2007-06-15

Government Orders
Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee. 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Jay Hill: moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage. 
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to) 
 When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Jay Hill:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to talk about this income tax amendment bill, Bill C-33, taxation of non-resident trusts, NRTs, as the department likes to call them, and their beneficiaries and of Canadian taxpayers who hold interests in foreign investment entities, or FIEs.
The issue is that Canadians hold a significant portion of their investments abroad. In 2005 Canadians owned $282 billion worth of foreign stocks, bonds and money market instruments. In part, globalization and other factors, such as the need for portfolio diversification, explain this phenomenon.
Some foreign investments made by Canadian residents are, however, thought to be motivated by tax considerations. The use of foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts rather than Canadian-based investment vehicles can result in lower taxes for Canadian residents; an issue that we are dealing with at the finance committee.
The distribution of income from trusts, regardless whether the trust is located in Canada, is subject to Canadian taxes when the beneficiary is a Canadian resident. Furthermore, trusts that are resident in Canada must also pay Canadian taxes on undistributed income. Non-resident trusts, however, are generally not subject to Canadian taxes on their undistributed income.
If a non-resident trust is located in a jurisdiction that applies little or no taxes on undistributed income, the trust could potentially accumulate income and capital on a tax-free basis. As a result, Canadian investors in such non-resident trusts could benefit from deferred taxes as long as their funds are kept in trust.
Distributions made out of the initial capital of a trust, regardless whether the trust is located in Canada, are not subject to taxes in Canada. When a trust is located in a jurisdiction that does not apply taxes to undistributed income, taxes could be avoided altogether by transforming accumulated income into the capital of the trust, which would then be transferred to Canadian investors on a tax-free basis.
As we can see, this bill really deals with a number of issues in terms of Canadians paying their fair share of taxes.
In a manner similar to trusts, investment funds located in Canada are subject to Canadian taxes on income and capital gains accumulated in the fund on a yearly basis. Furthermore, investors in investment funds are subject to taxes on income and capital gains allotted to them.
FIEs, however, are not subject to Canadian taxes. If a foreign investment entity faces little or no taxes in the country of residence, investors in the fund could benefit from deferred taxes on undistributed income and capital gains.
Furthermore, upon the disposition of their interest in the fund, investors in FIEs may be able to transform income into capital gains, which have a 50% inclusion rate in Canada.
It is a tax avoiding system. This bill does its share in terms of trying to end some of those small loopholes that have been brought to our attention, mainly by those who are in the tax preparation business.
The current legislation, which has existed since 1972, the Income Tax Act, has contained provisions that are meant to limit the use of FIEs and NRTs for tax avoidance purposes. Section 94 of the act deals with NRTs, while section 94.1 deals with FIEs.
Section 94 of the Income Tax Act sets out conditions under which a NRT would be subject to Canadian taxes. Generally, two conditions must be met: there must be a Canadian beneficiary and there must be a Canadian contributor.
The beneficiary condition is satisfied if any of the following have a right, directly or indirectly, to any income or capital associated with the NRT: a person resident in Canada, a corporation or trust with which a person resident in Canada is not dealing at arm's length, and/or a controlled foreign affiliate of a person resident in Canada.
The contributor condition is satisfied if the NRT acquired property, directly or indirectly, from a person who meets each of the following requirements: the person is a beneficiary, as I have described before, a person related to that beneficiary or the uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of that beneficiary; the person is resident in Canada at any time during an 18-month period before the end of the NRT relevant taxation year; and finally, in the case of an individual, he or she has resided in Canada for an aggregate period of more than 60 months before the end of the NRT relevant taxation year.
Once these two conditions are met, the manner in which Canadian taxes are applied depends on whether the NRT is a discretionary trust, that is, a trust where the trustee has discretion regarding how much of the trust income or capital is paid to beneficiaries. 
In the case of a discretionary trust, the NRT is deemed a resident of Canada for the purpose of part 1 of the Income Tax Act. Its taxable income is generally the total of its taxable income earned in Canada and what its foreign accrual property income, that is, passive income earned by a foreign subsidy, would be if it were a corporation.
In the case of a non-discretionary trust, if the Canadian beneficiary holds at least 10% of the market value of interests in the trust, the trust is deemed to be a corporation that is a controlled foreign affiliate of that beneficiary. The beneficiary is then required to include, in income, his or her pro rata share of the trust's foreign accrual property income. If the Canadian beneficiary holds less than 10% of the market value of all interests in the trust, the beneficiary may be subject to Canadian taxes under the rules governing FIEs.
As we can see, this is rather technical in its nature and has been around for a little while, which I will talk about near the end of my speech. I wanted to make sure everybody understood that this is a technical bill with some needed minor changes to make the system work more appropriately.
According to the Department of Finance, these rules are not fully effective and relatively little income is taxed in Canada. We need to make some changes and that is what this bill does. Several tax haven jurisdictions, which we have been studying in the finance committee, have trust laws that make it relatively easy to disguise the fact that a NRT has a Canadian resident beneficiary. Without a known Canadian beneficiary, current laws to limit the use of NRTs for tax avoidance purposes are difficult to enforce.
I will now discuss foreign investment entities or FIEs. Section 94.1 of the Income Tax Act is intended to prevent taxpayers from using FIEs to defer or eliminate taxes. This section applies if a Canadian taxpayer holds an interest in a foreign entity that derives its value, directly or indirectly, from portfolio investments in specified properties, such as shares or real estate.
Furthermore, for section 94.1 to apply, it must be shown that one of the main reasons for the investment in FIE is to reduce or defer tax liability that would otherwise be incurred if the income accrues directly to the taxpayer. If the conditions specified in section 94.1 are met, a notional annual allocation of income is imputed to the taxpayer and is subject to taxation. The amount of income imputed to the taxpayer is determined by multiplying the cost of the taxpayer's interest in the fund by a prescribed interest rate as calculated in the income tax regulations.
As mentioned in budget 1999, and I will make the point later on that this actually began in 1999 under a previous Liberal government, this provision has rarely been applied because, and this is why we are making changes, Canadian authorities often lack the relevant data and challenges exist with establishing that the acquisition of the interest in the FIE is motivated by tax avoidance purposes.
We had this criteria that one had to be in a tax avoidance which was very difficult under the current act to make that happen. The bill makes some minor changes to the Income Tax Act to assist our bureaucracy, which looks after the tax issues, and make it a little easier for them to calculate and find out whether people are actually avoiding taxes in this method. 
Furthermore, when the provision is applied the amount computed to the taxpayer's income is sometimes criticized that it is arbitrary and not necessarily correlated to actual income generated by the FIEs. Therefore, it was hard to determine what that actual income level was. 
What are the legislative proposals contained in Bill C-33? Part 1 of Bill C-33 would create a new taxation regime for investors in non-resident trusts, NRTs, and foreign investment entities, FIEs, in order to respond to perceived gaps in the current provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Bill C-33 would make it harder for Canadian resident investors in non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities to avoid or eliminate Canadian taxes on their income from their investments.
The proposed rules are more complex, of course, as the tax system seems to get that way. They are lengthier and more far-reaching than the current rules. The senior levels of the finance department and the tax department said at the committee that these rules were needed for them to be actually effective.
The proposed regime was first introduced in budget 1999. Let us say it is 2007 now and we have the bill in front of us. There has been a number of announcements from 1999 and June 2000, September 2000, August 2001, October 2002, December 2002, October 2003, February 2004 and July 2005. Therefore, the department and the previous government had made a number of announcements but we really did not get it into law. Not everything needed to be in law but a number of the provisions must be to be effective and that is what we are doing today under this bill. 
To be frank, we had some limited discussion at committee on this as all the opposition parties were very supportive of moving this forward, which is why Bill C-33 is in front of us today.
For non-resident trusts, in general, Bill C-33 would, for tax purposes, treat non-resident trusts as if they were trusts resident in Canada. Therefore, a contribution, whether a loan or transfer of funds for property, was made to the NRT by an entity resident in Canada or there is an entity that is resident in Canada and is a beneficiary under the NRT. We are trying to make some changes there. If the NRT fails to pay Canadian taxes, each Canadian resident contributor or each resident beneficiary would be jointly liable for the Canadian tax.
What we are saying is that if one meets those two criteria, someone will be paying the tax, either the beneficiary or the one who is contributing to make that happen or they can split that tax burden and pay it that way.
The amount of tax liable for the beneficiary of the trust would, however, be limited to the beneficiary recovery limit and the relief would be available to the contributor whose contribution to the NRT is insignificant. Therefore, there is some flexibility when we discover that one needs to be paying Canadian taxes on these non-residential trusts but who makes the actual payment can be split but it will depend on what that individual's liability is.
On foreign investment entities, the purpose of foreign investment entity rules under Bill C-33 would apply to all Canadian taxpayers except for new immigrants to Canada. I did ask at committee what the words “new residents” to Canada meant and I was told by the officials that this law needed be fair to our new Canadians. People who have come to Canada in the last little while may have trusts and other investments that would apply to these rules and that they would bring with them. The rules that would apply are that they would be tax free and not subject to these new rules under Bill C-33 for a period of five years of their residency. I think that was fair and I am glad t we were able to put that in the bill. That was an issue that I did not have an answer for and they were able to find it. I appreciate that clarification. 
Also, partnerships with members resident in Canada would be required to allocate FIE income to those members. Taxpayers would be taxed based on their equity participation, for example, a participating interest or a particular interest in a trust or other specified type of entity, in a FIE, on their investment in an entity if the investment return from the entity tracks the investment return on certain properties or on their interest in certain foreign insurance policies. We are basically looking at what level of participation individuals have in these FIEs and that would determine their liability.
 However, taxpayers would not be taxed on their participation if an “exempt interest”. An exempt interest of a taxpayer in a non-resident entity would generally include, but not be limited to, an interest in: a non-resident entity that is a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or a partnership; certain property held by financial institutions; and a widely held FIE listed on a prescribed foreign stock exchange if it is reasonable to conclude that the taxpayer had no tax avoidance motives. We must remind ourselves that that is what we are trying to overcome. It is tax avoidance and if a taxpayer can show that was not the purpose of an investment. these rules would not apply. 
A FIE that is governed, formed and organized under the laws of the country with which Canada has entered into a tax treaty, and there are some other issues with that. We have tax treaties with a number of countries around the world. We also have tax treaties with the U.S. It would be up to the taxpayer to show that it is the case and that it was not a tax avoidance motive again, and that is the issue.
In most circumstances, and in particular when the taxpayer has insufficient information to use other options, the taxable income of the taxpayer in respect of a participating interest in a FIE would be determined annually by multiplying the cost value of the taxpayer's interest by a prescribed interest rate. If the taxpayer has sufficient information to company, he or she would be able to elect to compute taxable income in respect of a participating interest in a FIE based on the annual movement in the fair market value of that interest. Provided that conditions are met, taxpayers would also be able to elect to treat a non-resident entity as a controlled foreign affiliate, in which case they would be required to include their annual share of the non-resident entity's income on their taxable income for that year.
I know that was exciting for everybody in the House today and those watching at home. This is a very technical bill and it is fairly large. It has lots of wording changes and so on but, in a nutshell, it includes changes to non-residents trusts and foreign investment entities, as well to be consistent with the Income Tax Act. All we are looking for and all we have been dealing with, not just with this part but with other studies that the finance committee is doing, is fairness in the tax system in terms of making sure that those who are required to pay Canadian taxes are paying their fair share of taxes.
I am very supportive of the other opposition parties on this particular tax issue. The changes to NRTs and FIEs would tighten the tax rules around tax havens and respond directly to concerns raised by the Auditor General. We did not come out with this on our own. The Auditor General in her reports indicated that this was an area that needed to be looked at and we did. The previous Liberal government made attempts to get it here but we are actually getting it done. We are at third reading, which is excellent. What needed to become law will become law. We will be tightening the offshore tax havens as viewed positively by taxpayers and the Auditor General. Some stakeholders will likely be not pleased because they have money in these tools but it is important that every taxpayer pays his or her fair share.
These proposals have been released for over a year. We did make some new changes. Obviously, as time passes we find new issues, and the response has been relatively positive. Those who are intimately familiar with this are normally tax lawyers and tax accountants who deal with individuals who have this and they have indicated to us in terms of what needed to be tightened up and what did not and how to clarify the system. The bill is quite technical, but it is an important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, do I have some time left?
The Speaker: No, the hon. member really does not have any time left but I know he will get some when he gets questions and comments.
[Interjection]
Mike Wallace: I can continue to speak if you like, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I would like that, of course, but the time has expired. If the hon. member has concluded his remarks, I will call for questions and comments and give him another chance.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his energetic and exciting presentation on the thrilling subject before us today. 
This subject was discussed at length during meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance. This is a very technical, long and complex bill. We are all in agreement about this bill and about something else that happened in the Standing Committee on Finance, which was the series of very complex amendments to a complex bill that were introduced at the last minute. In order to do their job well, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance decided to wait a while before completing their review of this bill. They wanted to take the time to examine the series of amendments introduced by the government in greater detail.
I would like my colleague, who is a member of the governing party, to tell me if he is now quite sure that this bill needs no further amendment and that it is now complete. Now that it is about to be passed, have they made up their minds about all of the issues surrounding this bill?
[Interjection]
Mike Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who sits on the finance committee representing the Bloc party and who does an absolutely fabulous job. I do not always agree with the member but he represents his constituency well by actively participating in all the meetings.
