2005-05-13

Message from the SenateThe Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House
Ottawa
May 12, 2005
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 12th day of May, 2005, at 4:10 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck
Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004--Chapter No. 19; Bill C-12, an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases--Chapter No. 20; and Bill C-45, an act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts--Chapter No. 21.
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultations with the House leaders of all parties, I am asking for unanimous consent that the following motion be adopted unanimously, without debate or amendment:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:


Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time;


At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.



The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will try for a good old Canadian compromise. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion.
Given the fact that this government has now lost five consecutive votes that clearly demonstrate the government does not command the confidence of this House, and given that it is now well known that at least one member of Parliament is scheduled for cancer surgery when the Prime Minister intends to allow a confidence vote on his two budget bills next Thursday, May 19, 2005, as we have just heard, I seek leave of the House to move this motion:

That, on Monday, May 16, 2005, at 15 minutes before the expiry of time for government orders, the Speaker shall forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

The Speaker: Does the hon. opposition House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House for something that has been requested by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and by the Government of Nova Scotia, and I know previously agreed to by the NDP, and that is the following motion:

That Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23 be divided into two bills: Bill C-43A, an act to provide payments to provinces and territories and implement the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador arrangement and Canada-Nova Scotia arrangement; and Bill C-43B, an act implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23.
That Bill C-43A be composed of parts 12, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador arrangement and the Canada-Nova Scotia arrangement, and 24, payments to certain provinces and territories; and
That Bill C-43B be composed of all the remaining parts of Bill C-43. That the House order the printing of Bill C-43A and 43B and that Bill C-43A and that Bill C-43B be placed on the Order Paper for consideration of the House at second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance.

I believe that at least three of the parties in this House would agree to that. I would ask for unanimous consent.
The Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I think we have attempted to demonstrate that the hon. member and his colleagues can vote for the budget on Thursday, May 19 and give Atlantic Canadians the accord they deserve. That motion could take place on May 19.
The Speaker: Perhaps hon. members could continue these discussions outside the chamber. It appears we are getting into a debate on points of order which are not really points of order. It is an attempt to get consent.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I only want to be helpful to the Chair. The government House leader and the Chair will of course know that by what he has done he has ensured no vote on the Atlantic accord for at least a year.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I want to convey to the Chair that once again the Leader of the Opposition has shown his complete misunderstanding for the procedure in this place.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: When the bill before us was last debated, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc had the floor for questions and comments. There remains six minutes in the time allotted for questions and comments to the hon. member for Edmonton--Leduc and his remarks.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a short question in regard to this. Since we just passed last year's bill in the Senate, could he explain to us how long it would take to actually see Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 implemented?
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been going across the country saying that if these two budget bills are not passed right away the Atlantic accord will not be fulfilled. Those members know the Senate just passed the last budget bill. That kind of nonsense is not helpful to political debate.
Our leader just stood up and asked for the Atlantic accord to be passed. This is something our leader promised those people in the last election. The Prime Minister was made to feel guilty and was forced, kicking and screaming, to actually fulfill the promise.
The reality is that they want to put this in a budget where different parties cannot accept different things. They do not want to fulfill their promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If they were serious about implementing parts of this budget, they would do the smart thing and do what would work with all parties. They would do as we suggested in the first place and break the budget bill into parts which different parties could actually support.
The Atlantic Accord could be put in a different bill where we and, I think, the NDP would support it. We have called for funding for cities. The member for Port Moody has called for this for years and has introduced motions in the House with respect to this. If the Liberals had reintroduced that right after the last election our party, the Bloc and, I am pretty sure, the NDP would have supported it. The government knows this full well and it is playing politics with the budget to an unseen extent, which is unfortunate.
I want to set the record straight. Some people have said that the Conservatives changed their position on the budget so the Liberals had to make a deal with the NDP. The truth is that we had agreed. We even abstained on the main motion on the budget to allow the budget to go forward. We agreed on the original budget implementation bill to allow it to go to committee as long the CIPA amendments were withdrawn. We were going to act responsibly and vote for the things that we supported and oppose the things that we felt were wrong. Suddenly the government flip-flopped and did something unprecedented in Canadian history. The finance minister was completely submerged by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister ripped up his own budget.
If the Prime Minister were finance minister, what would he have done if Jean Chrétien had done the same thing to him? This Prime Minister was going to resign because advertising contracts were not going to Earnscliffe. Imagine if Jean Chrétien had actually ripped up his budget and signed on the back of a napkin with the leader of the NDP.
In my view, the government has no intention of fulfilling its promises to the NDP. I encourage members of the NDP to actually look at the budget implementation bills. The corporate tax cuts have not been removed and will not be removed. There are so many hedges in the bill that the spending promises that are supposedly in it will not in fact be implemented.
I will get back to the member's original question regarding the spending announcements in the bill. The budget will be passed possibly a year from now in the Senate depending on how fast it goes through the bill. The government should be honest with Canadians and tell them that it has no intention of fulfilling any of the commitments it is making across the country.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pity the hon. member has not actually read Bill C-48. His commentary seems to be on something in Bill C-43. If Bill C-43 does not pass next Thursday, he has only to look in the mirror to see why it did not pass.
I hope the member read Bill C-48 prior to this debate. I want to know from the hon. member which part of Bill C-48 he is against. Is he against the $1.6 billion in additional funding for affordable housing? Is that what he and his party stand for? Are they against that? Is he against the $1.5 billion to enhance post-secondary education? Are he and his separatist buddies against that? How about the $900 million in environmental moneys? Are he and his separatist buddies against that as well? What about the $500 million for additional core needs? Is he against that?
Those are the core elements of Bill C-48. The hon. member appears not to have read the bill. I would like to know what his party actually stands for. I know what it stands against.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that I have not read the bill. I have read the bill and it took me all of about two minutes because Bill C-48 is two pages. Boy, it was quite a bill. We are talking about $4.6 billion in spending and the bill is a page and a half long. That is pathetic. That is no way to govern this nation in a fiscally responsible way.
The member asked about the commitments in this budget. Why were they not in the first budget? Why were they not discussed at the finance committee in prebudget hearings?
He asked what the Conservative's position is on the environment. Look at the Liberal's position on Kyoto. In the budget introduced on February 23 there was $5 billion for Kyoto. A month later, no, we actually need $10 billion for Kyoto even though emissions have gone up under this government. That is no Kyoto plan.
The member asked what we would do. We would actually take some initiatives, invest in technology and work with industries like the auto industry. Here is a couple of ideas. Why--
The Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River was on his feet and would like to address the House.
I move:

That the member for Prince George—Peace River be now heard.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 11:06 a.m. the House will now proceed to statements by members.

