing his part to guarantee a floor price for cull cows?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, and which we have conveyed very directly to the UPA and to others in Quebec, should producers purchase the plant and they want to expand the amount of processing they do in that plant, we have programming that would be available to assist them.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, two years after the American border closed to Canadian beef, we are still waiting for measures that will provide real aid to Quebec producers.
How does the minister explain the fact that the much promised aid has yet to materialize?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that programming has been put in place that has benefited producers in Quebec. In fact, it has benefited producers right across the country. Whether it be the TIS program, which was put in place in March 2004; the FIP program, which was just put in place in March 2005; or the repositioning strategy that we announced in September 2004, all these programs have worked to assist producers and the industry in general, including the industry in Quebec.
Foreign AffairsMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the opening of the conference on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Montreal only a few days away, the Canadian government has denied a visa to Africa's negotiator, Dr. Tewolde, from Ethiopia. This conference is of great interest to Quebec, since Montreal is already home to the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
In this context, does the government intend to reconsider and grant Dr. Tewolde the visa that was requested?
Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, visas are very well reviewed at the time of application. In this particular instance the visa was denied.
Our visa officers are very competent and there is a certain discretion that they are allowed. If they in their judgment find that the visa application does not fit the criteria as set down by the regulations and by our guidelines, they have no alternative but to refuse.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, Canada's behaviour is unacceptable and could jeopardize Montreal's status as the seat of the UN biodiversity convention secretariat.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs realize that, by denying Dr. Tewolde a visa, he is not only making a diplomatic blunder, but he is also sabotaging the efforts of Montreal and of Quebec to reach out internationally?
Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered that. We do not comment on specific cases of visa applications. It would not be fair to the applicant.
National DefenceMr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently I asked the minister what his government was doing to ensure the future of CFB Goose Bay. He answered that he and the Prime Minister had personally intervened with every foreign defence minister.
Yet in a radio interview this morning the minister still has no firm commitment for CFB Goose Bay and the people of Labrador. Expecting to convince foreign militaries to come back to Goose Bay is not good enough.
Why is the minister prepared to see the base activity continue to decay and the economic well-being of Labrador decline as a result?
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is factually incorrect in his assessment. The Minister of National Defence is working with his counterparts internationally as well as with the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that we move forward with Goose Bay. I can assure the hon. member that he will be kept in the loop as to what is taking place on this important file.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberal government has little interest in Goose Bay except at election time.
When the government took office in 1993, revenues from allies were nearly $80 million. This year it will only be $23 million. If the trend continues, training at Goose Bay will cease and the base will fade to black.
The Liberals promise and promise, but they do not deliver. With such a depressing track record, why should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe the government?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member actually contradicted himself in his first and second question. We cannot, on one hand, be working hard with our allies and the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador to resolve the issue, and yet on the other hand, as the hon. member mentioned, pretend to pay no attention to it whatsoever. I suggest that the member get his facts correct.
This is what the government is doing to ensure that Goose Bay moves forward as an important aspect of our defence forces and capabilities.
Canada PostMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week in the operations committee, former Canada pork-master general and CEO, André Ouellet, admitted under oath that he had failed to forward almost $200,000 in receipts to Revenue Canada auditors. Any other Canadian who claimed expenses without receipts would be immediately assessed a taxable benefit by Revenue Canada authorities.
I would like the minister to tell the House today why there are different rules in place for Liberal patronage appointees than there are for all other Canadians?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said before in the House, the Canada Revenue Agency is in the process of conducting an audit on the office of the president of Canada Post. The agency will perform its duties and, as it would with any taxpayer, will take necessary steps and actions, if required, to ensure there is compliance with the law.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, every burglar needs a good inside man.
The rules are tough for Canadian taxpayers, but they are easy for patronage pals of the government. According to Revenue Canada rules, we are guilty until proven innocent. If we do not have receipts, we do not get a claim, except apparently André Ouellet.
The minister has been hiding behind this smokescreen audit now for a running time of eight months. For eight months, he has been an accomplice in Mr. Ouellet's tax avoidance.
Why should every other Canadian be subjected to a different set of rules than André Ouellet?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am not an auditor, and neither is my hon. colleague. But I know that it takes time. I think that auditors have to put in a great deal of effort in completing their work.
Natural ResourcesSusan Kadis: Mr. Speaker, last night Parliament supported both budget bills at second reading. Liberal MPs voted for the Atlantic accord by supporting both budget bills.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, voted against one of the budget bills, knowing full well that a vote against either budget bill was a vote against the accord. The budget contains many important initiatives that are important to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Could the minister tell them how the results of last night's vote affects them?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the offshore accord provides Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with all the revenues from their offshore resources. Last night we took an important step toward making this a reality.
As the Prime Minister said, we must move forward now in a spirit of cooperation. I urge all parties to ensure speedy passage of the budget, which includes the accord. The people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador deserve nothing less.
Democratic ReformHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
For decades now, Canada's democracy has had many political parties but an electoral system designed for only two. This has proved to be dysfunctional and unfair.
Now that we have a new Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, will the government House leader assure the House that electoral reform will become a top priority of the government?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might be disappointed that I am still answering his question. However, given the results of the referendum in British Columbia this week, it is quite obvious that in that province at least there is a thirst for some change. This goes quite well with what the government is trying to do.
As members will recall, last fall, through a unanimous vote in the House, members assigned a task to a committee to suggest a way of consulting Canadians on democratic renewal and electoral reform. We are awaiting eagerly the report of that committee. In the meantime, the government has been preparing, so that we can move forward--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Ed Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in turn, might be disappointed that he no longer has responsibility for implementing this file.
However, the committee responsible for preparing a report is looking at an agenda that could see electoral reform completed and put in place by the end of this calendar year. If the government receives such a recommendation from the committee, will it accept it and act upon it?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the government is very serious about this file. However, we cannot second-guess what a committee will recommend or decide, and we are not about to do that.
While the government is waiting for that committee's report and recommendation, we have been conducting diagnostics to get to the root causes of the challenges that our democratic system and institutions face.
We will be ready to act according to the recommendations that we will receive from the committee and ensure that Canadians are fully engaged in the process that looks at democratic renewal and electoral reform.
JusticeMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the RCMP and immigration department paints Canada as a preferred target for smugglers because of our generous immigration system. Many people unwittingly sell themselves into a life of sexual or economic slavery to pay off the $20,000 to $50,000 fees their captors charge.
Canada can no longer turn a blind eye to this victimization. When will the government quit its dithering and fast track effective legislation that would put a stop to human smuggling?
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, just the other day the attorney general from the United States, Mr. Gonzales, was here in Ottawa and the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to fight this terrible scourge of trafficking in human beings.
We are going to build on the cooperative efforts of this government by working with our partners in the United States and internationally on law enforcement issues, including this very terrible and heinous crime of trafficking in humans, which is what we call the new slavery.
Nina Grewal: Mr. Speaker, Canada has emerged as a preferred destination in the human smuggling marketplace. There is growing evidence of a connection between human smuggling and transnational organized crime groups, terrorist organizations, and the movement of individuals who pose direct threats to the security of Canada and the safety of Canadians.
Rather than toothless measures that will probably never see the light of day, will the government commit to laws with teeth that would put an end to human smuggling?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite does not appear to appreciate that we in fact introduced comprehensive legislation with respect to combating trafficking in humans.
CopyrightMs. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a haven for pirated and counterfeit CDs, videos, DVDs and video games. Millions of dollars of illegal goods are crossing our borders every day.
Yesterday, the court of appeal took a step to further protect the copyright of creators. The courts are doing their job. However, earlier this month, Canada was put on a U.S. watch list with 14 other countries. A special review has been ordered.
Why has the government failed to stop the illegal importation of cultural products?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, we are taking note of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in this area. As hon. members knows, in the last session of Parliament we tabled a unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on copyright reform.
Earlier this year, in April, both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage tabled a joint statement on how we will proceed. As the House leader has said, we will be bringing forward copyright amendment legislation in the spring.
Bev Oda: But when are we going to tighten the borders, Mr. Speaker?
A recent RCMP raid seized over $800,000 worth of illegal DVDs and CDs in a Markham mall, only to see more on the shelves days later. Movies are being taped illegally in a Montreal theatre, to be fed into the global counterfeit movie market. Ineffective fines and the absence of strong laws have made Canada a priority country, along with China, for its woeful enforcement of intellectual property rights.
What will the government do to ensure that Canada is no longer being probed by the U.S.A?
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the government is very much seized with the matter of counterfeit goods trafficking . In fact, just last week I had a meeting in Toronto with the Canadian Standards Association, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.
We are very concerned not only about intellectual property that is being smuggled back and forth across borders internationally, but also goods that purport to be safe, such as electrical goods, and carry a stamp like the stamp of the Canadian Standards Association, that in fact are not safe. Our government is taking action on this very important issue.
Social DevelopmentMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the area of child care, there are still no serious negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec. Yet, as Quebec minister Benoît Pelletier said earlier this week, Quebec's request is simple and could be settled quickly. Ottawa simply has to recognize Quebec's right to receive the federal money unconditionally.
What is the government waiting for now to settle this issue with Quebec and to give it, unconditionally, the money to which it is entitled?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Bloc Québécois' information is not accurate. Currently, there are ongoing negotiations between both governments to come to an agreement on child care services. We have always said that Quebec is a leader in this area and that we would recognize this fact.
We have also said that we are perfectly capable of reaching an agreement with the Quebec government. This is why talks are continuing right now.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, Quebec may be number one as regards child care, but it may be dead last to receive the money.
The Quebec network is a model to be followed, and it is recognized as such by the OECD. On December 14, the Prime Minister stated that Quebec would receive the child care money quickly and unconditionally. That was made clear at the time.
What is the government waiting for now to quickly settle this issue?
Eleni Bakopanos: I am very pleased to announce that we have already signed agreements with five provinces. These are very good agreements in principle, and we are—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, they do not want to listen, but it does not matter. Negotiations are continuing. We will continue to negotiate, and we will achieve the same results that we achieved with the other five provinces. We will sign an agreement.
Foreign CredentialsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation states that the refusal to recognize foreign credentials by professional bodies amounts to systematic racism. Since 1993 we have been calling to address this issue. We still do not have any evident action from the government, just lip service. Why? Why no action?
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, through the foreign credentials recognition program, we are working with the provinces, the territories, regulators, sector councils, professional associations and others to improve the recognition of work experience, credentials and skills obtained overseas.
We have committed $68 million already to improve foreign credentials recognition. Significant progress is being made, especially in the areas of health care for nurses and physicians, as well as in engineering.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Technical Institute in my riding is one of Canada's leading colleges in its field. However, its very survival is seriously threatened by a cutback in the government's funding. Layoffs are taking place as we speak. Students in multi-year programs are being left on the streets and this shining star in aboriginal education is on the verge of collapse and closure.
