2007-02-23

Government Orders
Railway Operations LegislationHon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:  moved:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations, shall be disposed of as follows: (a) commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and no Private Members' Business shall be taken up; (b) the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting; (c) after being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and (d) during consideration of the said bill, no division shall be deferred. 

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order this morning to challenge the receivability of the motion. The goal of the motion is to suspend the Standing Orders and allow for the imposition of a severe form of closure on a bill at all stages before the bill has been introduced. We have not seen the bill.
While I believe that under unanimous consent such a procedure would be acceptable, that is not the current situation. The government is aware that it would not get unanimous consent from ourselves or another party.
It is obvious we do not have that agreement and this bill is quite onerous. It would legislate a group of workers on a legal strike back to work. The latitude that might be available to the government if there was unanimous consent, or a majority of the parties agreeing to proceed in this fashion, should not be available with half the recognized parties in the House being in opposition to the motion.
I have three reasons why the motion is not receivable. To begin with, the motion is asking the House to accept a piece of legislation for first reading which the House has not yet seen. The bill referred to in the motion is still on notice, having first appeared on the notice paper yesterday and the House will not see the bill until Monday at the earliest, and I am expecting, quite frankly, that it is now going to be Tuesday.
We have a responsibility as legislators not to deal with hypothetical legislation and therefore the motion should not be receivable until the bill to which it refers has at least been tabled in the House and parliamentarians have had the opportunity to see the legislation in full.
The government has, and I acknowledge this, provided each of the opposition parties with a summary of the legislation. It is helpful, but it is only a summary. It would be irresponsible for members of the House to accept the summary in substitution for the full language of the legislation.
Another problem with the motion is that it will have the effect of effectively precluding the possibility of members being able to propose informed amendments to the legislation because the motion would require that the bill proceed directly to first reading, second reading and then into committee of the whole without adjournment except as moved by a member of the cabinet, by a minister.
It is not even clear if a printed copy of the bill will be available for all members by the time the government proceeds with report stage under Motion No. 15. The inadmissibility of amendments at report stage, because the motion refers the bill to committee of the whole even before the House has seen the bill or debated second reading, makes it even more difficult for members to be able to formulate informed amendments and have them accepted in the committee.
Generally, the drafting of amendments, and again, Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of this, takes days. It is not at all clear that such drafting assistance will even be available to members for a bill which the government intends to ram through in a single sitting day of the House.
I submit that the motion is being proposed to procedurally allow the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly and that violates a long held principle in this place. The government has to be subject to the rules outlined in the Standing Orders. If it wishes to propose changes to the Standing Orders then there are well established ways to do that.
Mr. Speaker, we know that you have been a long standing protector of the Standing Orders, both in terms of what your general role is in the House and more specifically when it comes to this type of manoeuvring by a government to avoid those Standing Orders.
On the specific violations of this principle on the scope of the curtailment of debate which is proposed in the motion, our Standing Orders have remedies available to the government if it believes that legislation must be passed expeditiously.
After introducing the bill it can invoke the procedures in Standing Order 57, or closure, on any specific stage of the bill. What it is trying to do here is to do all three stages, or at least two stages, at one time before we have even seen the bill.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that under closure only one stage can be placed under the closure rules at a time. Again, it is trying to do all stages from first reading and printing of the bill to be considered in the same sitting, and possibly, unless a minister rises to ask for it, without adjournment. That is entirely in the hands of the government and it is a nice neat way in its attempt to get around the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise what I think is perhaps an even stronger argument as to why you should find this motion not receivable. There are provisions within Standing Order 78 that deal with exactly the type of situation we have here. This is an attempt on the part of the government to get around Standing Order 78. 
As I know you are aware, the use of Standing Order 78, specifically Standing Order 78.(1), is available to the government when there is unanimity between the parties on the need for time allocation. Similarly, Standing Order 78.(2) is available when a majority of parties have agreed on the need to allocate time on a bill.
There are two sections which allow for allocation of more than one stage at a time, but the situation here is that there are two of four parties, ourselves and the Bloc, not supporting this motion or the idea of the legislation. Therefore, these two sections are unavailable to the government.
 It is therefore obvious that Motion No. 15 is an attempt to cast aside these rules in this place. The government is doing this because our rules forbid the imposition of closure or time allocation on multiple stages of a bill without the consent of a majority of parties in this House. It is trying to circumvent the rules and I believe it is attempting to create precedent in doing so.
Just one more point. The government has options to pass this legislation. It could start by talking to the opposition, a suggestion which is clearly an intention of the rules surrounding the curtailment of debate throughout chapter 14 of Marleau and Montpetit. 
The government could use either Standing Order 78.(3), moving of time allocation without consent, which would allow the House to decide on allotting time for any single stage of the legislation at a time, or Standing Order 57 to call for closure on any single stage of its proposed legislation. 
It can do that starting Monday, but our rules do not allow for the restriction of debate on multiple stages of the legislation without again the consent of a majority of the parties.
We are looking to you, Mr. Speaker, to defend those rules in the face of this assault by the government. We look to you as our Speaker to protect our rights to function under the rules and not to allow for these procedural back door manoeuvres, clearly designed to trivialize the Standing Orders of this place.
Hon. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the intervention by the hon. member.
There is precedent for the exact same procedure that we are laying out in the House this morning. In fact, as you will undoubtedly know, on March 22, 1999, a former Liberal government utilized the exact procedure that we have modeled the beginnings of the debate this morning. It was ruled in order then and I have every confidence that you will find everything similarly in order today.
As well, the hon. member seemed to indicate that there would be some curtailment of debate. That is not the case, as you well know. The House can sit as long as it wants in order to pass this bill once we actually introduce it in the House and begin the debate.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I actually looked at that precedent that the government whip has just made reference to.
It was Mr. Boudria who was the government whip for the Liberals in 1999. That precedent did not have a ruling. It was submitted. No one objected to it because at the time Standing Order 78 would have in fact been complied with because three of the five parties in the House at that time were in support of both the bill and this type of a motion.
Therefore it is not a precedent. There has been in fact no ruling on it. It has been used only once in the history and no one challenged it at that time.
 I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on it at this point and find along the arguments that I made that in fact it is an attempt on the part of the government to manoeuvre its way around the Standing Orders.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The Chair has heard the very able arguments put forward by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh in respect of this motion and I must say that I greet his arguments with some skepticism. 
I am concerned about his reference to the fact that a majority of the parties in the House have not agreed to something and therefore that something may not be in order. The House decides matters, not by party but by votes, by the number of members supporting or rejecting a motion. In my view, that is the way the House operates and will continue to operate.
I point out that this motion, which has been moved today and which is now the subject of debate, if acceptable, is one that will be voted on by the members of the House. Members are free to vote for or against the motion as they see fit and the decision of the House will be taken by the majority of the members voting either for or against. If the majority vote against, the motion is defeated and we will not proceed in this way. If the majority favour proceeding in this way, then that is exactly what will happen.
I would refer the hon. member to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Fraser on December 15, 1988, when a motion for certain changes to the Standing Orders was moved in the House. Mr. Speaker Fraser, quoting an earlier ruling of his which he had made in June 1988, said:
 The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the British North America Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House. It follows, therefore, that the House may dispense with the application of any of these rules by unanimous consent on any occasion, or, by motion, may suspend their operation for a specified length of time. 
He went on to say:
 Standing Orders may be suspended for a particular case without prejudice to their continued validity, for the House possesses the inherent power to destroy the self-imposed barriers and fetters of its own regulations. It may even pass an order prescribing a course of procedure inconsistent with the Standing Orders. 
He continues to say:
 Furthermore, there are several precedents for such occurrences in the Canadian House found in the Journals for March 16, 1883, June 1, 1898, April 8, 1948, April 24, 1961, and May 14, 1964. Clearly then both the authorities and our practices allow for our Standing Orders to be suspended or amended by motion on notice. 
I note that there has been notice given of this motion. It has been moved in accordance with the Standing Orders and will propose to suspend certain operations of those Standing Orders. 
Finally:
 Standing Orders are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension, whether explicitly or by Order contrary to their purport. Ordinary notice only is requisite for the necessary motion: and some Standing Orders have included arrangements for the suspension of their own provisions by a bare vote, without amendment or debate. 
In the circumstances, having regard to the motion that has been proposed by the government House leader, I must say that it appears to me to suspend the operation of the Standing Orders in relation to a bill that is to be introduced at some future time with a specific title, and that when that bill is introduced, this special order will kick in, in relation to that bill.
It seems to me that it is a matter for the House to decide if it wishes to proceed in this way.
I think that the motion is receivable in its present form and is consistent with the authorities I have cited. It is up to the House and not me to decide if the motion is acceptable or not.
In my view, the motion is receivable right now and the House can decide after the debate if it wants to adopt it or not. We will now hear the hon. Minister of Labour for the beginning of the debate.
[Interjection]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point to Standing Order 62 which clearly states:
 When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen “be now heard”, or “do now speak”, which motion shall be forthwith put without debate. 
At this time, I would ask that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh now be heard.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member has maybe jumped the gun here. The minister has been called because he moved the motion and I had put the motion. We then had a procedural argument. He had risen and was ready to go. I would, of course, recognize him because he was the mover of the motion.
The member's motion could be in order later when we have two members rising at the same time to speak but in this case the Minister of Labour had in fact risen before the point of order and was ready to speak to the motion that he moved for the government House leader. 
I think, with respect, the hon. Minister of Labour should be the one who now has the floor and I accordingly decline to put the hon. member's motion at this time. When there is a dispute I will do it but in this case the mover is entitled to speak to the motion first.
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, this morning, we are taking a special procedural measure because of the importance of the economy, which is now somewhat paralyzed by a labour dispute between CN and the United Transportation Union.
The first question we must ask is the following: Why should the government introduce this bill? What is at stake? What is at stake is the Canadian economy or the operation of the Canadian economy. What does the operation of the Canadian economy rely on? At what point can we say that things are going well in Canada and that we have economic prosperity? The answer is when companies can receive the goods they need to manufacture their products and, once manufactured, they can deliver them to the consumers and businesses who need them.
At this time, the economy is paralyzed. The situation is such that businesses in many areas are not receiving their goods. Some must even stop production and, as a consequence, people are being laid off.
If Canada's economy is paralyzed, who will pay the price? We will all pay the price. Every Canadian will have a price to pay. The government uses the money it receives from businesses and taxpayers to offer services to Canadians. If businesses cannot operate and lose money as a result, there will be consequences. Some may go bankrupt, people will lose their jobs and will not earn money. Another consequence is that revenue coming into the country will stop coming in.
Also at issue is international credibility. If our merchandise is not delivered to the countries that are expecting it, they will no longer count on us. That is what is happening in our economy right now. I would like to give some concrete examples from the existing situation. 
Right now, in Vancouver, about 15 boats are moored at the Port of Vancouver. These boats cannot unload their goods or load goods they have to deliver elsewhere. This means that the port is blocked and half paralyzed. Some companies have to pay fines because they cannot deliver their goods by the agreed-upon deadlines. 
Here is another example: British Columbia forestry. Forestry companies transport wood by train, by Canadian National. Canadian National is not currently in a position to offer its regular services. Some say its service levels are between 60% and 75%. The union says its service levels are at 25%. Either way, the result is that companies are calling us and writing us to say that they will shut down this or that sawmill and that they will have to temporarily discontinue operations because the train is not delivering the goods. 
Here is one more example. In the Prairies, grain transportation is being affected. Grain is that part of the country's major economic activity. Once the grain gets to the Port of Vancouver, it has to be loaded onto boats and delivered. The boats have to cross the sea to deliver the goods to other countries. Economic activity is paralyzed. There are also two potash mines in Saskatchewan that have closed their doors and two more are getting ready to do the same. Many jobs will be lost. 
Ford, in Ontario, is another example. This week, in St. Thomas, work shifts had to be cut, and another one will be cut today. We are talking about 2,400 jobs. How does the auto industry work? Parts have to be delivered when an automobile is being built. The problem is that these parts are no longer being delivered, which brings the assembly line to a halt. And that is not all. Once the vehicle has been built, it has to be put on a train to be delivered to its destination. Right now, this cannot be done because CN no longer provides this service to companies as it usually does. 
Here is another example. When a business closes its doors, people wrongly believe that its employees are the only ones who are affected, but it goes way beyond that. There are contractors who are associated with that business. If it shuts down, the contractors can no longer sell their product to that business.
Right now, this has an impact on all aspects of economic activity in Ontario. I see the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who is here and who knows how important the forest industry is in Quebec. Guy Chevrette was saying this week that the forest industry had enough problems as it is with the softwood lumber issue that it did not need CN to stop delivering our products. That is a great example since Mr. Chevrette is highly respected in that community. 
This morning, Novalis, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, said that its products could not leave the plant. They have to be delivered, but CN no longer provides this service. The same problem exists at the various ports in the Maritimes.
In the Northwest Territories, diamond mines account for 50% of gross domestic product. This sector needs to receive its goods right now. During the winter months, there is a window of time when ice bridges are built to transport the goods and fuel needed for the whole year. At present, this is not happening. The goods have not been delivered to Edmonton and this service is not operating. We do not know what will happen to this company, which employs a huge number of workers and is vital to the economy of the Northwest Territories. 
Remote communities are another example. At present, various remote communities are no longer receiving the food they were expecting, nor oil, an essential fuel. What are the basic needs in life? What are the basic needs of a human being? Food heating, especially in a country such as ours. That is why we are saying today that our government, that the parliamentarians in this House, must take action and pass back-to-work legislation in order for the economic activity of our country to get back to normal.
What is the chain of events that has brought us to where we are today? On February 10, the United Transportation Union decided to declare war. CN, the employer, subsequently challenged the Canadian union's decision by stating that they did not have the right to strike. Only the UTU International had that right. The Canadian union is an affiliate of the American union. CN filed a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is empowered to make such decisions, hear the parties and decide whether or not the strike is legal. In the ensuing days, the Canada Industrial Relations Board immediately proceeded to hear both parties. 
Although we were all expecting a ruling on Wednesday, to our surprise, the American union did not recognize the lawyer representing the United Transportation Union and wanted its own lawyer to explain the union's position. As a result, the Canada Industrial Relations Board postponed the hearing to the following Monday, because the union wanted its lawyer to have enough time to become familiar with the case. Five days passed with no negotiation or discussion. Nothing. Everyone was waiting.
On Saturday, I tried to reach the parties through our mediators. For 36 hours, we were unable to contact the union's representatives. There is a major conflict between the American union and the Canadian union. The American union does not recognize the work that the people here are doing. On Monday, after the Canada Industrial Relations Board had heard the parties, when I realized that a ruling might not be handed down that evening, I immediately called both parties to say that the government could not wait any longer. I also told them that if the Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled that the strike was legal, they would have just hours, not days, to find a solution.
I told them that once the Canada Industrial Relations Board handed down its ruling—if the strike was declared legal—they would have hours, not days, to find a solution and that the economy was so disrupted that we had to shoulder our responsibilities and take action. I immediately informed both parties that we were sending in our top mediator to support them in their discussions.
To my great surprise, when I spoke to Mr. Beatty, the union representative, he told me that he and the entire negotiating team had been dismissed by the American union, which would be sending in a new team.
I then immediately got in touch with the American union representatives again to tell them the same things: that they had only a few hours to reach an agreement, that the country could not wait any longer, and that this dispute was having a severe impact across Canada on workers, businesses and the health of our nation's economy.
This is what has happened in the recent days and hours.
I am also in contact with our mediators several times a day. At this point, with the latest information I received this morning, nothing leads us to believe that there will be an agreement. Note that this can change quickly and that is what I am hoping for.
