2007-05-04

Routine Proceedings
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with other parties. I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 scheduled for tonight, be deemed to have taken place and the 11th report of the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, February 28, 2007, be concurred in. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried. 
(Motion agreed to) 

Government Orders
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, be read the third time and passed. 
[Interjection]
The Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 7, 2007, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we promised Canadians we would crack down on crime. Upon taking office, we promised that we would move quickly to fulfill these commitments, and we have. That is why we have tabled this legislation to deal directly with serious, hardened, repeat offenders. 
In a nutshell, we have identified problems with the dangerous offender provisions and section 810, peace bonds provisions, of the Criminal Code. 
This bill addresses those problems in an effective way and in a fair manner to ensure that individuals who pose a clear danger to offend violently or sexually are properly managed and contained for the safety of all.
In my community of Whitewood, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, a number of individuals have gathered together to present a petition to this House. We have received between 24,000 and 25,000 signatures requesting that this government take some action. The petition reads:
 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: 
 Whereas, Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right of all Canadians;-- 
Obviously, some of the events that have happened put some of that in question, but the petition goes on to say:
 Whereas, from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders; 
 Whereas, Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring;-- 
The petition then goes on to request specifically that the government:
 Proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles; 
 Make mandatory compulsory electronic or other form of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody; 
 Ensure compulsory public notification on movements of convicted pedophiles; 
 Ensure above noted repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders. 
Indeed, this particular bill directly responds to the issues raised in the petition.
First, it addresses the potential inconsistencies in the use of the dangerous offender provisions by requiring Crown prosecutors to openly address whether an application should be brought. However, there are three serious violent or sexual offence convictions which certainly include sexual offences against children.
Second, the bill proposes to reverse the current onus on the Crown where an offender has been convicted for a third time of a number of serious and violent sexual and violent offences.
Third, the bill also clarifies that there is no onus on the Crown in regard to the fitness of a dangerous offender designation. The proposed changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code will make it easier for Crown prosecutors to achieve dangerous offender designation against repeat child sex offenders. About 80% of all dangerous offender applications are against sexual offenders and about half of these target child sexual offenders. Certainly, at some stage of the criminal process, there needs to be a provision where offenders are dealt with in a determined way.
Fourth, Bill C-27 also clarifies that section 810, peace bonds, include the ability to require defendants to submit to electronic monitoring. This peace bond is a powerful tool for police and Crown prosecutors which enables the imposition of severe restrictions on any individuals likely to commit a sexual offence against a child, even though they have not been charged with or convicted of any specific offence.
The section 810 provisions of the Criminal Code are quite encompassing and this legislation enlarges the jurisdiction from a one year term to a potential two year term. 
What section 810 would allow the justices to do would be items such as these: prohibit the defendant from engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of 14 years, including using a computer system; prohibit the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 14 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or in day care centres, school grounds or playgrounds; require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device as long as the attorney general makes the request; require the defendant to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; and require the defendant to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times.
When we couple all of those potential conditions that can be imposed, along with electronic monitoring, it certainly brings those who are serious offenders, that have been convicted on three separate occasions of serious offences and are sentenced to two years or more, to a place where they can be accounted for and where these kinds of things can be prevented.
There is an argument made that at times we have to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of others, but when we are talking about the children in our society, certainly that balance should favour them at some point in the system. People should be given an indeterminate sentence with no entitlement to statutory release unless they can prove that they should be.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's comments on Bill C-27 and the issue of the reverse onus.
The presumption is that if an application is brought for a dangerous offender hearing under Bill C-27, the offender would automatically be presumed to be a dangerous offender and would bear the burden of refuting that presumption.
I wonder if the member is aware that some provincial attorneys general have expressed concern that while they do want to see the dangerous offender system strengthened and made more effective, they have concerns that this provision, which reverses the presumption onto the shoulders of the offender, might in fact be deemed constitutionally invalid.
I wonder if his government has looked at that issue and what expert opinions they have on the question of the constitutionality of such a provision.
[Interjection]
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am sure that the Minister of Justice has done his due diligence and obtained opinions, and there will probably be some range of opinions. 
However, we are not talking about someone who comes before the court presumed to be innocent of any offences and with a clean record. In this case, we are talking about someone who has been before the courts on a violent or sexual offence that has encountered a two years sentence, sentenced once to two years, and then repeats the offence. The individual comes before the court, is convicted of a serious offence, either injury or sexual offence, with another two year sentence, and then appears before the court yet again. The individual is not innocent, but is proven guilty of that offence and has a sentence of two years or greater. At that point the court is saying that this individual must then be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless the individual can prove otherwise. 
That is an appropriate thing to be done. I would hope that our constitution, at some point, would say that these individuals have done enough damage to society, they have hurt enough young children in society, they have done enough damage to them emotionally, physically and otherwise that it is incumbent upon them to show why they should not be put away with an indeterminate sentence where society is protected. 
Of course, they could raise that issue, but at some point the threshold is crossed where it is constitutional. Certainly, in other cases where there has been reverse onus positions in either bail provisions or other ones, the court has found them to be constitutional and to stand the test of constitutionality.
There may be a test that we would like to see happen, but if we ask any mother or father of a young child, they would be very much concerned and would be very much offended if our Constitution did not allow them that additional avenue of protection that is specified in Bill C-27.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intent in terms of protecting Canadian citizens from people who could be considered dangerous offenders.
One of the concerns I have is the right of all Canadian citizens, regardless of being innocent or guilty, to have access to legal aid or to lawyers.
An awful lot of people in my riding bring up the issue of the inability to seek legal aid, and legal aid in various provinces is getting harder and harder for people to access in order to have their grievances or whatever heard by the judiciary.
Can the hon. member indicate, in the premise of the bill or in any future aspects of the bill, that everybody, under that premise, will have full and equal access to legal assistance to defend themselves under any circumstances?
[Interjection]
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, as we know, the provinces determine how the legal aid system works from province to province and certainly provide for that.
I can also say that some courts appoint counsel if they feel that representation is needed. It is not a question of whether or not one should be represented. The issue of the bill is that at some point a person ought to be declared a dangerous offender and society should be protected, and every avenue should be used to make that process happen. Province by province will make that determination, I am sure.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition's justice critic I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace). Members will no doubt be familiar with this bill as it has been debated at second reading on a number of occasions.
I would like to preface my remarks today with the following facts.
First, it is important to point out that in spite of the fearmongering rhetoric that emanates from the government benches, crime in Canada is, and has been for some years now, in general decline. Though media reports and the occasional sensational story may lead us to believe otherwise, Statistics Canada reported that crime fell by 22% and the violent crime rate fell by 13% between 1992 and 2004. These facts unmistakably belie the government's propaganda to the contrary.
I also wish to state that we Liberals support strong, effective criminal legislation. There is no doubt about that. We want to see tough and smart legislation being introduced in the House, the kind of legislation that will actually make Canadians and their communities a safer and happier place. We will not accept a Prime Minister who pushes a petty, partisan agenda using front line police officers or a Minister of Public Safety who dismantles or tries to dismantle Canada's widely used gun registry. We want legislation that achieves results, not headlines.
That is why our party on numerous occasions tried to fast track a number of justice bills. Inexplicably, these offers have been met with deafening silence from the government. Thus, we are not amused when we hear government members claiming shamelessly and falsely that we are soft on this or that.
With respect to the bill currently before us, we have heard from several members of all parties. I would like to thank them for their contributions. In particular, I would like to thank my colleague from London West, who gave us an eloquent and intelligent analysis of Bill C-27. She highlighted the bill's shortcomings, which I would like to review here.
First, the proposed new section 752.01: 
 If the prosecutor is of the opinion that an offence for which an offender is convicted is a serious personal injury offence that is a designated offence and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a designated offence and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions, the prosecutor shall advise the court, as soon as feasible after the finding of guilt and in any event before sentence is imposed, whether the prosecutor intends to make an application under subsection 752.1(1). 
This section would require prosecutors to notify the court as soon as possible after the finding of guilt of their intent to seek dangerous offender designation . The problem with this is that subsections 752.1(1) and 752.1(2) already govern the submission of such applications. The amendment proposed by Bill C-27 is therefore redundant because the relevant provisions already exist in the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, as my colleague from London West explained, there were problems concerning jurisdiction because the list of designated offences included a large number of offences under provincial jurisdiction. Everyone except for the minority Conservative government knows this. The administration of justice falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is also a problem in terms of application because failure to comply with this provision carries no consequence. It seems the government was not being very careful when it drafted this clause. 
The second problem is a big one because it is constitutional. As I said, several constitutional experts believe that section 7 and paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be violated by the clause in the bill that establishes the presumption that an offender is dangerous.
The Liberals believe that this bill can be improved in a way that respects the charter and our Constitution and guarantees real safety for Canadians and Canadian communities. That is why we intend to draft some amendments. We hope that the government will take a close look at them and agree to them. I will explain them.
First, one of the problems with this bill is that there is no obligation, on a third conviction of the most serious personal injury offences, for the crown prosecutor to actually apply for a dangerous offender hearing. It is all very well and good to say that we are going to if an application is made and that the offender will be presumed to be a dangerous offender, but if the crown prosecutors do not make the application, there is no dangerous offender hearing.
We on the Liberal side, we of the official opposition, are open to the idea of reform of the dangerous offender sections. We want to toughen the legislation in committee and address some of the serious concerns that remain regarding the way this bill is designed.
One of the proposed amendments that we will bring is in regard to the fact that currently when a judge is making a determination as to whether or not the dangerous offender designation is appropriate, one alternative already exists after disposition, and that is the long term offender designation. However, if the judge designates someone a long term offender and gives a supervision order that can be as long as 10 years after that offender completes his prison sentence, and if the long term offender violates a term of his supervision order, he cannot, under the current system, be compelled to face a new dangerous offender hearing. He can only face a new dangerous offender hearing if he commits another new and serious criminal offence.
This is a hole in the system that the experience of actually putting it into practice has brought to light. We on the Liberal side, the official opposition, are of the opinion that if an offender has received a long term offender designation that is because he went through a dangerous offender hearing. If that offender violates and is found guilty of breaching the supervision order for a long term offender, it is already a criminal act. That criminal act should be designated as one of the criminal acts that would automatically trigger a new dangerous offender hearing. This is a provision, if it is put in place, that would actually strengthen the entire system and make Canadians safer.