On the actual amendments he asked about, he is right. A number of amendments were presented at committee, and rightly so. Committee members told the finance staff that we wanted a different method. We were sending a message that even though these were technical amendments, that they were important to all Canadians and that it was important as committee members that we understood that. The finance staff did their homework and put this together. 
I can stand here and say that, based on the input from the committee members and the staff at the finance department, I think this is the end of the amendments on this. I do not believe there are any more. However, I do want to caution that as time changes and new financial tools are developed, and in this case around the world, that there may be changes in the future that will need to be addressed based on the creativity of the finance markets to find other ways to avoid tax.
This bill is really about trying to fill some gaps and loopholes, and I do not like using that word, but opportunities that people have found through the tax system that allow them to avoid tax. These amendments go directly to that. We on the government benches are not planning any further amendments to the bill at this time but I cannot say that will never happen as the times change and new opportunities present themselves to investors. In my view, with these new opportunities, the tax department would need to find ways to ensure we are not taken advantage of.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member uses the phraseology “paying a fair share of taxes”. I think the member is quite right when he says that the marketplace is very creative. We tend to lag behind in being able to respond quickly to marketplace changes.
The member is probably aware of one of these things we have seen, although I am not sure if Bill C-33 touches on it. Quite honestly, I have not examined the bill in its fullness, but the member is aware that as a consequence of the change in government policy with regard to the taxation of income trusts, there have been, I understand, about 10 income trusts which have been purchased by foreign private equity. As a consequence, they have been able to structure their affairs so that they no longer pay Canadian taxes.
 In fact, it is estimated that about $6 billion of revenue that the Government of Canada formerly had collected from them will be lost each and every year because of this structuring of foreign private equity investors. Is the member satisfied that we have been able to identify and respond to some of the emerging financial techniques that have come forward, such as stapling of debt and equity, et cetera? 
I believe this poses a serious threat to the taxation revenue of Canada. It may be fair, but it is not really in the best interests of Canada to lose $6 billion of revenue.
[Interjection]
Mike Wallace: Mr. Speaker, the member from Mississauga said it might be fair but it is not in the best interests of Canada. I think fairness is in the best interests of Canadians. I also want to let him know that this bill does not affect the area he was talking about.
However, there is one interesting thing. I am not going to debate the decision that was taken, as that is not what this bill is about. I received a report from a financial adviser in my area. He is not my financial adviser, but he sent me something. The member is right when he says that a number of income trusts have been in play. I think this adviser's report said that about 16 income trusts have been in play. I cannot remember the numbers, but the vast majority of them that have been sold, he said, perhaps 10 or 12 of them, were as much as 30% above their market value as of October 31. The investors in these income trusts are doing quite well in terms of the value of those sold items. There are two that were sold and are under their October 31 value. 
That is the marketplace. That was the whole idea of the change we are trying to make in regard to fairness in the tax system for all corporations, whether it is an income trust structure or a corporate structure. That is what our bill was about. It has now passed this House and we are patiently waiting for the Senate to approve it so we can move ahead on these issues.
I know that on this particular topic the leader of the Liberal Party has said that he expects his Liberal Senate counterparts to pass the bill this bill that was passed by the House. I am not sure why the Senate has not yet approved the bill or where it is in the Senate process. I look forward to the support of the member and his leader to make sure the Liberals in the Senate move forward on the bill.
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise and ask the member for Burlington a question. 
The member for Mississauga South has raised the point that some of these trusts are being bought up and may not pay tax, which flies in the face of our tax fairness agenda. I want to assure the member that while the former Liberal government did not feel that tax fairness was important, our Conservative government does. We are going to move to close those loopholes because we think everybody should pay their fair share of taxes so we can broadly reduce taxes right across the spectrum.
I believe that families, seniors, small businesses and businesses in general all pay too much tax. The only way we can ensure tax fairness is to broadly bring in taxes that are fair to everyone. We want to reduce taxes. I want to assure the member for Mississauga South that while he picked winners and losers in the tax system we will not. 
Does the member for Burlington think the constituents in his riding stand behind tax fairness? Do they think everybody should pay their fair share? This will allow us to reduce the tax burden. Or do they prefer the Liberals' program, which was that some people, their friends, paid no tax, and other people paid the burden?
[Interjection]
Mike Wallace: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague, the member for Peterborough, who does an absolutely fabulous job on the finance committee. He is always well prepared and asks very in-depth questions of the people who come before us. I appreciate all the work he does not only on behalf of the people of Peterborough but all Canadians.
In my riding, I hear a lot about taxes, tax fairness and why corporations and other individuals are not paying their fair share. As a government, it is our policy, our vision and our philosophy that everybody in this country, whether it is as a corporate entity or an individual, should be paying their fair share of taxes.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate my finance committee colleague, the member for Burlington, for a truly scintillating discourse on this exciting subject.
It is an important subject. It speaks to tax fairness, to making sure that all people pay their fair share of taxes so that others will not have to pay more.
 We on this side are very pleased to support the bill because it is, after all, a Liberal bill. It is a good illustration of an intelligent and competent approach to tax fairness. Indeed, it was tabled in the House by the previous government, but sadly did not pass in time so now it is back again. We support this Liberal approach to tax fairness, embodying as it does both intelligence and competence.
 If I have time toward the end of my comments, I might offer a contrast between this approach to tax fairness versus the Conservatives' own approach, which is not only not intelligent and competent but unintelligent and incompetent. I refer to their disastrous temporary incursion into the area of interest deductibility. It is a good case study of the general proposition that when it comes to economic management, the Liberals are competent, as reflected in this bill, and the Conservatives are incompetent, as reflected in their disastrous experience with interest deductibility.
Beginning with the bill, what it essentially does, notwithstanding that it is technical, as my colleague said at least 12 times, is tighten up the rules when a Canadian uses a foreign investment entity or a trust with the intent of avoiding taxes altogether. The bill ensures that any income earned through these investment vehicles will be taxed as though that income were earned in Canada.
The essence of the idea is to make sure that it is not advantageous from a tax point of view for a Canadian to invest outside Canada and take advantage of secrecy provisions in tax havens that prevent the Canada Revenue Agency from finding out what is going on. It is an attempt, and I believe it will be a largely successful attempt, to clamp down on what is at best aggressive tax planning or at worst outright tax evasion.
How do we do this? The government is in a permanent struggle with tax lawyers and the private sector, which can pay a lot of money to get the best tax advice to avoid taxes, whether legally or illegally, so how does the government counteract that? 
The short answer is that we have to give the Canada Revenue Agency the tools with which it can go after these people and stay ahead of the tax game. When we were in government, we did this by putting $30 million a year of extra money into the CRA budget, in the budget of 2005, to strengthen its capacity to go after those who would indulge in aggressive tax planning or tax evasion. 
I remember well, because I was the revenue minister at the time, that we opened 11 centres of expertise across the country, and I visited a number of them, where we had expert lawyers, accountants and others who had deep knowledge in these areas and would go after those who would indulge in this aggressive tax planning.
 I recall that these entities were having some success in going after such individuals or entities. The work they did internationally and collaboratively with other countries was also very important, because in these areas it is frequently very difficult to act alone. However, if the G-8 or the OECD act together, then one can be much more effective. These entities also worked extensively with the OECD and with the Pacific Association of Tax Administrators, the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre and other international organizations of this kind.
That is what I mean by intelligent pursuit of tax fairness, an intelligent and effective way in which we go after those who would abuse the system, both in terms of the legislation before the House today and in the setting up these 11 centres of expertise where are our own Canadian experts would go after those who would abuse the system.
We on this side of the House have nothing to apologize for in terms of the government. We put $30 million into these centres of expertise and I believe the current government put $20 million into them. Therefore, if only by that measure, the Liberal government has been at least as aggressive as the Conservative government in going after tax evaders.
Now I will say a few words about the other way of going after tax fairness, a way that is both unintelligent and incompetent as opposed to the sensible way, which I have just described. Members of the House will recall that in the budget of 2007 the minister said that, starting from a certain date, companies would no longer be able to deduct interest on debt used to finance foreign acquisitions. He said that it would bring in revenue of $40 million a year. The experts said no, that it may be $2 billion or $3 billion. He was totally out of his depth and did not know what he was doing. 
The whole financial community and community of experts came down on top of him. The one good thing he did was withdrew it. He flip-flopped and removed that item from the budget. However, there were two things he did at the same time, which were not good. A sensible approach would have been to simply say that he was sorry he put that in, that he made a mistake, and refer the whole matter to a committee of experts, because these are very technical matters. The Liberal leader had proposed that some weeks before the minister did his flip-flop.
However, he did two things that reflect poorly on the government. First, he claimed that only he, the Minister of Finance, had read the budget correctly and that all those tax experts and analysts out there, whose job it is to read budgets, had read it wrong, that he had never said interest deductibility would be eliminated. He said only that he would go after double-dipping and tax havens.
First, that is wrong if members read the budget. Second, it was not very smart because he alienated the whole tax expert world, which does not really like it when its professional intelligence is questioned by a minister who claims that only he knows how to read the budget.
More important, having incompetently tried to go after tax havens with the interest deductibility measure in the first place, he made an incompetent retreat. All the experts tell us that the real abuses in this area have to do with debt dumping. They do not have to do with double-dipping. Yet the minister, in his unseemly retreat, focused exclusively on double-dipping, which is the irrelevant part of things, and not on debt dumping which is the critical one.
I have heard at least six or seven witnesses and all but one have said that it is exclusively debt dumping that is important. One said that both were important. Therefore, the expert community is in agreement that the problem is the debt dumping.
 What debt dumping means is a foreign subsidiary comes into Canada, borrows huge amounts of money, reduces or eliminates its Canadian tax liability by deducting the interest on that debt and then invests that money in a third country. There is abuse there.
Something called our thin capitalization rules could be tightened up to reduce that abuse to achieve more tax fairness. That is what the minister should have done. That is what a sensible, rational person would have done, but he loves the term double-dipping because it has a kind of unethical flavour to it, so he goes after that even though it is not relevant. 
The double-dipping, and here again I am quoting experts, means a Canadian company would only be able to deduct the interest once, so the Canadian company will deduct the interest in Canada. What will now be not allowed is deductions in third countries like the U.K., or Europe, or the United States. It is the deductions in those third countries that the minister is prohibiting. 
What would be the effect of that? The effect on Canadian revenue would be zero. It would not help any other Canadian pay less tax. It will not contribute to tax fairness because it will not have any effect at all on Canadian tax revenue. 
What it will do is enrich the treasuries of the United Kingdom, or a European country, or the United States. There would be less money going to the Canadian companies, making them less competitive. It would be a transfer of their money to the U.K. or the U.S. government. That makes no sense. It is yet another indicator that the minister is well and truly out of his depth.
To conclude, our party is very pleased to support the legislation put forward by the government, but which is Liberal legislation and which represents an intelligent, reasonable and effective way to attack tax abuses and to ensure tax fairness, in sharp contrast to the Conservative measures when the Conservatives have not had Liberal measures to fall back on. When they have struck out on their own, they have ended up doing so in an extraordinarily ineffective and incompetent way, as the whole country has seen from this example of interest deductibility.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond, not so much to the issue at hand because I, too, support the initiatives of my hon. colleague. I think it is a worthy thing. However, I want to ask the member two questions, but I will have to lead up to them.
The school boards in Quebec and Ontario sued the Liberal government to get their GST money back on the charges of transporting little kids to and from school. The courts agreed and awarded the school boards money. However, the Liberal government decided to back up and stall the delivery of that cash until it could unilaterally, unethically and, in my opinion, illegally retroactively change the tax laws, thereby denying school boards their GST refunds. Those members voted against the government giving that money rightfully back to the school boards. Even members voted no for school boards in their own ridings.
First, is the hon. member in favour of ignoring court orders when it is convenient? Second, is this member in favour of retroactively changing tax laws for Canadians?
Imagine if a government said, “We're going to change the tax law to 40%, retroactive to 1990. You owe us a quarter of million”. We cannot do that. However, that member voted to do exactly that.
Is he still in favour of those two issues?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that this item was reversed in the last budget. Canada's new government is not that new any more. It has been in office for 18 months. Does it take more than 18 months to get this little job done?
 If the member over there is so up in arms about how terrible this is, why has the new government not acted in the 18 months in which it has been in office?
Mike Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and I appreciate his support of the government bill, Bill C-33.
The member went on to talk about debt dumping, which is an important issue and we have discussed it at finance committee. However, I do not understand it. Debt dumping did not just start in the last 18 months.
 Why did the Liberal government completely ignore the fact that people were trying to take advantage of the Canadian tax system? If debt dumping is so important to the Liberals now, why did it take them 13 years to do absolutely nothing about it? They had to wait until they were on the other side of the benches to wake up and find out there was debt dumping in the country and we had to make changes? What is wrong over there?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister of Canada's new government has had some 18 months to learn about debt dumping. He has learned zero because he went after the wrong target. He did not target debt dumping. One would think a finance minister who goes to work everyday for 18 months is not so new any more and he might have learned something by now.
Instead of going after double-dipping, which is irrelevant or counterproductive, as the member has implicitly admitted, maybe he should have a meeting with the finance minister and teach him the basics about debt dumping versus double-dipping.
The thin capitalization rules have been reviewed over the years. I think the time has come for further review and study of this issue by experts as to what additional actions could do to limit revenue losses arising from debt dumping. It has been reviewed before over the years. I believe the time has come for another review.