I do not want us to have back-to-work legislation; I want the parties to come to an agreement. They have two options: either they call a truce and continue their mediation over the next few weeks to reach an agreement, or they reach an agreement before this legislation is tabled and passed, thereby ensuring that Parliament does not have to intervene. Our hope is that an agreement is reached.
Two parties are involved: Canadian National and the union, the United Transportation Union. The dispute between the two unions is also complicating matters. However, it is not up to me to intervene to decide who is right or wrong. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. The parties have to work together.
There is some more news that hon. members should know about. An agreement had been reached between the parties ensuring that Toronto's Go Train commuter service and Montreal's commuter service would not be interrupted. Today, the parties cancelled that agreement—the union has just cancelled it. Nonetheless, the service is still running, but we do not know how much longer that will last. This may also have an unimaginable impact on the economies of Montreal and Toronto and, by extension, on the economy of Canada. 
I want to reiterate that this has more than a single consequence. There is a domino effect. That is why, as parliamentarians and as Minister of Labour, we have to assume our responsibilities and take action. We cannot keep waiting.
It will take four or five days to pass this legislation. Just imagine what will happen to the economy. We are facing possible chaos.
That being said, I will conclude with this message. I want to be clear. This government will not allow the strike at CN to go on any longer. It has dragged on for too long already. Our country's economic activity is being derailed by this strike. Businesses no longer receive the materials they need to manufacture their products. They can no longer deliver their finished products to their destination in Canada or abroad. Businesses are shutting down one after the other. Workers are losing their jobs. Even CN employees are caught in a dispute within their own union. And what is even worse is that citizens of our country who live in remote communities are not getting essential goods such as food and fuel. 
Enough is enough. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to act. In fact, I have just been informed that the Liberal Party will support the bill that I will introduce in the House this afternoon, immediately after question period. 
I will repeat the title of the bill: an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations. I am still encouraging the parties to come to an agreement. 
That is what we are hoping for. However, in case that does not happen, we are already in the process of assuming our responsibility with this bill that will be introduced shortly. 
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that CN is basically an American-run company now. In fact, a few years ago its website stated that the word Canadian could not be used in the term CN. The member is correct that there have been problems within the international arm of the union. It is an American-run union. It is an American-run company and an American-run union with American-style problems.
 The reality is that these problems existed in the past. The government is fully aware of that. The date of a contract or a collective agreement ends at a particular time. Everybody knows that. If it is so vital for the minister to introduce back to work legislation now, why has the government not been proactive? Why did it not see this impasse coming and do something to coordinate the two parties long before this action took place?
 The government is being reactive, not proactive, in this particular initiative. If the government knew this was coming, what was it prepared to do? Or was the government caught off guard, as always, about this vital link in our economy?
[Interjection]
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member should know that, within the Department of Labour, our primary responsibility is to help the parties during collective bargaining.
This collective agreement was ending last December 31 and our conciliators were already at work. They kept working throughout January. At the end of January, when the conciliation period had ended, we immediately sent mediators to help the parties to ensure that they could come to an agreement. 
Of course, in this country, there is the right to go on strike. The union used its right to go on strike. This is what it did on February 10. The parties could not come to an agreement, despite mediation. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has to be respected as well. The parties have the right to consult the Canada Industrial Relations Board as to whether a strike is legal or illegal. We have respected this mechanism. However, at some point, this cannot go on forever. Action must be taken before the consequences become catastrophic. It is in this context that, last Monday night, I called the parties to tell them that we would send our chief mediator to work with them. 
Let me talk about our chief mediator, Elizabeth McPherson. She is the same person whom we had suggested during the recent strike between film actors and producers in Canada. There was a dispute between these various groups in each province. We made them an unsolicited offer of a mediation service to support the parties. It is this same person, Elizabeth McPherson, who helped the parties to reach an agreement that will be submitted soon. Once again, this was a major strike for the country. We thought that, with Jacques Lessard, the other mediator who is at the table, we would have two experienced people, two experts. Of course, the parties must be willing to cooperate. 
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the action taken by the  Minister of Labour. I want to make a couple of comments at this time about the impact this strike is having specifically on my riding of Prince George—Peace River. 
As the minister has said, I think this action is incumbent upon a responsible government, hopefully with support from all parties, but failing that, at least, as you said, Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on the point of order about whether this is actually the correct procedure to be using in this circumstance, hopefully the majority of members in the House will act responsibly and support this motion.
I can tell members that in Prince George—Peace River in northern British Columbia this strike is already devastating for the local economy. I have had reports about the problems in getting fuel from the refineries, both propane and diesel, because it travels in tanker cars by rail.
There have been problems conveyed to me by farmers up there as far as grain shipments and a lack of cars to move the grain to market are concerned. They are worrying about the ongoing $300,000 a day in demurrage charges that the farmers themselves are going to have to pick up, because that comes out of the pooled returns under the Canadian Wheat Board. It is the farmers, who can least afford that type of additional cost, who are facing that cost already. It is adding up for them every day that this strike is allowed to continue.
I was very privileged to be at a recent mine opening in my riding for Western Canadian Coal. It is called the Wolverine mine and is just outside of Tumbler Ridge in my riding in northeastern British Columbia. I have information from that mine that it will be shutting down, potentially as early as tomorrow, because it does not have cars to ship its product out to Prince Rupert and on to our customers abroad.
We can see from that one little corner of our country the devastating impact that this strike is having on our local economies, on local jobs and, most importantly, on local Canadian families that are trying to make ends meet.
 I fully support the initiative, but if only we could solve this today, it would be great. I still have hope, as we all do, that the two sides can negotiate a settlement. Perhaps they will have that in place before the day is out. That would be great. We had all hoped that it would have been settled long ago and we would not have had to take this action, but it is incumbent upon a responsible government and a responsible minister to act expeditiously when we are faced with this.
Also, I have not even gone into the whole subject of our international reputation as a reliable shipper of natural resources and other products. All of our customers rely on our international reputation for reliability. They rely upon it, and if we cannot show the world that Canada can be relied on to meet our commitments and keep our contractual agreements, it will be devastating to our economy.
 I wanted to voice those concerns and ask the minister if he has any other direct evidence that he wishes to share with us about the devastating impact, if not today, then certainly in the hours and days to come, that would result from this strike were it to be allowed to continue much longer. 
We cannot solve this today, even with this legislative procedure. It is potentially going to take up to another week to get this in place. It is not like we can just snap our fingers and solve this.
[Interjection]
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this strike of the opposing Canadian National Railway and the UTU, the union, is having a major impact on our economy. We have problems in the port of Vancouver. We have problems on the Prairies. We also have problems in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes. The whole economy of the country is almost paralyzed because of this strike. 
This strike affects not only one enterprise. The Canadian National Railway is all over the country. When the stock is not getting to the employer's enterprise, immediately it cannot produce, and immediately the employer will decide that it will shut down the company for days or for weeks, and we do not know for how long.
That is why we cannot let the situation go on like it is now. We have to act. We have been waiting. We thought that maybe they would find an agreement, but when we realize this is not possible we cannot wait weeks and months. We have to act. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians. It is for this reason that people have elected us.
I repeat that what I would like to see is an agreement between both parties. That would be best for everyone. But when we realize that it has been so long and there is no solution before us to get an agreement, we have to act. It is for this reason that we have tabled this today. There are 2,800 employees involved in this strike and we hope that before the bill is tabled they can find an agreement.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief remarks that I would like to bring to the discussion this morning—
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With your advice from before, I quote Standing Order 62, which states:
 When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen “be now heard”... 
At this time I would ask that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh be now heard.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has tried to move a motion that someone else be heard. I want to read him the section in Marleau and Montpetit that deals with this issue, on page 507:
 When two Members rise simultaneously to “catch the Speaker's eye”, the Speaker will recognize one of them to speak. By rising on a point of order, another Member may move that the Member who had not been recognized be given the floor. The moving of the motion “that a Member be now heard” is an exception to the rule that a motion cannot be moved on a point of order. The motion may not be moved if the Member first recognized by the Speaker has already begun to speak. 
I am afraid the hon. member Wascana had already begun to speak, so I cannot receive the motion from the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore at this time. Accordingly the hon. member for Wascana has the floor.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have a few brief remarks to bring to the debate this morning.
It is clear that the unfortunate strike at CN Rail is having a large and escalating impact on a great many Canadians and on the Canadian economy overall. It has a number of industries and sectors of our economy in a difficult position over a wide spectrum. I am sure we have all heard from many of those affected Canadians, grain producers and shippers, the auto industry, fuel suppliers and consumers, manufacturers of many kinds, potash and fertilizer producers, the mining industry and others, and indeed employees of CN Rail.
After some 10 days of this strike, the government made its first move with the appointment of a mediator to work with the parties. The mediator, I understand, met quickly with both sides, and just one day after being appointed, the mediator had both parties back at the bargaining table. In a strange twist, however, the same day the government appointed mediator got the parties back to the table, the Minister of Labour announced that he would immediately introduce back to work legislation because of the huge and growing economic impact of the situation. The mediation process therefore was nullified.
We in the Liberal Party do not question the severity of the impact of this strike, and I think that is obvious. We do have questions about the government's apparently erratic approach to the strike, and that is troubling. This was further demonstrated by the fact that the Minister of Labour said, on Tuesday, February 20, that this was an economic emergency that required immediate action. Yet, it appears it will be seven days later, on Tuesday, February 27, before the government will actually present the legislation for debate in the House. That delay is problematic.
Subject to that legislation being in appropriate and fair form from a legal and policy point of view, and I understand we may have an opportunity to see the legislation later today, the Liberal Party will be supporting it when it is finally presented to the House. However, it is troubling, as I said, that the government's approach has been apparently incoherent to the situation. The government will have taken a full week to address what the labour minister himself described as an emergency last Tuesday.
Liberals have never believed that Parliament should be regarded as a regular integral part of the industrial relations process. The Canada Labour Code governs that process, and it usually functions pretty effectively. We note that in those rare instances when Parliament does have to be asked to intervene, it is because one or more of the parties to the dispute fail to participate in a constructive and effective manner. This could be management, it could be the union leadership, it could be the ineptitude on the part of the government in managing the mediation process, or it could be a combination of all three.
 We will not attempt today to pass any judgment on the question of where this process broke down in this case, leading to the troubling circumstances with which we now have to deal. In the course of considering the actual bill, we will most certainly be probing the government's role, or non-role, in this failure of the normal free collective bargaining process. 
We further invite the government to consider the timing it has proposed for this legislation, which I assume is sometime next week, probably to begin on Tuesday. Perhaps it might consider advancing that schedule. Notwithstanding current timing agreements before the House on other matters, it might consider bringing forward the legislation on Monday rather than Tuesday.
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is important to respect the bodies that were set up to support the parties. The Canada Industrial Relations Board is a body to which the parties can refer, when there is a dispute, to get an opinion, and that was done.
It was on Monday that the Canada Industrial Relations Board issued its decision. Immediately after that, a notice was sent to the parties, informing them that we could no longer wait, that the Canadian economy had been affected enough, that people were losing their jobs, and that businesses were not receiving the raw materials essential to their production and were not able to deliver their products. We also sent the mediator immediately.
Let us look back at the sequence of events. On Monday evening, the parties were notified. On Wednesday afternoon, the notice of motion is given in this House because, as we know, such a notice must be given. It is compulsory and it involves a 48 hour wait time. And now we are here this morning. 
The day before yesterday, I asked the member for Bourassa whether the Liberal Party would support our efforts to pass a bill, so as to help CN Rail and its employees by putting an end to this strike. It is only this morning, barely a half-hour ago, that the member informed me that the Liberal Party would indeed support our initiative.
Why did it take so long to inform us, considering that we are a minority government and we cannot pass legislation without the opposition's support? It is in this context that we asked for their support. 
 I should add that I am grateful to get that support now, even though I would have preferred to get it a few days earlier. 
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I point out for the minister that it was yesterday when I raised the question about the timing of the government's approach during the course of the regular Thursday afternoon question about House proceedings.
The issue is one of how quickly the government has been able or unable to assemble the necessary provisions to proceed. It is still open to the government, having commenced this debate today, to proceed on Monday, not on Tuesday, if the situation is as dire as the minister has described. We have heard the representations of a great many Canadians, just like he has. Therefore, we would agree that the situation is very serious. 
It is terribly unfortunate that the problem has deteriorated to this level, but those are the facts we are dealing with today. It seems to me that it would be important for the government to reconsider, in its own scheduling, whether it wants to wait until next Tuesday or whether it would be prepared to proceed on Monday, which is an option that is still available to it.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across for the chronology of the events. This lack of action on the part of the government shows a basic disregard for the process. It shows how the labour movement has been downgraded over the years, how serious labour action in the integrated economy can be and how important it is for the government to be out front with this and deal with it in a timely fashion. We see the results of this now. We see the results of the lack of respect for the labour movement, which leads to this kind of situation.
Does he really think the government has acted fairly with the labour movement so far and with the strikers who are involved in this by its inaction over the past two weeks?
The Speaker: I am reluctant to cut off the period for questions and comments at this moment, but it is time to move to statements by members. The hon. member for Wascana will have an opportunity to respond to the question after question period is over.
Ralph Goodale:  Are you sure you want to wait, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker:  I am not sure I want to wait, but I think we are going to have to wait. The rules require that we wait.
I will therefore proceed to statements by members and call upon the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Statements By Members
Dairy IndustryMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, dairy farmers and producers in my riding fully support the decision of Canada's new government to launch article XXVIII of GATT to restrict imports of milk protein concentrates.
Dairy farmers have been asking for action and our government is delivering results. What the Liberals failed to do while they were in power, Canada's new government is listening and taking effective steps to support them.
CFA president, Mr. Bob Friesen, said, “This is very good news for Canadian dairy producers...And more than that, it shows this government is still strongly committed to measures that support our vital marketing tools like supply management”. Mr. Jacques Laforge, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, added, “There should be no doubt in producers' minds about this government's support for supply management” and that we brought “good news” to dairy farmers.
I would like to join with the dairy producers of Canada in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture for his bold and decisive actions and for delivering on our commitment to the dairy industry and supply management.
Lloyd ClemettMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we mark the passing this week of Lloyd Clemett, who was one of the last three surviving Canadian veterans of the first world war.
Mr. Clemett represents a generation of Canadians who so bravely served their country on the fields of Europe over 90 years ago. We must never forget the contribution made by Mr. Clemett and his comrades to the cause of democracy and peace around the world. 
His passing at age 107 also reminds us of his much younger comrades serving Canada today. As proud as we are of the past achievements of our war veterans, we are equally as proud of all Canadian men and women in uniform around the world.
The Liberal Party of Canada and indeed all members of this House offer their heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Lloyd Clemett.
CIMA+Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the success of CIMA+, one of the jewels of Laval's industrial sector. CIMA+ specializes in engineering, project management and advanced technologies. Founded in 1990 with only 15 employees, it is now one of the leaders in engineering in Quebec, with 850 employees. Over the years, CIMA+ has earned 17 awards.
Present in 17 African countries, it now has four offices in Africa: in Abuja, Nigeria; Niamey, Niger; Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Algiers, Algeria.
2006 was a remarkable year for the company. It won six engineering contracts in Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Chad, Mauritania and Cameroon. It was entrusted with $200 million worth of new projects, which will bring in some $8 million in fees.
Congratulations to CIMA+ and its president, Mr. Kazimir Olechnowicz. Both serve as excellent examples of Quebec know-how and expertise at work in many developing countries.
World War I Victory MedalPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, in 1916 a young 17-year-old black man from Nova Scotia named Percy Fenton signed up with the No. 2 Construction Battalion, the only black battalion in World War I that served overseas. Now his victory medal is being sold on eBay by a profiteer. 