The second is as I mentioned. Currently, and even if Bill C-27 were adopted as is, there is no obligation that a crown prosecutor make an application to have a dangerous offender hearing upon a third conviction of a serious personal injury offence. We believe it should be mandatory. We believe that among the list of the designated offences there is a whole series of offences where it is clear that it should be automatic. 
Therefore, we wish to bring an amendment to Bill C-27 that would make a dangerous offender hearing automatic if there is a third conviction on a series of very violent personal injury offences and possibly even those criminal acts that are very violent and in which a firearm is involved. We are prepared to look at that as well.
However, we wish this bill to get into committee so that we can explore this, hear from expert witnesses on the various issues and bring forth our amendments. I would hope that the government would support these amendments, because the amendments the Liberals are proposing would actually strengthen the dangerous offender system, much more than the particular reverse onus or reverse presumption that the government is proposing.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. At one point she accused us of a petty partisan agenda. I can assure the member that in my riding people of all political stripes are asking us to take action on the matter of criminal offences in Canada. For a long time, people have been aware that the system is out of balance in terms of taking into account the victims' needs.
She also commented that the violent crime rate has dropped by 13%. That may be true or it may not be true. My question is this: if in her riding the murder rate was 100 per year and then dropped to 87, would that be acceptable? Would the rate of sexual offences dropping to 87 still be acceptable?
Is it not true that we still have an obligation to deal with an unacceptably high incidence of these kinds of situations where young people are being exploited and sexual offences continue to occur? We are talking about this happening after three convictions, not just accusations. I think it is time for us to act. Canadians are asking us to act. I would appreciate the member's response.
[Interjection]
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I am continually astounded by the deafness of the members of the government. I clearly stated that the Liberal caucus, the official opposition, is in favour of strengthening the dangerous offender system. That is point number one. Our proposed amendments would actually make this stronger rather than the proposed amendment the government is proposing to reverse the presumption.
On the issue of the falling violent crime rate, the member presumes that because I quoted Statistics Canada, which said violent crime rates have actually gone down, it means the rate as it is now is perfectly acceptable to me. That is a presumption which is completely wrong. To quote Statistics Canada is to provide a context so that people understand. No murder, no homicide, is acceptable, but if people think it is getting worse that in fact is not what the statistics and Statistics Canada are telling us.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Baird: More people get murdered every year.
[Interjection]
Marlene Jennings: So therefore, the dangerous offender system needs to be improved and we believe that our amendments, which would make dangerous offender hearings mandatory on a third conviction of the most serious personal injury criminal acts, would actually strengthen the dangerous offender act; it would not be as the Conservatives intend to do with Bill C-27 as it is now written and leave it to the discretion of the crown prosecutor.
[Interjection]
John Baird: Give the public service more leeway? Why should elected people get to decide things?
[Interjection]
Marlene Jennings:  What Canadians may not know is that a dangerous offender hearing costs approximately $100,000. Therefore, many crown prosecutors, even if they believe the offender is a dangerous offender, may decide not to make an application for a hearing because they do not have the budget for it or because it is very time consuming. Therefore, it should not be left to their discretion. It should be made mandatory. I hope, given the comments of that Conservative member, that he at least would support such an amendment to the bill.
 I hope that he would also support an amendment that would make a breach of a long term offender order an automatic trigger for a dangerous offender hearing. I hope he would support it and talk to his justice minister and other ministers, including the Minister of the Environment, who seems to be having a great deal of fun heckling while I am speaking, to convince them that they are good amendments.
[Interjection]
John Baird:  You don't heckle? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
[Interjection]
Marlene Jennings:  This is a serious issue. I would ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment stop making comments that tickle my humour and distract me from the points I am attempting to make. I believe I am making them very well notwithstanding his diversionary tactics.
The Liberals approve of the provisions that would strengthen the recognizance sections of the Criminal Code, sections 810.1 and 810.2. We think those are excellent. 
We also think that some of the technical amendments or changes are good, but where we think the bill fails is that, one, it does not make a dangerous offender hearing application automatic or mandatory on a third conviction and, two, it does not make the breach of a long term offender order an automatic trigger for a dangerous offender hearing.
Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and speak to Bill C-27. The constituents of Newton—North Delta are fully aware of my full support of any legislation that punishes violent or sex offenders, which is why I will be supporting the bill at second reading.
However, my colleagues and I have serious concerns about the constitutionality and the strength of this bill. 
Since being elected, I have consistently supported legislation that is both tough on crime while supporting an activist social agenda that seriously addresses the causes of crime.
 I support tougher sentences so that those who commit serious crimes do serious time. However, at the same time I support creating more social programs, which include child care spaces as well; all efforts aimed at poverty reduction and substance abuse; and any legislation that will help take guns off our streets. We must strike a balance between the two to be effective. We must try to see the big picture. 
These changes cannot be debated in isolation, as the government does. With this legislation being debate today, before the accused can be found to be a dangerous offender, we must ensure that the offence is not an isolated occurrence. We also must establish that the pattern is very likely to continue. 
Even after this, the court still has the power not to designate the offender as dangerous or to impose an indeterminate sentence. However, the dangerous offender section that we currently have in this country, which has put 360 dangerous offenders behind bars, is charter-proof and is working.
In fact, the former Liberal government 1997 created the long term offender designation. This was targeted at sexual and violent offenders because many sexual and violent offenders required special attention even if they did not meeting the criteria for a dangerous offender. This was a necessary change because, as of June 2005, we had 300 offenders under the long term offender designation in Canada. 
The Liberal Party strongly supports real efforts to protect Canadians and punish offenders who represent threats to the safety of our communities across Canada. However, any changes that we make to the current system must be done in a manner that would not jeopardize the victims' rights.
Changes proposed should not back up the courts. If there are charter challenges, the courts could be jammed for years. Our amendments to Bill C-27 are not designed to weaken the bill, as the official Liberal critic spoke earlier in favour of this, but to make it stronger and effective, which can only be done by being non-partisan. By doing that we would ensure that the criminals are sentenced and put away as fast as possible.
We would like to introduce provisions that allow crown prosecutors to seek a dangerous offender hearing if someone currently considered a long term offender violates any term of the supervision order. This would toughen the law from its current version and keep career criminals off the streets.
There is no reason we cannot have mandatory dangerous offender hearings following a third conviction for serious crimes. This would be more effective than the current reverse onus provisions in the bill. Once again, this would toughen the bill from its current version. It is not efficient if the reverse onus legislation cannot pass a constitutional challenge. We just back up the appeals process by doing that.
I would now like to focus on the issue of the constitutionality of Bill C-27. The bill has proposed sections on which legal experts have big questions with regard to their constitutionality. The bigger problem with many of the reforms in the bill, as many of us know, is that the administration of justice falls within provincial jurisdiction. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government to impose statutory duties on provincial prosecutors. We cannot step in and control how justice works in the provinces and regions, particularly where those duties are meant to influence the prosecutor's discretion.
In the view of the legal experts, that could make a significant part of the bill unconstitutional and, by making this unconstitutional, we are putting victims at risk.
Unfortunately, I predict that rather than working with the Liberal Party to fix these problems, the Conservative Party will instead try to say, with its usual bluster, that we are gutting the legislation and being soft on crime.
I would say, first, that this is an issue that the citizens of Canada expected a far more serious dialogue from their elected representatives; and second, that if the Conservative Party tries to push this legislation through without taking the very serious concerns raised with respect to the charter, not only will this demonstrate that it is soft on charter rights, it will potentially put the entire section of the Criminal Code, which it is seeking to amend, in jeopardy.
What does that mean? It means that more victims will get shortchanged. I can tell the House that when I speak to my constituents of Newton—North Delta, that is not what they want. They want a real, effective crime prevention strategy but that is not what they are seeing in the present government's agenda. They want to toughen the laws to keep the violent and career criminals off the streets.
It is not just my constituents of Newton--North Delta. All Canadians are looking for tougher measures to stamp out crime, but not flawed legislation that puts this aim in jeopardy.
I hope the justice committee will work in a diligent and bipartisan manner to ensure that this flawed legislation is amended to take into account the concerns of my constituents, Canadians and the legal experts across the country to make the toughest and most effective crime legislation in the country.
Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his vote of confidence in the bill but I do have some problems with his criticisms of the bill. 
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale is part of the amalgamated city of Hamilton. In Hamilton we have a secure release facility where some of the most dangerous offenders are housed.
Years ago, one of those dangerous offenders walked across the road to a shopping mall in downtown Hamilton, one of these places where the member previous to that member spoke about one of those unusual stories happened, and repeatedly stabbed a young woman. It took the crown attorney in Hamilton almost two full years, under the existing legislation, to build a case to finally have this man labelled a dangerous offender and put him away.
It is necessary for us to have this reverse onus so that our crown attorneys have the capability of building the case required in order to accomplish this with what both the last two Liberal members said, effective law enforcement legislation.
What does the member mean by lack of effectiveness when this would clearly give a tool to the crown attorneys to put these dangerous offenders away much more effectively?
[Interjection]
Sukh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to being tough on crime, the member needs only to look at my record. I have always been an advocate for tougher laws.
What we are proposing is that after the third offence, if the criminal who is committing the crimes is a dangerous offender, there should be an automatic hearing and that person should be put behind bars.
On the other hand, the way that member is thinking, the criminal might go to the appeal courts which might lengthen the trial and put the victims in jeopardy.
We are saying that after that third offence, the person should automatically be tried as a dangerous offender while, on the other hand, the member is saying that we should put the onus on the criminal to prove that he or she is not a dangerous offender.
 I personally feel that our amendment to the legislation is much stronger and I know Canadians and the people of Newton—North Delta feel the same way.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns is that when any government at the federal level brings in tougher legislation on crime there is usually a financial cost to it in terms of who pays for this. 
We know that legal aid itself is a provincial responsibility but when the federal government brings in an initiative such as this it adds more cost and burden to the provinces.
Does the hon. member not think that if the government wishes to do this, which, in many ways it is correct in doing to ensure the safety of our citizens, that it should first negotiate with the provinces to include more funding in terms of legal aid services for all victims in that regard?
[Interjection]
Sukh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more with the member when it comes to giving the funds to the provincial governments. In fact, my leader of the Liberal Party has committed to providing more funds to the provinces to take care of the legal aid situation .
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).
With this bill, the government purports to make it easier for crown attorneys to obtain dangerous offender designations. I will support the bill so it can go to committee. 
Unfortunately, the bill is not tough enough on dangerous offenders, and I am surprised. We always hear from our Conservative colleagues across the floor that they are the group that will get tough on crime.