The minister does not even understand what debt dumping is. He did not even mention it, so I do not know why the member should get all lathered up when his own minister does not get it.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am going to have to play the part of Columbo on this question because we have to do some investigation on the out of his depth analogy.
I find it really quite remarkable that the member for Markham—Unionville stands and says it is “debt dumping, stupid”. He is right, it is debt dumping. Quite frankly, I do not understand why the Liberals took so long to deal with it. I have many quotes here.
We are going to determine who exactly is out of their depth, and I want to ask a question about the Liberal plan on foreign investment. 
The Financial Post said, “Rarely has a political news release contained as many bad economic ideas as the Liberals compacted into their call yesterday for a national frenzy over foreign investment”. The Edmonton Journal said, “It was a lame attempt to exploit public angst about foreign takeovers”. The National Post said, “typical case of politicians meddling in a world of which they know little”. I think it is speaking perhaps of the Liberal Party and that it does not know much about this.
When he talked about people being out of their depth, who is he really talking about? I think he is talking about the Leader of the Opposition, because clearly this is bad policy. Clearly, it is bad for Canadians and it will lead to less overall investment and less overall for Canadians. That is the Liberal plan.
I would love to know why the member stands in the House all the time and says that we do not understand. According to experts across the country, it is the Liberal Party that does not understand. The only problem is it is so far beyond its understanding that it does not even know it does not get it.
I will try to get to the bottom of this. Why did this bill sit around since 1999, and it is now 2007, and it took the Conservative Party to bring it to the House for a vote to make it law? Why did the Liberals not deal with it? Were they out of their depth? Did it matter? They did not get it done and I would love to understand why.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, let me focus on foreign investment. The member quotes Terence Corcoran, whereas on our side we have Gwyn Morgan. I know Gwyn Morgan is the Prime Minister's favourite business leader. I know the Prime Minister is a great fan of taking Liberal programs, watering them down and re-labelling them with new names. He has done that on the environment and many other things.
It is very important for the country that we review our Investment Canada Act, which has not been reviewed for 22 years. It is not for purposes of protectionism at all. It is to see whether the tools are best suited for the 21st century.
The hon. member over there can go on quoting Terence Corcoran, a nice gentleman who is very right-wing. I would prefer to go with the Prime Minister's favourite business leader, Gwyn Morgan, who himself has come out very emphatically on the need for a quick review. The government is putting its head in the sand like an ostrich and doing virtually nothing on this file, when Canadians want action and a Gwyn Morgan plan, let us call it that, to review the Investment Canada Act.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this budget has so many victims it is hard to keep track. The premiers are victims and the provinces are victims. There are income trust victims and MP victims. Some are still sweating over there. There are students, businesses and trust unit holders who are victimized by this budget.
Does the hon. member think that before the next budget comes forward, Parliament should pass a victims bill of rights so the minister does not continue to dump on the poor Canadian people in such an incompetent and dishonest way?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. It is a meanspirited budget with victim after victim after victim. 
The other problem is that it is full of broken promises. When the Conservatives break their promise to Newfoundland and Labrador, when they break their promise to Saskatchewan, when they break their promise to Nova Scotia, and when they break their promise to the millions of income trust holders across the land and deprive them of some $25 billion in wealth, Canadians are going to ask who the next victim will be.
How can anybody believe what the government tells them, given all of these examples of promise after promise after promise being broken? 
A victims bill of rights would be a great idea. This is the most incompetent, most dishonest budget in living memory, which is why we on this side are proud to oppose it.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: To avoid problems, I will allow one more question because I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber's speech.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre with questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member talked about broken promises and budgets. I want to ask him a couple of things before I get on to Gwyn Morgan.
There was a government that talked about pharmacare, a government that talked about child care, a government that talked about the GST, a government that talked about free trade. It would be important for the member to look in the mirror and honestly account for the broken promises of the Liberal Party when it was in government. I agree with him about the broken promises of the Conservative Party, but Canadians will be confused as to why he is getting up on his soap box and preaching from his perspective.
On Gwyn Morgan, is he saying that the Liberal Party now is using Gwyn Morgan to write its policy on financial arrangements? He might want to take a look at Gwyn Morgan's record in third world countries. I would ask him to look up Andrew Nikiforuk who has done some research on this before he uses Gwyn Morgan as the Liberal Party's chief adviser on financial affairs.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not well placed to moralize and pontificate on these matters because were it not for the NDP, Canadians today would have child care, and aboriginals today would have a Kelowna accord. We have no time to listen to the NDP on matters such as that.
As for Gwyn Morgan, the point is that we had already presented our proposal. After that, Gwyn Morgan came out with a carbon copy of our proposal. In deference to the Prime Minister who does not like the Liberal label, we offered to relabel it as the Gwyn Morgan plan. It happens to be the same as the plan that we had already proposed.

Statements By Members
SclerodermaMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, sufferers of scleroderma endure such things as their skin becoming like parchment paper that tears at the slightest bump, internal organs shutting down, weeping ulcers, and joints seizing, a symptom that appears much like leprosy.
June is the month that scleroderma societies choose to have focused educational and fundraising events to get the word out to Canadians regarding this diabolical disease.
Scleroderma victimizes those between the ages of 30 and 50, four out of five of whom are women. More people endure the hardship of scleroderma than either multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy.
There is good news on the horizon with two new substantial research projects now under way. Researcher Dr. Johnson at Toronto Western Hospital and Dr. Baron at the Montreal Jewish General Hospital are bringing new hope to the community of scleroderma sufferers.
We are hopeful that these research projects, and efforts by local champions in Hamilton such as Peter Woolcott, will be joined by others so we will soon see the day when scleroderma is defeated.
SeniorsMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since this is Seniors Month, I would like to pay tribute to the volunteers who dedicate themselves to maintaining a living environment that supports relationships with family and the community.
Jean-Guy Girard, founding president of Fondation La Belle-Aide, was awarded the Dunamis 2007 trophy for community involvement by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Laval.
Le Partage Humanitaire is dedicated to improving the conditions for seniors living in homes. It plays an essential role for some 1,000 residents who have physical or cognitive limitations.
And thanks to its 127 regular volunteers, La Place des Aînés offers 150 activities to its 6,200 members over the age of 50. Raymond Monette, president, is very proud of this unique meeting place in Canada.
I would like to pay tribute to our seniors, who have contributed to our country's economic prosperity. I thank all the volunteers who work to ensure that seniors can maintain their autonomy and dignity. 
Status of WomenMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle and I recently presented petitions with a total of 2,868 signatures from 105 women's groups.
The petitioners are demanding that the Prime Minister keep the promise he made on January 18, 2006, when he committed to taking action to support the human rights of women. He can do this by reopening the 12 offices of Status of Women Canada, bringing back the court challenges program and restoring the original criteria for the women's program. 
Women are being betrayed by this government, which is setting their cause back and violating their rights. If women are so important to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, why has she allowed these cuts to be made?
This government needs to listen to women if it really believes in justice and fairness.
Omar KhadrMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 25 current and former MPs, including 16 sitting NDP MPs, nine NGOs, and over 110 academics, lawyers and human rights activists signed an open letter to the Prime Minister calling on the government to bring Omar Khadr home to Canada without delay.
Omar Khadr is the only Canadian and the only minor detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay after allegedly killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old. He has been held for over five years without conviction. Two attempts to convict him using the flawed American military commission system have failed. Serious concerns exist for his mental and physical well-being.
Britain, France, Australia, Russia and Kuwait, among others, have got their citizens out of Guantanamo, but not Canada. A Canadian citizen deserves Canada's support for a fair and just trial no matter how unpopular his actions or how much we may disagree with the political opinions of his family.
Omar Khadr must be returned home and the legal consequences of his alleged actions adjudicated in our criminal justice system.
Stroke Awareness MonthMr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, June is Stroke Awareness Month.
Every year, nearly 15,000 Canadians die of a stroke and nearly 300,000 Canadians suffer the effects of a stroke. 
A stroke is caused by a lack of blood to the brain that can lead to irreversible brain damage, often resulting in long hospital stays and extensive rehabilitation.
The Government of Canada is promoting health and healthy lifestyles.
Some concrete examples that Canada's new government is taking action include the introduction of Canada's new food guide as well as funding the development of a health heart strategy and action plan.
Please join me in wishing the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Network, and their volunteers success for this year's Stroke Awareness Month.
Fetal Alcohol SyndromePaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, prenatal consumption of alcohol is the leading known cause of mental retardation in Canada. 
The latest Environics research study found 87% support for requiring health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. However, only 42% knew that fetal alcohol syndrome, or FAS, was a group of physical and mental birth defects caused by consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.
There is no safe level of consumption and the most vulnerable period is during the early weeks when most women do not even know that they are pregnant. Since 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, those in their birthing years who are sexually active and not using protection should abstain from consuming alcohol to totally eliminate the risk.
As the health committee has called for a comprehensive prevention strategy, I urge Health Canada to step up and take action on fetal alcohol syndrome. After 12 years of talking, it is time to get the job done.
SeniorsMrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, June 15, 2007, Canadians join together to recognize the second annual World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. 
Elder abuse exists in many ugly forms. We know elder abuse exists because we hear about it all the time but many seniors do not report abuse. Many feel isolated and afraid to speak out. As a result, elder abuse remains largely hidden behind closed doors.
This government is reaching out to our seniors population. We are showing Canadians that elder abuse exists, and that there is help available within our communities. In March, the Secretary of State for Seniors, the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Health announced the creation of the National Seniors Council. One of the first priorities of this council as announced in budget 2007 is a new horizons for seniors program expansion from $10 million per year to $35 million. 
This government will establish programs to educate seniors on elder abuse and fraud. We are actively working with the federal-provincial-territorial group on safety and security for seniors. This group promotes awareness to help crack down on criminals and scam artists who prey on our most vulnerable.
Our government is taking real action to stand up for those who built this country and made it what it is today.
Tourist Events in DrummondMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the riding of Drummond, in the heart of Quebec, is the place to be this summer because of the many diverse and unique activities that are going on there.
The 26th edition of the Mondial des cultures will once again bring together colourful dance troupes from many different countries.
AO, the new production of the Légendes fantastiques, is an outstanding multimedia show that takes place on the shore of the Saint-François River. It features 150 people from the community who transport the audience to a world of wonders.
The Quebec Village of Yesteryear, which this year marks its 30th anniversary, is a must-see. Visitors to this reconstructed 19th century village can relive bygone days and the history of Quebec by interacting with the dozens of volunteers who spend the summer living in the village.
A myriad of other activities await people who visit Drummond this summer. I am proud of my region, its vitality and the warm welcome the people give visitors.
AgricultureMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past Wednesday the people of Saskatchewan learned that their provincial NDP government would be providing the so-called Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board with $30,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars to sue the federal government over removal of barley from the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.
Not only is this a gross misuse of taxpayers' money, it is a slap in the face to our farmers who will finally have the opportunity to market their own grain on August 1 of this year.
Mr. Calvert and his NDP government are truly in desperate times, but even still the premier completely ignores the majority of agricultural producers who want an end to the Wheat Board's monopoly on barley. 
Could it be that he feels that farmers do not deserve the opportunity to market their own grain, or could it be that he just does not understand the needs of the people of Saskatchewan and that it is time for a change in his NDP monopoly government as well?
Canada's new government has put into motion a real plan for our farmers in the way they market their grain. If spending taxpayers' money to sue against the will of the people is what Premier Calvert wants, then he is truly out of touch with the needs of Saskatchewan.
Michael FortierJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has invested a lot of political capital in Michael Fortier. Mr. Fortier was the Prime Minister's Quebec campaign manager and party bagman.
With those qualifications he appointed him to the Senate and gave him a big job. That is primarily because the good people of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver had the good sense not to elect any Conservative MPs.
Then the Prime Minister and his flunkies went on a rant for 16 months about the Senate, all the while trying to impose an ill-conceived reform package on the upper chamber.
Is it too much to ask whether Mr. Fortier could at least come to work? Is this how he pays back the Prime Minister?
November 9, 2006 marked the first day that Mr. Fortier showed up in the chamber in order to vote. Pity the poor parliamentary secretary who has to carry the can for the minister. I wonder whether the minister checks in every few months with his parliamentary secretary just to see how things are going.
Apparently Mr. Fortier is going to run in the next election as a Conservative Party candidate. I wonder whether his work ethic will allow him to show up.
The BudgetGary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, just as they did on Senate term limits, the unelected, clearly unaccountable Liberal senators are trying to hold up passage of Bill C-52, which could cost Canadians almost $4 billion, money the region of Waterloo and my riding of Cambridge desperately needs, money for our environment, spinal cord research, and our labour training initiatives.
It is bad enough that the Liberals and NDP members voted against money for women and girls with cervical cancer in Cambridge and North Dumfries, but in doing so they said no to their own women and girls. They also said no to firefighter training in their own ridings. They said no to money for school boards in their own ridings.
The Conservative government has clearly delivered for Canadians. It is time the Liberals and the Liberal senators do the same. I urge the Liberal interim leader to stand up to his Liberal senators for Canadians and stop these selfish political games for power.
The EnvironmentMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with the Conservatives asleep at the environmental switchboard, residents in Trinity—Spadina are taking action and making a difference.