The selling of medals for cash profit is simply unacceptable. It is despicable that in this great country somebody would try to financially profit from the valour of other people. 
Our veterans who served in past conflicts and those who are serving now are our greatest Canadians. Those medals that they wear so proudly on their chests are not currency. They represent so much more: valour, honour, duty and sacrifice, and remembrance of those who never had a chance to wear theirs. 
I would implore the individual from Dutch Settlement, Nova Scotia to take the medal off eBay and donate it to the Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia so that all Canadians can revere and protect this medal for all people in the future.
Special Olympics Ontario Winter GamesMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the city of Owen Sound recently made history when it became the smallest community in Ontario to ever host a Special Olympics Ontario Winter Games.
Owen Sound Police Services Detective Chris Hartley, chairman of the event, his committee and move than 700 volunteers are to be commended for their hard work in putting this very successful event together.
This city of 21,000 people opened its doors and welcomed 299 athletes and their coaches to the games. Over $260,000 was raised in the community, and the community continues to donate by purchasing over 70 winter games jackets which are being given to the local special Olympics athletes.
We could learn a lot about ourselves from these athletes who showed us their determination and enthusiasm. They displayed a very happy, cheerful attitude and a fierce but always fair competitiveness.
We thank them for the memories and once again, a big thank you and congratulations to everyone involved in the 2007 Special Olympics Ontario Winter Games.
Boris MangovMr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to Boris Mangov, a Canadian Macedonian businessman and community leader who recently passed away.
Boris arrived in Canada in 1959 and was active in the Macedonian community for over 40 years. Indeed, there was no Macedonian event that he either did not attend or did not help to organize. 
Boris was president of St. Clement Macedonian Cathedral and president of the United Macedonians Organization of Canada. He was involved in drama club activities and organized cultural contacts with Macedonia.
His wife has established a scholarship directed at the Macedonian community in his honour. I encourage second year university students to apply. This is a fitting tribute to a man who worked hard to organize Macedonians in their loyalty to Canada and pride in their heritage.
2007 Canada Winter GamesMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the athletes participating in the Canada Winter Games which began today in Whitehorse, Yukon. They are the very first Canadian games to be held north of the 60th parallel.
We can be proud of each one of the athletes and of this extraordinary event which brings together athletes from 22 sports over a two week period. This is a true testimony to the dedication and hard work of Canadian youth.
I also want to congratulate the thousands of coaches, officials, event organizers, volunteers and parents who have supported the athletes through the years particularly in preparation for this event.
Please join me in cheering on all the athletes and all the volunteers of the 2007 Canada Winter Games.
Polydium de Châteauguay Swim ClubMrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the exceptional performance of the swimmers of the Polydium de Châteauguay swim club. This gold-medal team did very well at the provincial competition held in January 2007, winning several medals.
Nicolas Bauer was particularly successful, winning gold medals in four out of the six events in which he participated. Annie-Claude Haineault captured the silver medal in the 100 metre breaststroke. Mylène Gariépy won three gold medals and two bronze medals. Lastly, Philippe Corbeil-Boulay also won honours in the 200 metre freestyle. 
In addition to the impressive number of medals, nearly all the swimmers improved their personal times, much to the delight of their head coach, Mr. Jocelyn Boileau.
It is with great pride that I congratulate these athletes on their success. These praiseworthy performances are truly indicative of the determination and dynamic nature of the youth in my community.
Foreign AffairsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 19 the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a statement condemning the act of terrorism which saw two bombs explode aboard the Samjhauta Express, a train bound from India to Pakistan. Canada considers this attack to be a deplorable act of violence against innocent civilians and extends its sympathies to the families of the victims.
We are pleased that the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan met as scheduled in New Delhi on February 21, showing that the peace process would not be derailed by terrorist attacks of this kind. We believe sustained action is necessary to undermine militants who wish to derail the peace process and use violence to advance their political goals.
The South Asian region is a priority sector for Canada's new Conservative government. I will spend the next three weeks in Pakistan and India and I look forward to working toward strengthening our political and economic relations.
Guantanamo Bay Detention CampMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my voice to the chorus of people from across the country and around the world over the human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay. This prison has operated outside the scope of international conventions, outside the supervision of the courts, and in violation of international human rights law for over five years.
With the prospect of indefinite detention without a fair trial in such conditions, the potential psychological impact upon those held and their loved ones is a major concern.
Our society was founded on basic principles of freedom and due process. The actions of the American administration in establishing and maintaining Guantanamo Bay not only run counter to the foundations upon which western society stands, but represents a victory for those who would see us abandon our values and our way of life.
I join with the United Nations and former prime minister Joe Clark in calling for this facility to be closed immediately. I call upon the Conservative government to take a lead role in making this happen.
Quebec City Area Cadet GamesMr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to announce that the 7th Quebec City area cadet games will be held in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, at the Polyvalente de Charlesbourg, on March 2, 3 and 4, 2007.
These games will bring together more than 600 male and female cadets and nearly 100 staff members from 23 units in the greater Quebec City area.
During this weekend of competitions, the cadets will compete in various events.
The cadet program, nearly 2,000 strong in the Quebec City area, is designed to develop in youth attributes of leadership, team spirit and physical fitness.
I am inviting everyone to come and cheer for our cadets, for the continuation of this program and the delight of the many young people enrolled in it. 
I look forward to seeing you at the 7th cadet games, in Charlesbourg, on March 2, 3 and 4.
Railway OperationsMrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to declare my solidarity in support of the United Transportation Union in its struggle to win fair working conditions, fair wages and a fair collective agreement. These CN workers want to return to work. Introducing back to work legislation at this point is redundant and counterproductive.
New Democrats and, I believe, all Canadians want to see a solution to this labour dispute that is acceptable to both sides. A federal mediator was assigned to do this job. My question is, why is the federal government trying to claw back labour rights? This dispute can be settled without this undemocratic back to work legislation. It is the mediator's job to find a resolution and the bullying tactics of CN are not helping the situation.
There are serious issues facing rail workers. There are very real safety and security issues that need to be addressed so that ordinary Canadians can remain confident in our rail system so that these workers are not forced to put their lives on the line.
Diana PalmerMr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Diana Palmer of Fredericton died on February 7, 2007. Born in Havana, she never lost her love of Cuba. Schooled at Havergal in Toronto and nursing in Hamilton, Ontario, she met the love of her life, Dr. Marven Palmer, of Douglas Harbour, New Brunswick in Montreal in 1955. Moving to Fredericton later, she was a pillar of the community and a close confidante of progressive Premier Richard Hatfield.
The proud mother of two daughters—one a kindergarten teacher and cultural activist, and the other a renowned director—and a son who became a physician, she was among the most progressive people in her province. Her daughter-in-law and world renowned author, Anne-Marie Macdonald, stated in her eulogy:
This tropical flower, this English rose, this bird of paradise became a Canadian. Many waters cannot guard love. Love never dies. Marven and Diana are a love story; more than half a century of a romance partnership fanned out through us all. 
Diana Palmer lived an immigrant's dream with respect for all, a model to all parliamentarians and Canadians.
Centre Espoir RosalieMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the 15th anniversary of the founding of the Centre Espoir Rosalie in Gatineau.
Inspired by the charity work of Rosalie Cadron-Jetté, Sister Claire Ranger officially founded the Centre Espoir Rosalie on January 15, 1992, with the help of three single mothers.
The organization aims to help low-income single mothers, and specifically unwed mothers, develop the means and resources to take control of their lives from a financial, parenting, personal and social point of view. The goal of the Centre Espoir Rosalie is to break the isolation of families and promote parenting skills, while making mothers aware of their rights and helping them to assert them, all with respect and understanding.
The Bloc Québécois is happy to acknowledge the 15th anniversary of the Centre Espoir Rosalie, and proudly recognizes all its volunteers.
Canadian Writers' FoundationHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to the Canadian Writers' Foundation as it marks its 75th anniversary.
The foundation is Canada's premier organization helping our authors who at some point in their lives may require financial assistance to meet everyday needs. Some of Canada's better writers, including E.J. Pratt, Alfred Desrochers, Milton Acorn, Roger Brien, Dorothy Livesay and Norman Levine, have called upon this body for assistance.
I believe that writers, including poets, are important for the well-being of our society. I therefore applaud the dedication of the Canadian Writers' Foundation.
On behalf of my fellow parliamentarians, I would like to congratulate the foundation and the volunteers who give of their time day after day.
Leader of the OppositionMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has unearthed an inconvenient truth about the new Leader of the Opposition. Not only is it not easy for him to set priorities, apparently he loathes environmentally friendly modes of transportation. In fact, while serving as minister of the environment, the Leader of the Opposition took 98 separate posh limousine rides between Ottawa and Montreal in just 17 months.
While the environmental cost of providing a comfy commute for the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates his extreme hypocrisy, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation proclaims this is unfair to the taxpayers of Canada. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation was disturbed to learn the Leader of the Opposition billed the taxpayers $14,255 for commuting in stretch comfort as opposed to choosing a less expensive greener commuting option.
While it is clear the Leader of the Opposition did not get it done as minister of the environment, it is even clearer that when it comes to the environment his message is, “do as I say, not as I do”.

Oral Questions
Security CertificatesMr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Prime Minister promised the Canadian Arab Federation that he would review the anti-terrorism laws to get a better balance between security and human rights and this promise, in my view, has been broken. He promised changes to the security certificates and did nothing for a year. Now the Supreme Court has said that we must change the security certificate regime.
When will the government begin to take its responsibilities seriously and start to fix Canada's anti-terrorism and immigration laws?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government takes very seriously the public security of Canadians. That is our number one priority.
With regard to today's decision, Canada's new government thanks the Supreme Court for its decision on security certificates. We have just received the new decision. The security certificate process has been in place for many decades and it was put in place to protect Canadians.
We will be reviewing that decision and, if we are confident we can, we will look for a way to reconcile the need to protect the security of Canadians with the directions to Parliament from the court to review this matter.
Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that during the last election campaign, the Conservatives promised changes to the security certificate regime. They knew very well that changes were needed, yet they did nothing. 
Now that the Supreme Court has asked for an overhaul of the security certificate regime, will the Conservative government keep its promise, or will it flip-flop yet again? 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it was the Liberal government that did nothing. Canada's new government thanks the Supreme Court of Canada for its ruling on security certificates. We have just learned the details of the decision. We will examine it closely.
Several decades ago, the security certificate process was brought in to protect Canadians from security threats.
The opposition parties are soft on terrorism and security. Our government remains focused on ensuring national security, collaborating with its partners to ensure the security of their—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is not soft on terrorism. During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to “create a good balance between measures that will ensure public safety and measures that ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens”. That is what the Prime Minister said.
Why did the Conservative government change the balanced position it promised during the last election?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, how ironic to hear what the Liberal Party member is saying today.
 In fact, his position has always been very much to the contrary. He has actually been a believer, unlike his leader, in the importance of protecting Canadians and their public security. I would encourage him to speak to his leader about that.
For example, at Royal Military College in 2001, he said:
 Some people are arguing that we have not exhausted all such means, and it is important to be aware of something that has been forgotten in all the debate about 11 September. We must remind ourselves that normal tools of law and order — police investigation and prosecution of terror suspects — have been used and found wanting. 

Security InformationRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper story used by the Prime Minister this week in a disgusting drive-by smear against a member of Parliament contained assertions about alleged police proceedings of a highly secret nature. They are secret to ensure the integrity of those proceedings and yet the information, true or not, was made public.
Why did the government deem it appropriate to publish secret security information? Does that disclosure, in itself, not constitute breaking the law?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the government did no such thing. I believe the reference was to an article in The Vancouver Sun, which did not even get read in the House. If he has an issue, it is with The Vancouver Sun. 
I would remind the member that in the reference he is making, the assertion is from a professor at the University of Ottawa, Errol Mendes, who has been a very significant contributor to the Liberal Party over the years.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wascana now has the floor. I do not think he needs a lot of help with his question.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the despicable events of last Wednesday were no accident. At the very moment the Prime Minister was on his feet slurring the member for Mississauga—Brampton South, his press office was sending copies of that newspaper story to all the media. From beginning to end, this was contrived, premeditated slander. 
Let us go right to the source. Who in the government disclosed secret security information? Was it or was it not the Prime Minister's Office?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows well that this government does not control the media in this country, anything but, and the issue he is talking about was written by respected journalists. 
However, yesterday the Prime Minister clearly invited the hon. member and members of the opposition, if there were anything in that article that they wished to deny, to do that.
The main issue here is the lives that have been lost to terrorism. Over 350 Canadians lost their lives in the Air-India incident, one of the worst terrorist incidents in the history of the world. We need the tools to investigate those threats. We need the Liberals to vote for the anti-terrorist measures that they brought in themselves five years ago. We need them to support that legislation.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that security certificates are invalid because they violate fundamental rights. 
As a result of this ruling, will the government abandon its George Bush tactics and amend the law as quickly as possible so that those charged under a security certificate may have access to the evidence in order to have a full and complete defence?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The government intends to respond decisively and in due course to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against this type of measure in 2002.
The Supreme Court goes even further. It unanimously deplores the fact that judges do not have access to all the evidence since the suspect cannot provide a defence.
Does the government intend to amend the legislation to give judges the full capacity to rule on security certificates presented to them, thus enabling them to hand down informed rulings? 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there is no way the Bloc Québécois voted against the motion because the procedure for issuing security certificates has been around for several decades. The Bloc could not possibly have been here at that time.
The government intends to respond decisively and in due course to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling.
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us first recall that the Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in 2001.
The fears of those who have grasped how important it is to safeguard basic rights and freedoms have recently been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The government has gone too far in its drift in security policy, with the security certificates.
Will the government finally realize that nothing can be more important to the security of our fellow citizens than respect for basic rights? Will it amend the Anti-Terrorism Act accordingly?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government does thank the Supreme Court for its decision on security certificates. We have just received the decision and are reviewing it carefully. The security certificate process was put in place to protect Canadians against threats to their safety and security and the government does intend to respond in a timely and decisive fashion to address the court's decision.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has given the government a maximum of one year. Meanwhile, other people are remaining subject to draconian surveillance.
Out of respect for these men, will the government take swift action to address the security certificate deficiencies and allow these people to regain their rights as soon as possible?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have just received the Supreme Court's decision. It will be reviewed very carefully and the government will respond in a timely and decisive fashion.
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North AmericaHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, discussions on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America affect ordinary people. However, this whole process, launched by the Liberals and pursued by the Conservatives, is very vague.
Secret talks are being held on security, transportation, the environment, health care and increasingly deeper integration, all without the mandate of Parliament and without any public input on integration.
Why does the minister refuse to reveal the agenda of these meetings?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth is always imagining conspiracies, but the reality is that this is a very open and transparent process.
It is an agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico designed to facilitate as much as possible the movement of individuals and trade, and to ensure that we can protect our economic security in the process and ensure prosperity for all.
The hon. member will see from the result of the discussions and what happens today that it will be a good result for all Canadians, and that we should continue this process in a very positive way. He need not have such frightening conspiracies.
Jack Layton: We are not doing the frightening, Mr. Speaker. Things got so bad yesterday that the government had to issue a press release claiming that it was not selling out Canadian sovereignty. When the Conservatives do that, it usually means they are. That is our experience.
The fact is, these discussions are worrisome to all Canadians. They have been incredibly secret from the get go and there has been no public input. The government has not sought out the opinion of parliamentarians or the public on it. Of course, the Conservatives think they know best. 
The fact is that integration is marching on and Canadians are being left in the dark as our economy, our environment, and our social systems are all put up for deep integration. 
Why will the government not just simply tell us the truth and tell us what--
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth's conspiracy theory is usually concerned that we are taking too strong a role on the world's stage. Now he thinks it is the other way around.