 This is a pretty weak bill. It does not deal with the issue of dangerous offenders completely enough. I will come back in a moment to the reason why I say that and why I will support our party's proposed amendments if it does get to committee. Our amendments would strengthen the bill and make it more difficult for dangerous offenders to create havoc in our communities and make our streets unsafe and our communities less secure.
I think of circumstances in Toronto and Etobicoke North and Rexdale in my riding. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of gun related crimes tied to drugs and gangs. Fortunately, in the last year there has been a decrease in that because of some raids by the police, in which 100 people were arrested. We cannot let our guard down. There is still a lot of work to do. I will come back to this in a moment.
One case that comes to mind happened in 2005 in Mayerthorpe, Alberta where four RCMP officers, Constable Brock Myrol, Constable Leo Johnston, Constable Peter Schiemann, and Constable Anthony Gordon, were regrettably and tragically killed. James Roszko, who took his own life, was the perpetrator of that horrific crime. That 46 year old man was a convicted pedophile and had a long history of violence and mental illness. People in the community called him a ticking time bomb. If I recall correctly, the police and the crown prosecutors had tried to have him put away as a dangerous offender or a long term offender, but were unsuccessful.
Hindsight is 20/20. If we had the provisions in this bill and the amendments, which our party will introduce to toughen it up, perhaps this unfortunate and tragic incident would not have occurred, but of course we do not know that for sure. That is why I will be supporting the bill.
I mentioned earlier that the bill does not go far enough and is not tough enough in a number of respects, and I will give the House a couple of examples. My colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, talked about a couple of them.
The bill is deficient because the decision to pursue the dangerous offender designation is entirely within the designation of the Crown. There is nothing that mandates that a crown attorney must seek a designation either for repeat offenders or for specific types of offences. We should insist on an amendment that would create a provision that the Crown must seek a dangerous offender hearing for those who have three convictions for serious offences. We should be looking at mandatory offender hearings for those who are involved in certain crimes like violent gun crimes.
That would help my riding in Toronto where we unfortunately have repeat offenders, people who are involved in gangs, drugs and have handguns. They commit offences, are taken to court, released in many cases on bail and they reoffend. Then they are arrested and convicted again. These people are not really a benefit to the community while they are engaged in that type of behaviour. For certain types of violent gun crimes, we should look at mandatory hearings as dangerous offenders, and I will support that.
Another flaw in the Conservatives' legislation is this. Some people are on long term offender supervision orders. Some will violate the provisions of that order. In other words, they might be required to report to a parole officer, or they might be required not to go to certain areas such as parks, swimming pools, public places, or there could be a whole range of provisions. If they violate the terms of their order, it is my view that we should allow crown attorneys to order a new dangerous offender hearing for those types of individual. This is an area where the bill could be toughened up to make it more difficult for dangerous offenders to create havoc in our communities.
Our party is supporting the increase in the age of consent. We support mandatory minimums for certain targeted offences. For gun crime offences, we support mandatory minimum sentences. That is why we have proposed an increase. This is in line with the changes.
 When we were the government, before the last election, we tabled those types of changes to the mandatory minimums for gun related crimes from one to two years for certain offences and from four to five years. It is important to do that. We should not get carried away with mandatory minimums. The research it is quite clear that mandatory minimums do not always have the kind of results that people would like to see.
 The other thing we need to do, in dealing with criminals and violent crime, crime of any sort, is to approach it in a way that is multi-faceted. We cannot only toughen sanctions. We need to toughen the penalties as well. We also need to look at how police operate. We know more visible policing in the community has an impact. We also know community policing is helpful, where the police can work closely with young people in the schools and develop relationships. That is then used to build trust and to help young people, who could find themselves getting into trouble, and to prevent crimes. We should really be focusing on preventing crime. When we formed the government, we brought in the national crime prevention strategy and the national crime prevention program, and I was pleased about that. 
In my riding of Etobicoke North, we have launched a whole range of programs over the years that help young people to get out of gangs and stay out of them or to not get involved with gangs at all. They give them an alternative to guns, drugs and violence.
It is a tragic development that the Conservatives on the other side want to scrap the gun registry. That is a big mistake. All we have to do is look at the events in the United States recently where access to handguns is almost as easy as buying a pizza. We need to keep reinforcing the need for people to licence and register guns. We need this multi-faceted approach. That is why I will support the bill, to send it to committee, to toughen it up, to make it a better bill and to ensure that dangerous offenders do not create problems in our communities.
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by the member for Etobicoke North. I agree with many of his sentiments, especially expressing support for Bill C-27 and getting tough on dangerous offenders. This is the way we want to go.
However, I disagree with one comment in his statement. The member was making good sense until the very end when he talked about the gun registry, which everyone knows was a $2 billion boondoggle and has not saved one life or prevented one crime involving the use of a firearm.
I will not touch on that today. I will touch on Bill C-27. I sincerely appreciate the member's support for this legislation. It is important legislation. It is the right thing to do. However, there is no unity within the Liberal caucus on the bill.
Will the member commit today to pushing this issue in his caucus, perhaps organizing some informational meetings to get people of like mind on his side and to join with us in supporting this legislation? Would he perhaps commit today to meeting with the leader of the official opposition to ensure that he is on side with Bill C-27?
While the member has indicated his support for Bill C-27, important legislation to get tough on sex offenders, the reverse onus on sex offenders, his caucus is not united on the bill. Will he commit today to pushing this issue forward and having special meetings on this issue with his caucus and a meeting with the leader of the official opposition?
[Interjection]
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a rich imagination when it comes to boondoggles. The gun registry now is operating on a very sound financial basis. The registry itself is costing less than $24 million to operate. Yes, it cost too much to build the system. We know that now. We have dealt with those questions. There is no question about a $2 billion boondoggle. The member knows that full well.
With respect to his question, I am not aware of great dissension within the ranks on this side of the House on this bill. I find it strangely ironic when the members on the Conservative side would look to the Liberals as baying sheep and following the Prime Minister and their leader. On this side of the House we have a good and honest and open debate on matters. Then we look across the floor and the Conservatives are all stacking up and voting like sheep with their leader. 
I am unaware of any dissension on this bill on this side. Good healthy debate and division is not necessarily a bad thing. I thought that is what the Conservative Party had been promoting over these many years. I will support the bill and I think the vast majority of my colleagues will as well.
The Speaker: When the debate on this matter resumes, there will be two minutes remaining for questions and comments on the hon. member for Etobicoke North's speech.
It being 11 o'clock, we will now proceed with statements by members.

Statements By Members
Canadian ForcesMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 21, I had the distinct honour and privilege to meet and welcome home 12 of our finest soldiers from their recent tour of duty in Afghanistan. They are proud members of the well-renowned Grey and Simcoe Foresters, and were guests of honour at a barbecue and dance held at the Owen Sound Armouries.
We thank God for the safe return of Warrant Officer Dean Henley, Master Corporals Dennis Dietrich, Kevin Kelley and Jamie Bull, Corporals Joel Chidley, Mike Cottenden, Danny Khoury, Travis Polaniec, Christopher Saumur, Jordan Webb and Ted Runyon-Lloyd, as well as Private Dean Laporte.
I felt great pride in observing this military family mingling with family and friends: Master Corporal Dietrich, with his quiet leadership style; Corporal Cottenden, a true character and inspirational leader; and the youthful exuberance of Private Lapointe.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thanked them for their great service to their country and I ask the House to do the same.
Old Age SecurityMs. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, introduced in 1952, Canada's old age security program is intended to be universal and to act as the cornerstone of Canada's retirement income system for all Canadians.
Regrettably, the Old Age Security Act presently requires a person to reside in Canada for 10 years before he or she is entitled to receive a monthly pension. This residency requirement effectively excludes many seniors from its benefits, especially new Canadians. Indeed, because of the 10 year residency requirement, it is not at all uncommon for senior citizens to go without the benefits of old age security for many years. In my view, and in the view of a great many seniors across Canada, this outcome is unjust and unacceptable. 
Today, poverty among seniors is epidemic, especially among women and immigrants. Reducing the residency requirement is one important measure the government could take to address the injustice of poverty among its seniors.
Jean NadonMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the Dunamis gala on March 22, Jean Nadon of the Riviera residence won one of the awards for long-standing businesses in Laval.
This seniors' residence has been family run since it opened in 1959.
Creating a family atmosphere is central to the philosophy of the residence, which provides personalized programs for each of its elderly residents to promote physical and intellectual independence. This approach garnered an award of excellence in the personalized care and services category from the health and social services network in 2002, a reward that highlighted the residence's exemplary attention to client centred intervention. 
Congratulations to the Nadon family, which has been passionate about caring for the elderly for 48 years. They are models of success and devotion for the whole community.
Netherlands Liberation AnniversaryPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, at 11:30 today at the National War Memorial there will be a wreath laying in honour and commemoration of the 62nd anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands.
Those of us from Holland and those of us of Dutch ancestry wish to continuously thank the Canadian people and remember the sacrifices of our armed forces personnel during that terrible time of World War II.
We in Holland have a saying that if you are not Dutch, you are not much, but we only get to say that because of the liberation by the Canadians and her allies.
There are 5,700 brave Canadians who are buried on Dutch soil. Today we remember their sacrifices. This weekend, we also remember the sacrifices made in the Battle of the Atlantic. Thousands of armed forces personnel and merchant mariners laid down their lives in the great blue Atlantic Ocean in order that all of us can be free.
This is a wonderful weekend to commemorate those who passed on before us. We would also like to say congratulations to our current armed forces personnel who serve us so gallantly around the world.
It is we in the House of Commons who salute all of them.
National SecurityMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had to write a dissenting opinion regarding one significant recommendation that was presented in the House.
The opposition parties, including the Liberals, voted to completely remove a section of the PIPEDA legislation that goes directly to protecting Canadians from any threat of any future terrorist attacks. This was without any input from stakeholders, including airport authorities or any other security agency for that matter.
The Liberals want to prevent our security agencies from collecting and using information related to national security, defence and international affairs. They do not even support the anti-terrorism protection measures that they included in legislation that they created. This is a sad and ridiculous attempt at partisan politics. 
We have a responsibility to protect the lives of our citizens. Our new government will always stand up for the safety and security of all Canadians.
Second Language EducationHon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the University of New Brunswick on the expansion of the National Second Language Research Institute. I would like to acknowledge the Department of Canadian Heritage for providing $1.7 million to this initiative and to UNB for providing matching funds.
