2007-04-20

Government Orders
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):  moved that Bill C-43, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate on Bill C-43, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act, which is important legislation to make Canada's democratic institutions better. It also represents another step in the positive reform of the Senate undertaken by this government. 
This bill follows through on the promise made to the people of Canada in the Speech from the Throne to “explore means to ensure that the Senate better reflects both the democratic values of Canadians and the needs of Canada's regions”. More importantly, this bill strengthens the pillars of our proud Canadian democracy. Bill C-43 not only strengthens but also revitalizes and modernizes some of our traditional Canadian values. What I am talking about, of course, is what Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker called the “legacy of freedom” cherished by all Canadians.
In 1960, Prime Minister Diefenbaker's definition of Canadian values included the right to “be free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, and free to choose those who shall govern my country”.
The right to choose who will govern our country or the right to vote is perhaps our most precious and fundamental right, something that has been in our thoughts this week as we mark the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We on this side of the House are proud and honoured to be part of a Conservative parliamentary tradition of expanding rights to Canadians, including particularly the right to vote. 
It was Sir Robert Borden's wartime government that first extended the right to vote to women who had close relatives in the armed forces through the Military Voters Act of 1917.
At the dawn of 1919 all women were enfranchised with the enactment of the Act to Confer Electoral Franchise Upon Women, again by Borden's Conservative government.
Likewise, in 1960 Prime Minister Diefenbaker put an end to what he rightly considered an unfair law that forced native people to choose between their right to vote and their treaty rights. Giving aboriginal people the right that was granted to them at Confederation was an ideal to which Prime Minister Diefenbaker had long been dedicated. He noted this in his memoirs:
 I felt it was so unjust that they didn't have the vote.I brought it about as soon as I could after becoming prime minister. 
Diefenbaker's government granted status Indians the right to vote, without having to give up their treaty rights on March 10, 1960, thus eliminating once and for all voting rights restrictions based on race or religion in Canada.
Our government is following the course charted by our predecessors in Parliament and strengthening the voice of the Canadian people in the Senate, one of our most valuable institutions. We had told Canadians that our government would be mobilizing and democratizing the Senate so that they could have a say in the appointment of their senators. It is time that all Canadians be allowed to exercise the most fundamental right in any democracy, namely the right to vote, in the selection of those who will represent them as senators.
As soon as it took office, our government undertook, as promised, a process to strengthen democracy.
The first legislation passed in this Parliament was the government Bill C-4 that created a review of party registration rules, and just before Christmas, we finally secured passage of the Federal Accountability Act. From a democratic reform perspective, the act reduced the influence of big money in election campaigns and imposed new donation limits and disclosure requirements on those who seek public office.
We have, again with the support of our colleagues in the opposition, passed legislation in the Commons to establish fixed dates for general elections, that is, every four years in October.
 Just like the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-16 represents a meaningful improvement to the democratic landscape without requiring a constitutional amendment. Ironically, the Liberal Senate has blocked it from becoming law by amending it at the last minute. We will be asking the Senate to remove that inappropriate amendment so that fixed dates for elections can become law.
Bill C-31 will enhance the integrity of the electoral process. It is currently awaiting approval in the Senate and we would like to see it passed as soon as possible, so that it can be put in place for the next general election.
As we know, citizen involvement is fundamental to any democratic institution. Unfortunately, Canadians have had no involvement in the selection of their senators. 
There is one exception. In 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Stan Waters to the Senate after he was selected in a Senate election sponsored by the province of Alberta. 
This week, the Prime Minister told us another exception is coming, with his intent to appoint Bert Brown to the Senate, also chosen by Albertans in a vote to represent them.
These are the harbingers of change and the democratization that will be made a permanent fixture in our Canadian democracy, allowing Canadians a say in who will represent them in the Senate, strengthening our Canadian democracy.
Bill C-43 moves to make this happen by immediately involving Canadians in the process.
This bill will enable the government to consult Canadians about the people who will be representing them in the Senate. It is also an important step in the evolution and modernization of a great Canadian institution.
Furthermore, this bill recognizes that citizens—not political friends or big donors—are in the best position to advise the Prime Minister about the people who should speak on their behalf in their institutions. We know that Canadians think it is time to act on this idea.
Bill C-43 will do more than enable Canadians to have their say about the representatives who will be making decisions on their behalf here in Ottawa. It also guarantees that those representatives will be accountable for the decisions they make.
Consulting the Canadian public on Senate appointments will help to boost the Senate's legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians by transforming it into a more modern, more democratic, and more accountable institution that reflects the core values of Canadians.
Senate reform has been something of a national preoccupation for more than a century now, consuming a great deal of time, energy, effort and attention, almost since Confederation in fact. 
Well-meaning and reasonable proposals to improve the Senate have sadly become bound up in the broader national pursuit of omnibus constitutional reform, and those efforts to modernize the Senate came to naught.
Ultimately, of course, we know that fundamental reform of the Senate will require complex, lengthy and multilateral constitutional change. There does not exist, sadly, at present, the national consensus or will required to engage in the inevitably long and potentially contentious rounds of negotiations that would be involved.
Some people say that it would be best to do nothing. They just want to shrug their shoulders and say they cannot do what must be done. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did this week. Others prefer to close their eyes and wait until some other time when all of the issues concerning the Senate can be resolved at once.
That is not what the government thinks, nor is it what Canadians think. We believe that Canadians expect more from their national institutions and their government. In fact, that is what they have told us. They know that some Senate reforms are within our grasp, and they want us to act. 
There are, of course, other elements of a reformed Senate that will have to wait for another day, most notably redressing the inequalities of provincial representation. However, our step-wise approach will lay the groundwork for a strong foundation for any future change.
I am pleased to note that during the consultations of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform last fall, leading constitutional scholars agreed with the government's interpretation that the approach taken in Bill C-43 is legally valid without a constitutional amendment.
Speaking of that Senate special committee, I would like to use the example of another piece of legislation, Bill S-4, as clear evidence that Canadians need and deserve an upper chamber that is more democratic and more accountable to them. 
Bill S-4 is legislation that proposes to limit Senate terms to eight years. Bill S-4 was introduced in the Liberal dominated Senate for consideration on May 30, 2006.
Last spring the upper chamber struck a Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform to examine the subject matter of Bill S-4. The committee held exhaustive hearings with witnesses, including the Prime Minister, ministers from several provinces and constitutional experts. In October of last year it reported its findings, which supported the government's approach.
Let me emphasize the point that the special Senate committee with its Liberal Party majority, in its report, endorsed the government's incremental approach to Senate reform. It went so far as to pronounce itself hopeful that the government would continue the momentum of reform it began with Bill S-4.
Paradoxically, however, Liberal members of the Senate brought the momentum of reform, so admired by the committee, to a screeching tortuous halt. Bill S-4 is now the subject of a second round of hearings by a Senate standing committee, a committee that is essentially duplicating the efforts of the special committee.
Despite the endorsement of the special Senate committee, Bill S-4 languishes in the upper chamber still, an astounding 325 days after its introduction. 
This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the Liberal Party leader says he supports term limits for senators. He even bravely declared months ago that he would get the Liberal senators to finally deal with the bill. According to the Canadian Press, Dion's decision “Breaks an impasse in the Senate”. Despite his bold declarations, he could not get it done. More Liberal senators continue to obstruct and delay the Senate term limits bill.
A national institution that is truly accountable to the people would not engage in this political muscle flexing for almost a full year so far. An institution that is truly responsive to the people it purports to serve would not employ these recalcitrant procedural manoeuvres for the sole purpose of frustrating the government's agenda, an agenda endorsed by Canadians.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again implore members of the official opposition to urge their colleagues in the Senate to stop playing games, stop resisting constructive change, and get on with the job that Canadians expect and want them to do.
The government rejects the tactics employed by some senators and is taking action to respond to the wishes of Canadians on the subject of Senate reform.
In conclusion, Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act, will strengthen and revitalize the very values that define us as Canadians, values such as democracy and accountability in government. 
Indeed, it extends to Canadians the most fundamental right of all, the right to vote, by advancing the principle that Canadians should have a say in who speaks for them in the Senate.
The government believes Canadians should have that right. Bill C-43 not only allows Canadians to indicate who they would like to represent them, it ensures that the people they select are required to account for their actions. In fact, the bill proposes rigorous standards of accountability for nominees, similar to the ones Parliament has put in place for the Commons through the Federal Accountability Act's amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
Bill C-43 is a realistic and achievable Senate modernization measure. It will not have to go through official constitutional amendment procedures. This is not a bill to amend the Constitution, and there is nothing in it that requires a constitutional revision. That is the government's position.
Rather, this is an important step that is part of a gradual approach. The ultimate goal is to bring the Senate into line with the democratic values of Canadians. We need to strengthen democracy. The act to provide for consultations concerning Senate appointments lays the foundation for future changes that will transform Canada's Senate from a 19th century institution into one fit for the 21st century.
Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I first perhaps help the government House leader out of a mistake that he made? I am sure it was unintentional. I know he would not have intentionally mentioned the leader of the official opposition by name, so he must have been referring to Céline Dion, one of the world's best performers, when he mentioned that name, and Canadians are all very proud to be citizens of the same country.
The government House leader mentioned Bill C-16, the fixed election date bill, as an example of the government's intention to further democratize government institutions of this country, but I note something strange about that. Just before the break three weeks ago, Bill C-16 came back from the Senate with a very minor procedural amendment. It was not significant at all. It was completely in line with the other provisions of that statute, which would have provided some flexibility to avoid election dates and conflicts between municipal or provincial and federal elections by having some discretion in the Chief Electoral Officer. 
It was a very minor change. If the government was truly sincere in its wish to see fixed election dates moved quickly ahead, the opposition offered the option to fast track it, to get it through and have royal assent that very evening before the House of Commons broke for its recess. Strangely, that was refused. It was refused not because it was a substantial amendment, but because, one is compelled to suspect, the government did not want a fixed election date provision that would allow for a dissolution only on a non-confidence vote before the four year term came up.
If the government had agreed with that passage, it would have removed the ability the Prime Minister now has to do what he was critical of past prime ministers doing in the past, and prime ministers of both ruling parties, by the way, and that is to seek dissolution without a non-confidence situation. If the Prime Minister wanted to keep his options open for having a quick election, which he said he did not want to do, he was keeping his options open by that stall. 
It is still stalled, which is extraordinary. It does not speak well of the Prime Minister's intentions and credibility when he says he wants fixed terms and he does not want prime ministers to fool around with a dissolution without a non-confidence vote, but then refuses quick passage.
Let me put this to the government House leader. Why will the government not accept this offer to fast track the bill now, get royal assent, get on with it, and check off a piece of democratic reform that many of us in the House think is long overdue and which the official opposition supports? Why will he and his government not take advantage of this opportunity to fast track that provision of democratic reform?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, my friend raises two very important questions.
On the first point I will have to acknowledge that he is indeed correct in that this government has very few problems with the involvement that Céline Dion has had so far in our Senate term limits bill. Whatever her multitude of talents, I do not believe she is responsible for the obstruction that has occurred in the Senate or for the inability to persuade Liberal senators to follow the lead of their leader and get them to fast track that bill. Actually, “fast track” is a silly concept because it has been there for 325 days. Instead, I should say “actually deal with the bill”. 
Thus, the member is absolutely correct. It is the Liberal leader who is responsible for that failure to get his own senators to follow his lead. It is his weakness and not the weakness of Céline Dion, who no doubt is very strong in many fields.
On the other question, which is the question of fixed date elections in Bill C-16, let us remember that this is our bill and we very much want to see it in place. If the Liberal Party was so keen on having that become law and having fixed date elections established and if the Liberals actually believed they wanted to see it in place, then they should not have amended it at the eleventh hour. It would have been law today had they not put in place an amendment at the eleventh hour. 
Let us examine what that amendment was. It was an amendment that would have had the effect of saying that if a small town of 450 people in northern Ontario decided it wanted to have a referendum on a name change or if another town somewhere in Canada wanted to have a referendum on whether to build an arena, a federal election would have to cancelled.
We do not think that is a basis for cancelling a federal election. In fact, that undermines and defeats the entire purpose of Bill C-16, which is to create an element of certainty so that there cannot be that kind of manipulation of election dates and elections will occur at regular intervals. 
That is why we are coming back to the House on Monday to ask the House to communicate to the Senate our wish that the central, original elements of Bill C-16 to establish genuine fixed date elections come into place. We are confident that the House will send that message to the Senate. We hope that in the Senate, if the Liberals are serious about wanting it to come into force, they will heed that message from the Commons and respect the important role of this chamber as the paramount chamber.
As long as the Senate consists of appointed senators, they should be respectful of the wishes of this chamber on important questions of principle, particularly questions of elections and democratic reform. The irony of the Senate questioning the House of Commons on its decisions on when elections should occur, on how our democracy works, is so deep that I am amazed the Liberals can stand in their places and raise questions about it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to let my hon. colleague know that I am a firm believer in fixed election dates, but when I hear the Conservatives or the Liberals talk about the Senate I cannot help but take it with a jaundiced view, to put it in the politest way.
I remind my hon. colleague of the first thing the Conservative government did when it came into office. It appointed one of its Conservative fundraisers from Quebec who said he did not have time to run in an election because he was too busy. That was okay, said the government, and he was appointed as minister and put into the cabinet. When I hear the government talk about Senate changes, I cannot help but take it with a big grain of salt.
My answer for him is quite clear. Instead of tinkering around with the Senate, why does the government not do what most Canadians would like to see done? That is the abolition of the Senate, which we in the NDP have advocated for a long time. I know we need the consensus of the provinces for that, but why does the government not do something really dramatic and bold in this country? Why not stand up and tell Canadians once and for all that we are going to have fixed election dates and bring in proportional representation, but that first we will start off with the abolition of the Senate?
I say that with the greatest respect for all my friends and colleagues in the Senate. The reality is that we do not need it. The provinces do not have senates. They do very well with a single chamber. I believe we can do the same for this country.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, my friend from the NDP raises a legitimate and valid question when he raises the question of Senate abolition, because it is a very realistic alternative.
It is a very realistic alternative when one looks at how the Senate has been conducting itself in dealing with legislation from this Parliament, in delaying and obstructing a simple bill of 26 words, I believe it is, such as Bill S-4, for example, which is a very short bill. The Senate has been delaying that bill for a year and finding ways to avoid any kind of modest change to its own regime, and its members are creating an advertisement for exactly the position of my friend from the NDP, which is that not only do they lack the legitimacy that Canadians wish to see them have, they lack the legitimacy to even exist if that is how they are going to conduct themselves and utilize their powers. I say that with the greatest of respect.
That is the path down which they are treading and they are certainly creating the constituency for the view held by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. On this side of the House, we in the government do not hold that view. We believe it is possible to achieve improvement and incremental reform for the Senate. We do not believe that body is beyond all repair. 
Of course the approach my friend suggests would require a constitutional amendment, for which we do not see a consensus in place right now, but we do not believe that is a reason to abandon any efforts to improve and modernize our Senate and strengthen our democracy. That is why we are acting now to try to modernize and improve our Senate, to strengthen our democracy, to make it more responsive to the wishes of Canadians and to do what Canadians have told us they want to see done, which is to have a Senate that has term limits and where Canadians have a say in who represents them. 
It is the most fundamental principle in a democratic system. In Canada we live in a democracy. Canadians should have a say in who represents them in passing their laws and granting their wishes on what they want to see as the shape of this country.
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-43, the consultations act. I think everyone understands, who has read the bill, that this is not to provide for the election of senators, but to consult provinces where there are vacancies in the Senate on who might be appointed then by the prime minister. The prime minister will still appoint senators at the end of the day.
It is passing strange to hear the House leader speak of delay. Bill C-43 was first tabled in the House four months ago, and it is only today coming forward for debate. There were many other opportunities to bring it forward. I do not think it should be a purpose of the government to complain about delay. The government had control of it and it has only now brought it forward for debate.
Also, Bill C-16, the fixed election dates, as I mentioned in my intervention, has been stopped in its tracks for want of a minor amendment from the Senate. If the government members had the respect for the Senate, as they suggest, then they would think carefully about the role of the chamber of second sober thoughts. It has thoughtfully looked at the process and determined there is one failure in terms of fixed election dates. Therefore, it has suggested there be a slight amendment for that purpose. I think there must be some other reason why the government will not go along with that. It is in the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer. That discretion by that officer of Parliament would not be exercised lightly and not in the way the government House leader suggests.
