2005-05-04

The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.
Mr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize that 2005 marks Milton Mayor Gordon Krantz's 25th year serving the town of Milton as mayor.
Since being elected to Milton council in 1965, Gordon Krantz has helped build the foundations and cornerstones of this community through his involvement in services provided by the Region of Halton, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Conservation Halton and Milton Hydro.
Elected as mayor in 1980, Gordon Krantz has helped shape Milton's future with significant projects, such as the restoration of the Town Hall facility, the Milton Leisure Centre, the 401 Industrial Park, Mill Pond restoration and Rotary Park redevelopment to name a few.
Mayor Krantz demonstrates leadership, compassion, vision and commitment. He has served his constituents well and has great pride in serving as mayor.
I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude and congratulations to Mayor Gordon Krantz on 25 years of excellence, dedication and commitment.
City of KelownaMr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of the House the 100 birthday of the city of Kelowna.
People from all over the world flock to this beautiful city every year for its mountain skyline, its clear lakes, fine wine and championship golf courses. Others bring their families to stay in the city that offers jobs, good schools, safe streets and a strong sense of community.
From its cattle ranching, grain and orchard growing roots, Kelowna has become the largest city in the interior of British Columbia and the economic and cultural jewel of the Okanagan.
As its member of parliament for more than 11 years, it has been my honour to serve the people of Kelowna. It gives me great pleasure to wish our city and its citizens a happy 100th birthday.
Happy birthday, Kelowna. May growth and prosperity continue to define our future.
Canadian War MuseumMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week our World War II veterans are in Holland to commemorate the 60th anniversary of victory in Europe.
As a tribute to the brave young men and women who served and sacrificed for Canada throughout our history of human conflict, the federal government will officially open the new Canadian War Museum here in the nation's capital.
An architectural delight, the building itself is built on the theme of regeneration, the idea that nature endures the devastation brought on by war and not only survives, but also regenerates and creates new life.
Towering over visitors to the facility, the stunning 24.5 metre arch of the museum faces toward the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill and serves as a symbol that peace is an ideal toward which we must all strive.
On behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East and all Canadians, I would like to express my pride in our veterans with the official opening of the new Canadian War Museum.
Supporting Communities Partnership InitiativeMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is considerable disappointment and concern among Quebec agencies that work with the homeless. The federal government included nothing in its latest budget on extending and improving the program known as the supporting communities partnership initiative. As a result of this inaction, the continuation and consolidation of services to the most disadvantaged members of our society are at risk.
The budgets allocated under this program made it possible to improve shelters and drop-in centres, the housing and shelter development strategy, and support for street worker projects.
The Bloc Québécois urges the Liberal government to add the necessary funds to SCPI, and to transfer to Quebec full responsibility for housing and the corresponding budget envelopes.
Cadet CorpsMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak of an outstanding young man in my riding of Nunavut. Cadet Chief Warrant Officer Neil Kigutaq of Arctic Bay has reached National Star level. This is the highest level and honour a cadet can achieve.
Cadets who attain this highest honour must go through the ranks from green, to red, to silver, to gold star and finally National Star level. Candidates must complete a daunting written and fitness exam.
Neil has been with the Arctic Bay cadets for over six years, has obtained the highest rank within the cadet corps, has done his standard first aid, his gold level physical training and is a level three marksman. Neil has also obtained the Bronze Duke of Edinburgh Award.
Neil is an excellent role model for all young Nunavummiut to follow. I want to congratulate him on this remarkable achievement.
Mental Health Awareness WeekMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a healthy body goes hand in hand with a healthy mind. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. It is an excellent opportunity to educate those directly and indirectly affected by mental health issues.
The Canadian Mental Health Association stresses the connection between physical and mental health.
Mental health can be achieved through many ways. A realistic attitude, draw on that optimism, have a sense of perspective and flexibility. Enhance one's self-confidence and self-esteem. Focus on the qualities that make someone a good friend, a valued colleague, a loving parent or family member. Seek emotional support; close ties with family and friends builds support networks and, in turn, helps others. Giving our minds and bodies a workout by engaging in a variety of mental activities, such as reading or puzzles, enhances mental agility and promotes overall wellness.
I encourage all Canadians to take time to assess their mental health and improve it.
National Day of MourningMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the annual National Day of Mourning was held Thursday, April 28. I rise today to commemorate those who have been killed or injured in the workplace.
Every working day in Canada, nearly four people die from work-related accidents or illnesses. Those four people could be members of your family or mine.
The significance of the National Day of Mourning is striking when close to 350,000 people are injured seriously enough to prevent them from reporting to work for at least one day, while the total number of work related injuries and illnesses occurring each year in Canada is close to one million.
Workplace deaths are increasing, and this day serves as an important reminder that much remains to be done.
I ask all hon. members to take the time to remember the workers who have lost their lives or been injured on the job. Let us honour them by putting forth our best efforts to foster safer and healthier workplaces through continued education, awareness and cooperation. Let us prevent these needless tragedies from ever happening again.
Occupational Safety and Health WeekMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this is North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. The theme this year is “Equip. Educate. Empower.”
This is an opportunity to stress the importance of Quebec's expertise in occupational health, which is particularly evident in its labour legislation provisions on psychological harassment in the workplace.
This Parliament must correct the current injustice that results in there being two categories of workers in Quebec, those protected from the scourge of psychological harassment by the Quebec legislation, and those who are totally unprotected.
It is my hope that this North American Occupational Safety and Health Week will provide an opportunity for parliamentarians to grasp the full significance of the workplace psychological harassment bill introduced in this House by the Bloc Québécois.
Meritorious Service CrossMr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the heroic actions of an RCMP officer in my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac. Constable Tony Vienneau will be awarded the Meritorious Service Cross by the Right Hon. Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, later this month.
He is receiving the cross as a result of his life-saving efforts in my hometown of Perth-Andover. In 2002, Constable Vienneau prevented a young man from committing suicide. He was off duty and on his way home when he saw a young man standing near the railing of the Perth-Andover highway bridge. Constable Vienneau called for back-up, then stopped his vehicle, got out and approached the young man. Despite the sub-zero temperature, Constable Vienneau stood on the bridge for almost an hour eventually convincing the young man not to jump and to seek help instead. Constable Vienneau suffered hypothermia as a result.
Constable Vienneau is one of just two recipients of the Meritorious Service Cross nationwide. His heroic actions are a reflection of the dedication of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police across this great country.
Red River Floodway ProjectMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a major scam similar to the Liberal ad scam is being played out by a Liberal-NDP partnership in Manitoba. The $660 million expansion of the Red River floodway is equally cost shared between Ottawa and Manitoba.
Manitoba construction workers are being forced to pay union dues to the tune of $2.91 per hour even though they are not unionized, adding millions of dollars to union coffers with no benefit to the project or to the taxpayers.
The federal government is standing by silently even when the President of the Treasury Board was approached for assistance in this matter.
The expansion of the Red River floodway is essential to the safety of Winnipegers during a flood. It is shameful that the Liberal-NDP partnership has to put construction companies at risk to do it.
Emergency Preparedness WeekHon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 10th annual Emergency Preparedness Week is taking place this week.
World events have highlighted the value of emergency preparedness at the personal, community, business and national levels. Each year at this time awareness building events in every province and territory promote the importance of planning ahead for potential emergencies. Ultimately, these efforts are making Canada a safer place in which to live.
Emergency Preparedness Week is coordinated nationally by Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada working in cooperation with provincial and territorial emergency management organizations.
The provincial and territorial governments champion activities at the local level.
I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in acknowledging Emergency Preparedness Week and encouraging the public to familiarize themselves with the measures they can take to prepare for emergencies.
Member for Ottawa CentreMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for 40 years the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has worked passionately and tirelessly to improve life for ordinary Canadians.
During his 15 year political sabbatical, the hon. member continued to pour his heart and soul into building a better world through his university teaching and international human rights work.
His return to active political life will be remembered for many accomplishments, among them electoral reform, the struggle to eliminate child poverty and restoring integrity to public life. His passion for politics is exceeded only by his deep devotion and boundless love for his wife, Lucille.
During all the years they have been together, his wife, a proud francophone, has dedicated herself to improving his accent when he speaks French, but with less than spectacular success.
Throughout Ed's career, Lucille has always supported him and always been there to support progressive causes.
Today as always, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is there for Lucille. This remarkable couple has the support of everyone who admires them and cares for them deeply.
Our caucus, our party and all Canadians extend to Ed and Lucille our appreciation and our deepest love.
Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous when a minister of the crown makes over the top shameful insinuations comparing his political opponents to members of the Ku Klux Klan.
Yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tarnished his office and the public image of all politicians. The minister trivializes the Klan, the racism and hatred it represents while looking to score cheap political points. He forgets that he represents the Canadian people who expect leadership and dignity from their government.
As immigration minister he should be combating real racism. He should be taking steps to ensure newcomers become full participants in our economy and are not relegated to menial jobs. He should be focusing upon our broken immigration system that keeps families apart and makes qualified applicants wait years before coming to this great nation.
The Conservative Party understands immigration and is looking for constructive ways to improve the lives of new Canadians. It is time for the minister to resign.
MP for a dayMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to welcome to Parliament Hill today Marie-Pierre Mona Arguin, the winner of the “MP for a Day” contest in the riding of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.
Aged 16 and a secondary IV student, Marie-Pierre Mona was the outstanding student in the national history course at the Jacques-Rousseau school in Longueuil.
She is accompanied by her teacher, who has also been the coordinator of the contest for the past six years, Georges Dupuis, whom I also wish to greet.
During her stay in Ottawa, Marie-Pierre Mona will take part in various activities to familiarize herself with the workings of Parliament.
Marie-Pierre Mona, on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I welcome you to Parliament. I hope this visit will be a profitable one and that you will become more aware of the importance of democratic institutions.
Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are desperately using any means to cling to power.
If people are against corruption, thievery and lies, then they are the target of extreme name calling and scare tactics. The Liberals have crossed the line. How dare they accuse honest Canadians, Canadians who will not stand for corruption any longer, of anything less than caring about Canada. Let us remember Ernst Zundel ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
The record will show Conservatives have done more for minorities in Canada than any other party. Canada cannot have an immigration minister who attacks honest Canadians in his desperation. The Prime Minister must force the immigration minister to apologize and resign as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Atlantic AccordMr. Bill Matthews (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not being straight with the public in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Conservative MPs have repeatedly demanded that the all important Atlantic accord provisions be severed from the 2005 budget. They are telling anyone who will listen that this will speed up the passage of the accord. Mr. Speaker, you know, I know and even the Conservatives know that this is not the case.
Under the rules of this chamber, the Atlantic accord bill can only be accelerated with the consent of all parties, including the Conservatives' new-found allies, the separatist Bloc Québécois.
The Atlantic accord's shortest route from here to royal assent is for the Conservatives, especially those from Atlantic Canada, to keep their promise, support the budget and support the Atlantic accord.
Will they vote in the best interests of their constituents or will they vote with the Bloc? The decision is theirs. The decision will be that of their constituents real soon.