However, he is in good company with his conspiracy theories because I read today in the Ottawa Citizen that in the U.S., right-wing commentators say any talk of further integration of North America will erode U.S. security and long term economic prosperity.
On the fringes of the far right, there are loud whispers among hardened conspiracy theorists that this is part of a secret plot to eventually overthrow the U.S. government.
Prime MinisterHon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that there are government leaks aimed at creating misunderstandings, fuelling fears and casting aspersions on someone. The Prime Minister's attempt to use protected information to cast aspersions on a member of this House is also unacceptable and offensive. The Prime Minister's Office distributed the article published in the Vancouver Sun to the media, before the Prime Minister even rose in the House.
Why did the Conservative Party go to so much trouble, without even verifying the facts?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the hon. member has an issue with the The Vancouver Sun, he should take it up with the The Vancouver Sun.
Raymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, after being shamed in the House, Conservative members still persist in continuing to cast aspersions, even outside the House.
The Conservative caucus chair, duly following his PMO's instructions, even concluded that the father-in-law of the member for Mississauga—Brampton South is a suspect. It is yet another example of the government's complete disregard for the truth.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the RCMP and CSIS got it wrong when the member for Mississauga—Brampton South was security cleared as a privy councillor in 2005?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that on October 5, the subcommittee turned over a report to the standing committee which brought it to the House on October 17. That committee included members for Ajax—Pickering, Richmond, Saint John and Mount Royal.
From that time until now, the only thing that happened in the middle was the Liberal leadership convention, and two weeks ago they changed their mind.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister not only tried to cast aspersions on an hon. member, but he also cast aspersions on the integrity of the executive branch of the Canadian government.
Members of the Privy Council have access to top secret documents. Their security clearances are among the highest in the world. They are subject to detailed investigations.
Why did the Prime Minister attack the integrity of the Privy Council and the executive branch of this government?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can flail about all they want to try to change the channel on the main issue. The issue today is why have they changed their position on protecting Canadians through the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that are about to sunset?
The House committee, the Senate committee, John Manley, Anne McLellan, and every right thinking person believe that these provisions should be extended to protect Canadians. Why do the Liberals flip-flop on this issue?
Air-India InquiryBrian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, no answer. No apology. No class.
Yesterday, the minister falsely claimed, and the government House leader did today as well, that allowing the two anti-terrorist provisions to sunset would impede the Air-India inquiry.
The terms of reference of that inquiry state that the inquiry may produce findings or recommendations, but the inquiry itself would never use those provisions. This means that the sunsetting has no effect on the inquiry.
Would the government like to take the opportunity to correct the minister's and the government House leader's misleading statements to the country and this House?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, prior to September 11, the Air-India terrorist act was the worst terrorist act in this country's history. For the families of the Air-India terrorist act to ever get to the truth these provisions have to continue to allow the RCMP to continue its investigation. What do the hon. members have against the RCMP finishing its investigation?
Employment InsuranceMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development probably got carried away when he contended that 83% of all people who find themselves unemployed are able to get employment insurance benefits. The minister is mistaken. The reality is such that over 40% of unemployed workers do not get any benefits, even though they paid premiums. 
Given these numbers, the minister has no choice but to improve the program, so that it is not just over half of unemployed workers who get benefits, but all of them. What is the minister waiting for to take action?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to mention to the hon. member that 83% of the people who can access the EI account do in fact access it. The people he is speaking about are people who have not qualified and have not been entitled because they did not have enough weeks, they were self-employed, or did not pay into employment insurance. That is why his figures are absolutely incorrect.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, this is a program for which only 40% of all unemployed workers qualify. This is totally unacceptable.
 If the minister is short of ideas, he should read Bill C-269, presented by the Bloc Québécois, which proposes to increase the rate of weekly benefits, to reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, and to calculate benefits by using the best 12 weeks. All that is missing for this bill to become law is the will of the Conservative government.
What is the government waiting for to move forward with this legislation?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we understand that the labour market impacts of this concept be considered before we make any changes to the EI program. That is why the government has used the pilot project that the member is speaking about. It examines whether the EI benefits are based on a claimant's best weeks. The government is committed to ensuring that the EI benefit is there and accessible to all who need it.
AgricultureMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Secretary of State (Agriculture) was unable to explain why farmers in Quebec had received only $50 million out of the $1.5 billion budget for agriculture. In an interview he himself requested, the secretary was unable to justify why Quebec had not received its historical share, when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had promised that it would get its fair share.
Does the secretary not think that, two months after taking office, he should be able to explain to Quebec farmers why they have not received their fair share?
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Quebec of course is getting its fair share, as are other provinces. We are very careful that money is distributed across the country. Quebec gets between 12% and 15% of that share, not including supply and management, which is outside the traditional share of that funding. It receives that share as it has for several years and continues this year as well.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the minister himself is having a hard time explaining this. Since his secretary of state is unable to justify himself, I will take advantage of the minister's presence to ask him whether he can tell us why he has not made good on his promise to pay Quebec farmers their fair share.
Does he remember that thousands of farmers from Quebec and Canada demonstrated here on the Hill to show their distress at the worst revenue crisis this country has ever seen? Quebec has received 6.8% of the budget, even though it accounts for 20% of Canadian agriculture. Does the minister think this is fair?
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, that is simply untrue. Quebec continues to get its share of federal funding. There is programming but it cannot be categorized per sector or per parts of the industry. Quebec continues to get its share as it should. 
When necessary, we use this new disaster fund as we did in St-Amable for the potato nematode problem. We ensure that we have special funds when necessary to address special needs.
Foreign AffairsHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize, earned for his peacekeeping interventions during the 1956 Suez crisis, has been hidden for the foreign affairs minister's press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Such action is a disgrace and an embarrassment. This attempt to hide the past just highlights the Conservative Party's abandonment of Canada's peacekeeping role.
Why are the Conservatives so overly partisan that they cannot even recognize such great Canadian accomplishments?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it was Lester B. Pearson himself who said, “I do not know that I have done very much myself to promote fraternity between nations but I do know that there can be no more important purpose for any man's activity or interests”.
I am sure he would be very proud to have been able, in some small way, to contribute to this fraternity between Canada, the United States and Mexico today. He of all people made it clear in his own words that this is a contribution he would have liked to make.
Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, all the more reason to make sure that he is evident and seen by Canadians. The foreign affairs minister will never live up to the legacy of Prime Minister Pearson and the great era of Canadian foreign policy that he represented. 
When will the Conservatives stop trying to change history to suit their own purposes and live up to the Nobel legacy of Prime Minister Pearson?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, this assertion is absolutely ridiculous.
During the Liberal regime, when President Bush visited Canada, it was in the same spot as it is now. Due to security reasons and other things, that is the right spot for those medals. The assertions the member is making that it is a decision being made by the Conservative government is absolute nonsense.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the meanspirited Conservative government has hit rock bottom. Its decision to abandon first nations children has forced the Assembly of First Nations to launch a human rights complaint on the first nations child welfare crisis. We even have international aid groups working to assist first nations in a country which is one of the wealthiest in the world. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.
When will the minister stop talking and start acting to help our children?
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that after 13 years and decades of neglect by the previous Liberal government, the government has actually taken an initiative.
 That is why last year, in budget 2006, we allocated $3.7 billion for funding for aboriginal communities, $300 million for northern housing, $300 million for off reserve housing, and $65 million for the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy. It goes on and on.
The government takes action where it is necessary after 13 years and longer of neglect.
Tina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the money he is referring to is all off reserve money. The government has made cuts that we have not seen in the last 13 years. This is a disgrace. 
The department's own website states that the current program also lacks the authority to provide adoption subsidies and support, and less costly placement options such as kinship care, which are more effective for the child. 
After 27,000 children, how many more of our children are going to be removed before the minister decides to act?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, the member's figures are totally inaccurate. 
I did mention on reserve housing. This is a situation where we are taking steps to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians. We are doing it. Those members did not do it. We are getting the job done.
CN RailMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the CN Rail strike continues it is costing Saskatchewan grain farmers an extra $300,000 a day because of delays. And that is not all. Two potash mines may close this week and two more next week. There are layoffs in lumber towns and there is a significant impact on the auto industry. In fact, we are hearing that 2,400 workers at the St. Thomas Ford plant could be sent home today.
Can the Minister of Labour inform us what he is doing to keep Canada's economy moving?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The strike is in its fourteenth day, and I have not had any questions from opposition members about Canadian National and the strike by its workers.
The member is quite right to refer to the serious impact this is having on the country's economy, which is nearly paralyzed at present by the strike. In the next few minutes, we will be introducing a bill to force workers at Canadian National to return to work.
Security CertificatesJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, today, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision on the use of security certificates. The court ruled that they are illegal because they violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
Will the government assume its responsibilities? Will it allow this House to quickly abolish security certificates? Will we finally respect human rights here in Canada?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we thank the Supreme Court for its decision on security certificates. We have just received that decision, which is very lengthy. We are reviewing it carefully.
 The government intends to respond in a timely and decisive fashion to address the court's decision.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, we are really beyond platitudes with regard to the two men who are still being retained in the Kingston prison system. They have been on a hunger strike for more than 70 days.
After the Supreme Court decision today, striking down the certificate under which they are being held, will the government commit to negotiate seriously with its counsel to get them out on the same condition that the other four people detained under certificates have been previously released?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we will respond in a timely and decisive fashion to the court. I think it is important that the member stay tuned.
Gasoline PricesMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up today to sky high gas prices and fuel shortages. The previous Liberal government established a petroleum price monitoring agency to help Canadians better understand gas prices at the pump and to enhance transparency. People want to understand what is going on in the industry. 
It is no surprise that the Conservative government, which has been anything but transparent, slashed the budget of the agency. In this time of high gas prices, what is the Conservative government doing to help Canadians with this problem?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are working together with the provinces and the oil industry in order to closely monitor the progress of the situation. We are also concerned about CN's ability to provide essential services, such as supplying food and fuel to remote areas.
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, I hope it makes sense to the Conservatives. It certainly did not make sense to me.
The price of fuel is going up and up. In the past year and a half, Canadians have seen gas prices bounce back and forth, at times reaching $2 a litre in places like Labrador, my riding.
 The government has billions and billions in surpluses. It is awash in cash. It is up to its eyes in money. What is the government doing to help people deal with the gas crisis?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the price of oil and gas depends on their value on global markets and other factors, such as the number of competitors, the size of the market, the cost of transportation and local market conditions. Limited surplus refinery capacity can also influence pricing. 
We are aware of the problem and we are taking care of it. The Liberals never did anything.
Employment InsuranceMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was shocked to hear the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development say that EI was a rich program for employees. This program helps thousands of seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada and throughout the country. These workers have families to feed and bills to pay, however, they have to wait up to eight weeks before they receive their first cheque.
 How can the minister justify leaving thousands of families without any income for so long?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the people who are not working. We want EI to be there for the people who need it. I am not sure what the member is talking about because I have been informed that there is not an eight week waiting period.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has done absolutely nothing to help Atlantic Canada's economy. The government abandoned the industries and workers when the plants closed. The minister and the government remain clueless about the reality of people who have to apply for employment insurance in order to feed their families. We are not talking about living; we are talking about surviving.
How can the minister have the audacity to say that the EI program is a rich program for employees? How can he say that?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who he is because the member never said. I do not know if the minister said that. However, I want the member to know that changes to the EI program take into account impact it would have on employees, employers or beneficiaries. 
I do not understand what he is talking about, when he said the minister said that.
Montreal PlanetariumMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nine months ago, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services promised the mayor of Montreal $9 million for the relocation and construction of the new Montreal planetarium at the Biodome. The Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal have already invested that amount. All that is missing is Ottawa's contribution.
Why is the federal government taking so long to make its financial contribution when it committed to it in writing nine months ago?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation. We respect the concerns expressed by the Bloc Québécois and by Quebeckers in the region. If any announcement is to be made, it will be made soon.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the City of Montreal has calculated that this project will result in approximately $33 million in economic spinoffs for Montreal's east end. By failing to keep its promise, the government is jeopardizing the relocation of the Montreal planetarium. 
What is the Minister of Public Works and Government Services waiting for to announce the federal government's participation as soon as possible?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, every time our government makes a decision, we take great care to ensure that the interests of Quebeckers and Montrealers will be served. Michael Fortier is making sure that Montreal's voice is being heard loud and clear in our cabinet.
With respect to the planetarium, if we have a decision to announce, we will do so shortly. Our government will always serve Montreal's best interests.
Tourism IndustryHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the government defended its decision to cancel the visitor rebate program by quoting the premier of Nova Scotia. This week the premier was clear in his opposition to the cancellation of the program saying, “the federal government's decision will have an impact on visitation to Nova Scotia”.
 Cancelling this program will kill thousands of tourism jobs, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
Will the government listen to the premier of Nova Scotia now and will it keep the visitor rebate program?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is focused on priorities. I know my colleagues in the Liberal Party find it difficult to make priorities. Our priorities in the budget this year will be to put more money into health care, to put greater tax assistance, to help young children and families with disabilities, rather than supporting a program that has very little take-up and has proven ineffective.
InfrastructureMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year is the 10th anniversary of the 1997 flood of the century. Manitobans were devastated and had to endure the loss of lives and property.
 The Prime Minister stated that he would commit to the expansion of the Red River floodway and protect Manitoba's capital region.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport inform the House of recent developments on keeping our commitments?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and happy to inform the House and all Manitobans that Canada's new government is fulfilling its commitment to the Red River floodway expansion project.
Great news, today both federal and provincial governments are making matching contributions of up to $170.5 million. That brings the total up to $665 million. The government takes action. This investment will save lives and property in Winnipeg.
 This is another great example of what this government can do after 13 years of nothing.
Electoral ReformMs. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in December 2006 I introduced a motion that the House engage citizens and parliamentarians on the question of reforming our outdated, unfair electoral system and reporting to Parliament the values and principles they would like to see in a more fair system. However, the government wants to hijack the process with a closed door, contracted out process that will leave out the very people who are under-represented in the House. 
Will the Minister for Democratic Reform commit today to allowing true, open citizens consultation on the issue of federal electoral reform?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the consultation, which has begun, is one that is designed to be representative of all Canadians and is a process that will do this without allowing the process to be hijacked by special interest groups.
I note with interest, though, that the hon. member's party actually voted against a parallel process whereby parliamentarians could engage in exactly the kind of consultation she wants. Why her party voted against it and then she complains about it, I do not understand.
Catherine Bell: Mr. Speaker, the citizens' assembly of B.C. consulted broadly in 2004. The Ontario citizens' assembly is consulting now, giving citizens a direct voice in determining the options they will want to have when they go to the polls.
Seventy-eight per cent of the Ontario citizens' assembly chose a form of proportional representation as the preferred alternative to first past the post. 
Will the Minister for Democratic Reform throw out his unfair process he contracted out to his friends, hear from all Canadians and report back to Parliament?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this process was contracted out to people who I do not even know. The reality is it was done through a fair process. 
The real question is this. If she is so upset that there is not another consultation process in place, why did her party vote against the motion by the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London to establish the kind of consultation she wants? She has to ask herself why her party opposed it. We put forward the proposal.
Government ProgramsMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, each year community organizations in my riding of Davenport, and across the country, anxiously await for their funding and start dates for the HRDC summer career placement program. This year students and community groups are sitting in limbo. They have no funding announcements, no start dates and no information whatsoever.
Will the minister inform the House when his department will finally release the information start dates? While he is at it, please also put back the $55 million that the government cut?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, we understand the importance of those programs to students, to organizations and to communities. We are committed to ensuring that this program will be continuing to help these organizations, communities and students.
I suggest the member wait and see. Stay tuned, it will be coming soon.
PassportsMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, starting in 2009 Canadians will be required to show a passport at land and sea border crossings when travelling to the United States. This could provide difficulties for families, sports teams, youth groups and even school field trips. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety share with the House if there have been any changes in the western hemisphere travel initiative.
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the American government announced that it will exempt children from the western hemisphere travel initiative requirement of all visitors to show a passport at land and sea borders crossings starting in 2009. Canada's new government has been working with the American government to have children exempted from the U.S. WHTI requirements. 
Thanks to the Minister of Public Safety's ongoing efforts, children will be exempted from this requirement. That means children who are vacationing with their families or participating in sports tournaments or cultural activities can continue to cross our shared border without a passport.
Coast GuardMr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while Coast Guard managers are awarding themselves generous performance bonuses, they are depriving the seal hunters on the North Shore of substantial income by providing icebreaking services one month after the start of the hunting season.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not recommend that the Coast Guard coordinate its icebreaking activities with the seal hunt? 
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that, number one, that we are strongly supportive of the seal fishery. We will make sure that the people who participate in this fishery have every access. In relation to bonuses, let me say to him that of the 44 people qualifying, only six people got bonuses, because they deserved them.
Foreign AffairsMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Norwegian government opened talks yesterday to ban cluster bombs throughout the world. Cluster bombs have a history of causing mass civilian casualties and indiscriminate death. At this meeting, the Conservative government prevented setting a timeline for the negotiations.
 In the past, Canada has taken a lead on disarmament. Now we are throwing up roadblocks. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs today commit to show leadership on this issue and agree to a moratorium? Will Canada destroy any cluster bombs in Canadian stockpiles?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report that Canada signed on to the agreement in Oslo, Norway to ban cluster bombs. Canada participated in it and now will work with that process to ensure that it becomes an international treaty.
Security InformationRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in the United States, Karl Rove, the Republican hatchet man in the White House, disclosed secret security information to personally smear certain individuals. Mr. Rove may pay a heavy price for that. One of his associates has already been indicted.
Now in Canada we have seen here the disclosure of secret security information to personally smear a member of Parliament. Canadians need to know who in the government is responsible. Who is the Canadian Conservative Karl Rove?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians need to know is why the flip-flop: why did the Liberals change course? Why are the Liberals not backing their own anti-terrorism legislation? 
Why, when John Manley, Anne McLellan and anyone else who has had a substantive briefing on this issue is saying to support the anti-terrorism measures, are the members opposite now flip-flopping and opposing protecting Canadians?
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order, please. We have exhausted the list, so question period is over.
VacancyThe Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely: Yvan Loubier, member for the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, by resignation effective Wednesday, February 21, 2007.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed earlier today my warrant to the Chief Electoral Office for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

Routine Proceedings
Railway Continuation ActJean-Pierre Blackburn:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-46, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations.
 (Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Committees of the HouseJay Hill: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding the orders made on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, Thursday, June 22, 2006, and Wednesday, December 13, 2006, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to continue its deliberations relating to its review of the Anti-terrorism Act, 2001, beyond February 28, 2007, and to present its final report no later than March 27, 2007. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. Chief Government Whip 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)
PetitionsIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of the community of Rick Hansen Public School calling upon the Government of Canada to fulfill its obligation to the families of Canada by recognizing the value of early childhood learning and safe, affordable child care. A taxable $100 a month allowance does not create a child care system. Parents are asking for safe, affordable, regulated child care in Canada
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two different petitions today. The first one denounces the dreaded cuts which were announced in the summer career placements program. The people from my riding rallied very quickly to denounce these cuts and felt the need to sign petitions, which they want me to table in the House.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling today asks the House to adopt anti-strikebreaking legislation. Such legislation has proven its worth in Quebec for 30 years.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderThe Speaker: On January 30, 2007, just prior to debate on Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), a point of order was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that this bill required a royal recommendation.
The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and the hon. member for Mississauga South also made interventions arguing that this bill did not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. 
The Chair thanks the hon. members for having addressed this matter at an early opportunity so that a ruling could be delivered before the question is put at second reading.
 In his submission, the Parliamentary Secretary argued that clauses 1 and 2 of the bill were adding a new purpose to the Broadcasting Act. 
These provisions would give new powers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to regulate violence on television, verify broadcasters’ compliance, issue annual reports, and undertake a five-year review including the holding of public consultations. These activities, it was argued, were new responsibilities that would clearly require spending. 
Citing rulings delivered on February 8, 2005, May 9, 2005, and September 19, 2006, the parliamentary secretary stated that these precedents express the principle that a royal recommendation is required when a bill proposes significant change in the mandate of a public body that entails spending.
In short, the parliamentary secretary made the point that a royal recommendation is required when legislative action seeks an authorization for new spending for a distinct purpose.
 In the case of Bill C-327, the question is whether the power to make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes constitutes spending by the CRTC for a new and distinct purpose. 
First, I would like to point out that, as a rule, a power to make regulations given to the government in an act of Parliament is not an authorization either for new spending or for an appropriation. It is simply a statutory power to make regulations. 
On the issue of determining if there is a new and distinct purpose contained in Bill C-327, the Chair notes that section 5 of the Broadcasting Act provides that the CRTC
 --shall regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1).... 
Subsection 3(1) of the act specifies that
 (d) the Canadian broadcasting system should 
 (i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada, [and] 
 (ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity.... 
 It seems to the Chair that the provisions being contemplated in C-327 would not authorize spending for a new and distinct purpose. As the Broadcasting Act indicates, the CRTC presently has the authority to regulate programming to safeguard social values, a part of the CRTC mandate into which new regulations to reduce violence in the programming offered to the public would appear to fall. The Chair is of the view that as a whole, Bill C-327 proposes activities which are already being performed by the CRTC within its existing mandate, that is to say: the making of regulations, the conducting of reviews, the holding of public consultations and the reporting to Parliament on the broadcasting industry. 
Bill C-327 may or may not result in a greater workload for the CRTC, but the activities being proposed are within its mandate. If additional staff or resources are required to perform these activities then they would be brought forward in a separate appropriation bill for Parliament’s consideration. 
In summary, Bill C-327 in its current form can continue through the legislative process without a royal recommendation.

Government Orders
Fisheries Act, 2007John Baird:  moved that Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off the debate today on Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries.
It is no exaggeration to say that the provisions of the bill represent some of the most sweeping changes made to the Fisheries Act since its inception well over a century ago.
Some of the decisions we will be making about the bill in the weeks and months to come will affect both our aquatic ecosystems and the future of tens of thousands of fellow Canadians in the decades to come.
With such an important piece of legislation before us, I hope my colleagues will indulge me a little if I take a step back and start by looking at the big picture of the fishery in Canada and, in so doing, putting it in context with the measures we are proposing.
Most Canadians know, either intuitively or through first-hand experience, of the importance of the fishery to the social and economic well-being of our nation. Most will know that we are the second largest country in the world, one of the foremost maritime nations on the planet and that we boast the world's longest coastline and the largest freshwater system. 
Perhaps fewer know that we have the largest offshore economic zone, a zone equivalent to 37% of our total land mass. With such a maritime geography, it is no wonder our national fishery and aquaculture industries remain key to our economy. They provide over 100,000 direct jobs and substantial spinoff employment. More than $4.2 billion in fish products are exported every year. An estimated four million recreational fishers inject about $7 billion annually into the economy.
Since many Canadians live either on a coast or near freshwater, it is probably fair to say that most of us have or know someone who has some connection to the recreational or commercial fishery.
It is with great pride and pleasure that I stand before the House today with a very substantial piece of legislation in hand, legislation that cannot help but improve the state of the fishery and the lives of those who work in it.
I said at the outset that that enactment of the legislative proposals contained in the bill would make for the most fundamental, most sweeping changes to the Fisheries Act since it was first made law in 1868. 
Although it has been subject to numerous reviews, the act has only been revised on a piecemeal basis over the years. Those changes tended to patch up holes for a while but we are in a new century and we need modern tools for a modern era.
Fisheries management is now a far more complex challenge and patchwork solutions will no longer do the job. The long and short of it is that the current act no longer responds to the evolving needs of the resource, nor does it reflect the expectations of those who fish the resource or of Canadians in general. 
In our opinion, the act needs a complete modernization, which is exactly what Bill C-45 represents.
 Before I get into some of the specifics of the legislation, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and input of our parliamentary oversight bodies on this file, the standing committees from both Houses and, of course, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. From licensing issues to aquatic invasive species and sanctions, three among many issues that these committees have identified as needing legislative action, committee members should quite rightly take great satisfaction in seeing some of their key concerns being addressed in the bill.
Bill C-45 follows on extensive cross country consultations and discussions over the past several years with all provinces and territories, as well as fishing interests, aboriginal groups and stakeholder groups. Through several processes, we have gained support for the broad principles of the bill from fishing stakeholders.
There is no doubt that we are asking a lot of the bill. We are seeking no less than to modernize the management of Canada's fishing industry, to enshrine conservation measures that safeguard the aquatic ecosystems and preserve our proud tradition of fishing on which tens of thousands of licensed fishermen depend, not to mention the survival of those who work in the spinoff jobs that the fishery provides. In the process, we want the new legislation to provide a framework that provides greater stability, transparency and predictability in all aspects of fisheries managements. It is a tall order for a single piece of legislation. 
It is always a difficult proposition finding exactly the right balance between competing interests, but it is our job, frankly, to find that balance, one that does not compromise fundamental principles of good stewardship or good economics. I do not believe the two to be mutually exclusive. I think Bill C-45 walks that fine line quite nicely.
For the purposes of our discussion today, we cannot possibly do more than touch the surface of legislation that has over 250 sections. However, it is helpful to note that the current act does not provide direction or guidance to the minister or to DFO on the goals, objectives and management principles that should be the basis of fisheries and fish habitat management. It is that lack of direction and goals that we are correcting in Bill C-45.
The new version includes a preamble, a purpose clause and management principles that do define important values and objectives for fishing and conservation. They speak to such issues as stakeholder and public input in decisions that affect our fisheries; the fostering of cooperation with the provinces; the conservation and protection of fish habitat and its importance; the application of effective deterrents to illegal fishing; the economic viability of the resource and the industry; and managing consistent with existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Those are the major guidelines upon which those 250 sections are subsequently based.
I will start with the matter of accountability. There is no doubt that the system needs to be more open and more accountable. Consequently, we have removed from the act the absolute discretion of the minister but that does not mean the minister is no longer responsible for running the fishery. He or she will remain in charge of making the overall policy decisions and many other decisions. However, the new law says that ministers must answer for their actions and explain why decisions were taken. That is significant because it finally eliminates the perception that ministers can make allocation decisions based solely on politics.
I have heard my colleague, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, call on the minister to end the perceived political interference in the system. Bill C-45 would do exactly that.
 In addition to wanting more transparent decisions, one of the things fishing groups tell us all the time is that they want the chance to formally sit down with DFO on a more regular basis. It does make sense that local stakeholders would want to take on some responsibility, authority and accountability of their own. The act would strengthen shared stewardship through fisheries management agreements, a very important provision in this new act. It would increase the influence of fishers over matters that affect their livelihood, which is where the establishment of advisory panels will prove useful. As well, members of the public would be given a more active role so that the process of making the rules is more transparent.
The legislation now recognizes in law the existing high level of intergovernmental collaboration by allowing the federal government to sign agreements with provinces and territories to set joint goals and coordinate policies and programs. It formally authorizes governor in council to delegate the appropriate fisheries management powers to a province or territory. 
In our opinion, this too makes sense. Our regional counterparts have close ties to the communities and, in several cases, administer freshwater fisheries for us. Of course, jurisdictionally the provinces already play a role in managing the processing sector and aquaculture. It is clearly advantageous that we share information and harmonize our programs where possible.
The new act would create the ability for provincial regulations that protect fish habitat to be deemed equivalent to federal regulations in cases where they meet or beat the national standard. This would eliminate unnecessary duplication of regulation across levels of government and allow the department to focus its resources on projects that pose a higher risk to fish habitat. 
 I am very pleased to confirm that provincial and territorial governments are openly supportive of the act's overarching principles and proposed concepts. In fact, they unanimously showed their support for new legislation in the final communiqué of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture ministers in their meetings last October.
 I do not think it is an overstatement to say that at the heart and soul of the proposed new Fisheries Act are the provisions that will safeguard our aquatic ecosystems.
If we do not succeed in that endeavour, then all other considerations fall by the wayside. They provide the key proactive measures to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat. 
Perhaps not surprisingly, it is in the area of habitat protection where we find the most polarized views on the part of stakeholder groups. Environmental organizations, on the one hand, clearly and quite rightly, have concerns about any weakening of the protection offered by the act in its current form. Industry stakeholders, on the other hand, are looking for increased transparency, predictability and efficiency in decision making.
I must say something that is very important. The proposed legislation does not look to change the fundamental elements of the habitat protection provisions. It does seek, however, to make modest changes that would make the administration of these sections more effective in the conservation and protection of fish habitat and more efficient in its application.
A weakness in the current act is that it treats fish habitat protection and pollution prevention as issues separate from fisheries management.
Habitat protection in the new act becomes an integral element of proper fisheries management. This one item alone is probably the single most fundamental change to the current way of doing things. Under the new act, impacts to fish habitat must be considered prior to allocation decisions or issuance of licences. The minister's authority and duty to do this is stated explicitly in this legislation.
The new law would also extend the scope of inspectors' powers to cover any project that could be harmful to fish habitat, in addition to those dealing with the release of deleterious substances, as is now the case.
Inspectors will work with the public to help them better understand the provisions of this act but they will also be able to confirm that conditions of habitat authorizations are being met and, where necessary, give directions to remedy harm to fish habitat. Most important, these new inspector powers will support efforts to monitor the effectiveness of habitat regulatory requirements and allow the department to adapt its requirements based on what it learns.
Of course, fisheries officers will continue to support the habitat program by conducting high risk enforcement activities and supporting prosecutions where necessary.
Those are some of the changes the government is proposing to improve the effectiveness of the habitat protection provisions.
Members will recall that earlier I mentioned that we would allow provincial regulations to be used where they meet or exceed federal ones. However, the legislation, quite rightly, allows us to reinstate federal regulations where provincial ones are not doing the job.
What is also new is the enshrining in law, for the first time, a precautionary approach to conserve aquatic resources and putting in place a science based ecosystem approach to fisheries management. That is very important.
Some other highlights include the provisions concerning aquatic invasive species. We only have to think of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes to understand the incredible destruction that can be wrought by the wrong species invading the wrong habitat. Clause 69 would ensure, for the first time, that whenever aquatic invasive species are released, transported, imported or exported, such activities may be carried out only in accordance with regulations enacted by the governor in council.
Other new provisions would allow the minister or a designate to authorize the destruction of an invasive species in order to protect native habitats. The regulations would introduce a number of controls to manage invasive species in all Canadian waters.
There are many more features aimed at protecting our aquatic resources but the ones I just outlined should give members a flavour of the new act.
I would like to talk for a moment about enhancing competitiveness. Protecting the resource cannot help but improve the business of the fishery. Secured access and allocations to Canada's oldest industry are essential to the economic prosperity of fishing enterprises, fish processors and hundreds of coastal communities. Predictability is central to keeping the industry thriving and, by extension, those communities. Therein lines the problem. 
Industry stakeholders see the current licensing and allocation process as unstable and unpredictable. Consequently, they find it hard to plan, raise capital or make rational business choices and that is why the legislation has specific provisions that improve the business operating environment of resource users. To that end, the new act would provide for stability, greater clarity and fairness.
 The criteria and considerations for getting a licence for the first time will be sharply defined in the regulations resulting from the bill. The minister will make policy decisions for police. It will be the job of licence officers to issue licences to individuals based on these regulations.