Statements By Members
AgricultureMr. Lynn Myers (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the increasingly difficult position Canadian farmers face as a result of massive foreign agricultural subsidies. It is clear that the Canadian government must take a stronger stand in WTO negotiations on agriculture, especially with regard to tariffs.
A new study prepared by trade expert Peter Clark for Dairy Farmers of Canada suggests that the current WTO agricultural negotiating framework will not ease the imbalances among participating countries.
For example the new study demonstrates that U.S. dairy farmers had access to $13.8 billion U.S. in direct and indirect support in 2003, meaning they can get about 40% of their income from federal, state and local government subsidies. These subsidies effectively limit access to the U.S. market. The U.S. advocates tariff cuts because it can limit access while trying to increase U.S. exports to other markets.
I urge our government to continue our fight for fairness for Canadian farmers.
Government of CanadaMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in this lovely spring season of renewal we look forward to a renewal of democracy in our great nation.
A dishonest and unworthy Liberal government can soon be replaced by a Conservative administration committed to repairing trust in Canada's democratic institutions.
The Constitution stipulates that no government is legitimate unless it secures the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons. The Liberal government thumbs its nose at our Constitution and refuses to respect our democratic traditions in its desperation to cling to power.
The Liberals have shown a frightening contempt for the democratic rights of this House. What further damage will they be willing to inflict as they struggle to keep their privileged position?
Liberals know they no longer hold the consent of the House to represent our country. I call on the government to show a flicker of honour and immediately allow Canadians the right to--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Don Valley East.
Members of ParliamentMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last June Canadians went to the polls to elect the current members of the House.
As elected officials, we are responsible to our constituents and people therefore expect us to make an effort to work together for the good of the country.
As legislators, we have a host of critical issues: the environment, child care, social housing, municipal infrastructure, all of which are national priorities.
It has been less than a year since Canadians went to the polls to cast their ballots, yet opposition members belonging to the Conservative-Bloc Québécois alliance are determined to derail any attempt to make this Parliament work. All of this comes at the expense of our constituents.
I have been knocking on doors in Don Valley East and the overwhelming majority of my constituents do not want another election at this time. It is my sincere hope that we can put political grandstanding aside and put people before politics.
The Liberal GovernmentMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker:

Like a crazed ocean liner, this Liberal shipSpins, retreats and starts to flipAdrift in a storm of motions, corruption and judgeshipThis vessel is about to tipHas Titanic hit the iceberg of democracyThis monstrous boat that perverted bureaucracy?Or is this Rimbaud's drunken boat, minus the poetryThis red ship capsizing from patronage and hypocrisy?
The captain, whose name we will not mentionDeserves neither the title nor the positionThis time, the islands will not save his commissionEven if tax havens were once his mission.But this ship, which is trying hard to stay afloatAnd is counting on a favourable wind and voteShould accept the now inevitable demoteBecause, win or lose, that's all she wroteThe Liberal ship has run aground, take note.

Hepatitis Awareness MonthHon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is Hepatitis Awareness Month.
Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver caused by viral infection. There are several types of the disease and some have the potential of developing into chronic health illness.
The newly created Public Health Agency of Canada is the leader on federal hepatitis C activities. The hepatitis C prevention, support and research program operates under the agency and continues to strengthen federal leadership in these areas.
It is estimated that a quarter million people in Canada are currently living with hepatitis C and approximately 90,000 of these Canadians do not even know they are infected.
Raising awareness of hepatitis and its potential impact on the health and well-being of all Canadians is imperative and I urge my colleagues to join me in raising awareness during Hepatitis Awareness Month.
Government of CanadaMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, “It is a firm constitutional convention that prime ministers must either resign or call an election if they lose the confidence of the House”. So says professor and constitutional expert Andrew Heard. A constitutional matter is a basic matter of the rule of law.
That, in all its simplicity, is what we are debating in this House. That is the basis for our democracy. By ignoring a confidence motion of this House, the government is flouting the rule of law. It is ignoring the basic principles of representative and responsible government, and is expressing contempt for the electoral choices of the people of Canada. It has decided that power is more important than principle and that might is more important than right. The government has lost the constitutional right to govern and in choosing to ignore that loss, it has also forfeited the moral right to govern.
It is a truism that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nothing is more corrupt than ignoring the rule of the law and the voice of the people. The government is illegitimate and must resign.
SportsMr. Gary Carr (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize a great athlete in my riding of Halton. Ed Whitlock is a truly remarkable man.
At the age of 74, Mr. Whitlock, a marathon runner from Milton, participated in the Rotterdam marathon in the Netherlands on April 10. Not only did Ed complete this race but, for the third time since turning 70, he broke the three hour barrier in the marathon, crossing the line in 2 hours, 58 minutes and 40 seconds, and was one of 9,000 runners to complete the race. This is truly a remarkable achievement.
Ed Whitlock is a hard-working, dedicated trainer who enjoys his three hour daily runs in Milton. He is a member of the Milton Runners. I would like to extend my congratulations to Ed on a well-run race and on being a dedicated and courageous Milton runner.
Prime MinisterMr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has 3,500 jobs to offer as gifts to friends of the regime.
The Prime Minister appoints senators; he appoints returning officers in all 308 ridings; he appoints the governor general; he appoints provincial lieutenant governors; he appoints the chief justice of the Supreme Court; he appoints the justices of the Supreme Court; he appoints the head of the country's armed forces. Until recently, he even appointed his own ethics commissioner. He has over 1,000 other jobs in the legal sector under his control as well.
It is high time that this profusion of partisan appointments ended. When is he going to start giving priority to merit rather than political allegiance?
JusticeMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, like all Canadians, are concerned about crime, especially after a spate of swarmings and other offences.
Our government recognizes that Canadians see youth crime in particular as an important issue. Canadians have the right to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities. They also want a fair youth justice system that seeks constructive responses to youth crime.
Our youth justice system must reinforce social values and also give youth every opportunity to become productive, responsible citizens, while understanding their responsibility to society.
We also need to ensure that the system commands respect, fosters values, such as accountability and responsibility, and makes it clear that criminal behaviour will lead to meaningful consequence.
All members of this House should continue to listen to the concerns of their constituents so that as we move forward we can ensure that our laws are consistent with our community values and provide meaningful deterrent and punishment for those who choose to offend.
Government of CanadaMs. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1838 Lord Durham, on commission from Queen Victoria, wrote that in order to maintain stability in the Canadian colonies, the government must be held accountable to the people who elect it by retaining the confidence of the House. This principle of responsible government is the democratic foundation upon which this country was founded.
The Prime Minister is no longer governing with the consent of the governed, which is the traditional test of legitimacy according to our Constitution. His attempts to delay another confidence motion mocks our democracy, smacks of desperation and underlies the lack of legitimacy of his government.
Political legitimacy is delegated in the highest regard to this House by the citizens of this country. To retain any authority to govern that he might once have had, the Prime Minister must table a confidence motion that can be voted upon by all representatives of the people, not just at his own convenience.
Natural ResourcesMr. Bill Matthews (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue of critical importance to my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On January 28 the Prime Minister delivered on his promise to make Newfoundland and Labrador the main beneficiary of our offshore oil and gas. It is a deal worth more than $2 billion to our province.
The hon. members for St. John's East and St. John's South--Mount Pearl promised to support the Atlantic accord, even if it meant breaking ranks with their party. In a recent article in the St. John's Telegram , the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl stated:

You cannot ever turn your back on your province on an important issue like this, even if it meant your party says, tough stuff, you have to sit in the last seat, last row.

