2005-05-06

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-12, an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-12, the new Quarantine Act. We are updating the Quarantine Act because the piece of legislation we are working with is absolutely antiquated. It has not been significantly modernized since 1872.
The purpose of the Quarantine Act is very clear and straightforward. It offers protection to the Canadian public at our border points of entry by authorizing the use of public health measures to prevent communicable diseases from entering the country and spreading throughout the population. Our recent experience with SARS has not been forgotten. With the global threat of avian influenza and the heightened risk of a human pandemic, health experts and the public are acutely aware that new diseases can swiftly emerge and change in such a manner that all governments require a modern set of tools at their disposal to ensure rapid and decisive action.
Many of us will remember the important work undertaken by Dr. David Naylor, chair of the national advisory committee on SARS and public health. The newly proposed Quarantine Act reflects action taken by this government in a direct response to the recommendations put forth in the Naylor report and later echoed by the Senate committee.
In a modern era, diseases do not arrive by boat on transatlantic voyages. They arrive by plane and present themselves at our doorsteps within hours. By moving forward this important piece of public health protection legislation, the Government of Canada will have the authority to address immediate concerns related to global disease transmission, a cross-border issue of growing importance.
As members may recall, Bill C-36 was the first attempt to modernize the Quarantine Act. The bill was introduced in the last parliamentary session on May 12, 2004, but died on the order paper when the election was called.
Last fall, Bill C-12 was reintroduced. This revised bill reflected the comments of many stakeholders including provincial and territorial public health experts. After an extensive review process, including witness testimony and amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Health, the bill was passed by the House of Commons on December 10, 2004.
Recently, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology underwent a similar examination process of Bill C-12. Amendments were adopted by committee members specifically related to the tabling of quarantine regulations. The House committee on health had asked that these regulations be tabled, so that it could review them. The Senate saw that amendment in the bill and decided that it would like to see the regulations as well.
If the House concurs today in the proposed amendments, the tabling of regulations under Bill C-12 will reflect the role of the Senate of Canada by reinforcing the equivalent authority of this chamber in the parliamentary legislative process.
Canadians want protection. They expect government to draw upon an array of modern tools to manage future risks to public health. The revised Quarantine Act before us complements provincial and territorial public health legislation, for each jurisdiction is responsible for maintaining public health.
The federal Quarantine Act will operate as the first line of defence. It will play a mitigating role in protecting the health of Canadians from the importation of disease. The importance of jurisdictions working together is paramount when protecting public health, even more so when health threats emerge. The complementary legislative design of Bill C-12 helps to create a web of protection for Canadians.
Indeed, we do not need another health crisis to reinforce the critical importance of working in concert with our provincial and territorial partners.
After the SARS crisis, the Government of Canada moved immediately to strengthen public health. This act would become an important instrument in carrying out that commitment for it would add another tool in the pan-Canadian toolbox for public health. The newly created Public Health Agency of Canada and the appointment of the Chief Public Health Officer will serve in the management of any new infectious disease outbreak.
It is not only our obligation to Canadians that we need to consider. Currently, the World Health Organization is undertaking revisions to the international health regulations. Canada is a major player in that process.
Bill C-12, our new Quarantine Act, complements this effort. It is compatible with global public health efforts. This new legislation appropriately balances individual rights and freedoms in the protection of the public good. In a globalized world, it reflects the increased complexity in public health, making linkages with other authorities to support a coordinated response capacity, and including local and provincial partners, customs officials, the RCMP and the World Health Organization.
Revisions to Bill C-12 would ensure better communication, collaboration and cooperation among partners, as well as better clarity about who does what when. It would build on the expertise and the strengths already in place in the disease management spectrum to ensure that Canadians are safeguarded by a seamless public health system throughout this country.
Once enacted, our new Quarantine Act would ensure that the Government of Canada has the proper legislative tools to respond rapidly and effectively in the event of our next public health crisis.
In the spirit of collaboration, it is my wish that House members demonstrate ongoing support for the work and contributions made toward strengthening this bill on behalf of the Standing Committee on Health of this House and the Senate of Canada.
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite spoke to us about quarantine, customs, the RCMP and border patrol officers. I have a question for her. If we remove RCMP officers from border patrol, if there is only one person assigned to customs duties and we want to protect Canadians by applying quarantine in the event that people cross the border with the flu or other diseases, what can we do to inspect these people if they just go straight across the border, as is often the case?
How can we have control, put people in quarantine or do anything involving quarantine if there are no more police officers, nothing or no one to stop these people at the border?
Bonnie Brown: Madam Speaker, the Quarantine Act addresses the largest group of people coming into this country. That takes place at our airports. Air travel is another factor where people arrive at our border quite ill or on the verge of becoming quite ill. The main measures of this bill would be taken at airports.
However, at other border crossing points, the usual measures would apply and there are both provincial and municipal police forces that can do whatever job the RCMP used to do. I do not believe that RCMP officers were actually picking people out of cars and saying, “You look sick. You had better go into quarantine”. I think that would be a misuse of their time. I think it is creating a myth to suggest they used to do that at all.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Oakville, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Health and has led parliamentarians through extraordinarily important legislation over the last number of years.
It is also important to note that this is a very significant bill, particularly to people in Ontario, where the SARS incident had such an enormous impact. Many people died and many others were ill. Entire communities were brought to a total halt. I know that the Ontario members of Parliament were particularly concerned about the procedures, because during the SARS epidemic we did not know how to deal with those kinds of things.
In fact, as subsequent inquires found, a number of things were not done as well as they could have been, but we learned from them. Part of this process is to learn from things that did not go as well as they should have. It is one of the reasons why the Quarantine Act has not been updated since 1872 or something like that, which I think the member mentioned.
It would be useful to have the member provide a bit of insight about some of the matters related to the SARS epidemic. It is a very good example of why this particular act should go forward and be passed by Parliament.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. While he is not a formal member of the health committee, he tries to attend frequently to keep himself updated.
The first thing I would like to say about this bill is that if there is any one issue in the House that should not be subject to partisan politics, it is the provision of public health measures in this new world that we live in. It is to be hoped that all members here present today will support this bill in order that the provisions of it can be put in place, because basically they are there to protect the health of Canadians.
My colleague is correct in saying that those of us who are from the metropolitan area of Toronto and close to the Pearson International Airport were tremendously struck by the rippling impacts of SARS. Most of us knew at least one family, perhaps the family of a health care worker, that had been quarantined over a period of time, and we knew about the impact that had on the other members of the family, all as a matter of protection for the wider community and a measure that we agreed with.
Once a disease like this gets started, the ripple effects on personal, family and children's lives and on the economy make it a far bigger thing than one thinks it is going to be when one first hears of it. That is why we were so delighted to have the appointment of a new Minister of State for Public Health, the member for St. Paul's, and the acquisition of a chief public health officer to coordinate these efforts across the country. I invite all members to go to their offices in suburban Ottawa. They are most impressive to see and will reassure members about their role as parliamentarians in protecting the public health of Canadians.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the member for her comments this morning and I am glad that the NDP is supporting this bill, because it is an important update to our quarantine laws. I am glad that the New Democrats are on board with this. I have one question.
There were some concerns raised at committee, one of which was the whole question of screening officers and the extra duties that this is going to put onto our customs officers, who are already required to enforce the Customs Act and have various security concerns they have to take care of, as well as agricultural concerns. Now we are adding a sort of medical screening to that.
I am wondering if the minister could comment on overloading our customs officers or what extra training might be available to them to actually carry out this important function.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion about that, but we were reassured that customs officers would not be doing any in depth medical evaluation. It will be a simple kind of screening and they will have the training to prepare them to do that. None of us want to burden these very important officials of the Government of Canada with more work than they can handle. None of us want to slow down the customs process for travellers and tourists, et cetera. They will simply be a sort of first line and adequate medical personnel will be available to do any evaluation that needs to be done.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the hon. member has to do with compensation. It was a big issue at committee.
There was a whole range of issues that came up regarding space at airports, whereby the airport authorities would have to give up space for public screening in an emergency without compensation, providing fixtures and a whole range of other things. These airports have very expensive leases with the government. Also, other facilities could be taken over without compensation. A curling rink or an arena could be taken over for public health measures without compensation. It is at the discretion of the minister to compensate.
Unfortunately, because of royal recommendation, the committee was not allowed to accept amendments that would cost the government money. Is the member satisfied that the public's interest will be protected and that private citizens' and corporate interests will be protected by the minister?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, the legislative design of Bill C-12 supports a prudent approach consistent with responsible government spending, that is, to determine an appropriate level of compensation only after an incident or an outbreak. It does provide the flexibility to provide compensation to industry in the event that quarantine facilities are required to isolate at risk travellers.
It does not speak directly to the issue of compensation for travellers detained under quarantine powers, but the Government of Canada could provide assistance to travellers who are inconvenienced by such measures.
In the event of a public health crisis, the government has the ability to, first, assess the situation and determine the need for an appropriate level of compensation based on the merits of each case, and then determine the possible means of compensation.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, this morning we are debating the Senate amendments to Bill C-12. I have had an opportunity to review the prior debates to try to ascertain some of the concerns of members. I see in the House this morning a number of members as well as the previous speaker who have all worked on this legislation.