As a national research centre, it will conduct, publish and circulate research, scholarship and creative work in second language education and provide expert advice to a variety of partners.
New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. In my riding the numbers of students pursuing second language education is constantly increasing and is a source of great pride. 
This expansion is consistent with the official languages plan, “The Next Act: New Momentum for Canada's Linguistic Duality”, established in 2003.
Professor Sally Rehorick and I have worked together on this project since its inception.
Congratulations to her and to the University of New Brunswick. 
Automobile IndustryMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian auto industry is alive and well. One month after budget 2007, the Canadian auto industry has smashed its sales records for April. This is not a surprise. Since taking office, Canada's new government has been creating the right economic conditions to support a strong auto industry here in Canada.
Budget 2007 empowered the Canadian auto manufacturers to be more competitive today. It provided millions to complete the Windsor-Detroit crossing; funding for research and development through the centres of excellence; tax incentives to get older polluting vehicles off the road; meaningful tax incentives to purchase environmentally friendly vehicles, like the Oshawa built E85 Impala; and finally, a two year writeoff for investments in machinery and equipment.
The only thing that is left to determine is why the NDP and the Liberals voted against the budget, voted against auto jobs, against the auto industry and even voted against the recommendations of their own industry critics.
Our government is the only party firmly committed to improving Canada's auto sector. We are getting the job done.
Gatineau Cultural CentreMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 27, the Maison de la culture de Gatineau celebrated its 15th anniversary with a show called “15 years of ovations, 15 years of emotions”. Boom Desjardins, Ariane Gauthier, Luce Dufault, Marie-Élaine Thibert, France Maisonneuve and Ricky Paquette wowed the crowd. In the past 15 years, the cultural centre has showcased artists from all over Quebec and around the world.
To mark the anniversary, the lobby of the Salle Odyssée was adorned with a human-face mosaic made up of 6,500 photographs. Created by Jean René and Marie Hélène Giguère, the work includes the faces of audience members, employees, Quebec artists and foreign artists. 
The Bloc Québécois and I would like to congratulate the Maison de la culture de Gatineau, its chair, Maurice Groulx, and its executive and artistic director, Julie Carrière.
B.C. Flood Mitigation ProgramMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a risk of severe flooding this spring in British Columbia. Due to a massive snowpack in the mountains, serious concern exists that a warm weather spell could result in a quick melt, a major swelling of the Fraser River, and flooding that would threaten the homes of thousands of British Columbians, including many of my constituents in Port Coquitlam.
Our Conservative government is taking action to protect the safety, property and livelihood of British Columbians. I am pleased to report to this House and to my constituents that our government is working with the government of British Columbia by providing $16.5 million toward the flood mitigation program announced by Premier Gordon Campbell.
We are also providing $4 million for the long overdue dredging of the Fraser River. Dredging eases the threat of flooding by helping remove some of the over two million cubic metres of sediment that settle in the Fraser every spring.
Our Conservative government is doing all we can to ensure that those homes and businesses in Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and all the communities along the Fraser are protected from a potentially devastating flood this spring.
We are delivering real results for British Columbia, as we promised to do.
Security and Prosperity PartnershipMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the security and prosperity partnership. This partnership was initiated in 2005 by the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico to increase cooperation and commerce within North America, but it is not a signed treaty and has never been brought before the legislatures of North America for discussion or committee oversight.
Its implementation has now been handed over to 10 corporate CEOs from each country who meet behind closed doors with senior civil servants and military personnel. They are not recommending new legislation, but are focusing on changes to regulations. This precludes the participation of legislators and therefore leaves out the people of Canada.
We, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, need to assert democratic control over this effort and ensure that it is fully transparent and in the interest of all Canadians, not just an economically powerful few.
Liberal Party CandidatesTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader's desperate search for friends has again ended badly.
First his campaign organizer, Farhan Chak, sympathizes with suicide bombers and accuses Israel of rape and murder. Next, his candidate, Elizabeth May, makes Nazi references to score cheap political points. 
Now, star recruit, David Orchard, has again implied that the Liberal leader, as a cabinet minister, was complicit in the commission of war crimes. In a 1999 article, Orchard suggested that Canada committed war crimes in Kosovo. Who was in cabinet during that time? The Liberal leader. Last Sunday in the Halifax Herald, Orchard wrote that Canadian activity in Afghanistan is “a supreme international crime”. Who was in cabinet when that involvement was authorized? The Liberal leader.
With friends like these, the Liberal leader does not need enemies.
Will he do the right thing, stand up for himself, his country and our troops, condemn David Orchard's remarks and kick Mr. Orchard out of the Liberal Party?
HousingMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Providence Farm completed a housing need and demand study for the Cowichan Valley. The study demonstrates the clear need for consistent long term planning to address the issue of homelessness.
A greater proportion of lone parent families than the rest of the province and a rapidly growing seniors population will strain the available resources for affordable housing. I was astonished to learn that for every 100 people over the age of 65 in the Cowichan Valley in 2001, there will be 230 in 2031.
Median housing prices jumped from $180,000 in 2001 to over $240,000 in 2005. Half of all families in the Cowichan Valley cannot afford to buy a house worth more than $150,000, yet in early 2006 only eight single family houses sold for under this price. The vacancy rate fell from 8.4% in October 2003 to 1.6% in October 2005, indicating growing rental demand.
There are many challenges for housing and homelessness and there are many solutions required.
I want to thank the staff at Providence Farm for their hard work on this very important issue.
Canadian Tulip FestivalHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speak, the sun is shining in the capital, flowers are in bloom and the Canadian Tulip Festival's Tulip Ball this evening at the National Gallery will kick off two weeks of festivities.
This year, the festival is bringing fresh, new ideas to the fore. A celebration of ideas called “Celebridée” will bring together notable guests from across Canada and around the world who will showcase the intellectual vitality of Canada's capital.
The Canadian Tulip Festival will again stand out as one of the highlights of the national capital's social calendar.
As we welcome to our capital visitors from everywhere around the world but mostly from North America, let us wish the festival organizers and sponsors much success, and above all, pleasant weather throughout the entire festival, contrary to the last two, three or four years.
I take this opportunity to congratulate all the organizers and sponsors, and in particular Teri Kirk, festival president, David Luxton, Christine Charette, Pam and Grant Hooker, and the hundreds of volunteers who will ensure its success.
May we all visit the festival.
Yvon LessardMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Yvon Lessard, of Service Électronique Professionnel in Chicoutimi has discovered a method for measuring ice on Hydro-Québec's power lines and minimizing the effects of frost on towers by working with Équipe Fabconcept in Chicoutimi.
Hydro-Québec hired Mr. Lessard for his electrical genius in order to develop a measuring device that could indicate the weight of power lines in real time when ice accumulates. Measurements can even be taken in the most difficult to access areas in the province.
With the information provided by the electronic reading equipment, Hydro-Québec will be able to activate the heating wires remotely, which will melt the ice and prevent the towers from collapsing.
I would like to congratulate Yvon Lessard for his work with Équipe Fabconcept, which enabled him to innovate and to give a positive boost to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area.
Bisphenol AMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing a bill today in this House, calling on the government to ban a very toxic chemical substance used in many food and drink containers.
Bisphenol A is a substance found in many items made of clear, hard plastic, such as water bottles and baby bottles. The effect of this chemical is similar to that of estrogens on the human body. Many studies have shown that it increases the risk of infertility, obesity, breast and prostate cancers, and has many other harmful effects on our health. It is crucial that the government regulate the use of this toxic substance. 
Liberal Party CandidatesDavid Sweet: Mr. Speaker, first Jim Curran, the Liberal nominee in Niagara Falls withdrew his candidacy because he was arrested on fraud charges. Then we learn of Farhan Chak, who has finally resigned his candidacy in Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.
The real question is why the Liberal leader is so weak that he would not fire Chak outright. We told him about Chak's intemperate views about Israel. We told him about Chak's sympathy toward suicide bombers. We told him about Chak's conspiracy theories about terrorist attacks. It was left to us to tell him about Chak's weapons charges related to a nightclub shooting. 
Apparently, Chak did not think it was a big deal. Nor did the Liberal leader because he still did not see fit to fire Chak. It was Chak who realized he was not fit to stand for election.
The Liberal leader should grow a backbone. He would not stand up to Farhan Chak. Will he at least stand up to Elizabeth May and ask her to resign her candidacy in Central Nova?

Oral Questions
AfghanistanHon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we now have proof from a colonel in the Canadian Forces that a detainee handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities was beaten. We now have the evidence that what the government repeatedly said was false.
Why did it take a Federal Court case to prove that these allegations of abuse are real, rather than baseless Taliban allegations, as the government has so often claimed?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the case the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie speaks of is actually a good story for the Canadian military. It is a case where the military saw some treatment, some roughhousing of an individual, and stepped in immediately to put an end to it. That is how things should work. That shows that things were working well in the field.
The agreement that we have in place now has received very good reviews, no less than The Globe and Mail where it says in the editorial today: 
 It is a very good agreement, equal to those obtained by the governments of Britain and the Netherlands in most ways, and superior in two significant ways-- 
 I would be happy to go on further.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court had to intervene to expose this government's cover-up. When informed of the treatment of a prisoner that they had just transferred to the Afghan police, Canadian troops in Kandahar had to ask that the prisoner be returned to them. 
Why did the Minister of National Defence and five other ministers of this government rise in the House over a two-week period and tell Canadians that there was not a problem, when we now have proof to the contrary? 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in the case in question, obviously the Canadian Forces were able to take action quickly to ensure that there was nothing improper allowed to continue. In fact, that is exactly what our new agreement ensures will continue to be the case. 
I will read from it because I know I invited opposition members to do that yesterday and apparently they are not interested in what we have done. It states:
 Representatives of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Government personnel, including representatives of the Canadian Embassy in Kabul and others empowered to represent the Government of Canada will have full and unrestricted access to any persons transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities while such persons are in custody. In addition to the International Committee of the Red Cross, relevant human rights institutions with-- 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, when questioned about this matter, the Prime Minister himself repeated the same story and stated that the abuse was nothing but false allegations made by Taliban prisoners.
Was the Prime Minister informed of his own government's case before the Federal Court? How can this government continue to make false statements when a colonel of our own armed forces has confirmed our initial fears?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the conduct of our troops serving in Afghanistan. Their conduct sets a good example.
I will go on to continue to read in French an element from the agreement:
 The Afghan authorities will be responsible for treating such individuals in accordance with Afghanistan's international human rights obligations including prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, protection against torture and using only such force as is reasonable to guard against escape. 