Thanks to the phenomenal leadership of the Harbord Village Residents' Association, Palmerston Area Residents' Association, Seaton Village and the neighbours of St. Alban's Park, thousands of local area residents are learning about solar, electric and hot water systems. These neighbourhoods are bulk purchasing to save money and are reducing their energy use.
The Friends of Trinity Bellwoods Park have organized a farmers market and are promoting local food. They want to get Canadians off their SUV diets and are hosting a 100 mile dinner. We should think global and eat local. These downtown residents are taking action on climate change, but our government is failing them with its ecoenergy plan.
Thousands of condo residents are excluded, so are the thousands of people living in low income housing, and low income families cannot afford to dish out thousands before finding out if they are even eligible. When will the government get serious about climate change and take real action?
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's decision to withdraw support for the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is of great concern. In 2005 Canada was fully supportive of the declaration and was actively encouraging other countries to sign on.
Documents obtained by Amnesty International show that bureaucrats at foreign affairs, Indian affairs and defence have all urged the government to support the declaration.
The Conservative government, in a betrayal of this country's position, has been one of the most aggressive opponents of the declaration. In so doing it has abandoned the concept of universal rights and damaged Canada's reputation.
I am proud to represent many Micmac First Nations, such as Elsipogtog, Bouctouche, Fort Folly and Indian Island. These men and women deserve better from the government.
How can the government say it is a protector of human rights when it opposes the rights of indigenous people around the world?
Public Service WeekMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, June 10 to 16 is Public Service Week. First launched in 1992 by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, its purpose is to celebrate the contribution of public service employees with respect to both service delivery to the public as well as administration. This celebration helps to enhance the work environment and create new ties among the men and women whose work is essential to the federal government's operations. 
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to commend the work, professionalism and initiative of the employees of the departments, government agencies and crown corporations. 
Happy Public Service Week to all.
Prince Edward IslandHon. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a new era has dawned in Prince Edward Island, the cradle of Confederation, with the swearing in of a new Liberal government under Premier Robert Ghiz.
Robert, son of outstanding Premier Joseph Ghiz, will continue in the longstanding tradition of the natural governing party of P.E.I., the Liberal Party, to introduce innovative programs to usher P.E.I. into the new century.
I would like to congratulate the new premier and his team, and wish them all the best as they outline their plan for the years to come. They now have the opportunity to mould the future of the province and I am confident they will do it in the best interests of all islanders.
I would like to extend an invitation to all members of Parliament, the Senate and all Canadians to visit P.E.I. this summer. The beaches will be warm, the golf courses will be green, their putts will run true, and the people of the island will welcome them with open arms.
The BudgetMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week Bill C-52, legislation implementing budget 2007, passed third reading in the House. 
This is a great budget that stands to benefit all Canadians in all provinces. There is $1 billion in health care funding, $1.5 billion in clean air funding, $225 million for the nature conservancy of Canada, $614 million for federal-provincial infrastructure projects, $30 million to protect British Columbia's Great Bear Rainforest, $30 million for Rick Hansen's foundation, and $133 million in new aid to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their lives and their country.
A majority of democratically elected members passed this legislation. Why then is an unelected Liberal dominated Senate holding up the passage of Bill C-52, a bill that Canadians want and need?
A leader gets the job done. Why can the Leader of the Opposition not get the job done by insisting his Liberal senators approve this great budget?

Oral Questions
AfghanistanHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the second time the Red Cross has been forced to correct statements made by this minority government. The Conservatives stated that the Red Cross was involved in investigating allegations of torture in Afghanistan, but the Red Cross says that that is completely false.
We already knew that the Minister of National Defence was incompetent. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate the same incompetence on the part of his Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all members of the House know that we have an agreement with the government of Afghanistan regarding detainees. As for the International Committee of the Red Cross, I would like to read an excerpt from an article on this issue: “In 2006, the Red Cross visited 2,400 detainees held in the 80 Afghan prisons, primarily to ensure that human rights are respected”. It is doing its job.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the Red Cross has a mandate to monitor detainees but is not at all involved with the Afghan authorities investigating specific allegations of torture, but that is what the government is suggesting to cover its own flawed agreement. We have seen this story before.
Was the foreign affairs minister not paying attention when the Minister of National Defence had to apologize for misleading this House about the Red Cross? How can the minister not know what the Red Cross is doing?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the agreement that we entered into is actually one that is significantly enhanced from the flawed agreement that the Liberals entered into, where they relied on the Red Cross as the only source of protection for detainees. 
The Red Cross does good work, but we went farther than that and the reviews are very good. I read Paul Koring in The Globe and Mail, who writes of the Conservative agreement with the Afghan government:
 The new deal transforms Canada into the standard-bearer for all foreign countries in the monitoring of transferred prisoners in Afghanistan...In several key aspects, the deal exceeds the safeguards in other NATO arrangements, including the much-vaunted British and Dutch agreements. 
Not only are we doing better than what the Liberals did. He says we are doing better than what everybody else did.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, this government's responsibility is to be honest with Canadians about its mission in Afghanistan. We now know that the Prime Minister had been advised that the mission was not progressing in the way he would have liked. However, he saw to it that a report was tabled in this House indicating that everything was going well.
How could the Minister of Foreign Affairs dare to table a misleading report? Was he simply trying to dupe the Canadian people?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we have been making considerable progress in Afghanistan. I have spoken in this House before about the number of people who are now having access to health care, who never had access there before, the number of children who have been vaccinated, the number of women and children who are now able to go to school, and the fact that millions of Afghans got to vote who never got to vote before. We are doing good things in Afghanistan.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a report to the Prime Minister about Afghanistan saying that there is a dramatic resurgence of the Taliban, that Afghanistan could split in two, and that the Karzai government's authority is increasingly being eroded. 
However, the foreign affairs minister reports to Parliament only that there are grounds for optimism. We have two reports, one subject, two different stories. 
Why did the foreign affairs minister choose to mislead Canadians?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the only folks who mislead Canadians are the folks on the other side who do not want to talk about the progress and who do not talk about the progress. 
They talk about the International Committee of the Red Cross. Even it acknowledges progress. I look at an interview here with an individual involved, Reto Stocker, on the International Committee of the Red Cross website. He talks about activities it has carried out, such as supporting medical structures and serving thousands of beneficiaries. He says, “We have even expanded these services into the troubled southern region by extending our supports to all departments in the regional hospital in Kandahar”.
Even it is making progress getting into the south. It is not easy. It is very difficult, but good things are happening in Afghanistan.
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that this government and this Prime Minister receive a report on Afghanistan and present a completely different version.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not read the reports on Afghanistan or did he simply table a report in which the embarrassing information was deleted because he wants to keep the truth from Canadians?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I think this House is well aware of all the unfortunate things that have occurred in Afghanistan because that is all the Liberal Party ever talks about: it is all doom and gloom, it is all pessimism, and I guess we had better walk away because there is no point in being there.
 But we are there for very good reasons and there is good progress that we do want to talk about. What we can talk about, of course, is that for the first time in over three decades over 10 million Afghans voted in free and fair national provincial elections, almost 5.5 million children, almost one-third of whom are girls, went to school in 2006-07, and there are 63,000 soldiers disarmed and demobilized, 35,000 small arms collected, and 12,000 heavy weapons secured. 
I call that progress. Those members call that failure. That is the difference.
Nuclear EnergyMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is so enthusiastic about nuclear energy, is now announcing the government's intention to centralize radioactive waste disposal. Using nuclear energy is not a very environmental choice, to say the least.
Is the real reason behind all of this that the government is trying to pave the way for oil companies in the west to build nuclear generating stations in order to extract more oil from the oil sands at a lower cost instead of promoting clean energy such as geothermal and wind energies?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are taking responsible measures today to benefit the generations of tomorrow. We accept the recommendations of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization on how to dispose of spent fuel.
This approach gives Canada a historic intervention plan by advocating a safe and long-term plan for managing spent fuel. 
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, not only does centralizing nuclear waste pose some problems, but transporting the waste presents other problems and the government must also take into account safety-related costs.
Instead of blindly encouraging something as perilous as nuclear energy, would it not be wiser for the government to invest its money in developing truly clean energies?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we accept this approach because it responds responsibly to nuclear waste management. Now that we have adopted this approach, it will be the responsibility of the nuclear industry to implement it. The entire cost of eliminating nuclear waste will be borne by the industry.
The industry has set aside over a billion dollars for that purpose. Our government promised to protect the health of Canadians, our environment and our future energy needs.
Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources is constantly reassuring us and presenting nuclear energy as a clean energy, even though he knows that managing nuclear waste will cost billions of dollars.
Will the minister admit that, by insisting that nuclear energy is a clean energy, his real aim is to give the advantage to western oil companies?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, good governance rests on responsible decisions and today we are taking action to adopt a safe, long-term plan on nuclear energy in Canada for future generations.
Marcel Lussier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources claims that nuclear energy is a clean energy source, even though managing nuclear waste continues to pose a problem. Rather curiously, the minister claims that there is a renewed interest in nuclear energy.
Will the minister admit that the only ones to actually express such an interest are the western oil companies, and no one else?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, this announcement reflects the determination of the new Government of Canada to take decisive and responsible action to protect the health of Canadians and our environment, and to meet our future energy needs.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the 2004 study that tracked the attitudes and perceptions of RCMP front line officers and middle managers shows that they lost all trust and faith in their leaders. The study highlights disconnected senior leadership, poor communications and insufficient funding, contributing to what the author describes as institutional sickness in the RCMP. 
How long has the government known about the deteriorating state of the RCMP? Does it not agree that it is time to ensure the professional management of the force?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been a change at the top at the RCMP and a new commissioner will be appointed very shortly. I expect that we will see changes.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this government and the Liberal governments before it were defenders of the status quo for the RCMP. Only now, because of the pension scandal, the resignation of the commissioner and ordinary officers coming forward, is the government paying attention to this issue.
Officers should not have to rely on university surveys to come forward when things go wrong. They should be protected, just like civil servants. Again, will the government now realize the importance of RCMP whistleblower protection in the Federal Accountability Act and protect RCMP officers who come forward? They deserve that.
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a report will be tabled this afternoon by Mr. Brown. That has been requested by the minister. As I previously indicated, there will be a new commissioner appointed very shortly to head the RCMP and we expect to see changes.
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment committee chair resigned to prevent testimony from witnesses who prove that under the government's ecofraud climate change plan emissions will continue to rise every year until 2050.
After he resigned, not one of the Conservative members cared enough about the work of the committee to take a seat. I guess the government's dirty tricks playbook for committee chairs is still in effect.
Why is the government so averse to hearing independent analysis when it is so clearly in need of knowledgeable advice on actually addressing the climate crisis?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa South, rather than wanting to talk about how we can work to improve our environment, continues to cast aspersions on the efforts of a very decent and honourable member of the House. The member for Red Deer is well liked and well respected on all sides of the House and none of the scurrilous accusations have any basis in fact.
This is a time when many teachers around the country are preparing report cards. I suspect that if the teacher for the member for Ottawa South were doing a report card what the teacher very clearly would say is that he has trouble getting along with others.
David McGuinty: In fact, Mr. Speaker, what the teacher would say is that the Minister of the Environment got caught cheating on exams. He has an answer for everything except for the fact that he cheats on his exams.
Let us be clear: the chair unilaterally changed the witness list against the wishes of the committee. And this was not the first time that the committee chair has followed the orders of the Prime Minister's Office or the Minister of the Environment.
Why is the government still refusing to let Mark Jaccard testify about the so-called environmental plan? The Minister of the Environment considers him to be one of Canada's best economists. What exactly is he trying to hide?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I think the meanspirited personal attacks of the member for Ottawa South are beneath him, frankly, and beneath all members of the House.
Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the committee is trying to hear independent analysis from witnesses on the government's so-called climate change plan.
Not a single independent report has substantiated the minister's numbers. The Pembina Institute, Deutsche Bank, the Tyndall Centre and now the C.D. Howe Institute have all concluded that emissions will rise each and every year for the next 50 years with his plan.
Why will the government not let the committee hear what needs to be fixed now instead of trying to put a broken plan into action?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I understand the committee meets regularly. I think it will be meeting on Tuesday. The good news for the member for Ottawa South is that I understand the member for Ottawa—Orléans is interested in seeking the chair of the committee.
The EnvironmentJohn Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the plan is a fraud. The numbers are not realistic. It is full of flaws. It offers subsidies to companies that reach their meaningless objectives, and their greenhouse gas emissions will continue to climb until 2050. This government refuses to bring the climate change bill back to the House. 
After yesterday, should Canadians expect the Conservatives to try to silence anyone who does not agree with them?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been any effort to ensure that we do not have a good debate on the environment. What we did see in this past two weeks is the Prime Minister working with G-8 leaders and getting praise for the work they accomplished from the Secretary-General of the United Nations and from Inuit leaders here in Canada.
Canada, for the first time, showed up at the G-8 summit with a plan to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are harmful and are having a terrible effect on the government and I hope the member for Ottawa South will listen to his kid brother and pass the budget right away.
Former Lieutenant GovernorPauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the federal government followed Quebec's lead and asked the RCMP to launch an inquiry into the actions of former Lieutenant-Governor Lise Thibault. Quebec has also provided that in the future, the Lieutenant-Governor must appear before a parliamentary commission to account for his or her expenses.