Those on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for the purpose and the work of the Senate.
 One example of the value to Canadians of that extraordinary group of people, and they are for the main part, is former Senator Kirby and his health committee. Over a period of years, I think they did the finest work on the ideas to reform and protect the health services of our country. With due respect to all the other commissions across the country and internationally that have looked at it, Senator Kirby's report on health care reform really hit the bell and resonated with Canadians. In fact, very similar conclusions that Senator Kirby's health committee report came to were concurred in by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chaoulli case. It made many of the same observations about the health of our health care services and what needed to be done to protect them and the rights of citizens under those. 
As well, last year Senator Kirby's committee published its mental health report, recommending a national mental health commission. It was done in a way that was thoughtful and sensitive of individuals whose lives were touched, through a family member or friend, by the horrible situation of mental illness. 
Those are just examples of how valuable the other place can be to the rights and privileges and services of Canadians.
Let me talk a bit about consultation. We have heard a lot from the government House leader about the government wanting to consult Canadians and it is Canadians who should be consulted, in the words of this bill, for the appointments still of senators.
 It is passing strange that Bill S-4, which has been mentioned, Bill C-16, Bill C-43, which we are discussing today, and the Federal Accountability Act, which deals with issues of democratic accountability, have been brought forward by the government before it even put forward its consultation plan. 
We know with respect to Bill C-43 that Ontario, Quebec were not consulted about it. Nor were the other provinces or territories. The Governments of Ontario and Quebec have expressed their opposition to this bill as has Yukon. The consultation process was announced a couple of months ago by the Conservative government. It was going to hire a polling firm and a think tank for $900,000, which turns out to be an ideologically based organization. It has come out in favour of keeping the current electoral system in our country, denigrating the idea of proportional representation or any part of it. It was a bogus consultation across the country. 
The government did not even wait for that consultation, bogus as it might be, before it brought forward its legislation. That is a strange process. We have seen criticism and problems with it since it started.
There is another irony here. Electoral reform, as another aspect of democratic reform, was put in the Speech from the Throne. The NDP put forward that amendment and it was accepted by the government of the day. In time a legislative committee was set up to look at that issue and to have real cross-country consultations conducted by members of Parliament, who have the responsibility to do that consultation, not polling companies and overpaid ideological think tanks holding a few so-called deliberative discussions behind closed doors. We must get on with that work before too long, certainly before we go ahead with rash changes to our electoral system.
Another irony is this. The Law Commission of Canada, which is an independent, statutory public body that works independently of government, came up with a report in the spring of 2004 on electoral reform in Canada. I invite government members, who would care to rise for commentary and questions, to comment on whether they have read that report. I invite anyone who rises to first comment on the wisdom of that report on two aspects; first, the indepth research that was done; and second, the indepth consultation across the country.
I have read a number of these reports from different countries. I know the respect that the Law Commission of Canada is held in throughout the Commonwealth and the common law world. The report is perhaps the finest treatment of the question of electoral reform in a modern democracy that has ever been written. I look forward to commentary from government members on that. 
I guess the triple irony is that the Law Commission of Canada, as announced in the government's economic update in the fall, has had its budget cut to zero as of April 1. It is extraordinary. This is while we are paying ideological flacks $900,000 to gather some bogus public consultation on democratic reform, yet we have this respected body. I am sure some members have not even read the report.
That is another aspect of democratic responsibility. Imagine having the Law Commission of Canada Act, an act of Parliament, disrespected by the government. There are statutory responsibilities under that act to perform services for Canadians. The government, without having the courage to bring legislation to repeal the Law Commission of Canada Act, has cut its budget. It sounds kind of like the gun registry. I do not want to get too off course here, but it is an elementary question of democracy. It has had no courage to bring legislation before this House to repeal the gun registry. Rather it frustrates it. It gives endless time for people to register their guns.
They are laughing across the way. Whenever we talk about democracy and the gun legislation, let us remember earlier this week when the Canadian Police Association came to Ottawa to talk to parliamentarians. The single most important message that the president, on behalf of the police organization, had for us as parliamentarians was it used the gun registry 6,000 times a day, including the long gun registry. He said it was valuable.
Let me now turn to the specifics of Bill C-43, reform of the Senate. I will talk about Bill C-43 in a different context, in the context of Senate reform exactly. Yes, members on this side of the House are in favour of reform. Members in the official opposition are in favour of Senate reform. However, it has to be comprehensive reform and not piecemeal reform.
The trouble with piecemeal reform is this. The Senate, the traditions and the institution of that important body of Parliament, are a Rubik's cube of at least three colours. Two of those colours represent the selection process, including the term of office, and the mandate. Remember we have to think about the mandate of its relationship to the House. If they are identical with identical electoral status, then we will get gridlock. To avoid that, if the mandate is going to be exact with the same electoral legitimacy, then we had better have a dispute resolution mechanism to resolve gridlock when it occurs or the governance of the people of Canada could be frustrated.
The third colour in the Rubik's cube is distribution. Of the issues before us today, this perhaps is the most important. I look across the aisle at government members from British Columbia and Alberta. I cannot believe government members from British Columbia and Alberta could support giving greater powers, greater credibility and greater authority to the other place without a redistribution of seats to fairly treat British Columbia and Alberta, which are woefully underrepresented in the other place.
Let me quote from the preamble of Bill C-43, second clause:
 WHEREAS the Government of Canada has undertaken to explore means to enable the Senate better to reflect the democratic values of Canadians and respond to the needs of Canada’s regions; 
The bill tries to selectively deal with electoral matters and bring in greater credibility, therefore, power to the Senate, but leaves British Columbia and Alberta so woefully underrepresented.
Let me go back to the government House leader's point that Bill S-4, the bill introduced in the other place to deal with fixed terms for the appointment of senators, has lots of positive support. The trouble is this creates another problem that has to be dealt with on distribution. Other senators, Liberal senators and a former Progressive Conservative senator, put forward, for consideration by the same Senate committee, the idea that there be a redistribution by giving more seats to the four western provinces so the horrid imbalance and disadvantage to the west could be corrected, and without constitutional change as well. It would be an addition of extra Senate seats, but it would balance, for the first time, the rights of the people of western Canada. 
This is why Bill S-4 has been held up for the last year in the Senate. It is not because of term limits. Everybody agrees there should be term limits. It is to get the distribution and that is the Rubik's cube that has to come into conformity before we can give greater mandate or greater credibility. Therefore, let us do it all at once. 
I keep hearing that we cannot have constitutional change, that we cannot possibly open the Constitution to deal with something of such importance.This timidity would make the Fathers of Confederation blush if they thought they could not do anything to the institution in a constitutional way. One can only think of what would have happened if those fathers meeting in Charlottetown had the timidity of the members of the government today who say that we cannot go near the Constitution.
Let us think carefully about this but let us do it all at once, by all means, and let us do it comprehensively and do it properly.
I want to talk very briefly about other areas of electoral and democratic reform which have been raised by the House leader.
Parliamentary reform is very important. We saw with the last Liberal government a number of elements of parliamentary reform that came in, sometimes by resolution of opposition members at the time. One was the three line whip by the former Liberal government to allow for votes of conscience, free votes, two line whips for people not in cabinet and full votes of conscience. We see that regularly in this party in official opposition. We saw it regularly in the previous Parliament of the previous Liberal government. We do not see it across the aisle here. I do not recall, and I try to watch quite carefully, one vote that has been brought forward where members of the government have been, apparently, free to vote.
Mr. Gary Goodyear:  How was that hepatitis C vote? How did that vote go?
Stephen Owen:  I was not here at that time. I am a very recent member.
Another area of parliamentary reform is floor crossing. The NDP, to its credit, brought forward a bill two years ago but it was inadequate. However, I personally brought forward an amendment to the Federal Accountability Act to deal with floor crossing to allow for a limited recall. That would have gone through, even though it was ruled to be out of order, but we had a vote to see whether it could be re-instituted and, unfortunately, the government voted against it. It voted against recall for floor crossing, which is interesting. All members from any party would have been subject by now to that fine provision of parliamentary reform.
I will speak to one other area of parliamentary reform and that is the secret ballot for the chairs of House committees. I think it came from a Conservative resolution when the Liberal government was in power. It was accepted and there were secret ballots for committee chairs. That has been rolled back so that now it is back in the PMO. 
We are talking about democracy and all of these things. The trouble is that we cannot just pick and choose, which is, of course, the weakness of Bill C-43. It is piecemeal. It is not comprehensive.
The other issue is public engagement because we are talking about consultations with the public for ideas on who should be appointed to the Senate, which is now done by the Prime Minister at his discretion. Public consultation needs information. A very important part of that information to the public so they can properly be consulted and provide advice to us as legislators is provided through the access to information legislation.
In the last election campaign, the  Prime Minister, very broadly, boldly and without any shadow of a doubt, said that the Federal Accountability Act would be the first bill the government would bring forward if he were elected and that it would incorporate the whole access to information draft bill that the Information Commissioner had brought forward at the request of a parliamentary committee. 
What was brought forward was just a minor part of it in the Federal Accountability Act. In fact, the Information Commissioner, highly regarded and respected, and actually consulted by all of us, including the present government, for his advice, called the so-called access to information provisions of the Federal Accountability Act retrograde and dangerous. This is our officer of Parliament, now the government, who pledged during his election campaign to incorporate all of his suggested open government act provisions in there.
Let us do this right. If we really see flaws, inadequacies or things that are out of date, we need the courage to say that an unelected legislative body in a modern democracy is an anachronism. I think we all feel that. We need to get together and fix it comprehensively without causing more difficulties rather than solving the democratic deficit of this particular aspect of our democracy.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Vancouver Quadra speak, I understand why he will not be seeking re-election again. It must be very embarrassing and very difficult to stand in the House and defend the record of the previous Liberal government and compare it to the progressiveness and the moving ahead steps that this new Conservative government is taking. 
I hearken back to 1993 when I came to this House and, unfortunately, had to sit through three successive majority Liberal governments that had all the opportunity in the world to make whatever changes they wanted as to how government was run and pass them through and yet we saw zero, nada. 
We then had a period of a minority government under the member for LaSalle—Émard who basically dithered away his year and a half in office without even attempting to do anything. Now we have this government trying its best to make this place more democratic and those members have the audacity to stand and try to criticize it. My God, where does the embarrassment stop?
The member said that we had disregarded public consultations with respect to recommendations to the Senate. A province-wide vote was held twice in Alberta to identify who the people of Alberta wanted to represent them in the Senate. The first person was Stan Waters who was appointed, and rightly so, by the prime minister of the day. Now we have Mr. Bert Brown who is about to be appointed to the Senate after having gone through two votes by the people of Alberta. How much of a more purer public consultation is there than to have hundreds of thousands of people voting for that person?
The last thing I would like to mention is the access to information. One of the first steps we took was to include certain crown corporations under access to information. The former Liberal government could have done this so easily but it refused because it had a closed little cadre of puppets working in some of the crown corporations. The Liberals did not want to give any information out.
This government is getting things done. The Liberals had 13 years to do things and they did not get the job done. Now they think it is just not fair that we are getting things done.
[Interjection]
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, in the member's commentary he did not say whether he had read the Law Commission of Canada report that I mentioned and I think he should really do that. It is very enlightening with respect to reforming all our institutions in Canada. That is actually something very important that the last Liberal government set up in 1997, one of the most respected law reform bodies in the common law world. The former previous Conservative government cancelled the old law reform commission, which was also highly respected. It took us a few years to get that done. Of course, we had to deal with the $42 billion a year deficit that the former Conservative government left the new Liberal government in 1993.
The member talked about the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, not getting anything done. What about the national consultations; the deep research; the major policy initiatives on child care development policies; the cities agenda, to which everyone agreed; the Kelowna agreement, to which everyone agreed; and, the international policy statement, which is now being perverted by the present government's actions and directions in Afghanistan? Those are tremendous aspects of policy that came in, in those two short years that, unfortunately, were shortened by, if I may say so, the unnecessary last election.
The government is going piecemeal. It must go comprehensively. If we really want things down, we need to open it up in the Senate and do it properly.
We must remember that Bert Brown, who may go to the Senate, plowed into his barley field three Es, not one E.
[Interjection]
Mr. Ted Menzies: It was actually a wheat field.
[Interjection]
Stephen Owen: No, it was barley. Whether it is wheat or barley, the government says that it wants choice in wheat and barley. His choice was three Es, not one E. He knew it had to be comprehensive. While I am sure he is delighted at the prospect of being appointed by the Prime Minister to the Senate, he would like to see three Es, not just one. He knew they had to be all at once.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's take on the bill. I know he has been a strong proponent for democratic reform. I also know that people should be judged by their actions and not just their words. 
It was interesting when one of the Conservative members mentioned, I think it was a Freudian slip, that it was a consolation for our new senator. I think he had it right, it is a consolation for people who have done work for the old party.
In this case, the first action the government took was to appoint a backroom fundraiser of the Conservative Party to the Senate. It is interesting, is it not, that the first action of the government, a government that purportedly wanted to take up electoral reform, supposedly, and Senate reform, appointed one of its friends and then vaulted him into the cabinet. 
I wonder if the member could connect what the government is putting in front of us now with its first actions. Sorry, it was its second one. It had the floor crossing with the Minister of International Trade and then it had the appointment to the Senate. Could the hon. member connect the actions and the words of the government?
The Speaker: I know the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is very anxious to respond but he will have to wait till a little later this day because it is now 11 o'clock and accordingly the rules require that I proceed with statements by members. The member will have two minutes remaining in the time for his remarks when the debate is resumed.

Statements By Members
Canadian 4-H CouncilMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the Canadian 4-H Council. 
As many members of the House are aware, the 4-H Council recently hosted its 35th national seminar of citizenship in Ottawa. Seventy participants from across the nation attended. The participants earned the trip by accomplishing outstanding achievements in their local and provincial districts.
The youth learned first-hand about the Canadian parliamentary system and their own rights and responsibilities as Canadian citizens. They toured the Supreme Court, attended a question period, attended a citizenship ceremony for new Canadians, hosted an MP luncheon, as well as took the time to meet on an individual basis with their own members of Parliament.
I had the opportunity to meet with one of these exceptional participants from my riding. Andrew McTaggart and a 4-H volunteer, Shonna Ward, provided me with first-hand knowledge about the program and its dedication to the citizens and communities in which they live.
With young people like Andrew McTaggart and organizations like 4-H, Canada's future is bright and secure.
John RobertsMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour John Roberts, who lived the life of an academic, diplomat and member of Parliament. Mr. Roberts passed away last week at the age of 73. 
Born in Hamilton and later a resident of Toronto, John Roberts had a passion for the arts and the environment and was truly ahead of his time. He was both elected and defeated in the ridings of York—Simcoe and St. Paul's on three separate occasions. Whether in victory or defeat, his approach toward a sustainable environment and his support for a vibrant cultural community was the bedrock of his every campaign.
During the repatriation of our Constitution, the hon. John Roberts was an irreplaceable colleague to Prime Minister Trudeau. He lobbied British parliamentarians on the idea of a Canadian constitution and briefed the prime minister on how it could be achieved. As minister of the environment, he successfully drew the Americans into the battle against acid rain.
I am sure that this House will join me in saluting a remarkable Canadian, a great parliamentarian and a man who led a truly extraordinary life. Our friend and colleague John Roberts was kind, and one of a kind. He will be greatly missed.
Yvon MénardMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the extraordinary dedication shown by Mr. Yvon Ménard to his community of East Angus.
Mr. Ménard has been a volunteer for over half a century, contributing to the growth of his community. He has been particularly devoted to the golf club and to the revival of the Lions club of East Angus. He chaired the local chamber of commerce, sat on the city's health committee and, since 2006, has been a municipal councillor. 
A Quebec pioneer in the use of sawdust in hydroponics, Mr. Ménard also won the Gilles-Bordeleau award of merit for his work within the federation of Quebec greenhouse producers.
Mr. Ménard said it best himself: he may be retired from a payroll, but not from an active life. This full-time volunteer is an invaluable asset to the community of Haut-Saint-François.
Congratulations, Mr. Ménard. Your remarkable contribution serves an example for everyone.
Workers' RightsMs. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the first bill I introduced in the House was the workers first bill, an act to protect workers' wages and pensions in cases of corporate bankruptcies. Such legislation is desperately needed in my hometown of Hamilton where Hamilton Specialty Bar is but the latest company to face the threat of bankruptcy.