Oral Question Period
JusticeHon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal official has admitted that the Liberal Party rigs the appointment of judges. In fact, Benoît Corbeil says that members of the judicial advisory committee in Quebec actually did the partisan screening process for the Liberal Party.
Having heard these revelations, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure the integrity of Canada's judicial system?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be very proud of their judiciary and I do not really believe that the Leader of the Opposition should try to bring their integrity into question.
The fact is that there is a longstanding practice, one that has been substantially improved by the government, in terms of seeking the advice of the judiciary of the Canadian bar, and the provincial bar that is involved, to ensure that the appointments that are made to our judiciary are of the highest quality. If one takes a look at our courts, from the Supreme Court through to the provincial courts, one can see that has benefited Canada immensely.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, it is not this party that has brought this process into disrepute. It is a top official of the Liberal Party of Canada that has done that. A top official, a man in the know, has revealed that the Liberal Party of Canada has corrupted the system of nominating, vetting and appointing judges.
The Prime Minister knew about these allegations two weeks ago, yet he has done absolutely nothing in terms of reacting, according to his answer.
Is this not a perfect example why that party should be removed from office?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister appreciates the support, but he is rising to answer a question and we have to be able to hear the answer.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to take yes for an answer. There is an independent peer review process in place. We make appointments on the basis of merit and we will continue to make appointments on the basis of merit. If members of the opposition want any other process, that is their choice. We will base our process on merit.
The BudgetStephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, a top official in his own party says that process is a fraud and he has done nothing to look into it.
According to the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, the Liberals are funding their backroom budget deal out of money that has been set aside for first nations. He said:

I've gotten a very clear message from first nations leadership and from Liberal cabinet ministers that the money...has been redirected to form part of the NDP budget. If that's the case, it's even sleazier than I had ever imagined.

If that is how NDPers feel about the budget deal, how are Canadians supposed to feel about it?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is simply wrong.
Canadians have indicated that they strongly support improvements to the environment, housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid. Indeed, I have letters from members of the opposition supporting those things. So, the hon. gentleman is just totally mistaken.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP tail is wagging the Liberal dog.
How incredible that Liberal cabinet ministers are now lobbying NDP members to get things included in the new budget. I guess that Liberal dog must be a lapdog.
The finance minister may be getting really good at retrieving the NDP leader's slippers, but he is irrelevant as a minister. When will he resign?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: Order, please. The minister has risen to answer a question, not to receive cheers. The Minister of Finance has the floor.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the hon. gentleman's question is, no time soon.
When we have a budget that totally respects the principles of fiscal responsibility, that keeps the debt repayment clearly on track, and responds to principles and priorities that Canadians have said they want to see implemented, I will stand for that any day. And if I have to, I will run on it.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, he will run; he will run and fetch that stick.
The finance minister said his budget could not be touched. Then he let the NDP ravage it. Now his own colleagues are going to the NDP to get more budget changes. If his own colleagues do not think the finance minister has any credibility, then why should Canadians? When will he resign?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker,--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that in question period it is one question and one response, not 100 questions at once. We are now going to hear a response to the last question before the other 99.
The Prime Minister has the floor to answer the member for Medicine Hat.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been seven, eight, nine, and another projected one, ten surpluses in a row. There has been unprecedented job creation, low inflation, and money set aside for Kyoto and climate change. Money has been set aside for housing, a dynamic economy, foreign aid, research and development, and education.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister can run on this budget and this government will run on this budget. I am proud to say as a Liberal that this is one of the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte Marie.
JusticeMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Justice Michel Robert clearly crossed the line separating the judicial from the political by saying in no uncertain terms that sovereignists had no place on the bench.
In response to such partisan remarks, should a self-respecting justice minister and a government that claims to be responsible not bring a complaint before the Judicial Council to have Justice Robert removed? If the minister does so, an investigation follows automatically. Will he?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I have already said it several times and I will say it again today. No appointments are made on the basis of political associations.
I repeat as well that complaints should be brought before the Canadian Judicial Council, which can look into it. That is all.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the minister is also entitled to make a complaint, and the investigation follows automatically. On April 26, Justice Robert said in no uncertain terms that sovereignists should not serve as judges. The Minister of Justice could only remark that we should avoid making waves so as not to splatter the judiciary.
By refusing to reprimand a judge who contends that sovereignists do not have the same rights as everyone else, does the justice minister realize he is the one sullying the judiciary?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I will have no part of a process aimed at casting aspersions on the independence or the excellence of the judiciary. Appointments are based on merit. I have no interest in knowing candidates' political affiliations or views.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the recent past, the justice minister's predecessors, who were from the same party, did not hesitate to lodge complaints before the judicial council. That happened in 1996, when Justice Bienvenue made discriminatory comments against women and Jews, and again in 1999, when the current Deputy Prime Minister ordered an investigation into Justice Flahiff's behaviour.
How can the Minister of Justice conclude that Justice Robert should not be reprimanded for his comments, considering that his predecessors at the Department of Justice showed much more courage than him by taking steps to punish the behaviour of Justice Flahiff and the statements of Justice Bienvenue?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of principle that has to do with protecting the independence of the judiciary. If the member asks this kind of question again, I will repeat the same answer.
Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has a duty to protect, first, the independence of the judiciary and, second, the values of the charter, which include not discriminating against a person on the basis of his or her political beliefs.
How can the minister refuse to lodge a complaint against Justice Robert, if it is not because he is acting like a Liberal protecting a fellow Liberal?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I am not only the Minister of Justice, I am also the Attorney General of Canada. As such, I respect the rule of law and the Constitution of Canada.
Air-IndiaHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He needs to know that we are going to continue to ask questions about the issues that people care about, whether he chooses to answer or not.
There were 30 days in which to file an appeal on the Air-India tragedy. Indeed, the 30 days have passed. This House instructed the government to call a public inquiry.
Will the Prime Minister respect this House and call the public inquiry now?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the bombing of Air-India flight 182 was one of the great terrorist actions and one of the worst tragedies in Canadian history. Our hearts continue to go out to the families even some 20 years later.
The British Columbia attorney general has decided not to appeal. The government's plan, in appointing Mr. Bob Rae to work with the families to seek the answers to the questions the families asked and to elaborate on how the government should approach this issue, continues. Mr. Rae is already actively doing this. We continue to support this initiative.
Democratic ReformJack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the best testimony would be to respect the wishes of the families and this House, and call a public inquiry now.
The problem here is that there is not even any respect for the government's own promises. The member for Ottawa Centre has pointed out today that this government is foot dragging on voting reform.
I ask the Prime Minister, can he tell us why there has been virtually no progress on reforming democracy through voting reform, even though the Prime Minister ran on a platform of fixing the democratic deficit?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is following the wishes of the House in this matter.
In the Speech from the Throne, as amended, there was a call for a committee of the House to prepare suggestions for the government on the method of consulting widely with Canadians on the matter of democratic renewal, including electoral reform. The government is waiting for the report of that committee. It will certainly take it under advisement when it receives it.
JusticeMr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the former director general of the Liberal Party has admitted that he was involved in the process of selecting judges by confirming candidates' allegiance to the Liberal Party. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said he did not need to take any action because we already had the Gomery inquiry. The minister is well aware that Justice Gomery does not have the authority to investigate political interference in the process of appointing judges.
When is the Prime Minister going to take this scandal seriously and demand an inquiry?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote directly from Justice Gomery's mandate:

--to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons with regard to the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada...to make any recommendations...to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs or advertising activities in the future--