Today, the Atlantic accord is in serious jeopardy as a result of the new partnership of the Conservatives and the Bloc, the separatist party.
The hon. members opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador promised to support the deal and now they are going back on their word. This is a gigantic flip-flop, the likes of which people in our province have never seen before.
Democratic ReformHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whereas the large majority of the world's democracies have some form of proportional representation, and whereas leading members of the Commonwealth including Scotland, Ireland, Wales, New Zealand and Australia have also embodied some form of PR, and whereas electoral systems that include PR have much better representation of women and visible minorities as well as better regional representation of caucuses, we must resolve that Canada catch up with democratic reform.
Specifically, the House of Commons committee considering electoral reform next week must recommend a reform process with a completion date by the end of the year.
It is the last chance for this committee to meet its obligation to establish a process that involves a form of citizen engagement and parliamentarians, and that will lead to an electoral system that embodies individual constituencies and proportional representation.
Government of CanadaMr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is seen as a beacon of democracy across the globe. Sadly this beacon has started to flicker. As Wednesday's Globe and Mail editorial stated:

[The] Liberal government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Liberals may dance on the head of a pin to deny that fact...But the inescapable reality is that a majority of voting MPs in the Commons have served notice that they have no confidence in the sitting government and wish an election

The Liberal government has lost the moral, financial and now the constitutional authority to govern. It is imperative that we put this matter to the people as soon as possible, on Monday. A government should never run from the people. As the official opposition we can no longer support a government which has shown to be corrupt, fiscally irresponsible and blatantly undemocratic.
We in the Conservative Party of Canada stand ready to give Canadians the good, honest government they deserve. Canadians have had enough and they want us to stand up for Canada.
Prime MinisterMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the events of recent days have brought to mind something written by Victor Hugo on the coup d'état by Louis Bonaparte, whom he called Napoléon-le-petit, or Little Napoleon. I will read an excerpt from it:

There are a number of descendants of Machiavelli, and Louis Bonaparte is one of them. He announces an outrageous action, then indignantly disavows it, swears on everything that is sacred, declares himself an upright man, and then, just as people start to be reassured and to find the announcement nothing but a comical memory, he carries it out. He used that approach for the coup d'état, and for the decrees...That is his approach; he uses it and finds it good. It suits him, but he will have to face the judgment of history.
Those in his inner circle hear from his lips a plan that seems, not immoral, as we do not scrutinize it to that extent, but thoughtless and dangerous, even to him. We raise objections; he listens without comment; sometimes he backs down for two or three days, but then he resumes his plan and does as he pleases.

Imagine what Victor Hugo would have written about the unspeakable actions of the Prime Minister.
Government of CanadaMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is apparent to all but a few Liberals that the government has lost the confidence of the House and it is not just the confidence of the House that has been lost by the government. Letters to the editor and callers to talk shows indicate that even Liberal supporters have lost confidence and are tearing up their membership cards. When that happens, it means the governing party has lost the confidence of the country. It is time the government bowed to the will of the House and the will of the people, and scheduled a vote of confidence.
It should be scheduled for Monday, so this silly charade can end. It should be scheduled for Monday, before the Prime Minister spends the country into bankruptcy. It should be scheduled for Monday, so he is forced to return from his “If you will be my friend, I will give you money” tour. It should be scheduled for Monday, so that all hon. members could be here to inform him one way or the other of their confidence in his right and ability to continue governing.
It should be scheduled for Monday, so the Canadian people can decide whether any Liberals should be allowed the privilege of sitting in this noble institution. It should be scheduled for Monday, for the sake of democracy and for the sake of decency.
JusticeMr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after studying the DNA identification act for more than six months, the House Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness gave clause by clause approval on Tuesday of this week.
On that same day the Conservative Party and its ally, the Bloc, argued that the House should be dissolved, which would have killed Bill C-13 before the committee even had a chance to issue its report.
The justice committee heard from 48 witnesses on Bill C-13. The input of these groups and of the individual Canadians who appeared before the committee assisted all parties on the committee to bring forward the best possible DNA identification laws in order to protect Canadians from criminals.
Yet, the leader of the official opposition and his partner, the Bloc leader, were willing to kill the DNA bill because they were more interested in their own political fortunes than the safety of Canadians. I simply say, shame.

Oral Question Period
Government of CanadaMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash for the member from Ancaster. That item just passed through the House.
The Liberal government has now lost six clearly defined votes which demonstrates that it has lost the confidence and control of the House. The late Liberal senator and constitutional expert Eugene Forsey said that a government consistently subject to defeat on its legislation or control in the House will be unable to carry through the Queen's business or will be compromised in its honour and should either resign or ask for dissolution, and that the matter should be promptly tested by a vote of confidence.
The Prime Minister refuses to do the honourable thing. Will he at least agree to put a clear vote of confidence before the House on Monday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is frankly misunderstanding a procedural motion for a confidence motion.
Constitutional experts have said in fact that there is no constitutional crisis. Patrick Monahan today said that the situation would be a crisis only if the government refused to have a confidence vote.
I tried to schedule that confidence vote for next Thursday. The official opposition and the separatist party that want to have a confidence vote in the House have refused to allow the House to have that vote on Thursday.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. government House leader that the crisis, like the corruption, is deeply rooted in the Liberal Party of Canada.
Canadians across the country are disgusted by the corruption in the government. The Prime Minister has a death grip on the doors of 24 Sussex.
Will the Prime Minister agree to hold a vote in this House on Monday on the future of his government?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, we will not get into signatures on paper, by the way, for the purposes of the hon. member.
We have set forward a reasonable date for a confidence vote. There is an opportunity to continue that debate. Bill C-48 is in the House today and it is an important piece of legislation.
Having the vote on Thursday also respects the investments made by both the people and governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan with respect to the Queen's visit. May I also suggest that the hon. member has no concern for the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan, who made that investment.
The BudgetPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal Party once again rejected the request from the Conservative Party, supported by all opposition parties, to split the budget bill and remove the Atlantic accord. To do so would allow the money to flow to those provinces immediately, as promised.
The Liberal-NDP budget has been chopped up. Items have been dropped and added. There have been numerous examples of items passed through the House at all stages, like the DNA bill and support for veterans. The 2004 budget just passed today.
Will the government agree to remove the Atlantic accord from the budget, present it to the House at all stages, and pass it through the House immediately?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to take coming from a party that once denounced Atlantic Canada for possessing a culture of defeat.
The Leader of the Opposition and his party fully understand that their friends, the separatist Bloc members, do not support these accords. If in fact the Conservatives wanted to assist Atlantic Canadians they would support the budget. The premier of Newfoundland said:

I'd like to see the budget passed. I can't take partisan positions on these issues. I've got to do what's in the best interests of the people of the province.

Vote for the budget and pass the Atlantic accord.
Government of CanadaJay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is now abundantly clear that the culture of defeat is coming from the Liberal Party of Canada. It is also abundantly clear that the Liberal government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons.
Renowned constitutional expert Professor Andrew Heard said:

It should not matter what procedural context a vote of confidence occurs in. The fundamental basis of a confidence vote is that the elected members of the legislature express their collective view of the government.