Although the last Parliament did pass the wage earner protection program act, which would protect at least the wage portion of moneys owed to workers, the Liberals failed to proclaim that act into law. They hoped no one would notice, but of course everyone in the labour movement did.
The NDP has redoubled its efforts to ensure that this act will come into force. The only thing standing between the protection of workers' rights and the requisite legislation is the political will to get this initiative passed. Workers know that New Democrats have that will. Workers know who is on their side when it comes to back to work legislation and anti-scab legislation.
It is time to approve this essential piece of legislation to defend workers' earnings. I urge all members of the House to support the speedy passage of bankruptcy protection for Canadian workers. I pledge my party's support.
Glenbow Ranch Provincial ParkTed Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Harvie family for its contribution to the new Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park. The park will encompass over 3,000 acres and 14 kilometres of the Bow River shoreline.
The Harvie family sold this land to the government of Alberta at much less than market value to establish this park. This land will provide a legacy of conservation, education and recreation opportunities for Albertans. Tim Harvie, a constituent of Macleod, has been custodian of this land with his sister Katie and it has been in the family for more than 70 years. 
The park presents a showcase of the natural grasslands and unique ecological attributes of the Alberta landscape and will protect Calgary's water supply and all water users downstream on the Bow River.
Ecological entrepreneurs such as Tim, Katie and the rest of the Harvie family are taking action to demonstrate the importance of conserving our land and preserving it for future generations. Please join me in acknowledging the Harvie family for its contribution.
Manufacturing IndustryMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over 200 hard-working, reliable employees in my riding of Brant recently lost their jobs when GenFast Manufacturing declared bankruptcy and closed its doors. This is only the latest blow to the manufacturing sector in Brant. GenFast has had roots in Brantford since 1910. Its closing has devastated the lives of its employees and their families.
 I have heard from many who have not received benefits, severance, wages and vacation pay. Workers' rights have been put in jeopardy and the government must immediately take steps to ensure that money owed to workers is the first priority of any company and the government.
The nature of manufacturing is changing. Many Canadian workers are at great risk of encountering a similar fate as GenFast workers. Over the past few years over 200,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. 
It is imperative that the government take a leadership role to promote the future sustainability of the manufacturing industry and protect the jobs and the rights of its workers.
SudanMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to helping to achieve a lasting peace for the people of Darfur. Canada welcome's Sudan's recent acceptance of the full heavy support package of UN assistance to the African Union mission.
Given Sudan's record of stalling international efforts to achieve peace in Darfur, Canada is calling on the Sudanese government to demonstrate that it is a full partner in this process. We must now focus on ensuring that the next step, a hybrid AU-UN mission, is in place as soon as possible. 
Canada is part of a concerted international effort to bring about a just and lasting peace throughout all of Sudan. Since 2004 Canada has spent over $368 million working to improve the human rights and the humanitarian situation in Sudan. This includes support for urgently needed humanitarian aid, diplomatic efforts to achieve peace and of course our support as a principal donor to the African Union's peacekeeping mission in Darfur.
Rita TrépanierMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 2007, the Outaouais lost a dedicated volunteer, Ms. Rita Trépanier, who passed away after several months of battling cancer. 
Rita was a spirited woman, who was always there to help those around her and who was convinced that Quebec would one day be a country. Treasurer of the Bloc Québécois, member of the Société nationale des Québécois et des Québécoises de l'Outaouais, she was an active participant in election campaigns, in addition to volunteering for the hot air balloon festival, meals on wheels, the tax clinic and Operation Red Nose. In fact, that is where I saw her for the last time, last December. She was a woman of many talents.
I would like to tell her family and friends, and her sovereignist family, that our hearts are with them. A few days before her death, she said the first thing she would do in the afterlife would be to say hello to René Lévesque. Believe me, this woman of action will hasten to do so.
National Volunteer WeekMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to give and share is to pass on something of oneself. This is National Volunteer Week, which turns the spotlight on Canadian volunteers. I want to pay tribute to the volunteers across Canada, who work to better their community and the quality of life of their fellow Canadians.
Volunteerism is a way to meet people's needs and getting them involved in good causes, wherever those causes may be. Canadians do more than 2 billion hours of volunteer work a year. As an important side benefit, volunteerism gives us a better understanding of people and their differences.
I want to mention the wonderful work being done in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, by the ROSCB, the Little Brothers of the Poor, La Bouchée Généreuse, Maison Agapè and the Centre d’action bénévole Aide 23.
I pay tribute to these men and women who find a purpose for their lives in volunteering and who, by giving of their time and listening to others, give dignity to those who need it.
Christopher StannixMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Easter Sunday, Master Corporal Christopher Stannix and five others were killed while serving their country in Afghanistan. His bravery and commitment live on in his family, his friends and his community who all mourn his loss of life.
Last Friday I was proud to be at Auburn Drive High School when his bravery and memory were acknowledged by the students of the school, which he attended only a few years ago. During a moving tribute to this young man, every student stood at attention, fought tears and honoured the achievements of his short life.
In a letter to the Halifax Herald this week, his sister Lesley spoke of Christopher and his colleagues by saying, “Soldiers have a strength of character, a courage in their convictions and a true bravery”.
Master Corporal Christopher Paul Stannix of the Princess Louise Fusiliers will be buried this afternoon at CFB Stadacona.
To his parents Ken and Kathy, his sisters Meaghan and Lesley, and his fiancée Candice, we offer our support, prayers and thanks as we honour another fallen hero.
AfghanistanMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House we debated the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan. 
While many in Canada understand very well the necessity for international assistance to the democratic Afghan government, others do not. The critics seem to feel that we in the west somehow provoke the extremists, that it is somehow our fault and that we can find an accommodation with these extremists. Considering that the extremists cite the independence of East Timor and the conquest of Andalusia in the 15th century as two rationale for their terror, reasonable people must understand there is no assuaging them. They will find any excuse for their hate.
We are in Afghanistan for two reasons. First, we are there out of compassion to provide peace and humanitarian relief for that country. Second, we are there to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a place for extremists who hate our way of life.
Ultimately, Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan to protect what we hold most dear: life; life in Canada and life in Afghanistan.
Terminator Seed TechnologyMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, terminator is a technology that is being developed by multinational seed companies to make seeds sterile after first harvest. The goal is to prevent farmers from saving and reusing their own seeds, thereby forcing them to buy seed from corporations every year.
Currently there is an international moratorium being upheld on terminator at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Incredibly, we have a government, like the Liberal government before it, that is seeking to undermine this moratorium by considering approval of this technology on a case by case basis.
Despite the fact that leading scientists condemn taking this completely irresponsible position, they are willing to take this enormous risk.
My office is flooded with letters every day, over 700 so far, from Canadians expressing deep concern about the dangers of this technology which cannot be prevented from cross-pollinating with other plants. I have personally written to each of these people and informed them that I will be forwarding their letters to the minister's office and asking him to justify his position to them directly.
I urge each of my colleagues to forward each and every letter they get--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
IsraelHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve of the 59th anniversary of the state of Israel.
Israel is not simply a CNN clip or what passes for the Internet image of the day. Rather, it should be seen and understood as the embodiment of Jewish survival and self-determination, the reconstitution of an ancient people in its ancestral homeland.
In a word, the Jewish people still inhabit the same land, embrace the same religion, study the same Bible, hearken to the same prophets, speak the same aboriginal language and bear the same aboriginal name as they did 3,500 years ago, and whose abiding hope and dream is to live in peace with the other indigenous nations and peoples of the Middle East.
May I conclude with the age old Hebrew prayer for peace in the original Hebrew language:
[Member spoke in Hebrew as follows:]
 Oseh Shalom Bimromov, Who Yaaseh Shalom, Alenu V'al Kol Israel, V'imeru, Amen. 
[English]
May God who establishes peace on high, grant peace for us all, Amen.
May this 59th anniversary usher in a real, just, and lasting peace for all peoples of the Middle East.
Bill C-327Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating Bill C-327, which I am sponsoring in the House of Commons and which aims to reduce violence on television.
Eight years ago today, on April 20, 1999, the Columbine shooting took place. Closer to home, we also remember the tragic events at Dawson College on September 16, 2006, and the massacre this week at Virginia Tech University. Such events remind us of the importance of reducing violence in our society and especially on television.
A recent study by the communications department at Virginia Tech shows that someone who is exposed to violent programs and movies for a certain number of hours could decide to commit acts of violence to settle disagreements with others. It is therefore our duty as parliamentarians, citizens and parents to make sure our children can live in an environment where violence—which realistically cannot be completely eliminated— is better monitored and less accessible to children.
I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-327.
21st Awards Ceremony of Coalition of National Capital Region BusinesspeopleHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to congratulate those honoured at the 21st awards ceremony of the Regroupement des gens d'affaires de la Capitale nationale held on April 14.
The award recipients, in order of presentation, are as follows: the Prix Coup de Coeur 2007 for outstanding service, Jocelyne Beauchamp and Mireille Campeau, co-owners of Cora's Ottawa Saint-Laurent; manager of the year, private sector, Patrice Basille, executive vice-president, Brookstreet Hotel; manager of the year, parapublic sector, Victoria Henry, director of the Art Bank of the Canada Council for the Arts—particularly special considering it is the 50th anniversary of the Canada Council; SME of the year, Le Nordik - Nature Spa; self-employed worker of the year, Jimmy Blackburn, president of Rebuts Débarras Québec; micro-business of the year, Oproma Inc.; big business of the year, S&amp;S Bolton Electric and its president Robert Sanscartier, who has also received previous awards from the RGA; and lastly entrepreneur of the year, Jacques Bertrand from La Relance Outaouais.
Congratulations to all the award winners. I hope that the RGA will continue its great work for years to come.
The SenateMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister announced that he will appoint Albertan Bert Brown as his first popularly elected senator when Senator Dan Hays retires this June. This is great news for Albertans and it is great news for Canadians.
Through our Senate election bill, we are strengthening democracy in Canada.
 In the past, prime ministers have consulted ministers, MPs, friends, family, party members, and a whole host of other special interests before they made a Senate appointment. They, however, have not consulted the most important group of people of all: the Canadian public.
Now, the leader of the Liberal Party has criticized the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Bert Brown. Could it be he is just upset because during the 2004 election Bert Brown got more votes than all the Liberal MPs in Alberta combined?
We promised to modernize the unelected, unaccountable Senate, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Oral Questions
The EnvironmentMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now the country knows that the Minister of the Environment is trying to scare Canadians with a report based on bogus assumptions and extreme views of the Kyoto accord.
But the minister's actions we now know were far more devious than that. He claimed that five independent economists support his report, but that is not true. Don Drummond supposedly was a supporter, but now we find out his support was only grudging. David Keith, the Calgary researcher, said: “I think the report overstates the difficulty of implementing policies in the short term”. 
Why did this minister ask for expert opinions, but only used what suited his brazenly partisan purposes?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we tabled a report yesterday before the committee, a report that set out the implications of a private member's bill brought forward by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has been very clear. It does not believe that implementing the protocol would cost anything. It is a Kyoto without any price.
 If it were so easy to do, if there were no price, no cost to Canadian industry, why is the member's own brother begging us not to bring in car emission standards in the province of Ontario?
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment spent the whole day frightening Canadians about the costs associated with Kyoto. He stated in an irresponsible manner that the economy will be ruined. We have heard this argument before with regard to acid rain, the ozone layer and seat belts. It did not work back then and it will not work this time. Will the minister apologize to Canadians for his constant fearmongering?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has no plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Liberals had 10 long years to reduce greenhouse gases. If they had done nothing, that would have been a tremendous gift to Canadians, but the fact is they presided over higher harmful greenhouse gas emissions which rose considerably.
 It is not only me who is saying that there will be a tremendous economic consequence. One of his very own caucus colleagues said “we are so far behind now that catch-up is impossible without shutting the country down”. This is what Liberal MPs are saying.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, this from one of the authors of the Walkerton tragedy in Ontario.
Yesterday, the government tabled a report in which the Conservatives proposed a tax on every tonne of carbon in this country at between $195 and $295 a tonne. It is their proposal. At the low end, this translates into a $15 billion per year tax on energy. Then the minister asked economists if this tax would have a negative effect on the economy and imagine, surprise, surprise, wait for it, they said “yes”.
I wonder did Chicken Little over there consult the finance minister before he wasted tax dollars that mock the intelligence of Canadians.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite owes all Canadians an apology. He was the president of the prime minister's national round table on the environment and the economy. Shortly after he became president of that organization, we saw a dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Was it either that he gave no good advice on how to implement Kyoto, or is it that the Liberal government would not accept it?
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a former federal minister of the environment is today the Prime Minister of Quebec, and that man is Jean Charest.
Yesterday, Mr. Charest commented on the Minister of the Environment's campaign of fear stating: “If we do not implement Kyoto, it will cost us dearly”.
And he even compared the campaign of fear to the arguments espoused when the decision was made to tackle acid rain.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Charest?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Conservative government dealt with the problem of acid rain 20 years ago. It was a Conservative government that did so. Mr. Mulroney was responsible for that. 
I will just say to my colleague that the only government in the world that did absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gases was the Liberal government, of which he was a member.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the government can muddy the waters all it wants, but the fact remains that the emperor has no clothes. Jean Charest is contradicting the minister and Quebec's minister of the environment goes so far as to say that he is fearmongering.
Furthermore, we have learned that the Minister of the Environment chose to set aside the opinions of experts who did not share his views. That is shameful.
How can the minister of misinformation and fear believe that he has any credibility at all in environmental matters?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the very best way to predict future success is to look at past action. The past action of the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government was to do absolutely nothing on the environment by presiding over the biggest increase in harmful greenhouse gases around the world. 
They have put forward a plan in terms of Bill C-288, a plan that they have not costed out. It is an irresponsible, reckless plan. If they believe Kyoto can be implemented with absolutely no cost, I challenge them to put this free Kyoto plan before Canadians.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the attempt by the Minister of the Environment to scare everyone with his catastrophic report has failed. The minister only succeeded in seriously undermining his credibility. Incidentally, the new Quebec Minister of the Environment, Line Beauchamp, did not hesitate to call the report alarmist, and said that inaction will have an even more disastrous impact for Quebec.
Will the minister pull himself together, stop his fearmongering and, instead, respect the consensus that is emerging in Quebec in favour of implementing the Kyoto protocol?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the Quebec minister that inaction is not an option. Inaction was the policy of the Liberal government. For 10 long years, we witnessed a major increase in greenhouse gas emissions. What was lacking over the past 10 years was a government that could work with the provinces. The Quebec Conservative caucus has been working very hard.
We gave Quebec a $350 million cheque to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a good example of flexible federalism based on a true partnership with the provinces.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec joined with all the observers in expressing his concerns and saying that the real question is the actual costs involved if we do not act. 
Instead of causing us to waste time and money, should the minister not resolutely get to work and inform us of his plan to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol? 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the cost of inaction is, of course, mentioned in the report submitted to the Senate yesterday. The cost of inaction is that we are forced to do the work of 15 years in just 8 months. That is the real problem. 
Our government has already made announcements in the transport and energy sectors, and also in our budget. We are about to make an announcement to regulate the industry. This is something that has never been done in the long 13 years since the Bloc Québécois first came here.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Kyoto protocol, Quebec is asking that its efforts since 1990 be taken into account. By all indications, the federal government is not going to use 1990 as a reference year, but is going to use 2006 instead, which will totally ignore the environmental efforts made by industry in Quebec.
Does the minister realize that he is penalizing Quebec twice because not only does his inaction harm Quebec companies, but his plan also ignores the efforts they have already made?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, for 16 long years, since the early days of the Bloc Québécois, not enough work has been done on this matter. It is our government that is preparing to regulate industry and it is our government that has made a real effort to work with Quebec and the other provinces. It is our government that said that the money requested by the Bloc Québécois was not enough for Quebec. It is our government that is taking action to help all the provinces reduce greenhouse gases.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the minister has a rather bizarre approach. It is bizarre and unfair.
Does the minister realize that by moving the reference year to 2006, he is in fact compensating the polluters, such as the major oil companies, and punishing those who have made an effort in the past?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Montreal still has not seen our plan for regulating industry. When he sees the plan, he will realize that it is one of the best efforts in the world.
Our government is taking action. We have already made some good announcements in terms of programs, initiatives and the money that will help people reduce greenhouse gases. We will continue to work with Quebec and we will continue to work with all the other provinces.
AfghanistanMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week the NDP asked the government about negotiations with the United Arab Emirates to send some of their soldiers to Kandahar and including Leclerc main battle tanks and two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles and self-propelled guns.
Why has the government gone outside of NATO? Is this an attempt to create a Bush-style troop surge for this spring? We need a clear answer from the government.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member that there are 11 countries beyond NATO in Afghanistan, all contributing to the security and a better life for Afghan people. We would encourage other countries to join the UN NATO-led effort to make the lives of Afghan people better in the future.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals began this mission and both the Conservatives and the Liberals have kept us there.
If over 500 Canadian reservists are headed to Kandahar next February, is this not an escalation? If it is not an escalation, then what is? The government's direction in Afghanistan seems clear. It wants to have a surge in forces, increasing combat and more firepower. 
The question is, why is Canada going so far beyond what other NATO forces consider to be acceptable, despite what the minister said today?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the problem in Afghanistan is the Taliban. The hon. member's party is for withdrawing completely from Afghanistan now. If we did that, the Taliban would take over completely and they would enforce their murderous regime again, where women would have no rights, children would not go to school, cultural institutions would be destroyed, and in the soccer stadiums every week we would have public executions.
That party, the NDP, claims to be for human rights, and it is working in exactly the opposite way.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, news reports are suggesting that Canada is now calling up 500 reservists for combat duty in Afghanistan. Canadians are trying to understand what is happening with this mission.
Yesterday the Prime Minister had an opportunity to provide clarity to our troops, to Canadians and to our NATO allies. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to throw around insults rather than simply say that our troops will end their combat role in southern Afghanistan in February 2009.
Why will the government not tell us its real plan?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, our real plan is to make the lives of Afghan people better. It is to bring security and to improve development and governance. In all of those three areas there is steady progress. That is our real secret plan.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, our troops have served honourably in Afghanistan for seven years and have carried out major combat operations over the past three years. We are committed to doing so until February 2009. Today, we have to give NATO a clear response concerning our future involvement so that an effective changing of the guard can take place. 
The government must inform our allies immediately that we will cease combat operations in February 2009. What is it waiting for?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer clarity to the Afghan people. We are there beside them. We are helping them. We will try to make their lives better and offer security, more development and better governance.
Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, effective diplomacy, defence and development are essential to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people to achieve success in this mission.
The Conservative government is spending on development only one-tenth of the money it spends on defence. Why has the government failed our troops and the Afghan people so miserably by not providing the effective aid our troops need to achieve success in the south?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very misplaced. In fact, the Minister of International Cooperation and I were in Afghanistan last week and we saw for ourselves. We met with the people we have helped.
The claim by the hon. member is not very factual and is very misleading. The people of Afghanistan are very happy and thankful for all of the work that Canada and the NATO countries are doing to help them. 
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, our troops are doing an outstanding job in southern Afghanistan, but the government is not supporting them with enough effective reconstruction aid on the ground in the areas of operation. We know this mission will not be successful unless there is enough aid deployed on the ground where the troops are. 
Let us be more specific. How much aid has the government budgeted from now until 2009 in Kandahar?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to talk about the $1.2 billion that we have promised to spend until 2011. Let us not cut it back to 2009. We know that reconstruction will last beyond 2009. That is a given. 
These people and the democratically elected government of Afghanistan have asked for our help. We must help them.
Public SafetyMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Public Safety announced his intention to proceed with a review of the operations of Canada's correctional system. To conduct the review, he has appointed Ontario's former solicitor general, Rob Sampson, who was behind the first privatization of a Canadian prison.
Does the government not realize that by appointing this person to review the correctional system, it is introducing a bias to both the process and the conclusions of the inquiry?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this new government is committed to ensuring a fair and effective corrections system with a priority to protect Canadians. That is why, as promised, we are undertaking a review of our corrections system.
 Mr. Sampson, the former minister of corrections for the Ontario government, will chair the panel and will be joined by four others. The terms of reference clearly exclude the consideration of the introduction of privately run penitentiaries.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, should we interpret the Minister of Public Safety's selection as an indicator of his true intention, which is to do the same thing with Canada's correctional system, that is, privatize it?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member did not clearly understand what I said. 
In addition to Mr. Sampson, members of that panel are: Serge Gascon; Ian Glen, Q.C.; Chief Clarence Louie, Oliver, B.C.; and Sharon Rosenfeldt.
More specifically in answer to his question, the terms of reference clearly exclude the consideration of the introduction of privately run penitentiaries.
FinanceMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, representatives from major Canadian banks appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. I asked them if they were willing to make available their figures on their costs, prices and profit margins on ATM transactions. My question was met with a long, ominous silence. 
Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Bloc Québécois that, unless they are provided with these figures, parliamentarians will not be able to do their jobs properly?
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the member has a problem with the banks, he had better talk to the banks. The fact of the matter is that this government has engaged in constructive dialogue with the banks on the subject of ATMs and the fees.
 The banks have been very responsive. They have in fact guaranteed ATM access in colleges and universities. They have unveiled new accounts with lower or no fees for seniors and students. They have improved access for the disabled.
We are very pleased with that response. We believe it will benefit Canadians. That is the important thing.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, instead of doing advertising for the banks, the minister should consider this: the members will have to determine whether Parliament should legislate ATM fees. To make that determination, members of Parliament will need the cost, price and profit margin figures associated with these transactions. 
Does the Minister of Finance intend to amend the Competition Act to require banks to submit figures to the Commissioner of Competition, thereby putting an end to the voluntary approach once and for all? 
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have made sure that competition and choice work for Canadians with respect to banking fees of ATMs. I encourage consumers to compare packages and services offered by the major banks by visiting the website of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, where they will see information that will be helpful to them.
Softwood LumberMr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on an issue that I hope he will take very seriously. Thousands of jobs have been lost, local economies devastated, and forestry workers and their families are running out of time and options. 
The Leader of the Opposition has shown leadership. He has called for a national forestry summit to bring stakeholders together, to work together, and to address this crisis together.
Will the Prime Minister stand up for our forest communities and workers by calling for a national forestry summit now? We need the Prime Minister to take leadership on this urgent crisis.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I might remind this House that we have the opportunity, and we actually had the opportunity yesterday, to meet with the Americans and discuss this.
 The only reason that we can actually sit down and have a conversation about this is because of the softwood lumber agreement that was put together by this government. If we did not have that in place, we would be back in litigation. I know that is where the Liberals would like to take us, to tear up that agreement and go back to litigation. What does that do for our industry?
Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, forestry workers need answers now. We are witnessing the rapid decline of the Conservative softwood lumber deal with the U.S. The seven year deal is actually probably a seven month deal. Export charges now exceed the previous U.S. duties. No wonder the forest industry is worse off now than before this ill-fated deal was signed. 
With thousands of jobs lost, an industry in crisis and a trade deal that the U.S. is abandoning before the ink is dry, will the Prime Minister call for a national forestry summit now? My leader has. Why not the Prime Minister?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we will take that under advisement, but let me tell the member that we are hearing support from all of the provinces that supported that agreement. They are working with their local industries. There are more people employed than there would have been under a Liberal-suggested softwood lumber agreement that never did take place, with 20 years of litigation. 
We have industry that is employed. We have an agreement that is in place. We have a consultation that is taking place.
The BudgetMichael Savage: Mr. Speaker, now that independent economists have finally been allowed to see all the budget information from the finance department, they too are coming to some very negative conclusions for Nova Scotia.
An economics professor at Acadia University has concluded that this budget will cost the province $1 billion. This is not the rosy picture the government had painted. This broken promise will have real effects in Nova Scotia for years to come.
The Prime Minister has deliberately and purposely broken his promise to Nova Scotia. What negotiations are under way now with Premier MacDonald to fix this broken trust?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, of course the member is deliberately wrong. He knows very well that the government fully and completely honoured the Atlantic accord with Nova Scotia and will continue to honour that accord, by the way, until the expiry of the agreement.
There is a new formula for equalization that in fact enriches Nova Scotia even more. We have allowed the province to opt into that new system at its choice and still go back to the accord next year. The member knows we have been more than fair and have kept every promise we have made to Nova Scotia.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, the government betrayed the Atlantic accord. A billion dollars may not be much to a Prime Minister who can afford a palm-reading nose-puffer, but it is a lot to the people of Nova Scotia.
The previous Liberal government signed the Atlantic accord deals in 2005 and lived up to its word. The Conservative government has done the opposite. It broke its promise to Atlantic Canadians and the consequences are severe. Already, potential Conservative candidates in Atlantic Canada are fleeing for cover and abandoning their non-progressive Conservative government.
When will this betrayal end for the people of Atlantic Canada?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I guess the betrayal of the truth is all that the Liberals can come up with, because in fact the member knows very well that every single promise to Nova Scotia was kept and that the Atlantic accord has been fully honoured and will be fully honoured by the government.
 He knows that. I just wish he had some respect for the truth when he talks to his constituents.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell tabled a bill that proposes removing the Canadian Wheat Board from access to information coverage, ending the transparency and accountability that the Federal Accountability Act finally put into place.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board confirm the government's commitment to accountability and respond to this Liberal Senate bill?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): I certainly can, Mr. Speaker. 
I too was shocked to hear that the Liberals were trying to rob farmers of their right to know how their money is being spent by the Wheat Board monopoly. What do the Liberals have to hide? What do they have against farmers? Why are they trying to turn the Canadian Wheat Board into a secret society for their friends?
We will continue to defend farmers. We will continue to advance accountability. We will continue to get the job done.
Financial InstitutionsChris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Hamilton Mountain, hard-working families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. While the rich are getting richer, ordinary Canadians are seeing everything go up except their incomes. Nothing illustrates this more than the absurd situation where banks are posting profits of $19 billion but are still charging students, seniors and hard-working Canadians to access their own money at ATMs.
Will the Minister of Finance put people before profit and pass the NDP's legislation to put an end to ATM fees?
Diane Ablonczy:  Mr. Speaker, the member knows that constructive dialogue with the banks has made real progress. The Bank of Montreal is extending a fee waiver on plans for seniors and students. The TD Bank will guarantee ATMs for all students. New account fees have been unveiled by the Royal Bank of Canada and the HSBC. The CIBC has also pledged to have better access for the disabled.
Progress is being made on this because of constructive dialogue, not the kinds of accusations that the NDP keeps throwing around.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, my question was not about access to ATMs. It was about the cost of that access. 
Our bill, Bill C-429, demonstrates that the government does have the power to act to end ATM fees but that the minister is abdicating his responsibility to protect ordinary Canadians. 
As former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney once said to John Turner, “You, sir, had a choice”. The minister is choosing not to help hard-working Canadians. He can but he will not.
Will the government do the right thing today and act on the power invested in its office?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the banks have been very responsive in meeting the concerns of people who have a problem with accessing the ATMS and perhaps do not have the financial resources, such as seniors and students.
We believe that it is not up to government to tell the banks what they should charge for a particular service to Canadians. We believe it is up to the consumer to choose. Consumers have choice and that is what we have ensured. I know the NDP does not really like choice, but that is what--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Labrador.
The Prime MinisterMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians speculated for months whether the PM was sporting enough eyeliner to make an eighties rock band proud. 
Today we learned that he has been consulting the stars and looking into a crystal ball, all with help from his personal clairvoyant, his psychic makeup artist, our own northern Zsa Zsa Gabor. It is enough to make one blush.
The Prime Minister of Canada goes from the Canadian Alliance to the psychic alliance. 
Why are the Conservatives not telling taxpayers that their T4s go a long way for the Prime Minister's powder, mascara and daily palm readings?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I knew he was going to ask that question.
Nobody in this government is consulting JoJo but I have had suggestions that perhaps I should consult Cojo.
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, we now know the Prime Minister's personal stylist and spiritualist is on the public payroll. He thought this blemish would stay concealed. One would think the Prime Minister would blush with embarrassment at being caught out on such inconsistency. It strikes at the foundation of everything he supposedly ever stood for. It contradicts the makeup of his supposed fiscal responsibility. It just does not gel with the Canadian public.
How can the Prime Minister justify stiffing the Canadian taxpayer for his vanity?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I am answering this question tells you what a great country this is.
 I know my mother would never have dreamed, and certainly very few people would have ever believed that a person like myself could rise to the vaulted position of minister of fashion and style for Canada.
SportsMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Hockey Canada's credo speaks of sportsmanship, and the development of respect for all people by all participants. It also speaks of hockey opportunities for all people regardless of age, gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation, and in both official languages. 
Since there is now evidence that hockey player Shane Doan uttered racist insults during a match against the Montreal Canadiens on December 13, 2005, can the Secretary of State (Sport) confirm that she demanded justification from Hockey Canada for its decision to include this individual on Team Canada's roster for the Men's World Ice Hockey Championships in Russia next week?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any of those comments but I am sure we would be happy to look into them and get back to him.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, Hockey Canada's mission is to lead, develop, and promote positive hockey experiences. Hockey Canada believes in the country of Canada, its hockey traditions and the pride in representing this tradition around the world.
Does the Conservative government condone racism in sports, or does it agree with the mission statement and credo of Hockey Canada, an organization that is partially funded by the Government of Canada? Does the Conservative government believe that these values should be enforced by all Canadian sports federations?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, racism and all forms of discrimination are completely unacceptable. I am sure all members of this House can agree on that.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government claims to defend the interests of cash crop producers in Quebec. At their annual general meeting, however, the Secretary of State for Agriculture was very vague and refused to commit to the solutions the producers themselves have come up with.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain how his strategy, which is based solely on subsidizing the biofuels industry, can help cash crop producers out of the crisis they are in and protect them against other countries' direct subsidies?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As he said, this government is engaging in a dialogue with producers. Incredible announcements have been made. I am talking about $1 billion: $400 million to be paid directly to farmers to help increase small crops and $600 million to set up a savings account that will provide predictable funding, something producers have long been calling for. That is delivering the goods.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, federal funding has to be flexible to be effective. Does the secretary not agree that the solution lies in funding the companion programs put in place by Quebec and the provinces, which would better address the needs of each crop, by region, a principle supported not only by the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, but by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? We are still waiting for him to deliver the goods.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as my friend is aware, the provincial, territorial and federal agriculture ministers met last week. I can tell you one thing: the $600 million savings account in which the federal government is investing has been very well received by the provinces. That is flexibility. That is meeting the needs of farmers across Canada.
International AidHon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United Nations held a very important meeting seeking hard contributions to a United Nations-African Union mission to Darfur.
Countries as diverse as Egypt, the United States and others are willing to put hard assets on the ground for this mission.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At the UN meeting yesterday, what specifically did Canada contribute to the mission in Darfur to stop the genocide in that beleaguered part of Sudan?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member opposite for his ongoing and persistent interest in pursuit of all means and manner to end the violence for the people in Darfur. I know this is an issue in which he is very familiar.
Canada has made contributions and will continue to do so in real concrete fashion. We have contributed greatly in terms of the heavy lift capacity necessary to the transport of all means of humanitarian aid. We have as well contributed significantly to the training that is in place.
The member knows that the transition is now happening between African Union forces and UN forces, and Canada will be there.
Dairy IndustryMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dairy industry is facing serious challenges and is concerned about the increasing use of milk protein concentrates that are being imported.
On February 9 the minister announced that the government initiated negotiations under article 28 of GATT at the WTO to restrict imports of these concentrates.
Last Friday, the member for Malpeque issued a press release on milk protein concentrates saying that we are stalling on helping farmers and that we have yet to launch a process officially.
Would the Secretary of State for Agriculture tell the House what action has been taken?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as always, the member for Malpeque has his facts wrong. In fact, while he was sending out press releases, I was announcing to the Quebec dairy producers that our government had completed our article 28 notification to the WTO.
However, that is okay because farmers know that when it comes to defending supply management, the Liberals offer them press releases while the Conservatives deliver the goods and take real action.
International AidPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the world's worst humanitarian crisis is in Darfur where we are watching a genocide in slow motion with documented cases of ethnic murder, assault, rape and human dislocation.
This week we were given a window of opportunity for which we have been waiting four years: an agreement between the United Nations-African Union and the Government of Sudan that would allow the deployment of up to 3,000 UN troops, police officers, civilian staff and equipment to Darfur.
 What additional contributions will the government make to support this vitally important mission?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows well that Canada has been very active, in fact one of the most active countries in terms of our contribution to date. We will continue to look for ways to add further support to the AMIS mission. He knows as well that Canada was active as far as the seeking of the fragile peace agreement necessary for all of this humanitarian aid effort to continue.