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Colonel Noonan also swears that soldiers have had to exercise their own discretion and halt transfers of specific detainees when they felt they might be at risk at the hands of Afghan guards.
Will the government halt all transfers until it can guarantee no detainee transferred by Canadians will be beaten or tortured, or will it continue to deceive the Canadian public?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the arrangement that we have been able to strike. No less than Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail who says this about it:
 The new deal transforms Canada into the standard-bearer for all foreign countries in the monitoring of transferred prisoners in Afghanistan. 
He goes on to say:
 --the deal exceeds the safeguards in other NATO arrangements, including the much-vaunted British and Dutch agreements. 
The members of the opposition should for once admit that it was their failure in the past that led to whatever flaws they were unhappy with in the 2005 agreement. There is now an arrangement in place that is satisfactory and we are very pleased with what we have.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the government knew about the abuse. It knew and yet it did nothing. Worse, the government denied the facts, distorted the truth, and deceived Canadians day after day, week after week. It is appalling and it is shameful.
Canadians deserve some answers. They deserve them from the ministers across the way, not from a Federal Court judge. When did the minister know about the case Colonel Noonan reported?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not do anything. Canadians acted exemplary in the field.
I am amazed to hear the Liberal Party continue on this vein. Fifty-four Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have lost their lives in the field of battle, fighting a murderous and treacherous regime as part of a UN led mission in Afghanistan. Our brave troops are fighting to bring peace, security and human rights in a war-torn land. We have an excellent agreement in place. 
It is time for the opposition to get on side, side with our troops, our good fighting men and women in the field, for once and support the good work they are doing.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite what the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons might think, the new agreement reached yesterday on the monitoring of Afghan detainees does not resolve everything, especially in light of Colonel Steve Noonan's testimony in court this week revealing a documented case of torture. Noonan maintains that the Afghan police had beaten a transferred detainee. The Canadian troops were concerned about the detainee and asked that he be given back.
How could the Prime Minister say that this was nothing more than allegations, when the army had in its possession documented reports confirming that Afghan detainees were being tortured? Does he call that allegations?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the current agreement provides some protection. I will read from the agreement. I invite the opposition to listen:
 The Government of Canada will be notified prior to the initiation of proceedings involving persons transferred by the Canadian Forces and prior to the release of the detainee. The Government of Canada will also be notified of any material change of circumstances regarding the detainee including any instance of alleged improper treatment. 
That is in the agreement and it is working well.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the case of torture reported by Colonel Noonan was in official Canadian Forces reports.
In light of these revelations, how could members of this government stand up in this House one after the other and say there was no torture in Afghanistan, unless they were knowingly trying to hide the truth from the public?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois is not proud of our troops and their behaviour under the circumstances. This is a good example for Canadians.
We now have an agreement with a lot of protection. Here is another excerpt:
 Representatives of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), and Canadian government personnel, including representatives of the Canadian Embassy in Kabul and others empowered to represent the Government of Canada will have full and unrestricted access to any persons transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities while such persons are in custody. 
This is an agreement—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeated that the allegations of torture are nothing more than the claims of a handful of Taliban prisoners and he is accusing the opposition of destroying troop morale by exposing these cases of torture. Colonel Noonan is not a member of the Taliban. He is a former task force commander in Afghanistan and he confirmed that soldiers did their job by regaining custody of a prisoner who had been tortured. 
In the Prime Minister's opinion, what destroys troop morale more, questions from the opposition or the concealment of an internal report that confirms the torture of prisoners?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the conduct of our troops, as mentioned in the report. Indeed, it is the questions and behaviour of the opposition that is undermining our troops on the battlefield.
I will read what the agreement says regarding allegations of abuse:
 In the event that allegations come to the attention of the Government of Afghanistan that a detainee transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities has been mistreated, the following corrective action will be undertaken: the Government of Afghanistan— 

The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, in light of the government's obvious desire to maintain the culture of secrecy and given the Prime Minister's clear contempt for the Afghan prisoners, will the government make a commitment here today to report to this House on a regular basis regarding the implementation of this new agreement?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue.
 —the Government of Afghanistan will investigate allegations of abuse and mistreatment and prosecute in accordance with national law and internationally applicable legal standards and the Government of Afghanistan will inform the Government of Canada, the AIHRC and the ICRC of the steps it is taking to investigate such allegations and any corrective action taken. 

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the House leader just does not get it. What this House wants to know is when the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and the other ministers, who have repeatedly stood in this House and said that they did not know anything about torture in Afghanistan, knew about this. This is not about protecting our troops. This is about protecting themselves.
We again ask the Minister of National Defence to stand in this House and tell us when he knew about the torture. Colonel Noonan made it very clear that he passed that information on. When did the minister know? Why did he not tell the House?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am befuddled as to why the opposition is unhappy with what is a good news story. It is a story about Canadian troops in the field who saw something inappropriate and immediately took action to protect a detained individual and ensure that the detainee's human rights were respected. I thought that was how those members wanted things to work.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the government to admit that it hid from the House and from Canadians the fact that torture was going on, that it knew about it and that it did nothing about it.
When Colonel Noonan was being cross-examined on Wednesday he brought out the fact that it would have been a simple situation for us with our allies in Afghanistan to build a facility to hold prisoners. It would have held 200 prisoners. It would have taken a very short period of time to construct. The reason he gave for not doing it was that they thought they might be creating another “Abu Ghraib situation”.
Is the reason that we have done nothing about the torture that has been going on simply for PR reasons for the government?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am stunned that a party that is calling for the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan now wishes us to build permanent Canadian facilities as if this will be a permanent Canadian occupation with Canadian prisons in Afghanistan.
I know the leader of the Liberal Party mused out loud about doing that or about bringing Taliban prisoners to Canada, but even he, on reflection, saw that was a bad idea. The Globe and Mail even agrees. It states: 
 Canada cannot get into the business of warehousing suspected Taliban, and the prisoners should not be transported to this country. 

Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the government has now been asked 11 times this morning to reveal when it learned about the specific incident that Colonel Noonan testified to before the Federal Court about a specific incident of specific abuse of Afghan detainees and it has refused, systematically, to tell Canadians the truth.
The government still will not tell what it knew about the incident. It will not release the medical record. Canadians cannot trust the minority Conservative government on the Afghan issue. 
When will the government--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in spite of the feigned indignation of the member opposite, who constantly mixes facts and fiction, we should be applauding the actions of Canadian soldiers in the field. What they did was totally appropriate. They saw something happening, they acted decisively and they ensured that the abuse ended right there.
In each and every instance that we are aware of, Canadian soldiers have acted appropriately in conjunction with Canadian values and international law in the treatment of detainees.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, it is this government that has not acted with honour. It is this government that is trying to cover up the facts.
We knew that this government had never trusted our courts but it cannot ignore such serious allegations.
What is disappointing is that Canadians can no longer trust their government to tell them the truth. They have to rely on affidavits presented in federal courts to get the full story.
Will this government finally admit that it would have done nothing if not for the case before the courts and—
The Speaker: The Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Peter MacKay: Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy involved in a member of the former Liberal government standing up, a member who was in government when the sponsorship scandal took place, talking about hiding facts.
What we have done is acted decisively. There was a shortcoming as a result of the agreement signed by the previous government with respect to detainees. We fixed it. We moved ahead. We took decisive action to see that the new agreement now in place meets the bill. 
That was appropriate. That was decisive. That is the action that is taken on this side of the House, not by members opposite.
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Colonel Steve Noonan filed an affidavit confirming that at least one detainee was beaten while in the custody of the Afghan police.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his secretary of state or the Minister of National Defence now jump out of their seat and accuse Colonel Noonan of supporting the Taliban? I hope not.
Why did it take the Afghan government to begin the initiative for a new deal? When did the Minister of National Defence know about these allegations?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what has been stated a number of times now.
The actions taken by the Canadian Forces were totally appropriate. They were taken in response to a situation that they saw developing. They acted decisively and stopped the mistreatment of the detainee.
Consistently we have heard stories of the bravery and the actions of our Canadian soldiers in the field working to defend Canadian interests and Canadian values. That is what should give us all a great source of pride, not casting aspersions, as the member opposite is trying to do. 
Omar Alghabra: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the government to follow the proud example of our soldiers.
The Minister of National Defence has gone absent without leave and now we clearly know why.
Both the minister and the Prime Minister need to be told that denial is not a river in Afghanistan.
Is there anyone over there who is taking human rights seriously and the protection of our soldiers seriously?
Will someone finally tell the Minister of National Defence that his incompetence is just too much to bear and he must resign?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, like the soldiers in Afghanistan, our Minister of National Defence wore the uniform of the Canadian Forces for over 30 years. He is a man of great honour and great respect.
With respect to the new arrangement, as it is now described, when Canada is informed of the mistreatment of detainees and the transfer of detainees to an Afghan prison, Canadians will then notify Afghan authorities, seek their intervention to stop the mistreatment and take corrective measures.
That is what the arrangement is set up to do and we will ensure that works for all detainees.
Saint-Hubert AirportMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Saint-Hubert airport made the front page of The Gazette this morning. According to the newspaper, Pratt &amp; Whitney will be forced to transfer its international engine testing operations to the airport in Plattsburgh.
How can the government sit back and prevent the creation of 400 jobs, including 100 high tech jobs, just because the Department of Transport's bureaucracy refuses to adapt the criteria of a program to the needs of the Saint-Hubert airport?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the program managed by the Department of Transport, the ACAP, is designed to improve security and safety. It is not intended as an economic development program.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the Plattsburgh airport, which bills itself as Montreal's U.S. airport, has been upgraded with American government funding. Here in Canada, 400 jobs are at risk because the ministers have no initiative.
I ask the Minister of Transport to join forces with the industry and regional development ministers to review the criteria of the program in question and do what has to be done to invest the $70 million needed to save high level jobs in Saint-Hubert.
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my friend that in December, minister Michael Fortier announced $350 million for Pratt &amp; Whitney. I understand that today, Pratt &amp; Whitney would like $70 million to rebuild the runway at the Saint-Hubert airport.
Our officials have met with authorities from Aéroports de Montréal and Pratt &amp; Whitney. We are looking at various solutions, but you will appreciate that the overall amount is too large for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Nevertheless, we are working with the parties.