That is a very broad mandate. Justice Gomery has the mandate to get to the truth for Canadians. The only reason that Conservative Party members are questioning Justice Gomery's mandate recently is because they want to discredit Justice Gomery's work. They fear that his report will demonstrate to Canadians that our Prime Minister has acted honourably.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we get an answer from a minister that confirms we are right: Justice Gomery has no authority to look into the judge appointments.
The guy who ran Liberal headquarters has admitted that a Liberal loyalty litmus test was a regular step in the appointment of judges. He provided confirmation of candidates' Liberal credentials to the appointment council. This is a very serious matter with alarming implications. The Minister of Justice says it is up to somebody else to look into the matter of shocking admissions of political interference. Gomery is not allowed to inquire into it.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act and to do something to protect the independence of the courts?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that Justice Gomery is not allowed to look into it, yet the very person whose allegations he is referring to is about to appear before that very Gomery commission. So it appears that the Gomery commission is looking into allegations in that regard.
With respect to the way we make appointments, I do not know how Benoît Corbeil makes appointments, or anyone else, but I know we make those appointments on merit, without regard for any political affiliation.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last winter the Prime Minister spoke glowingly about Mr. Chrétien's ball-juggling routine before Justice Gomery. Spring came, the Prime Minister saw his shadow and denied he had ever applauded Mr. Chrétien's vaudeville act. But wait: the Prime Minister popped up again, juggled his opinion once again, and said yes, maybe he had led a round of applause for his mentor.
The Prime Minister says Canadians must wait for Justice Gomery to reveal the facts. Having been a cheerleader for Mr. Chrétien, having already indicated he does not think that Mr. Chrétien is responsible for this, how does he know that? How do Canadians know his position will not change again when Mr. Justice Gomery and an election heat up?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether there was a question there, but the fact is that what is beyond question is the Prime Minister's commitment to supporting Justice Gomery, such that Canadians have the truth. We have supported Justice Gomery from the beginning. The Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery, has provided resources to Justice Gomery, in fact about $72 million worth of resources, and has provided over 12 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents, to Justice Gomery.
We will continue to support Justice Gomery because we believe Canadians deserve to have that report and deserve to have the truth, not allegations and unproven testimony.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is sworn testimony, and the Prime Minister has never once taken the opportunity to deny that this happened.
The Prime Minister chose deliberately not to give Justice Gomery the mandate to say who was guilty for the sponsorship scandal. The Minister of Public Works parrots that, of course, and says Justice Gomery's mandate is clear: he is fact finding.
If facts revealed by Justice Gomery or anyone else find that public money made its way through government departments through ad agencies in Quebec to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, I want to hear from the Prime Minister not whether he will call an election, but whether he will tender his resignation immediately.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, every single penny that I raised in the leadership race is a matter of public record. I wish that the Leader of the Opposition or the member who just spoke could stand up in the House and say the same thing, but they cannot.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We are now ready to hear the next question. The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Government ContractsMr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, L'Actualité has printed a list of the transport minister's clients before he got into politics. They include Onex, Loblaws, Imperial Tobacco, and Réno-Dépôt/The Building Box. He also acknowledged having worked for Cossette Communication.
My question for the Minister of Transport is quite simple. When he was working for Cossette Communication, was he paid on a fee for service basis or was he paid on retainer, in other words, did he have a fixed rate contract?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that during my 12 years in the private sector, I never billed anyone for any meeting.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has a problem because he earned his living by counselling, as he called it, for a series of companies.
What I want to know is, when he worked for Cossette, was he paid on a fee for service basis or was he paid on retainer, based on a fixed rate contract?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean knows full well that questions regarding an hon. member's business are not admissible during oral question period. The question has to concern the administration of the Government of Canada. What someone did before being a minister is not a question about that administration.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport said in this House that he was not paid for that work.
With respect to that statement made in this House, I am asking him how he was paid when he worked for Cossette. I want him to answer. It is important to those watching. He swore—
The Speaker: The hon. member is not entitled to ask an unacceptable question triggered by the response he got to an acceptable one.
The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in May of last year, just before calling the election, the Prime Minister said that Canadians knew enough about the sponsorship scandal to form an opinion when the time came to cast their ballots.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why, last year, he felt that citizens knew enough to vote and why, this year, he thinks just the opposite? Let us hear the Prime Minister's explanation.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, one thing that unites Canadians is a desire to have the truth, the whole truth, before an election. Our Prime Minister stands with Canadians in their desire to have the truth. That is why it is important for Canadians to have Justice Gomery's report and to not be making an important decision based on unproven allegations, on testimony that members opposite have in fact criticized and attacked, testimony that has been contradicted by testimony on other days.
That is why it is so important that all members of the House work together to support Justice Gomery and to support the desire of Canadians to have the truth.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, we are referring to a statement made by the Prime Minister before he called the election. It is not the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who called the election.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's comments that his assessment of the relevancy of waiting until the Gomery commission has completed its work is directly related to his chances of getting elected, and to nothing else?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Bloc, the separatists, would like to have an election based on unproven allegations, not on fact. Clearly, Canadians understand that what is good for the separatists is rarely good for Canada. What is good for Canada, what is good for all Canadians, is that Canadians have the truth and that they have Justice Gomery's report before an election.
Our Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that Canadians have the truth they deserve.
Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a bad habit of race-baiting. Yesterday, he accused a huge group of Canadians, including me, of being members of the KKK. I have heard about being colour blind, but that is outrageous. Does the minister take pride in inciting hatred against Canadians?
When will the Prime Minister demand that minister's resignation?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already expressed the context in which these remarks were made. He has said that he wished--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister has the floor. The right hon. Prime Minister will continue.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already given the context in which these remarks were made. He has already said that he wished he had not said those remarks in the way that he did. I would also hope that the members of the opposition who engaged in attacks on Canadians of Italian origin and offended would also apologize. If I might--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Prime Minister will defend the actions of that minister. His record is appalling. Last week he was forced to apologize after slurring a Sikh member of this House. He also told the Sikh community to shut up about ministerial permits. Now he is slandering all of us. He is not fit to represent Canadians in this portfolio.
Does the Prime Minister agree with that minister or will he fire this embarrassment to Canadians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the remarks on both sides of this issue were intemperate and unfortunate. What I would now say to the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties is that if one takes a look at what is happening in this House, at the lack of civility, the accusations and the allegations that are not allowed to be made outside--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Members have to listen to both sides. We have a question. We are hearing an answer. Members will listen to both. We will have the Prime Minister, who has time remaining for his answer.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the opposition parties to understand that no one looks good in this House with the lack of civility, the allegations, the accusations, the kinds of intemperate remarks that are heard. What I really believe is that Canadians expect better of us. I would hope that the opposition would give the opportunity for civilized debate--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, they applaud when they call the kettle black. As a member of the official opposition, I have been called an extreme racist by the immigration minister. No one in this House, never mind the millions of Canadians who voted for the Conservatives, should be subjected to such a low act of desperation. The Liberal Party will not deny in this House its own corruption and is flailing about with extreme accusations to deflect the truth.
Will the Prime Minister remove his immigration minister?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my voice will not carry as well today. I have already indicated that I had an intemperate use of language, prompted by my abject anger at the racial slur and the ethnic slur directed my way. I gave an indication, and I thought I already made that statement publicly. For me, I am saddened by the fact that I have to learn yet again that there is no depth to which some of these people will not descend when they want to--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister, I remind the House, has already been forced to withdraw comments attacking a Sikh member. To have a minister, particularly the immigration minister, who has a propensity for racial slurs is unacceptable.
They are not racial slurs if the public and the media believe that there are characteristics of that party that are similar to a popular television program. If the shoe fits, wear it. Will the Prime Minister demand his resignation or--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Joe Volpe: Mr. Speaker, my record of the last three months as a cabinet minister for immigration will speak for itself.
As I said earlier on, I was deeply saddened by the response of the member for Edmonton—Strathcona and the member for Durham who missed the opportunity to condemn the actions and the member for Kelowna and his colleague from Calgary Centre who perpetuated a stereotypical image of 1.5 million members of our Canadian family.
I have given an indication already of my intemperate use of language, but I think the shame should be right--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Thornhill.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the opposition justice critic attacked the integrity and independence of the RCMP. His attack suggested the RCMP was nothing but a third rate country's third rate police squad.
Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness assure the House that the RCMP remains as committed as ever to its mandate to protect Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the attack on the RCMP commissioner yesterday made by the member for Provencher is an abuse of parliamentary privilege and is shameful. It is all the more shocking because that man was a former provincial attorney general.
More concerning is the fact that members of his own party, with the separatist Bloc, are the ones asking the House to overturn the RCMP's deployment plan. They want to reverse an independently made operational decision of an agency which must and does operate at arm's length from the government of the day.
The member's outrageous comments are undermining the integrity of our national police force.
Social DevelopmentMr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We really are going to be deprived of questions and answers today with all this noise. We are not making good progress on this list and if everyone keeps yelling, progress is going to be very slow.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has the floor. If members who are carrying on the discussion would care to do it in the lobbies, it might help us get moving with question period. I would recommend that they go there and perhaps their colleagues who are sitting around them could encourage them to go to the lobbies and continue the discussion there.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie now has the floor.
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Social Development.
Last night I spoke to New Democratic critics and ministers responsible for child care across the country. They were unanimous with the child care constituency that the new not for profit agreement which was struck with Manitoba and Saskatchewan is a good start to a national child care program. Even the Conservatives agree that they will not back away from that agreement.
Will the minister today commit to signing no deals for child care that will lead us to having a cash cow for big box--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Social Development.
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hard work the hon. member has put into the area of child care.
As the hon. member mentioned, we have come to agreements with Saskatchewan and Manitoba and we are looking to conclude other agreements along the way.
As the hon. member knows, the way child care is delivered across the country is both in not for profit and for profit, and it is also delivered around the world in the same sort of way. The key component in all this for everyone is quality.
Pay EquityMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is the first anniversary of the pay equity task force report. It is also the day the world women's march charter for humanity stops in Ottawa with a focus on pay equity.
The task force concluded that pay equity is a fundamental human right. Will the Minister of Labour and Housing table legislation in the House now based on the recommendations of the pay equity report?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government firmly believes in the fundamental principle of equal pay for work of equal value. We put in place a review of the legislation and the task force has reported with 110 recommendations.
I am now developing a number of options with stakeholders and people to fully implement the recommendations of our task force. We believe women in the workplace need to be totally inclusive. Pay equity is a fundamental value in which we in this government believe, not over there in that party.
Sponsorship ProgramMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his emergency TV broadcast begged Canadians to wait for the Gomery report because “only Gomery can tell us who is responsible”. Yet the Prime Minister prohibits Gomery from telling who was responsible.
Clause k of Gomery's mandate reads, “without expressing any conclusion...regarding the...liability of any person or organization”. The Prime Minister brazenly misled Canadians. How can he be trusted on anything?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the member should look more closely at Justice Gomery's mandate. His mandate clearly says, “to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the of the Auditor General” and furthermore, in a second report, to provide prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.
In addition to that, there are RCMP investigations, there are criminal charges currently before the courts and there have been civil proceedings against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million. We are clearly taking action and we are also supporting the work of Justice Gomery to get the truth.
Diane Ablonczy: Good bafflegab, Mr. Speaker, but the words read quite differently.
The Prime Minister told Canadians Gomery would tell them which Liberals are responsible for ad scam corruption, but told Gomery he must not tell who was guilty. Gomery himself states, “The commission may not establish...responsibility...nor does it intend to do so”.
The Prime Minister has been caught. How can he possibly claim the moral--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the recent approach of opposition members to attack the mandate of Justice Gomery. They were not doing that before. Instead of that, they were sullying his work by commenting on daily testimony. That did not work, so now they are trying a new approach.
I think it is clear that they do not want Justice Gomery to succeed. They want to discredit the work of Justice Gomery because they fear his report will show to Canadians that the Prime Minister has acted honourably in his work.
JusticeMr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a senior Quebec Liberal, Mr. Corbeil, has admitted that members of the justice minister's so-called independent panel told him to see about the Liberal credentials of judicial candidates. The Minister of Justice may not believe these serious allegations, but owes it to the independence of the judiciary to refer this matter to the Judicial Council for a full review. It is a prudent thing to do.
Why will he not take the steps to prove these allegations wrong, unless he knows them to be true?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I never inquire into the political affiliation of any candidate. I could not care less what the political affiliation is of any candidate. We make merit based appointments and that is it.
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the point is this so-called independent panel does the screening for the minister. It checks Liberal credentials before he gets to see them. The minister may say that he has no knowledge of this, but the system has been set up to ensure that it is Liberals who make it to this final panel.
If there is no truth to these allegations, why does he not refer the matter to the Judicial Council for a full hearing? This is a clear way to clean up this cloud on Canadian judges.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice were to refer allegations made by any private citizen at any time for any reason, we would be referring allegations all the time. That would be an assault on the principles of the rule of law in this country.
400th Anniversary of Quebec CityMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec government announced its financial contribution to the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of Quebec City, that is $70 million for the construction of Samuel-de-Champlain Drive, and $40 million for the festivities. Meanwhile, the federal government is slow to announce its intentions.
Now that the Quebec government has confirmed its financial contribution to the celebrations of the 400th anniversary, what is the Minister of Canadian Heritage waiting for to inform us of her government's intentions?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course I want to point out that we have a Liberal government in Quebec. The Liberal Government of Canada is moving forward on this issue. We had trilateral meetings with our Quebec Liberal counterparts, with Quebec City officials, and with all the stakeholders. We are making impeccable progress. The Liberal Government of Canada will make its announcements at the appropriate time.
Port InfrastructureMs. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the port infrastructure under Department of Transport jurisdiction is in a sorry state and is compromising economic development. The deterioration of the wharf at Les Escoumins, used by the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry, will, despite recent federal commitments, mean the loss of 25 jobs and $5 million for at least the next two tourist seasons. Interim compensation measures are required.
Does the Minister of Transport intend to implement some interim support measures to alleviate the situation and to rectify, albeit imperfectly, his past inaction?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as Minister of Transport, I would point out that negotiations have been ongoing on this particular matter between the municipalities and the various stakeholders for the past nine years. There has been an offer on the table for the past two. So it is certainly not a matter of neglect by the Government of Canada.
As for the facilities, discussions are being held. We have offered up to $100,000 for studies to determine the extent of the damage and the cost of the work. There have been nine years of discussions and negotiations. Nine years ago we were prepared to make an offer, and we still are.
JusticeMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil said recently that a member of the judicial selection committee had called him on a number of occasions to find out whether a lawyer had indeed worked for the party. He said, “He asked me whether a certain lawyer had devoted a lot of time to the party. When it was the case, I said so. A few weeks later I discovered that the lawyer in question had been appointed a judge”.
Why is the justice minister refusing to act on these very serious revelations, which cast doubt on the integrity and the independence of the judicial system?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, because I want to protect the independence of the judiciary.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice refuses to recognize is that these revelations were not made by some observer. They were made by the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec who said that he received calls from members of what the minister calls an independent review panel to ask if these people had done sufficiently good work for the party to qualify for the bench.
Canadians have never before heard more serious accusations, questioning the integrity of the judiciary. It is incumbent upon the minister to look into this matter now and to do it seriously. Why will he not act on this?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, because the director general is due to appear before the very Gomery commission process. This House is supposed to respect its proceedings. That is what I intend to do.
Dairy IndustryHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: More Liberal bull.
Don Boudria: I am sorry to interrupt the member because I want to ask something about agriculture which is obviously not important to him. I want to ask the Minister of International Trade about Canada's--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has the floor and we will want to be able to hear his question.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that the record will show that the Tories would not allow questions on agriculture today.
Dairy farmers are calling upon the Government of Canada to act on its commitment to supply management. Imports of dairy ingredients are eroding our domestic market and incomes as a result of a trade tribunal decision. The minister has said that he would leave no stone unturned to help the dairy farmers. Does that include article--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International Trade.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member. This House owes him a debt of gratitude for the work he has done on behalf of our milk producers.
As far as our milk producers are concerned, our number one priority is to ensure that supply management is protected even though it is under attack at the WTO.
We have to consider whether or not measures, such as article XXVIII, would be conducive to a good result in terms of supply management at the WTO. However I can assure the House we know at this time that farmers are under attack.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Senator Ian Macdonald, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation of Australia.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
125th Anniversary of HansardThe Speaker: I have the honour of informing the House that we are today celebrating the 125th anniversary of the inauguration of the first official debates reporting service.
As Speaker of the House of Commons, I am cognizant of the importance of accurately recording and reporting debates and committee proceedings to the smooth functioning of the parliamentary process, as are all members of Parliament. Since the Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker, it is reassuring for me to know that I can count on the professionalism of the people who produce them.
In the name of all parliamentarians, I thank the men and women in parliamentary publications at the House of Commons for their hard work and their contribution to the democratic process.
I invite all hon. members and others who might be interested to join me in Room 216N to visit a display of memorabilia commemorating the 125th anniversary of
Hansard.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Points of OrderMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Previous to question period today, during the period devoted to members' statements, my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells was on her feet giving a member's statement. It was clearly heard by many on our side that the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers was heckling her during her statement and, most specifically, he was heard to say, “Cash for visas. Visas for sale. Did you cash the cheques yet?”
Mr. Speaker, this is dealing with an issue that you have already ruled on concerning slurs by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration against my colleagues and my party.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Trinity—Spadina be asked to unequivocally retract those statements and apologize to the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells and to the House.
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking regarding the racism that was taking place, I did ask if the cheques were being cashed. I said that I did not believe that the cheques were being cashed.
The Speaker: I would urge hon. members to be very judicious in their use of language. Yesterday, in the course of the ruling I gave, I pointed out that our Standing Orders specifically suggest that members refrain from commenting on matters being considered by the Ethics Commissioner
While there is no reason to believe automatically that the comment was directed this way, the suggestion is very clear. I would suggest to hon. members that we refrain from making comments of this kind. Frankly, the amount of noise during question period today was substantial. I know hon. members would want to cooperate with the Chair in trying to maintain greater order in the chamber.
The minister has indicated that he did not suggest cheques had been cashed. I will leave the matter at that for now.
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 by the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park concerning the tabling of a document during question period by the hon. Minister of the Environment.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, as well as the hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.
In raising this matter, the hon. member expressed concern that time in question period had been taken up with the tabling of a document and that the document should have been tabled during routine proceedings because it was not one that was required to be tabled. The Deputy Leader of the Government in the House responded that there had been no objections to the tabling at the time and since it had been received by a Table officer, it had been properly tabled.
I wish first to reassure the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park that the Chair very carefully monitors the use of time during question period. I can assure the House that this ongoing vigilance is very effective in protecting the time available to members of all parties and that is despite the excessive noise that sometimes occurs in the chamber.
As for the timing of the tabling of documents, my initial reaction to the point of order was that our practices permit a minister to table a document at anytime during a sitting, including during question period, without the consent of the House. I undertook, however, to look into the matter and get back to the House.
In considering this matter, I reviewed the Standing Orders pertaining to the tabling of documents. First, Standing Order 30(3) sets down the time for and the items to be considered during routine proceedings, including tabling of documents. Second, Standing Order 32(1) provides for returns, reports and other papers required by statute, resolution or Standing Order to be deposited with the clerk of the House. This is known as “back door” tabling. Third, Standing Order 32(2) states:

A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a Minister, may, in his or her place in the House, state that he or she proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government, and, thereupon, the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the House.

This Standing Order requires that these documents not be tabled back door but in the House. This normally takes place during routine proceedings, under tabling of documents. In addition, our practices provide that if a minister quotes from a document in debate, the document must be tabled forthwith if so requested. If a minister cites a document in response to a question during oral questions, the tabling normally occurs immediately following question period.
At this point, it may be useful to members if I were to summarize the evolution of the rubric “tabling of documents” and the practice for tabling documents. From Confederation up to the 1950s, no documents could be presented to the House unless sent down by message from the Governor General, or in answer to an order or address of the House, or pursuant to statute. So long as the paper to be tabled fell into one of these categories, a minister had only to rise, usually during routine proceedings, and formally present the document to the House. If the government wished to table papers that had not been ordered, a motion had to be adopted allowing their presentation.
In 1955, the Standing Orders were amended to allow those documents required to be tabled by statute or by order to be deposited privately with the Clerk on any sitting day.
A few years later, in 1968, in response to an increased number of reports and papers being tabled by leave rather than by statutory requirements, orders or addresses, the Standing Orders were amended to remove the requirement that leave be obtained before the documents in question could be laid before the House. This new Standing Order provided for formal tabling as long as the documents in question came under the administrative responsibilities of the government, a very broad category of documents. They were normally tabled at the beginning of routine proceedings. In 1975, the heading “Tabling of Documents” was added to routine proceedings to codify the practice being followed.
I have examined our practices for tabling of documents since the inclusion of this rubric under routine proceedings to determine if the Standing Orders have been strictly followed. While these types of documents are normally tabled during routine proceedings, immediately following question period if cited in a response, or immediately if cited in debate, I have discovered that, although rare, there have been occasions when a minister has tabled a document during question period. I refer members to examples found in the Debates of March 8, 1976, at page 11574; September 15, 1992, at page 13143; February 14, 1997, at page 8135; March 26, 2001, at page 2226; and February 23, 2005, at page 3873. More recently, on April 22, the Deputy Speaker stated that a minister may table a document at any time. I refer hon. members to the Debates at page 5465.
Accordingly, I must conclude that our practices have evolved to a point where there is no requirement that ministers must table these types of documents only during routine proceedings. Perhaps this may be because the House feels that the tabling of documents is meant to facilitate the work of the House and that of its members. It may well be, based on the examples referred to earlier, that the tabling of documents in this manner has achieved this result.
That being said, most of the examples are relatively recent and certainly point to a new trend. The hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park may therefore wish to seek to convince the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review and clarify the rules governing the tabling of these kinds of documents. Certainly that would be the kind of matter that falls within the committee's mandate.
In the meantime, in view of the precedents just described, the Chair will continue to accept that documents may be tabled by ministers of the crown during question period or indeed at any time.
I thank the hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park for having brought this matter to the attention of the Chair.
I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
PrivilegeMr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Yesterday, in the foyer of the House of Commons the minister said, referring to me and a fellow member of Parliament, “Am I calling these guys racists? They are recognizable, notwithstanding that they don't have their cowl and their cape, the Klan looks like it's very much alive”.
On March 22, 1983 on page 24027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled:

A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit here.