He knows that Canada has always been a very generous nation. Our CIDA officials, our diplomatic officials, our military officials as far as training, and all contributions to Sudan will continue.
Paul Dewar: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is simply not good enough. We need additional support. We have all been bystanders in the horror that is Darfur.
The UN will need up to six months to get the peacekeepers in place in Darfur. We must start now.
In the words of Churchill, “It is no use saying we are doing our best. We have got to succeed in doing what is necessary”.
Will the minister do what is necessary immediately to fill the need in Darfur to protect civilians now? The time is now, not--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way mean to diminish the hon. member's passion for this but Canada has not been a bystander. Canada has been very active with respect to the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan. We have been active in every way possible.
The problem is of course that the government of al-Bashir, the Government of Sudan, has been very resistant to international aid and very resistant to the United Nations mission having its full impact on the humanitarian crisis there.
Having said that, Canada will continue to participate in every way possible and continue to look for ways to make our values, our principles and our humanitarian aid take effect for the long-suffering people of Darfur.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I gather from the hon. minister's responses that the government has not made a contribution to this mission that is coming up. The minister speaks about the past. 
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to ask the hon. minister a very simple question. We can contribute 60 military personnel who are desperately needed right now for the African Union mission in Darfur. Is he willing to authorize that or will we simply send the tanks that the hon. Minister of National Defence wants to send some years in the future?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is sincere. His sarcasm is not lost on anyone when he makes these types of statements.
He knows full well that Canada has made significant contributions in the past and that we will continue to do so. 
I am not going to give the member a 30 second recitation of everything that has already happened and everything that will happen in the future. His position would be much more sincere if he would cooperate and bring forward meaningful solutions as opposed to just his rhetoric that he throws around daily.
AfghanistanMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of International Cooperation and her parliamentary secretary, the member for Macleod, were in Afghanistan. They announced close to $20 million for new projects that will help the most vulnerable people of Afghanistan, women and children. They were also able to visit ongoing projects both in Kabul and Kandahar. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House the results they saw in Afghanistan and how our contribution makes a big difference for the Afghan people?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we were able to see the results of projects that the Minister of International Cooperation had announced during her first visit to Afghanistan in October. We met with several women's groups and women's entrepreneurs, benefiting from microfinanced programs. We saw the pride they take in being able to control their own destinies.
 Most of all, we were able to go outside the wire from Kandahar and visit a community development council. There are over 16,000 of these councils, working democratically to rebuild their country. They want our help and we can provide our help.
Canadian Wheat BoardHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after receiving only 13.8% in its discredited barley plebiscite, the government has been attempting to sell something it calls a barley clearinghouse to replace the single desk of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, for attending invitation only meetings to sell this proposal, farmers are paid $100 in cash just to show up.
Why has the government had to use Canadian taxpayer money, in $100 bills, to coerce farmers to even listen to the government's proposed alternative to the Wheat Board?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the plebiscite process we used was verified by an independent firm, and it was conducted very seriously.
Canada's new government believes that western grain farmers should have the freedom to choose how they market their grain while preserving a strong, viable Wheat Board for those who wish to use it. Sixty-two per cent of barley growers have asked for choice, and we are listening. Our department remains committed to doing everything necessary to make this happen.
Status of WomenMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1993, thousands of female nurses from the Philippines have come to Canada under the live-in caregiver program to take care of seniors, disabled persons and children.
These women have very few nursing tasks. They have become cheap domestic helpers for people who have the financial wherewithal, and they are losing their qualifications.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women allow her own government to perpetuate this injustice towards thousands of women, if women are so important to her?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these sorts of situations are obviously of great concern to us. When we bring people to this country, they come here with the expectation of full and equal employment. That is what we demand of the employers. This is why we work with our partners right across the country to try to ensure that those situations do exist to protect these people.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Alejandro Ferreiro, Minister of Economic and Development of Chile.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth IIPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to remind all members that tomorrow is the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen's 81st birthday. I am sure all members of the House would like to join in wishing her best wishes on her birthday.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!

Routine Proceedings
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour, and it is a personal honour, to table in both official languages, copies of the report entitled “On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property: Report of the Ministerial Representative”.
Committees of the HouseGary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I have today the honour to present, in both official languages, the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 43rd report later this day.
Contraventions ActKeith Martin:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-431, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana).
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour and partial disappointment that I introduce this bill today. The bill calls for the decriminalization of the simple possession of marijuana. I say disappointed because this should have happened before. 
The purpose of the bill is to allow casual users to possess small amounts of marijuana. Marijuana possession would still be illegal, but the person would be fined similar to receiving a traffic ticket, instead of having to go through courts if they are caught through simple possession.
I hope the money saved from this could then be used for prevention, treatment and education for children, so they will not take up marijuana and other illegal drugs and resources for rehabilitation. This will also severe the tie between the casual user and the organized crime gangs that are responsible for grow operations, which are the primary vector of funding for organized crime.
I hope this private member's will also allow us to open up a rational debate on drug policy in Canada, a debate that our police, the public, health care workers and all Canadians need for the sake of our children and all Canadians and for the sake of our safety, security and health.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Seniors' Day ActPeter Stoffer:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-432, An Act respecting a Seniors’ Day.
Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I get to rise to thank my mother for this great idea. She is in beautiful Richmond, British Columbia. At the tender age of 84, I thought it would be nice, on behalf of her and all seniors, to have a special day in recognition of their contribution to Canadian society. 
This bill would give recognition on the first Sunday in February in perpetuity to all seniors, especially those seniors who served in our Canadian Forces and those who looked after our veterans. 
We think this bill could pass very quickly. We would seek unanimous consent to quickly pass what I think is one of the finest pieces of legislation in the House of Commons.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseGary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs introduced earlier this day concerning the membership of committees of the House now be concurred in.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Gary Goodyear: (Motion agreed to)
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing House Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, February 28, be concurred in.
I must admit that it is an honour for me to seek concurrence of this report, and I will read the motion:
 That this House take note of the importance of the contribution that the ethnocultural communities make to the prevention of crime, social reintegration of offenders and rapid growth of safer communities and that it recognize the need to ensure every means and resource to allow police departments, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board and the ethnocultural communities to respond better to the new needs of the increasingly diversified offender and prison population. 
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights held a special meeting to hear testimony from various experts from police forces, our judicial and justice administration system, and experts working in the field with communities that are victims of violent and foul crime, but which are also communities where these delinquents live, where they are made and trained, in a manner of speaking. 
The committee members unanimously passed this report and this recommendation. The committee members understood that if our government and Canadian society truly want to tackle crime in our communities, if they truly want to reduce crime—especially violent crime—and if they want to ensure that Canadians are safer in their communities and their homes, then greater effort is needed. Of course we will have to pursue the efforts made by our police services for preventing crime, for finding criminals; our crown attorneys still have to try the defendants; our judges still have to make rulings and decide whether the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt and whether the defendant did indeed commit the criminal act he is accused of; our correctional services have to continue to work with those who receive jail sentences; and our parole services have to continue their work. But more is needed.
Crime prevention starts in our communities. We need to implement policies and programs to help communities tackle this issue, to really focus on prevention and discover how this can be achieved. The former Liberal government understood that and had started working on crime prevention. It went beyond the traditional method—dependence on our police service—by involving the communities.
Year after year, data from Statistics Canada show that cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and linguistic diversity is on the rise. Some 25% of the Montreal population is non francophone and the large majority of this 25% is anglophone.
Moreover, the most recent data shows that, in the anglophone community, racial and ethnocultural diversity is much greater than in urban communities from other provinces. It also indicates that, despite an educational level much higher than that of the average Canadian, ethnocultural communities are underemployed and underrepresented in the labour force. When members of ethnocultural communities and visible minorities have a job, they are often underemployed, in the sense that the quality of their job does not reflect their academic training and work experience. This is particularly true with immigrants, but it is also the case for members of visible or ethnocultural minorities who were born here, in Canada. 
All the studies also show that when we make resources and means available to communities, these communities and the surrounding areas experience a real drop in crime. I urge all hon. members to read a book published in 2006 by Irvin Waller. 
The title of this book is Less Law, More Order: The Truth About Reducing Crime.
Any government, any political party, which wishes to claim that it is serious about reducing crime has to look at all of the elements of crime. Those elements are not just at the level of arrest, at the level of prosecution, at the level of sentencing, at the level of incarceration and possibly rehabilitation subsequently, and the reinsertion into the community. It is also about prevention.
The studies are consistent that a dollar spent in prevention can easily produce $50 and more in the reduction in cost at the arrest, prosecution, incarceration and parole section of the dollars that we spend there.
Irvin Waller's book is actually a compilation of major studies that have been done with thousands and thousands of children in the United States over the last 40 years, in the U.K. and in Canada. It has shown clearly that if the government and Canada wishes to be serious about getting tough on crime and effectively reducing crime, we need to invest in parenting and child development. 
We need to invest in helping kids to succeed by the use of mentors, by providing resources to our schools, our colleges and our universities. We need to invest in making our schools safe for our children. What does that mean?
We know that there has been a rise in bullying, for instance, in our schools. We began to notice it in the 1990s. At that point in time, we found it primarily in the high schools, but today we are finding evidence of bullying in elementary schools. 
One of the ways we can ensure that our schools are safe is to invest in our schools. We can provide our schools with resources to, for instance, put into place programs of non-violent conflict resolution. That is one example. We can give training to the professionals who work in the schools to enable them to identify the children and the youth who may be at risk of becoming delinquent, of becoming offenders, or of becoming bullies.
We also need to invest in keeping youth in the communities. We have to ensure that youth have available to them jobs that are more attractive than crime. 
Studies have shown consistently that ethnocultural and visible minority communities are at higher risk of being victims of crime than in larger communities. For instance, we are talking about the rise of street gangs today. Where are many of the potential members of these street gangs being recruited? They are being recruited in the very communities which are at risk. Yet those communities, which wish to work on this issue, which wish to invest in their children, are not being provided with sufficient resources. 
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you some of the testimony that we received from a young gentleman, Harry Delva, who works for la Maison d'Haiti, which works in the street. It has caseworkers in the street working with the parents and the children to ensure that children do not become eligible recruits for street gangs in the Saint-Michel area of Montreal and Montreal North, but also to assist parents so that they are provided with the resources, parenting skills et cetera.
Harry Delva had this to say very clearly about prevention:
 Getting back to prevention, yes, I think we have to work very hard to do it. For a very long time, we've been trying to work with youths in the Saint-Michel and Montreal North neighbourhoods doing prevention. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to fight this phenomenon, this plague. This phenomenon has been promoted on TV with billions of dollars, with hip hop music and artists like 50 Cent and others, but it's unfortunately very difficult for the various community groups, which are in the field, which every day experience what the youths are experiencing and exactly report their day-to-day experience to us. 
 Unfortunately, we can't find the funding to be able to keep caseworkers who can continue working with these youths. Today, we've definitely realized that we have to start earlier. Unfortunately, we have to start in kindergarten, with children five or six years old, because they already have a red bandanna or a blue bandanna in their pocket and they already know... I don't mean these youths belong to gangs, but they already know their allegiance. That means that, if they belong to the Bloods, they know they have to hate and detest the Crips, and if they belong to the Crips, they know they have to hate and detest the Bloods-- 
There is an expert in organized crime who has been used by our courts across Canada to assist in providing evidence so that a judge can determine whether or not the individuals who have been accused of being part of a criminal organization, that organization is in fact a criminal organization. His name is Retired Sergeant Guy Ouellette. He has been retired from the Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec provincial police, for the last six years. He said:
 It's not normal for a guy like Harry Delva, who, as he told you, is in the field in Montreal North and Ville Saint-Michel to tell you that, every day, in the pool of emerging street gangs he sees youths of five, six, nine, 10 and 15 years of age, which corresponds to the real police definition of street gangs. However, every six months, he's forced to fight with various departments in order to authorize a program to train a successor. There's nothing permanent in his work, and he has no security. However, it's announced there will be 2,500 police officers or more and $10 million to invest in prevention programs. But, every six months, he is forced to fight for $90,000 in funding. And yet he's the one who has them in his face very day. 
The purpose of the motion passed unanimously by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was to show all the members of this House—including government members—the urgent and pressing need to put more resources at the disposal of the communities. Indeed, these communities must, to some degree, look after their own safety, after crime issues and after crime prevention. This will ensure that children are raised in good and quiet communities that support their development.
 Ethnocultural communities must—not “should”—be involved in crime prevention from the very beginning. This government and this society have an obligation to take note, as the motion says, of “the importance of the contribution that the ethnocultural communities make to the prevention of crime, social reintegration of offenders and rapid growth of safer communities”. In other words, we must recognize the need to use all the means and resources available. 
I also want to mention another point very quickly. I talked about the need to invest in our children. All the studies show that investing in our children means investing in early childhood development and daycare programs, and providing means to families.
That is the first thing. Second, it is also about housing. It is about ensuring access to programs for the poorest, the most marginal, and who are they? They are the ethnocultural communities and visible minorities. The level of poverty is the highest there. Our first nations also have these problems. It is about ensuring that these communities have access to programs that they can help design, in early childhood development, child care, investing in our schools, investing in conflict resolution, investing in our communities and our community organizations in the ethnocultural communities, in the visible minority communities. It is about ensuring that they can participate all the way along in prevention, in the administration of justice, in policing. The police use the majority of the organizations in these communities that work on these issues as their experts, as their entry for intelligence, and yet it is amazing that those very organizations literally have to beg for resources from the government. 
 I urge this House to adopt the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I urge the government to make sure that its policies and programs are improved to provide the--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Ottawa South.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I was very moved by the comments of my colleague. I have learned quite a bit about the connection between a number of things, one obviously being the need to invest in prevention at the early stages so that we can reap the huge rewards at the back end and reduce costs in terms of prosecution, incarceration, parole and other expenses that might flow.
I would like to ask my colleague about some of the learning she may have derived from the professor's book she cited. Some of the comments she made would shock viewers and Canadians, that five- and six-year-olds are now either participating in a gang or ostensibly are members at a very young age, and are being inculcated way too early in either the Crips or the Bloods.
I find this interesting because here we have a government that has just appointed a former minister from the Ontario government who was the first minister to privatize a jail in my home province, something which was rescinded by the new Government of Ontario. 
I want to get a sense from my colleague of what exactly is going on here. How important is this now to get to the youngest ages in Canadian society so we can reap the important rewards to reduce crime and the associated costs?
[Interjection]
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his question because it provides me with some time to expound on the issue of investing in our young children.
The phenomenon of street gangs began in the United States in the 1980s and has now moved its way into Canada, and now into Montreal. Originally the gangs were made up of young men. In the 1980s the overwhelming majority of the membership of the Crips and the Bloods which appeared in the Los Angeles region of California were young men. They were of legal age, but as time went on, we began to see younger and younger and younger members recruited. 
The phenomenon began to appear in Canada toward the mid and late 1990s and it has become a real issue. Initially in the Montreal area we saw it in Montreal north and Saint-Michel, but the street gangs have now moved into my riding and I am on the west side of the island. Just to situate it geographically, Montreal west and Saint-Michel are on the east side of Montreal Island in the centre and north. My riding is in the southwest and part of it is the west island. I have spoken with police and with the community organizations on the ground. The street gangs are now in NDG and they have now moved further west in my riding into Lachine.
Let us turn to the issue of the young children and young people in their teens and early twenties who have been recruited into the gangs or who have become wannabes. We already know there are higher rates of pregnancies among young people who have dropped out of school, et cetera. The young woman may be the girlfriend of someone who is either in a gang or considers himself to be a wannabe and she dresses her three year old in the gang colours of her boyfriend or her partner. 
This is the phenomenon that Harry Delva talked about. We already know that children are very intelligent and have such fertile minds. I remember that my daughter, who is now 14, at five years old was actually teaching me how to use the DVD. 
We have to ensure that the parents of these young children are provided with the proper resources. They must be provided with parenting skills. We must ensure they are provided with affordable housing, social housing. They must be provided with the appropriate programs.
I can talk about one program in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine which is called Elizabeth House. Elizabeth House receives funding from the provincial government, and part of that funding obviously comes from the social transfer from the federal government, in order to provide, for example, parenting skills, cooking skills, budgeting skills to young mothers. There are two homes where these young women can live.