We believe much peace of mind will be derived from the prospect of long term allocations, potentially up to 15 years, and will ease the burden of business uncertainty for fishing enterprises. It will permit them to plan ahead in greater confidence. Let me highlight that this move will benefit the individual fishers in the boat. Despite alarmist empty rhetoric to the contrary, which we will undoubtedly hear repeated by members in the days to come, this does not open the door to foreign countries to fish in Canadian waters. Let me say that again; this does not open the door for foreign countries to fish in Canadian waters.
In addition, the new act will provide the tools needed to sustainably manage the fisheries from oceans to plate with provincial partners and stakeholders. In effect, this will mean more value, more benefits and more support for Canada's rural coastal communities at a time of great need. On balance, those on the industry side will be very pleased with these changes to help them better plan and manage their activities.
Finally, all stakeholders want a better system to deal with rule breakers. Most involved in the fishing industries are committed to keeping the laws and regulations and are frustrated when they find some who are not and who are not dealt with in an effective way.
The current court based system is inefficient, ineffective and unwieldy. We need more clout to deal with people who step out of line. Currently the minister can only suspend or cancel a licence for breaches of licence conditions, not for breaches of regulations or general prohibitions of the act. All we can do is spend a lot of time and money dragging violators into court where fines are just about the only penalty.
The legislation envisages an arm's length Canada fisheries tribunal that would hear licence appeals and impose sanctions and financial penalties to licensed fishers in coastal fisheries. Minor violations would result in tickets and would only be heard by the tribunal if they were contested, just like a traffic ticket. The system would be fairer, more credible and more efficient. It would also be a more effective deterrent because some penalties would affect the ability of offenders to keep fishing, as well as hit their pocketbook. That is why a sanctions tribunal is so popular within the fishing community.
Other contraventions of the act, such as habitat destruction, infractions in inland fisheries managed by a province, and poaching would continue to be handled by the courts. I like the idea of using the penalty system to support conservation measures.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to say a few words about aboriginal participation in the fisheries. 
The proposed act affirms that Parliament recognizes the importance of the fisheries to many aboriginal communities. Aboriginal groups bring great knowledge and experience to modern fisheries management. The bill provides first nations and other aboriginal groups a more direct role in the management of their harvesting of fish. This would be done through such mechanisms as fisheries management agreements where details on involvement in management and the decision making process could be identified.
The proposed bill also provides for the consideration of traditional knowledge in decision making where such information is available to DFO. In addition, one of the guiding principles in the bill stipulates that those involved in the administration of the act must seek to manage fisheries and conserve and protect fish and fish habitat in a manner that is consistent with the constitutional protection provided for existing aboriginal and treaty rights.
As my allotted time is almost up, I will bring my remarks to a close. As the minister has said many times, his job is to sustainably manage our public fish and oceans resources on behalf of Canadians and for the maximum benefit of Canadians. He does not own the fish, nor does his department or the government as a whole. As Canadians we all own this common property resource and passage of this legislation will help us in this task. 
This bill should pass through second reading quickly and move on to committee where it can be improved, if necessary. The time to act is now. The livelihood of too many Canadians rests on our decision to give thoughtful, but reasonably expeditious, passage to this legislation. I look forward to the House passing it.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech.
About Bill C-45, I can say that the protection of fish habitat is very important for Atlantic Canada. There are some facts to consider and if we really want to conserve those habitats, we need legislation that protects them from invasive species and limits pollution risks.
Let me give a quick example. When someone wants to build an incinerator near a body of water, like Chaleur Bay, in my area, it seems that the Fisheries Act of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans offers absolutely no regulations to protect nearby habitats. I do not see in Bill C-45, which we are debating, the improvements that could guarantee the protection of fish habitats.
In spite of that, could the hon. member reassure me in this regard or could he simply say that, all things considered, there is nothing in the act to protect the projects situated near a body of water when new infrastructures are built? 
[Interjection]
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I know the issue to which my hon. colleague referred. I wish he had told us about the improvements he would like to see in the act to actually do what he wants to do. 
The cornerstone of this act is still the prohibition against harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It is still clearly stated in the bill. It has not been weakened in any way and, in fact, has been strengthened. If there is a project that is deemed to do any of those things, harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, it clearly comes under the purview of the act and its regulations.
Although it was also a cornerstone of the old act, if the department then said the project was going to cause some sort of disruption and endanger the fish and so on and measures needed to be put in place, mitigation measures or things that would eliminate the problem or reduce its harm or whatever the measures were, those measures were not enforceable under the old act. In fact, in the new act those measures will be enforceable.
The issue the member is speaking to specifically comes under the purview of Environment Canada. If he wants to strengthen certain parts of other environmental legislation with regard to air pollution, the incinerator I think he is referring to, then he ought to do that, but I can assure him that as it relates to the protection of fish and fish habitat, this act is even stronger than the old one.
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I was originally planning to ask a question about the consultations or so-called consultations on the bill before us today. Following the question of my Liberal colleague from New Brunswick on the Bennett file in Belledune, however, I would like to ask two questions. 
With respect to the Bennett file in Belledune, in theory, the minister should be able to act under section 35 of the existing legislation, given that we are effectively finding ourselves in a situation where an incinerator has been built—incidentally, construction was completed—in Belledune, near Chaleur Bay. This raises special concern because of the resource in and around Chaleur Bay.
In fact, lobsters caught around Belledune are not for human consumption; they are cast aside because they are too polluted. With a new incinerator, one can wonder, and I think that concerns are legitimate. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary on that. 
With respect to the consultations, there are people who do not feel they have been consulted at all on Bill C-45. In particular, I will mention Marc Couture, the president of the Association des crabiers gaspésiens, and Daniel Desbois, the president of the Association des crabiers de la Baie, who said the following about Bill C-45, in response to a statement made by the parliamentary secretary in a recent press release about the legislation. 
 After reading this statement about Bill C-45...which arrived at the last minute like a Christmas present, knowing that we will not have the time to read the bill, let alone make sense of some of its provisions, we fishers inform you that at no time have we been consulted in any way about any change in connection with the Fisheries Act and that we formally oppose any change that could be made to the act without us first being able to discuss the matter with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

[Interjection]
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised two issues.
He will know, or he should know, that section 35 of the Fisheries Act actually is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment. If he has questions about how that was applied to the project in Belledune, then I suggest he take them up with the Minister of the Environment.
The project was reviewed by scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it relates to fish and fish habitat. They suggested a certain change to the design of that incinerator and that was done. They were satisfied that it had no fisheries concerns. If my colleague has some other concerns, he ought to take them up with the Minister of the Environment.
The fact is that over a span of several years the department conducted its largest ever engagement process in a number of different ways. Between August 2005 and December 2006 the department met with 305 different Canadian stakeholder groups to discuss the modernization of the fisheries and the various initiatives that would be required and they are reflected in this act.
Was every fishing group consulted about this? Probably not. We live in a large country with some 30 million people. Of course we did not take this--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the myth lives on that there was consultation. The reality is that Shawn Atleo, regional chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, who does not live that far away from the parliamentary secretary, was never consulted on the bill prior to its tabling on December 13. Phil Morlock is the head of the CSIA, a $7 billion sport fishing industry in this country. One would think the government would at least have picked up the phone and told him that something was coming. The government said not a word. 
The fact is the parliamentary secretary himself said in a press conference that the bill would lead to further ITQs, individual transferrable quotas, which leads to privatization of a common property resource.
I have only one question for the member now, but I will have many more later. Will he now offer us the opportunity to put in the preamble of the bill the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Comeau v. Canada that the fisheries is a common property resource? Will he at least stand up today and admit that will be done?
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should look at the Chair because time will run out and I will cut him off.
[Interjection]
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, it was getting quite loud there but no more accurate. I was in a meeting with the member where he made the point that the first nations were not consulted about this, Phil Fontaine, for example. 
We actually showed him a consultation deck, where we had met with Mr. Fontaine to talk about initiatives in this new fisheries act, and somehow we did not use the right words or something when we talked to the aboriginal first nations. 
With respect, we have also told him a number of times that if he wanted to put in the actual wording of the Supreme Court decision in Comeau's Sea Food's, we were quite happy to entertain that.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope to lower the noise for just a little bit, if I may, in respect of my hon. colleagues.
I am proud to be standing here today to be talking about this significant act, there is no doubt about it. This is something that replaces an act that existed for well over 137 years, so certainly we take this very seriously.
What I would like to do in my allotted is just point out some of the questions that surround this particularly thick piece of legislation. Questions, I am afraid, probably outnumber all of the comments, all of the negativity, and even the positive comments that come from this. That is what is troubling to us.
For the record, we had requested the government to send this to a committee before second reading, to widen the scope and to gain some insight from across this country. This will not be addressed by sending the legislation to committee after second reading. Unfortunately, it was dismissed and here we are finding ourselves today at second reading.
I would like to start, if I may, with the few notes that I have made and delve into the act itself, as the parliamentary secretary did earlier. Some of those I will take some issue with; some I will have some positive comments about.
The provisions of Bill C-45 represent a significant redirection in the role of public policy with respect to the fisheries on our coast and our inland fisheries. Quite significantly, the devolution of authority appears significant enough to ensure a far greater role for the provinces in terms of management and activities associated with the conduct of the fisheries, as well as a new empowered role for fishers, communities and the organizations which either represent them, or more importantly, employ them. As we all know and my colleagues know, this has been going on for many years, the idea of co-management and the idea of a greater say, which leads me back to my first point.
It is unfortunate that here we are, taking the first step toward a regime where we can have more say in the fishery by the stakeholders, but yet this bill itself did not receive the same process. Suffice it to say, we are not off to a positive start when it comes to recommendations, and certainly with the input.
Let me discuss some of the initial recommendations, and again, my speech will be filled with many questions, some doubts, some positive comments, and some negative comments. But mostly clarification, so that hopefully, through the course of this debate, a lot of this clarification can take place. I would also like some clarification on how far the ministry is prepared to go when it goes to committee, if it goes to committee after second reading.
Let me begin with the preamble. When it comes to the preamble, one of the things it says is: “the conservation and protection of fish habitat and the prevention of the pollution of waters frequented by fish.” It also says that: “Parliament intends that Canada’s fisheries be managed sustainably”.
First of all, we have to talk about “managed sustainably”. There is need for more clarification on this issue and to flush out exactly what it is we are talking about here. The act is a little bit loose in many areas and unfortunately, that would be one of them.
It says “Parliament intends”, and there we have to deal with that as a contentious issue. Members will find that a lot of this act contains a lot of intends, wishes, mays, and all the things that sound great but lack a lot of teeth. Therefore, we are hoping that this part of the bill can be changed and amended. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I do not feel that it can be done to our satisfaction by going to committee after second reading, and this troubles me.
The preamble also states:
 WHEREAS Parliament intends that this legislative framework be applied in a manner that fosters cooperation with the provinces and with bodies established under land claims agreements-- 
 Therein lies, with some of the application principles, some of the doubts in some of the feedback that we are getting. No doubt about it, we are getting a lot of positive responses from the provinces. We are also getting a few questions, and a lot of provinces are also, in their own departments, still trying to go through the legal framework of this to wrestle with some of the concepts.
Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms the existence of aboriginal and treaty rights. It also talks about the stable access.
After that, we find that there is a contentious issue in the preamble itself. It states:
 WHEREAS Parliament is committed to maintaining the public character of the management of fisheries and fish habitat; 
Many people have commented and questioned, and no doubt about it we will hear a lot of comments and questions from my hon. colleague in the NDP about this particular issue, which I am looking forward to hearing, that the public character of the fishery itself has to be addressed and is something that cannot be addressed within the scope of a committee after second reading. 
As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that in many instances in Parliament, as well as the standing committees, many of the attempts to fix a preamble cannot be done in committee after second reading. In many cases, it can be ruled out of order or when it comes back to the House, it can be ruled out of order by the Speaker. Therefore, it puts us in a bit of a bind. As my colleague pointed out in his questions and comments, where is the charter decision from a few years back? 
There is another issue that is not addressed here and there is ample opportunity to address it within the preamble as one of the guiding principles, so to speak. There is an issue in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for Atlantic Canada with regard to fleet separation and, more importantly, trust agreements. I think there is room in the preamble to address this issue, as mentioned to me by many groups.
Vertical integration will scare a lot of fishermen. It has always been the policy whereby what trust agreements do is freeze out the inshore fishermen and, therefore, is the cause of grave concern across this country. Some may like this policy, but for the most part they do not. 
That is not addressed in this particular act, as it should be. I would compel the minister to please do this, to provide the standing committee the power to do this and, I go back to my original comment, to do this in committee before second reading would have accomplished this.
I will now go to some of the clauses beyond the preamble itself and again I have grave concerns as to whether the preamble can be fixed in this manner of going to committee after second reading. I would implore the minister to answer this question at some point in his speech. I am assuming he will be speaking during this debate.
There are specific clauses which should be examined. There is need for a very significant strengthening of a number of specific clauses. The following, while attempting to be comprehensive, is not exhaustive given additional concerns of respected clauses, not referred to, will likely arise.
I will begin with clause 3. There is the need to ensure that those participating in the fishery are clearly defined. For example, in clause 3 there is reference to organizations as being licence holders while in clause 43, the minister may enter into fisheries management agreements with an “organization”. Clarification around the term “organization” is certainly necessary within the scope of this bill. It keeps it open ended.
I go back to the theme that I talked about in the beginning. There are a lot of open ended variables involved here that need to be clarified, the scope of which, after second reading, is likely not going to be.
Let me go to clause 6. Under the provisions of clause 6, the application of principles, there is the need to strengthen these provisions which will ensure that the minister will take the strongest possible actions in order to ensure that the fisheries are managed in a manner consistent with sustainable development based on the principles, of course, of conservation. The wording of this clause does not necessarily reflect that priority. Again, it is a major question that needs to be clarified.
The implications of clause 7 require careful examination as well. On the surface, it would appear that the minister will be empowered to enter into agreements with the provinces to further the purpose of the act as contained in clause 2, which effectively will devolve management decisions to the provinces. Therefore, I have no contentious issue with that. 
However, a lot of clarification is needed on questions of funding. It is touched on in this act, but what does it imply? Does it mean they must or they may? Again, we go back to that concept. If we look at some of the language that is contained within this bill, we will see that there are a lot of variables surrounding this particular issue. For instance, “The minister may, subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with a province to further the purpose of this Act, including an agreement with respect to one or more of the following”. Again I go back to the issue of “may”. It facilitates cooperation, that is true, but there needs to be more clarification. 
I understand from my hon. colleague that he is getting favourable responses from the provinces, and obviously we are off on a positive step. However, what he refers to takes place prior to the tabling of the bill, and I will touch on that in just a moment. The consultation process that my colleagues talk about in the Bloc as well as the NDP is an extremely contentious issue and one that needs further discussion, far greater than the scope of a committee that follows second reading.
Under the provisions of clauses 11 to 13, the federal government, through the minister, will be able to undertake programs and projects. The scope and range of these programs and projects are widely spread and imply that the federal government will be financially responsible for funding them both. Again, this is a matter which requires careful consideration.
Under the provisions of clause 14, “The Minister may”, and again I stress the word “may” “in order to carry out the purpose of this Act”, strike advisory panels. However, that discretion allows the minister not to strike panels as well. He may do in whatever case that he deems necessary. Therefore, the power, we would think, becomes far more stretched, far more varied, more wielding under the situation of “may”. For example, at the end of this day, I may jump off the House of Commons right into the lake, but I may not. The chances are I will not, but I may. So hon. members will get the point of--
Loyola Hearn:  Promise?