Does the federal government not believe that it should do the same and require not only lieutenant-governors, but also the Governor General, to appear annually before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to report on expenditures?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. As she knows, parliamentary committees are completely independent and may ask whomever they like to appear before them. I will leave it up to the committee to make such decisions.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, no citizen, not even the Queen's representative, is above the law. She must account for her use of taxpayers' money. The inquiry focuses on the past, but we need to take corrective action for the future.
As such, does the government not think that it should take the necessary steps to require the Queen's representatives to justify their expenditures publicly before the elected representatives of the people?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague is absolutely right with respect to expenditures. It is to be expected that we should be extremely vigilant about the expenditures of any member of the public service, even those in government. I would simply add that in the wake of the Auditor General's report, we are now going over various procedures to ensure that such situations do not recur. We should be meeting with the Government of Quebec and working with it on this issue.
National DefenceMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we asked the Minister of National Defence this week if he planned, again this year, to take advantage of the summer recess of this House to announce billions of dollars in lucrative military contracts.
I would like to ask him once again here today to stand up and promise that he will not use the House adjournment as an opportunity to hide the truth from taxpayers, once again acting with a complete lack of transparency.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at this point the government has nothing to announce with respect to future procurement with the military, but at the appropriate time any such announcements will be made public.
Robert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in that regard, does the Minister of National Defence intend to postpone granting the Lockheed Martin contact and give Airbus the opportunity to put forward its proposal? This would save the government $2 billion and would guarantee Quebec 55% of the spinoffs, which corresponds to its share of Canada's aerospace industry.
Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises a question about tactical airlift. I want the House to be aware that the process the industry was requested to follow was to provide any examples of military equipment that we could use. The armed forces looked at the list that was available and chose the one that met our requirements. 
I can assure the House that the military will not jeopardize the needs of our men and women in uniform by lowering its standards and accepting any equipment that is less than the standard we need for our military.
Atlantic AccordHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal budget not only compromises the Atlantic accord, it tears it up. I know it. Atlantic Canadians know it. The Minister of Finance also knows it or he is misleading us or he just does not get it. Neither one of these is acceptable.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that a letter he sent to Newfoundland and Labrador on June 4 promises a fiscal cap based on the highest non-equalization-receiving province, meaning no cap at all? Will the minister confirm that the June 4 letter represents the federal government's revised position on equalization and the Atlantic accords?
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that an error was made in the letter. For that, certainly, we apologize. Anybody else would have recognized that, made a quick phone call and got it straightened out, because the budget sets clearly in front of everybody the parameters.
However, Mr. Williams as usual has made a charade of it and has gone to the press, and of course it is much ado about nothing.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I think the finance department has struck again and the finance minister in what is now being called a typo. In a letter dated June 4, there was a promise given to Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the earlier betrayal and restore the Atlantic accords. That turns out to be some typo. 
Only the government, in a letter that fulfills a promise, would now call it a mistake. The minister is in over his head.
How could the minister possibly sign a letter to a province on a topic this hot, this critical and make such a fundamental error? Reading, writing and comprehension, does he now understand the impact of cuts to adult literacy education programs?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, a couple of quick things. First, certainly no cuts at all to adult literacy, and second, the Atlantic accord is fully protected.
If the Premier of Newfoundland, instead of nitpicking, bitching, complaining, demeaning and accusing, would develop the Hebron project, the Hibernia South project and the Lower Churchill, we would be the highest non-receiving province.
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter the finance minister wrote to his Newfoundland and Labrador counterpart, a move that he is now calling a mistake, is part of a growing pattern.
First there was the income trust bombshell that instantly and permanently wiped out $25 billion in retirement savings. The hare-brained interest deductibility proposal in the budget made us a laughing stock on the world stage. The Atlantic accord has been torn to shreds.
Why is it that everything the finance minister does needs to be corrected, clarified and rewritten after the fact? Why can he not get anything right the first time?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best answer I could give him is that we had a very poor example to build on.
However, the financial structure being put in place by this finance minister and y this government puts the country back on a solid financial footing, which is a place it has not been for at least 13 years.
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, what is unique about the so-called typo in a letter the minister sent to Newfoundland and Labrador is that he is actually admitting a mistake. That could be a first in this entire government.
He refused even to apologize to the millions of investors from whom he swiped billions in hard-earned savings. He backtracked on deductibility but way too late.
Why is it the only time the government wants to correct a mistake is when the so-called mistake actually benefits people?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the hon. member that for his weekend reading he should go through the budget and list the things in the budget that benefit him and his people. He should look at the benefits to the people of Canada.
The crowd opposite are almost as bad as the premier at home. They overlook all the positive things that are done and they will take one little issue and start nitpicking. They lost their credibility a long time ago.
The BudgetDean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, Liberal senators continue to plot and plan political games to delay and obstruct the federal budget, despite it being passed by the democratically elected House of Commons.
Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, is calling on his federal colleagues to pass the budget.
While we know Liberal senators do not listen to their ineffective leader, will they at least listen to Premier McGuinty and expeditiously pass a great budget for all Canadians? 
Would the government House leader please indicate how much will be lost for Ontario if the Liberal senators have their way?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here day after day while a few members opposite have said that we should listen to their premier.
I want to implore the Liberal caucus to listen to my premier. Here is what my premier had to say, “I hope the people in the Senate, the Liberals, are going to pass the budget because the people of Ontario are counting on that”.
I beg and implore the Liberals opposite to adopt a senator, to go down the hall and lobby them on behalf of my premier, Dalton McGuinty.
Natural ResourcesMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night this House unanimously agreed to condemn the United States and North Dakota governments for breach of an international agreement regarding Devils Lake. The entire Red River system is at stake.
I ask the Minister of the Environment today if his government has launched an official complaint at the highest levels of the United States administration regarding Devils Lake and the diversion of water into the Red River system.
What will the minister and the government do over the next 48 hours to turn off the Devils Lake tap?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for having asked for an emergency debate yesterday evening and her contribution to this important issue.
As she has rightly pointed out, a unanimous motion was passed by the House and we have passed that information on to the U.S. authorities. We are working with the U.S. authorities to address the important issue that was discussed last night.
Health CanadaOlivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, there are 90,000 toxic toys with high levels of lead in them and the impact on children includes vomiting, diarrhea, coma, or even death. One would think that the government would yank these toys off the shelves but it has not. It is up to private companies to decide whether these toys are toxic. It is up to private companies to yank them off the shelves if they want to.
Why is the minister allowing our children to be poisoned? What is he going to do about it?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians, especially the safety of Canadian children, is a great concern for this government.
The manufacturer in question issued a recall yesterday of a series of products suspected of containing higher levels of what is considered safe in regard to lead content. 
At this time, Health Canada is not aware of any incidents or accidents associated with these toys that are now being recalled.
This government takes the health of children very seriously and will do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of Canadians.
Forest IndustryMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, the Conservative government is once again standing back while a Quebec company makes massive layoffs.
Commonwealth Plywood is closing 18 plants in Quebec and laying off 2,400 workers. The message from the company management was very clear: several of these plants will never reopen and never call their employees back to work.
What is the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec waiting for to develop a plan to help single-industry regional communities?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we want a strong, competitive, vital forest industry. We have announced an investment of $127.5 million so that the people who depend on the forest industry can look to the future with confidence.
 This initiative will help promote innovation, expand markets and combat pests, and will help address skills and adjustment issues, which are of concern to the industry.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec obtained his portfolio, he has come up with no new money, no strategy and no vision for the regions of Quebec. In addition, in his last two budgets, the Minister of Finance has completely ignored regional economic development. We have lost count of all the blows small communities in Quebec have suffered.
Can he name a single tangible measure he plans to take?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the forest and softwood lumber industry is restructuring. Quebec is in the midst of a serious crisis. As the government, we took real action by settling the softwood lumber dispute, which allowed companies in Quebec to receive $1 billion. That said, stakeholders are discussing stumpage fees and royalties with the Government of Quebec.
We are continuing to support secondary and tertiary processing in this sector. We have introduced six new tools to help the different regions of Quebec. 
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Delta—Richmond East has once again come out against treaty rights for aboriginal peoples. The member has spoken out against a potential deal between the B.C. government and a B.C. band, even though the federal government has nothing to do with this proposal.
Why has the Prime Minister stood by in silence while the member for Delta—Richmond East campaigns aggressively against virtually all treaties that have been struck with B.C. first nations?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward on land claims throughout Canada. Treaties have been signed in B.C., which is historic. We look back to a process that was initiated early in the nineties, of course suspicious timing relative to the previous government, $1 billion spent and nothing accomplished.
Thankfully, our government has moved forward with the signing of treaties and is looking forward to continuing to do that.
Blair Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Delta—Richmond East is not just opposed to land claims. He is also opposed to aboriginal fisheries. The sad fact is that the Prime Minister has not condemned the member because, shamefully, he agrees with it himself.
After more than a year of cutbacks and broken promises from the government, aboriginal people expect more than empty promises on specific claims. 
Will the Prime Minister show Canadians that he takes treaty and aboriginal rights seriously and condemn the member for Delta—Richmond East today?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to further highlight from earlier this week the fact that the Prime Minister announced a new process which will extend $250 million a year to settle specific claims.
Further to that, right now we have the opportunity to extend human rights to first nations people with Bill C-44. The only thing standing between first nations people and human rights on reserve is the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the WTO agriculture negotiations, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is trying to place the blame for Canada's appalling inaction on the producers working under the supply management system, because they are calling on him to respect the Bloc Québécois motion passed unanimously on November 22, 2005.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself voted in favour the motion, as did his colleague, the Minister of International Trade. How does he explain his accusatory speech today, blaming the producers who work under supply management? 
Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have to go beyond words and look at the action being taken here by the Conservative government. I will repeat this again slowly. Just this week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that we would defend supply management and that we would fight for it. We are not touching the tariff quotas and we are not touching tariffs.
What language should I use to make this clear? What we are doing at the WTO is defending supply management. We support it and we will always defend it.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if the parliamentary secretary read his news summary in his limousine because he is forgetting some things. For example, he forgets that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food described the GO5 coalition position as a stupid tactic. He should maybe be aware of that before he gives us any old answer.
The Bloc Québécois motion that the minister voted in favour of does not in any way stop the government from negotiating.
Norway and Japan are getting satisfactory results for their producers, so what is stopping the government from truly defending the interests of Quebec and Canadian producers who only want two things: protection for the supply management system and better access to the market for exporters?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, for the past 14 months, unprecedented measures have been taken to defend supply management, something that had never been done in the last 13 years: invoking article XXVIII of GATT, the regulations governing cheese composition standards.
Again this week we could not have been any clearer on our intentions that we will defend supply management; we will support it; and we will not touch tariff quotas or the tariffs.
The Bloc can try to create yet another drama to show how useless it is here in Ottawa, but we on this side are taking action in favour of supply management.
JusticeMs. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government budgeted for an action plan to address the injustices suffered by Canadians of Italian and Ukrainian origin. The plan involved three elements: it acknowledged the injustices; it commemorated these regrettable events; and it aimed to educate all Canadians to ensure that these kinds of injustices never occur again.
The government has no such plan. Why is the Conservative government ignoring the concerns of the Italian and Ukrainian communities?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is doing no such thing. It was the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney that began the historic process of redress with Japanese Canadians regarding second world war internment. 
It is this government and this Prime Minister who have continued it with the Chinese community, with official apologies in the House a year ago this week, where half the Liberal caucus did not even bother to show up. 
It is this government that has continued negotiations in good faith with people in other communities whose ancestors were victims of either immigration restrictions or wartime internment measures.
The BudgetMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal senators continue to ignore their leader and openly admit that they will defy his order to pass the budget without amendment. 
This budget contains increased funding for science and technology research, but if this budget is not passed that funding will be lost. The Perimeter Institute for research will lose $50 million if this is not passed. This loss would be devastating to Kitchener—Conestoga, southwestern Ontario and to all of Canada.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry inform the House what other research funding will be lost if he does not get his Liberal senators under control?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member Kitchener—Conestoga's question about our excellent S and T strategy. I thank him for all his good work on this file.
Canada's new government understands its science and innovation is key to a strong economy. We are committed to turning knowledge into innovation and innovation into greater wealth and well-being for all Canadians.
However, if the budget does not pass the Liberal Senate, the research development sector in Canada stands to lose: $120 million for CANARIE, this is research broadband; $100 million for Genome Canada; and $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation. Our government is giving Canada a true competitive advantage that will—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
InfrastructureBill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, Burnaby Lake is an urban lake, making it subject to incredible pressure from the surrounding city. The city of Burnaby has submitted an infrastructure funding application for the Burnaby Lake rejuvenation project, supported by the B.C. government and the GVRD. Funds have been committed by both the city and the province to dredge the lake, maintaining open water, protecting wildlife and plant habitat and ensuring recreational uses.
Will the Minister of Western Economic Diversification support this important environmental project and, before it is too late, confirm federal funding for Burnaby Lake?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the government has committed to a top up of new funds to help provinces, territories and municipalities across the country to go forward with new programs. These programs are administered in partnership with the provincial governments and the communities. Surely in this whole process, this project will be viewed.
 Until such time as we have a new program in place, this is the program that is there. Everybody knows the parameters. When we are able to announce the project, we will look at it and if need be, will do so.
Service CanadaMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my constituency office in Hamilton Centre has been inundated with complaints about changes at Service Canada. In the past my senior and disabled constituents could receive expert help from staff who specialize in CPP, OAS or GIS. Now Conservative changes mean people can only receive general information about these critical and complex programs. It is just not worth the trip, or maybe that was always the plan. 