The problem is there are gaps and when the young women have to leave, if they are unable to get into social housing, or even if they get into social housing, their development and skills are not necessarily at the level where they really can raise their children autonomously. Therefore, working with Elizabeth House a number of community activists and I supported a plan for a transitional home. That home saw the light of day in December 2005 in NDG, where? On Benny Farm. Benny Farm, which formerly was veteran housing, has been renovated. In many cases it is green renovation. The architects have won prestigious international prizes for the work that has been done.
There are now a number of units in one building where young women who leave Elizabeth House with their families can go. The children are under five years of age. They are provided with the additional assistance that they require. They are encouraged to go back to school or to seek the skills they need in order to become employable and then they are provided with assistance in job seeking. Once they are able to stand on their feet, they are assisted in finding their own place off the area.
The point, though, is there are virtually no programs that the Maison Transitionnelle 03, which is what it is called, can find to pay for the program and case workers. It is not just young women, I should say. A young man is there who lived, from the time he was two years old, in foster homes and never felt that he had an identity or was worth anything. He has several children. He lives there and for the first time in his life feels like he is someone who can actually contribute. Those are the kinds of needs that the government needs to be addressing and is not addressing. 
The national crime prevention strategy that the Liberal government put in place in 1998, I believe it was, needs to continue. It needs to be expanded. It needs to have a component of sustainable, or in French “durable”, core funding. 
These organizations need to know that in six months' time or in three years' time they are not suddenly going to have to be scrambling to develop some project to get another year or two years funding. They need to know that they will be able to continue to provide the support in the ethnocultural and visible minority communities, but also in the wider communities.
In Lachine the overwhelming majority of the population is francophone de souche, white francophone Quebeckers. That is where the level of poverty is high and the dropout rate is high. Guess what? When one looks at the criminality rate in Lachine, that is where the criminality rate is high.
The 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is clear. It is making clear recommendations to the House and I hope that each and every member in the House will vote in favour of concurrence.
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks. I know that she has been a longstanding member of the justice committee, but I also listened to the evidence of the witness that she was citing, the youth worker from Montreal, and he had some powerful testimony for our committee. 
I noticed that the hon. member, although citing some of the things that the witness said, left out the fact that that witness appeared at our justice committee to support a bill that the hon. member opposes. 
Here is someone who works with youth, who works in an environment where there are a lot of gangs. We heard his evidence about recruitment into gangs and the kids wearing the red or blue bandanas. He provided such powerful testimony, but he said we should support what the government was doing with our justice bills, our bills to get tough on crime. 
I find it most interesting that the hon. member left that out of her remarks when she was talking on this issue. She left out the fact that this person was supporting a government bill that she opposes, so I would ask that she comment on that if she gets an opportunity.
The motion today speaks to the importance of the contribution that ethnocultural communities make to the prevention of crime, social reintegration of offenders, and rapid growth of safer communities. It asks the House to recognize the need to ensure every means and resource to allow police departments, Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, and the ethnocultural communities to respond better to the new needs of the increasingly diversified offender and prisoner population.
In this regard, I wish to recognize the importance of the contribution of ethnocultural communities in a specific context, namely, in helping to ensure the national security of Canada in a manner that respects the fundamental rights of all Canadians.
In this regard, I wish to single out especially the work of the cross-cultural round table on security. The recent report that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act from the other place discussed the cross-cultural round table on security and made recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The government is currently considering this report. 
It is not my intention to discuss the Senate's recommendation at this time. My purpose today is to summarize the work of the round table members to date as an important example of how members of ethnocultural communities can contribute to a Canada that is safer because it takes action against wrongdoers, in this case terrorists, while respecting fundamental human rights.
The cross-cultural round table on security was established in February 2005. Its mandate is to engage Canadians and the Government of Canada in an ongoing dialogue on national security. The round table meets periodically with the Ministers of Public Safety, Justice and Canadian Heritage, as well as other ministers and security officials, to discuss national security matters. I had the privilege last year of attending the national round table and it was a very rewarding experience indeed.
To date, six formal meetings of the round table with senior government officials and, as mentioned above, periodically with ministers, have been held. During the last two years of operation, round table members have helped inform policy and decision-making by providing insights on security issues.
The cross-cultural round table on security has brought together 15 individuals, all volunteers I should add, from diverse ethnocultural and religious communities from across the country. While they may come from different backgrounds and different cultures, it is their commitment to human rights, to strong and safe communities, and to protecting Canada and Canadians from harm that unites them as a round table.
The diversity within its membership and the spectrum of opinions reflect the diversity and concerns of Canada's citizens. The round table is part of a pluralistic process of consultation, collaboration and learning. This is a different model from those created in Europe and Australia, which focus solely on the Muslim community. Instead, the round table is a multicultural model, which rejects the stigmatization of any one community. 
Since the round table's inception, initiatives such as the Canada Border Service Agency's fairness initiative and the RCMP's bias-free policing policy have signalled the commitment of federal agencies to ensure that the Canadian values that we respect so much are reflected in the way government officials perform their everyday duties.
The agenda that the round table members adopted for 2005-06 covered many diverse facets of national security concerns and brought many new perspectives to the understanding by all participants of the important security issues and the impact of national security measures on Canadians.
The first year the round table allowed round table members to really appreciate the multicultural nature of the round table as they did not shy away from discussing difficult issues regarding national security that often involved debates around foreign policy and religious issues.
Round table members have also facilitated numerous meetings between government and local community groups to ensure that a two-way dialogue takes place, explaining what security measures have been enacted, why and what is being done to protect all Canadians.
Equally important has been the information exchange, the listening to those who may feel there is a disproportionate impact on them from some of these measures. 
Based on feedback from round table members, security agencies are reassessing how they should interact with diverse communities, with a long term view to establishing sustained and effective relationships.
More broadly, federal government departments, including the Department of Justice and Public Safety, are also re-examining how they engage in outreach activities to Canadians on national security issues. Through their own outreach, round table members have recognized the need to build trust and understanding among Canada's diverse communities and the security agencies toward the common goal, the goal that we all share, of enhanced security.
Moving forward into 2006, the round table, through a series of community outreach activities, locally, regionally and nationally, focused on achieving strategic results in four main areas. First, beyond the government's efforts to protect its citizens, Canada's overall security depends on the responsibility and attitude of all Canadians and their desire and ability to work together to protect our communities.
Round table members recognized the need to develop and reinforce the concept of responsible citizens and underlined the responsibilities associated with being part of Canadian society, including the necessary commitment to the security of their own communities.
Round table members wish to advise government on the potential role and responsibilities of all members of Canadian society including, very importantly, youth in the security of Canada. This would also include how the government itself could support its people in this role and relationship.
Second, the London bombings which took place in July 2005 raised the notion, disturbing to all round table members, of second or third generation Canadians, born in an open and democratic society, adopting violent solutions such as suicide bombings as a means of protesting government actions.
There is no reason to believe that Canadians are immune from the conditions that led to these events. This is not an issue unique to the United Kingdom. Round table members recognized the need to better understand these concerns domestically and to dialogue with communities about understanding the conditions that could potentially lead to the adoption of extremist views and the commitment of terrorist acts or hate crimes by Canadians, particularly youth, at home or abroad.
They also recognized the need to discuss potential effective interventions to prevent such tragedies from occurring within our own borders.
Third, round table members will continue to facilitate a two-way communication regarding the implementation of Canadian government security measures and their impact on ethnocultural communities and individual members as best they can and they will continue to carry on promoting intercultural dialogue within the respective communities on local issues and concerns related to national security.
Lastly, in the event of a terrorist act in Canada or an act directed against Canadians, round table members recognized the need to be concerned with the possibility and even likelihood of community backlash and hate crimes against members of Canada's communities.
By talking with communities, strategies to deal with this scenario could be examined and developed. These would aim to strengthen community relations and mobilize communities, cultural businesses and youth groups in an effort to mitigate the fallout of a terrorist attack in Canada.
As I explained previously, the great strength of the round table lies in its multicultural makeup. Being a country with a strong sense of multiculturalism, Canada has developed and will continue to build a solid capacity for dialogue and expression in diverse communities.
In today's complex security environment, intelligence and law enforcement agencies must work with community groups to be effective. Within a multicultural country such as Canada, each round table member brings something unique to the table, and those are the diverse Canadian communities they come from. Concerns about security measures do not come from just one community or one religion. The round table, either through the rotation of new members or through its outreach activities, will seek out as many of these perspectives as possible. It is hoped that any and all impacts of this dialogue will help move Canada forward.
I will give an example. At the outreach meeting held in Calgary on March 18, 2006, the members of the security agencies had the opportunity to present to the audience the nature of the work undertaken by them and the challenge they face in this regard. Thereafter, they participated in a question and answer session. Not surprising, the audience brought up issues such as racial profiling, security certificates and the possible abuse of power by the authorities. According to the report of the round table member who organized this outreach activity, it stated:
 It was heartening to see members of the security agencies explain to what extent they strive to prevent such abuses and invite the audience to contact them in case of such occurrences. 
In addition, from this past fall to early February of this year, the round table hosted four regional symposiums aimed at seeking public views with respect to the role of Canadian society in national security. These events have provided an opportunity to bring together members of Canada's ethnocultural communities with officials from the Department of Public Safety and security agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canada Border Services Agency, as well as officials from the Department of Justice.
To summarize, input from the round table to date has led to better interaction between ethnocultural communities and the security agencies, development of improved communication approaches and products by security agencies, and improved cultural awareness and sensitivity training of security agencies' officials.
As well, the Department of Canadian Heritage through the multiculturalism program, has been an active participant in the round table.
The work of the cross-cultural round table on security is a prime example of how members of Canada ethnocultural communities can work together to dialogue with government on the impact of the current government policy and laws in a manner that exemplifies the nature of this great nation and avoid stigmatizing any one segment of Canadians.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to sit on the committee that produced this report. However, I have the privilege of coming from a family that has traditionally been open to cultural communities. I can remember that, from early in my childhood, my father would bring home people from various backgrounds to allow us to learn from their music, culture, theatre and writing. We always were very open to having people from wherever visit, and being enriched by them; it was an opportunity to get to know them better and to share their culture.
When we talk about crime in cultural communities and the desire of these communities to see their children, teenagers, young men and women, get out of crime, we talk about communities which have been consistently striving to fit in with society, in Quebec and Canada, and to really work together with police and other institutions.
On the subject of crime, there are things we do not talk about. What I would have liked the government to do is give the reasons for crime, instead of going on and on about cultural communities getting together in committees to discuss the terrorist potential of some of their own. I would rather discuss what causes crime to exist in cultural communities, because it is caused by extreme poverty. There is no social housing and no employment. 
Today, in Quebec and Canada, those least likely to find employment are people from the cultural communities, particularly visible minority cultural communities.
The vast majority of women in these communities cannot find jobs because they are unable to cope with today's very demanding labour market, and also because employers are not doing what they are supposed to do; they do not have non-discriminatory hiring policies in place. 
If these problems are not addressed and members of Parliament and legislators do not deal with poverty issues, as is their duty, crime will never be stopped. Try as they may, without help in doing what they have to do, cultural communities will never succeed in stopping crime.
Not one child born to a mother from Haiti or from countries in Africa or Latin America sat in Santa's lap and said that he wanted to become a gang member when he grew up. Not one. 
The reason why some of these children are on the street today and chose to join a street gang is because they wanted to feel valued. Obviously this is not the right way to achieve that. It is not what we wish for our children. That is often what happens when a society abandons its children and does not ensure that they have everything they need to grow and blossom in a fair and equitable environment. Instead of demanding more measures to fight crime or more prisons, we should be demanding measures to help people find a way out. We need more social housing, more jobs and more people who really have the good of their community at heart.
There are glaring examples. In Winnipeg, children and families living in poverty formed a cooperative so they could buy a house. Poor people cannot afford to buy houses. They do not have RRSPs and they cannot benefit from the home buyers' plan. Home ownership is just not accessible to them. 
These people used to live in a place where graffiti, crime and vandalism were a daily occurrence. When these people were finally able to buy a house, when these children could finally be proud to have parents who owned their own house, there was a drop in crime. 
There was a noticeable decrease in crime, even an end to crime altogether. Graffiti is no longer seen on the houses. The houses are no longer covered in graffiti because the people and children living there are proud. This is what we must keep in mind. Cultural communities can try to do everything in their power to stamp out crime, but if they are not given the tools they need, they will never succeed.
And by tools, I do not mean additional prison sentences or the imprisonment of 12-year-old children. I do not mean jailing people who commit misdeeds because they want to impress their young peers. That is not what I am talking about. Instead, I am talking about measures to help cultural communities keep their outreach workers in the street, such as the Maison d'Haïti mentioned earlier by my colleague. Communities need to have outreach workers who work on a daily basis with young people in the streets, to try to convince them to become involved in something other than crime. These youth need role models. And it is not until people get out of poverty that they can become role models. Once these mothers and fathers have decent jobs, they can get out of poverty, their children will be able to go to school and on to post-secondary, and these children will stop being marginalized because they do not have what everyone else has. This is how we should talk about reducing crime.
Unless we reduce poverty in Canada, we will never be able to reduce crime. For years now, we have been saying that we want to reduce poverty, but we still have one million children living in poverty. Given 1.5 or 1.6 children per family, that means that at least 700,000 people are living in abject poverty. That creates fertile ground for criminal activity and for children who have nothing and want what other people have. That is to be expected. 
We live in a consumer society where everything we see on television, on the Internet and all around us tells us that we have to have the nicest clothes, the best cars and the best weapons. In the United States, despite last week's tragedy, the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America are suggesting that all students should be armed to go to school. Just imagine. And they would have us think that such policies do not promote criminal activity. They are trivializing the use of guns, trivializing the fact that a gun does not have to be registered, trivializing the fact that women want the gun registry so that police officers can continue to track down people who might be inclined to misuse them. 
There are many things we can do to fight crime other than build prisons and hire people to figure out whether a private prison would be better than a public one. That was done in the United States, where the incarceration rate is seven times that of Canada. 
I am privileged to have many ethnic communities in my riding. Everywhere I go, those communities have community centres to help their young people. The centres encourage the youth to help older people and participate in choirs and basketball, baseball and soccer clubs. Even though they do not have the financial means to do it, they dig deep and do as much as they can to help their youth.
As my colleague said earlier, to fight crime, we have to give ethnic communities the necessary tools. By tools, I also mean money, because it is always about money. 
I would like to add that youth from ethnic communities are not the only ones falling prey to increasing criminal activity. Because of the media, young Quebeckers, both anglophone and francophone, also seek the notoriety achieved through criminal activity.
One way to combat youth crime might be to prohibit the media from talking about it, because whenever they run stories about young people from cultural communities, it is because they have done something wrong. The media never report on young people from cultural communities who have done something noteworthy for their community, but do talk about them when they do something wrong, as all young people are likely to do. 
A person does not have to come from a cultural community to want to assert his or her identity at 14, 15 or 16. Unfortunately, however, young people sometimes choose the wrong crowd. But if there is no one in the community to help them when this happens, I am afraid our young people will do things they will regret later. We must do everything we can as members of Parliament and legislators to give cultural communities all the tools they need and try to create more culturally diverse police forces. Only by initiating a dialogue involving institutions, communities and children can we stop the rise in violence and crime.
As I said earlier, young people do not aspire to be criminals when they get older, just as they do not necessarily aspire to be members of Parliament. They think about being happy and enjoying their childhood. But a child who, at 12, 13 or 14, already has a weapon is no longer a child, at least mentally, if not physically or emotionally. And that is even more serious, because children whose childhood is taken away from them lose their ability to wonder and to laugh for no reason. Is there anything more beautiful than an innocent child's laughter? Is there anything more beautiful to hear as a mother and grandmother? Sometimes, I stop and listen to my grandchildren laugh. Children's laughter gives us the warmest feeling we as parents and grandparents can have, because it means that our children perhaps do not have to prove to others that they are men or women. When they laugh, it is because our children perhaps do not have to prove to themselves that they can escape the abject misery they live in.
Have you ever been to Ville Saint-Michel or to Montréal-Nord, Mr. Speaker? Have you ever been to Verdun in areas where some apartment buildings are real slums, with mould on walls, with broken windows and without heat because landlords do not maintain them? Do you know what it means for a child to grow up in such a slum? No. We have the good fortune and the privilege of coming from rather well-to-do families, or if it was not the case, at least we did not live in that kind of abject poverty. We did not live in ghettos. 