Agriculture and Agri-foodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's recent announcement that it would allocate an additional 8.7 million kilos of poultry to the imports already allowed has outraged poultry farmers in Quebec, who recently held their annual general meeting. This decision would bring market access to 8.4%, in an industry where access is already 7.5%. 
Since the Conservative government boasts about maintaining the supply management system, how can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain the decision to allocate 8.7 million kilos, when we know that Canada, with 7.5% access, is already among the world's 10 largest chicken importers? 
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be thanking us. After 13 long years, we finally have a government in this country that will stand up for farmers.
This is the government that is bringing freedom to farmers across Canada. We have just given another $1 billion to western Canadian farmers. We are looking after their interests internationally. The Bloc should be standing up and congratulating us for representing our farmers as well as we are and we will continue to do that.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, just because it is Friday does not mean we do not deserve serious answers.
As with dairy products, it is possible to get around tariff quotas by processing the chicken. Does the minister plan on meeting the urgent demand of Quebec's poultry farmers that imported products containing more than 20% chicken be subject to tariff quotas? Does he plan on invoking article XXVIII of the WTO to correct the situation, as was done for dairy products?
The Bloc rises to ask real questions. It expects real answers.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc were serious about agriculture, it would ask questions on a day other than Friday as well.
This government is prepared to represent farmers 24 hours a day, every day of the year, and we are doing that around the world. We will protect our farmers. We just brought forward another $1 billion in farm support for farmers. The minister has been clear on his support for supply management in this country and I think the Bloc should be thanking us for that.
Government PoliciesHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a government that has raised income tax while repeatedly saying that it is doing the opposite. It breaks its equalization agreements with three provinces and it breaks its income trust promise to all Canadians. That is dishonesty. 
It is a government that turns advantage Canada into disadvantage Canada and it turns tax fairness into tax unfairness through a black comedy of unintended consequences on income trusts. 
What is worse, blatant dishonesty or utter incompetence?
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will not get too carried away with his own rhetoric. This is more than just about electioneering for him. He is an economist. He should be honest with Canadians and he should put the facts forward. If he disagrees, at least he should do so on the facts instead of overblown rhetoric.
I encourage my friend opposite to assist in making the tax system better and making our economy better instead of just these cheap shots at government. That does not help.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a fund manager said that the supposedly Conservative government was the most anti-business government in 20 years; that it was the biggest spending government in history; that it was a government that has raised income tax; that it has driven income trusts into foreign hands; that it insults China and ignores India; and that it has launched a policy which has the logical conclusion of driving every head office job from the land.
What is worse, a government with conservative principles or a government with no principles at all?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it would take a long time to get the facts straight with the Cassandra-like croakings opposite, but let us talk about what we have done for businesses. 
We have reduced corporate tax rates. We have eliminated the corporate surtax and the federal capital tax. We have changed the capital cost allowance rates to better align them with the useful life of assets. We are dealing with tax avoidance and tax unfairness so we can have a lower, fairer tax system for every business so that Canadian businesses will continue to be competitive. I would hope the hon. member would be supportive of those things.
Income TrustsHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly alarmed by the Conservatives' laissez-faire attitude to the sale of Canada's important companies. 
The CEO of Manulife said yesterday to his shareholders, “I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs”. 
In 1997, under a Liberal government, Canada bought the world. In 2007, under that bunch of incompetents, the world buys Canada. 
Will the Minister of Finance reverse course on income trusts and income deductibility before there is nothing left in Canada to sell?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on what we are talking about. We are talking about an area where a business was able to claim the same deduction twice. Do we know of any Canadian who thinks that is fair?
I will ask my hon. colleague opposite, an economist, if he thinks it is fair that a company can make the same deduction twice. Is that what the Liberals are trying to defend?
We need a fair tax system with lower taxes for everyone. That is exactly what this government is doing.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, every time the government talks about fairness, Canadians start reaching for their wallets.
On income trusts, the government sells this sector off to foreigners: a dishonest and incompetent policy. On interest deductibility, the government makes it impossible for Canadians to compete with foreigners: a deceitful and incompetent policy. On withholding tax, the government makes it easier for foreigners to buy Canadian companies: an incompetent policy.
Can we imagine three more incompetent, deceitful policies than these, which knee-cap Canadian companies and hang a huge for sale sign on Canada?
Diane Ablonczy: Of course, Mr. Speaker, such overblown, over the top rhetoric is completely and utterly false. If the member opposite does not believe that, he should at least listen to his own Liberal colleagues.
 He should listen to Sheila Copps, who said that reversing the income trust decision “would...run afoul of espoused Liberal principles”, if they have any, “by promoting a tax loophole for a select few, financed by the rest of us”. That was said by Sheila Copps, while John Manley, former Liberal finance minister, said, “It was the right thing to do...Any day that good public policy triumphs is a good day”. 
The EnvironmentMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the third report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the world must stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 2015 in order to keep global temperatures from rising.
 The report also states that cuts in gas emissions can be achieved through the development of biofuels, increases in fuel efficiency and the use of renewable energy like solar power.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us what Canada is doing to meet the challenge of climate change and turn the corner on greenhouse gas emissions?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that members on this side of the House actually care about the environment and are making inquiries.
Canada does take issue with this international panel report, which wants to see greenhouse gases peak in the year 2015. We think that is too late. We want to see greenhouse gases peak by 2010 or 2012, so Canada will actually outperform this important international panel's work.
Also, our plan is in line with the panel's report, which believes that governments must make a real and serious attempt to reduce smog and pollution. That is what the government is doing, with a 50% cut in industrial pollution by 2015.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, this week the House of Commons took a historic vote and agreed unanimously to apologize to the survivors of the residential schools for the abuse they suffered and for being forcibly removed from their homes.
Although the apology is appreciated by survivors, some question why there is no apology from the Prime Minister, who represents the Government of Canada, which enforced the rules and supported the whole residential school system.
Why will the Prime Minister not offer an apology on behalf of the Canadian government?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I was very pleased, as were all members in the House, to rise and apologize on behalf of this House of Commons to the claimants of the Indian residential school era.
We are very proud to have moved very quickly with the ratification of that agreement. Of course, the Liberals claim that we are dragging our feet yet, yet from when we first sat in the House on April 4, 2006, it was not a month later that we actually finalized the agreement.
Jean Crowder:  Mr. Speaker, when will the Prime Minister say he is sorry?
The intergenerational effect of residential schools is still being felt by the children today, but it is the neglect of the government that continues the legacy. There is a shortfall of $109 million per year for first nations children on reserves to receive services comparable to that for other Canadian children, to make sure that these kids have the same opportunities to live safely in their homes.
Why is the government discriminating against on reserve children?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, just last week the Minister of Indian Affairs made an important announcement in Alberta. It actually was about the Alberta model for child and family services, which looks into bringing about measures that go right to the heart of the problem in terms of prevention. It is a method that has been proven time and time again.
 I would like to ask the member if perhaps she could get behind our efforts to actually bring human rights to first nations people on reserve through our Bill C-44.
EqualizationMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the betrayal of the Atlantic accord is just another area where the government's position seems to change daily. First it told Nova Scotia that nothing had changed as a result of the budget. Then it said it is a better deal. Then it said, no, it is not a better deal, but we will give Nova Scotia a choice between the Atlantic accord and new equalization.
Now there is a new potion being brewed. While Conservative MPs are muzzled, an attempt is being made to cover up the betrayal by negotiating some new deal with the province of Nova Scotia. Why does the government not come clean, admit its betrayal, do what Nova Scotians want and deserve, and honour the Atlantic accord?
Peter MacKay: Once again, Mr. Speaker, as we have seen from that member time and time again, he mixes fact and fiction. He gets up and he tries to confuse people.
What we are demonstrating clearly is what we have demonstrated all along, flexible federalism, the ability to work with the provinces, as we saw this week when the Minister of Finance travelled to Nova Scotia to meet directly with his counterpart. He spoke with him about the need to find a resolution.
 We are going to continue to work with our counterparts in all the provinces to see that the fiscal imbalance is actually fixed once and for all, which is where the previous Liberal government across the way failed so miserably for 13 years.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not listening to his fellow Nova Scotians. They know the Atlantic accord was torched. Conservative premiers acknowledge it, economists have validated it, Conservative candidates are running for cover, and Conservative MPs have gone underground. The finance minister is scurrying around trying to contain the damage. 
There is no question that the accord was betrayed. The only question is whether the government will stop changing stories every day, stop trying to go around the deal, and honour the deal.
Peter MacKay: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the facts never get in the way of that member when he wants to put his story out there, when he wants to confuse things, stir the pot, and misinform constituents and people around the province.
 What we have seen time and time again from the members opposite is that they come up short when it comes to the truth. What we are seeing here is obviously an attempt to distract from the shortcomings of their time in office.
What we are seeing from this government is decisive action that treats the provinces with respect and that comes across and delivers millions more to the citizens of Nova Scotia and all provinces of this country.
Regional Economic DevelopmentMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Biotechnology Innovation Centre is critical to the economic development of Laval and Quebec. Unfortunately, this organization could lose some of its federal funding. On April 28, the newspaper Le Quotidien reported that the Economic Development Agency of Canada would no longer provide operating funding for non-profit organizations. 
Can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec confirm that the centre's operating budget will not be cut?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have stated several times in this House that 70% of my department's budget envelope goes to non-profit organizations that promote economic development. Some of those organizations have been with us for over 20 years, and we believe that at some point, the department's mission needs to be refocused on two things: diversification of regional economic activity in Quebec and growth of businesses, including regional businesses.
We are going to invest in what we call “applied research with business technology transfer”.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to cut funding for non-profit organizations will also have an impact on young people in economically depressed regions of Quebec. For several years, the Centre d'entrepreneuriat et d'essaimage at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi has helped young people in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore region set up businesses. 
Can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec confirm that he will cut the budget for the entrepreneurship centres in Chicoutimi and Sept-Îles?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, of course we are going to continue supporting organizations. That is our purpose. 
However, from now on, when an economically oriented organization submits a project, it must have a beginning, a middle and an end, with measurable results that must be achieved.
The money we receive does not go to the Treasury Board. It goes toward our department's real mission: to diversify regional economic activity in Quebec, which is extremely important, and to help Quebec's businesses and regions grow.
National Capital CommissionRichard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, this government's lack of concern toward francophones borders on contempt. After the billboards in Vimy littered with mistakes in French and the appointment of a unilingual anglophone ombudsman for victims of crime, now the minister responsible for the NCC is appointing a man who barely speaks French to head a federal agency responsible for administering the capital of a country that is supposedly bilingual. 