Will the Minister of Indian Affairs commit today to fully, and I do mean fully, restore the first nations funding in Tyendinaga?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to improving education for first nations students. It has been part of the round table process. We have already committed $1 million this year to the First Nations Technical Institute to support the ongoing post-secondary program.
The officials have reviewed the institute's business plan and we are giving consideration to a new proposal for an estimated additional $600,000 in programming support.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Northern Development.
On April 19, 2004 aboriginal leaders met with federal ministers and parliamentarians, including the Prime Minister, to discuss how we could work together to improve the lives of aboriginal people.
The government said it was committed to changing the way we deal with aboriginal people. What action has the government taken since the round table toward meaningful change for aboriginal Canadians?
Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister restated his commitment to meet later this month with the national aboriginal leadership. Over the past year, follow-up sessions have taken place on six key policy priority areas identified by the round table on health, education, lifelong learning, housing, economic opportunities, negotiations and accountabilities for results.
At our upcoming policy retreat, we look forward to discussing the next steps in our renewed relationship with aboriginal Canadians. Together we are closing the gap between--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.
FisheriesMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the fisheries committee tabled its report on the disastrous 2004 sockeye salmon fishery, it included, along with its 12 unanimous recommendations, a request for a response within 60 days. It did so because of the concern that some serious problems needed to be corrected before the 2005 season.
Those 60 days expire tomorrow. Will the minister tell us today if he is going to continue to ignore us or is he going to implement our recommendations?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated previously that I appreciated the work of the committee and its report. I reviewed it and we will table a response in due course.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, we can only wish that the government would work as hard to ensure the survival of Pacific salmon as it does to its own survival.
Our report and the post-season review of Justice Williams highlighted the fact that there was a serious problem with enforcement and called for increased enforcement efforts. However, an internal DFO document reveals that there is a plan to reduce the number of fisheries officers in the Pacific region, so we are very concerned about the future of this resource.
Why is the minister continuing to refuse to fix the problem and make a real commitment to enforcement on the Fraser River?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that what he is saying is not actually accurate. That is not how it will work. He knows, for example, that we are focusing efforts on the Fraser River. We will not be focusing as much perhaps on dealing with cottagers and their docks or with farmers and their culverts. We do want to focus on the important issues of the Fraser River fishery, for example.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMarcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, once again, the interests of Quebec are not being served. Over the past 12 years, seniors have been denied money to which they are entitled. This government brags about the money it is allocating for seniors in its budget, and yet, it still refuses to reimburse the 68,000 seniors who have been deprived the guaranteed income supplement.
How can the Prime Minister throw billions of dollars about, here, there and everywhere when he owes so much money to seniors?
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know of the member's interest in seniors as we spoke earlier this week. However, he is also very much aware that the government is committed to ensuring that low income seniors have more opportunities in our society. In the budget, which he unfortunately voted against last night, the $2.7 billion over five years for low income seniors, especially in his region, will be very beneficial to many of the people who want to have the standard of living as he does.
Economic DevelopmentFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, people are increasingly surprised to see the Bloc Québécois insist on opposing Bill C-9, which will facilitate access to federal funding to help regions suffering economic difficulties.
Can the minister explain how the Bloc Québécois' systematic obstruction might harm the economic development of the regions of Quebec?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, obviously it bothers the Bloc Québécois that we have a presence in Quebec with our 14 regional offices. It bothers them that we listen to the regions, their mayors, their businesspeople, their social economy stakeholders and their entrepreneurs. It bothers them that our contribution is recognized because this infringes on their goal of marginalizing the Government of Canada's intervention for the good of the regions of Quebec.
However, if the people of these regions in Quebec are pleased with the effective work we do, it does not bother me much that it bothers the Bloc. We will not shirk our responsibility for regional development just because the Bloc wants us to.
JusticeMr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister continues to leave our children at risk. He knows that experts are recommending that the age of sexual consent be raised from 14 to 16. He knows that international pedophiles are coming to Canada because we are one of the few countries that have an age of consent of 14.
When will the justice minister truly protect our children by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not appear to appreciate that non-consensual sex, regardless of age, is a sexual assault. He does not appear to appreciate that the age is now at 18 for all predatory sexual conduct with respect to vulnerable child prostitution and the like. He does not appear to appreciate that we have recommended in our new legislation a new category to protect against sexual exploitation. If the members opposite allow the legislation to pass, they will have the protection they want.
Canada Revenue AgencyMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency is currently restructuring its services in all of its tax offices and tax centres across Canada. In Quebec, a number of people located in the regions, like Rouyn-Noranda, Sherbrooke, Rimouski and Chicoutimi will be cut off from an essential front line service.
Can the Minister of National Revenue understand that taxpayers in the regions of Quebec are entitled to the same services as taxpayers in the major centres?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians enjoy one of the lowest postal rates in the industrialized world, because Canada Post operates as efficiently as possible.
Canada Post's postal network has changed significantly in recent years, throughout the country. With the improvements made to mail processing operations in Quebec, Canada Post will be able to maintain or improve service to the clientele of the region involved. Collective agreements will be honoured, and the operational changes will not result in lost jobs.
The BudgetJudy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some clarification about the government's intentions with respect to passage of the budget bills.
We want to know if the government is willing to say that it wants the budget bills passed through both Houses by the end of this parliamentary sitting, even if it means working into the summer. Canadians do not want this dragged over to the fall. That would be a betrayal to all in the country.
Will the government join with us in saying that there will be no summer break until the budget bills are passed by Parliament?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we stand steadfast in our position that we would like to get the budget bills out of the House of Commons before the end of this session. The Senate has affirmed that it will continue to do its work, although I cannot speak for the Senate. It will work toward royal assent.
However, our commitment as a government is to ensure that both the bills receive approval in the House of Commons so that before the end of this session, they will be in the Senate.
PrivilegeEleni Bakopanos: I think I have risen in the House many times, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you will, after checking the blues, see the comments made by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. As the Standing Orders in the House say, the language used was totally unparliamentary to the point of doing more of the same we have seen before in the House.
Canadians expect better of us. We have to live to a higher order than that which is in the public venue.
I bring that to your attention again, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you to ask the hon. member from Portage--Lisgar to withdraw his comments. They were totally unparliamentary.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, whether it pretends to be a question of privilege or a point of order, it is clearly neither. The member should just take a deep breath and understand that the comment made by my hon. colleague from Portage--Lisgar was referencing the former chairman of Canada Post to whom he referred to sardonically as the pork-master general, which I think is fitting.
However, I would point out that the same member has made the same satirical comment in news releases and outside the House. It is called political language, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you check you will find that the Speaker ruled just a few days ago on the kind of language and the kind of direct accusations that could be made. If you examine the blues, you will find there was a very direct accusation of complicity and an act of fraud.
I think that is unbecoming of the House. There has been some talk on the other side about moving to a different order here, trying to ratchet down the language to bring a little more decorum to the House.
I think there are two issues at stake. One is to ensure that happens and two is to ensure that the Chair enforces the privileges of members in the House.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I find the Liberals' rush to protect that individual who had $2 million in expenses for which there were no receipts rather interesting.
The fact of the matter is there were no accusations made. My colleague simply asked why the same penalties did not apply to the individual as would apply to other Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: During the question period, what I heard from the question was some commentary about someone who is not in the House.
I will check the blues, however, and see if there was something that was inappropriate and if necessary, return and report back to the House.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the hon. member, after I responded to a question, suggested that there was an agent inside the House and he was referring to me. It was entirely inappropriate. He was not referring to someone outside the House. He was referring to someone inside the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure what an agent inside the House means particularly. Perhaps it is in the ear of the beholder. I will examine the blues and if necessary, I will report back to the House with what I see after I examine them.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsEleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 100 petitions.
Judges ActIrwin Cotler: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, an act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Courts Act and other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Fisheries ActGeoff Regan: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-52, an act to amend the Fisheries Act (terms and conditions of permissions, leases and licences).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Lynn Myers (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the second part of the 2005 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, France April 25 to 29, 2005.
Committees of the HouseMr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I am very pleased, on behalf of the chair and all the members of the committee, to provide a comprehensive report, “Funding through the Women's Program: Women's groups speak out”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee has requested a comprehensive government response.
PetitionsMark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the wonderful residents of my riding of Langley, British Columbia.
The petition deals with marriage. It says that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children and that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged. It also says that this honourable House passed a motion in June 1999 calling for marriage to continue to be recognized as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several parts of my beautiful constituency signed by people from Perth, who some say is the prettiest town in Ontario, Verona, Harrowsmith and elsewhere. This petition concerns the definition of marriage.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children. They point out that the majority of Canadians currently support the traditional definition of marriage. They remind the House that it is the duty and obligation of the House to legislate on this subject and to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition signed by members of the Gateway United Pentecostal Church in Gananoque in my constituency of Leeds—Grenville. They request that the government define and recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of MacLeod. This petition requests that the House pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsEleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 129 and 141 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 129Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: With regard to the governance of Crown corporations: ( a ) what action has the government taken as a result of the March 15, 2004, directive from the Prime Minister’s office that there should be a four-stage process for appointing the heads of Crown corporations; and ( b ) has this process been followed in the appointment of the heads of Crown corporations since March 15, 2004?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 141Judy Wasylycia-Leis: With respect to the personal income tax medical expense deduction, using the most recent taxation data available and including the methodology used in the calculation, what would be the estimated cost to government revenues of: ( a ) eliminating the 3% expense threshold; and ( b ) reducing the expense threshold by half?
(Return tabled)
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec be read the third time and passed.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I want first to come back to some issues I had raised in my first speech, in addition to making a few points.
I had insisted on an important issue. We must avoid making allegations. Earlier, in oral question period, I heard my Liberal Party colleague, the member for Gatineau, claim or rather imply that regional development is not important to us.
I will not respond to such allegations, except to say that regional development is extremely important, too much, in fact, for us to engage in partisan politics. I think it is important to work or at least to try to work in harmony and cooperation in order to resolve all the problems in the regions. This is what the Bloc Québécois and I have tried to do in the debates at each stage of Bill C-9.
Earlier, I mentioned some important issues that the Bloc put forward. These issues were important to us, to Quebec and to the regions. We have made progress.
I also mentioned the concept of designated areas, which was struck from the bill. This concept gave the minister the freedom to intervene in one region instead of another. This was struck from the bill. This is fortunate.
One other thing was also struck. In my opinion, it may have been important to the government, but it was much less so to the opposition, for whom it was appalling to say the least. I am talking about the possibility of announcing grants during an election. An election is the time for debating the issues and adopting positions on local, regional and national issues, whereas this party is using it as an opportunity to announce grants.
We are quite pleased that our Conservative colleagues put forward this amendment, which naturally the Bloc Québécois supported.
The Bloc Québécois—which is concerned with equity throughout Quebec—also ensured that the original mission of the agency was put back in the bill. It reads as follows:

The object of the Agency is to promote the long-term economic development of the regions of Quebec by giving special attention to those—

Here is the important part:

—where slow economic growth is prevalent or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

As I said, we went from the designated areas and the free will of the minister, and returned to a concern for equity of all regions truly in need.
We also offered the possibility to this government and to the minister that he have some authority. We would have liked him to participate and support our amendment. It concerns the possibility from the technical point of view—I will not go into detail—of his being able to make transfers directly to the Government of Quebec, of money, or least certain amounts, or agreements involving the regions, in order to participate in some major initiatives. That would not, of course, mean just anything, but would involve major initiatives for certain regions.
For example, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean a consensus emerged from the summit between Quebec and its regions for the creation of a regional venture capital investment fund. This fund is so important that even a major company like Alcan is prepared to inject money into it. The Government of Quebec is even prepared to match, and double, the amount contributed by the community. For example, if there were $10 million in private funding, the Government of Quebec would be prepared to inject $20 million. This is a major initiative.
Once again, on a number of occasions, this government has refused to participate. This is a regional prerogative on which there was consensus from all leaders in the region, regardless of party.
There is one other important reason behind the refusal to support this bill, which has been rejected by both the government and the Quebec federalists. I make that differentiation because, at one point, even western Conservative MPs had accepted this orientation. We wanted the agency and the minister to exercise their authorities in such a way as to respect the priorities of the Government of Quebec for regional development. Why is this so vital? Quite simply because the majority of questions that impact on regional development fall into areas under Quebec jurisdiction. Yes, someone could bring up the Charter, but I am not talking about that.
Municipalities, Quebec's; land use planning, Quebec's; assessment and training, Quebec's; accepting and integrating immigrants, Quebec's; and, natural resources, a huge area, Quebec's. The same is true of hydroelectricity, forests, lumber and land use planning. All of these issues are unavoidable, and the Government of Quebec cannot be ignored. Regional development requires Quebec consensus, because it concerns Quebec and its regions primarily.
I would say as well that the other reasons relate to the establishment of such a substantial organization. There must be no competition so as to avoid any counter-productive duplication. The minister himself said that the aim is complementarity. He is offered a chance to consolidate this complementarity and out of hand he rejects the notion of respecting the priorities of the Government of Quebec. Whatever the government thinks, the witnesses who came to the committee should have been heard. Mr. Jean-Claude Beauchemin, the mayor of Rouyn-Noranda said, “Given the nature of the Agency proposed in Bill C-9, we fear that there may be a strong centralization of this process and a breakdown of the mutual consultation mechanisms ”.
Others have said, “We plan to create a department, but there are no mechanisms for cooperation among federal departments, throughout Canada or between provinces and regions.” And we have also heard people say, “Economic development agencies do not have a board of directors, and therefore they are unable to bring together the stakeholders to discuss the issues in regional initiatives.”
My time is running out, but I would have other comments to make regarding witnesses. In view of this testimony, the problem I have with the government and the minister is that they missed the target when they refused, or failed, to consult the most important people, the people in the regions. They are the ones who, day in and day out since even before I was born, have been working for economic development. They bring focus to these debates and to the regional development approach. This is why we will vote against Bill C-9.
Robert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière—Alma on his speech regarding Bill C-9. He talked about the regional investment fund in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. This regional fund is supported financially by the community, by businesses and by the Quebec government. The region approached the federal government to seek its support, but the answer was no.
My question is this. Does the member believe that it would be important for the federal government to support this regional investment fund and can he tell us what this fund means for the development of a region such as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region?
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. His question is particularly important since he was also affected by various crises, the softwood lumber crisis, the mad cow crisis, as well as difficult regional realities. He is working hard, he is diligent and I commend him for this good work.
When there is a regional consensus as important as the mobilization of a whole community, I think that we cannot remain insensitive. Yet, several ministers have been criticized one after the other, not only by members of the Bloc Québécois, but also by the sector and by journalists over the importance of this issue, and yet, this fund is mobilizing both the social and economic sector, the economic sector, as well as such big businesses as Alcan and the Quebec government.
Thus, all these people consider that a venture capital fund is very important. However, the government is afraid to lose something by putting money into this fund. It might lose its precious visibility in the regions.
I said earlier that we must not politicize the debate about resource regions. We must not politicize regional development for partisanship purposes. We must be forward-looking. Economic models that existed previously are no longer working. What we must do today is review them. This is what I intend to continue to do with the leaders of the region, no matter what the government decides.
Réal Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, a little earlier today, to point out to the minister that, as a former municipal elected person, I had to work, on the regional level, with other elected people and representatives of different organizations. We often managed to achieve regional consensus on projects that were considered viable. We had funds from the CRÉ, formerly the CRCD, as well as cooperation from the provincial government.
I want to ask this of the minister. Has he ever witnessed, in his own riding, projects that had received the approval of organizations in the sector and that had already benefited from local and provincial funding, but, when the time came to ask the federal government for funds, were flatly refused?
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse who has an impressive background and brings a lot of experience to our caucus.
To answer his question I will say that yes, we often see consensus in the community but the government will give all kind of excuses to justify its refusal to participate. Sometimes, it says it is because of its program constraints, sometimes because it will not get enough visibility or that it will not be the main stakeholder in a project.
When there is consensus and the region says that a project is good, I do not see why the federal government would say that it is bad and that it will not get involved. Who but those who are affected by a problem are in the best position to plan their own development, to nurture that development?
Let us take a conflict like lumber for example. We have been asking for two or three years for a loan guarantee program to really help businesses. We also asked for the payment of legal costs. We proposed a plan to help forest industries because their situation is a tragedy. Two days ago, Tembec announced the closure of four plants. Will the government wait for the sector to be completely destroyed before doing something?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc should get their act together. Clearly, one of their members asked a question, and his colleague could not give any real answer.
This question was quite simple and relevant. Was there any project in the Saguenay area in which all those concerned were ready to invest and which Canada Economic Development refused? The answer that was not provided and should have been is a resounding no. Not a single investment project that was put forward locally and supported by the Quebec government was rejected by Canada Economic Development. Not a single one.
Maybe these gentlemen should have a little discussion to find out why they are opposing Bill C-9. They do not even agree between themselves.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I will avoid talking specifically about too many projects, but I will mention one, the footbridge in Sainte-Monique. The CLD put a proposal forward after doing a comprehensive study of this issue. This project also enjoyed local support, but Canada Economic Development refused to go along.
Out of respect for developers who put projects forward, we will not politicize the issue, but this happens frequently. On the pretext that program standards exist, they go one way or the other. The best example is the regional fund. The whole community in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean contributed to this fund because it is important. But this government refuses the money we need for development.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague. It is not the first time I hear that kind of comment. As a matter of fact, I intended to ask a question similar to the one asked by the minister responsible for Bill C-9 because, once again, erroneous answers are being given to Quebeckers. They are being told that there is one bill and that it is the only one that can be referred to. However, it is never said that it is sometimes because the province is not doing anything about this issue.
Now, in terms of regional collaboration, I know that Canada Economic Development has an extraordinary perception of my region, the Outaouais. Things are going very well. By the way, I want to say that CED-Q has been in place far longer than the CLDs and CREs that the Bloc Québécois is supporting and in which it sees a panacea to regional problems.
I would like to ask the member for Jonquière—Alma a question. Beside the fact that, in his own region, stakeholders do not seem ready to oppose Bill C-9 — he seems to be isolated in that regard — does putting so much focus on CREs not concern him, considering that other groups, namely women, are no longer involved in those organizations?
I think that when the Bloc Québécois says that there is community involvement, this is somewhat exaggerated. I believe that CED-Q already has a very good reputation. It works a lot with the community. Maybe it does such good work because it has been doing it for a long time. Therefore, I have a lot of difficulty understanding why the Bloc Québécois always comes back to CREs, and is acting in a way that is detrimental to Quebec.
Sébastien Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, I will simply ask a question. Why did they not see fit to consult the local population and stakeholders?
Earlier, I was talking about the need to review economic models. We had a good opportunity, but they missed it. About the way of doing things, I will quote a witness who certainly knows how to do things.