Now a lot of cultural communities are ghettoized. And they are ghettoized even more when we hear statements like the one made earlier by my colleague from the Conservative Party who said that these people who live here but who are from a different culture are just thinking about committing suicide, as was the case in England, that these children want to commit suicide by killing other people. 
I do not think so. We must have more respect for cultural communities. We must meet them and get to know them better to make sure that when we say things about them, we say the right things.
Again, I hope the government will understand how important it is not to use crime to put in place measures that are totally inappropriate to deal with the problem that we are facing.
I hope the hon. members will be wise enough, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is asking, to recognize the contribution of the cultural communities and to recognize their efforts in dealing with the difficulties experienced by their children and adolescents. We must also recognize that without these cultural communities, our social fabric would not be as vibrant.
I am married to someone from Africa, from the Congo more specifically, and today it is a great pleasure and privilege for my grandchildren to talk about their ancestors and where they are from.
As long as we welcome people from other countries, our lives will be enriched. We experience the best of those who come here: their food, music, dance and literature. The freedom of spirit they have taught us, the ability to break out of our shells and exceed our limitations, has put us on the world stage. We have succeeded in doing this, in Quebec in particular, where we have a number of world renowned artists, because of the contribution from all the cultural communities that live here now and that we have come to know. Thanks to these cultural communities, we have a sense of our own worth, we recognize our own values, and we have established very enriching dialogues with the communities. 
I hope the government will very seriously consider adopting measures for decreasing poverty, increasing the stock of social housing, cutting unemployment and reducing incarceration. I hope there will be more measures for finally giving people in the cultural communities the right, the legitimacy, and the freedom to live here and prosper. That is the right of every individual under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was celebrated this week and of which all Canadians are so proud. It is not through repressive measures that we will succeed in tackling crime, but with our hearts, our hands and our open minds. We have to listen to the communities and do what we can so they can better help their children and loved ones to find success. 
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the speech by the hon. member and there is something I am interested in pursuing a little further. She mentioned that home ownership is very important in being a role model for new Canadians, as well as youth, in decreasing crime rates in neighbourhoods. 
In my riding, home ownership by individuals is at about 85%. One would think that 85% is quite high, and it is, although we would like it to be a little higher. However, even though ours is a thriving community and we might be the sixth wealthiest riding in the country in terms of household income, we still have our problems or challenges when it comes to crime.
Recently in my area, the police found out that the people in one home were dealing in counterfeit papers, including passports and other important papers. There also have been many grow ops in our area even though ours is the sixth wealthiest riding in the country.
 I understand that when an area is economically depressed it will have a larger amount of crime and problems with youth, especially where there are ethnic ghettos, as the member mentioned.
I came to Canada when I was 13 years old. My family lived in a kind of ethnic ghetto at the time, but I did not see it as an ethnic ghetto then. I did not know any better. My mother and father went to work every morning and I started work when I was 14 years old, right after we came to Canada, when I could speak very little English. Sometimes I would speak to people in sign language when asking for food or a drink, the same way MPs ask the pages in the House of Commons to get them a drink.
However, the grow ops in our area, if I may expand on that, are coming at us fast and furious. The faster they are closed down or uncovered, the faster there is another one opening up down the street. As a matter of fact, a home just around the corner from my own house was busted twice in a row within a year. Since it was last closed down in October or November, the home has been boarded up and is not being used at all.
I spoke with members of the police associations who were here the other day at the reception for the Canadian Police Association. They are asking for more support in their plight in order to tackle this sort of problem. I certainly do not want grow ops in my area or anywhere in Canada. If only we could do more about that. Maybe the member can elaborate on how we can tackle the problem of the grow ops and chemical labs that are popping up all over the country. 
I understand that people get caught, but there are people who know nothing about what is going on. People are living on the first and second floors of a 4,000 square foot home and meanwhile the basement is a grow op. They go down to the basement with water every day, but they are living on the first floor with a big plasma TV and living in luxury that someone has given to them. 
I am not sure what we can do about it, but I am sure that building more prisons, as has been suggested across the floor, is not the solution to this problem. What may help is prevention in regard to this issue rather than punishing people and putting them away for longer at the end, with more people put away in more prison spaces. I believe more in the preventative method rather than punishment at the end.
Statistics and information have told us, even at the time when I was going to university, which was many years ago, that a longer sentence is not a deterrent to them repeating the offence later on. There is a break point where it serves no purpose to keep somebody in jail for a longer period. 
Could the member comment on that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I know this is a slow Friday afternoon, but we are under questions and comments. This is a 10 minute question and comment period. The question lasted six minutes.
The hon. member has four minutes to respond.
[Interjection]
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made his point very clearly and I am pleased that he took the time to do so because it is also very important to make a distinction between different types of crime.
My colleague told us that when he was younger, his family was poor and lived in a ghetto. I believe him. In those times, I do not know if poor families had television, and if during the shows there were so many advertisements to show them what all the other children had.
This does not mean that in wealthy communities there is less crime. It only means that there is perhaps a little more idleness, disinterest and perhaps a little less involvement. I think that as adults, we have a responsibility to look out for all children, regardless of whether they are from rich, poor or multicultural communities. We have the responsibility to ensure that there is prevention. This is very true.
My grandparents used to always say, “The devil finds work for idle hands”. We were taught how to knit so that our hands were always busy. We were taught how to crochet and all sorts of other things that I loathed. I am left-handed and I really disliked all of that. The results were always terrible but we were taught to always keep busy.
I think that today we have a society where everything goes very fast, where everything is very fast. My colleague spoke earlier about television violence. There is violence on television and also in video games where you can die 20 times and then come back to life in the next second. That makes our young people think that they are immortal. When I was 14, 15 or 16 years old, I believed that I was immortal and invincible. Today, at the age of 57, I know for certain that I will die one day and that I am not invincible. It took me many years to figure that out. Until we are confronted by the realities of life that make us aware of such things, we continue to believe that we are invincible and immortal.
Video games can make us believe it for many years. Young people who are 30 or 35 play them every day and may still believe that they are immortal. Furthermore, when there are television programs such as Weeds, which sings the praises of marijuana and endorses its use, our youth will want to continue down that road.
We must realize that the most important news media for youth today are not newspapers but the Internet and television. We must take action to ensure that if we wish to have television without censorship, it must be television that is appropriate for our youth. We must be sure that our young people are learning things of importance when they watch television and not just values associated with crime.
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I remind those who have been following this debate what we are speaking to in order to draw the total context for the comments I will make.
We are talking about the Standing Order with respect to the committee's report on justice and human rights and a motion that came out of committee with respect to the contribution that ethnocultural communities can make to the prevention of crime and so on. It has been emphasized through this debate that crime is not relegated to the ethnocultural community. Crime is of concern to all communities across the country. The issue before us deals with finding the best ways to respond to crime. 
There have been broad discussions on other days with respect to the criminal justice system. I will not speak on that side because the other side of the debate with respect to the prevention of crime deals with programs and targeted strategies. Nine times out of ten they are programs to support our educational systems, our boards of education, our policing agencies, our community-based organizations across the country.
I am sure the House appreciates the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. This broader issue of crime prevention is the subject of a round table, consisting of people from all walks of life and all cultural organizations. It crosses every particular part of our communities needs. Strategies and suggestions will be coming out of that round table.
I will emphasize from my perspective as a member for a constituency that is very needy. I do not know whether we can conclude that home ownership is an indicator of whether there is more crime or less crime, but it probably is one indicator with respect to poverty. I think we can all conclude that poverty is an important root cause of criminal activity, especially in young people. While my colleague has indicated that 85% of the people in his riding own their own homes, in my community of York South—Weston 31% of people own their homes. If this is an indicator of the distribution of wealth, we can see that both parts of the spectrum represented.
While that may be an indicator of poverty, in my particular area crime rates are below average, which means something must be happening to make people take some carriage in ownership of the issues that lead to criminal activity. We have very strong citizen involvement in community based organizations, and that is absolutely critical to the prevention side of dealing with the symptoms and the reality of crime in our communities.
I want to take this opportunity to outline three areas. I think common sense and practice have convinced us that these are the areas in which we can support police, community based organizations and educational institutions, all those who either in their jobs or as volunteers people want to be active in their communities. The areas are seasonal employment, apprenticeship-type training and sport. It seems an understatement to suggest that whatever strategy comes forward, those are fundamental areas in which we should invest. 
I will speak to those, but I want to show, because of our corporate memory lapses and our fundamental loss in wisdom, how we probably do things inadvertently that undermine our capacity to respond.
I will talk about the apprenticeship training programs that had been worked out, and there was continuity from the last government to this government. However, I believe there was an oversight in the last budget and key programs were not supported. In the area of apprenticeship training in the trades, there is a crying need across the country for young people to be trained in the trades. Where there is youth at risk, they should be involved in pre-apprenticeship training.
In my area of York South—Weston in the greater Toronto area, and I know there are parallels in other provinces, the trade union councils and union members work together with the boards of education to develop pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship training programs. To assist them, there was the apprenticeship infrastructure training program. This program allowed boards of education to invest in tools, supplies and equipment, which were in keeping with the changing technology in the trades, and to train young people, either in a pre-apprenticeship program or in an apprenticeship program, to engage and become part of the mainstream of life in our community.
Believe it or not, as obvious as it should be but as a surprise probably to members of the government, the apprenticeship trades infrastructure program was suspended. There no longer are those funds or investments going into partnership programs, which were serving very well both youth at risk and young people who wanted to engage in trades across the country.
When we talk about developing partnerships, we know how hard and long it takes to do that. Those programs in apprenticeship training were not carried by government. In this case they were carried with incentives provided by government, picked up by union members and labour within the trades and complemented by the space made available in the schools, particularly in my riding of York South—Weston.
It was a program that had the capacity to become very effective, and was very effective, to ensure that youth at risk did not fall through the cracks of the system and become those who would be exploited by gang activity or by those who would exploit them for nefarious purposes. I use that as one illustration.
The second is seasonal employment. All of us for years have been using the student and summer employment program. MPs were working with community based organizations, ensuring the mentoring was taking place in solidly managed volunteer organizations, which were deploying young people very effectively in working with youth. In my area the For Youth initiative was one example of that. It also worked with seniors and shut-ins who were virtually abandoned in their apartments and homes. That program was cut back. I use it as another illustration that inadvertently, possibly innocently, we lose one of the basic ingredients for mobilizing communities and dealing with young people who could be subject to exploitation by those who are involved in gang and criminal activities.
The final thing is sport. My friend from Prince Albert has introduced his bill, which was unanimously taken by the House. 
I have a letter from members of my community, and I am sure this is typical across the country, who are volunteers working with young athletes. They point out that even when they get accreditation through sports organizations, they have to pay a fee through Athletics Canada when they want to participate in national and international competition. In many cases, those volunteer organizations have to try to raise that money so these young people can compete, either interprovincially or on behalf of their country
 I think conventional wisdom tells us that there are three ways to meet the objectives of this motion to deal in an effective way with criminal activity: to invest in communities, to invest in volunteerism and to bring our communities together.
I hope all members of the House are conscious of how through these examples we can do better.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. When we return to this motion there will be 10 minutes left for the hon. member for York South—Weston with 10 minute questions and comments.
Accordingly the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there are a number of members in the House of Commons who would seek the opportunity to present petitions this afternoon. I am wondering if we could ask for the consent of all parties to allow a number of those members to present those petitions as a matter of convenience.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:31 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Broadcasting Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Lui Temelkovski: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to again speak to Bill C-327, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts).
This would amend the Broadcasting Act to grant the CRTC the power to make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes. I commend my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for raising this issue. 
I do not plan on supporting the legislation but it certainly concerns a serious matter and it can only benefit Canadian society that violence be examined and debated here in the House of Commons.
As the father of four children, I certainly share my colleague's concerns about the levels of violence broadcast on television to young children. My children are older now, but violence on television is certainly an issue I had to deal with while they were growing up. 
However, I am not sure the legislation is now necessary. The objective of Bill C-327 is consistent with the current regulatory practice of the CRTC and self-governing standards from both public and private sector broadcasters.
The CRTC already sets out policy and rules that govern violence on television and, more important, are a mandatory condition of a licence for all broadcasters. Moreover, there is an established and enforced requirement that does not allow violent television programming to air before 9 p.m. eastern time.
Viewer advisories referencing unsuitable programming for children are communicated through voice and print before programs. This is encouraging news but we must not be complacent and must be ever vigilant to ensure that images our children are exposed to are healthy.
On the subject of violence, the government has so far done very little to counter my constituents' concerns about violence in our midst and criminal justice issues in particular. My position on criminal justice is that an effective and comprehensive approach to crime is one that deals with every aspect of fighting crime, preventing crime, catching criminals, convicting criminals through competent and quick administration, and rehabilitating criminals.
I am committed to appointing more judges, putting more police officers on the street and more prosecutors in the courts, protecting the most vulnerable, including children and seniors, and giving our youth more opportunities to succeed.
This is where the Liberal justice plan comes into play. The Liberal offer was originally made last October as an attempt to get effective criminal justice legislation passed through Parliament as quickly as possible with the goal to protect Canadian communities.
Unfortunately, the Conservative government has again rejected Liberal efforts to fast-track a number of its own justice bills. This is a bizarre and puzzling decision on the part of the government.
The Liberal opposition has tried three times in the last six months to expedite a number of government bills dealing with justice issues and the Conservatives have failed to collaborate with us. My question is simple: Why does the Conservative government not cooperate with Liberals to get its own criminal justice legislation passed? After all, I recognize the importance of effective criminal justice legislation.
As a member from the GTA, I know all too well the number of firearm offences that have occurred in my area. Thankfully, gun-related deaths have subsided and I applaud the efforts that have been made by stakeholders in the city, at all levels, in reducing the number of gun crimes.
The work is not yet done and the government could certainly help by collaborating with the opposition to pass important and effective criminal justice legislation.
While I am speaking to these issues, it is important to note that the present Liberal justice plan is in addition to the important justice initiatives that were taken while the Liberals were in power. This is something that the Conservatives do not seem to want to recognize but they should give credit where it is due.
First, Canada's first comprehensive national security policy, a strategic framework and action plan designed to ensure that the government can prepare for and respond to security threats while still maintaining Canadian values of openness, diversity and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
Second, the creation of a national sex offender registry to protect Canadians from violent sex offenders.
Third, further protection of our children through Bill C-2 from the 38th Parliament. This bill would have strengthened prohibitions against child pornography by broadening the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material. It would have also increased the maximum penalty for child sexual offences.
Still on the subject of violence, there is another matter the government should start taking seriously. I am amazed that the government has not introduced animal cruelty legislation to the House. The only animal cruelty legislation we have seen is from Liberal parliamentarians.
I commend my Liberal colleagues for introducing private member's bills on this subject. It seems that only the opposition is concerned about this very serious issue. We have seen a whole array of justice bills introduced by the government. Why has animal cruelty not been one of them?
Different governments have attempted over the years to pass this kind of legislation but the Conservative government has not taken it seriously. The government owes an explanation to Canadians as to why it has not introduced legislation to better protect our animals, over which we have an important responsibility.
Those are the issues my constituents are concerned about and they expect to see action from the government. Instead, they see criminal justice legislation stalled and, in the case of animal cruelty, ignored by the government.
 I commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for bringing forth legislation dealing with violence. The bill is not necessary as I am satisfied that there are already sufficient safeguards to protect our children. 
The real onus lies with the government. There are a number of things that it can do to immediately make our communities safer. I have been pleased to outline some of these thing today, and they include working with the opposition to get effective criminal justice legislation passed, as well as immediately introducing an animal cruelty bill as a piece of government legislation. I look forward to continuing to follow these debates.
Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise in this House to give my support to Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Allow me first to congratulate him on the importance of this legislation that was inspired by his personal experience. The effect violence in television had on his child pushed the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to do something concrete, positive and brave.
The small screen holds a significant place in our lives. It contributes to defining our identity. Childhood memories of television are lasting and young watchers are impressionable. That is why it is right to be concerned about the quality of programming being offered to children, especially since according to Canada's Report Card on Physical Activity for Children , more than 80% of youth watch more than two hours of television a day, which exceeds the maximum recommended by medical organizations.
This bill reminds broadcasters that they, like the public, have certain responsibilities and that through attractive and modern formats they can leave more room for positive models that can provide young people with inspiring examples. I am thinking in particular about the athletes that Luc Dupont, marketing expert at the University of Ottawa communications department, recently described as dream sellers. I would add that they also sell hope: athletes from the Alouettes and the Canadiens give sick children the courage to hang on, simply by visiting them in hospital.