That view was expressed several times this past week. The government has lost the confidence of the House. If the government has any respect for the Constitution, will it do the right thing and call--
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that because of the level of frustration that the hon. member is feeling and his inability to bring something forward on a procedural basis to have a legitimate confidence vote in the House, he continues to be mistaken about how things are interpreted.
There will be a clear question and a clear vote of confidence on Thursday in the House. I certainly hope the opposition party will be here to show whether it has confidence in the government and to ensure that the budget, which reflects the interests of Canadians, has an opportunity to pass.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the government has not only lost the confidence of the House; it gets worse than that. It has lost the confidence of the Canadian people. Because of Liberal corruption and criminality, the government has lost the confidence of all Canadians.
If the government has any honour, it will have a vote only when elected members can attend and represent their constituents and vote. That is on Monday, not on Thursday. Will the government allow the vote to be on Monday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, one can never prejudge or predetermine whether members are able to come to the House or not when there is a vote. We have set a reasonable time for a confidence vote. Procedural and constitutional experts have indicated that.
There is an opportunity to continue debate. Bill C-48 is in the House right now. I hope hon. members are not going to attempt to pass some motion to adjourn the House; it would be another afternoon off at taxpayers' expense that the Conservatives and the Bloc want.
The Thursday vote is a confidence vote. It will be on Thursday.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, judging by how few Liberals there are in this House today, one would think there had already been an election.
With all the dirty money that ended up in the Liberal Party coffers, the government has not only lost all moral authority, but it is so incapable of governing—as is very obvious—that the Liberals are obstructing and paralyzing themselves to avoid a confidence vote on their own budget. That is the height of desperation.
Instead of holding on, will the Prime Minister accept the inevitable and hold a confidence vote on the budget on Monday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, as I have said over and over again, there is a reasonable date set for a confidence vote. I have asked for unanimous consent to put a motion to the House that would allow for the vote on Thursday. That vote on Thursday respects the investments made by the governments and the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The Prime Minister will respect the outcome of that vote. If the budget is in fact defeated, there will be an election. The question is whether the leader of the official opposition and his close friend the separatist will respect the outcome of that vote.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we would be only too pleased to respect the outcome of that vote once we win. Nonetheless, the Liberals want to wait until Thursday in order to prevent some people from voting. They are completely unscrupulous on the other side of the House.
The House has demanded that this government step down, but having lost all legitimacy, it is using procedure and public funds to artificially stay in power. We see this at the Gomery inquiry, too.
The political crisis, for which the Liberals must take responsibility, has gone on long enough. All the members will be here on Monday. Does the Prime Minister have the courage to hold the vote on Monday, when everyone is here?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot understand why the leader of the Bloc and certainly the Leader of the Opposition cannot take yes for an answer.
There will be a confidence vote in the House. It will test the confidence of the government. The vote on Thursday does respect a number of investments made by Saskatchewan and Alberta and the people of those provinces. The vote is on Thursday. It is a reasonable date. I think Canadians believe it is a reasonable date. I hope that hon. members are here to vote on the budget on Thursday.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has lost control of the situation. Before putting his government to a confidence vote, he is trying to organize a pre-election tour. Yesterday, the premier of New Brunswick told him he wanted nothing to do with the Prime Minister's partisan game.
The message is coming from all over in no uncertain terms. Is the Prime Minister not getting it? He has lost the confidence of this House, the media and the public.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the real difficulty here is that both the Conservatives and the Bloc continue to interpret the rules and procedures of the House for their own political purposes.
What is a requirement is that this House have a confidence vote. A legitimate confidence vote is in fact on a budget. I do not know why hon. members cannot accept yes for an answer. On Tuesday when there was a procedural motion in place, they continued to misrepresent it as a confidence motion. Now they have a real confidence motion and it will be on Thursday.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, let us be more specific. Canada's image abroad has been coloured—even the dollar has lost a cent in the past three days—because the Prime Minister is undemocratic. He is clinging to power and refusing to look at the facts. They alone fail to see the reality.
My question is for the government. Will the Prime Minister finally come to his senses, affirm his respect for democracy and confirm the vote of confidence in his government on Monday, when all members—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, constitutional experts, procedural experts, including Patrick Monahan, indicated that Thursday was a reasonable date.
It was also very clear that the situation would only be a crisis or difficult in fact if the government refused to have a confidence vote.
I really do not know why yes is not an acceptable answer. The opposition party in particular was looking to have an opportunity to put a confidence motion in front of this House. It now has a legitimate one. It is called the budget.
Commercial BankruptciesHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, some of the people who watch these proceedings are pensioners. I am sure that they are feeling quite discouraged right now with what they hear of the practices of the Liberal Party, and what they see with the political games being played here. They also watch in the news as their pensions are attacked as big companies go bankrupt and their pensions are confiscated right out from under them.
The NDP has a bill in front of this House at the moment that would protect workers' pensions. That is a practical step we could take now. Will the government indicate that it would not deny unanimous consent to put this bill through this House?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill the hon. member refers to is a bill that would actually kill more jobs and kill more defined benefit pension plans than anything I can think of.
This government has a bill coming forward to deal with bankruptcy and insolvency and to deal with a wage earner protection package that will be practical and will not injure business, will not kill jobs, will not kill pension plans, and will protect workers.
The EnvironmentJack Layton: Mr. Speaker, some of these pensioners noticed that the party that just tried to represent itself on this issue actually voted in favour of the NDP bill. The Liberals are speaking out of both sides of their mouths to the working people of this country. That is exactly the kind of thing that has people so upset at the Liberal Party right now.
Let us turn to the issue of smog. There are people out there who are very concerned about air quality right now. They cannot breathe, for heaven's sake. They are finding themselves with their children in emergency wards. Yet the government claims to be taking action, even though after 12 years in office, pollution has gone dramatically up.
When will the government take action to prevent smog?
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we now have the most aggressive plan of the G-7 to deal with climate change.
As the member should know, this government established a partnership fund to work with provinces. This government established the fund to deal with technology.
Unfortunately, that party over there still thinks the ice age has not occurred. That party over there only wants things for Quebec. And the party over there which should be supporting it in fact is not supporting the budget.
If they want to deal with climate change, members should support the budget and we will move forward on this important policy.
The BudgetRob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, earlier the House leader said that he was worried about the investment of both Saskatchewan and Alberta in a visit next week.
I can assure the House leader that both those provinces would be delighted to see a confidence vote defeating the government on Monday evening.