They wanted at least to put the CFDC and the CLD in the same physical location so that they would work in a complementary fashion. Every time, it was a categorical no. That was an illogical stand that caused a great deal of difficulty in Quebec. ... We achieved the successes we had in spite of the federal government.

The witness is André Brunet, president of the Abitibi CLD, and this is important.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.
This is a public policy matter of profound significance for communities everywhere. Although the bill deals specifically with community economic development in various regions of the province of Quebec, the concept we are discussing is critically important for the future of many communities across the country.
I would like to take a moment to address the essence of this proposal and the whole meaning of social, economic development or political involvement at the grassroots level because that is what we are talking about.
This is about communities having the means to ensure that community development occurs in ways that are relevant to that community. It is about turning around our priorities as politicians and as members of Parliament. We ought to stop saying how communities must perform. We ought to stop making decisions from on high about what communities need and what is best for people at the local level. We ought to begin by saying that no one knows better about what is in the best interests of a community than the people who work day in and day out building communities and creating cooperative arrangements for improving life in that particular neighbourhood.
I have a very relevant example in terms of my own constituency of Winnipeg North, a community that is a typical, inner city, north end neighbourhood. It is an older neighbourhood with old stock housing and many very significant problems in terms of economic and social development.
We are talking about communities where many people live on a day to day basis trying to make ends meet for their families, communities that are struggling in terms of some external factors that are hard to address. It may be an influx of people from other communities without proper housing and other services available to those individuals. We are talking about all the social determinants that come from economic indicators that are indicative of many social ills and problems that we all have to deal with on a day to day basis.
Economic development is central for every region and every community in every one of our provinces to overcoming great difficulties and ensuring we have a long term strategy for overcoming economic and social inequalities.
There is an old expression we have all heard that if we give a person a fish, they will eat for a day, but if we teach that person to fish, they will be able to provide for themselves and their families forever. One could even take that a little further and say that if one gave those families access to the pond, to the lake or the river where the fish are plentiful, then the future of that community is guaranteed forever. It is about giving communities the resources they need to develop, to grow and to provide for all of the people in that community.
We cannot do that in isolation. We cannot do that from government speaking on high and we cannot do it in terms of dealing with things on a piecemeal, ad hoc, band-aid, pilot project basis, which has been the tendency of the government.
It has not tended to look at communities in terms of holistic needs and in terms of working to find solutions with a community, not for that community, not telling that community how the job must get done.
My experience also comes from a community where in fact there is a very high aboriginal population. These are people who want to gain control over their own lives. They are people who know that they will continue to suffer social injustice and economic inequality until we as politicians are prepared to share power and are prepared to empower people to look after themselves, to care for themselves and to make communities work for one another. That is the essence of this concept and why this bill is so important.
Let me now focus specifically on Bill C-9. It is a bill that has gone through all the stages and has had serious study by the committee.
In that regard I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. She has been very much involved in the work of that committee in developing recommendations and amendments to this legislation to make it better, to make it more effective in terms of dealing with the very objectives at stake here, that is, how to give communities the means by which they can shape their own future.
At the committee stage of the bill, many amendments were proposed and many were passed. I want to indicate for all in this House that the New Democratic Party certainly supports the amendments, recognizes the hard work of the committee and wants to support the bill as amended.
Specifically, the amendments state very clearly that social economy enterprises will be included as eligible organizations. That will help community economic development opportunities in the province of Quebec.
As well, the amendments focus on how this money will be used to promote the Quebec economy. I want to look specifically at those amendments that do just that and speak about why we are so supportive of the amendments and the bill including these amendments. The first of these amendments states that there shall be means to:

(a) promote economic development in the regions of Quebec where low incomes and/or slow economic growth are prevalent, or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

That is fundamental to the task at hand and to the very essence of Canadian economic development.
The second part of the amendment states that through this bill it will be emphasized that “long-term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation” are explicitly stated as fundamental goals. The amendments also include reference to a focus on small and medium sized enterprises and the development of entrepreneurial talent.
All these amendments are important, all establishing very clear boundaries that will help direct how the funding that is available will be used and to whose benefit. Very clearly, these are critical steps in terms of this whole process, integral to the whole legislation we are dealing with.
As recent events in Montreal have shown, it is very important that bureaucrats understand the limits of how funds should be used.
I again want to spend just a moment on the importance of literacy in any social economy program. I am sure that members of the Bloc will agree when I say that Quebec, like Atlantic Canada, has more adults with low literacy skills than the rest of Canada. As we agree to the new status for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it is very important for us to emphasize that literacy skills are the most important for people who are in transitional and emerging economies.
I want to point out that ABC CANADA is a great organization working to improve adult literacy skills. The following is stated on its website:

Statistics Canada released a report called Literacy Skills for the Knowledge Society in 1997. This report confirms that we have a serious literacy problem in Canada. Here are some of the facts:
Literacy skills are like muscles--they are maintained and strengthened through regular use.
The higher an individual's literacy level, the more likely he/she will be employed and have a higher income.
Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home.
--'good' jobs are those that provide opportunities to maintain and enhance literacy skills.