The member for Oakville said something that I think is worth reflecting on. It is that these health issues transcend partisan interests. I think all members would agree that when it comes to the matter of public safety and public health it is the number one priority of Canadians and certainly of the Parliament of Canada.
I also want to say I am delighted that we are back debating important legislation, which has progressed for some time. As we know, there is much speculation about an election and what the consequences might be. Most are political, but in the reality for Canadians we are talking about the work of Parliament over the past months.
We have a large number of bills, much legislation and other initiatives at various stages throughout the legislative system. I am aware of a number of them. One is even one of my own initiatives on fetal alcohol syndrome. An election call would kill all these bills and the other legislation, as well as an enormous amount of work done by I believe some very talented people in the committee and legislative system and by parliamentarians at large. I just want Canadians to know that we are trying very hard to have important legislation passed in this place as quickly as possible because it is in the best interests of Canadians.
Bill C-12 is an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. This enactment repeals and replaces the existing Quarantine Act, which has not been modernized since 1872. The purpose is to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases in Canada.
It is applicable to persons in conveyances arriving in or in the process of departing Canada. It provides measures for the screening, health assessment and medical examination of travellers to determine if they have communicable diseases and measures for preventing the spread of communicable diseases, including referral to the public health authorities, detention, treatment and disinfestation. The provisions for the administrative oversight of the detention of travellers are also included in the bill.
It provides for additional measures such as the inspection and cleansing of conveyances and cargo to ensure that they are not a source of communicable diseases. It imposes controls on the import and export of cadavers, body parts and other human remains.
It contains provisions for the collection and disclosure of personal information if it is necessary to prevent the spread of communicable disease and, under certain circumstances, for law enforcement purposes. It also provides the Minister of Health with interim order powers in the case of public health emergencies and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but there seems to be a fair bit of noise in the House right now.
The Speaker: There are perhaps a lot of questions for the hon. member from Mississauga, but they are going to have to wait until the end of his speech.
Paul Szabo: When we look at the summary of the legislation, we realize that this particular bill touches on a lot of areas on which there has been extensive debate in this place. In fact, we are even talking about charter rights, on which we have had a great deal of debate in this place, and the various provisions, the rights and freedoms of the--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the behaviour by the Bloc Québécois has been going on for some sitting days and it is quite disruptive to the operations of the House.
The particular provisions within the bill to do with rights of individuals will be sensitive issues to a number of members who have been active in the aspect of basic human rights and the rights and freedoms of the individual. When we consider the conflicting interests here, the rights of the individual and the responsibility of the health authorities to protect the health and well-being of Canadians, it does raise some important questions about whether there is a demonstrably justified infringement on the rights of the individual.
I recognize there are some conflicting interests here, but members know that there is a responsibility of discharging the health measures provided by the Quarantine Act to ensure the health and well-being of all Canadians. We had the example with SARS. We now have discovered and learned that the disease is a communicable one. Also, some evidence shows that it could be transmitted through the air.
Let me make a few other comments on the implications of the bill and its scope.
First, because the bill has not been modernized for many years, we have to take into account, as legislators, that over time things change. There are emerging and re-emerging health threats and SARS is certainly one example. The most important part of this is that these communicable diseases do not respect borders. It is much like pollution. For instance, we know that in the 401 corridor of Ontario, going from Windsor down to Toronto, the major source of pollution, of poor air quality and particulate matter, comes from the Ohio Valley in the United States, which is densely populated with coal-fired hydrogenerating stations.
Similarly, we have a situation where problems in Canada are not necessarily domestically sourced. Taiwan had a very similar problem with regard to people coming into Taiwan from mainland China.
Countries have to take important steps to ensure that we take all the defensive measures necessary and the best possible course to ensure that communicable diseases do not become a serious problem as they have in the past, particularly with SARS.
The advances in technology and rapid air travel is now a reality in the daily lives of Canadians. It replaces the long days that people used to travel on ships or by rail. The new age of jet travel has paved the way for increased population mobility. This is a very important issue. There are so many people coming and going. We are not just talking about people who are coming to visit Canada. We are talking also about Canadians who have travelled abroad in some affected areas and who come back. It is important that we take all those precautions as well. This does not just affect people who are visiting our country but also those who are returning from trips abroad, for whatever reason. An enormous number of people travel through the airports of our country.
Members may recall when the mad cow crisis was at its peak, travellers coming to Canada had to walk on a mat to disinfect their shoes. We were not sure whether they may have somehow picked up some materials that may have been a threat to the agriculture industry. This is yet another instance where defensive measures are extremely important.
We are told by experts that a serious communicable disease can spread to any part of the world within 24 hours. We know some of the impacts of these diseases, but we do not know anything about them. SARS was an excellent example. When it hit, we did not know what it was. We did not know how it acted. We did not know how it was transmitted. What we did know was that a large number of people with a common bond of association, whether it be from a nursing home or a hospital ward, all of had the indicators that there was the starting of an epidemic.
It required the immediate mobilization of a large number of people. It goes without saying that we are very grateful to the health care providers, the doctors and the nurses and all the other important health care providers, who literally put themselves in harm's way to help those who were afflicted by these diseases, without knowing. It is much like firefighters. Firefighters run in while others flee to save themselves. We saw that in 9/11.
Let us not forget the importance to the caregivers who tried their very best under situations of very little information on how to deal with it.
The new reality regarding the health of immigrants is becoming a growing transborder problem as well. Members of Parliament have an important responsibility in their ridings to deal with people who are being sponsored by constituents to come to Canada, either to obtain landed status and perhaps ultimately to become citizens.
We all know the health requirements to enter Canada are extremely rigorous as well. It is important that they be enforced. This is also a very important issue because of the transborder problem.
This entire situation has many health ramifications. This is one reason why we now have a public health representation in the cabinet. We also have the chief public health officer, both of whom have important roles to play in addressing any future disease outbreaks, such as SARS. We also have established a centre in Winnipeg similar to the Atlanta centres for disease control. Things are happening. Bill C-12 is part of that process.
The existing health protection system has served the interest of Canadians well. Obviously we have to update our laws to take into account the new reality of the mobility of our own population and the expanding numbers of people who are visiting Canada from other lands. It means that the policy and procedures we use in Canada must reflect and be updated to reflect this new reality.
The member for Oakville previously mentioned that Dr. David Naylor prepared the main report on this. The report contained some very important recommendations. Those recommendations have been well taken into account, not only in this legislation, but in other activities.
I also want to comment on a couple of other aspects. Bill C-12 serves to modernize the Quarantine Act, but it is only one of the tools in our health tool box. As I indicated, we now have the public health agency with the appointment of Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's first chief public health officer, and the Canadian pandemic influenza plan. All are essential elements in the government's strategy for strengthening Canada's public health system.
As I indicated, the existing federal powers under the Quarantine Act are basically outdated. That is the reason why this legislation needs to be passed by Parliament. I hope the legislation will have the support of all hon. members in this place.
That is why we are moving forward quickly with the legislation. It will give the government the means to cope with and control disease outbreaks and ensure better communication, collaboration and cooperation among public health partners. This aspect was very evident during the SARS outbreak. There were more questions and answers, as can be appreciated, and there was a lack of coordination of the public health bodies across the country. Although there were regular press conferences to assure the public, the public also had an important need to know about how they could safeguard themselves.
In those types of serious circumstances we all need to be well informed so we can be part of the preventative measures to ensure a communicable disease outbreak does not spread any further and is in fact wrestled to the ground. The collaboration and cooperation that were necessary was demonstrated even within the government departments. An issue such as SARS touched virtually every department.
I recall the bulletin that came out informing the public about SARS and suggesting that if people had some questions or wanted further information they could go to a website or two but there was no website or two. There were about 21 different website addresses and they were all to different areas of the government, all of which, in their own way, had a reference to SARS as it related to their department.
With the creation of this new cabinet post, that will not happen any more. There will be a central communications point in which important information on a comprehensive basis can be communicated to all stakeholders, all interested parties, Canadians, caregivers and others who may be affected or involved in this.
The scope of the new act is limited to ensuring that serious communicable diseases are prevented from entering Canada or being spread to other countries. It will also mitigate the risk of future threats to public health at home and beyond, to our international partners.
Because of our experience in the SARS epidemic, Canada continues to be a leader in terms of being a model for other countries in terms of addressing matters such as this. I know the World Health Organization has taken great interest as have other countries. We have also had many visitations to Canada with regard to the way in which we have set things up.
With the proposed changes to the Quarantine Act, which I am sure will be passed by this place, I think Canada will finish the loop in terms of providing the best possible protection and prevention for Canadians as it relates to communicable diseases.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Mississauga South. I do not know whether he would agree with me in terms of a global strategy perspective. Does he agree that there needs to be support for the Bloc Québécois position whereby the Canadian government must commit to increasing its international aid immediately, especially to Africa, in order to reach the 0.7% of GDP level, as several European countries have already done? This would help African countries fight highly infectious diseases more effectively, diseases that could easily be transmitted here, as he so skilfully illustrated in his speech.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister has been, as was the previous prime minister, well involved in the Africa issue and has made commitments very similar to what the Bloc has now adopted. I might remind the member that yesterday the Prime Minister again updated the House with regard to our commitment to Africa.
In regard to the member's question, I am glad the Bloc Québécois, in this regard, agrees with the Government of Canada.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, a number of issues came up during debate in committee on this that caused some of us concern and I will give the House a couple of examples.
In clause 22(1), with respect to medical examination, it states:

If a quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the officer may require the traveller to undergo a[n] [investigation].

What concerned many of us were the “or”s. It is not that an individual has a disease but that the person may have been near somebody who might have had something.
Clause 28.1 states that beyond examination an individual could be detained if:

(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
(i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors,

Something that is of more concern is clause 26 which states:

If a quarantine officer, after the medical examination of a traveller, has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the quarantine officer may order the traveller to comply with treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of the communicable disease.

I do not think anyone is overly concerned about someone having to be examined in order to contain the disease. However, after having been examined and no evidence is found that someone is sick, the person can still be compelled to be quarantined for up to a week. What troubles me is that after a week, if in the officer's opinion the individual still might be a threat, the individual can be detained further even if there is no sign of the disease. The person can also be compelled to have treatment or some other preventative measure just because they were near someone who had a disease.
Does the member agree with forcing an individual to have treatment just because an officer thinks the individual has been near someone who might have a disease but the individual shows no symptoms of the disease?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the big question that has been raised by a number of members. It has a great deal to do with the rights of the individual and Canadians at large covered under the charter and the responsibilities of a government and health authorities to protect us against something that the consequences of which could be enormous. The consequence could be a pandemic that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people if not checked and dealt with at its early stages.
When the member read from clause 22, he may have misspoke himself when he said that it would require a traveller to undergo an investigation. The bill in fact states “medical examination”.
If we are talking about a quarantine officer, a medical officer, a doctor, a nurse or whoever is going to be responsible for making these assessments, I do not believe they are there to do harm. They are properly training and are there to protect Canadians. They will not detain someone for some personal whim, personal bias or whatever it might be.
In clause 26, the member said, “if the quarantine officer has grounds to believe”. This is not a matter of frivolous grounds. In a matter of emergency someone has to make some serious decisions and we first need to ensure that those who are put in those positions of authority have the tools to do these things, are properly trained and are acting in the best interests of Canadians.
The member kind of asked the questions almost in the context of what if we get somebody who maybe is not doing things in good faith and is just doing it to somehow disrupt the rights and freedoms of individuals, of travellers or to be invasive.
Medical examination is one thing but a medical examination does not tell us where the person has been, who the person has seen and in which place where there were problems has the person been. Those things are not part of a medical examination. A medical examination is with regard to that individual and the individual's own condition.
If there is some basis for looking at people's travel documents, or whatever it might be, and it would be helpful to get information to do an investigation, then I would say that it is a proper thing to do and a responsible thing to do because individuals themselves coming into a country who have gone through a medical examination may not even know what exactly has been going on, what the problem is, what the disease is or what causes it. There is an awful lot of information, much of which is not readily available through simply the process of a individual screening or maybe some sort of a medical exam.
This is a very good example of where parliamentarians often get into the situation where we have conflicting interests, and sometimes people will describe it as the lesser of evils, but in this particular case the act is prescribing the tools to be used by properly trained medical professionals who are prepared to take on the responsibility and to discharge that greater responsibility, which is to protect public health. It is in the best interest of not only that individual, it is also is in the best interest of the country at large, which is the greater question. We do make these tough decisions. In this regard I would say that the provisions, in my opinion, within Bill C-12 are fair and reasonable.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today's debate is not on the bill, but rather on the Senate amendment. As a result, the proposed regulations would be considered by the appropriate committee not only of the House of Commons but also of the Senate. This is the first point I want to address and one I find completely absurd.
Having the appropriate committee of the House take the time to examine the bill and the regulations is justifiable. But, in my opinion, having a Senate committee duplicate the work of the House is completely absurd. It is appropriate for the House and its committees to intervene in a debate on proposed legislation. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois cannot support the Senate's amendment.
Yesterday, my colleague from Peterborough spoke on this bill, which concerns the Quarantine Act. Even if this bill is limited solely to human beings, he drew a comparison between this bill and what happened during the mad cow crisis.
Over the past century, travel has undergone such an enormous and rapid evolution that the spread of communicable diseases is a constant threat. Insofar as possible, this bill seeks to rectify this situation through the imposition of quarantines and other measures to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the introduction of communicable diseases into Quebec and Canada.
I would not call this is a pipe dream, although it is extremely difficult to control such diseases, even with the proposed measures. At best, it is almost a pipe dream.
I want to give the very concrete example of invasive alien species. Over the past 25 or 30 years, we have seen our waterways invaded by numerous alien species, which are destroying our environment and our resources. Attempts to control such invasive alien species have been unsuccessful.
Now, we have before us a bill that seeks to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases so as to prevent their spread among the general public.
I listened to the question put by my colleague from Laval. I think she is absolutely right. Of course a bill has to be passed. However, as a developed country, we would have to invest more in public health and hygiene in developing countries where there is great potential for communicable diseases to originate and develop. As my colleague for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord says, an effort has to be made initially to solve the problem at the source. And so investment in public health is needed.
Last night, I watched a report on Médecins sans frontières, or Doctors Without Borders, and its work in a central African country. This organization has almost replaced the institutions that should be supported by the government. That is exactly what these people were saying. Extremely dangerous situations are allowed to develop. The problem of AIDS in Africa, for example, exemplifies this eloquently.
In the early 1970s, this previously unknown disease was discovered to be spreading like wildfire around the world, because no one knew how to predict or prevent its virulent spread. Today, in some countries of Africa, over 50% of the population is infected with the AIDS virus, and a major catastrophe is brewing.
Apparently, other diseases are becoming more common with the overuse of antibiotics. The effect, especially in developed northern countries, is that people's immune systems become much more sensitive and therefore more vulnerable to diseases of this type. Pandemics can spread very quickly in our part of the world.
We support the bill in principle, and of course the establishment of protective measures. However, they must be taken with all of the provinces, which are responsible for health care and social services. This is extremely important.
Systems have to be linked in order to have interventions coordinated and provincial jurisdictions respected. Each province is responsible for its health care system. Therefore they must all be involved in coordinating the whole—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his speech. There are 13 minutes remaining for him to finish his remarks after oral question period, or when the bill comes before the House once again.
We will now move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Ottawa South.

Statements By Members
Canadian Association of Research LibrariesMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to offer congratulations to Ms. Leslie Weir of the University of Ottawa. Ms. Weir has been the chief librarian at the University of Ottawa since 2003. She is widely admired in the profession as an innovator in providing electronic information to the teaching and research community that the University of Ottawa serves.
In April of this year Ms. Weir was elected vice-president and president-elect of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries. She will serve as president from 2007 to 2009. This association is the leadership organization of Canadian research librarianship. Its members are the 27 major academic research libraries across Canada, Library and Archives Canada, the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, and the Library of Parliament.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating Leslie Weir for the considerable honour of her election as president of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries.
Samuel Ian SerightMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to reflect on the life of one of my fine constituents who recently passed away after a life well lived.
Mr. Samuel Ian Seright was a man who lived to set an example for all of us. He cared a great deal for his community, his province and his country. He was often referred to as the unofficial mayor of Calgary East.
I had the privilege of presenting Ian with the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal not long ago, a small reward for his countless years of service to others. Ian loved life and enjoyed the simple things. Ian took pride in attending community events even after his wife died. Ian did not just stand by and watch his community change; he celebrated the change and embraced new people.
I remember Ian saying in response to the growing demographic change in his community, “It changed, but all of us here mix really well. It's the spirit of the area”.
We will miss him but can take a great lesson from his life.
New Horizons for SeniorsMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I was pleased to join with my colleague, the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers in announcing additional funding for seniors programs under the New Horizons for Seniors program.
Two community service agencies within my riding of Davenport received funding under this excellent program. Both St. Christopher House and the Working Women Community Centre were recipients of funding under new horizons. Once again the Government of Canada has demonstrated its strong commitment to seniors across Canada.
I congratulate both St. Christopher House and the Working Women Community Centre for their successful grant applications and for the outstanding work they do within the community of Davenport each and every day.
CyclingMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud that the first international BMX race in Quebec will be held in Crabtree on July 9 and 10.
The decision by the International Cycling Union to give the Crabtree organizing committee its approval is historic and marks Quebec's entry into the international scene in this discipline.
Crabtree being selected to host this event is a sign of recognition of the quality shown in the past by its organizers, and will strongly encourage the development of this discipline in Quebec. With the introduction of BMX as an official discipline at the 2008 Olympic Games, the arrival of an international race in Quebec in 2005 is timely.
I want to congratulate the local organizers, Nathalie Houle, president, Dylan Vanier, general manager, and Mélanie Desrochers, four-time Canadian champion and Crabtree resident, as well as Louis Barbeau, general manager of the Fédération québécoise des sports cyclistes for this major achievement.
HealthMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we can do to ensure a sustainable public health system for future generations is to keep Canadians healthier.
The hon. Minister of State for Public Health has launched a series of consultations across the country with citizens and experts from the provinces and territories to help develop national public health goals.
On Monday, May 9 I will be holding a public health forum in my constituency of Ottawa West—Nepean with the hon. Minister of State for Public Health as our keynote speaker.
I invite all the constituents of Ottawa West—Nepean to attend on Monday night to give the minister and myself their ideas on how we can keep Canadians healthier. I encourage all members of Parliament to do the same.
Employment InsuranceMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, is it genuine concern or another example of the tail wagging the dog?
Shortly after the announcement of the Conservative Party subcommittee plan for a comprehensive wage earner protection fund to operate through the EI program, the Minister of Labour, with all the bluster he could muster, announced that he had an immediate announcement. What was the announcement and how immediate? It was the government's intention to move quickly on its intention to introduce a package for a worker protection fund. I would not bet on it.
It was a knee-jerk reaction no doubt, but more like the tail wagging the dog. What was the real reason for the minister's sudden burst of social consciousness? The NDP-Liberal budget amendment which was agreed to by a minority government. The government, under the duress of a non-confidence motion, added a clause saying that $100 million would be invested for the protection of workers in the event of a bankruptcy.
All of a sudden the minister's focus has sharpened. The problem has been here for years, just as the minister has been since 1988, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry on small business in 2003 and now as labour minister. During these years over $45 billion collected from employers and employees have gone to general revenue and now the minister wants to give back less than a quarter of 1%, a mere pittance. How--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
Constitution of PolandHon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Polish-Canadian constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, who on May 3 celebrated the Polish constitution of 1791, the oldest written constitution in Europe and the second oldest in the world. That event unites Polish communities throughout Canada and the world in their proud tradition of defending democracy and civil freedoms, not only in their home country but also in their adopted countries.
May 3 was a day to reflect upon and celebrate the heritage and ideals of humanitarianism, tolerance and democracy. The constitution of May 3, 1791 was the instrument that gave rise to parliamentary supremacy. It also gave Polish citizens new-found access to parliament. Constitution Day is a proud heritage for Canadians of Polish descent and a confirmation of the basic values and freedoms of our own society.
I am proud to offer my best wishes for this very memorable anniversary.
Dictée LavalloiseMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past 20 years, Laval, Quebec, and Laval-en-Mayenne, France, have been twin cities. The Association Québec-France in Laval oversees this twinning.
In March, the association held its 10th Dictée lavalloise, which is one of the activities marking the international week of La Francophonie and Francofête.
I had the pleasure of participating in this dictation that is held simultaneously in both cities. This year's text was written by Jacques Dremeau, a Quebec literature specialist.
The 2005 winners are Hélène Dupuis-Palomo, a participant at the primary level, Alexandra Lefebvre and Caroline Lafortune, at the secondary and cégep levels. Laurier Lapalme earned top honours for the third year in a row for handing in a text with just one mistake. I made four mistakes, myself. If you read the dictation, you would see why.
Congratulations to the winners of the 10th Dictée lavalloise.
AsthmaMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on World Asthma Day we honour the efforts by The Lung Association in Canada and organizations around the world that are striving to improve the recognition and treatment of asthma. We also continue to strengthen our determination to educate the public about the serious public health problem that the disease poses, particularly to children.
The direct or indirect medical costs associated with asthma are high. Asthma is a burden throughout much of the country and the incidence of it is high enough to make it a priority in government health initiatives.
It is estimated that asthma is the cause of 1 in 250 deaths worldwide.
In keeping with the theme for this year, “The Unmet Needs of Asthma”, the government will continue to work with organizations like The Lung Association to help Canadians suffering from asthma to better manage their condition.
By working together, we can make a difference. When you can no longer breathe, nothing else matters.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to read the following:

As Gomery testimony grows ever more sinister,More fingers point at the current Prime Minister.
Frantic and panicked, at an election he's balking,To calm himself down let the fingers do the walking.If the Prime Minister wants to rest and feel fine,He can reach out and call the corruption help line.Press one, Alain Renaud, under oath he did say,This Prime Minister talked contracts with Claude Boulay.Press two, Jean Brault, who was given no choices,To give to Liberal campaigns and bill false invoices.That, he was told, was the price he must pay,For Liberal commissions and contracts directed his way.Press three, Castelli, the PM's aide and friend,Who ensured Serge Savard got adscam bucks in the end.Press four for Kinsella, a tale of contracts peddled,To Earnscliffe only because this Prime Minister meddled.Press five for Gagliano, or six for Guité,Or if the Prime Minister really wants adscam to go away,Press seven and Canada's cavalry will save the day.A Conservative government will make every Liberal adscammer pay.

The EnvironmentMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 22, international Earth Day, I, along with many children, men and women and elders of Iqaluit were out on the sea ice to celebrate Arctic wisdom. We were joined by many visitors to the capital of our territory, including American friends.
In the gusty winds and a temperature of minus 20, we produced a human aerial art image showcasing the devastating impact of global warming on Arctic ice to bring further awareness and action to the serious problem of climate change in the Arctic and the people who live there. The caption was “Arctic Warning Naalagit” which means “listen”. This event was televised internationally.
Also out on the sea ice with me was Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who that week had been named as a Global Civil Society Champion of the Earth by the United Nations. She had also just received the prestigious Norwegian Sophie Award for her outstanding environmental work in attracting international recognition to the devastating impact global warming has--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
VE DayBill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, this weekend we mark the 60th anniversary of the victory in Europe.
I am honoured to rise to pay tribute to the brave veterans who fought in World War II, from whose service and sacrifice we still benefit today. We remember their courage and their great contribution to our country.
In the past week the Netherlands has again been host to moving ceremonies acknowledging their gratitude to our veterans.
I join with the veterans, their families and all Canadians to honour the thousands who defended our freedoms, and their fallen comrades, as we commemorate this significant anniversary.
I want to pay particular tribute to the veterans in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas and to those from the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 148.
A heartfelt thank you to all our veterans.
OntarioMs. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Ontario taxpayers fork over billions of dollars each year and are wondering where their services have gone.
Health care and transportation services have suffered as a result of funding cuts by the Liberal Prime Minister. People are wasting hundreds of hours a year in lost productivity sitting in their cars on clogged highways because the Liberal government has not kept its promise to transfer the gas tax to municipalities for essential transit services and roads.
The Prime Minister is meeting Ontario's premier tomorrow. I call on the Prime Minister to fix the growing gap between what Ontarians pay in taxes and what they actually get back in services.
The people of Ontario are proud of the role they play in helping to build a strong Canada. It is high time the Liberal government reinvested money back into the economic engine of Canada. Give the people of Ontario their services back. Anything less is simply not acceptable.
Night LightingMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House about an original and forward-thinking project in my riding, specifically in Scotstown, which has a population of 650 and an annual budget of barely $600,000.
Shortly before the holidays, and thanks to the support of a business specializing in this field, the municipality tabled its lighting plan. This plan is an innovative model for outdoor night lighting in a rural region.
ASTROLab in Mont Mégantic and the municipality joined forces to reduce light pollution at night. As a result, this region boasts one of the largest sections of star-filled night sky in the world.
I want to pay tribute to Chantal Ouellet, the mayor, and her municipal council for their daring imagination. I also salute the taxpayers who agreed to invest in the 21st century. Bravo to all concerned.
VE DayMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are three important occasions being marked this coming Sunday, May 8.
It is the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. VE Day ended a fierce and bloody battle that lasted almost six years. One million young Canadians donned uniforms and went off to help deliver Europe from the tyranny of the Nazis`45,000 never came home.
It is also Mother's Day. I would like to wish every mother, and especially those of our military, a very happy Mother's Day.
On Sunday the doors of the new Canadian War Museum will open for the first time to the public. It is an impressive building brimming with artifacts of our proud military heritage.
Many thousand veterans will be there for the opening and to commemorate VE Day. On behalf of a grateful nation, I would like to say to all of them, thank you.
The BudgetMr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the recent past the Conservative leader claimed his caucus would consult Canadians on whether or not to force an early election. Before they had a chance to report to him, the Globe and Mail reported that the Leader of the Opposition said, “It would be very difficult to get the budget passed before the introduction of the non-confidence motion”. It sounds as though he had already decided what he would do long before the sham consultation began.
Then this week with his own MPs expressing grave concerns about forcing Canadians to the polls before Parliament passes the budget, the Leader of the Opposition brushed away their concerns and declared the caucus unanimous. Their leader is not only ignoring the views of Canadians, he is muzzling those of his caucus as well.
Budget 2005 commits considerable new funding for national defence, the environment and health care, as well as for children and seniors. On this side of the House we are focused on making Parliament work and getting things done for Canadians by passing the budget. This is the right thing to do.

Oral Question Period
FinanceHon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday you ruled on my party's motion that this government should resign. You said that it was in order if it was brought before the House. Incredibly, the government House leader has indicated that even if it is passed, his government is prepared to ignore the will of the House.
I should not have to remind this House that the democratic traditions of this country are not some sort of gift from the Liberal Party. Will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to indicate his respect for the decisions of the House of Commons and repudiate the comments of the government House leader?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find very interesting here is that of course last fall the official opposition was arguing quite strenuously for a narrow definition of confidence. Now, all of a sudden, in spite of what we appear to find in rules of procedure and other places, they are arguing for a broad definition of confidence. I think this only tells us more about the politically opportunistic nature of the official opposition.
Sponsorship ProgramRob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous.
A year ago the Prime Minister said, “One thing I can promise you is that I'm going to change the way the citizens feel about their government”. He will get no argument from me on that one, that is for sure.
Yesterday we heard the sworn testimony of former party director Michel Béliveau, who sent tens of thousands of dollars of cash into non-Liberal ridings in an attempt to fix the results of the 1997 election.
The Prime Minister said he does not want any dirty money. Why does he not start by sitting down with the members who benefited from that dirty money and get that money back to the taxpayers of this country?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again they are commenting selectively on specific testimony and failing to provide Canadians with the whole truth. The fact is that Mr. Béliveau also insisted that he acted alone. He said that he never informed Liberal officials. He said, “It was me and no one else”.
Let me be clear. We as Liberals and all Canadians want to see any guilty punished. We want to see the truth for Canadians, and that is why we support Justice Gomery, but we will defend the reputations of tens of thousands of activists in our party and all political parties across Canada.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is not selected testimony. All the testimony of the last year has shown Canadians beyond a doubt that this whole mess was an attempt for the members of the Liberal Party to line their pockets and fix the democratic process.
Why does the Prime Minister not apologize to all those honest Canadians who participated in the democratic process and abided by all the rules and admit once and for all that this whole mess had nothing to do with Canada but everything to do with Liberals helping themselves?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this is what Justice Gomery said yesterday:

--there is nothing dishonourable about working in an election. Unfortunately, the sponsorship issue has made a lot of people's reputations doubtful for no reason. People who work in elections are not bad people. In fact, they are good people. They are participating in the democratic process.

Justice Gomery is right. While we want to see the guilty punished, Canadians do not want to see the reputations of thousands of political activists in all political parties smeared by Conservative and separatist bickering.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was more sworn evidence that the Liberals bought elections with illegal cash. Money was skimmed from the pockets of honest, hard-working Canadians and used to corrupt our once proud democracy.
Vote buying is now ingrained in the Liberal culture, as we see the government's daily backroom deals costing billions. Is it not true that the elastic Liberal budget is just another dishonest ploy to cling to power?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Government of Canada is in very strong shape. I am very pleased to tell the House that since we balanced the books for the first time in 1997, after 27 years of deficit financing, we have in fact risen to the very top of the G-7 in terms of growth rates in standard of living, job creation and employment, and debt reduction.
We are the only country in all of the G-7 that in fact has a balanced budget, has had one for the last seven years and will have one for the next five in the fiscal framework. This is not an elastic budget. It is a very strong budget.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, these are people who cannot be believed because of evidence from other Liberals.
Now the Liberals know that they no longer have a legitimate budget. It has disintegrated into a sting operation, putting some showy lures in the shop window to hide the dangerous dishonesty within.
Is it not true--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: We will move on to the next question.
The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the testimony given by Michel Béliveau, the former president of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, we learn that the meter is still ticking and that the amount of dirty, illegal Liberal money used for election purposes has now reached over $2 million.
Given the mounting revelations, what is the government waiting for to create this trust fund, which the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of on April 19?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the party has been clear: if it has received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse taxpayers. However, this cannot be done until all the facts are known. Therefore, we must wait for Justice Gomery's report.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, with that kind of attitude, the Liberals will lose their confidence vote on May 18.
Michel Béliveau has said that he obtained, at the very least, $300,000 in dirty money from Jacques Corriveau and another $121,000 from Alain Renaud. This money was used for partisan purposes in complete violation of the Canada Elections Act. And the meter is still ticking.
Does the government intend to respect the will of the House and immediately create a trust fund for the dirty sponsorship funds?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, we have been absolutely clear that if any money has flowed to the Liberal Party inappropriately, that money will be paid back in full.
In addition to that, we have been absolutely clear that if anyone is found to have done anything wrong in this situation, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and take full responsibility for their wrongdoing. Let me be absolutely clear about where we stand on that issue.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Michel Béliveau added that Jacques Corriveau was not the only source of secret funding from the Liberal Party of Canada. In 1997, Alain Renaud also transferred $50,000 through Groupaction to the Liberal Party. As we can see, the meter is still ticking.
Does the government not think that it should pay particular attention to these admissions from its own ranks and that it is time to put all this dirty, illegal Liberal money into a trust fund?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, there have also been allegations that the Parti Québécois received this kind of inappropriate funding. The fact is that at the Gomery inquiry there have been allegations against the Conservative Party, there have been allegations against the Parti Québécois and the separatist parties, and yes, there have been allegations against the Liberal Party.
But it is only this Liberal Prime Minister who is getting to the bottom of this issue, because the separatists and the Conservatives are denying any responsibility for this kind of thing within their own parties. We are getting to the bottom of this issue because we are standing with Canadians, who want the truth.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, with such an attitude, it is clear the Liberals will lose the confidence vote on May 18.
That is not all. We learn from Michel Béliveau's testimony that another $63,500 was received in 1998 from Alain Renaud's private company, in addition to $8,000 received in cash.
Does the government not think it is high time to deposit all this dirty money into a trust fund?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has been clear, the government has been clear and the party has been clear that any funds received inappropriately will be returned to the Canadian taxpayers.
Let us remember that there is only one leader in this House who is standing up for justice, who is willing to put country before party, who is willing to put principle before partisan strategy and do the right thing and get to the truth, and that is our Prime Minister, who stands by Justice Gomery and with Canadians.
Democratic ReformHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in Britain, 63% of the citizens voted against the Labour government, yet today, with only 3% more votes than the Conservative Party, Mr. Blair remains in government with a substantial majority.
Given that our electoral system is the same as the British, with the same pre-democratic roots and unfair results, does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that we should have serious democratic electoral reform now?
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 House of Commons, as in the Speech from the Throne, last fall unanimously asked that a committee of Parliament look at the way that Canadians can be engaged in the process of democratic reform, including electoral reform. That committee is preparing its report. The government will certainly act on the report once it has been received, as per the unanimous wish of this House.
Ed Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that his members on the committee have been dragging their feet throughout this session of Parliament.
Since this reform process could be launched and completed by the end of this calendar year, will he take steps to discuss with his members on that committee the ensuring of a speeding up of the process so that here in Canada we will have electoral reform by the end of this calendar year?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the member and I have had discussions on this. He knows that the government is serious in trying to deal with democratic reform, including electoral reform.
The government does not dictate to a committee what it will do, especially in this instance when it is the opposition that has the majority on that committee. Once the report is given to the government, we will follow the rules and take it under advisement and act according to the rules of this House.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, top Liberal Party officials testified at the Gomery inquiry. Canadians have heard that $8,000 in dirty money went to pay off campaign workers in the riding of the former minister of heritage, now the Prime Minister's principal secretary, Hélène Scherrer. With the scandal now embedded right in the Prime Minister's Office, when was the Prime Minister informed of this?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear about this so nobody misunderstands the situation here. Madam Scherrer had absolutely no knowledge of the allegation that is being made in relation to her riding.
We have made it plain that if in fact funds were inappropriately used, given to the Liberal Party in any form, those funds will be returned.
I want to underscore the fact that Madam Scherrer had absolutely no knowledge of any transactions such as alleged.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these are Liberal admissions, not allegations. This is sworn testimony. Liberal organizer Michel Béliveau has now confirmed previous testimony of paper bags stuffed with money--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake has the floor to ask a question. I am sure he appreciates the assistance, but perhaps we could hear the question.
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, Liberal organizer Michel Béliveau has now confirmed previous testimony of paper bags stuffed with money. Mr. Béliveau confirmed that $8,000 in dirty money was used to pay election expenses for defeated heritage minister Hélène Scherrer, who is now the Prime Minister's principal secretary in the PMO.
When will the Prime Minister order Ms. Scherrer to repay these funds to taxpayers, as other Liberals have volunteered to do?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, we already know what the Conservatives say about some testimony. In fact, this is what they said about Chuck Guité's testimony a few months ago. The member for Calgary Southeast said that the only person who believes Chuck Guité is Chuck Guité and his testimony is “not credible”.
The fact is that they will use selectively specific testimony to support their narrow partisan arguments, but today's Globe and Mail said in its editorial:

There has been no persuasive testimony that Mr. Martin was involved in any of the alleged chicanery...Mr. Tremblay is in no position to confirm or deny; he died last fall. And it is difficult to imagine a more--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, talk about lacking credibility. The code of silence around dirty sponsorship moneys for Liberal candidates in Quebec is broken. With the slug's trail leading right to the PMO, how much does the Prime Minister know and how many members across the way have been told to shut up?
Yesterday the director of the party's Quebec wing testified he received $300,000 in brown envelopes from a former Liberal organizer. He himself bagged $100,000 in an envelope stuffed with hundreds and twenties at the party's Montreal headquarters.
When will the ridings, which ended up receiving that dirty money--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to familiarize himself with the entire testimony, he would also see that Mr. Béliveau said that he “never, never told other Liberal officials”. He said that “he acted alone”.
It is clear that those members will take one individual's testimony, even when it is contradicted by other testimony, and use it for their own narrow partisan purposes. As Canadians see this kind of activity on the floor of the House, it makes them even more secure in their knowledge that Justice Gomery is doing the right thing and that is why they support his work.
Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned from Liberal organizer Michel Béliveau that he received $300,000 from Jacques Corriveau to fund Liberal campaigns in the 1997 election. These politicos were disgracefully trading taxpayers' cash stuffed in envelopes for Liberal Party gain. At least five of the Prime Minister's government members were elected in ridings that may have received the dirty money, $60,000 per riding.
When will the Prime Minister pay back to the Canadian taxpayers the money his party has stolen?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the opposition's smear of the day campaign. Yesterday it was Chuck Guité, the patron saint of the opposition. Today it is Mr. Béliveau.
Lorne Gunter in today's Edmonton Journal said this about Chuck Guité:

Guite is far from a credible witness and his assertion against Martin is hardly a “smoking gun.”...Such a serial dissembler hardly makes a credible witness.

Lorne Gunter is not exactly a friend of the Liberal Party of Canada. I would urge hon. members opposite to at least listen to their buddy Lorne Gunter on this one.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the joke has gone on long enough. The Liberal meter shows over $2 million in tainted money going into Liberal Party coffers, money that was used in contravention of the Canada Elections Act. Given all this inappropriate activity, it is time the money were put somewhere safe.
Why is the government not putting into a trust fund the over $2 million identified to date by all of the witnesses as being used to swell the slush fund of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this is no joke, it is very serious. However, these are allegations and not facts. The facts will not be revealed until Justice Gomery releases his report.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, clearly, with this kind of attitude, the Liberals will lose the vote of confidence on May 18. The government has to recognize that, despite its claims, this business is not limited to a few individuals. Rather, there is talk of an organized network, which dropped over $2 million into the Liberal Party's secret fund.
Why is the government not assuming its responsibilities and putting it all in a trust, as the House ordered it to do in April?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member seems unusually voluble this morning. I would hope there would be a little self-control.
Perhaps the hon. member for Drummond could help her colleague keep quiet.
The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services to answer a question.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, a number of other allegations are being made. It is being alleged, for example, that the Parti Québécois received inappropriate funds. Does the Bloc agree with this testimony? If not, perhaps we should wait for Justice Gomery's report. At the moment, it is utter hogwash.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Liberal Party of Canada greed knows no bounds.
Following the revelations of Messrs. Brault, Béliveau and Corbeil, we learn that Serge Gosselin did partisan work at the 2000 Liberal convention and that tainted money from sponsorships was apparently used to pay for these services. No invoice at all was sent to the Liberal Party for the work
What more does the government need in order to set up a trust fund and begin putting dirty sponsorship money into it?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, there have been allegations before Justice Gomery of malfeasance within the separatist organization in Quebec, within the Conservative Party before the Liberal government was formed and of course within the Liberal Party.
There is one party and only one leader, and that is our Liberal Prime Minister who has had the guts to confront this issue head on, to do the right thing, to get to the bottom of this issue. I would urge similar courage over there. Canadians want us to change the culture of governance in Canada and to do the right thing. Only the Liberal Party and the Liberal Prime Minister have the guts to do it.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, with statements like those, the Liberal Party will lose the vote of confidence on May 18.
Not only did Gosselin write political tracts for the Liberal Party of Canada, he also wrote a biography of Alfonso Gagliano, which was presented at an evening gathering at Joe Morselli's buffet, presided over by none other than Mr. Partisan Activities himself, the current Minister of Transport.
Does the government understand that there is no option now but to establish a trust fund?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, once again they are talking about unproven, unsubstantiated allegations. They are not talking about the facts. To have the facts, we have to wait for the Gomery report.
However, it is very clear that the separatists do not want Canadians to have the facts before an election. The separatists want to have an election based on wild accusations and allegations. What is good for the separatists is rarely good for Canada and the Conservatives ought to remember that. We are standing up for the truth. We are standing up for Canadians. We are giving Canadians the respect they deserve and the truth they deserve.
Veterans AffairsBetty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is dishonouring the legacy of our veterans by appealing a court ruling in favour of two World War II veterans who were denied retroactive prisoner of war compensation.
Both Norman Reid and Al Trotter are distinguished by their service and bravery.
Why does the Prime MInister continue to waste taxpayer money on legal action opposing the Federal Court ruling instead of honouring Canada's obligation to those veterans?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we stand in the House on the 60th anniversary of VE Day and especially these times of recognition of the bravery of the men and women who served this country and the world, I cannot get into the individual discussion of particular files.
Let me just assure the member when the Minister of Veterans Affairs returns from doing Canada's business with regard to the recognition of those brave men and women, that I will bring it to her attention.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I have brought it to her attention and I have no resolution.
An 81-year-old widow in Winnipeg is being denied her husband's chemical testing compensation. Veterans Affairs will not give her the $24,000 compensation package because her husband of almost 50 years died without a will. No will, no money.
It seems that any excuse will do when it comes to our veterans. Why would the minister not pay that war widow and the many others who cared for these men all of their lives?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would believe that this government is recognizing veterans by saying that this is the year of the veteran. We have introduced a new veterans rights program. We are doing things proactively. We want to ensure that those veterans and their families get everything to which they are entitled. As a government, we are determined to work with those families and veterans.
AirportsMr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, because of Liberal dithering, airports across the country have seen their rents hiked to record levels. The finance minister has known for years that the rent formula is unfair. His delays are costing travellers millions. Taxpayers already paid to build the airports. Now they are being gouged by having to pay exorbitant rents.
The Regina airport has already lost Air Canada's service and will see its rent soar to over half a million dollars next year.
When will the member for Wascana stop the gouging, or maybe I should ask the new NDP finance minister instead?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the nature of the question is rather ludicrous. The hon. gentleman knows there is no scheduled increase in rental arrangements at any airport in Canada until next January 1, that is, January 1, 2006.
The Minister of Transport and I have been working very hard on the file and we expect to have an announcement to make within the next few days.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reality is they have had years to deal with this. The recent federal budget completely ignored airports across the country by not providing any relief from their exorbitant rents.
For example, the Edmonton airport next year will see its rent soar by 447% to $18 million. These rents are simply taxes on an industry that is struggling to regain its footing and taxes on travellers.
Why have the finance minister and transport minister not acted to help this industry relieve its tax burden and help Canadian travellers by reducing the taxes?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that both the Minister of Transport and I have met with virtually all airport authorities across the country, including the airport authority in Edmonton. We have been working with them toward a constructive solution.
As I have indicated, we believe that the formula presently in place, which has existed for the last 12 or 15 years, is inequitable. It needs to be fixed. There has to be a consistent formula from airport to airport to airport. The rental charges need to come down compared to the existing formula, and that will happen.
Human Resources and Skills DevelopmentMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Many community organizations, including some in my riding of Davenport, have raised concerns about the minister's call for proposal process. They indicate that it disregards the quality of service already in place. It creates instability for community service agencies as well as putting them at considerable disadvantage.
Could the minister indicate what she is trying to do to address these concerns?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, transparency and value for money are the objectives for the call for proposal process. Let me say very clearly that the volunteer sector accepts those principles. The problem was and is with the implementation of the process.
We all know that right now the standing committee on human resources is looking at the issue. It is doing valuable work. It is working on the report and I will look for the recommendations.
More than that, we have already improved the process. I met with volunteer sector members. We hope we will be able to do something soon.
HousingMrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are at least 250,000 Canadian homes contaminated with Zonolite insulation. This deadly substance contains asbestos which has been proven to be deadly to those exposed to it.
The government used Zonolite in military bases and in first nations communities. The federal government also subsidized its use under CHIP, leading thousands of Canadians to use it in their attics and walls.
Will the minister commit today to a removal program which includes the full disclosure of Zonolite in all home sales under CMHC mortgages?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the House before and to many of the members who have raised the issue, one needs to be very careful with the language that we want.
One is that it is not a health hazard if left undisturbed. We have and will continue to tell people that if they are looking at renovating their own homes, they ought to talk to professionals before they touch anything to ensure there is no hazard.
We continue to provide the information to all Canadians through our website and through other organizations to ensure that they seek professional advice.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, the minister should feel great shame for that kind of response to Canadians. The Liberals are once again ignoring a growing health crisis. It is only a matter of time before we see more Zonolite induced cancers.
Why is the government once again risking the health and lives of Canadians? Has it not learned anything from the tainted blood scandal?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, again it is the government's view and my view that we want to ensure, and always have, the safety of people. We want to ensure that their homes are as safe and healthy as they possibly can be.
We have indicated to anyone, through websites and information, that if they are doing any renovations, they should call on the professionals who should know what they are doing. Therefore, we would advise that is what Canadians should do as opposed to setting off the alarm bells, as the hon. member would do. To suggest that 250,000 people are at health risk is irresponsible.
FisheriesMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows that there is a major dispute going on in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to the crab fishery. This is strictly a provincial problem.
Will the minister ensure that his officials have up to date data in relation to the condition of the stock and the soft shell problem, so that he can adjust the dates to ensure that all those affected can maximize any benefits from a change in the season?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I would simply say that he is working on that very question today. I know he has a deep interest in this issue. He wants to do what he can to ensure that the people making these decisions have all the information they need. I have every confidence that he will.
Natural ResourcesMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the transparent attempt by the Liberals to buy votes around the country is spinning out of control. This week the Prime Minister confirmed that he gave the political minister for New Brunswick instructions to deliver a one-off deal for the province of New Brunswick to offset the Atlantic accord.
Now we find that the minister is backtracking and that he had not even consulted the finance minister on what political operatives were saying was another billion dollar deal. No details were given on the plan to spend money that the finance minister claims we do not have.
Will the minister admit that this has nothing to do with New Brunswick's needs and everything to do with an upcoming election?
Ralph Goodale: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The premier of New Brunswick was here two or three weeks ago. He had a very good conversation with the Prime Minister about certain issues with respect to New Brunswick. Those issues were not yet sufficiently advanced to be responded to.
The Prime Minister, quite logically, has asked ministers in his government, including the minister who represents the province of New Brunswick, to pursue these issues and to see if we can arrive at a successful conclusion.
LabourMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a major scam is being played out by a Liberal-NDP partnership in Manitoba. The government is trampling on the rights of individuals working on the expansion of the Red River floodway. Manitoba construction workers are being forced to pay $2.91 per hour per day in union dues even though they are not unionized. This adds millions of dollars to the union coffers with no benefit to the project or to the taxpayer.
When the President of the Treasury Board was approached by the Manitoba construction companies for assistance, why did he refuse to act?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case in the House, the allegations of the member opposite are completely false. I was indeed approached by the members of the construction union and they asked that a mediator be appointed.
I worked with the premier and a mediator was appointed. An agreement was arrived at that is believed to be fair on behalf of everyone and allows us to get on with the work of building this important resource. Some members have refused to abide by the very agreement that they were a part of.
Government ContractsMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act says:

No person who is a member of the Senate shall, directly or indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to or be concerned in any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.

As CEO and a $30 million shareholder in a company that has a $100 million contract with the government, Liberal Senator Massicotte is breaking the law. Why will the Prime Minister not ask him--
The Speaker: I have grave reservations about that question. First of all, the hon. member knows he cannot speak disrespectfully of the other place, and suggesting that some other member of Parliament, admittedly of the other House, has broken the law in my view is out of order.
The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Sponsorship ProgramMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to recapitulate a bit: Liberal Party volunteers were paid with the dirty sponsorship money; the Liberal Party violated electoral legislation; the Liberal Party gave contracts to agencies that, in return, fattened the coffers of the Liberal Party. This is the Liberal Party's dirty illegal money scandal.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to keep his word, fulfill his promise and put the Liberal Party's dirty money into a trust fund today?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, there have also been allegations that the Parti Québécois, the provincial sister party of the separatists, has received funds inappropriately and that the receipt of those funds helped influence the direction of contracts to companies as a result.
Because of those allegations, I would urge that we not consider those allegations as fact and in fairness to the Parti Québécois, the separatists and all people who are implicated unfairly by some of these allegations, that we wait for the Gomery report. That would be the right thing to do.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, with such an attitude, the Liberals will lose their confidence vote on May 18.
We have learned that a Liberal Party of Canada supporter, a certain Thalie Tremblay, videotaped spots promoting Liberal MPs on community television. Contrary to what you might expect, she was not paid by the Liberal Party of Canada, but rather by Public Works and Government Services Canada, with Groupaction acting as the intermediary.
Is this not one more example of dirty, illegal, Liberal money—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, once again, the party has been clear: if it has received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.
What is also clear is that there have been allegations against the Parti Québécois and it has not been really as forthright as the Prime Minister.
There should be an inquiry into the Parti Québécois. There should be an inquiry into the activities of the separatists. If the Bloc is interested in the truth, it should be supporting the Prime Minister and doing the same thing in its own house.
Foreign AffairsMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, things are never as they seem with the government. As we heard this morning, scandal permeates it.
We have heard this week that Maurice Strong, the Prime Minister's financial benefactor and mentor, has been tied to the oil for food scandal, but he is not the only one. The Canadian Wheat Board is a government agency. It illegally arranged sales to the same program through one of its accredited exporters and 30% of the value of that sale disappeared.
Why did the government allow its agencies to participate illegally in this oil for food debacle?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is ready to answer with regard to the Wheat Board and the other allegations. It seems the Conservatives have a hard time focusing their minds. I do not exactly know what is going on with the research bureau on that side of the House.
In the case of the oil for food program, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that this is a matter for the United Nations. It is being investigated at this very time and we will of course watch to see exactly what the inquiry will do. The opposition seems to be quite keen to jump on any kind of allegation, even an international one, if it can--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this directly affects Canadians because 30% of the value of the contract disappeared through shipping delays and what are referred to as transfers to other buyers, whatever they are. That sounds like even more corruption. Huge losses on corrupt contracts would be a real surprise around here.
How did the Wheat Board and its exporters manage to lose $8 million out of a $23 million illegal deal with Iraq?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, if he is alleging that the farmer-led board of the Canadian Wheat Board has engaged in corrupt practices, he might want to step outside of the chamber and make that claim so it can respond appropriately.
HealthHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Health said, “Canada cannot be the drugstore for the United States”.
Now that the United States Congress is threatening to allow re-imports of pharmaceutical products from Canada back to the U.S., thereby threatening our supply and making us into a drugstore, what will the government do to stop this?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canada cannot be the drugstore for the United States of America, particularly with respect to the controlled prices for domestic purposes. We have developed all of the options. There has been a comprehensive analysis of all of the options. I will be taking those options to cabinet in the very near future, so that we can move on these things.
JusticeMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as revealed in a recent W-Five program, there are 15,000 Canadians serving conditional sentences. When W-Five asked to speak about house arrest with the justice minister, it was told it was a matter that was under study. What is new? And that he was too busy with other issues like same sex marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana.
Since these serious crimes, like killing and raping, do not warrant jail time, has jail time simply become unfashionable for the Liberal government?
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, since conditional sentences were introduced in 1996, they have become a very important part of our sentencing regime. There are examples that get media attention that maybe do not get fully reported and in fact give conditional sentences a bad name. However, they are a vital part of our sentencing. We are looking at those areas which have caused concern to see if there should be improvements made.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the victims in this country have already given it a bad name. Since so many Liberals might be going to jail in the near future, is house arrest in order for them? Or will they actually go to jail for stealing Canadian money?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, with respect to conditional sentences, I just mentioned that they are a vital part of our sentencing regime. At the recent federal, provincial and territorial first ministers meeting with justice ministers, this matter was discussed. They have set up a special committee and will be reporting back to this House in June.
Sponsorship ProgramJean-Yves Roy: Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil, the former director general of the Liberal Party, said, “There is no doubt that Quebec electoral law was broken—in my opinion—was broken and even made a mockery of. It is clear that money played a significant role although not a major role in the referendum. If it had not been for these secret resources, I am not sure they would have won the referendum”.
Will the Prime Minister admit, in light of the evidence, that the dirty money was used not only in three elections, but also in the referendum and that the Liberals are getting ready to—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that if any funds were misappropriated, those funds will be returned in full. In addition, let me make it absolutely clear that if anyone broke the law, they should be punished to the full extent of that law. They must take responsibility for their wrongdoing. In fact, that is one of the reasons the Prime Minister put the Gomery commission in place, so we can find out what happened and those who did wrong can be punished.
Child CareBonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, one of the key commitments our government made to the people of Canada was to establish a national child care program that would be inclusive, universal and focus on early childhood development. Can the government update this House on the status of discussions on this issue with the province of Ontario?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member for Oakville for her hard work as a former social caucus chair. Today in fact, the Minister of Social Development is signing a historical agreement with Ontario with regard to child care. This is the third agreement after last week's Saskatchewan and Manitoba agreements.
As we promised, we are keeping our promise to Canadians to have universal, accessible, and affordable child care with quality so that people--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on a point of order.
Points of orderMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to my question, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that what is good for Canada is not good for the separatists in Quebec.
Let me be clear. This is an affront to all sovereignists in the province of Quebec who, in fact, just finished filing their income taxes on May 2. Quebec sovereignists have contributed and continue to contribute to this Canada. The Bloc Québécois has always been an example in this House and has always defended the interests of Quebeckers—
The Speaker: I recognize that the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel doubtless has a good topic of debate, but I do not think it is a point of order. Often in the House we have answers like that to similar questions. We grow accustomed to it, and a point of order is not raised on each occasion. It is, rather, a matter for debate.
The hon. member for Laval on another point of order.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services unduly insulted all Quebeckers in this House, this morning. Every day, sovereignists are insulted, and he continues, day after day, to say that the Parti Québécois received tainted money and that we should—
The Speaker: Order. When the Speaker rises, hon. members are to sit down and stop their presentation.
In my opinion, this is a matter for debate. We disagree on questions and answers during oral question period, but initiating a debate on points raised during oral question period does not constitute a point of order.