If he is worried about those provinces, indeed if he is worried about Canadians, why not do the right thing and put the vote on Monday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, does the member now speak for Saskatchewan and Alberta?
Once again I find it somewhat ironic that yes is not an acceptable answer. There are many groups with many activities that are going on in both Saskatchewan and Alberta. What is most important is that Thursday is a very reasonable date for a vote.
It is a clear question. It is a confidence vote. I am not sure why hon. members will not accept the fact that Thursday is the date for a budget vote.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the only reason the Liberals believe it is reasonable is that is the date the Prime Minister has decided he wants to be in town.
We are here to work every day. If the member wants to be reasonable with the people of this country, why does he not do the right thing and do it on Monday when everybody can be here?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I have to take some exception to the hon. member's saying that members of his party are always here. They took a taxpayer paid afternoon off yesterday. I expect they will do the same today. If in fact they have a date--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The government House leader has the floor. We have to be able to hear the answer.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious I have struck a chord of truth.
Again, I say that Thursday is a very reasonable date for a vote, and constitutional experts agree.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about yesterday, because all of us came to the House to talk about what was on the projected order of business. The projected order of business said that we would talk about the budget, both budgets, the Liberal budget and the NDP budget. We came here with members prepared to debate the budget and what did the Liberals do? They pulled the budget and put on a concurrence motion.
Why will the Liberals not stop playing games and have a vote on Monday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I actually had the opportunity, and I know many members in this place oftentimes do have an opportunity, to watch CPAC. I think it was very clear on that particular program that if the hon. members wanted to debate the budget, they would have adjourned the debate, not adjourned the House to have the afternoon off at taxpayers' expense.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals really wanted to debate the budget, there would be more than only less than half of them here today.
If Canadians want to see how interested the Liberals are in debating the budget, all they have to do is look at the legislative calendar for last month and this month to see the priority the budget debate has had. It is behind the border services debate, the debate on statistics, the debate on patents and the debate on the quarantine bill.
The Liberals do not want to talk about the budget. They do not want to vote on the budget. Let us have a confidence vote on Monday.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, let us point to some of the accomplishments in the House just in recent days. The DNA bill has passed. The veterans bill has passed. The WTO ruling with respect to agriculture has come through. There is the aid to Africa which has also been passed.
What I might want to say to the hon. member is that Bill C-48 is before the House today. It is a budget debate. I would like to know how many members across the way will get up on this debate.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all of the members across the way here on a Friday. I have never seen so many of them here. It has to be the first time that they have actually shown up on a Friday.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, people no longer have any confidence in this tainted government that no longer has a shred of credibility. Every day, the Gomery inquiry reveals more about the involvement of the entire Liberal Party in the schemes of the sponsorship scandal.
How is that last year, before the Gomery inquiry began, the Prime Minister was able to justify holding an election by saying Canadians knew enough about the sponsorship scandal, but now that we know the extent of the corruption in the Liberal Party, he is claiming Canadians do not yet know enough?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister had the courage and conviction to put the Gomery commission in place to get to the truth.
We have been witnessing today and in the past number of days that people have been coming forward. Judge Gomery is doing a very, very good job on behalf of Canadians to get to the truth.
We are not afraid of the truth. You might be afraid of the truth, but we definitely are not afraid of the truth.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to address their remarks to the Chair rather than to each other.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has financed three elections with dirty money. This was confirmed by Marc-Yvan Côté, former chief organizer in eastern Quebec. In the meantime, the testimony by Daniel Dezainde, former director general of the Liberal Party has revealed that Jacques Corriveau had set up a kickback system on the contracts to benefit the Liberal Party and instead of taking action, Dezainde put a lid on the whole thing.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is desperately hanging on and refusing to hold a confidence vote on Monday because he now feels that the public knows enough?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the people do not know enough now. Judge Gomery has been given a broad mandate to hear all the evidence and to hear from all the parties to ensure the people have all the information they need. People have already said that they want to wait for Judge Gomery's report until such time as they have an election. Let Judge Gomery do his work.
Government of CanadaMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Marc-Yvan Côté has confirmed it: there were well-stuffed envelopes of dirty money handed over to Liberal candidates. The sponsorship money went to every region of Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister, whose government is so greatly tainted by a scandal of such severity, give in to the evidence and propose a confidence vote as soon as possible, that is on Monday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, we set a reasonable date for a confidence vote. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to debate the budget. Bill C-48 is in the House.
The key point is and the real question is that on the vote on Thursday, which is a confidence vote, the Prime Minister has said that he will respect the results. What I would like to know is whether the leader of the official opposition and his separatist friends will respect the results.
If we fail on Thursday, the Prime Minister will visit the Governor General and there will be an election. If we succeed, will the hon. members across the way allow this Parliament to function and function in the interests of Canadians?
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is well aware that one of our Conservative members is scheduled for surgery on Wednesday.
How can the Prime Minister defer confirmation of the confidence vote to Thursday with a clear conscience, when the first vote was held three days ago, and he must now submit this matter to the House as soon as possible? Why Thursday?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, now it is not only the official opposition who in the last 48 hours is using the health of members of Parliament, which is very unfortunate. Certainly the thoughts and prayers of all members of Parliament in this place are with those who are not well. I wish the hon. member very well.
Thursday is a reasonable date and it is unfortunate that once again this type of discussion and this type of approach is being used in the House. There has to be more respect for each other in the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate is that the government, in its desperation, has scheduled a vote when all members cannot be here. If it showed any respect for those members and this place and its traditions, it would hold a vote when every member can be here on Monday.
Why is the government so afraid of the Canadian people? Why is it so desperate to barricade itself into office that it will not permit a clear vote of confidence when every elected member can be here in their place and represent their constituents?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, first, it is quite unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition had misinformed these hon. members who were not well to get here on Tuesday for what was a procedural vote. That is point number one.
Since the hon. member across the way actually interpreted the vote on Thursday as a confidence motion, I wonder why, when he knew the Minister of Justice was away at a funeral for his family and the Minister of Natural Resources was away for personal reasons, he did not come forward and say, “Oh please, let's allow members to be in this House and let's postpone a vote on Tuesday”. The hypocrisy is killing me.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, here is what the Winnipeg Free Press said, “The Prime Minister has done as Canadians increasingly expect of him to do; put power ahead of principle”.
The Ottawa Citizen said:

It is [the Prime Minister's] delaying tactics, not Opposition manoeuvring, that is sowing the seeds of a constitutional crisis. He should let MPs vote now. The Globe and Mail said:
But with each moment they linger, they will expose themselves as so desperate to hang onto power that they spit in the face of the Commons and call it respect.

Why are they putting power ahead of principle? Why are they violating the Constitution of Canada? Why will they not have a clear vote on Monday--
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Citizen is saying “constitutional experts say that while the recent events on Parliament Hill may be attention grabbers”--and I would have to suggest that the hon. member has no interest except trying to grab more attention--“there is no suggestion that it adds up to a constitutional crisis. We are at an impasse. We are not at war. The economy is booming”. “The situation would be a crisis only if the government refused to have a confidence vote”. That vote will be on Thursday. It will be a clear vote and a clear question. What I want to know is whether the members opposite will respect the results.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is not respecting this House. The institution of Parliament is built upon the principle of democracy which is intended to ensure that the views of Canadians are represented by this House.
Over the last few days it has become apparent that confidence is no longer possessed by the government and yet, in the words of John Ibbitson, “the government is still testing the limits of its legitimacy by refusing to face the House and settle the matter”.
Will the government confront its democratic mandate to rule by committing to a confidence vote, not on Thursday but on Monday, right away?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, repeating the question does not make it any more valid. In fact, I have to say that Thursday is a very reasonable date. I do not understand why the hon. members will not take yes for an answer.
It will be a clear question. It is a money bill. It is a budget vote. It does respect the investments that have been made by both the people and the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The real question is whether the members opposite will respect the result of that vote. The Prime Minister has said he will. Will they?
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government's fingernail grasp on power is only because it is ignoring the democratic constitutional traditions.
According to a new poll, almost 70% of Canadians now believe the Prime Minister was personally aware that sponsorship money was being misdirected. Canadian voices are loud and clear and they are telling us that they too no longer have confidence in the government.
Will the Prime Minister accept our compromise and commit to another vote of confidence on Monday?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, what we know, at least on this side of the House, is that Canadians believe in due process. Our Prime Minister put in place the Gomery commission to get to the whole truth, nothing but the truth and to issue a report. Let him do his work.
We have an opportunity to have a confidence vote. It is on the budget. It will happen on Thursday.
The BudgetMichael John Savage: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Williams, was quoted in today's paper as saying that a vote against the budget would be a vote against Newfoundland and Labrador.
I understand that members of the Conservative Party from Newfoundland and Labrador, and possibly Nova Scotia, are planning to vote against the budget. I wonder if we could get a comment on that in light of the Atlantic accord.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic accords are included in the budget Bill C-43. It is a reflection of the agreement and the unique circumstances faced by those two provinces.
Apparently on Thursday we will have the unseemly spectacle of the Conservatives voting against people in the Atlantic region, along with their separatist friends. That vote is actually understandable because they care little or nothing for anyone else in the rest of Canada.
If the bill does not pass, members opposite only have to look in the mirror.
HousingMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and Housing should get his head out of the sand and stick it up his attic because if he looked he might find it full of deadly asbestos laden--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre could perhaps be a little more judicious in his choice of language. He might want to consult the member for Ottawa Centre.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that if the Minister of Labour and Housing looked in his own attic he might find it full of deadly asbestos laden Zonolite, like hundreds of thousands of other homeowners.
When UFFI foam insulation was a problem, the government put in place a comprehensive program to help homeowners remove it. It also forced homeowners to disclose it if they had it when they sold their homes. UFFI was only irritating but Zonolite is deadly.
Why will the Minister of Labour and Housing not put in place a Zonolite removal home program to help homeowners get rid of this deadly material?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member believes in working men and women and those working men and women are the professionals who in fact should, when asked by people, check the insulation and then ask whether or not they want to make renovations. They should call the professionals.
They are the working men and women whom we support on this side and I hope he would support them on his side.
All insulation is not Zonolite and all Zonolite is not contaminated with asbestos. We are providing information. It is not a health risk if left undisturbed. People should call the professionals before they repair their homes.
EmploymentMr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Why is the minister, at a time when a surplus is projected in the new Liberal-New Democrat budget, and, as the House leader has said, the economy is booming, and we have just made a commitment to post-secondary students to help them with the cost of education, and we have out-migration of youth in regions of the country, including northern Ontario, cutting the funding to summer employment this year?
Hon. Stephen Owen (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the constituency budgets have changed across the country for two reasons this year. First, we have gone from 301 to 308 constituencies. Second, we have now instituted new 2001 census data to reflect the new constituencies. Combined with this, the student population and unemployment rate has shifted. As a result, some budgets at the constituency level have increased and some others have decreased.
House of CommonsMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the very heart and soul of this institution is based upon the respect of the democratic will of its members. Sadly, we see the government clinging to power by ignoring our time honoured democratic traditions.
By failing to commit to a vote of confidence at the earliest possible moment, the government is undermining the very institution that we represent.
Respectfully, I ask the Prime Minister to show some leadership and schedule a confidence vote for this coming Monday.
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will be having a confidence vote on the budget on Thursday. At that time we will be able to ask Conservatives whether they support the new deal for cities and communities, the $5 billion gas tax deal.
Mayors across the country want us to do it. They want them to vote for that budget. We will test them on Thursday.
The Prime MinisterMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, why does the Prime Minister continue to tarnish Canada's great reputation for democracy around the world? When is the Prime Minister going to realize that it is not he who decides if there is confidence in the government. It is the democratic duty of the House to decide whether there is confidence in the government. It is the democratic duty of the Prime Minister to respect the will of the House.
The Prime Minister has not only ignored the House but he has ignored the will of Canadians.
Why, if the Prime Minister is so sure of his moral authority to govern, will he not call a confidence vote on Monday?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the moral authority of the Prime Minister is clearly shown in the incredible leadership that he has put forward in our budget.
If I may speak as Minister of International Cooperation, when I look at a $3.4 billion increase in our aid budget which is to reduce poverty, when I see the leadership he has shown with the $100 million in the battle against AIDS, when I read the letters of approbation from Canadians all across the country, en particulier du Québec, let me assure the House that people in Canada know what is in this budget and they give the Prime Minister--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa.
Government of CanadaMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has officially entered uncharted constitutional waters. It has been accused by Canadians of governing by technicality with the consent of itself.
It is clear that the government is not just being challenged by the opposition, but by the entire country.
Liberals have responded by arguing that technicalities supersede the will of the House.
Canadians are challenging the Prime Minister to stop hiding behind procedural tactics. Why will he not commit to a confidence vote on Monday? Is it that he is afraid of facing the Canadian people?
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one is afraid of facing the Canadian people. We did a year ago and in fact we are prepared to do it. The Prime Minister has said that on Thursday there will be a confidence vote.
Why are the opposition members not talking about the deal that we signed today with Newfoundland on the early learning and day care program? Why are they not talking about the other three? Why are they not talking about $5 billion we are putting into a national early learning and child care program? Because they do not care. They only want to give a tax break of $200 to parents.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, in a shameful display, has deliberately delayed the passage of the Atlantic accord. It has once again delayed the clean-up of the Sydney tar ponds, spending the money on other Liberal election promises.
Now it is delaying a vote of confidence. Will the Prime Minister stop these stalling tactics, face Canadians and call a confidence vote on Monday?
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about confidence, let me say that Canadians have confidence in this government because of the work we have done on the environment. They have confidence in our plan in moving forward on climate change.
The question is, why is that member not confident in Canadians and not supporting the budget, which is the greenest budget in Canadian history and which will help in the Sydney tar ponds, help deal with pollution and help deal with the health of Canadians? The real question is, what are they afraid of? We are not afraid. We are not afraid of Canadians. We are not afraid of the truth.
It is unfortunate that those members clearly have taken a different position than the majority of Canadians when it comes to the budget and investing in Canadians.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the lack of confidence in the government is also seriously affecting Canada's image abroad. Journalists everywhere are wondering about the deterioration of Canada's political practices. They are talking increasingly of the government's loss of moral authority to manage the affairs of state.
Does the Prime Minister understand that his hanging on in defiance of the decisions of the House discredits his government daily along with Canada's image abroad.
This is why a vote on Monday is absolutely essential—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the actions of this government in Sudan, in international development assistance and in military initiatives in Afghanistan have enjoyed the utmost respect of governments of the western countries and the world as a whole.
Our reputation in the world is not defined by the events here in the House, but rather by the positive actions of this government in order to improve the lives of thousands of people around the world. They owe a debt to Canada. The separatists cannot stand that, but it is our doing, not theirs.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the international press has an influence on a country's leadership too. For a Prime Minister who was leading the G-20 internationally, his behaviour is paradoxical, to say the least, since he is helping to destroy Canada's reputation for democracy and its image abroad.
By clinging to power, he is riding roughshod over democracy and increasing the democratic deficit he had previously criticized.
Would he not agree that the surest way for him to put an end to the democratic deficit is to hold a vote on Monday? It is urgent.
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I would really challenge that comment, both the member's point of departure and her conclusions, and the reason is that this Prime Minister is renowned for the reputation of this country. That is why, wherever I go as Minister of International Cooperation, I am asked for Canadian assistance from the Canadian bar for all of our capacity building, helping countries build their human rights legislation, helping them to build the kind of democracy that Canada enjoys a reputation for, and because we have a--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, so far this week there have been two motions passed in this House that have been deemed to be motions of non-confidence. Both of these motions passed, yet the government refuses to recognize them as such, even going so far as to vote in favour of one of them.
This government will not honour votes passed in this House, takes away opposition days and runs all over the country spending over $1 billion per day, more than what four elections would cost every day with money that has not been approved by this Parliament.
Will the government commit to a confidence motion on Monday?
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, his party is doing cheap political tricks. As he knows, on Thursday he will have all the opportunity to ensure that Canadians will have a say. As he knows, this budget is extremely important for low income seniors, those who only receive $12,439. When fully implemented this budget will give them $433, an increase that they desperately need. I ask the opposition to support low income seniors.
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the more we learn about how the government, the cabinet and the Liberal Party operate, the more Canadians lose confidence. Confidence is the bloodline of a Parliament. Once it is lost, the government is dead and finished.
Patrick Monahan said, “It will require now the matter of confidence to be tested on an expeditious and priority matter in the House of Commons”. Will the government follow Mr. Monahan's instruction and commit to a confidence vote on Monday?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to a confidence vote on the budget on Thursday.
Let me tell members that 1.7 million households across this country in every province and territory want affordable housing.
We intend to work with the aboriginal communities, with not for profit housing, with co-op housing, with the provinces and with the private sector to make sure that we invest $1.6 billion in housing. We urge all the opposition members to support this. We thank the NDP for supporting this budget. Why can't you?
The Speaker: The hon. member knows that the Speaker is neutral in these matters.
The hon. member for Brome--Missisquoi.
Aerospace IndustryHon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Can he tell us what action the government has taken today to ensure the future of the aerospace industry, a key sector of our economy?
David Emerson: Mr. Speaker, for several months in this House I have watched the political chicanery and skullduggery from the other side. It is very ironic but not surprising that a question of profound importance to the people of Canada should come from a member on our own side.
Today this government announced yet another initiative to build the aerospace industry in this country. We are partnering with the Government of Quebec and Bombardier to ensure that its new platform C Series aircraft initiative will take place here in Canada with benefits to suppliers all across this country.