Scott Simms:  The hon. minister just asked if that was a promise. I will take that under advisement.
Clause 15, which again provides a minister with discretionary powers, says, “The Minister may, for the purpose of conducting research” obtain information from any person that the minister considers relevant to conservation, proper management and prevention of pollution of waters. Again, clarification is needed. 
The apparent user fee structure in clauses 16 to 17 requires clarification with respect to fees charged for the service or the use of a facility.
There are many other sections in this and a lot of it deals with the first half of this bill. It troubles me greatly that so many people have contacted our office, and many offices of other members of Parliament and DFO, about their concerns on the bill. Again, the theme is very simple, questions, questions, questions. Remember, we are replacing an act that existed for 137 years. We have to ask the essential question. Was due diligence exercised? I do not think it was in this case. There were too many questions and too many people asking them.
Under clause 25, while the minister “must” take into account in exercising the powers the need to conserve the fishery while also securing access to the fishery. The question arises as to how these are prioritized. At the same time the minister may take into account matters such as adjacency and historical participation, which require careful consideration due to the matters arising out of, say, the Marshall decision, which took into account historical attachment and adjacency issues. Do these issues relate to the licence holder specifically or can adjacency and historical participation relate to the historical attachment of fishers from communities? What are we opening up? Again, this a question that needs verification. The law has to be translated for all stakeholders. The law has to be carefully vetted for all stakeholders. For communities, we have ourselves a new concept. Who does that include? We need to ask that question.
Also I will address clause 36. This very important. Clause 36 refers to aquaculture, a very simple little addition that definitely needs more clarification. Under “Leases”, it says, “The Minister may issue leases for aquaculture purposes”. 
 I am a proud member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans now. It is a very non-partisan group that gets along very well and it has a great chair. However, if memory serves me correctly, and I was not a member of Parliament at the time, around 2003 the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans took the decision that aquaculture would have its own special unit, or at least the characteristics of its own special unit within the government. From my understanding, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was a part of that committee in 2003.
Mr. Bill Matthews:  He was.
Scott Simms:  I thank the member for Random—Burin—St. George's for clarifying that. He was also a member at the time.
If it says in clause 36 that the minister may issue releases for aquaculture purposes, where is the rest? If the minister truly believes, as he did in 2003, about the special rules and regulations around aquaculture and its effect on the environment and all fisheries and all stakeholders, why is it not addressed here? Again, that is another question.
Clause 37 refers to the allocation the minister can make in fisheries “not managed by a province”. The question here goes back to the provisions under clauses 7 and 23 with respect to delegation and whether it is possible that the federal minister, in the wake of agreements or a delegation, would actually have very few fisheries over which to have authority to allocate. Again, the government may have a good answer for that, but yet not vetted through the right people, the stakeholders, and not translated fully.
The provisions in the bill that deal with the tribunal is one that is extremely plausible. We find, for the most part, with a few minor changes, they are certainly acceptable to our country. Unfortunately, what we have here is an omnibus bill that covers everything. Clauses 130 to 133 concern the alternative measures to judicial proceedings. The only concern here is to ensure that those who violate the provisions of the act of a serious nature are dealt with in a manner befitting the degree of frequency of violations. Again, we go back to the tribunal aspect of this act, which we feel is a positive one, but yet the first part of the act with co-management is a major issue.
I would like to bring up a few concerns. The parliamentary secretary in his opening speech said that they consulted a lot of people, that they had a lot people give them feedback. Yesterday the minister said that it was mostly positive. I beg to differ. Herein lies some of the negative stuff. It is not only negative, but it raises questions as well. Everybody wants to know.
 For example, Bill C-45 would change all that with clauses 43 to 46. This comes from the Fisherman Life submission by Christopher Harvey who has said that on the fisheries management agreements with any organization, which in his view represents a class of persons, the minister is left with an unfettered discretion. He has problems as well with clause 37, making allocations among any groups.
A letter to me stated, “We also have recently read an article in the Peninsula News about the Liberal caucus position on Bill C-45, and it mentioned you had concerns”.
The stakeholders across Canada are voicing disapproval with the bill.
The common theme here is lack of consultation. After second reading to go to committee is not the proper way to management. Therefore, I move the following amendment:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and by substituting the following therefor: 
 Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. 
Let the stakeholders have their say.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The amendment is in order. Questions and comments. Questions and comments. Debate. 
The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not mind speaking, as you are asking, but I would like to understand where we are at. I appreciate that an amendment was moved, but what is going on? Is the amendment in order or not? I would really like to speak to Bill C-45, but I would like to better understand where we are at. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member is asking a reasonable question. The member before you moved an amendment, and we are now having a debate on this amendment.
The hon. member has the floor, unless he wants to give it to the next speaker. 
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not know what I can say on this issue, but I would invite you to hear this. 
I understand that an amendment has been moved. We can discuss it if the Speaker so desires. Once the amendment is disposed of, we normally expect to have a period of questions and comments following the Liberal member's speech. At the end of the normal 10-minute period of questions and comments, it is then my turn to speak to Bill C-45.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member is absolutely right, and this is why I asked, in both official languages and repeatedly, if there were questions and comments. No one rose. That is why I ask you to continue the debate, since you were next on the list. If you want to give your turn to someone else, I will proceed in that fashion. 
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in the question and comment period following the member's speech. I heard you ask if there were any questions on the amendment. I do not have questions on the amendment but I do have questions on the member's speech. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Unfortunately, you should have answered when I invited members to make comments. We are now on debate and you have the floor to make your speech. 
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, things should be a lot clearer as to what we are supposed to be doing because, now, there will not be a question and comment period with regard to the speech that the member just made. 
I have no problem with having to make my speech now since I cannot question the Chair's decisions. 
Regarding Bill C-45, first I would like to state two facts that could be considered anecdotal. What are we eating today in the lobby? Cod fillets. The question is this: where does that cod come from? Where was it harvested? Do you know that the answer to that question is likely to be in Russia or in Asia? That is also part of the situation. In this sense, Bill C-45 is far from addressing that particular problem.
The second element I would like to point out is simply that, in my opinion, Bill C-45 is an unfinished piece of work. We will have an opportunity to talk about this during the debate and also in committee. We will support the principle of the bill because it is indeed an unfinished piece of work. In this sense, I will say right now, as I mentioned earlier, that there is a serious problem with regard to consultation. 
It is with great interest that I heard the proposal made by my Liberal colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not to defer, but to suspend the work for six months, thus allowing for a much wider consultation than the one we have now. The evidence is found in the letter that I will read once again, perhaps a little more quietly. I want to take this opportunity because several parliamentarians and, particularly, I suppose, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, are here, since it is his bill that we are discussing today. I will send a copy. The minister has received a copy. This is about a statement made by the parliamentary secretary in relation to Bill C-45.
 Having looked at this statement concerning Bill C-45 that was sent to us ... at the very last minute, even though it was known that we, the fishers, would not have time to read it and particularly to understand some wording that appears to have a double meaning, we wish to inform you that we have not been consulted at any time about any change that would affect the new fisheries act and that we categorically oppose any changes that might be made without our being able to discuss them with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 
This letter is signed by Marc Couture, president of the Gaspé crab fishers association, and Daniel Desbois, president of the Bay crab fishers association. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Raynald Blais:  Before I continue, would it be possible to have a little more quiet around me? I have a lot of difficulty concentrating. I hear the voices of everyone else more than my own. Some members have voices that are a little louder and that carry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Order, please.
As a courtesy to the hon. member and to all other members, would those who are having private conversations please have them in their respective lobbies so the Chair can hear the member who is speaking right now?
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, these may be fascinating conversations and I might eventually want to join in, but right now I would like the hon. members to be able to hear me and, and some members having louder voices than others, this can be disruptive.
Anyway, these people, these honest citizens, namely the crab fishers and their representatives, say and write that they have not been consulted. Should we believe them? I think so. They have not only said so; they have put it in writing. It is a very important issue, one that was raised as one of the main criticisms in our discussions with department officials about Bill C-45. If the consultations have not been carried out by the department, I pledge—hopefully the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will be in agreement—that we will carry out these consultations. It is extremely important that the people in the fishing community, who are directly or indirectly affected by fisheries management, have the right and opportunity to express their opinions on every aspect of this bill.
It is true that the bill is coming to us 137 or 138 years after the existing law was enacted, because it has never been amended in all those years. Also, we have to say that, sadly, the fishing industry is grappling with a host of problems. I can only speak of Quebec, but in Quebec the fishing industry is in crisis, be it in the shrimp,crab, lobster or groundfish sectors, or the cod sector, of course. Another crisis nowadays is the one pitting those who would abolishing seal hunting against the seal hunters.
There is certainly no shortage of crises. When I say that there are crises galore, I am speaking only of Quebec. If I were to talk about the Atlantic provinces, there would be more crises and the problem would only grow bigger. A little further, if I turned to the Great Lakes, I would be talking about another crisis: invasive species. I could also talk about western Canada, where the issue of salmon fisheries in the Fraser River was under consideration for several months. That is yet another crisis.
The bill has arrived in Parliament but it is incomplete from several standpoints. The legislation in question does need to be brought up to date; it was enacted 138 years ago and it needs more teeth. Any offence committed in the fisheries ends up in criminal court. That is the reality: you go to court no matter how minor the offence. This can result in delays and problems. Thus, we can see the creation of an administrative tribunal as a positive step.
Yet, we must be vigilant and have a critical eye and, for this reason, the consultation period is extremely important. I think it is quite proper for people to have the time to review the bill in question in order to express an informed opinion. This would allow parliamentarians to conduct a debate, as we are doing today, and to work in the interests of those involved in the industry once the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Some people believe that the fisheries are not a big deal and that the issue only comes up on Fridays. I mention Fridays because there used to be a tradition that you ate fish only on that day. 
In Canada, this is a $4 billion industry that generates a great deal of revenue in each community. I would like to speak about the Quebec fisheries and everything happening east of Quebec City. But I will speak primarily about the region I am most familiar with, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Let us try to figure out the significance of “the fisheries”. The population of the Magdalen Islands is 14,000. In my opinion, we have to respect these people. Of these 14,000 people, 6 out of 10 depend on the fishing industry. It is that clear cut. 
In the Gaspé, a little more than 3 people in 10 have fishery related employment. In Quebec, the landed value of the fishery is $150 million. This may not seem like much compared to other figures, but when you consider the overall figures, you realize that thousands of people depend on them.
I am talking just about the landed value of the fish. For regions like ours, it is extremely important. That is why we must look at the fishery from this angle.
In my opinion, it would be proper and respectful toward this population, the fishers, the industries, the people who work in the plants in question and the communities to take the necessary time to look at how changes are made. It is true that there are a number of changes in the bill.
One of the changes that absolutely needs to be made involves the discretionary power of the minister. I have nothing against the person in that position. That is not what I am saying.
Nonetheless, giving the minister full discretionary power over managing the fisheries does not allow us, in my opinion, to go further. Unfortunately, over the past year some questionable decisions, to say the least, have been made. We have spoken out against these decisions.
They say there is a crisis in the shrimp fishery. There are too many shrimp on the market: we are being “invaded” and “attacked” by farmed shrimp. However, the current minister announced an increase in the fished shrimp quota in the gulf areas. But who is benefiting? The fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador are benefiting.
I have nothing against Newfoundland and Labrador. I have no problem with this. However, as far as management is concerned, I do not get the impression that increasing quotas to benefit a certain group is responsible resource management when shrimp ... when the shrimp industry is in crisis. It is not the shrimp that are in crisis. On the contrary, Nordic shrimp are delicious.
Magdalen Island lobster fishers also experienced this adversarial situation with Prince Edward Island lobster fishers.
There again, an arbitrary decision was made by the ministers, supposedly based on a report from a mediator. This mediator was rejected by one of the parties, the Magdalen Islands.
So much for efficiency and effectiveness. That is what the people of the Magdalen Islands said. Anyone who thinks I am wrong about what the people of the Magdalen Islands said should take the time to go and see the islanders.
I repeat: the fishers from the Magdalen Islands said that consultations were held and a mediator was appointed without their consent. I believe what the fishers from the Magdalen Islands say. Anyone who claims otherwise is calling the fishers liars. That is a fact. 
Parliamentarians must act responsibly. The Bloc Québécois is committed to doing so, and I am as well. We did so recently when the revocation of legislation concerning the Great Lakes fisheries was being reviewed. In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois acted responsibly on this issue.
Strangely, during the process, it was noticed that the Conservatives, who had introduced the section in question, had voted against that section by mistake. Mistakes happen, certainly. If it had not been for the Bloc Québécois, the whole thing might have fallen through.
The people of the Great Lakes might have found themselves in a legal vacuum. That is why I am calling on all members to work together. At the same time, I am well aware that we will have a great deal of work to do. We will do it responsibly and thoroughly. When the committee receives Bill C-45, if the House so desires, the committee will have to proceed thoroughly and responsibly, taking the time not only to consult, but also to make any amendments it considers appropriate.
It is not just a matter of time, it is also a matter of respect for the industry, fishers, communities and everyone directly or indirectly involved in the fisheries. A number of amendments will be made to this bill, which I feel is a work in progress. I believe that some parts will have to be removed and that we will have to agree on some others. I cannot agree with one of the objectives of Bill C-45, which provides that the department can use the resource to fund its research work. What have we come to? I understand that the resource is public, but it should benefit the people who fish it and live off it. A bill should not make it possible to do indirectly something that we would not want to see done directly: using this money to fund research. If, after 138 years, this is the sort of change that is being proposed, we will have to go back to the drawing board. We will defend this principle tooth and nail. There are others we could elaborate on.
I just want to summarize what I was saying, but I know that I will have an opportunity to come back to this over the course of the debate and possibly in committee if the House chooses that route.
Bill C-45 enhances the co-management of the fish populations by giving fishers more power and more responsibility. It also creates a new tribunal that will have the authority to punish poachers by imposing penalties ranging from fines to revoking fishing permits.
I want to remind hon. members that under the current system, even the most insignificant offences are referred to a criminal court, which can involve a lengthy and costly process.
In addition to having at its disposal an entire arsenal of penalties, this tribunal will consist of individuals who have a good understanding of the fishing industry, and vigilance will be the order of the day.
The bill finally recognizes that some legislation in Quebec and the provinces is equal or superior, and it thereby cuts down on duplication. On that matter, the Bloc Québécois, as a sovereignist party, has another objective. As an aside, if there ever were a sector of the economy in Quebec that could attest to the fact that if we were sovereign we would be better off, it would certainly be the fishery sector.
I know that some people do not necessarily agree with me, but that is the broad consensus in Quebec. We will eventually see this, during a referendum. The fisheries file perfectly illustrates why Quebec needs sovereignty. And, as they say, the sceptics will be confounded.
However, as for the negative points of the bill, obviously, the issue of consultation has been mentioned. In a way, the proposed amendment is relatively interesting. I know that the committee will also work very hard, and respectfully, but above all, very thoroughly. That is how it is done.
I know that the current minister was on the committee. Now he is the minister, wearing a new hat, one might say. I know he worked actively within the committee, just as I did. We face several challenges. Of course, the various crises bear witness to that. 
I must also mention that, recently, for example, the sale of licences from one province to the next created the following risk: a crab boat was sold to a P.E.I. business, without a history of a crab quota, meaning that 25 jobs per boat left our region, not including the jobs linked to the plant. This is dangerous. This is what it means for jobs on the boats and in the plants. This is dangerous.
Does the bill address the situation? I do not think so. Should it address the situation? In my opinion, yes, absolutely. Of course, there was a reaction. We found a way to say that perhaps the licence could be attributed to P.E.I. or elsewhere, but not the attached quota. That may be a way to slow things down, but it will not completely prevent such situations.