I take pride in credibly representing the people of Calgary Centre in this House of Commons and I will not leave this slanderous comment against me unchallenged and unresolved.
On March 16, 1983 Mr. Mackasey raised a question of privilege in order to denounce accusations made in a series of articles appearing in the Montreal Gazette to the effect that he was a paid lobbyist. On March 22, 1983 again on page 24027 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled that he had a prima facie question of privilege. The reasons given by the Speaker are on page 29 of Selected Decisions of Speaker Jeanne Sauvé :

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule”. Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can “seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains”. Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is a reference to reflections on members. It says:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of the privileges of Parliament...” and “libels upon members individually”--

I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980 at page 4213 of Hansard. The Speaker said:

--in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the minister are nothing more than a political smear that is unbecoming of a minister of the crown or of any parliamentarian, comparing Conservatives to the Klan. He more than crossed the line. He has not insulted our party; he has insulted all African Canadians and all other minorities who have been targets of that racist and murderous organization.
This statement is not only untrue, it is purposely untrue and improper. I charge the minister with deliberately and maliciously making a statement that was politically motivated and was a deliberate attempt to deceitfully tarnish my reputation and the reputation of my party.
If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. In that motion, I would have the minister suspended until he apologized for his remarks.
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the House, speaking on this matter, that the minister was responding, as he did, to an ethnic slur. He has, in addition to that, which I think should be taken into account, also already apologized to the House.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for having raised this matter, but I point out to him an important citation from Marleau and Montpetit at page 522:

Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.

Hon. members are thoroughly familiar with those statements. The last sentence of the paragraph states:

The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.

I cite in support of that a ruling of my predecessor on page 15792 of Hansard for February 11, 1993 where the Speaker said this in a comment on a question of privilege arising from statements made that suggested a member was racist:

I want to say this to the House. First of all, except under very rare and unusual circumstances I have no authority to rule on statements made outside this House.

He went on to give a ruling. This ruling made in 1993 is one that followed an argument that was presented in the House but related to statements made outside the House. The Speaker put a question to the member who presented the argument asking if in fact the remarks had been made outside the House. That was confirmed. He accordingly made the ruling that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. I take the same position based on the authorities given here.
I am sorry that these remarks are made in the parliamentary precinct, or anywhere. I am sorry that hon. members have taken offence on both sides in respect of the events that have happened. I would urge hon. members, if they have problems, to sit down and discuss them together and make their proper apologies. I do not believe that it is for the Speaker to make those decisions for them here in the House, given the practice that we have established in this place where these matters are not dealt with by the Speaker in the House for statements made outside. I have enough trouble, frankly, dealing with all the statements that are made in the House, as hon. members know, without having to deal with those made outside.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions.
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, a report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 28th interparliamentary meeting with the European Parliament's delegation responsible for the relations with Canada, held in Brussels, Belgium from March 27 to March 31, 2005, and its participation at the parliamentary mission in the country that will hold the next European Union presidency held in London, United Kingdom from March 31 to April 2, 2005.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at the Canada-U.S. Partnership Day and meetings with U.S. legislators in Washington, D.C. on March 1 and March 2, 2005.
Hon. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, 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 Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the meeting of the steering committee of the Twelve Plus Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, held in Brussels, on March 11, 2005.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I also have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the one day parliamentary meeting on the occasion of the 49th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, Beijing +10 at the United Nations in New York on March 3.
There was representation from each political party. The Canadian delegation did a fantastic job at the Beijing +10 meeting in New York. This is an important document. I encourage all members to look at how we can encourage more women to be represented in this House, and maybe question period would be a little more civil.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, 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 Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, the APF, respecting its participation to the meeting of the APF's Commission de la coopération et du développement, held in Lafayette and in Carencro, Louisiana, on March 14 and 15, 2005.
Committees of the HouseBernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the relationship between Taiwan and the World Health Organization.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Health. Your committee has considered votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 under health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, minus the amounts granted in the interim supply, and reports the same to the House.
Employment Insurance ActMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-371, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefit period increase for regional rate of unemployment).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today four bills relating to the employment insurance program. I am pleased to note the support of my colleague from Halifax.
These bills are the outcome of a national consultation tour undertaken in 1998 on the effectiveness of the EI program and follow on three other bills I introduced on March 23.
I hope that hon. members will examine these bills and give them their support. As it stands, the EI program no longer meets the needs of Canadian workers. These bills will rectify the program's shortcomings.
The title of the first bill is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefit period increase for regional rate of unemployment).
This bill provides two weeks for every 1% by which the regional rate of unemployment exceeds 4% but does not exceed 10%; three weeks for every 1% by which the regional rate of unemployments exceeds 10%; and is subject to a maximum period of 52 weeks.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Yvon Godin: 
moved for leave to introduce C-372, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (change of title to Unemployment Insurance Act) and another Act in consequence.

Mr. Speaker, the title of this. second bill is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (change of title to Unemployment Insurance Act) and another Act in consequence.
Its purpose is to change the title of the Employment Insurance Act back to its original version: the Unemployment Insurance Act and also to change the name of the employment insurance account to the unemployment insurance account.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Yvon Godin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-373, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits).

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to repeat the comments made by the Bloc Québécois, but those bills that were introduced a few weeks ago were mine.
Under the third bill, entitled an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), 350 hours, or 20 weeks at 15 hours a week, of insurable employment are required to qualify for benefits. Moreover, a 15 hour week counts as a week of insurable employment.
This bill entitles a person to receive benefits while on training. It also provides that, when the claimant denies there was just cause in a dismissal, the burden is on the employer to show there was just cause.
The bill provides for a limit on the loss of benefits during a strike. It includes contract work in insurable employment. Finally, it sets new qualifying periods following one or more violations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Yvon Godin: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-374, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (percentage of insurable earnings payable to claimant).

Mr. Speaker, this fourth bill, entitled an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (percentage of insurable earnings payable to claimant), provides that the rate of weekly benefits payable to a claimant is 66% of their weekly insurable earnings for the 12 weeks in which the claimant received the highest earnings over a 12 month period.
As hon. members know, in Canada, any insurance provides benefits equal to two thirds of the salary. It is therefore necessary to raise the percentage of insurable earnings to where it ought to be. This would ensure the well-being of all workers across Canada, including Quebec.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Bank ActHon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, an act to amend the Bank Act (bank fees).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this bill entitled an Act to amend the Bank Act (bank fees). This enactment amends the Bank Act by requiring Canadian banks to lay each year before the House of Commons a detailed statement of all the fees that they charge to their clients.
The enactment also prohibits banks from charging fees other or higher than those recommended by the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to consumers. Any contravention of this provision constitutes an offence punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.
It is important to recognize that bank fees have become quite significant over the past few years. All other public services, such as electricity, cable or telephone services, are regulated. Accordingly, it is high time we regulated bank fees.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation ActMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-376, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act (approval of a proposal).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this bill, which would help make the agreement on internal trade, signed 10 years ago, more effective by changing the implementation formula. We all know about the particular problems that farmers, ranchers and people in the transportation industry have had in operating a business in more than one province. This issue has caused serious problems. This private member's bill would allow the agreement to be amended so that we could reduce these barriers in trade between provinces.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Farm Income Protection ActLeon Benoit: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-377, an act to amend the Farm Income Protection Act (crop damage by gophers).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted on behalf of farmers and ranchers once again to bring forth my bill, which if passed would ensure access for farmers and ranchers to a product which is effective in controlling gophers. Gophers destroy tens of millions of dollars' worth of crops across the prairies, and in some years hundreds of millions of dollars' worth. We have seen the effective product, the 2% solution of strychnine, removed by the government. This private member's bill would restore that product so that farmers and ranchers could effectively control this terrible pest.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker: The Chair has received two notices of motion. What is the number of the motion by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île?
Michel Guimond: It is number 14, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is moving which motion?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is in fact Motion No. 42 on the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: We will begin with Motion No. 14.
Committees of the HouseMs. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented Wednesday, December 15, 2004, be concurred in.
It is with considerable emotion that I present this report. The Burmese and friends of Burma are working tirelessly to revive democracy in their country.
A motion was brought before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which it debated after receiving the subcommittee's proposal, and the amended motion became the second report. While watered down somewhat, it remains strong and deserves to be read and debated in this House in view of the ongoing drama in Burma.
I will read the motion first, which will provide a review of the situation.

That the Committee is of the opinion that the government must:

I would point out here that this is what we too want from the Canadian government, which can talk the talk, but appears less consistent and determined in its actions. I will continue with my quote:

a) condemn more forcefully the repeated and systematic human rights violations committed by the military junta in power in Burma, particularly those involving certain minority groups, including arrests and imprisonment without trial, summary and arbitrary executions, torture, rape, kidnappings of women, men and children, forced labour, denial of fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of assembly, association and expression, the recruitment of child soldiers and massive relocations of civilian populations;

Furthermore, the government must,

b) urge the authorities in Burma to release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners, in particular Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), to end their harassment of them, to abolish all repressive laws and measures contravening international human rights conventions, and to take action to end the appalling humanitarian crisis facing hundreds of thousands of displaced people and refugees at Burma’s borders—

Burma borders China, India, Bangladesh and Thailand.
We want the government to:

—provide tangible support to the legitimate authorities in Burma, specifically the government in exile—

That day a number of their representatives came to see us on the subcommittee, the standing committee, and the committee representing the people's Parliament.
We want to see the government impose:

—more comprehensive economic measures on Burma, and in particular:
-- review the effectiveness of the Export and Import Permits Act;

In reality, the prohibitions of that act are far from sufficient.

-- review the feasibility of fully invoking the Special Economic Measure Act;

Fully invoking that act requires that it be done with other countries.
Finally:

-- impose a legal ban on further investment in Burma.