It seems Service Canada was created to cut services, not improve them. When will the Conservatives begin to provide real services to my constituents?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, the member speaks contrary to what Service Canada is all about. Service Canada delivers very good service to all seniors and to all Canadians. In fact, it has expanded its services.
 I am very surprised he would make that comment in the House. It is simply not true.
Natural ResourcesMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, North Dakota opened the tap at Devils Lake and water from the lake, which is too polluted even for irrigation, began flowing toward Lake Winnipeg. On May 30, the environment minister had said in the House that everything was under control.
Given the scientific resources available at Environment Canada and given the experts at the U.S. desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose job it is to be on top of what is going on south of the border, the government must have known well in advance that the tap would be opened.
When did the government know the gates would be opened and why did it not raise the issue publicly prior to the event?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, and this government learned about the decision by the government of North Dakota to turn this tap on shortly after it happened. We have been working incredibly closely with Premier Doer. We have raised this at the highest levels, whether it is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whether it is the Prime Minister, or whether it is me.
We are tremendously concerned about this. We are concerned about the sensitive ecosystem in the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. We will continue to work in partnership with the Manitoba government to try to get this issue turned around. 
The EnvironmentMr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we all want to protect the environment. Canadian farmers wish to do their share. They want their agricultural activity to have a positive impact on the environment.
Can the Secretary of State (Agriculture) tell us what Canada's new government is doing to support Canadian farmers in order to improve the environment?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
Canadian farmers want to do their fair share to protect the environment and we want to help them. That is why, on Monday in Quebec City, I announced $1 million in funding for a pilot project that will help farmers develop more effective environmental protection measures. For example, the financial incentives provided to farmers will be used to conserve and improve the quality of our water.
We are forging forward. We continue to help our farmers; we continue to help our regions; and we continue to work on maintaining a healthy environment.
Foreign AffairsHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kafila Siddiqui, who was a constituent of mine, recently died in Pakistan under questionable circumstances. Her husband contacted my office on March 28 and we immediately contacted the Canadian High Commission, urgently, on three occasions and also the Minister of Foreign Affairs' office, which gave us a 1-800 number.
The High Commissioner in Pakistan has been aware of the situation since early April. The minister has been aware since April 11.
Could the minister tell the House what follow up has been done by his office after he was contacted? What is he doing now to ensure justice is being served?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this file. It is a tragic file and our condolences are extended to the family of Ms. Siddiqui.
As he is aware, I am limited to what can be said under the Privacy Act. However, I can assure the House that upon receiving the initial inquiry, our government took immediate action to locate Ms. Siddiqui, including personal visits by the embassy staff to her last known residence and place of work. In addition, the family was contacted to get other information and advice that included immediately filing a police report with the Pakistani authorities.
I can assure the House that we will work with the—
The Speaker:  The hon. member for Compton--Stanstead.
Canada Summer JobsMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by insisting on politicizing the Canada summer jobs program, the Conservatives are causing irreparable harm to students. The government cut the program budget by 12% by changing the criteria, centralizing the administration and hiding information.
And yet, the government boasts that it is responsible and transparent. In order to avoid repeating this year's disaster, does the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development intend to quickly transfer administration of the program to Quebec, which has the infrastructure and experience to administer such a program?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, the opposition party just cannot seem to accept that we have a new program. It is part of our youth strategy. In fact, it gives students high quality jobs in the professions they might choose.
I cannot get over the member and the opposition always wanting to save a program that talks about—
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Oh, oh!
Lynne Yelich:  In fact, the program is indeed successful. 
Government AccountabilityPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the government promised transparency and accountability in government. One of the cornerstones of this promise was the creation of a parliamentary budget officer. 
Six months after the Federal Accountability Act passed, Canadians are still waiting. In the meantime, we continue to receive financial forecasts that do not reflect accurate budget figures. Canadians demand truth in advertising, whether it is on budget surpluses, foreign aid or climate change. This is more than just a broken promise. This is breaking faith with Canadians. Accountability is important to them.
When will the government right this wrong and announce the appointment of a—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are right on track to implement the Federal Accountability Act on schedule.
We have implemented whistleblower protection for the thousands of public servants who live in my riding, around the capital region and across the country. Yesterday we confirmed an appointment of an Integrity Commissioner as a watchdog to protect those whistleblower. We have a new Conflict of Interest Commissioner, someone we can all trust, who has credibility. We have limited donations to $1,000 apiece to get big money out of politics. 
We are getting the job done, and we will complete the job in the months ahead.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the 12th report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Turning Outrage into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActPeter Van Loan:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-63, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to the support for veterans and other victims of post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries.
France Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I will be seeking unanimous consent later for the adoption of a report I am about to table, which is the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It relates to the protection of parliamentary privilege. I am happy to table a copy of this report in both official language.
Sitting of the HousePeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I would like to put forward the following motion for unanimous consent.
I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, the House shall adjourn today when debate on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that act and the debate on Motion No. 249 are completed, or 10:00 p.m., whichever comes first; and if the debate on Bill C-33 is completed before private members' business, the House shall proceed forthwith to private members' business. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Committees of the HousePierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, moments ago I presented the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That report relates to the request by the RCMP to waive parliamentary privilege for the testimony of Barbara George. This is an issue of core importance to our institution as Parliament and it concerns every one of us as members.
 The work we do for the country and also for our fellow citizens depends on this important principle. I therefore request unanimous consent that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be concurred in and that the House agree to a resolution based on the two recommendations contained therein.
I have submitted the report to the Table Officers. I also understand we have unanimous consent from other parties to support the motion.
[Interjection]
Hon. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to this matter, could the parliamentary secretary confirm for the information of members who are not members of the particular committee to which he referred, that the report he tabled earlier today, in which he is now seeking concurrence, in fact safeguards the principle of parliamentary privilege?
[Interjection]
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, members of the committee unanimously supported a report that safeguarded parliamentary privilege and refused to waive that privilege to an RCMP investigation. The member can rest assured that we are protecting parliamentary privilege. We are not allowing testimony before our parliamentary committee to be used in other proceedings.
The Speaker: Does the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of Mrs. Elaine Hughes from Saskatchewan, who remembers the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that there is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.
The petitioners want to remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he recklessly broke that promise, imposed a 31.5% punitive tax and wiped out over $25 billion of hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of residents of various communities on Vancouver Island and in Kimberley and the surrounding area as well. 
The petitioners are expressing their concern about the impact that Bill C-45, the proposed new fisheries act, will have on them. They decry the fact that they were denied input into the drafting of the bill. They are calling upon Parliament to withdraw it and to accept input from recreational and commercial fishermen and others.
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on the income trust broken promise on behalf of Alan Shulman, who remembers the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that the greatest fraud is a promise not kept.
The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which wiped out over $25 billion of hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with a number of names on it. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to end the registration requirement for non-restricted long guns. The constituents come from throughout my riding in the areas of Spiritwood, Glenbush, Rabbit Lake, Warman, Hague and Hepburn, and also the communities of Osler, Blaine Lake, Saskatoon, Ruddell and Maymont. All through my riding, individuals are asking to end the registration requirement for non-restricted long guns.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in respect to the matter of the age of sexual consent. These petitioners are from the grand city of Saskatoon. They want Parliament to raise the age of sexual consent, or the age of protection, from age 14 to age 16.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions.
The first is from a group of high school students in my riding who seek to have Canada's government take a strong stand against the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. These students have worked diligently to pressure not only government in Canada but all around the world to take a strong principled stand to defend the more than 80,000 people in Darfur who have been displaced.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have relates to cruelty toward animals.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table today on behalf of a number of people in Saskatchewan, most of them from Regina, dealing with the issue of child care. 
The petitioners support strongly the child care agreement with the province of Saskatchewan that the Government of Canada had in place as of April 2005.
The petitioners note that the taxable allowance that is now provided by the government is small and will not establish any new child care spaces. They call upon the government to reinstate the previous arrangement that did in fact provide funding for the creation of a high quality system across the country.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today in the House. I will be brief, since I had the opportunity to speak at second reading and to speak in more detail in committee. This is a very technical bill whose purpose is to address some shortcomings in the Income Tax Act which make it possible for some people to avoid paying the taxes they should be paying.
We spoke about this this morning. All the parties agree with the bill, so there is not much to debate in terms of content. However, I will take this opportunity to talk briefly about tax havens. When the Liberals were in power, we talked about these havens a lot, since the then finance minister, and current member for LaSalle—Émard, had modified the tax treaties. He signed tax treaties with Barbados and made the act retroactive to allow companies—including his own, Canada Steamship Lines—to use this tax treaty to bring profits back to Canada that had been earned in Barbados, without paying taxes.
This is something that has worried the Bloc Québécois for a long time and we are very concerned. A great deal of work remains to be done to fix this problem.
When the Standing Committee on Finance studied tax havens, stakeholders told us all kinds of stories. Some were very interesting, and others were hard to believe, such as the claim that Barbados,for example, is not a tax haven. 
That is a little ridiculous. Even if it is true that income tax levels for ordinary companies based in Barbados can be as high as 40%, companies known as international business companies or IBCs, which operate internationally out of Barbados, pay fixed fees on the order of $250 per year, plus taxes amounting to 2.5% on the first US$5 million. Then the tax rate declines gradually to 1% on profits over $15 million.
The OECD defines tax havens as countries that do not cooperate with other taxation authorities, meaning countries that collect no income tax or that do not share their data, that hide information and that lack transparency. Even if that is not exactly the case here, it is still fair to say that this is a very appealing situation for a business. When it comes to tax havens, we have to talk about Barbados, or at least the IBCs in Barbados. In fact, nearly all Canadian companies operating out of Barbados are doing so under the IBC structure.
There are very few requirements for becoming an international business corporation. That is part of the problem. The company must be registered in Barbados—which is pretty easy—and have its headquarters there. The media have reported on this issue. In Quebec, a journalist with Enjeux put together a report called Les Évasions Barbares—that would be The Barbarian Evasions in English—which revealed that there are plenty of large buildings in Barbados, containing many corporate headquarters offices, most of which are practically empty. 
Among the other conditions that must be met, the company must hold its board of directors meetings there. In reality, a conference call will suffice. It must also keep its board meeting minutes there—all that takes is a filing cabinet—and have a Barbadian resident as one of its directors.
However, an analysis published in 2002 by the PricewaterhouseCoopers office in Bridgetown estimated in its brochure concerning Barbados, that an independent director in Barbados can be hired for only $1,500 a year.
As we can see, these restrictions are not very serious, especially for a very powerful multinational that could save millions of dollars in taxes. These conditions are not very hard to meet. And finally, in its international activities, the multinational could use Barbados as an avenue to get out of paying taxes in Canada, once those taxes are brought back to Canada.
As we can see, there is a real problem and many companies—which once included and probably still include Canada Steamship Lines—are not really located in Barbados and do not really operate out of Barbados. They are simply an empty shell there, a mere legal entity in order to take advantage of the Income Tax Act and pay less in taxes.
I hope the Standing Committee on Finance meetings on tax evasion will encourage the government to legislate quickly on this matter. In short, the Standing Committee on Finance will table a report when the House resumes sitting next fall, and I hope this will inspire the government.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important matter of taxation pertaining to tax avoidance and tax evasion which is part of Bill C-33. For those who are watching, the bill is at third reading. It is an important issue for all of Canada.
Bill C-33 may be a bill about technical matters and may contain some necessary steps that are long overdue. However, we support it because we, through this legislation, are taking steps to ensure that money that is owed to the country is not lost through arrangements that are questionable in nature.
Yet, we have to wonder why it is taking so long to close tax loopholes, to shut down tax havens, to deal with tax evaders, and to crack down on tax avoidance. 
Why in the world are we still here talking about something that has been raised in the House on numerous occasions over the last two decades? It is a matter that has been studied to death by the Auditor General of Canada and here we are today taking a few baby steps to deal with some of the most egregious problems pertaining to tax avoidance.
This is a government that promised, in opposition, to take on the Liberal government, to crack down on tax evaders, and to do everything in its power to ensure that money that rightfully belonged in Canada stayed in this country and was not allowed to be frittered away through different loopholes and avoidance schemes.
Today we have a bill finally that has taken probably about five years. A good number of those years are a result of Liberal delays. The current government has only had a couple of years to really get its teeth into these matters, so we applaud the government for actually bringing this forward. But we regret that the government is not yet prepared to in fact deal with some of the big issues around tax avoidance and tax evasion that are so obviously present in our system today and around which the government has spoken a great deal. 
It made a lot of statements about trying to ensure that we have a fair system of taxation. A system where in fact corporations pay their fair share and the wealthy are not able to use the system to avoid paying taxes. We would in fact move away from a system that is inherently biased in terms of the wealthy and the powerful in our society today, and is without concern for the needs of ordinary working families and hard-working Canadians.
The question we have today is, why in fact did the government, when it had the chance following the budget to implement its promise about dealing with interest deductibility, back off? It had a chance to actually make a difference. It had a chance to do something that had been identified by many as a significant step in the right direction.
Members in the House will know that we had a fairly lengthy discussion about interest deductibility at committee. It was an issue pursued quite rigorously in the House. 