I will have the opportunity to come back to this over the course of the next few hours or, if necessary, in the weeks and months to come, with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of these people who depend on this industry and who—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc, who obviously has an interest in the bill. It is really worth pointing out that this bill has not been redone or reconstructed in 139 years. Contrary to the amendment by my good friend and colleague from Bonavista--Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor, I have to ask my colleague from the Bloc, since he did state that he agrees with the bill in principle, if he would not agree with me that if we extend this for another six months, as the amendment calls for, time will go by and they will want another delay.
 Then, the next thing we know, we will have been waiting 149 years. I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc would support me in asking my colleague from Gander to withdraw his amendment and get on with this. I also must say that our minister has drafted a great bill. I think even my minister would agree with me that no bill is ever perfect, but I think this is a good bill. I am sure that the minister is open on this from time to time.
However, delaying it is not the way to go. Let us get started with something that appears to me to be a very good bill. Fisheries is big in my riding, as it obviously is to that gentleman over there, and I can appreciate that. I would like to hear his comments.
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank my Conservative colleague for his question. I would say that we should not exaggerate. Although I do not know the member in question, I think he has exaggerated somewhat.
The amendment submitted will be scrutinized and analyzed on its merits. However, the letter that I presented at the outset, signed by the citizens of my riding who represent a number of fishers in my riding, should be retained in principle. They feel that the bill could be improved and that is why they say yes. However, they are quite shocked because they feel they were not consulted. Therefore, it is important to take the time to analyze the situation.
I am in favour of the proposal or the proposed amendment . However, I will take the time to analyze it because I believe we must act rigorously and responsibly in this matter.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore should know that there is less than a minute for both the question and the answer.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member's colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for the great work he did on the new ombudsman bill for veterans in Canada.
I have a question for my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect and who represents a fantastic area of the country. The motion put forward by our colleague from the Liberal Party basically asks that people in his constituency, the people he just spoke about, have the opportunity to give their input prior to second reading. We have asked the minister too. We need more time so that these people across the country and in the member's riding can have that input.
I thank him very much for saying that he will carefully look at the amendment and consider it in due time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine must know that his time has expired, but I will give him a moment to answer. 
[Interjection]
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, a moment can be short or long. 
In conclusion, members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have always acted responsibly and will continue to do so to protect the industry from—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am sorry but time has expired. When Bill C-45 comes back for debate in the House, there will be five minutes left for questions and comments with regard to the speech made by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Income Tax Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-294. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):  moved:
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-294, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 1 with the following: 
 “(A) the taxpayer is, in that month, a registered participant with, or member of, 
 (I) a sports team or recreation program of the employer in respect of which membership or participation is restricted to persons under 21 years of age, or 
 (II) a sports team or recreation program of a college or university,” 
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will, of course, support Bill C-294, now before us, because it helps young athletes. 
The situation in which athletes find themselves is a reflection of the importance given to sports. And there is work to be done, considering that this country will host the 2010 Olympic Games. 
The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, which is a step forward to help athletes directly, because, in many cases, they must pay to participate in their sport, particularly young athletes, who receive very little help, both in terms of money and visibility or credibility.
There is only one program providing direct financial assistance to athletes, and that is the Assistance Athlete Program, or AAP. The funds earmarked for this program account for only 13% of the overall budget for sports in Canada. 
So, despite the minister's announcement earlier this year that this program would be improved, the fact remains that athletes need more support from the federal government, which seems to perceive these athletes more as a source of visibility and pride, than as people who should get support. 
So, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which provides additional assistance to athletes, particularly young athletes, who must often spend large sums of money to train in order to perform, on things such as food and housing, sportswear, transportation, tuition fees, medical expenses, travel and competition expenses, registration fees at competitions, training session costs, membership fees, food supplements, and so on. 
The amendment that I presented at report stage, and which is proposed by the Bloc Québécois, seeks to recognize the important role of Quebec and Canadian university sports, as regards sport issues.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment that you read is to add a second part to clause 1(A), so as to include a sports team or a recreation program of a college or university. That is an addition. The bill already includes all the teams whose members are under 21 years of age. However, university teams should be supported, because they include young athletes. In many cases, some members of those teams will be over 21 years of age, and it would be unfortunate to exclude them for that reason.
To highlight the importance of university sports in Quebec, I would like to speak about an event that takes place every year from September to March. More than 10,000 student-athletes participate in 11 sport disciplines, with a schedule of close to 3,000 events. These events lead to the ultimate goal in university sports: claiming the National Championship title. This weekly competition provides student-athletes with the best there is to offer in Quebec and in Canada. 
Annually, regional champions from the four conferences vie to compete in the following disciplines or championships, which are held in November of every year: women's field hockey; men's and women's cross country; women's rugby; men's and women's soccer; the Mitchell Bowl, which is the football semi-final; the Uteck Bowl, which is also a football semi-final; and the Vanier Cup football final.
In March of every year, the following championships take place: women's and men's wrestling; women's ice hockey; men's and women's swimming; men's and women's volleyball; men's and women's indoor track and field; men's and women's basketball; and the University Cup for men's ice hockey.
There are many events at the university level which deserve to have this clause included in the bill.
No other sport organization in the country can match the breadth and scope of such a program. From Victoria to St. John's, student-athletes competing for national honours represent an exciting vibrant dimension of Quebec and Canadian society. Every Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) student-athlete must attend an annual drug education seminar as part of the CIS drug education and doping control program. The seminar highlights key issues and health concerns of drugs in sport. This seminar is extremely beneficial as it allows the student-athletes to discuss the ethics of drugs in sport and educates them about CIS's zero tolerance policy. 
Internationally, student-athletes can experience the excitement of the Winter and Summer World University Games, the second largest international multi-sporting events in the world, second only to the Olympics. Every two years, student-athletes have an opportunity to compete with the best from around the globe in 12 sporting disciplines at the summer games and seven sporting disciplines at the winter games. These games provide Canadian university athletes with a unique experience both culturally and athletically and are often the platform for student-athletes to launch their international athletic careers.
My purpose in summarizing these various activities was to emphasize the contribution of university sports to the next generation of Quebec and Canadian athletes, and to support the motion in amendment I tabled at the report stage. 
 The purpose of Bill C-294 is to amend the Income Tax Act to provide additional support for athletes by excluding from their taxable income allowances from non-profit groups or associations. Concretely, the bill proposes adding a provision to the existing Income Tax Act to exclude from their taxable income any allowances for board and lodging and any other reasonable expenses of the taxpayer that are paid to or on behalf of the taxpayer by a non-profit organization in connection with its operation of a sports team or a sports or recreation program, to a maximum of $350 for each month of the year, adjusted annually to reflect inflation. This applies in two cases: if the taxpayer is registered during the year with the organization as a member of the sports team or as a participant in the sports or recreation program; and if the taxpayer is under 21 years of age. In fact, membership in the team or participation in the program must be restricted to persons under 21 years of age. We are proposing this amendment because we found that the part that allowed only for teams whose members were all under 21 years of age automatically excluded many university students.
I would like to take a moment to illustrate how important Sport Canada is. This bill does much more than give tax credits to athletes, it reopens the debate on funding for amateur sport and the general situation of athletes in Canada and Quebec. Sport Canada is the public agency that administers sport in Canada. The agency comes under the Department of Canadian Heritage and under the direct political responsibility of the Secretary of State for Sport, who reports to the minister. Its mandate is to help athletes achieve excellence in high-level sports and build a Canadian sports system in order to reinforce the unique contribution sport makes to Canada's cultural identity. 
Unfortunately, I will not have time to talk about the various programs Sport Canada offers, but the purpose of my presentation was to demonstrate that, even though some efforts are being made, we are not providing enough support for our athletes, especially young athletes. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We encourage all parliamentarians to support our amendment in order to ensure that this bill includes university sports.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from. We all should be trying to encourage athletic participation as best we can but I believe the amendment would create a lot of problems. 
The bill is completely confined to $300 per month for room and board. It is also restricted to organizations where the participants are all under the age of 21. If we are to use the Laval football team as an example, which is an excellent team with a top notch program and it won the Vanier Cup, most of the players are over age 21 and therefore would not be eligible for this.
Second, the junior teams got into difficulty because the tax department said that was an employer-employee relationship. If a university were providing room and board to a student, which I doubt is happening right now, but even if it were, that would not be an employer-employee relationship. There would be no tax consequences for the room and board at a university level. If it is happening, it is being done by a third party, in the case of Laval by a very wealthy person who supports the program.
However, as best as I can understand, if he is helping students with their room and board it is not subject to taxation under current law. It is a different category altogether and it diverts away from the main attempt to get the 140 junior A teams across Canada, many of them in Quebec, and the junior B teams to bring the tax relief to them so they can have the same benefit that maybe the Laval football players have at present.
This is a catch 22. It does not really lean anywhere. If there were some way the Bloc member could withdraw the motion, it would keep us focused on the main issue, which is to help midget hockey, junior B hockey and junior A hockey which are really suffering a great deal right now because of current tax rules. The university people do not experience this problem.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given that the subject of today's debate deals with the financial tribulations of young Canadian athletes, I would like to pause for a moment or two, if I could, and begin my remarks with an appropriate salute to a fallen soldier.
Yesterday, Canada lost one of three remaining veterans of World War I, Lloyd Clemett. Lloyd was a resident of Toronto and first enlisted in the Canadian Forces an incredible 91 years ago.
As I understand it, the bill before us was initiated through the efforts of a Saskatchewan boy of high school age.
Lloyd Clemett was just 16 years old when he volunteered for action and was eventually sent to the front lines in France. His valiant service to the country was lauded and recognized in his time and should be now, for now it falls on us to ensure that his sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Today, just as in the time of Lloyd Clemett, young men and women are apt to pursue their dreams against all odds, be it on an ice rink in rural Saskatchewan or on a basketball court in downtown Toronto. The House should be ready to affirm the pursuit of sport for our youth and remove any barriers that might stand in their way.
The act before us deals with the issue of young athletes billeting their way into rural escapes to pursue the games they love.
In and around my constituency, many young athletes arrive on a daily basis. Some are supported by parents and some are lucky enough to be sponsored or championed by large or local businesses but others face financial hardships and paying their own way as they balance school responsibilities and sport.
In rural parts of my province, the latter situation is the most common. In parts of the country, where a metropolis of opportunity is not looming, it is even more unusual to find student athletes who are as confident with their finances as they are with their hockey stick or baseball glove.
Young athletes who assume part time jobs while living in communities that have adopted them should not be further burdened by a tax system that penalizes them for their sacrifice.
The House must give support to this bill but we must also ensure that it serves a greater good for athletes of all kinds, with abilities at all levels and in cities and communities all across the country. We are all well aware that star athletes and sports prodigies have an easier time making ends meet than the stalwart and dedicated sportsmen and women who still play for passion.
While it has been and will always be in our best interest to foster the best of the best, and while our society will always be drawn to the extraordinary acts of athletic achievement, the intent of the bill seems to salute the hard-working yet unheralded athletes.
There is something about the purity of sport that inspires us to forget our daily troubles and escape into the games we played as youths.
While I am not as quick as I once was on my skates, I know the joy of a hockey rush and, on the other hand, the solitude that can only be found at the lonely end of the rink. The lessons and benefits of sport are unique and invaluable. Amateur sports and amateur athletes deserve all the support the House can give.
I believe the bill, subject to the proper and traditional scrutiny, is a good first step but a first step that can meet the criteria for affirmation of the House. In fact, it would be hard to argue against the basic thrust of this proposal which seeks only to relieve amateur athletes of an undue tax burden.
I would like to direct members' attention to the comments which were made by my colleague, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. He pointed out in a detailed way some of the shortcomings of the present tax regime that purports to support amateur sport and that definitely improvements need to be made, as other members have attested to.
Over the course of this debate we should also make it clear that we in the House recognize the sacrifice and hard work being done by those who billet and house these athletic travellers. Without the generosity of families who open their homes to players of hockey, lacrosse and so many other sports, the vibrancy of sport in Canada would be greatly reduced. 
By being so accommodating and welcoming, these billeting families are helping to improve the situation of Canadian athletes and Canadian sport itself. I wish to applaud these generous citizens. I am confident that all members of the House will join with me in that recognition.
When an athlete is provided with funds from a team that is only generating revenue by way of ticket sales and gives those funds to the family that is hosting him or her, it should be a taxless exercise. Surely the sacrifice is thankless enough.
Apart from the families and the athletes, we must also consider the coaches. I recently met with Clifford Linton, a dedicated parent and coach from my riding who represents concerned parents and athletes. He expressed to me and proved with appropriate documentation the huge disparity that exists between the cost to train an athlete and the funding available from the government.
In addition to the unusually high costs associated with children in sport, the government also requires that any athlete who wishes to represent Canada in international competition must pay a fee to Athletics Canada. In one instance where two junior athletes were fortunate enough to win the right to represent Canada at the world championships in Beijing, their chance of a lifetime was nearly cancelled by a $9,400 total expense. There comes a time when the coaches and athletes at Canada's highest level can no longer ask their friends and families for support and the government must lend a helping hand.
Any nation can trace its sporting history back to its early recollections. In Canada we have such a rich history of sport: Algonquin lacrosse matches that amazed the early Europeans; Royal Military College students playing what is considered the first ever hockey game with students from Queen's University. Our history books tell us that John Kennedy and Lester Pearson were united by their professions, of course, but formed a much more personal bond over their shared love of baseball.
Sport is a timeless and valuable aspect of our history. There is no bond across the social milieu that is greater. We can all sit in an arena or stadium and be united by our love of the hometown team or of our hatred for the bitter rival. It is sport that truly brings out the best in us and the best of us. 
This bill has noble intent and with some enhancements could provide both substantive financial support and reaffirm our understanding of the role sport plays in our Canadian way of life.
Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments on the amendment that has been proposed by our friend from the Bloc.
First of all, it was interesting to me that it was not discussed at all. We sit on the finance committee where we reviewed this bill recently. To be frank, based on the discussion at that committee, we were able to get what I would say was all party support for the changes to the tax system where it reflects an employee-employer relationship for not for profit or small junior clubs.
 The bill applies to a lot of things. I want to say to the member opposite that I do not mind his concept in terms of providing some sort of assistance to athletes at the college and university level. In fact I have two daughters who are very competitive volleyball players who may some day benefit from being university or college volleyball players, and some assistance might be of interest, but let us not confuse that with what is proposed in the private member's bill that is in front of us today.
It is a $300 opportunity, and that was even adjusted at committee, to help a club and young people afford to be junior hockey players in this country. That is not for major junior. It is junior A, junior B and midget players who are boarding somewhere, trying to progress as athletes. This is a simple proposal to help them, through the tax system, to afford to be billeted somewhere else.
I am absolutely standing in favour of what the private member's bill is for. I am standing today opposed to what the amendment is, because it does not actually fit.
I would suggest to the member opposite that if he or his party is interested in supporting amateur athletes at the university and college level, who are often, as was previously pointed out, over 21 when they are there, that that is a separate issue that should be brought in front of the House for a proper debat, sent to committee to be properly debated and discussed, and brought back here.
I would suggest to the members of the House that if the amendment still stands, if it has not been withdrawn, that we reject the amendment, and that we move to vote in support of this private member's bill so that we can have this in law in time for the next hockey season.
I am not sure how well thought out the amendment was, and based on some brief discussions I have heard by the mover of the main motion, there is some ambiguity in what it covers, such as the age and how it affects the Income Tax Act, and that we should, at the very least, look at it separately.
 I would ask that the House not support the amendment and then move to the debate on the main motion and support that main motion at that time.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[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 nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the deferred recorded division will be held on Wednesday, February 28 at the beginning of private member's business. 
It being 2 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2 p.m.)