Let us stop for a moment and take a look at the third point I mentioned: that Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home. It makes sense in that context, then, that any economic program, any community development initiative, needs to consider absolutely the need for lifelong learning, especially when it comes to adult literacy and numeracy training programs.
There is so much one could talk about in the context of the bill. I simply want to indicate our support for the bill as amended and to urge its final passage by the House of Commons.
I want to end by referring to some work prepared by the Canadian CED Network social economy round table consultation. I will refer specifically to the briefing notes the group produced. The document outlining the discussions at the round table consultation lists the main points that CCED Net believes should be common concerns during all consultations regarding the federal social economy initiative.
Emphasizing those three points really says it all in terms of what we are trying to achieve and what can be accomplished by providing the funds that are referenced in the bill and providing the framework for its implementation.
The three points made by CCED Net include, first, “strengthening social capital at the local level”. That means “building the local capacity of communities to systematically address the problems of their economies”. That is a very important point, because without acknowledging the need to increase local capacity so that the community itself can overcome the problems it is facing, we are only putting a band-aid on a problem. We are only allowing social injustices and economic inequalities to continue.
The second point about this approach involves “strengthening human capital at the local level”. This means “increasing the competence of local citizens to get and hold good jobs or build their own businesses, as well as to provide essential local leadership for the development process”.
This kind of investment in human capital cannot be done in isolation of all the parts of that individual. If we do not look at this on a holistic basis, it becomes almost impossible to see results by investing money strictly on the basis of a particular economic project. That means looking at the whole identity of an individual and of a community. That means considering the heritage, the culture, the skills, the particular expertise, and the practices of collaboration and working together: networking; the involvement of unions and businesses; the involvement of synagogues, churches and temples; the involvement of schools and universities; and the involvement of family associations and teacher-parent groups.
All of these various aspects of an individual's life, all integral to the health and well-being of a community, must be included in this concept of strengthening human capital at the local level.
Finally, let us get to the nub of the matter in terms of the wherewithal to do all of this. We have the people who want to do it. We have organizations at the local level with people who want to give their lives to making a difference at the community level, who are prepared to work on a volunteer basis and to work tirelessly doing community work, but they need the financial support of government to make that happen.
The third important point made by CCED Net about a community development or economic development initiative is “strengthening financial capital at the local level”. This means improving “investment resources available for local businesses, for affordable housing, and for alternative financial institutions”.
In this context, it is very important to reference the two budget bills passed by this House of Commons just last night, and in particular to reference the better balanced budget proposed by the NDP in Bill C-48, which in fact flows from this imperative and came from the need to address community needs and to support communities to help themselves. The money we have fought for and worked through with the Liberal government is critical for community economic development, the money for housing, education, retrofitting of homes, public transit and other environmental initiatives. All of these initiatives are critically important for feeding into the notion that the best communities are those that are able to help themselves.
By providing the resources to work with community groups like those I have in Winnipeg, the North End Community Renewal Corporation, Just Housing, Habitat for Humanity, North End Housing and other residents associations like the Point Douglas and William Whyte residents advisory groups, by providing assistance to those organizations and groups that are prepared to take on the challenges of a community that needs to be renewed and strengthened, we surely see the light at the end of the tunnel and know that the goals we all share can be accomplished.
This last point also references the need for every community to have access to financial institutions, and if those financial institutions are not there, to provide the resources to develop alternatives. When a community loses all of its bank branches and has no immediate direct access to financial institutions, then it is through community development and economic development proposals, like those we have been talking about under the auspices of this bill, that we can actually provide and ensure that a community has such access.
It is not easily done and it takes a lot of work, but I can tell members from firsthand experience how possible it actually is.
In the case of Winnipeg North, we have lost all of our bank branches in the last 10 years. In a very large and strategically significant area in Winnipeg, that being the north end, stretching many miles on all sides, there is no bank branch. The community realized that without access to financial services there would be no way to keep attracting new businesses. There would be no way to deal with the vacancies along main street and to get local initiatives housed and thriving in those vacant buildings without access to financial services.
That community, my community, decided to first take on the banks and it said to those banks that they had no right to desert a community that had been loyal to them for years and years, for decades and decades, and in some cases for more than 100 years. Those banks grew and became profitable because of that loyalty, only to desert that community when it was convenient for the banks because they wanted to make more profit in other areas. That community, my community, decided to take things into its own hands and to say to those banks, “If the banks will not stay and be loyal to us, then we will switch our allegiance and we will find our own way to deal with the situation”.
The community, through the North End Community Renewal Corporation, has developed an alternative financial institutions plan, has tested it and is now in the final stages of putting it into effect, but it needs money and it needs support from all levels of government. I have actually pursued this matter with the Minister of Finance and said to him that he had an obligation to support such community initiatives and to ensure that if the banks desert communities and we cannot legislate them to stay, then surely we, as representatives of this place and as members of a government, have an obligation to help communities help themselves and provide the necessary economic development and financial institutional resources that they need. The essence of this project is helping communities to help themselves.
I urge members of the House to support Bill C-9.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent to adjourn the present debate in order to immediately proceed to private members' business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Criminal CodeMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): 
moved that Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park for seconding this motion today. He will also be taking part in this hour of debate. I appreciate him being here on a beautiful Friday afternoon in Ottawa.
I am honoured to rise in the House today to debate my private member's bill, Bill C-313. The bill has a very worthy goal of amending Canada's Criminal Code by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years. The bill embodies a cause that I have inherited from the hon. members from Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose, both of whom have spent tireless hours over the past 12 years in an effort to achieve the protection of our children that this bill calls for. Mr. Speaker, you know full well that they have worked very hard in other aspects of protecting children in Canada.
As I have mentioned, this is not the first time the House has been faced with the opportunity to take meaningful action to protect our children from adults who use legal loopholes to engage in sexual activities with minors. For years the House has been presented with many private members' bills aimed at raising the age of consent and today that call continues. It continues largely because the House has yet to provide an appropriate answer to those calls for protection.
Despite claims by the government and Liberal governments that predated it, Canada's Criminal Code remains ineffective in its protection of our children when it comes to providing deterrents for adults who seek sexual relations with the most vulnerable and impressionable citizens of our society: our children. I use the words “our children” because, whether we have children of our own or not, as citizens and members of Parliament we possess a collective responsibility to provide meaningful protection for the children of Canada as if they were our own.
Although my children are now adults, they in turn have children, making me a pretty proud grandfather. The children of our neighbours, our co-workers, our colleagues and even strangers we pass on the street from all regions, ethnic backgrounds and faiths, are all Canada's children. They are Canada's children and therefore, as Canadians and legislators, they are our children to protect.
As members of Parliament, we are elected to make laws that respond to the various needs and necessities of our constituents. I would state that an essential virtue of this bill is that it affords much needed protection for children in not only my constituency of Lethbridge but every single constituency represented in the House. I look forward to the day when Canadian parents can rest assured that no adult can lawfully pursue sexual relations with their children.
The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relations was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust. As hard as that is to believe, that is what the law is in Canada.
In short, the laws of this land leave our children, as young as 12 years old, vulnerable to the lowest seductions and manipulations of troubled adults who would seek to rob them of their innocence. Clearly, it is time for the House to provide meaningful protection for our children.
Recent Liberal governments have taken a piecemeal approach to protecting our children from opportunistic adults seeking sexual relations with children. One example of this is the Liberal government's Bill C-15A of 2002 which outlawed the use of the Internet to communicate with a child for sexual purposes. While criminalizing Internet luring was a positive step, it really did not provide meaningful protection against very real threats.
Bill C-15A merely removed a stepping stone from the path. While removing a mere stepping stone from the illicit path is positive, it does not eliminate the destination to which the path winds, and that is sexual relations between adults and children.
The Criminal Code of Canada must be amended in order to establish truly robust and effective protection for our children and it is time for us to take real action against a real problem.
A recent event right here in Ottawa highlighted the need for this very action that my bill pursues. Just two months ago, a 38 year old man travelled from the United States to Ottawa with the express purpose of having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy. This individual's trip to Ottawa was the culmination of an Internet relationship that began in an online chat room several months before.
Because the age of consent in Canada is 14, he was not charged with sexual assault or any child sex crime. Under the current Criminal Code, the only charges that the police and parents could pursue against this individual were two charges of unlawfully taking a person under 16 away from his parents against their will and one count of using the Internet to facilitate this. Unfortunately, these charges carry no minimum penalties and have maximums of only five years.
Ironically, this individual faces heavier consequences in the United States where there are strict laws against adults crossing state and international borders in order to have sex with persons under the age of 16, even if it is consensual. It is shameful that the laws of another nation currently provide stronger protection for our children than do our own Canadian laws.
It is no coincidence that this troubled man travelled to Canada to have sexual relations with a minor. Our ineffective laws lacking deterrence and consequences leave the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, much more vulnerable and unprotected than need be.
There was a case in eastern Canada where another person came from the United States, contacted a 14 year old, was apprehended, was thrown in jail and had to be released because the young person with whom he had come to Canada to have a sexual relationship was 14 and legal. He therefore had to be released.
As long as our laws remain complacent in the face of such threats, Canada will remain vulnerable to the cold calculations of those who seek to exploit the innocence of and have sexual relations with our children. We are in real trouble when we have such troubled persons from outside our country travelling into Canada for that expressed reason: to take advantage of our lax laws and to have sexual relations with our children.
The Criminal Code as it stands today is powerless in the face of such brazen acts of illicit opportunism where a minor, who, in the Ottawa case, was suffering from depression, is seduced and manipulated prior to being drawn into actual sexual encounters with an adult.
I will speak of another event here in Ottawa where a 35 year old man was found guilty of having repeated sexual relations with a local 13 year old. He was not found guilty but he was charged. Although this individual has clearly broken the current law that supposedly protects our children, he was simply sentenced to house arrest. During the first 12 months of his sentence he is merely obliged to follow a curfew and to participate in sexual behaviour assessments and treatments if his corrections officer deems them necessary, and that is “if”. The court also required this individual to make a $1,000 donation to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
That incident illustrates how, even when the laws meant to protect our children are clearly broken, no real consequences are assigned as a deterrent for the guilty individual or others who may follow suit. We have laws that together reflect our society's disapproval of adults having sexual relations with minors but there is no definitive principle or legislation supporting them.
This is the crux of my argument today. This bill is aimed at protecting, not limiting our children and their rights. I invite members to read the bill and join me in its promotion by considering a peer exemption for close in age categories so as not to criminalize teens who are sexually active with their peers. The true aim of the bill is the protection of our children from adults who intentionally pursue sexual relations with minors. With this bill Parliament will send a clear message.
It is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that our children are not fair game for those troubled adults and it is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that we will support the parents and law enforcement agencies which are the front line defenders of our children by providing them with laws clearly stating that sexual relations between adults and children are not only unacceptable but unlawful.
If the government and this House cannot support the bill, a Conservative government will.
Article 85 of the Conservative policy statement states:

A Conservative government will act to protect children by eliminating all defences that are used to justify the possession of child pornography. A Conservative government would rename the age of consent to the age of protection and raise it from 14 to 16 years of age.

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age will empower parents and law enforcement agencies to vigorously protect some of the most vulnerable citizens from the darkest threats posed to them.
We have seen an attempt by the government to address this issue, but it falls far short of what needs to be done. The bill that the government brought forward is Bill C-2 which was tabled last fall. However, it does not address the issue of the age of sexual consent. I will read some comments from our justice critic, the member for Provencher, who stated:

Yet, despite the stated goals of the bill and the lofty promises of the Justice Minister, C-2 fails miserably in many respects. Most notable is its failure to protect a very vulnerable category of children--14 to 16 year olds--from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become targets of pornographers, pedophiles and Internet sex scams while their parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with legal recourse.
In most democratic jurisdictions that include the United Kingdom, Australia, most American states and European countries, adults are prohibited with having sexual relationships with children less than 16 or even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.

As I indicated before, in some circumstances that can be as low as 12 and still be acceptable in the courts. The member further stated:

Despite persistent calls from provincial attorneys general and premiers, child advocacy groups, police, and countless other organizations, including the Conservative Party of Canada, successive Liberal ministers of justice continue to resist the proposal to raise Canada's age of sexual consent.
The most frequently cited reason provided by Liberals for not raising the age of consent is that it might criminalize sexual activity between young people.

That is why I mentioned the close in age exemption category that could be easily implemented. The member stated further:

The Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 to consent to sexual activity as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. The British, who have set their age of consent at 16, also have a close in age category that has not, as Liberals suggest, criminalized teenagers