My question is for the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. Why appoint a unilingual anglophone to head up the NCC?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I was extremely pleased yesterday to stand beside my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to announce the appointment of Mr. Mills as chairman of the board. 
In front of the media and me, Mr. Mills made a firm commitment not just to improve his French, but to perfect it. He promised to represent the NCC well and with tact. We are extremely pleased with this appointment. It is a welcome appointment in the greater national capital area.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, for far too long now, NCC investments have not reflected the demographic weight of Gatineau across from Ottawa. While the population of Gatineau accounts for more than 25% of the region, it received just 17% of NCC investments between 2001 and 2005.
Does the former Gatineau city councillor and current minister responsible for the NCC intend to tolerate this situation much longer?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the period from 2001 to 2005, since it was our friends opposite who were in charge of the NCC. However, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced in his 2007 budget, some $30 million over two years for the NCC's activities and day to day operations. That in itself is a major improvement over what we had before.
Tourism IndustryMr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government created anger and upset when it scrapped the Liberal GST tourism rebate program. Now we have confusion and continued worry in the Canadian tourism industry with the government's weak imitation that applies to registered tour groups only. The program used to be available to all visitors to Canada.
Why does the government insist on nickel and diming our tourism industry to death and putting thousands of jobs at risk?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I guess it would be too much to ask to expect the Liberals to stop overstating the case.
In fact, we are introducing a new and more effective foreign convention and tour incentive program. This focuses on the most competitive and price-sensitive segments of the market.
 The Tourism Industry Association of Canada said that this measure demonstrates that the government “takes tourism's concerns seriously and is willing to work together” with the industry. The Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia said, “We are really pleased. This is big for us”. Maybe the member should listen to his own people.
Gasoline PricesMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Quebec today, the price of gas has reached $1.16 a litre. Quebeckers are worried and want gas prices to stop climbing.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell this House what will happen to the price of gas if the Liberal plan for the environment, Bill C-288, which is also supported by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, indeed passes?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Canadians have good reason to be concerned about the price of gas.
Under the Liberal plan for the environment, which is supported by the Bloc and the NDP, Canadians will pay up to $160 a litre for gas. The leader of the NDP wants the federal government to force oil companies to ration gas. According to economists and under Bill C-288, proposed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP and the Bloc, the price of gas would go up by 60%.
Human Resources and Social DevelopmentMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one in 10 children are getting poorer, according to the new Statistics Canada report. We are talking about 788,000 children. These kids cannot get the Conservatives' newest tax cut of $310, but millionaires' families can. If mom cannot work because she cannot afford or find child care, she does not get the Conservatives' newest workers' tax credit either, and that is plainly unfair. 
No wonder the prosperity gap between the rich and poor is getting wider. How does the Prime Minister sleep at night knowing that kids--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.
Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. That is why the government has acted. It is providing a balanced approach in support of parents, the provinces and child care providers. Right now we contribute $5.6 billion a year in support of child care and of parents who provide this care, three times as much as the previous government provided. 
The real question, and I am sure the hon. member would like to know the answer too, is why are the Liberals threatening to take away part of that, the universal child care benefit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty rich answer for poor kids.
Ireland's president is to visit Canada in June. Ireland has a national strategy with goals and a timetable to reduce poverty. Ireland took leadership and pumped a lot of money into training, child care and affordable housing. The result is that 90% of their young people graduate from high school. That is over 15% higher than in Canada. Canada does not even have a strategy.
 When will the government take action, introduce a national anti-poverty strategy and close the prosperity gap?
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member is actually intent on creating poverty. She is the one in the government operations committee who moved a motion to take away the universal child care benefit that goes to two million families and provides them with $2.4 billion in benefits every year. That goes to every family in the country, including those who need it the most. The member should be ashamed.
MulticulturalismColleen Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, for years the Prime Minister has called for the elimination of Canada's multicultural policy and program.
In the past few months, community leaders have expressed their deep concern about the government's plans for this vital program. However, they are afraid to speak out publicly for fear their budgets will be slashed.
Once and for all, does the government truly believe the multicultural program deserves federal funding?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. I had the good fortune to attend yesterday's launch of Asian heritage month here on Parliament Hill. I was joined by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity.
The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity spoke very profoundly. He spoke very proudly of our commitment to multiculturalism and the great benefits and values that new Canadians bring to Canada.
There were also a number of people in the crowd who wondered why the Liberals brought in a $1,000 head tax on new immigrants.
InfrastructureMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the 2007 budget our government committed an unprecedented $33 billion to infrastructure. The funding will be available under the infrastructure plan, which is currently being developed.
Could the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tell the House what the government is doing right now to help communities meet their immediate infrastructure needs?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of building strong communities. While we are looking at ways of going forward and designing our new programs, I am happy to announce that we have an agreement with the provinces to top up the MRIF program to the tune of an additional $200 million. This will generate roughly $600 million in programs and projects that we will see over the coming months.
 The government is getting the job done.
Points of OrderJohn Baird: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. I meant to say $1.60 not $160.
 It is a great thing in the country that we have so many people learning second languages.
Business of the HouseThe Speaker: The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private member's business.
The Chair has developed the practice of reviewing bills after the replenishment of the order of precedence so the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to involve spending and interested members can be invited to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for a royal recommendation.
 In keeping with that practice, following the April 19 replenishment of the Order of Precedence with 15 new items, I can inform the House that two bills give the Chair concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate. They are: Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
The other is Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), standing in the name of the member for Brampton West.
I would encourage hon. members who would like to present arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for these bills, or any of the other bills now standing in the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
Bisphenol A (BPA) Control ActFrancis Scarpaleggia:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-439, An Act to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this very important bill, the purpose of which is to ban the use of bisphenol A.
 Bisphenol A is a highly toxic chemical found in many products made of hard, translucent plastic, such as water bottles and baby bottles. This chemical acts like the hormone estrogen and numerous studies have linked it notably to an increased risk of infertility, breast and prostate cancer and obesity.
It is imperative that the government act to regulate this toxic substance.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseHon. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: 
 That twelve members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to the Institut national de recherche scientifique, University of Quebec in Laval, Quebec, on Thursday, May 10, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Jay Hill: (Motion agreed to)
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
(Bill C-22. On the Order: Government Orders:)
 May 4, 2007—Minister of Justice—Third reading of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act. 

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, be deemed adopted at third reading on division. 

The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 
PetitionsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from Nanaimo—Cowichan. The petitioners call upon the government to legislate programs consistent with the meteorological reality and act immediately to reduce the climate change crisis by diminishing fossil fuel dependency, while sponsoring initiatives and incentives to promote less harmful technologies.
I have a large number of people from places like Duncan, Cobble Hill and the rest of the riding signing onto these petitions.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of hundreds of residents of my constituency in Sarnia—Lambton to present a petition on human trafficking. The petitioners request the government to continue its work to combat trafficking of persons worldwide.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27.
The bill will amend the dangerous offender and long term offender provisions of the Criminal Code to require the prosecutor to advise the court whether the prosecutor intends to proceed with an application for an assessment under those provisions when the prosecutor is of the opinion that the offence with which the offender is convicted is a serious personal injury offence that is a designated offence and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a designated offence, and was sentenced to at least two years or more of imprisonment for each of these convictions.
The bill also removes the court's discretion to refuse to order an assessment when it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender or a long term offender.
Further, to provide that if the court is satisfied in a hearing for a dangerous offender designation, that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a primary designated offence for which it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more where the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a primary designated offence and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions.
The provisions to make the designation are presumed to have been met unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.
Also, to clarify, that even when the conditions to make a dangerous offender designation have been met, a court must consider whether a lesser sentence, including a long term offender designation, would adequately protect the public and that neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in this matter.
The bill will also amend sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code to allow the duration of a recognizance to be for a period of up to two years if the court is satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of an offence of a sexual nature against a child or a serious personal injury offence. Also, to clarify, the scope of conditions available for a recognizance is broad and those conditions may include electronic monitoring, treatment and a requirement to report to a designated authority.
I strongly support efforts to protect Canadians and punish repeat offenders who present a threat to our communities. That is why Canada already has some of the toughest dangerous offender laws. I suggest the Liberal Party is definitely committed to passing justice legislation that will protect Canadian communities.
While we support Bill C-27 at second reading, our concerns about the effectiveness of the bill are serious enough that we will definitely introduce amendments in committee.
 I want to assure the House that our amendments are not designed to weaken the bill, but to in fact make it stronger and more effective by getting dangerous offenders off our streets.
The government has indicated that the purpose of the bill is to make it easier for Crown attorneys to obtain dangerous offender designations. In fact, I suggest the contrary may be true. 
What will happen if the bill passes? First, the Crown attorney will have to give notice presumably after two convictions. Right now two convictions are not needed. It could be done after one conviction if it can be established the individual will be a threat to society. In fact, an indeterminate sentence can be obtained based simply on one conviction. The Crown attorney is still forced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these elements of that individual's behaviour threaten society at large.
Will the proposed law make our society safer because of a need for multiple convictions? I suggest not.
Under the current legislation, a Crown attorney can trigger an application for a dangerous offender hearing when the offender is convicted of a predicate serious personal injury offence. This is defined as being a specific sexual assault offence or an offence that was violent or potentially violent, and which carries a maximum sentence of at least 10 years or more.
Under the proposed bill, offenders who already have three previous designated offences which are listed in the bill and are facing a dangerous offender hearing will be presumed to be dangerous offenders unless they can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they are not. This reverse onus is highly controversial and many legal experts have already indicated that they feel it is unconstitutional. Officials from the Department of Justice have indicated that they anticipate that these new provisions will face a constitutional challenge.
The existing dangerous offender sections have already been found to be constitutionally valid. By grafting on sections that raise constitutional questions, the Conservative government is putting the entire regime in jeopardy.
While it is likely that a court would simply strike down the offending sections and leave the rest of the regime in place, it could choose to strike down the entire regime. By introducing sections that they know to be unconstitutional, the Conservatives are wasting the time of the police, the Crown attorneys and our already overworked courts.
I suggest that the implications have not been well thought out. If the entire section was struck down, would this lead to current dangerous offenders being given an open door to challenge the grounds of the indefinite incarceration sentences they are already serving? Could we see the likes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson back on the street? Are the Conservatives willing to take that risk? I urge and implore the Conservatives to consider a reference to the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of these proposed changes. We do not need a flood of monsters back on our streets.