I think the government should have been able to detect considerable support for a complete crackdown on this issue and should have in fact been able to know that it would have considerable backing if it had decided to in fact go the complete distance and do what its own budget said. Budget 2007 said:
 Assuming an exemption from withholding tax on both arm’s length and non-arm’s length interest is implemented in the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty as expected, Budget 2007 will further simplify the Canadian international tax system by eliminating Canadian withholding tax on interest paid to all arm’s length non-residents regardless of their country of residence. 
The budget speech went on to very clearly indicate that it was prepared to take on an issue of tax evasion, or I should not say tax evasion, of tax avoidance that has no place in our system today. 
It has no place in the international scheme of things when we have countries such as Great Britain and other countries actually dealing with an international taxation system, so that one cannot move money around to different countries and avoid paying taxes.
The members in the House will know that in fact at committee and at other times organizations spoke out in favour of the government's position. In fact, the Canadian Labour Congress was very vocal at these hearings, recommending that the minister stick to his guns, stick to his plans to actually crack down on this particular egregious example of tax avoidance.
In fact, at committee hearings the representative of the CLC basically suggested to us that we needed to push the government to prevent corporations from deducting foreign affiliate interest here. It did not say to only limit it to double-dipping or talk about tax towers, but actually said to deal with the fact that corporations are deducting foreign affiliate interest here and get them to start paying their fair share of taxes from foreign affiliate income.
Other countries do it. They tax the income regardless of where that corporation has moved money or opened up new affiliates. They consider it as income earned and therefore as taxable income. Therefore, it is money that is then put back into the economy of a country like Great Britain to be used for expanding other job opportunities in the domestic economy, for training workers to meet new challenges, or dealing with a loss of manufacturing capacity. That is what this country should be doing. It should take that money and use it to make a difference.
It was very disappointing to in fact see the Minister of Finance backtrack on this promise. That was regrettable on his part. 
I know the Liberals do not agree with us, do not agree with me certainly, and do not agree with the need to crack down on tax avoidance. They seem to want to keep all avenues open for tax avoidance to occur. That is not surprising given the past practice of the Liberals when they were in government. 
There is a long history of Liberals in Canada standing up for the corporate elite, for the wealthy and the powerful, and for any scheme imaginable that will allow those individuals and those entities to avoid paying taxes.
I would like to go back to a couple of examples. I would like to make the case that instead of simply waiting for community organizations, the labour movement, individual parliamentarians, and the non-governmental community to fight for changes to the tax system which might eventually produce some good results, the government ought to start to take some initiative, show some initiative, be proactive and not wait. 
Our history on this issue is nothing but waiting for the government to catch up with the community, waiting for the government to finally address something after an issue has gone through the court systems and finally resulted in some pretty clear direction for the government.
I want to go back to an issue that actually began under the Conservatives during Brian Mulroney's time. It went through most of the Liberals' term and finally resulted in some changes, but not before some individuals were able to take advantage of the system.
I want to take members back to what we in Manitoba call Project Loophole. Folks might remember that it was in 1996 that Winnipeger George Harris decided to force the Canadian government to collect an estimated $750 million in taxes that were owed to the government by one of Canada's wealthiest families. Harris and Project Loophole forced the courts to acknowledge that the government had acted as if a citizen had no choice but to pay his taxes and be quiet. It was a David and Goliath situation in the battle for tax fairness and for an end to tax loopholes that allowed the wealthy and powerful to rewrite the tax laws in their favour.
It was a volunteer initiative. I was part of a group, back then in Winnipeg in the mid 1990s, called Choices, a Winnipeg-based coalition for social justice. It was out of this organization that George Harris found the backing and the support in order to go forward with this court challenge. It was a lengthy, costly battle, with money raised from ordinary consumers, Manitobans and citizens everywhere concerned about taxation fairness.
It really was a stinky case. Some lawyers called it a smell test. They were concerned that this was about power being abused or rules being bent. According to one of the judges in the case along the way, Federal Court Justice Frank Muldoon, it reeked and really did not seem to be about transparent government. 
The case started with a wealthy Canadian family. It is not important to know the name of the family, although I think it is well known now, but it is important to know that the family was wealthy enough to be able to set aside a family trust worth $2 billion, not the typical college fund nest egg. It was a wealthy family with an incredible amount of money that wanted to avoid paying taxes. This trust was established in Canada under Canadian law to take advantage of Canadian tax rules.
Let us go back to 1991 when in fact the case first came to light. For its own reasons, the family decided to transfer the assets in the trust to a trust in the United States that it would control. This was back in 1991. Normally when this happens the family would be required to pay taxes on the increase in the value of the fund since it was established and it was estimated those taxes could have amounted to $750 million. However, in November of that year the family asked the federal government for a tax ruling that would allow it to move the money to the United States without paying taxes. 
To cut a long story short, the issue went back and forth between the family's lawyers and officials in the finance department in the Government of Canada and eventually officials backed off and agreed to this family's request. It was then that Project Loophole took shape and began to mount a very serious campaign that went right to the Supreme Court. 
Regrettably, the courts, in the end, did not precisely rule in favour of the citizens' coalition but sent a message to the federal government. It sent a message to say that the provisions that allowed this to happen had to be changed. In other words, everything that the government did in conjunction with this wealthy family's lawyers was apparently okay according to existing law and regulations. That is what the court said, but it also said this should not be allowed to continue.
Finally, after this lengthy battle and all of this uproar by community members across this country, governments finally listened and did something. As we learned from the officials at the finance committee, when we were dealing with Bill C-33, the rules have been changed to prevent that kind of development from happening.
Why does it have to come to this? Why does an issue of such obvious unfairness need a voluntary citizens group to raise money and take it through the courts before the government will act? Why can the government not see the wisdom of acknowledging the tax avoidance schemes, the tax havens and this trend of setting up these offshore centres? Why does the government not take a hard look at that and do something about it? Why are we studying this again? 
That is what came out of the federal budget, finally, after the government backtracked and said that it really was not going to crack down on interest deductibility, that it really was not going to make foreign corporations pay their fair share of taxes and that it really was not going to collect taxes that rightly belonged to this country. 
What does the government do? It sets up a couple of more studies. We now have a short term round table over the summer to draft legislation pertaining to this issue of interest deductibility on its limited basis involving double-dipping and towers. We do not have anything in place yet in terms of double-dipping, never mind the broader issue of interest deductibility in terms of foreign affiliates.
On the broad issue of tax avoidance, the government has agreed to a longer term panel, called an expert panel, that would look at the fairness and the competitiveness of the tax system as a whole. The panel will report back sometime by the end of 2007 or 2008.
I think this issue has been studied enough. We have lots of credible information. We have been going around the mulberry bush at the finance committee.
John McKay:  So is your speech.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis:  Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood likes to heckle from his seat and throw insults my way. Every time we question the wisdom of the Liberals when they were in government, he likes to insert put-downs and make personal comments about my speech and about my beliefs. I hope he realizes that it is time to get beyond personal politics and start to talk seriously about these issues. I have put up with a lot of insults from him and others on that side of the House and, frankly, I get quite tired of it. 
If we really want to get serious about this issue, then let us look at the Canada Steamship Lines issue and the involvement of the Liberals around the tax holdings of the member for LaSalle—Émard. 
Let us go back to February 2003 when the member for LaSalle—Émard used the peek-a-boo clause in a supervisory agreement when dealing with members of the board of Canada Steamship Lines. 
Let us go back to March 1, 2003 when we said in the House that we in this party could not live with ourselves if we had to deal with this kind of situation and if there were not a crack down on it immediately.
Let us go back to January 28, 2004 when the government announced that the companies of the member for LaSalle—Émard, including Canada Steamship Lines, received $162 million in federal government contracts, grants and loans.
Let us go back to February 4, 2004 and the CBC town hall meeting when the member for LaSalle—Émard defended his flags of convenience, saying that Canada Steamship Lines was a Canadian company, that it pays it taxes in Canada and that the bulk of its operations were here in Canada. We have a study by credible sources that shows that Canada Steamship Lines, owned by the member for LaSalle—Émard, avoided paying $103 million in Canadian taxes between 1995 and 2002 by setting up nine shell companies in Barbados.
I ask the member for Scarborough—Guildwood why his government did not shut that down when it had a chance? Why is it still before us? 
Now the question is: when will the Conservative government finally do what is right and ensure that these kinds of wide open loopholes, tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes are shut down once and for all?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, while I have some philosophical differences with the member as related to overall levels of taxation and spending, one area where I do not differ from the member is on tax fairness. The member for Winnipeg North stands and talks against the illegal use of tax havens all the time. She does not believe that tax loopholes are a good thing for Canada and neither do I. I believe that tax fairness is what is needed in Canada. I appreciate the fact that she has stood wholeheartedly behind that.
However, I do want to talk a bit about the anti-tax haven initiatives, double-dipping and so forth that our government has moved on. By closing these tax loopholes we are trying to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not indirectly subsidizing wealthy multinational corporations.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  It's about time.
Dean Del Mastro:  It is about time.
One of the things that really floors me about the former government is that this bill, the one that we are speaking about today, has been around since 1999. The questions are: What stopped us? Why did we not do better? We just did not get it done comes to mind. However, I do not think that is why it did not move on this. The fact is that closing tax havens and closing down tax loopholes did not matter to the Liberal government. It did not care.
Indeed, the member for Markham—Unionville and the Leader of the Opposition went to Bay Street when we announced that we would be moving to close some of these tax loopholes. The member for Markham—Unionville started off by saying, “We subsidized farmers. Why shouldn't we subsidize corporations?”
Does he not get it? Does he not get it that there is a big difference between, quite frankly, the problems that the Liberals caused in agriculture because they did not understand how to manage the Department of Agriculture? There is a big difference between that and subsidizing wealthy multinational corporations through tax loopholes and encouraging the use of these loopholes.
The member has been here for a long time. The Auditor General has spoken on this issue a number of times. Did the member ever see anything done? Did she believe the Liberals were ever going to move on it? Why should anybody ever believe that the Liberals would ever support anything to do with tax fairness?
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very important point concerning the length of time it takes for anything to happen in this place under either a Liberal government or a Conservative government to deal with tax havens and tax loopholes.
The record, obviously, of the Liberals, who had 13 years to fix these problems, is the most egregious one. The Conservatives are just beginning and their first big mistake was to backtrack on the interest deductibility issue. Since the Conservatives have talked about cracking down on tax havens, and since the Liberals refused to do anything, we now have a chance in this House to do something.
I want to mention that I think the inaction by the Liberals over the years was directly related to their ties with big banks and big corporations. I think the fact that their own members had investments in big corporations that wanted to take advantage of tax havens had something to do with it. However, I do not know for sure.
I tried earlier to read a quotation but I was talking too fast to get it out. It was in response to a question from my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, back in 2003 when we were concerned about the member for LaSalle—Émard still running the Canadian Steamship Lines even with the apparent conflict of interest. In response to that question, the member for LaSalle—Émard said that he would not be able to live with himself if his dream were turned over to another country. He said that he would not be able to bear Canada Steamship Lines suddenly finding itself nothing but a collection of ships being run from the States.
It was not too long after that when the member decided that it would be important to have his sons run the company but they made no changes with respect to the flags of convenience and with respect to the tax evasion policies. They continued to accumulate revenue because they were not paying their fair share of taxes.
On the issue of the Auditor General, let us note that we are talking about several reports that go back to 1999, 2002, and now another one in 2007, and still the concerns raised by the Auditor General have not been fully addressed by any government. We are still waiting for some plan of action. We are waiting for more than studies. We are waiting for the Conservative Government of Canada, Canada's supposedly new government, to do something new and different. We are waiting and waiting and waiting. 
When will the government decide to finally shut down Barbados as a tax haven? When will it decide to take on all of these loopholes and ensure that Canadians have the resources they need to build the programs they need to have a strong united country?
[Interjection]
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that this government is a government of great courage when it comes to tax fairness. As the member well knows, on October 31 this government, in a minority situation, moved to close what we considered to be a great risk to overall corporate tax revenue. I appreciate that the NDP has stood behind that decision pertaining to the income trusts. 
We further moved to take all of those taxes that would be placed on income trusts and give it to Canadian seniors. It was completely revenue neutral. We made sure that wealthy corporations would not avoid taxes on the backs of not only retired Canadian seniors, but hard-working Canadians right across the board. This government has been very brave and courageous in bringing tax fairness to Canadians. I know the hon. member stood behind that.
When these reports were being brought forward by the Auditor General, they were being covered in the media and being talked about a lot by Canadians. I heard a lot about them. I was in business in Peterborough and I was really concerned that I was paying a lot of taxes and it did not seem fair to me that I had this enormous tax burden but large corporations were paying nothing.
Did the member ever hear the Liberal Party talk about coming down on these egregious actions by corporations that were avoiding taxes? Did she ever see them do anything about it? Did she ever see any action?
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker. On this front, dealing with fairness in our taxation system and loopholes available to the wealthy and corporations in our country, it is very hard to find any kind of action. There is a trail of negligence and broken promises. The Auditor General has made report after report with very little action flowing from them.
What I worry about is that the Conservatives are beginning to go down the similar path that the Liberals followed, which is to make a lot of promises, do a few things like the income trust issue and the double-dipping, and then not really get at the big issues around tax havens. 
What we really need is for the Canadian Conservative government to take immediate steps to shut down all remaining offshore tax havens, especially when we consider the fact that the Canada Revenue Agency is now investigating Merck Frosst for putting $2 billion away in Barbados.