There are many issues to be dealt with on this subject. Hopefully, when we hear what the other parties have to say there will be some consideration for this. I feel it is important to note that children who are between 14 and 16 years of age are still children. They still need direction and our protection. As legislators and lawmakers in this country, it is up to us to provide that protection while they are the most vulnerable in our society.
I look forward to the debate today and returning for the second hour and going to a vote. I hope that members of Parliament, when they deliberate, will find it in their hearts and thoughts to support the bill and pass it into law, so that we can say that we have taken a huge step toward helping to protect our children.
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code, dealing with prohibited sexual acts.
I am pleased to join the debate on the bill because it truly addresses an important issue and also because it is an issue on which misinformation seems to abound.
I appreciate the apparent intent of the bill, namely to better protect our youth against sexual abuse and exploitation. However, I do not support it because the bill will bring greater harm than good to those whom it seeks to protect and because the approach of the bill is ad hoc and somewhat incomplete.
Bill C-313 proposes a number of reforms which would raise the age of consent to non-exploitative sexual activity from 14 to 16 years for some, but not all, sexual offences against children.
The age of consent refers to the age below which the criminal law does not recognize the legal capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity, and below this age of consent, any and all sexual activity, ranging from sexual touching, such as kissing, to sexual intercourse, is prohibited.
The age of consent to sexual activity is, in fact, 18 years where the relationship is exploitative, such as where it involves prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. Where none of these exploitative circumstances exist, the age of consent is 14 years and, despite some incorrect beliefs by some, the age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity has always been 14 and was not lowered in the 1980s.
The only exception to this age is where the young person is 12 or 13 years old and the other person is less than two years older, but under 16 years of age and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency. It is important to be perfectly clear that any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is a sexual assault.
Bill C-313, as I read it, proposes to raise the age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity by amending only some of the relevant offences, but not all, by raising the age from 14 to 16 years. It would expand the existing clause, close in age exception, for 12 and 13 year olds to include 14 and 15 year olds, but with the same conditions. The other person must be less than two years older and under 16 years of age and there be no relationship of trust, authority or dependency.
Under this exception, for example, although a 15 year old boy could engage in sexual activity with his 15 and a half year old girlfriend, this sexual activity would become illegal on the day of the girl's 16th birthday. In other words, Bill C-313 would criminalize the 16 year old for engaging in consensual activity that was legal literally only the day before.
I do not believe that Canadians want to criminalize such activity. I also do not believe that the 15 year old boy would wish to be depicted as a sexual assault victim. This is not an unreasonable or even exceptional hypothetical situation. In fact, according to the May 3, 2005 Statistics Canada edition of, The Daily, we should consider this to be a very likely and common scenario.
It reported that by age 14 or 15 about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse. The figure for boys and girls was quite similar, 12% and 13% respectively. From such estimates, it is reasonable to believe that youth begin to engage in other or lesser forms of sexual activity at an even younger age.
For instance, in the 2003 Canadian youth, sexual health and HIV-AIDS study released by the council of ministers of education, this survey of Canadian adolescents in grades 7, 9 and 11 found that 35% of boys and 49% of girls in grade 7, that is kids 12 years of age, had engaged in deep or open mouth kissing, sexual activity as described by our criminal laws.
The reality is that whether one condones or approves such activity or not, the fact of the matter is that Canadian youth are sexually active from at least as young as 12 years of age. It is clear that Bill C-313 would criminalize youth for engaging in normal adolescent sexual activity even when that activity is engaged in with a peer. As I said, while one may not agree with youth engaging in such activity, there are other far more effective ways than using the state's strongest power, the criminal law power, to educate our children about sexuality.
I do not see how this bill provides better protection to young persons against sexual exploitation when it would in effect turn them into young offenders. Another reason why I cannot support the bill is because of its ad hoc approach to raising the age of consent for sexual activity. It does not ensure uniform and consistent protection because it does not include all offences that relate to the age of consent.
Specifically, it does not amend the following offences: section 172.1, luring a child over the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against a child; section 273.3, removal of a child from Canada for the purpose of committing one of the enumerated child sexual offences; section 810.1, reconnaissance orders or peace bonds to prevent suspected child sex offenders from frequenting places where children can be expected to congregate or from engaging in activity that involves contact with young persons, including communicating with young persons through the use of a computer system such as the Internet; or section 159, anal intercourse.
I will not guess as to why these provisions are not amended by Bill C-313, but the net effect of these omissions is to confirm my concerns about the ad hoc approach of this bill. The protection of our youth against sexual exploitation is far too important for us as lawmakers to address it in an ad hoc fashion. For all of these reasons, I do not support Bill C-313 in its present form.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-313.
Let us be honest, this bill is totally Conservative in its logic. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was saying, we cannot support this bill, which proposes to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 years, as it is now, to 16 years.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with what has been empirically recognized and scientifically observed, and what is just basic common sense, namely that, generally, it is not advisable to have sexual relations at 14. At that age, a person is still closer to childhood than to adulthood. Puberty may not even have started yet and it is certainly not advisable to have sexual relations.
I think I am not being overly moralistic if I say that when entering the world of sexuality, one must be prepared and have enough information about healthy sexual practices, about the meaning of commitment and, let us say it, about the loss of a certain naivety. Indeed, one's first sexual experience is a defining moment in one's life.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am 43 years old. Incidentally, I thank you for your kind wishes on my birthday this week.
I must say that, back in the days when I was in high school, sexual activity tended to start later than it does today. We even had a saying in Quebec about someone being a late bloomer in matters of sexuality. But we must recognize that things have changed.
Why do young people, at least some of them, start being sexually active earlier? Obviously, there are all sorts of theories on the subject. There has been investigative reporting into this matter. Apparently, there is a connection between early sexual activity and information. With Internet and the increased speed at which information is circulating, the shroud of mystery surrounding sexuality is lifted earlier for today's young people, who have access to information from an early age and, as a result, start experimenting with sex earlier.
Once again, we do not agree. We fully realize that not having sexual relations at age 14 is desirable. However, we are not prepared to go one step further, as proposed by the Conservative Party, and make it criminal, which would involve the judicial system. This would mean that charges could be laid against young people who had sexual relations.
This is the kind of unfortunate situation that shows how out of touch with Quebec realities the Conservative Party is. In the performance of my duties as an MP, I do not remember meeting many young people and many stakeholders who are in favour of criminalizing early sexual activity.
Should we not, as a society, work to provide information and ensure that sexual education classes are made mandatory instead? Sexuality should be discussed at home and in the young people's milieux. The objectives we pursue as a society would ensure that, by the time young people have their first sexual relations, they are informed and prepared.
Having sex for the first time signifies a loss of innocence. It truly marks the entry into adulthood. It should be entered into with complete responsibility and awareness.
Is there anything more beautiful than sexuality? When two people are attracted to one another and are ready to express their feelings by having sex, this should not lead to criminal charges. Obviously, they should be ready, prepared and fully informed.
With that caveat I would add that the Bloc Québécois is fully aware that extreme vigilance must be used in the entire issue of sexual exploitation. The Criminal Code, as we speak, includes provisions. The Supreme Court made a ruling in early 2000. Since the Sharpe case, more provisions have been added to the Criminal Code on sexual exploitation and also child pornography.
I know there is not a single member in this House who does not want Parliament to be extra careful in dealing with the issue of sexual exploitation. There is nothing more terrible, horrible and appalling than the thought of an adult sexually exploiting a child in a relationship that cannot be one of equals, given the traumatic effect this has on the child's development. The Bloc Québécois agrees that in the Criminal Code as well as in the application of the law, we must be extremely vigilant when it comes to sexual relations between adults and children.
If our colleague's bill were to pass, we could end up with the following situation. A 16-year-old boy has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl. They are both very mature and fully capable of assessing the scope of their actions. They are moved by true love. They have protected sex. They have a satisfying and mutually agreed to sexual experience. However, because one of their parents, the girl's for example, disapproves of the choice in partner, charges could be filed.
Is that any way to handle this issue? We do not think the bill is very helpful.
I have done a bit of research on the age of consent. I have here a comparative table of various countries, and it shows that among most major democracies and large countries—large in terms of population, not hegemony of course—Canada comes out in a good middle position.
For example, the age of consent in Mexico is 12. We know Japan to be a relatively puritan society, and we are familiar with some characteristics of that culture, the little, sometimes nervous, laugh, people who are aware of their place, enterprising, ready to serve. Theirs is a society where order is valued and relations between people are clearly circumscribed. That does not mean, of course, that every Japanese is devoid of romantic thoughts. Nonetheless, it is surprising to learn that the age of consent in Japan is 13 years, that is a year younger than in Canada.
Austria, so famous for its romantic waltzes, which you yourself may have been entranced by, Mr. Speaker, in earlier days of course, has an age of consent of 14. In Iceland, that nordic country where beer flows in abundance amidst an atmosphere of celebration, the age is also 14 years.
Italy, that romantic Mediterranean country of pastas and wine—which sounds tempting as the weekend approaches—also has an age of consent of 14. In Denmark it is 15. in France, the country of Marianne, the eldest daughter of the Church, that most Jacobin French republic, the age of consent is 15.
I will close by saying that, regretfully, the Bloc Québécois will not be able to support this bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am burdened to speak to this bill today, burdened because I hear the Liberal critic will recommend to his caucus, and I presume that means it will follow, that it vote against the bill.
We do not know where NDP members stand, the new partners of the Liberal Party, since there seems to be no one willing to speak on their behalf. The member for the Bloc member indicated specifically that the Bloc would not support it. I do not know whether their members will be given a free vote on it or whether it is one of those whipped votes in that party. That was not made clear by the member who just spoke.
At any rate, I want to speak strongly in favour of the bill.
It is probably unfair to get up and repeat all the words in the bill and some justification for taking the stand I am without giving a bit of my background and without appealing to people to consider the true and deep moral structures that have guided our country for many years and which seem now, in our present day and age, to be rapidly falling apart.
As I have indicated in some previous speeches, I had the privilege of being raised in a wonderful, loving family. My dad had nine brothers and sisters, actually he had 10 but one died in infancy, and they were all wonderful, loving people to their spouses and to their children. Until recently, there has been a very good record of marital fidelity in our family. I have made reference to that in previous debates where I have talked about the fact that my parents were married for 67.5 years. They would have gone a little longer if Dad had not have passed away. The record of all my uncles and aunts is impeccable in this area.
I also grew up in a religious context. We are often told that church and state do not mix. However, I am quite impressed that we bring to the debates our actions, our words, our moral framework, whatever that is. I believe that even those who claim to have no faith in God, or in the Bible or in any of the other religions is a religious decision. It is based on faith. It is something that one chooses to believe, based on the amount of evidence that he or she has gathered.
I have made a lifelong study of the scriptures since I became a Christian at age 20, and it is very meaningful to me. I believe that the good book, as some call it, is a definitive instruction book for how we ought to live. As I have studied it over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the instructions in this book are there for our good. We can take every one of the rules and laws in it and they are all positive for the behaviour of families and of society in general.
That is the kind of the background from which I come. In that I then also take that marriage is designed in order to provide for the best for families and for children and it is to be a lifelong marriage.