Routine Proceedings
Business of the HouseTony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:


Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the date for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time;


At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of second reading stages of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.



The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to put this motion now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Under our practice, the minister must move this under motions when we get to motions in the course of routine proceedings unless he has unanimous consent.
I draw his attention to a ruling of the Chair on October 24, 2002: “Our practice is clear,” said the Speaker on that occasion:

Motions pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 should be moved under the rubric “Motions” unless there is unanimous consent to do otherwise.

The hon. member should have that opportunity in a few minutes.
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, I rise for some clarification. Standing Order 56.1(1)(a) states:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.

The Standing Orders do not specify the routine proceedings item in question and I was under the impression that we were under routine proceedings. Could the Speaker please clarify this possible contradiction?
The Speaker: The Standing Orders may say “during Routine Proceedings” and “Motions” is one of the items in routine proceedings when motions are normally proposed.
I have quoted the ruling that was given in 2002 on this point. I do not believe it was a new practice at that time. I believe it was based on previous decisions, but I am unable to pull those out at the moment because I do not have them with me. I did have that one, and that is why I asked for consent. As I have said, the minister will have an opportunity when we get to motions, which should happen in a few minutes.
Government Response to PetitionsHon. Raymond Simard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning Chapter 4, “Management of Federal Drug Benefit Programs”, of the November 2004 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. In accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.
Employment Insurance ActMr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (increase of benefits).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this bill. As the House knows, the government has stolen billions of dollars from hard working Canadians. Basically, much of it has ended up in a slush fund.
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that suggesting that government steals money is not in order. He is introducing a bill. He will want to restrain himself in his choice of words.
Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I do retract the word stolen. The government probably misplaced it.
Unfortunately, the EI plan is supposed to be insurance. What ended up happening was the government overtaxed hard-working Canadians.
This bill will rectify that and give more money back to hard-working Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Heritage Hunting and Fishing Protection ActInky Mark: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an act to recognize and protect Canada's hunting and fishing heritage.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should have been introduced in the House probably 20 years ago.
On the issue of recognition, hunting and fishing has been a long tradition of this country for all Canadians, for those who came here before the Europeans. Under the government we will no longer have hunting or fishing if we keep going down the path we are going right now.
It is a great honour and I look forward to passing this bill in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Business of the HouseTony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows;


Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005 shall be deferred to that time;


At the expiry of the time for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.



Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you rule on the admissibility of the motion by the minister, I seek your ruling on two points.
First, there is a constitutional question regarding the Standing Order that I believe has never been raised in the House. Second, I seek the Speaker's ruling regarding the admissibility of the motion being moved under Standing Order 56.1.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, section 49 of the Constitution provides for how decisions are to be made. It states:

Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.

Standing Order 56.1 allows a motion to be adopted with fewer than 25 members objecting. That does not constitute a majority of voices. Standing Order 56.1 is unconstitutional.
If we were to continue to allow motions to be moved under Standing Order 56.1, the House would be perpetuating a serious problem by allowing the House to go beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. There are similar precedents regarding committees that you should consider, Mr. Speaker.
On June 20, 1994, and on November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

If we are to be consistent, I would point out that while the House is a master of its own proceedings, it cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon it by our Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985 that the requirement of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, respecting the use of both the English and French languages in the records and journals of the House of Parliament of Canada, are mandatory and must be obeyed. Accordingly the House can no longer depart from its own code of procedure when considering procedure entrenched in the Constitution.
On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , in reference to the 1985 case, he lists those constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 49, which deals with voting in the House of Commons.
While it is said that the Speaker does not normally rule on constitutional matters, the constitutional matter of voting is an obvious practice of the House, as are the financial privileges of the House, on which the Speaker does rule. The Speaker rules on those matters because they are part of our practice, as well as part of the Constitution.
My second point is in regard to Standing Order 56.1 having its limits. Marleau and Montpetit give examples of some motions that have been moved under 56.1. They are found on page 571. It suggests that while the rule appears at first glance to have limits, its usage tells a different story. I think what the authors are trying to say in a very delicate and diplomatic way is that the use of Standing Order 56.1 has gone way beyond for what it was intended to be used.
You confirmed this in your own ruling, Mr. Speaker, of June 12, 2001. You addressed the matter of the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 and suggested that it should be restricted to the arrangement of the business of the House. You stated in your ruling that the Standing Order should never be used as a substitute for a decision which the House ought to itself make on substantive matters.
This is a very serious matter, indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I seek your ruling on the two points I have raised: the constitutional matter and the matter of the motion being eligible to be moved under Standing Order 56.1.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, under our Constitution, the respective rights, privileges and responsibilities of the judiciary, the executive and the legislative are quite well defined. The legislative has the ability to define its own rules of proceedings. It has done so since the start of Confederation and will continue to do so because ours is a fairly well tested method of government. In that sense, the rules that the House of Commons sets for itself in its proceedings are of its own jurisdiction. Therefore, there is nothing here that is ultra vires.
On the matter of the eligibility as to the purpose of the motion that was put this morning, it is a matter of the setting of government business. This would essentially, when adopted, schedule that the motion to dispose of Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill, and Bill C-48, a bill which gives effect to the agreement that the government has entered into with the New Democratic Party, would be disposed of on Thursday, May 19, which is perfectly admissible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one would expect and hope that you will rule that the motion made by the House leader is in order.
The Speaker: I have considered the point of order raised by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River in relation to the motion under Standing Order 56.1 put forward by the government House leader.
I refer hon. members to Standing Order 56.1 which reads as follows:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.
For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

Given those quite general words, I note the motion put forward by the government House leader provides for an end to debate on two bills to be next Thursday.
As the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River points out, I had previously given a ruling that expressed some concern about the use of this Standing Order as a means to avoid using time allocation or closure or some other limit on time for debate, and I invited committee response. None has been forthcoming since the ruling which he referred to in 2001.
Therefore, in the circumstances, having expressed reservations and having got no feedback from the committee to the House on this point, which then the House might have dealt with it if the House shared my concern, I do not feel it is for me to rule out of order a motion that appears to be in compliance with the Standing Order, as had happened before and I made no ruling saying that it was out of order. I expressed concerns, but allowed the motion to proceed at that time. I believe having had nothing back, I can only allow this one to proceed at this time, particularly so when the time allocated here is much more generous than would be the case under closure or under time allocation because of the minimum times that are permitted. Accordingly the motion appears to be in order.
I have to deal of course with this other argument about section 49 of the Constitution. I note that this Standing Order has been in force for some time. It has been used in the House for a number of years. I point out that the Constitution, while I am not here to interpret that, says that questions arising in the House of Commons should be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, et cetera.
I believe those are questions of substance. It is quite clear that the use of Standing Order 56.1, while allowing the House then to determine things in relation to its affairs that are not substantive matters, that is passing laws, may be done by using this technique. The passage of bills in the House, the passage of motions in relation to bills are clearly questions that require a majority of the House. There is nothing in the provision here or in our Standing Orders that would allow a bill to go through the House that had not received the support of a majority of voices in the House, as defined in section 49 of the Constitution Act.
While there may be arguments to be made in other places, I believe the House is master of its own proceedings. It has chosen to adopt this Standing Order as a basis for proceeding in respect of House business and has specified in the words of the Standing Order the things that can be done under it. I find the motion fits under it. While the wording of the Constitution would appear to fly in the face of this, in my view it would apply to questions of substance that are decided by the House, not matters of internal procedure, which the House can decide on its own initiative and which it clearly did when it set up this Standing Order by virtue of its adoption in the House with a majority of the members voting for it, because that is how the Standing Order got into place.
If a majority chose to delegate powers for certain purposes to a group of 25 or more members, I believe it was within the power of the House to make that kind of delegation. Accordingly I intend to put the motion to the House.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your indulgence because we have not received the motion in writing and I have not had the opportunity to review it. However, from what I just heard you say, is it your interpretation of this motion that there would be, if it were to pass, debate on the two bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, every day beginning with the next sitting of the House, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and thus there would not be in effect time allocation or closure brought?
The Speaker: No, that is not my interpretation. I will read the motion to the House and the hon. member will be able to derive his view of it, too. It was moved by the member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, seconded by the member for Ottawa--Vanier, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1)(a):