Routine Proceedings
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsRalph Goodale: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In accordance with its order of reference of February 25, 2005, the committee has considered vote 15, under the Privy Council in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, less the amount voted in interim supply, and reports the same.
Criminal CodeMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-378, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill. Under this bill, everyone who is convicted for a second time of a violent offence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, in other words, two strikes and they are out. In so doing, these criminals will never again be able to harm anyone.
Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own homes, on the street or in their communities. In short, Canadians want a country in which they are not constantly looking over their shoulders to see who is coming after them.
This bill sends a strong message to the perpetrators of violent crimes that if convicted for a second time, they will be locked away for a very long time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of two motions. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill is presenting a motion. Could she indicate to the House which one it is, please?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell also wishes to move a motion. Could he tell us which number that one is?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the motion I was proposing to debate right now is Motion No. 40.
The Speaker: We will proceed with the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
Committees of the HouseDiane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Thursday, February 17, 2005 be concurred in.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been very busy for the last month travelling across the country hearing from a variety of Canadians on issues of citizenship, family sponsorship, and settlement services. The government has been requested, urged, even begged by the standing committee to introduce a bill on citizenship to correct some of the difficulties and some of the manifest injustices in the current citizenship bill, yet the government has failed to bring in such a bill.
It was a rather historic day yesterday when a private member's bill was passed and received royal assent. For the last five or six years that private member's bill had been introduced by the Conservative Party and kept dying on the order paper as elections were called. The passage of that bill was a very positive and good occasion, as the Conservative Party was able to restore the citizenship of what I refer to as lost Canadians.
Lost Canadians are Canadians whose citizenship was stripped away unbeknownst to them in many cases because their father decided to take out citizenship in another country during a certain period of time. As a result of the father's actions, sometimes absent from the family and certainly without consultation with his Canadian children, the children lost their Canadian citizenship.
Some of these individuals actually had been born in Canada and had lived here all their lives, but when they applied for a passport to do some travelling, to their shock, horror and trauma they were told they were not Canadian citizens. Many of them banded together and formed an organization to push to have this injustice recognized and rectified.
The Liberal government blocked the move to provide justice to these people right up until the last day. It tried to amend and stall the bill. However, the opposition had the votes and we were able to hold off the government and have this injustice corrected. Many Canadians are rejoicing today because the citizenship that had been improperly stripped away from them through no choice of their own will be restored when they apply to have their citizenship recognized.
There are many problems in the immigration system which have occurred under the last decade or more of Liberal mismanagement. The largest is the problem of recognition of international credentials and experience. I would like to tell the House a story about one of my constituents which illustrates this all too well.
This is about a man from South America who has two master's degrees, one in science and one in education. He taught English as a second language for many years in South America. He speaks impeccable fluent English. He decided to seek a new life and new opportunities in Canada. When he visited the Canadian mission in his country, he was told he was exactly the kind of immigrant Canada wanted with his high education, his English fluency, his youth and ambition and young family. He was told Canada would welcome him. He and his wife sold their property and their assets in South America and travelled to Canada with their three children. They had high hopes and were looking forward to a warm welcome.
My constituent, who has two master's degrees, applied for a teaching position, which was what he had been doing for many years in South America. He was told he could not teach in Canada without a teaching certificate. He was told to go to the teachers' association to get it. He presented his transcript and his credentials to the teachers' association. He was told he would have to go back to university for at least two years to receive the Canadian equivalent of a teaching certificate.
This man, who has two master's degrees, was told that he would have to go back to university for two years. What a shock. He had no inkling of this prior to his immigrating to Canada.
A man just starting a new life in Canada with a wife, two children and no savings does not have the financial means to take two years off and pay for expensive studies in order to teach in his field. Here we have my constituent with two master's degrees, a long and distinguished history of teaching in his own country, and in order to support his family he has taken a job stocking vending machines. That is an illustration of how badly the Liberals have mismanaged this system.
As early as the first throne speech in 1994, when the Liberals took over the government, they promised with their hands over their hearts that they would do something about the problem with credentials.
Here we are today, more than a decade later, and the problem has not even been dented by the Liberals under the Liberal administration. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada has estimated that our economy loses at least $5 billion each and every year because of underemployment and unemployment of skilled newcomers to Canada.
As recently as last year, a Statistics Canada study found that recent immigrants were up to three times more likely than non-immigrants to suffer low incomes. The Statistics Canada study showed that the rate of low incomes has been rising among immigrants. This is under the Liberal watch. What a sad record for people who should be able to expect better from the Canadian government and from a country that says that we welcome skilled newcomers to Canada.
Another very difficult problem for people who come to Canada is the processing of sponsorships for family reunification. When people come to Canada they are told that the aging parents and grandparents they left behind, and other family members, will be welcome in Canada. They are told that they can apply to bring their dependent family members to Canada where they can care for them and be together. On that basis many skilled people choose Canada as their destination of choice.
We find that the Liberals have been completely dishonest with people, particularly with respect to the processing of applications to sponsor aging parents and grandparents. In fact, the Liberal government secretly stopped processing parent and grandparent applications.
What a betrayal to people who in good faith applied to have their aging parents and grandparents come to be cared for by the family here in Canada. In fact, this banning of the processing of applications not only was secret, but on the website where the government gave processing times it posted the historic processing time, even though they were no longer processing at all, rather than being honest about the fact that these applications which, if processed, would take years, if at all.
People had applied in good faith and paid money to sponsor their parents and grandparents. Sometimes this was money that was very hard to come by for struggling new families to bring their parents in and to honour them by caring for them in their old age. Yet the Liberals shut down that program without telling anyone. The government still took people's money but did not process those applications. What a shame.
Parents and grandparents emigrating from Mexico City, Santiago, Sao Paulo and Havana sometimes got in fairly quickly. However parents and grandparents emigrating from Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul and Taipei would take 10 times longer. Why under Liberal management is there this unfairness, this disparity where newcomers are not treated equally, fairly and with equity?
In some posts abroad, parents and grandparents may need to wait 15 years before receiving an immigrant visa. Were people told this at the time they made their applications? Absolutely not. What a betrayal by the Liberal government. Only recently when it got caught was there an announcement that suddenly things would change.
However they are not going to change soon. The targets for next year have already been set and the resources are not in place. In fact, since the Liberals took over in 1994, the revenue brought into the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has more than doubled due to fees and other moneys that are demanded of newcomers and yet not one penny of the new budget has gone into the department. No increase in funds to the department has meant that services have been cut back year after year. Face to face processing was eliminated. We moved to centralized call systems and case processing centres, many times not really connected with the communities and regions that were being served. Offices abroad were closed.
The number of Citizenship and Immigration Canada officers abroad were cut by 35%, nearly one-third of officers abroad at a time when we say we want to welcome and be active in bringing skilled newcomers to Canada.
The percentage of interviews has been substantially waived. All of this is under Liberal management with money going into the federal treasury from the immigration system and it is not being ploughed back into the system to serve the people who we say we want to bring to this country. What a travesty and what a shame.
The provision of settlement programs and settlement support for newcomers is also falling badly behind. There is the problem of short term and there have been changes in the funding. Many settlement service providers, who have been in the field for decades, are spending so much of their time on complex proposals rather than just getting the services to newcomers.
I think the saddest part for me is the treatment of children of newcomers. Children of newcomers have special needs. They often have no language skills because they do not come from countries where English is spoken. Many of them suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome because they come from wartorn and strife areas. There is also the clash of family norms and Canadian cultural norms which can be very difficult for children and parents to reconcile.
Problems of peer acceptance also cause some children serious social difficulty and yet the federal government has largely ignored the needs of these children and dumped the problem on municipalities and local school boards without working in a strong and good partnership to ensure children of newcomers are receiving the integration services that they require in order to succeed.
A lot of times the children of newcomers become the parent's bridge to the culture because they pick up the language more easily. The more difficulty children of newcomers have in adjusting, integrating and being accepted into the new culture in which they find themselves the more difficult it is for the entire family. It is a huge problem that is being largely ignored by the government.
We have settlement services that simply do not serve the needs appropriately and we have settlement service providers coming before the committee and pouring their hearts out about the problems that they find. They constantly complain about staff time being drained by the requirement to generate frequent and lengthy funding proposals, even those that have a proven track record over time.
Then there is the short term nature of federal funding, usually six months to a year, which makes long term planning impossible. The delays in funding are a problem. Waiting for funding to be released by the federal government, the settlement provider cannot move ahead and provide the services needed.
Also, the funding goes to the province where the immigrant first makes his or her home but often newcomers may move to a different location. That location receives nothing to provide services that are needed. There are enormous problems in the funding area.
We also know there is great dissatisfaction with the service provided by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. However I want to make it clear that this is not due to the fine civil servants who we have in the field. They are simply being starved of the resources that they need to do their job. More and more has been loaded onto their shoulders by inept policy and administration in Ottawa and the morale is sagging because of that.
As members of Parliament have found, there are enormous difficulties in managing the system. More and more frustrated newcomers or users of the immigration system are pouring into their MP's offices. MPs find that they are able to get less information about what is happening on case files and applications so they can assist constituents.
Processing times are expanding. The volume of inquiries is growing but without the resources to manage that, the call centres, which are supposed to be helpful to people, are having more problems. If callers can get through, which can takes hours or days, sometimes the information is not correct. This is a department with a system that is in complete disarray. It is a shame because it is costing Canada so much and it is costing newcomers by way of the human cost. The disintegration of this program in this department is enormous.
When I was first elected in 1993, probably 20% of my casework was immigration related and now it is at least 70%. I know from many of my colleagues in Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver where the bulk of newcomers first land, this is an even bigger caseload. It shows the ineptness of a department where the problems have to be dumped on the local MP office because the resources in the department simply are not there.
This is not a partisan issue. I know these concerns are shared by everyone in the House because I have worked with members from all parties on this file. There is an acknowledgement that it is a system under stress and strain.
The Conservative Party is looking forward to the opportunity, should the voters choose, to repair some of the difficulties in the system. We have just finished several weeks of cross country consultations with cultural groups and immigrant service providers to confirm the most pressing needs for change in the immigration system. We want to see a welcoming and well managed immigration system for Canada, one that earns the respect and confidence of newcomers and source countries for immigration, a respect that has been lost under Liberal mismanagement.
We believe there is so much that can and should be done in this important area of Canadian public policy. Immigration is a nation-building part of Canada, bringing energetic, enthusiastic and proud people from around the world to join us in building such a great nation. However we have a department that has been starved of resources and a department where policy is not honest with newcomers, such as secretly closing down the processing of parent and grandparent applications.
We have a department that is in disarray with the provision of services. We have a department where credentials is a pressing problem, with skilled newcomers taking jobs that are way out of their field, not being able to contribute to their full economic potential, many of them doctors and in the medical profession, and other skilled trades and professions, simply not able to make the contribution that they had hoped to make.
We have a real need to work on this system. I am looking forward to a Conservative government having the opportunity to do that.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I see a number of people who would like to ask questions so I will make this brief. Yesterday the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates had the pleasure of reviewing the nomination of Ms. Moya Greene as the new president and CEO of Canada Post.