Further investment here means that investments in Burma will be halted under the terms of the act.
The government must:

e) bring pressure to bear on the United Nations Secretary General and the international community, in order to establish a framework, primarily though ensuring the spread of the embargo, to bring the military junta to negotiate a peaceful transition toward democracy, in cooperation with the NLD and representatives of ethnic minority groups, as set out in all the resolutions of the United Nations on Burma since 1994;

Finally, it is proposed that the government:

f) call upon the authorities in Burma to include the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other political parties in the on-going process of the National Convention, and warn that any outcome from the convention without the participation of the NLD and other parties will not be recognized.

Of course I must pay tribute to the work of the League for Democracy in Burma and all the friends of Burma here. I must also pay tribute to the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, who, as member responsible for this issue, did excellent work and my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who, as current member responsible for this issue, continues the good work done by his predecessor.
It is important to realize that we are using rather strong terms in demanding additional action because Burma is one of those countries that, despite all the pressure from the international community and its citizens, continues to impose a violent dictatorship over a people that has been suffering a great deal for many years.
Since the beginning of my speech, I have been referring to this country as Burma, but I should point out that the junta has changed the name to Myanmar, which is the Burmese translation for Burma, thereby leaving out all the other minorities that make up this country and its people.
Burma has roughly 53 million inhabitants. It is a country the size of Alberta, rich in all sorts of natural resources, oil in particular, gas and precious stones, and rich in textiles and manufactured goods—inexpensive, as you might imagine. It is in an interesting political and geostrategic situation being between China and India.
In 1948, after gaining independence from Great Britain, a parliamentary democracy was formed, ending in 1962 with a military coup d'état. From 1974 to 1988, a single party took power and ran this country with an iron fist. In 1988, a student uprising against the dictatorship shook the country, while many other such uprisings were occurring in several other countries, including the former Soviet Union. In an extremely harsh and bloody manner, the junta quelled this uprising, during which at least 10,000 students were killed and thousands of others imprisoned.
But the pressure was so strong that, in 1990, the junta saw fit to allow a multiparty election to take place, figuring that it could survive it. With her tireless efforts and her fearlessness in the face of the junta, presidential candidate Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of one of Burma’s greatest independence heroes, symbolized what the Burmese people aspired to become. The junta had never thought that this candidate could be elected to lead the country as she was, sweeping 392 out of 484 parliamentary seats.
Even in the face of this stunning victory, the junta refused to step down. Prevaricating and failing to yield to various pleas from the international community, the junta is still in place. It has participated in a national convention process, but without the party that so clearly and indisputably won the election in 1990 being included.
I will point out that, since December last, the junta has been pressured by numerous countries to free Aung San Suu Kyi. Just recently, on April 23, while repeating over and over that the international community has been bringing pressure to bear for quite some time and that the junta still will not undertake the democratic reforms it has been asked to make, Kofi Annan once again asked that Aung San Suu Kyi be freed. A short time later, Tony Blair called on the international community to boycott tourism to Burma.
Significant pressure was brought to bear on Unocal, a major U.S. based oil company, to compensate Burmese villagers who suffered abuse during the construction of a pipeline. It is pretty astounding to learn that troops securing the pipeline route were charged with rape, murder and slavery. The company had to pay compensation to the villagers. It had to do so in one case at least.
I have learned that the International Labour Organization has threatened once again to crack down in Burma, where conditions of forced labour are still to be found. An international human rights organization is also accusing Burma of using chemical weapons against rebels in the country.
It is a veritable land of horror, and it is easy to imagine the sort of situation the country's inhabitants are finding themselves in. This is why Canada must play an important role not only diplomatically and politically, but economically as well. The junta is giving no sign of loosening its grip in any way. Having failed to apply the appropriate measures, the international community could be considered part of the problem in a way for doing nothing.
The witnesses testifying before the subcommittee, the work we did in committee, the support from all the opposition parties—although the motion, which had been adopted unanimously in the subcommittee, was adopted by a majority in committee—reveal the importance of this issue. I would have been very happy had the motion been adopted unanimously.
I think it could be. The economic demands are not overly brutal, on the contrary. It is like the action by the friends of Burma. They want effective action based on reason and likely to produce change. I repeat, they want us to review the effectiveness of the Export and Import Permits Act. There are no extreme measures in the act or in looking into feasibility or applying the Special Economic Measures Act to its fullest. It has to be put to use at some point.
On a number of occasions I indicated to the two previous foreign affairs ministers that they should amend this act so that Canada can, as required, make use of this Special Economic Measures Act on its own. Account must be taken of globalization, outsourcing and the roles played by many companies, Canadian companies included, in the outbreak or perpetuation of conflict throughout the world. We need only think of the role played by the mining companies in Africa. We need only hearken back to the inglorious role played by Talisman, which eventually sold its shares in Sudanese oil exploration .
The international community cannot allow companies to make a profit, a tidy profit at that, for their shareholders, with no thought to the terrific upheaval they are causing in many countries. This is why the Special Economic Measures Act also needs to be reviewed.
The measure being called for is a ban on any further investment.
This motion has afforded me this opportunity to speak, and I know that several others will speak as well. I see colleagues here from the various parties who sat on the committee and who supported the motion. I hope they will repeat that same message. No one can remain unmoved by the extreme suffering and repression being imposed by the Myanmar junta. We must fully support those in Burma and elsewhere, including of course Quebec and Canada, who are working to ensure that country rejoins the ranks of democracy.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I know the member is very interested in matters of international human rights and has in fact related what she characterized to be a horror story. She also refers to the United Nations and to Kofi Annan's efforts. Would she care to comment on what she knows about the ability or maybe the inability of the United Nations to respond in a leadership role when matters of international human rights, particularly the horror story she related, have not been dealt with effectively?
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting subject, which also brings up the subject of the United Nations. The United Nations and its Secretary General cannot be stronger than the international community allows them to be.
A number of countries continue to have dealings with the junta. As long as it continues to get rich by imposing this dictatorship on a population, Kofi Annan can make speeches, visit the country, bring pressure to bear, get permission to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, but none of this will get the junta to release its hold.
This is why we cannot let the United Nations act without backing Kofi Annan. The name of that body says it all, United Nations. All nations support Kofi Annan in a situation where an illegitimate and illegal government scorns everything and everyone, with the exception of the minority close to it, which is getting rich by exploiting resources with the collaboration of first world corporations.
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to point out the exceptional work done by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île and other hon. members who worked on the Burma file.
I found her intervention most interesting, because it reminds us of the very fundamentals of some parts of the world where extreme violations are taking place. This has been made amply clear in the case of Burma.
As critic for the Asia-Pacific region and member for Louis-Hébert, I am especially interested in this matter as are other parliamentarians. The economic aspect is of great concern to us.
Some countries in that part of the world still trade with the junta in Burma. China, in particular, continues to do business despite the situation.
As you know, Burma stopped publishing figures in 2000. No accounting or budgets have been produced. The situation may in fact be even worse than we currently think.
My question is for my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. Could the means the Government of Canada might use to impose stronger measures on the Burmese authorities result in greater pressure on the military junta to recognize the forces of democracy in Burma? Is this the route to take?
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the economic measures we have adopted were proposed to us by Canadian Friends of Burma, which are in contact with the National League for Democracy.
That is the preferred approach of many. The United States and Europe, for instance, imposed sanctions on Myanmar, or Burma. They have imposed sanctions and are threatening not to participate in a scheduled series of ASEAN meetings, precisely to drive the point across that this dictatorship must not be encouraged by the other Far East countries.
It is clear, however, that Burma and other countries—I am sure that some hon. members will be talking about China and other countries—show no respect, to say the least, for human rights. In Burma, or Myanmar, the dictatorial system is so despicable that the only means we could think of, besides economic measures, would be much more unsavoury ones.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Madam Speaker, the situation in Burma is very serious. As far back as 1990, when there was an election in that country that was relatively free and fair, it was won by the National League for Democracy and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Right after that election, that new democratically elected leader was in fact arrested by the agents of the repressive regime that was in place at the time.
She has been basically under arrest, partly in prison and partly house arrest, ever since then, even though during that time she has been recognized internationally as the leader of a government in exile and is also a Nobel prize laureate.
In the corresponding years the human rights record of the regime in Burma, or as some refer to it as Myanmar, has been horrendous. The systematic persecutions, rapes, tortures and killings are horrendous.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Pardon me.
Are we in questions and comments? Yes.
The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île who has to respond is not in her seat. I just want to ensure that you know this.
The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Stockwell Day: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member is there. Given that record and the motion that we have before the House, is the member also aware that yesterday and today in Toronto a business meeting has been taking place with ASEAN nations and included in that are representatives from Burma or Myanmar? They have not been blocked out of the meeting. They in fact are included in that.
I wonder if the member was aware of that. She is indicating that she was not aware of that, but that is the case. I wonder if she would have any comments on that.
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I was in fact not aware of that. I thank my colleague for his question. I apologize for leaving my seat, but I thought he was taking his turn at speaking on this matter. I believe he will speak on it since he attended the committee session.
What he just said illustrates the following difficulty. On one hand we want to encourage this country to respect both democracy and human rights and on the other hand, we want it to collaborate and improve its lot through participation.
Vic Toews: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. Essentially, the member from the Bloc is saying that it is an illegitimate government in place.
My colleague from the Okanagan has indicated that there was a fair election in that country, a democratically elected government, and yet the leadership was arrested and now we have an illegitimate government there.
The response from the Bloc is that there should be economic sanctions. If economic sanctions do not work, are there any other mechanisms that the member feels the international community can take with respect to removing an illegitimate government like this?
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will not leave my seat any more, no matter what.
This is an interesting question. Again, I remind the hon. member that it was not just the Bloc Québécois that passed this motion. We would like in committee to be able to pass motions ourselves, but this one we passed with the other parties. We sought unanimity and almost had it, but the parliamentary secretary did not vote with us.
The Alliance Party wanted a certain provision to be changed. We changed it together because we felt the issue was important enough to develop a common position that we wanted to see the government adopt.
Whether the economic measures are significant may not be important in every case. For South Africa, at the instigation of Mr. Mulroney, imposing economic sanctions was extremely important. This supported the democratic movement there and added to the pressure by the international community.
We have to realize that this is a junta with full military power over a country located between India and China. It can maintain order in a brutal fashion and gain wealth for itself and its friends. It has exploited the country's resources, including oil, gas, precious stones, manufactured goods, cheap textiles, teak and many others, not to mention vacations and sex tourism. Why should it listen to the international community?
I feel that we must—
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The time has expired.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Space Program; the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley, Wallace Harbour Lighthouse.
Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing.
Hon. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:

That the debate do now adjourn.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): I declare the motion carried.
We have one hour and 30 minutes remaining for debate on the motion for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Accordingly, debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings.
Hon. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I request unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from committees.
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
PetitionsMr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Madam Speaker, I rise today to present petitions from across Canada. I have 13 petitions which contain hundreds of signatures. The petitioners ask that Parliament use all possible legislation, and administrative measures if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions signed by a number of Canadians, including petitioners from my own riding of Mississauga South. The first petition is on the subject matter of embryonic stem cells. The petitioners wish to point out that Canadians support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown encouraging potential to provide the cures and therapies for the illnesses and diseases of Canadians.
The petitioners also wish to point out that non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary for Canadians.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on the subject of marriage. I have another thousand signatures from my riding of Mississauga South. The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary and that the petitioners support the traditional definition of marriage.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative measures, including the invocation of section 33, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage, that being the legal union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, with the non-proliferation treaty review currently under way at the United Nations, I take immense pleasure in tabling 20 bundles of petitions pleading that Canada work with our partners in peace for more arms control and peacefully bring to an end the production and sale of weapons of mass destruction.
Second, the petitioners reiterate that Canada stay out of Bush's missile defence scheme. Some Canadians might wonder why Canadians keep tabling more and more of these anti-star wars petitions. It is because the federal Liberal government is not trusted to not reverse its decision to withhold further participation in missile defence. It is important that the government be aware of the many Canadians who want these petitions to be taken seriously by this government.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions representing over 3,000 signatures from residents in the City of Calgary. The petitioners are concerned that the institution of marriage is being challenged. They believe that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children.
They petition Parliament to pass legislation to recognize marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I would submit to the House that the gathering of this petition was an enormous commitment for the people involved. I would urge the House to take very seriously the petition presented today.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.
The first petition is signed by many residents in the Wallaceburg and Dresden area. The second petition is signed by residents living in Strathroy, Glencoe and the Watford area.
The petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present two petitions today. The first one is with respect to juvenile diabetes.
The undersigned constituents have brought attention to the seriousness of the problem of juvenile diabetes. They specifically ask that the research money of $25 million for juvenile diabetes type 1 be allocated by the federal government over the next five years. That is certainly not too much to ask.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today on the issue of marriage.
My constituents call upon Parliament to recognize that important social issues like marriage should be determined by Parliament, not by the courts, and that marriage should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding in the Tantramar area, Sackville to be precise, on the issue of marriage.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents in British Columbia concerned about the government inquiry into the fishery last summer, which it has now shut down.
The petitioners call upon the government to undertake a judicial inquiry.
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions that I wish to present today.
The first petition is signed by hundreds of members and friends of the First Unitarian Universal Church of Winnipeg. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to pass the proposed legislation providing full equal marriage to same sex couples.
Mr. Speaker, the next two petitions I wish to present are of the opposite view. The petitions are signed by residents of the city of Winnipeg.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to define marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present to the House today. The petitioners are protecting the moral good of society, saying that it is a natural and serious obligation of elected officials and that it cannot be just left to religious leaders and institutions.
The petitioners request Parliament to take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage, that being between one man and one woman.
Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present to the House today which I am pleased to present on behalf of constituents of Calgary Centre. The petition relates to the same sex marriage bill.
The petitioners in Calgary are in favour of same sex marriage.
Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table 13 petitions today. The petitioners call upon the government to protect the current definition of marriage.
My constituents and constituents across the country want to preserve the current definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the congregants of a church within my riding, I present a petition in support of Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.
Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the citizens of Deer Island, New Brunswick. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to say no to the passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage, the most dangerous passage in all of Canada. In the words of the petitioners, please protect our fisheries, our tourism and the natural wonders that make our area special.
They call upon the Government of Canada to say no to the passage of the tankers.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present this voluminous petition on behalf of the citizens of Rivière-du-Portage. They are calling on our government to ensure marriage remains the union of a man and a woman.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first two are from constituents who would like to see the government maintain the traditional definition of marriage.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, my third petition is signed by constituents who wish to express their ongoing opposition to the national missile defence project. The petitioners wish to express that they are against any future Canadian participation in the project.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present a petition by my constituents who believe that the Government of Canada should no longer make rental charges to a community hospital just outside the borders of my constituency, the Queensway Carleton Hospital.
The petitioners believe the Government of Canada should not impose new burdens of rent on an institution that is meant to serve the health needs of nearly 400,000 people, many of whom are seniors. They furthermore believe that if the government can afford to pay almost $10 million in rent for an empty building, it can surely stop charging the hospital.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of Don Valley West, petitioning for health freedom. The petitioners say that healthy medicinal foods, herbs, spices, dietary supplements and other natural health and nutritional products should be properly classified as foods. To do this, they are petitioning that Bill C-420 be enacted to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to present three petitions. The first one draws attention to the plight of children suffering from autism spectrum disorder and the need for intensive behavioural intervention. The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Canada Health Act.
It is signed by many petitioners in Vancouver, including Holly Hendrigan who has done a lot of work on this issue.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from members of the congregation and friends of St. Thomas Wesley United in Saskatoon who support equal marriage. The petitioners say that it would create uniformity of marriage laws across Canada and respect the Charter of Rights.
They call upon Parliament to defend same sex couples to civil marriage.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from people in east Vancouver who are very concerned and want to draw to the attention of the House the affordable housing crisis in the country.
The petitioners call upon the federal government to dedicate 1% of the next federal budget to affordable housing.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise in the House and present a petition from four different areas of the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain.
The petitioners ask that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They point out that it is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children.
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on marriage. The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is on behalf of several hundred of my constituents who are horrified by pornography which depicts children and are astounded by legal determinations that possession of this pornography in some cases is not even criminal.
The petitioners ask that Parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.
Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also on behalf of several hundred of my constituents who say that the majority of Canadians support a democratic government where elected members of Parliament represent the voice of Canadians in matters of social policy.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to uphold and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitioners to present today. The first two petitions are from residents of Scarborough, Pickering and Markham. The petitioners regret that the courts have changed the definition of marriage.
They call upon Parliament to redefine marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from constituents in east Toronto, including Scarborough. The petitioners call upon Parliament to increase quotas for sponsored parents under the Immigration Act and to reduce processing times for those sponsored parents.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundred of my constituents asking that the House maintain the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to present petitions from across the country in support of my private member's Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Bill C-420 is now being studied by the Standing Committee on Health, and I am proud and humbled by the support I have received to date in my efforts to give Canadians greater choice in personal health care.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a number of petitions. The first several thousand signatures are on a petition asking that Parliament recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions asks Parliament to withdraw its proposal to ban many kinds of fishing tackle containing lead.
The Deputy Speaker: The time allocated for petitions has expired. It is possible to table petitions with the table. I encourage members to consider that option as well.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 115 and 116 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. 115Mr. Rob Anders: For each year since 2000, how much money has been spent on taxi chits, and how many were used and by which departments, agencies, and Crown corporations?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 116Mr. Bernard Bigras: What information has the government gathered about the Canada Steamship Lines’ ship the Ferbec and what if any conclusions do government reports draw about this ship?
(Return tabled)
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions for PapersDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I move that all notices of motions for the production of papers be also allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion, and of the motion that this question be now put.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question to the motion for concurrence in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion.
Hon. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent that all Liberal members in the House who have previously voted on the question put before this House on this motion will now be voting no, except for those members who wish to be recorded otherwise.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the previous vote be applied to this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-38.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the previous vote, prior to this one, we were told that there were 168 votes for and 138 against. That is 306, according to my calculations.I think that at least two or three members were not present, and I do not think you, Mr. Speaker, were allowed to vote. The member next to me did not vote. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to please check the vote count.
The Speaker: We have checked the vote. I was about to announce that the vote should have been 163 in favour and I believe 138 opposed on the previous question. I want to thank the hon. member for his assistance in this regard.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a legislative committee.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Ajax--Pickering.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent that the motion before the House be deemed carried.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-215 under private members' business.
(The House divided on the motion:)
The Speaker: I am happy to declare the motion carried. As is the practice, I am voting for further debate on this bill.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-274, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-274 under private members' business.
The question is on the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Order please. It being 6:56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-2. Motion No. 1 will not be selected as it is identical to an amendment proposed and defeated in committee. The House therefore will now proceed to the motion for concurrence at report stage.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
John Reynolds: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Adjournment Proceedings
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, as a trading nation, Canada depends on our economic prosperity by having a healthy relationship with our trading partners. No relationship is more important to the economic prosperity of all Canadians than a strong relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States.
The decision, after months of dithering by a Prime Minister who has developed an international reputation as a professional ditherer, not to participate in the joint defence of North America is costing Canadians jobs.
While the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in responding to my question of March 9, tried to infer that it would be business as usual, Canadians do not believe this government for a minute when it suggests it will be business as usual.
Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, states that many other members, particularly those in technology, defence and aerospace industries, are losing business and will lose the potential for future business. Business means Canadian jobs.