The new legislation could also lead to a series of unintended consequences. Due to the reverse onus which comes into play on a third conviction, both defence lawyers and Crown attorneys will approach earlier convictions in a different manner. Defence lawyers in particular would be less likely to seek a plea bargain for their clients if it starts them down the road toward three convictions. 
Fewer plea bargains mean more trials and more trials lead to more backlog in our already overworked provincial courts. The bill does not provide for any additional resources for the provinces that are primary administrators of the justice system in our country. 
Many of these flaws, I suggest, could have been avoided had the government held specific and widespread consultations with the provinces and key stakeholders in advance of introducing this bill, as is the common practice. The Liberal Party would not oppose legislation that makes the dangerous offender sections of the Criminal Code stronger, provided it was done in a constitutional manner and that provinces receive the assistance they require to effectively handle the new provisions. This has not happened.
I strongly support legislative efforts to protect Canadians and to punish offenders who represent threats to the safety of our communities across Canada. When changes are made to the current working system, they should be done in a manner that would not jeopardize the system that works now. Changes proposed must respect the constitutional standards and not risk successful constitutional challenges which could undermine the protections we already have in this country.
I would like to turn briefly to a consideration of the long term offender designation. The former Liberal government in 1997 created a long term offender designation, which was targeted at sexual and violent offenders in response to concerns that many sexual and violent offenders required specific attention, even if not meeting the criteria of a dangerous offender. A change was needed as now we have over 300 offenders under the long term offender designation in Canada. 
This long term offender designation allows individuals convicted of a serious personal injury offence, who on the evidence are likely to reoffend but who can likely be managed through a regular sentence with a specific term of federal supervision in the community, to be given a long term offender supervision order of up to 10 years after their release from serving their original court imposed sentence. Once released, the offenders are subject to any number of supervisory conditions ordered by the National Parole Board.
There has been developing case law in the areas of both dangerous offenders and the long term offender designation. In September 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a sentencing judge must consider fully the prospects of controlling an offender under a long term offender designation before a dangerous offender designation can be made. This is part of Regina v. Johnson. If the court had a reasonable belief the risk that the offender poses to the general public can be controlled under a long term offender designation, then the offender must be given the lesser sentence, even if he or she otherwise meets all criteria for a dangerous offender designation.
It is important to codify the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Regina v. Johnson. Reforms must ensure that offenders who should be designated as dangerous or long term offenders do not slip through the cracks of the judicial system, while at the same time the reforms must in no way violate the rights of fundamental justice ensured to all Canadians. To do so would have the unfortunate effect of being more messaging to a law and an order imperative of the current minority Conservative government rather than governing responsibly for all Canadians. Victims themselves will not be happy when they discover a flawed law, not a strong one.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member, as usual, has provided clarity for the entire House about some of the key provisions of the legislation before us and some of the challenges we have as legislators to come forward with constructive amendments to ensure that we do make good laws and wise decisions.
The member referred briefly to a question of constitutionality or a constitutional challenge with regard to this piece of legislation. I understand that prior to a piece of legislation coming to the House that the government must do a proper review with the Department of Justice and have an opinion that this legislation is in fact constitutional.
I wonder if the member could explain how it is that the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice could opine that the bill would be constitutional when there are still some questions about its constitutionality.
[Interjection]
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. The Minister of Justice in his role as the Attorney General of Canada must certify that every bill that comes before the House meets charter challenges. He may have done so in this case. 
I suggest that in view of the growing evidence and growing concern by many judicial minds and many professors that the “three strikes and you're out” provisions, the reverse onus provisions of this bill, do in fact violate our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
My concern is that if in fact the bill does pass the House with these flaws that there will be court challenges costing time and money, and costing delay in other cases going forward until there is a final determination of whether it is or is not constitutional. 
I am suggesting that because of the concern about this that we should have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada before the law comes into effect. I say this with all due respect to our Attorney General. I doubt his position, but I am not the final arbiter. That would finally determine it and we could proceed one way or the other based on that determination. It would be much more prudent to do it that way.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the most recent conversion of Liberal members to getting tough on crime, or at least they like to take on the language. Now Liberal members are expressing these big concerns, but they are apt to do that.
 Surely, the Supreme Court of Canada would guarantee the freedom of person to Canadians to not be threatened by serious criminals. We have people who use explosives and firearms. We have people who sexually exploit a person with a disability. We have people who procure sexual activity, especially with children. These are very serious crimes. 
I would like to recommend to the Liberal Party that it is time that we, as parliamentarians representing our constituents, stand up and stand up strongly for putting away serious offenders for the protection of society. We need to start pushing on that. We need to make sure that Canadians recognize what is being done here. It is time that we stop hiding behind the charter in our quest for protecting the rights of the charter for law-abiding citizens.
 I am really perplexed by all of the different reasons those members come up with for not supporting this bill in its present form.
[Interjection]
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have always been tough on crime, but we are also smart on crime, which is a different position than the one taken by our Conservative friends.
I take no issue with a firm approach on those sections which the member opposite set out. However, it is the process involved in this bill that will come under the threat of a charter challenge. It is the process of three strikes--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-27 at second reading to get it to committee and for the very good reason that it is important that we allow the committee to do its work. We want the committee to consider a couple of important amendments that we believe will improve this legislation, which is a bill to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace.
The member for Welland has very succinctly outlined the principal provisions of the bill and I will not repeat them. I would like to bring to the attention of the House and all Canadians the two areas which we will be seeking to amend. We hope the committee will seek expert testimony and consider why we believe these amendments would be important to pass at committee to improve the legislation.
One amendment has to do with dangerous offender hearings for violations of long term offender orders. Currently, when a judge is making a determination as to whether or not a dangerous offender designation is appropriate, one alternative at the judge's disposal is the long term offender designation.
Someone designated as a long term offender is subject to a supervision order that can last as long as 10 years after he completes his prison sentence. However, if the long term offender violates a term of his supervision order, he cannot then be compelled to face a new dangerous offender hearing. He can only face a dangerous offender hearing if he commits a new and serious criminal offence.
We believe that the bill should include a new provision that would allow crown attorneys to order a new dangerous offender hearing for those who have violated the terms of their long term offender supervision order.
The other amendment that we will be proposing at committee, should this bill pass at second reading and I believe it will, has to do with mandatory dangerous offender hearings. Currently, the decision to pursue the dangerous offender designation is entirely within the discretion of the crown. There is nothing that mandates that the crown must seek a designation either to repeat offenders or for specific types of offences.
We believe that we should insist on an amendment that would create a provision that the crown must seek a dangerous offender hearing for those who have three convictions for serious offences. This could be positioned as a reasonable alternative to the contentious reverse onus provisions.
I believe there will be support in the House for Bill C-27. Canadians should be assured that the Liberals are very supportive of being tough on criminals who commit serious crimes, but when legislation comes forward, it is important to do the proper due diligence to make sure that in practice and in the application of the legislation, the laws are of the most effective form and provide the greatest latitude and opportunity for justice to prevail.
I want to conclude by saying that every now and then there are some statements in the House about who is tougher on crime. Canadians understand that it is not simply a matter of being tough on criminals. Canadians also want us to do everything possible to reduce crime from happening in the first place.
The criminal justice system really requires a balanced approach. It is about being tough with those who commit serious crimes that warrant serious penalties. There is ample evidence that on a case by case basis there are circumstances which require judicial independence, which require latitude. We have to take into account things such as addictions. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse came out with a report in the past few weeks which indicated that 42% of criminal offences involve alcohol and another 8% involved the use of drugs. There are a lot of people with addictions out there.
We also know about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the fact that many of the people who suffer from this mental disability are not subject to rehabilitation. These people commit crimes but they do not know right from wrong. We must be absolutely sure that, within the penal system, within the judicial system and the process that we go through, every case has the flexibility and the availability of judicial discretion to take into account mitigating or exacerbating circumstances, which is why there is such latitude within the Criminal Code for sentencing provisions.
Having said that, I am pleased to lend my support and to indicate our party's support for Bill C-27 at second reading and to get it to committee so we can consider important amendments to ensure this is a very good bill for all Canadians.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I find there to be a curious inconsistency in the Liberal thinking. 
In some of the other bills that we have been discussing, vis-à-vis mandatory minimum sentences, for example, the Liberals have been adamant that we ought not to give the judge that discretion, and yet now they are saying that they want to take away from the crown prosecutor the discretion of whether or not to bring forward the designated dangerous offender status for a convicted person.
I would like to know why they are willing to give discretion in one case but quite adamant to take it away in this case.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, he basically said that the Liberals were against mandatory minimums and asked why we should not give the judges that discretion.
If a piece of legislation has a mandatory minimum, there is no judicial discretion, which is proof positive that the member has no idea what he is talking about.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice to the many voices in Canada that support this legislation. Canadians across this country want dangerous and violent offenders off the street.
Whenever we do incarcerate these people and then let them go and they reoffend, Canadians find that completely unacceptable. What we are trying to do here, and what the legislation would accomplish, concerns the fact that too many people are walking out and reoffending. Rather than having this catch and release system, Canadians want to ensure these dangerous offenders stay incarcerated.
 Peter Whitmore is a good example. The Liberal Party wants people like him thrown back out on the streets and back out into the public. Peter Whitmore abducted children in the Maritimes and in Saskatchewan. If we would have had this legislation, that would never have happened.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for the bill because we came to this place to announce our support for the bill and to indicate very clearly that there were two areas of concern where amendments should be appropriately considered in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before the bill passes.
 I hope the member will follow through and give due support to very sound amendments to Bill C-27.
[Interjection]
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member accused me of not knowing what I was talking about when I compared their stand against mandatory minimum sentences, which would take away the discretion of the judge, and their support, as they have stated several times here, for making it mandatory for the crown to make this provision, in other words, instead of having them say that it is possible to do it, it must be done. This has nothing to do with the judge. 
I do know what I am talking about. This has to do with the legislation and the proposed amendment where they want to change it, and it is inconsistent.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the amendments have nothing to do with mandatory minimums. The member should read the material and listen to the speech.
The point that I made to the member was that if a piece of legislation prescribes a mandatory minimum, that is not a matter of judicial discretion, it is a fact. That is why I say that the member is contradicting himself. I would be happy to speak with him and explain it to him in a more fulsome way after the debate. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee) 
[Interjection]
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that all members present would be delighted to give unanimous consent that we see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Nicole Demers: moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage. 
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:  No. 
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 until Wednesday, May 9, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
It being 12:40 p.m, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The house adjourned at 12:40 p.m.)