We spent years trying to get the Liberals to lower the flags of convenience flown overseas by Canadian corporations to avoid taxes. I do not want to spend another decade fighting Conservatives to get the same thing done. Conservatives have the time and the mandate to actually act against tax havens, and I am waiting to see the signs of that. I am waiting to see if they are serious about this.
In opposition, the Conservatives railed against the Barbadian tax haven, just as we did, because it benefited certain members of the government and the corporate elite. Many Conservatives, including the current Prime Minister, voted for a motion to close this tax loophole that results in individual Canadian taxpayers having to make up the difference. If the Conservatives leave this loophole open, they are demonstrating that it is not ordinary Canadians who benefit from their policies. If the Conservatives do not act to close the Barbados tax haven, all their protests in the case of Canada Steamship Lines and other obvious examples will mean nothing but cheap politics.
I urge the Conservatives to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something to prevent so much investment from going to offshore financial centres. They should keep in mind that between 2003 to the present that number has increased eight-fold.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried unanimously.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 12:52 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Water Resources Management[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 249 in the name of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis concerning a water resources management strategy for Canada's freshwater resources.
Our Conservative government supports the principle of this motion, as we are committed to sound water management for Canadians. As we know, the motion actually asks for action on issues on which our government has already taken a leadership role. Indeed, the issues raised by this motion are already being addressed by departments such as Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan.
Let me highlight some of the work that NRCan is doing in the area of water use and sustainability.
Freshwater is our most essential natural resource and, along with air and food, is the basis for all life. While water is abundant in Canada, our earth does not have an endless supply of water.
Humanity faces tremendous challenges in maintaining a sustainable supply of freshwater. In fact, in many parts of the world, water quality continues to deteriorate rapidly due to urbanization, agricultural practices, industrialization and, of course, overpopulation. Climate change is already permanently altering the water cycle in many of our lakes, rivers and aquifers.
Yet Canada is a water-rich nation. We possess 7% of the world's renewable water supply and yet we have only one-half of 1% of its total population. This wealth is tempered by the fact that approximately 60% of Canada's water drains to the north, while 85% of its population lives along the Canada-U.S. border to the south.
Having such tremendous water wealth is both a privilege and an obligation. Canada's intense use of water places our country behind only the U.S. as the world's highest per capita users of freshwater.
Water management in Canada is largely the purview of the provinces. However, our federal government has many important roles to play, including the provision of scientific information and knowledge on the nature, extent and management of this resource.
Much has changed in the 20 years since the Pearse inquiry, which was the last major review of federal water policy in Canada. A number of pressures, such as climate change, population growth and urbanization, and also increased demands from industrial users, have increased since the inquiry reported its findings in 1985.
Certain regions of the country such as, for example, southern British Columbia and Alberta are now experiencing periods when current supplies cannot meet existing demands. Indeed, last summer in the tourist town of Tofino on Vancouver Island's west coast, the residents almost had to shut down their town due to water shortages. Even parts of southern Ontario face the same challenges, particularly during periods of drought. Studies suggest that future droughts in the Prairies will be longer and more severe. Clearly, even we as Canadians are not immune to problems related to the sustainable use of water.
As recent events have borne out, water-borne human health issues are chronic in some of Canada's rural and first nations communities. As a result, Canadians no longer take safe water for granted.
Industrial development in Canada, especially in the natural resources sector, can have adverse effects on the quantity and quality of our freshwater resources. These industries, such as energy, forestry, mining, and oil and gas, all use large quantities of freshwater in their operations. The waste water from these industries only exacerbates our environmental challenges.
Also, groundwater is an increasingly important source of freshwater, but we have a limited understanding of the extent and quality of this resource.
To better understand freshwater issues, Natural Resources Canada tries to understand these issues through the lens of the industries in the natural resources sector. 
I believe that Canadians also must recognize that forests play a key role in the water cycle. They contribute to the regulation of water quality and quantity levels, especially in the boreal forests. Indeed, forests and forest practices can assist us in mitigating some of the challenges I have previously mentioned.
The department's current role regarding freshwater can be broadly characterized as, first, providing policy and science expertise to better understand the water resource and, second, minimizing the environmental impacts of mining, energy and forestry activities. 
These initiatives include such things as groundwater mapping, which NRCan is doing, topographical and now digital watershed maps of Canada, treating mining effluent, sustainable forestry practices, and of course the efficient use of water.
As a first step in developing a national groundwater inventory, NRCan has completed an assessment of the groundwater present in Canada's key aquifers and we expect that a groundwater publication will be coming out in 2008.
 NRCan recognizes the importance of applying the integrated water resources management approach to addressing water issues. Through the groundwater mapping program, NRCan is currently working with provincial, industry and university partners in Alberta to characterize sections of the Paskapoo aquifer system. This aquifer located in the southwest part of Alberta supplies 28% of all well water drawn in Alberta and covers approximately 10% of the province's area.
There are other initiatives. The P.E.I. department of environment, energy and forestry used the results of NRCan's program on nitrate dynamics in groundwater to support better agricultural practices. In my own province of British Columbia, the township of Oliver incorporated the program's groundwater vulnerability mapping and land use models into its current planning process. Nova Scotia acknowledged the value of the recently published Annapolis hydrogeological atlas in supporting the province's regional groundwater management.
As we can see, the work NRCan is doing in water resources management is benefiting all parts of Canada. That is why, although we support the spirit of the motion, we think it appears to simply duplicate the work that our new Conservative government is already doing in the area of water management.
NRCan also supports a number of other programs that seek to address important water issues. Consistent with the integrated water resources management approach, NRCan understands that surface and groundwater resources are closely linked components of the water cycle and that we have to manage these well.
Finally, the department has completed a major report entitled “Freshwater: The role and contribution of Natural Resources Canada”. This report is designed to inform interested Canadians, particularly practitioners of water management, about NRCan's unique role and contribution to freshwater issues. 
In short, Natural Resources Canada, together with some 20 other federal departments, is contributing substantially to our understanding of Canada's freshwater resources.
It is almost as if the Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis wants to play follow the leader with our government. We are pleased that the member has taken the lead from our new Conservative government and wants to address these matters after the fact.
A closer look at the motion before us reveals that the very issues the member raises are already being addressed by our new Conservative government. We have every intention of supporting the main motion that the member has brought forward. I am glad that he supports the initiatives that Natural Resources Canada is undertaking.
However, there is something else in this motion. The hon. member introduced an 11th hour amendment to the motion, which calls on our government to appoint a minister of state for water resources. We already have a Minister of Natural Resources, so I have to ask myself, why now? The Liberal member and his party were in government for almost 13 years, yet not once did they propose establishing a minister of state for water resources, not once. Why has this issue suddenly become such a hot topic for the Liberal Party?
Our new Conservative government takes water quality seriously and is taking a leading role in ensuring that Canadians value their water resource and treat it responsibly. We are getting things done for Canadians after 13 long years of neglect.
 I thank the House for its time. I trust that the debate will be a constructive one and will lead us forward in addressing the needs of freshwater management in Canada.
Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to address this very important topic and very topical motion. I wish to commend the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for bringing this forward.
 I want to commend also Senator Grafstein on the Senate's passage of Bill S-205 on fresh drinking water recently. It is an indication of some of the great work that senators do. 
I can remember the seminal work on topsoil loss that a senator from Saskatchewan did many years ago. The findings of that particular study are still very relevant today, although a lot of the recommendations that he made in the report have not been followed and we continue to lose a lot of our topsoil into our streams. The very fragile inches of topsoil that our agriculture depends on are basically being wasted.
As the previous speaker noted, fresh drinking water is essential to the livelihoods of all Canadians. In my province of Prince Edward Island, recent studies have shown that there are high amounts of nitrates in our drinking water. In Prince Edward Island we are totally reliant on our groundwater for all our freshwater resources. We do not have any great freshwater lakes to rely on, so we are totally reliant on groundwater. We are totally reliant on the health and the purity of that groundwater in order to have healthy drinking water.
P.E.I. is an intensely agricultural province. Agriculture has been a number one industry since our island was established as a colony many years ago. It continues to be our biggest industry. It uses, and in some cases abuses, the essential source of fresh water that we all rely on as islanders.
Because of the health issues prevalent in P.E.I., because of our reliance on fresh groundwater and the intense agricultural industry over the centuries, the province of P.E.I. cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer. In recent years it has been taking a more active role in addressing the problem. We cannot afford to hide behind excuses not to address this problem. Not only is the health of our citizens at risk, but the health of our largest industry is at risk if we do not get serious about the problem. 
A task force was established by the previous provincial government to look into and address the nitrate problem on Prince Edward Island at the end of April this year. During the recent election in P.E.I., Robert Ghiz, who was the then opposition leader, outlined a position where he would address the concerns about nitrates in our drinking water. He outlined plans for increased water testing and support for improved nutrient management practices. This is a good start. I suggest that our new premier make this a priority with his government and put adequate resources into addressing the problem of nitrates in the water of our province. 
Although a major factor, agriculture is not totally to blame for the high nitrate readings in our drinking water in Prince Edward Island. Most of the weather systems go from west to east. A lot of the acid rain that contributes to nitrates in our drinking water comes from the central industrialized United States and the industrialized centre of Canada, mainly Ontario and Quebec. A great deal of acid rain has been deposited on our eastern provinces. We create very little of that particular pollutant in our area, but we are the recipients of it.
Fresh water is mainly a provincial jurisdiction, but it is an overlapping jurisdiction. I think the Department of Industry, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs need to address this.
 Over the years we have read about some horrendous experiences with the drinking water in a lot of the reserves and aboriginal communities across the country. There has been lead poisoning. People are unable to eat the fish on which a lot of the more isolated aboriginal communities rely. We can point our finger directly at the pollutants coming from industry in that area. I think we have ignored to a great extent the health of our aboriginal communities as well as the health of communities right across the country. Walkerton is an example that precipitated a lot of new interest in the problems of our drinking water. 
It is incumbent upon both levels of government to address this problem. As the previous speaker said, every province has problems with fresh drinking water. The provinces have primary responsibility. I think we should immediately get together with the provinces, show some leadership on this file and have a working committee of the various departments that are responsible for the health of our citizens. It is a problem that is getting more and more serious as time goes on, as we farm more intensely and we rely more on chemical fertilizers. Not only chemical fertilizers but manure also contributes to high nitrate levels in our water system. 
We have to find solutions to this problem. The health of our citizens is at risk. Agriculture is the major industry in P.E.I. and it is one of the major industries in Canada. Thousands and thousands of people rely on our agricultural industry and our fish supplies. It is incumbent upon all governments to finally address this problem in a very serious manner. They must put the resources behind the problem and enlist the scientific community. We must try to address this problem before it gets completely out of hand and a lot of our streams and groundwater supplies become contaminated beyond recovery.
I commend the sponsor of the motion and Senator Grafstein for bringing this issue to the fore. I think all members of Parliament from all parts of the country will be interested in seeing solutions to the problem.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis has the floor for the right of reply.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the body of my speech, I would like to respond to some points that were made by the hon. member for Abbotsford.
First, he mentioned that I had been in government for 13 years. That is not factual. I was elected in 2004, a few months prior to him being elected.
Second, he mentioned that the motion followed on the heels of the government's announcement that it would create a national water strategy, an announcement that the government appended at the last minute to the last budget. I remind the member that I tabled my motion back in the fall, many months before the government, as an afterthought, appended a paragraph or two on a national water strategy to the budget.
This kind of issue requires a proactive approach. The way things are structured at the moment, with 20 agencies and departments in the federal government involved in some way, shape or form in the water issue, I do not believe there is sufficient focus on this issue, which is why the amendment that we will be vote on calls for the government to appoint a secretary of state for water, who obviously would report to the Minister of the Environment. 
The environment is an extremely complex and broad issue. It is a lot for one person, as we have seen, and the issue requires some focus to build the bridges among the departments involved.
I will give an example of one issue that involves two powerful ministers, who seem to have a split attention toward a particular water issue, and that is the issue of Devils Lake. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is involved as is the Minister of the Environment.
Pursuant to the events that occurred this week in North Dakota, we have seen that the government has not been proactive on the issue. The Minister of Foreign Affairs obviously has huge responsibilities. He is travelling to different parts of the world as is the Minister of the Environment, so this issue seems to fall through the cracks.
I will ask a question, but obviously there will not be a response because it is more of a rhetorical question. Why did we not foresee the opening of the Devils Lake outlet this past Monday? The hon. member for Abbotsford spoke of the great scientists and scientific resources the Department of the Environment and the Department of Natural Resources had. How come they did not understand the water levels in Devils Lake were rising enough that the government of North Dakota would be tempted to open the outlet? Why did they not see this coming?
Not only do we have the scientific resources, but we have a U.S. desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Its job is to follow what is going on in the United States. Where was it on this file? Why did it not alert the minister to the possibility that the outlet would be opened?
On May 30, the minister seemed to say that he had sufficient information from Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs to assure us, in his usual way, that everything was under control. It was not under control. Now we have a filter that is so inadequate at the outlet for Devils Lake that fish are jumping through it. I saw pictures of the filter at the environment committee on Tuesday. The water coming out of that filter, even from a layman's perspective, looks quite putrid.
We need a minister to give some focus to this issue and to champion the water issue. I commend the government for reacting a few months late to my motion, when it was tabled and put on the order paper, but there has to be more done on this issue. I hope the government will support the amendment and the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 20, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:19 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:19 p.m.)