I believe also in the basic moral concept that sexual activity is not a game that one plays, like basketball or football. It is a very sacred thing, to be participated in within the bonds of marriage. I think we do our society a disservice by not reinforcing those kinds of boundaries and encouraging our young people, in every way possible, that sexual activity is to be saved for and kept within the boundaries of what is called holy matrimony.
I realize that we live in a society in which those morals have been deteriorating rapidly. We even have in the House a bill that would seek to inalienable change the definition of marriage and thereby attack a very solid teaching that many Canadian citizens, by far the majority, have espoused for years.
In the present context, we find that more and more people are engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage and sometimes by coercing others to do so or at least by seducing them. That is what we are talking about.
I have to share with members a very sad thing that is happening in my community way back in the Edmonton Sherwood Park area. I do not know what the latest count is but around 30 bodies of young women have shown up in my riding east of Edmonton in the last 10 or 15 years. These were young women involved in the sex trade and who were killed by someone. It is not known right now whether it is a serial killer or whether it is several individuals.
My heart is broken. I am so sad about that happening. I am a dad. My wife and I have three children. I might hasten to add, perfect children. Not many families can boast that. My daughter Beverley came along first and then sons Brent and Brian. If I think of my daughter being sexually abused by anyone in the family or outside, that is so foreign to my thinking and if someone else were to do it there is something that swells up inside me that says as a father I have an obligation to protect that young girl.
We had a wonderful open relationship in our family and we discussed these things over the years. I am very happy to say that it is our belief that our children grew up according to those standards.
There are many families in which this does not happen. There are parents who permit their children to become involved in other relationships, sometimes with older people, and there are some who would like to resist it but unfortunately, in our present legal system, do not have the right to do so.
When I speak in favour of the bill, I am speaking as a loving father and, I might add, a loving grandfather. Our youngest granddaughter just had her sixth birthday. We have a grandson who is younger than that. He just turned two a couple of months previously.
I am thinking of my grandchildren: Dallas at 13, Kayla, Noah, Hannah and Micah who are wonderful innocent little grandchildren. For me to think of anyone luring them, getting them involved in sexual activity, taking away from them the ability to retroactively be pure in their marriage, I find that very difficult to accept.
This bill would address the issue of individuals who would lure young people into sexual activity. We are talking specifically of those who are older, who would use prostitutes and, when that is not enough, they lure children either on the Internet or by some other means. They get them involved in sexual activity that is dangerous, as we can see. Sociological studies have shown that when children are involved in sexual activity when they are young, even if they have given consent, they are ripe and open to being lured into the business of prostitution. As I just said, I would not call it a profession, it is a dangerous thing to do.
We need to do everything we can to protect our children. I am saying that if someone were to pick up my young granddaughter, or my daughter at 14 or 15 years of age, and involve her in sexual activity, I do not think there should be a defence. I do not think anyone should be able to say that a child talked them into it. She probably would not have, although there may be some who I think at that age lose their heads.
It is up to us as parents, us as grandparents and us as legislators to provide a protective framework for those young people so they are not subject to this kind of vicious and brutal attack.
I would strongly recommend that all members of the House give careful thought to what we are considering here, to support the bill as I do most enthusiastically for my constituents and on behalf of my colleague from Lethbridge.
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-313, an act to amendment the Criminal Code, prohibited sexual acts. Bill C-313 proposes criminal law amendments to raise the age of consent to sexual activity for some but not all sexual offences against children.
The protection of children and youth is an issue that is well-known to hon. members. The age of consent to sexual activity, as a component of this broader issue, is also not a new issue for us. Although I think we should agree that the protection of our youth against sexual exploitation is a priority for many, if not for all of us, it is clear that we cannot agree on the best and most effective ways to achieve this objective.
I cannot support Bill C-313 for it is an incomplete and ineffective approach. Bill C-313 proposes amendments that will raise the age of consent to non-exploitative sexual activity from 14 to 16 years for some but not all sexual offences against children.
The age of consent is not a term that is used in the Criminal Code, but it is one that is commonly used to refer to the age below which the criminal law does not recognize the legal capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. All sexual activity with persons below this age, ranging from sexual touching such as kissing to sexual intercourse, is prohibited, but any non-consensual activity regardless of age is a sexual assault.
One shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it seeks to provide youth with greater protection against sexual exploitation by focusing, not on the exploitative conduct of the wrongdoer, as the Criminal Code does generally with sexual assault, but rather on whether the young person consented to be exploited. This is an odd approach.
Another limitation is that Bill C-313 only recognizes one factor as an indicator of a young person's vulnerability to being sexually exploited, namely the young person's chronological age. Bill C-313 appears to arbitrarily set it at age 16. Again, this is a bit at odds with the fact that most would readily acknowledge that not all 14 year olds have the same level of maturity and even that some 14 year olds are more mature than some 17 year olds.
Therefore I am not sure why the bill would not similarly consider the specific circumstances of the young person as being reasonable indicators of the young person's vulnerability to being sexually exploited.
Another significant shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it does not propose to impose a uniform age of consent for all related offences. It does not amend the following offences: section 159, anal intercourse; section 172.1, luring a child over the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child; section 273.3, removal of a child from Canada for the purpose of committing one of the enumerated child sexual offences; section 810.1, peace bond to prevent a known or suspected child sex offender from frequenting places where children can be expected to congregate or from engaging in activity that involves contact with young persons, including communicating with young persons through the use of a computer system such as the Internet.
The most significant shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it would criminalize youth for engaging in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity even with peers. The bill does not provide a close in age exception. For example, it would be illegal for a 15 year old to engage in sexual activity with her 16 or 17 year old boyfriend, even though such activity may have been legal immediately before his 16th birthday and importantly, even though we all know that such activity is common. Turning these persons into young offenders does not provide them with better protection.
I do not support Bill C-313 for its approach. Instead, I think the better and more effective approach is the government's approach as reflected in Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, currently before the justice committee.
Bill C-2 proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent for sexual activity; that is, who is 14 years of age or older and under 18 years.
Under this new offence, courts would be directed to infer that the relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship. The bill would direct the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation including: the age of the young person; any difference in age between the young person and the other person; the evolution of the relationship; and the degree of control of influence exerted over the young person.
Simply stated, Bill C-2 would recognize chronological age as well as other factors as indicators of vulnerability. It would recognize that the particular circumstances of some youth, including 16 and 17 year olds, may put them at greater risk of being exploited. It would recognize that the way in which a relationship develops, for example, secretly over the Internet, can also be an indicator.
Under Bill C-2 all youth between 14 and 18, not just 14 and 16 years as proposed by Bill C-313, would receive increased protection, irrespective of whether the exploitation was at the hands of someone who was much older or close in age.
Bill C-2 also focuses the law's attention on the wrongdoer instead of whether the young person ostensibly consented to that conduct. Bill C-2 says, in fact, that young persons cannot legally consent to be sexually exploited.
While some may debate whether young persons should engage in any sexual activity and at what age, the fact remains that Canadian youth, as young or younger than 12 years old, are sexually active.
It is clear that Bill C-313 would criminalize youth for engaging in normal adolescent sexual activity, even when that activity is engaged in with a peer. As I said, while one may not agree with youth engaging in such activity, there are other far more effective ways than using the state's strongest power, the criminal law power, to educate our children about their sexuality.
For all these reasons, I do not support Bill C-313.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, it is very enlightening to hear from the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP and their position on this because this is a question that I have asked the justice minister every time he has visited the justice committee. I do not seem to get a straight answer. I have asked the justice minister during question period and have not had a straight answer. At least now I have heard today, in a riveting dialogue, the position of the Liberals and that of the Bloc.
I want to start by thanking my colleague from Lethbridge. He has brought forward a private member's bill that truly represents what Canadians want.
We heard from the Bloc that this was out of sync with what Quebeckers wanted. That is absolute nonsense. The people of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and across our great country want to protect our children.
The House has heard for years, through chiefs of police, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and through experts that we need to raise the age of consent because 14 is too low. Canadians want to know why we are not raising the age to 16.
We are seeing the very reason right now why it is not being raised. It is resistance by the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP. When we talk about being out of sync, Canadians really see what is out of sync. It is not the Conservative Party. It is the other parties.
The Liberal Party has said that Bill C-313, the private member's bill put forward by the member for Lethbridge, is incomplete and ineffective. That makes no sense. That is ridiculous. The bill will protect our children. What we see as ineffective and incomplete is the government.
We heard that kissing and touching is illegal. I will confess that every time I see my grandson, I kiss and hug him. Let us not go on to the absurd. Kissing and touching is not illegal.
We are talking about is kissing and touching a child for sexual purposes, which should be illegal. A 14 year old does not have the cognitive skills to realize that they are being duped, that they are being lured into a very dangerous situation.
We have heard from the member of the Liberal Party that some 14 year olds have more maturity than 17 year olds. I would agree with that. When I hear statements like that, I could say that some 14 year olds have more maturity and experience than some members of the government across the way.
Fourteen year olds generally do not have the cognitive skills to know what the consequences will be of their decisions. There are sexually transmitted diseases that they may be in danger of receiving if they have a relationship. There is pregnancy. There is depression. It is a very important decision to engage in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.
I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Edmonton. He is right on. The first choice is to do it within the context of marriage. I agree totally. That is the way I was raised. I am proud that I have been married 33 years. We have five children and one grandchild. I am just so blessed.
Before I was elected to the House, I was a councillor, a member of municipal government, and child prostitution was a huge problem. I was on a task force dealing with child prostitution. Our group listened to experts from across the country who said that one reason why our children were being lured into prostitution was because of the low age of consent. The age of 14 is one of the lowest in the world. That is why pedophiles come here to look for our children. It is not a position authority. It is a position of abuse and luring.
Ask the average person on the street if it is acceptable for 40 year olds, or 50 year olds or 60 year olds to have a sexual relationship with 14 year olds or 12 year olds who say they are 14 years old. That is sick and it should be a criminal offence.
I am frustrated with what has been said. It is not accurate. It is absolutely wrong when members say that this private member's bill is going to criminalize relationships between teenagers and their peers. That is anything but the truth.
What we want to do is focus on protecting our children. There is an age differential exception built into this because we know that children are going to experiment. That is not my first choice. I recommended to my children that they wait until marriage, but Bill C-313 has this exception as an option. It will not criminalize teenagers.
I ask members of the House not to give false statements, please. This bill deals with adults having sex with children. Fourteen year olds should not be lured. What we want is the truth. Canada, as I have said, has one of the lowest ages of consent in the world. As such, we put our children at risk of being lured. International pedophiles come to our country and lure children. They use child pornography. They take them out for pizza and to movies and then it is deemed consent when a child is lured to do this.
Our children are our up and coming generation. We need to protect them. If we fail our children, we have failed. I encourage every member to read the bill carefully. It is a good bill and it does provide protection.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, May 30, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:51 p.m.)