The process has been laid out by Treasury Board. It includes that the board must establish a nominating committee, that there be advertisements in every major newspaper in Canada, that there be a comprehensive evaluation and that criteria be set out. Treasury Board has laid out all of these things. This is the second time we have done it. The first one was in fact for the chairman of the board of Canada Post; these are also articulated.
As I look at the fourth report I see that the basic recommendation of the committee is that the standing committees to which these appointments may relate need to do this and need to review the criteria. The existing criteria under Treasury Board say that there has to be a professional recruitment engaged in to produce all these documents so that there is the most appropriate articulation of those criteria.
Having said that, I want to ask the member whether or not the committee that recommended this had seen the Treasury Board guidelines and whether or not it felt that the thousands and thousands of appointments that would be covered by this is a reasonable thing for standing committees to do on a mandatory basis, rather than having the option to review.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, given some of the testimony out of the Gomery commission about abuse of the appointment process, I would say to the member that greater oversight is definitely in order. Members of Parliament in fact have a positive duty to ensure that our system is transparent, open and fair. I think anything that can be done should be done.
The Prime Minister, when he was running for the leadership, promised a more open appointments process. Then we found out once he got into office that he completely reversed himself. Appointments are made, they are reviewed after the fact without any real teeth, and the appointments go ahead. Even when the House voted not to accept an appointment, the appointment of Glen Murray to the environmental review board, the Prime Minister ignored the House of Commons in that appointment.
What a shame for our democracy to have that happen. I think the review process does need to be enhanced.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Calgary--Nose Hill. I think that was about as good a summation of the whole area and some of the problems and some of the challenges in that area as I have heard in quite some time. I could not help but think that in those 20 minutes she covered a lot of territory and certainly articulated for the House some of the challenges we have in this area .
One of the areas on which I am going to ask her to comment is the whole question of spousal reunification. One of the things that has been a big disappointment to me as a member of Parliament is the number of people who come in and indicate that they are trying to get their spouse, usually from the United States, into this country and they just cannot get the file processed.
I do not know whether it is a question of not enough resources. I suspect that it is. It is not enough just to have a policy; we must have the resources to back it up. I think that is what is not happening.
In my area of Hamilton and Niagara when we call on these cases, officials indicate that they are just starting to look at the applications from June of 2003. I hope this is not duplicated across the country, but I suspect that it is, and good heavens, we are not on this earth for hundreds of years. People want to get on with their lives. It is very frustrating for me as an MP when we make these inquiries and find that they have not started on those cases from almost two years ago. It is very difficult to try to explain to people.
One of the things I would hope for, however short the life of this government--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Very short.
Rob Nicholson: My colleague says “very short” and that is probably the case, but regardless of how little time there is, the government should have a look at this, get the resources and get it done.
If it takes a new government with the member for Calgary--Nose Hill involved, I know that she will pursue this and she will see that those resources are there in the next government. Let me tell members that I think it is a big problem. I wonder if the member could comment on that.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Even after a marriage has been found to be bona fide and there is no question that two people are married and have a committed and legal relationship, it can take a year or often more before a partner is allowed to join his or her husband or wife here in Canada.
And what anguish it causes Canadian spouses when their partners cannot join them in Canada. One of my constituents married a woman. It took over two years before she was able to come to Canada. It was clearly a bona fide marriage. This man haunted my doorstep. He was so very upset, enraged and anguished by the separation from his wife. He went to visit her as often as he could and actually depleted the family's savings and resources because they tried to spend as much time together as possible. Why? What is the point?
It is simply because the necessary resources are not available to deal with this situation in a compassionate and humanitarian manner. It is just no way to run a system. It causes people unnecessary pain and loss. There is no compassion. We in the Conservative Party intend to correct that very quickly.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I was at a dinner of the Forum for Young Canadians some weeks ago and sat at the same table as the member with young people from her constituency and mine. We talked about immigration. She represents a riding in a large urban centre in the city of Calgary. I represent a part of rural New Brunswick that is predominantly francophone. One of the concerns I have is how we can attract immigrants to some of the regions of the country and presumably not only to large urban centres.
She and I had a conversation that evening about this. It is of great interest to me in representing rural New Brunswick. I think of francophone immigrants who come to Canada and tend to go largely to the province of Quebec and maybe to places like Ottawa, but in rural New Brunswick we would benefit enormously from encouraging immigrants to settle in our part of the country.
The member for Niagara Falls said that she covered a very broad range of issues in her 20 minute presentation. I do not disagree with him, but the one area she did not cover is perhaps what suggestions she would have for the government in terms of finding a way to broaden the settlement of immigrant families in parts of the country like New Brunswick, which I represent.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, a Conservative government would do two things to alleviate his concern and to make positive change.
First of all, a Conservative government would ensure that newcomers are well advised of opportunities in smaller centres in Canada; francophone immigrants in particular would be made well aware that there are warm and welcoming communities across the country where the French language is open to being used by everyone. Thus, it is partly information.
The second thing a Conservative government would do is give positive incentives to newcomers to settle in these smaller centres, perhaps through a reduction in fees, tax breaks or some positive incentive that would make settlement in smaller centres such as my colleague's riding attractive to francophone newcomers.
I look forward to some of those measures being put into place. I agree with the member. It would very much enhance our country.
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in this debate. I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I wish to inform the House that there are two hours and 29 minutes remaining for debate on the motion for concurrence in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
PetitionsPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce two petitions today.
The first one, with thousands of signatures, again is on the subject matter of marriage. The petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary, and that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again from my riding of Mississauga South, is on the subject matter of firefighters. As all members know, they were here this week to speak to us about issues important to them. In this particular regard, their first priority was the public safety officers' compensation fund and, indeed, this petition is on that matter.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis; that employment benefits of police officers and firefighters often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while on duty; and finally, also that the public mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wishes to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their times of need. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers' compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by over 500 Canadians. It deals with the Copyright Act.
This petition recognizes the Copyright Act as a careful balance between the rights of creators and the rights of the public.
The petitioners want the House to maintain this balance by not extending the term of copyright and preserving all existing user rights to ensure a vibrant public domain. They also request that users be recognized as interested parties and, as such, be consulted about any proposed changes to the aforementioned Copyright Act.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present on behalf of my constituents in Carleton--Mississippi Mills.
First, I have three petitions regarding assisted suicide, whereby petitioners call upon Parliament not to sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide, whether by personal action or the Internet.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions regarding the definition of marriage, whereby petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, lastly I have a petition regarding the treatment of autism, where petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include IBI-ABA therapy as a medically necessary treatment and require all provinces to fund this treatment.
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in memory of RCMP Officers Myrol, Johnston, Gordon and Schiemann, I am presenting a petition signed by the residents in and around my constituency and the town of Stony Plain, the home of Constable Schiemann, which calls for a minimum 10 year jail sentence without parole for people involved in marijuana grow ops.
John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from my constituents in and around Edmonton. They call upon Parliament to enact legislation to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by constituents in and around my riding who call for greater access to natural health products.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present to the House this afternoon from my riding of Prince George—Peace River. They are all on the same subject and signed by a great many residents of my riding, particularly from the cities of Fort St. John and Dawson Creek in the Peace River district and Charlie Lake, Taylor, Chetwynd and the surrounding rural areas.
The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians. They believe that Bill C-20, put forward by the Liberal government, does not adequately protect our nation's children.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify child pornography are outlawed.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have seven petitions to present today, all on the same subject. They are from across the constituency, from Lanark Highlands, Denbigh, Carleton Place, Millhaven, Smiths Falls, Perth, Northbrook, Godfrey, et cetera.
The petitioners, of which there are over a thousand, call upon Parliament to preserve the current and traditional definition of marriage. They do so on the following basis. They say that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children and that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman.
They believe as well that it is very important that fundamental matters of social policy, such as the definition of marriage, be decided by members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions in total. The first petitioner is in respect to marriage.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support and protect the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a man and a woman and that they should do all things within the power of Parliament, legislatively and administratively, to preserve and protect the current traditional heterosexual definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and that it should not be the role of the unelected judiciary to decide such fundamental matters of policy.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I am also tabling a petition from several hundred residents of Carrot River, Saskatchewan. The petitioners are concerned about the possibility of their rural post office being closed by Canada Post. They call on the government to ensure that such a move does not take place.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I table today is from people in Nova Scotia. The petitioners call upon the government to return to its previous policy of allowing holy books to be made available to new citizens at citizenship ceremonies around the country.
The petitioners note that a citizenship judge terminated this policy, alleging that the policy discriminated against non-religious immigrants. Up until last year, holy books were simply displayed on tables at the back of the hall or gymnasium, free for new citizens to take. The new citizens were not handed the books. They were not forced to take them. The citizenship judge produced no evidence to justify his inappropriate decision to ban the availability of holy books.
They ask that the Citizenship Commission return to the previous policy, which has served our multicultural nation so very well over a number of years.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today of presenting a few hundred signatures from concerned voters across Saskatchewan from the Qu'Appelle and Regina areas. The petitioners call upon the House to enact Bill C-420, which will ensure that dietary supplements and other traditional natural health products will not be arbitrarily restricted as drugs.
They call upon the House to ensure that the freedom of Canadians to explore health care remedies remains with individual Canadians. They encourage all parliamentarians to enact Bill C-420 as quickly as possible.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from the wonderful people of Langley, my riding.
The petitioners state that marriage is the best foundation for families and for raising children, that the institution of marriage is being challenged and that it is in the jurisdiction of Parliament to decide the definition of marriage.
They therefore petition Parliament to 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.
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of residents of eastern Ontario and adjacent areas of Quebec.
In particular, they are petitioning the House of Commons concerning funding for juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is a very serious disease. It affects many Canadians. I am sure all members of the House agree with me that we need to do something to combat it, and that is what these petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to take actions to do.
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition on the subject of marriage. There are some 300 signatures on the petition, from one side of the country to the other, from Fredericton to Summerside, New Brunswick, Winnipeg, B.C., Edmonton, Alberta and places in between, including Toronto.
The petitioners call upon the same request, that the institution of marriage, the bond between one man and one woman, is a serious moral good. Marriage is the lasting union of man and woman to the exclusion of all others and it cannot and should not be modified by a legislative act or by a court of law.
They therefore request that Parliament take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law, in perpetuity, to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.
Questions on the Order PaperDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-12, an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases, and of the motion that this question be now put.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that this question be now put?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the main motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 9 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties.
I believe if you would seek unanimous consent, you would get it to further defer the vote to the end of government orders on the Tuesday, May 10.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek the consent of the House, you will find that positive productive discussions between all parties have taken place that we see the clock as 2:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 9 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.)