Mr. Thomas Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, confirmed that potential technology development and jobs associated with developing a knowledge based economy will not be available with the dithering by the Prime Minister on this and other important decisions that affect our relations with our largest trading partner.
With the massive increases in spending and taxes planned by the Liberal-NDP coalition, Canada is in no position to turn down opportunities for investment in job creation. A survey of Canadian business leaders by Compas Inc., sponsored by BDO Dunwoody and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, found that 71% of respondents believed that the decision not to lower Canada's high tax rate will hurt Canada's finances.
The last formal Liberal-NDP coalition resulted in double digit inflation with the resulting bankruptcies. People lost their homes because they could not pay the interest rates of 12% to 18% caused by the runaway spending.
Corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes, unless of course one is the Prime Minister and registers the companies in offshore tax havens to avoid Canadian taxation. Average Canadians, on the other hand, who do not work do not pay taxes.
It had to be an all-time low in the relationship with our largest trading partner when the link was made by the new Canadian ambassador to the United States that it was the dithering on the North American defence commitment that resulted in the border disputes regarding live cattle and softwood remaining unresolved.
The federal government's own declaration in its space policy framework states that the maintenance of Canada's sovereignty in the new world economic order depends on using the space program to assist in our transition to a knowledge based economy. Then, by its own admission, the Liberal government's indecision on North American air defence is one more threat to national security.
A local success story in my riding is E.T.M. Industries Inc. in Renfrew. The fact that the foreign affairs minister is unaware of companies like E.T.M. suggests that the decision not to cooperate with the Americans was not well thought out. It is another example of the type of table napkin diplomacy that has become the trademark of a Prime Minister who dithers.
E.T.M. Industries has developed a specialty market contributing to the space program. Companies like E.T.M. should be supported. While E.T.M. is not in a position today to state how much business would be lost, Canadians will never know how many jobs would have been created if Canada had decided to participate in the joint defence of North America.
The reason the Conservative Party put forward the motion for a full, open democratic debate on missile defence is that we felt it was important for Canadians to see in detail what was being proposed before any decision was made.
It would be an absolute tragedy if the $250 million Canadian space program collapsed as a consequence of the decision not to cooperate with the defence of North America. The Canadian space program has evolved around a niche strategy that heavily relies upon the United States. Canada makes no investment in a national launcher program or domestic satellite navigation system.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's comments and they are profoundly flawed in much of what she said. She referred to two areas. One relates to the economic performance of the government and the other relates to the defence performance of the government. I am going to address them separately for her edification.
The first one deals primarily with the cooperation in the United States. Marpac, CFB Esquimalt is in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I can say that the relationship we have with the United States is quite extraordinary. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I can say that our relationship with the United States is not only a priority but we are also very pleased with the level of cooperation between our countries through our army, air force and navy.
We share communications and work. We cooperate. Indeed we will work together in the future. The new international policy statement states very clearly that the United States is our signature partner. We recognized that in history. We recognize that today and we will recognize that in the future. A large chunk of the international policy statement deals with our cooperation with the United States to fulfill our needs in Canada for Canadians.
We recognize that we share North America. Our responsibility together is the defence of our North American community. We work very well and closely with the United States on all of those levels, whether it is the defence of the north, the defence of our sea ports, or border security. We have done a great deal.
The Deputy Prime Minister works very closely with her counterpart in the United States in dealing with the protection of Canada for Canadians and the protection of the United States for its citizens. We work together for the benefit of both countries. This is a relationship born in history and will continue into the future. We have supported that with $13 billion of cold hard money to provide more troops, and to provide more equipment and training for our men and women in uniform.
On the economic issue, one of the reasons I left my former party was the issue of economics. The line in the sand which exists for me personally and I think for most Canadians is that we will not get into deficit spending. My former party, the party of the member across the way, has been standing for deep cuts and spending. Those do not add up. This is played out south of the border where the President of the United States has adopted a plan of deep cuts and spending which has resulted in record deficits in the United States. That is something we cannot countenance in our country.
Surplus spending and balanced budgets are integral to provide for our social programs, defence forces and indeed to pay down the debt so we can save money on the interest payments. That provides Canada with a strong, stable economy so our private sector can work well.
In closing, I want to assure the hon. member, although she knows very well, that the government has put forth eight consecutive surplus budgets. We have also committed to ensuring that our private sector community can bid in a competitive way with U.S. companies for U.S. contracts, which they are free to do.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, while this country might spend $250 million U.S. annually in public sector space activities, the United States spends more than $28 billion U.S. annually. The most significant aspects of the Canadian space program have been jeopardized by the current government's policy of criticizing our American allies on the one hand, while freeloading on the American capabilities on the other.
The United States space command, also known as Spacecom, was merged with strategic command, Stratcom. Previously the combat commander of Spacecom was also the combat commander of Norad. Linking the two commands made sense to the Americans. Canada's decision not to participate in the severing of SpaceCom from Norad has short and long term repercussions to the Canadian space program.
For Canada the SpaceCom-StratCom unification could spell the end of joint Canada-U.S. outerspace development. When SpaceCom was at Norad, Canada enjoyed special access to American space technology and initiatives. Years of chronic underfunding of our national defence budget means that we no longer have the finances to fund any type of space capability.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct that the United States spends a great deal more than we do on defence. However, we also do not have a massive deficit and we are not going to put our country into a deficit under any circumstances.
Having said that, the member also knows full well that we have put the largest investment into the forces in the last 20 years. We are doing that with a balanced budget. It is the responsible thing to do. Not only can we obligate that spending for our defence forces but as our economy continues to strengthen, we will be able to put even more money in the future toward training, personnel and equipment.
The member knows full well that Norad is the centrepiece of our relationship with the United States. We are committed to Norad. The U.S. is committed to Norad. We will continue to work with the United States for the defence of our country and for our North American community.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to explore a little more an issue I brought up on April 22 about a lighthouse in Wallace, Nova Scotia on the Northumberland Strait.
First of all, I would like to describe the harbour at Wallace. It is a long harbour leading in from the Northumberland Strait to the wharf at Wallace. For decades there has been a lighthouse there that has been the guiding light for fishermen, commercial vessels, and recreational vessels to return to the wharf in all kinds of weather.
Recently, the Coast Guard has suggested that it will not replace the light bulb in the lighthouse. It has several suggestions of replacing it with lighted buoys, less bright lights or whatever. We feel that this lighthouse light is essential. It is a matter of life and death in certain circumstances. It should not be compromised for the sake of a few dollars.
The fishermen who are dealing with this situation every day and use this light hear about all kinds of expenditures that are made by the government. They hear them every day on television with regard to ad scam that the Liberals have been operating mostly in the province of Quebec. The fishermen wonder if the government can afford to spend all this money, why can it not afford a light bulb for a lighthouse that could save lives?
I noticed this week that the Liberals announced $1.25 million for a farmers market in Moncton, if I am not mistaken. I am sure it is a worthwhile enterprise. How can a farmers market be compared with a lighthouse that could save lives in the event of foul weather?
The light can be seen from 17 miles away. It can almost be seen from Prince Edward Island. We want Prince Edward Island to see us. For decades the purpose of this light was to help mariners come into the harbour. Cumberland County Councillor Gerald Langille said recently, “Many fishermen are becoming concerned with what we are going to be left with. The powerful light we have is visible when it's most important, in relatively poor weather. When the weather is fine and all our navigation equipment is working, the lighthouse is a mere inconvenience, but when things go bad, it has always been there and it has given us a strong sense of security. Why should it be downgraded at the expense of our safety?
This is such an important issue. This is not a convenience issue. It is not something that maybe will enhance the community or something that is optional. This is a safety issue. It is life and death. It is how the fishermen find their port. It is how the fishermen find their way back to the wharf.
I would like the Liberal government to confirm today that it is going to replace that lighthouse bulb. The lighthouse bulb will last 15 years. It costs $87,000. It is an expensive light bulb and I will grant them that. However, it lasts 15 years.
The question is, how many lives will it save? Anyone who has boated on the Northumberland Strait knows how fast the wind comes come up, how rough the water can be, and how strong the currents are. This lighthouse is absolutely critical.
I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if he will advise us if the lighthouse will be maintained at its current strength, so that Wallace can maintain its safety and also go ahead with plans to attract more commercial vessels to the harbour. Perhaps Wallace can then build a marina and expand the harbour.
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the importance of lighthouses, and not only as safety concern. They are somewhat of a mythical institution in Atlantic Canada. I am sure my friend across the way will agree with me on that. Being brought up on the Atlantic Ocean, we know that lighthouses are a very important part of our culture and our way of life.
I have been to the community of Wallace. I do not recall seeing the actual lighthouse, but I can vouch for the beauty and charm of that community and other communities along that part of the Northumberland Strait. Perhaps I can see the lighthouse from my own home, I do not know, but when I get home I will try.
To answer my learned colleague's question, it is my understanding that consultations have been held with the community, with the stakeholders, and that a resolution of this issue has been reached. The lighthouse is either in the process of being fixed or it will be, and it will be of course maintained in its current capacity.
This issue is being played out across Atlantic Canada. We have both the importance of lighthouses and what I call our love of lighthouses. There is the importance we feel that these institutions have, but we also have at the same time the advent of technology, technology for navigational aids, new technology used by the Coast Guard.
It is also, I should point out, the technology used on many of the boats and vessels that are seen along the Atlantic coast and within the Northumberland Strait. This is an issue that is being played out right across Atlantic Canada.
Of course we do not have the number of lighthouses we used to have years ago and certainly a lot of the lighthouses are now unmanned. We know, of course, that many years ago we had manned lighthouses.
In conclusion, let me say that I believe this issue has been resolved. Again, it is probably a good example of consultation between the stakeholders, the community and the Coast Guard.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to be outraged and appalled if the parliamentary secretary has agreed to maintain the lighthouse. I appreciate that very much.
I also want to compliment him on his recognition of the value of lighthouses. As a lifelong Maritimer, I cherish every lighthouse in my province. I know the lighthouses in my riding. The parliamentary secretary referred to them as mythical and I think that is probably quite right. We put a great deal of value on these lighthouses.
I want to mention the little community of Port Greville, which recaptured its lighthouse. The Coast Guard had taken the lighthouse away years ago to a Coast Guard training station, but this little community was able to convince the Coast Guard to bring it back to Port Greville and re-establish it at the Age of Sail Museum in Port Greville. This museum is run entirely by volunteers and is a wonderful museum. It reflects our sailing history and all of the mariner and marine activity that we have had for many years.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to clarify his answer. I understood that it would be maintained at its current brightness with the same power. There was a discussion about it and one of the possibilities was a lower level of light. If the parliamentary secretary could clarify that for me, I would be very grateful. I understand from what he said that it would be maintained at its current level. Could he clarify that for me just one more time?
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I do agree with my learned friend that these lighthouses are important from both a tourism and a community point of view. In fact, I have a lighthouse in the city I represent. It serves no navigational purpose, but it is important to the people who live there.
It is my understanding that the lighthouse will be repaired. As to whether it is going to be the same velocity or wattage, I am not aware of that. But again, I can assure my colleague and all Canadians that the safety of the mariners who are in the Northumberland Strait is of prime concern to the Coast Guard. That will not in any way, shape or form be compromised.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:19 p.m.)