Not so long ago, Julie, a constituent from Varennes, told me the story of her little boy. Samuel, inspired by the champion Shawn Sawyer, asked his mother to sign him up for figure skating lessons and this year he won two medals in that discipline. I am convinced that this simple story of emulation is a reality experienced by many families.
Athletes can inspire change in lifestyle habits, which is not just desirable but also urgent. The number of young people who are physically out of shape has increased dramatically over the past few years.
This fall, a study on the physical activity of young people in Canada showed that at the age of 13, 10% to 21% of girls never participate in continuous activities. The rates are almost as high with boys. Even worse, at 15, 18% to 34% of girls do not participate in any activity that gets their heart pumping, and the same goes for 10% to 27% of boys. There are consequences to this inactivity, since according to the Association pour la santé publique du Québec, 15% of young Quebeckers are overweight, and 7% are obese. 
Ultimately, there needs to be a plan to reduce the number of hours spent in front of the television and to increase the amount of physical activity.
At the federal-provincial-territorial conference of ministers in charge of sports, physical activity and leisure, which was held in Whitehorse in February, and which I had the privilege of attending, a presentation from the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute confirmed that children are not active enough, to the point that their growth and development are compromised.
In order to address this worrisome situation, would it not be good to take this opportunity to offer positive role models on television to children, instead of violent images and behaviour, which are hardly part of a healthy lifestyle?
Making people responsible is no longer a long-term solution to the problem of children who are out of shape or obese. It is about time that we take action with respect to their environment. This is what was recommended in a study carried out jointly by the Institut de la statistique du Québec and the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, entitled “Excès de poids dans la population québécoise de 1987 à 2003”. This study concluded that:
 —behaviour related to nutrition and physical activity...is not really the result of a person's free choice, but rather a response to environments where there is a mix of powerful economic, cultural and political forces. 
The fact is—it can hardly be denied—that television is an economic, cultural and political force. It is therefore imperative to mobilize all players in the television industry to achieve the widest possible consensus around the major public health issue that sedentary living represents.
Instead of trying to put the blame on someone, we should use television and the power it obviously has to influence, to change attitudes and bring about the necessary behavioural changes. Members will recall that, following the Montreal Olympics and the outstanding display of grace and flexibility of Nadia Comaneci, in 1976, gymnastics enjoyed a sudden surge in popularity. At the time, the CBC had innovated, providing viewers with some 12 hours of television coverage per day, thereby allowing the public to familiarize itself with many little-known sports. The power of an image is such that it can foster callings in sports. The medals won by athletes like Gaétan Boucher and Marc Gagnon have helped Quebec become a real breeding ground of elite speed skaters.
Conversely, there were also a number of unfortunate incidents involving young children who sustained serious injuries trying to imitate professional wrestling stars. A few years ago, the TVA network, a private broadcaster in Quebec, decided to take off the air these types of shows which had until then been a staple in Sunday morning entertainment. 
But that type of program is a far cry from Les Héros du samedi, which was a television show from my childhood. Everyone I meet in the context of the sporting events I attend as spokesperson for my political party seems to agree that that program served as an excellent showcase and was a great initiative on the part of Radio-Canada. That program unfortunately disappeared over 15 years ago, and many people are asking themselves what the public broadcaster is doing today to diffuse positive sports messages.
In February, Sports-Québec appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to present its position regarding the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century. The evaluation of the situation by this key player in the Quebec sporting community is clear and unmistakable. When it comes to the broadcasting of Quebec's French-language organized sports, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has almost completely failed to fulfill its responsibilities, to such an extent that French-speaking viewers are now forced to turn to the public broadcaster's English network. This situation is unacceptable, as indicated by Sports-Québec:
 For increasing numbers of young [Canadians] who want to have sport in their lives today and tomorrow, we must stimulate them and give them models. However, this right to hear about those of our athletes who inspire them is as legitimate for young francophones as it is for anglophones. 
 Since sports are an integral part of culture, Sports-Québec has concluded that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not adequately fulfilling its role and recommends, among other things, that the legislated mandate of the CBC/Radio Canada, “include the responsibility to contribute to the promotion of healthy living habits ... ”, that the CBC/Radio Canada “produce and broadcast promotional material on improved physical fitness” and that “programming for children and youth include segments popularizing healthy living habits”. Thus, Sports-Québec is laying the foundation for a responsible image of sports, particularly organized sports, on public television.
As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to create the conditions within our society that facilitate and promote the development of our children and youth. What role models would we like to give them? What kind of demonstrations should we present? These are important questions and Bill C-327 opens the door to television programming that will promote values to contribute to the development of the people watching. The bill does not propose censorship of television. Rather, as indicated by this bill's sponsor last January, it is about adjusting broadcasters' programming to ensure they respect all members of the viewing public.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment about the Liberal member's speech.
My colleague from Wild Rose, who is a member of the justice committee, reminded me that it is the Liberal members on the justice committee who are shredding and gutting our government justice bills in committee. The member's complaints would be more genuine if he were to bring those complaints to his Liberal colleagues. I really do not think the Conservatives are very interested in taking lessons on justice issues, particularly when they are delivered by Liberals.
Today we are dealing with a very important subject that is a major cause for concern. Bill C-327, An act to amend the Broadcasting Act, that is before us today for debate has the worthy objective of reducing violence in Canadian society. The reduction of violence in society is a priority of Canada's new government and I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his efforts in bringing this enactment before Parliament.
The tabling of Bill C-327 gives us an opportunity to consider our accomplishments in Canada in addressing the exposure of Canadians, and particularly children, to the violent and offensive content in television and other media. 
Bill C-327 proposes that the Broadcasting Act be amended to alter the broadcasting policy for Canada. Furthermore, it proposes that the machinery of the broadcasting system be adjusted by mandating the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to make specific regulations respecting the broadcast of violent scenes as a means to reduce violence in society.
Bill C-327, however, seems to ignore or discard any reference to or awareness of regulations, authorities or tools in current existence in Canada's broadcasting system. One such tool is the Canada Broadcast Standards Council.
The council's mandate is to oversee the administration of the Canadian private broadcaster codes. These currently include the Canadian Association of Broadcasters', CAB, sex role portrayal code, and the CAB violence code, both of which are imposed by the CRTC as conditions of licence for Canadian broadcasters, the CAB code of ethics and the Radio and Television News Directors Association of Canada code of journalistic ethics.
I should add that the CRTC last week issued a public notice calling for comment on a new CBSC code, the journalistic independence code. It would be administered by the CBSC and would be a CRTC condition of licence on Canadian broadcasters with ownership interests in both the print and broadcast areas.
There is another code in the offing, the equitable portrayal code. It will in due course extend to all communities the benefits hitherto available on the basis of gender alone, under the terms of the sex role portrayal code. It should be the subject of another CRTC public notice this year.
It is essential to note that the codified standards reflect Canadian values.
 In the exercise of the CBSC mandate, they have since 1991 received complaints from tens of thousands of Canadians about all forms of programming, whether in the news and public affairs area, drama, comedy, talk radio or television, entertainment news magazine shows, feature films, reality programming, children's programming and so on.
Moreover the CBSC receives the expression of those concerns directly and indirectly. Even those which are initially sent to the CRTC are, with rare exception, forwarded to the CBSC for resolution. They deal with approximately 2,000 complaints every year from Canadians who are unhappy about something they have seen or heard on the airwaves.
What relates to this debate is that as a percentage of complaints to the CBSC, those relating to violence on television have been steadily declining by a huge margin, namely 37%, between 2001 and 2006.
Moreover, Bill C-327 would add nothing to the panoply of tools the CBSC has to deal with the subject, since issues relating to violence on television are already thoroughly covered by the combination of the CAB violence code and the CAB code of ethics, and rigorously enforced by the self-regulatory system solidly entrenched in the Canadian broadcasting system.
There is already a watershed hour that is not limited to violence intended for adults. It restricts all forms of adult content to the post-9 p.m. period.
We already have provisions for ratings and viewer advisories, which apply well beyond violence on television. To protect children from inappropriate television programming, we already have the most detailed provisions that can be found anywhere in the world. Bill C-327, if passed, would deliver less to the Canadian public than we already have. 
For my friends in Parliament who will be voting on this bill, permit me to repeat that last sentence. Bill C-327, if passed, would deliver less to the Canadian public than we already have. 
It is a mark of the success of the Canadian private broadcasters' self-regulatory system that it does not require the huge financial penalties of the American regulatory process to work. The system works because the private broadcasters have committed themselves to the process. They created it. They support it financially. Ninety-five per cent of the broadcasters in Canada pay into the CBSC.
 Most importantly, though, they support it morally. After all, they live in the communities in which they broadcast. They want the CBSC to deal with all substantive public concerns about content, not just some of them. They want to tell Canadians, in their languages of comfort, how to access the self-regulatory process. Thoughtful Canadian viewers will recall the number of times there have been public service announcements, at the broadcaster's expense, that have directed them to the CBSC. 
I would ask hon. members to consider the overall government approach to media violence. Media literacy and empowerment is a central tenet of the Government of Canada's approach to media violence. 
Strategies to combat violence in various media and to protect children in particular from injurious information and material transmitted through the media, Internet, videos and electronic games include the Canadian strategy to promote safe, wise and responsible Internet use, called the CyberWise strategy, and the work of federal-provincial-territorial officials to mitigate against the exposure of children in particular to violence in video games.
It is important for us to acknowledge that we have a limited jurisdiction over foreign television signals as well as the material that may be accessed through other media outlets such as the Internet. Foreign television and radio signals can be received over the air by any Canadian residing near the U.S. border. The CRTC has no tools to deal with these broadcasts. The CRTC authorizes some foreign services for distribution in Canada. As they are authorized but not licensed by the CRTC, the conditions of licence imposed on Canadian broadcasters do not apply and they are not subject to the Canadian broadcasting industry's code of conduct and ethics. 
I was informed yesterday that for a $60 one time fee I can access foreign satellite programming from anywhere in the world, delivered to me on my computer by any high speed ISP. This is not the future. This is now, today. The service bypasses the CRTC or any regulatory authority by direct, uncensored, uncontrolled technology. 
In the current media environment, we find ourselves living in a global village. It is more important than ever that Canadians be well informed about the content they may be exposed to and the possibility of new technologies, but also about the potential harmful effects and limitations. 
Just as we cannot be with our children at all times to keep them safe from harm, with the digital revolution we cannot protect our children and other Canadian audiences from controversial and objectionable content that originates from all over the world, and which, as we know, can be accessed by those who are determined.
Hon. members may take note of the recent launch of National Media Education Week. This initiative is precisely the sort of action through partnership that this government supports.
In conclusion, yes, we support measures that will combat violence and crime in society, but this government should not support the regulatory measures and legal sanctions advocated in Bill C-327 because the Canadian public will end up net losers.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill presented by my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which is really quite interesting. It is always surprising to note, unfortunately, how slowly things move in our society; however, they seem to move even more slowly through the levels of government and the legislative apparatus.
To illustrate, I would like to go over the chronology of events surrounding Canadian and U.S. discussions about television violence to demonstrate that theories about this issue and the studies proving that there is a link between television violence and societal violence go back a long way. It is somewhat sad to note that even today there are still some who are not convinced and would leave it up to the broadcasters to voluntarily improve the situation.
I will start in June 1952, over 50 years ago. In the United States, the subcommittee on interstate and foreign commerce of the House of Representatives held the first congressional hearings about violence on radio and television and its effects on children and youth. This is not very recent history. We are not talking about a new issue today; this is something we have been debating for quite some time.
In December 1971, the U.S. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behaviour published its report. It concluded that there was a link between watching violence on television and the aggressive behaviour of some children. These findings date back to 1971, and continue to prompt us to wonder if we should be taking stronger action.
In 1977, the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry published a report establishing a link between violence in the media and the incidence of violent crime in society. 
In 1982, the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health updated the 1972 Surgeon General's report on television and behaviour. The report found that most people carrying out research in the field agree that there is a link between violence on television and aggression.
In February 1985, the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution recommended that the federal government treat violent publications the same way it treats sexual and obscene publications under the Criminal Code, and that the provinces establish a system to review and classify films. 
I must add that this provides an interesting parallel to the issue we are considering. I do not think anyone in this House would argue against the fact that we must limit and control the dissemination of pornographic material. Why? Because we think that if it were to be distributed freely, it could have a negative impact on people. We are doing this because we do not want people to copy the kind of behaviour they might see in those movies. We do this for pornography, which often promotes degrading practices, so we should be asking ourselves questions about violence, which is always unacceptable. It is shocking to hear the Conservatives, who are supposedly champions of law and order and defenders of morals and virtue, object to allowing the CRTC to exert more control over programs with violent content.
Although I must, unfortunately, omit some points, I want to mention another event that touched me personally. In 1992, when I was younger—I did not say when I was young, because hon. members would not believe me—a young Quebecker of 14, Virginie Larivière, presented to the government a petition signed by over 1.2 million Canadians, asking it to pass legislation against violence on television.
By 1993, the petition had been signed by over 1.3 million people. I personally remember that we discussed this issue in school—I was still in school at that time—and everyone agreed that something had to be done. Even now, some members in this House are still wondering whether we should act, whether it would be relevant to do so, or whether we should simply let the market regulate itself. A recent study done by Laval University shows that, since 1994, the number of acts of violence on television has increased by over 200%.
After more than 15 years, despite all the public pressure urging broadcasters to do something, violence on television has doubled. There is no decline at all. Looking at the situation in a reasonable, rational, objective fashion, we can only conclude, in good faith, that the voluntary system is not working, that it has not been successful in restricting access to violence on television.
This consensus still existed on June 7, 1993, because a Gallup poll indicated that 72% of Canadians supported an act that would restrict violence on television.
 On November 16, 1994, the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled its report entitled “Report on Crime Cards and Board Games”, in which it recommended that the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code be expanded to prohibit the importation, distribution or sale of goods or materials whose dominant characteristic is the undue exploitation or glorification of horror, cruelty or violence. This issue was discussed in this House, 13 years ago. 
In 1996, the CRTC unveiled its policy on violence in television programming, and set a deadline of September 1996 for making V-chip technology and a corresponding program rating system available in Canada. These tools were implemented gradually and delayed a few times.
In April 2000, the national coalition against violence on television was created, with the support of the Bloc Québécois. In addition, on April 11, 2006, coroner Catherine Rudel-Tessier questioned the effectiveness of television violence regulations following the death of a young boy who was watching the movie The Patriot, rated 13 and up.
My point is that it is high time we took action. We can wait no longer. There must be regulations, we must give the CRTC the power to do its job. It seems to me that the public is asking us to move forward and do something about this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am about to give the floor to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who made this motion. He has five minutes to answer and close the debate.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all my Bloc Québécois, Liberal, NDP and Conservative colleagues in the House of Commons for taking part in this important debate on reducing violence on television during prime time, especially the hours when children are watching.
Although Bill C-327 was important a few days, weeks, months and years ago, it is even more vital today, in light of recent events. Eight years ago today, on April 20, 1999, the tragic events at Columbine High School left 12 students and several teachers dead and many people injured. Today, we mark the eighth anniversary of that tragic event, which teaches us that we must fight against all sources of violence in our society. Like it or not, television is an important medium that conveys our social values. I believe that we need regulations that establish a middle ground between total freedom of expression and total censure. We are not suggesting censure. Our approach is designed neither to censure nor to allow total freedom of expression, but to strike a balance so that programs with violent content that are intended for viewers 13 and over are broadcast after 9:00 p.m. That balance is there.
As we all know, after the Columbine massacre, another tragic event took place at Dawson College, where a young woman, Anastasia De Sousa, was killed. The crazed gunman who entered Dawson College was inspired by a number of violent films and events. That fact cannot be denied.
Most recently, this week, the greatest tragedy of its kind in the United States took place at Virginia Tech university. In 1999, Virginia Tech's communications department published a study showing that a person exposed to violent programs for a certain number of hours would begin to seek violent solutions to conflicts with others. 
We should have reacted back in 1999 when Virginia Tech researchers sounded the alarm. Today, Bill C-327 proposes a balanced solution to reduce violence in our society by reducing violence on television. I hope that my colleagues here in Parliament will keep the tragic events of the past few years in mind and support Bill C-327.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon members:  Agreed. 
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion 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 93, a recorded division stands deferred to Wednesday, April 25, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)