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, An Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments , shall be disposed of as follows:


Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005 shall be deferred to that time;


At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.



Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: Twenty-five or more members having risen, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
PetitionsStephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am tabling two petitions on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians.
The first petition is from Canadians Addressing Sexual Exploitation, or CASE as they are commonly referred to. Their petition totals 300 signatures of Canadians who call upon Parliament to protect children from adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 to 18 years of age.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with protecting our children from child pornography. One hundred and seventy-eight concerned Canadians signed this petition to encourage Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify child pornography are outlawed.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce two petitions to the House, one from my own village of Harris, Saskatchewan. The petitioners ask that the government quit closing rural post offices and that it look at rural Canada as essential to our country's viability.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of people in Vanscoy, Saskatchewan asking that the Government of Canada create new drug laws that penalize people who are involved in the drug trade.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.
The first asks Parliament to correct a mistake from 1982 and amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to include the right to own and use, and earn a living from, private property.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time that the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to the living conditions of housing provided for the military.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks that Parliament maintain the current definition of marriage, that being between one man and one woman.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions I will quickly introduce. They come from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
They ask the House to introduce and support a motion that in the opinion of this House the government introduce a bill entitled “A Woman's Right to Know” that would guarantee that all women considering an abortion would be given complete information by their physician about the risks of the procedure before being referred for an abortion, and provide penalties for physicians who perform an abortion without the informed consent of the mother, or perform an abortion that is not medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosis.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling 13 petitions totalling 1,266 names dealing with the marriage issue.
The petitioners feel that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage. The petitioners pray that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of my riding who ask that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present three petitions on behalf of constituents from Three Hills, Drumheller and Trochu. Hundreds of petitioners are asking Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions, mainly from people in small rural communities in Saskatchewan: Kinistino, Aylsham and Meath Park.
They want the government to cease closing rural post offices, especially their own post offices, and they want the government to return to its moratorium on closing rural post offices and attacking their way of life in rural Canada.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions.
The first petition deals with the marriage issue. The petitioners call upon Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions dealing with the post office issue, where people call upon Parliament to take their side and prohibit the closure of rural post offices.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition dealing with health products. The petitioners call upon the government to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, my final petition calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to provide a deduction for expenses related to the adoption of a child.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition also dealing with marriage.
It says that marriage is the best foundation for families and for raising children and that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to decide. The petitioners ask that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions today dealing with the issue of marriage.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and call upon Parliament to do everything within its mandate to put that definition into law and to protect it.
Questions on the Order PaperRaymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 130 will be answered today.
Question No. 130Carol Skelton: With regard to phage, bacteriophage and antibiotic therapies, what, if any, research has been conducted, programs implemented or funding provided by the government?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, is the Government of Canada's health research funding agency. Currently CIHR does not fund any research in the areas of phage, bacteriophage and antibiotic therapies. However, CIHR's Institute of Infection and Immunity held a workshop in March 2005 that brought together experts from across Canada to discuss alternative methods to combat the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance.
The Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, has been conducting research on the potential use of bacteriophage therapy to control E.Coli 0157:H7 and salmonella bacteria in cattle, a natural animal reservoir of these important pathogenic microorganisms transmitted from animals to humans. The PHAC has contributed operating funds of $8,000 to this research.
The focus of research and surveillance is on the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance related to animal and human uses of antimicrobials. The agency collaborates with other federal and provincial partners to coordinate the Canadian integrated program on antimicrobial resistance surveillance, CIPARS. PHAC contributes approximately 1.27 million operating dollars yearly to this initiative. More information on CIPARS is available on the PHAC website at http:www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cipars-picra/index.html
The agency does not conduct research related to the development of antibiotic therapy. However, the agency collaborates with federal partners and non-government organizations to respond to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in the health care setting. The agency contributes approximately $450,000 yearly to this initiative, of which $300,000 supports a service contract with the Canadian Committee on Antibiotic Resistance, CCAR.
The agency's microbiology laboratory provides support for existing surveillance programs related to antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial infections, human enteric pathogens, and Neisseria gonorrhea. The agency's microbiology laboratory also provides reference services to hospitals and provincial laboratories to aid in outbreak investigation. The agency contributes approximately $225,000 in yearly operating dollars to these initiatives.
The Government of Canada also recognizes the emerging health implications of overuse of antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine and is taking a number of steps to address this important health issue.
Detailed information on Health Canada's antimicrobial resistance activities can be found on the Health Products and Food Branch, HPFB, Veterinary Drugs Directorate's, VDD, website at http//:www.hc-sc.gc.ca/vetdrugs-medsvet/amr_policy_dev_e.html
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRaymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 128 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 128Bill Casey: With regard to the public disclosure of government support funding on websites managed by Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario and the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions: ( a ) do these organizations post notices or have pages for the purposes of "proactive disclosure" of public funding information on their public websites similar to those of the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency and, if not, why not; ( b ) has Treasury Board issued directives to these organizations concerning the proactive disclosure of information about the distribution of government support funds; ( c ) if there have been Treasury Board directives requesting that the organizations post this information on each of their public websites, by what dates are they expected to comply with the Treasury Board directives; and ( d ) what are the specific obstacles or challenges for each of these organizations in creating or placing this information on their public websites?
(Return tabled)
Raymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all those colleagues who voted to hear me speak this afternoon. I appreciate that a lot.
The Liberals, at least the few who bothered to show up for work today, denied my motion earlier today to respect the rights of all members of Parliament and their constituents by holding the votes on the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 which we are discussing right now, on Monday so that all members of Parliament could be here to cast their votes and represent their constituents. We on this side believed the motion to be in the spirit of Canadian compromise.
Obviously we believe and have stated unequivocally that we believe this is an illegitimate government as of Tuesday night when in our opinion the Liberals fell to a motion of non-confidence when they were defeated in this chamber.
As we have seen today, repeatedly, the government House leader would like to arrange the votes on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 when it is convenient for the Prime Minister, when he happens to be in town and when he says he can be here. We say that is wrong on two counts.
Therefore we certainly would like to see, and we have said this repeatedly all day long, that those votes be held on Monday, not on Thursday of next week.
The Liberals also refused the motion to split Bill C-43 that was put forward by the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, so that we could pass as expeditiously as possible those parts of Bill C-43 that deal with the Atlantic accord to provide needed help for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
For those two reasons and probably, if I were to really give it much thought, many more, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:21 p.m.)