2007-06-01

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on this Friday to take part in the debate on Bill C-55. When a bill has to do with exercising our democratic right to vote, it is very important to participate in the debate. Some speakers have already talked about this bill, and I join with my Bloc Québécois colleagues in saying that we support the bill in principle. However, we do have some reservations, because Bill C-55 will not eliminate the problem of low voter turnout for federal elections.
This bill amends the Canada Elections Act and aims essentially to improve voter turnout. Quite simply, Bill C-55 would add two days of advance polling. As I said, in and of itself, this measure is a good thing, because it would give people more opportunities to get to polling stations. But it is not the answer.
Personally, probably like the members of this House, I do not believe there is any one way to help improve voting. Still, Bill C-55 is a bit like sugar pie: you have to like it. It may not be the answer, though. I will have some proposals from the Bloc Québécois to present. They will no doubt be very interesting, and we may be able to play with them and draft possible bills. 
The Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle, because our party has long been concerned about the decline in voter turnout, particularly among young people.
I have some statistics from a time before I was even born. In the early 1960s—shortly before I was born—the voter turnout for federal elections was close to 80%. It is interesting to note that at one time the vast majority of people exercised their right to vote.
We all know about the epic battles that have been fought to enable people to exercise their right to vote. Consider women, who, after quite some time, managed to get the right to vote in Canada and Quebec—even later in Quebec than in Canada. Even today, in other countries, people are forced to fight for the right to vote. And I mean fight physically. Some people have to go to war to bring democracy to their country. I have seen places where armed guards had to supervise polling stations so that people could vote. So we in Canada are pretty lucky to have the right to vote. Our democracy enables people to choose who will represent them at various levels of government. Unfortunately, there are still places in the world where people cannot do that.
There was a time when a great majority of people exercised their right to vote. In my speech, I will refer to some statistics to show that unfortunately, little by little, people have been losing interest. Now, as I was saying, there is no one way to generate interest in the democratic process. There are a lot of solutions that would boost voter turnout to an acceptable level, if not as high as the levels of the 1950s and 1960s. 
Typically, in the 1970s and 1980s, voter participation rates were over 70%. Since 1993, which was not that long ago, voter turnout has fallen to less than 70%. In 2004, only 60.9% of eligible voters cast a ballot. That is 20% less than in the 1950s and 1960s.
In the last federal election, participation rates climbed to 65%. Was that mere chance, or was it the result of the work of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada? I have to say that they did work very hard. I am asking because we do not really know exactly what happened in 2006 that brought out 5% more voters than in 2004. Still, it is good news, and I hope that we are seeing a trend toward higher voter turnout even though for some time now, voter participation has, unfortunately, been dropping.
I am thinking about the United States or France. At one point, only about 50% of people exercised their right to vote. Imagine that 50% of people did not choose their government because they refused to vote. I am reminded of the second-last French election, when in the second round, people found themselves stuck with—I say that because it is my personal opinion, but also that of many French people—Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the far right Front National, who made it to the second round.
We can imagine how worried some people were at the idea of such a person leading a country as powerful as France.
I am also thinking of the United States. When George Bush was elected, voter turnout was only about 50%. A lot of Americans say that this is not who they wanted to be president. If these people did not vote, it is harder to then criticize and say that the person representing them is a problem, since they did not make an effort to exercise their right to vote.
Perhaps people should make more of an effort. But the politicians must also make it easier, so that they can go and vote. Sometimes it is the opposite. There are places or times where it is made more difficult for some types of people. I will have the time to explain this during my speech.
As I was saying, we must recognize that for a few years, the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada have been trying to make it easier for voters. For example, it is very interesting that it is now possible to vote every day during federal elections, which many voters still do not know.
From the moment we could do so, our organization—I am referring not only to the Bloc Québécois, but also to my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska—has always made an effort to get the word out about this flexible system, which definitely allows more people to exercise their right to vote. Not everyone works 9 to 5 these days. There are all kinds of work schedules, including weekends, evenings, nights. My brother, for example, has been working nights for years. Certain jobs require workers to ply their trade through the night.
It is not always easy to find time in one's schedule, even though it only takes a few minutes to go out to vote. I think more people need to be made aware of the possibility of voting throughout an entire federal election campaign. People need to know that if they must be away and cannot exercise their right to vote on election day or at advance polls, they can vote at any time. There is now even a system in place that allows people to vote by mail. I know some people who had to leave the country and had the opportunity to vote by mail.
Perhaps one day we will even be able to vote by Internet. We must be careful, however, not to open the door to certain kinds of fraud. I know for a fact that people can now vote by mail, even if they cannot be here for the entire election campaign. To do so, they need only be Canadian citizens and indicate their intention to exercise the right to vote. This is another way that people can vote and exercise this democratic right.
In addition, we are trying to improve access to polling stations for the elderly and those persons with physical limitations. Earlier, I mentioned that we sometimes put up obstacles. That is not done in bad faith, of course. There are some individuals who would definitely like to be able to vote but cannot do so even with mobile polling stations, even with advance polls, and even if political parties often organize transportation for these individuals. From time to time, there are exceptions. Unfortunately, some voters have to travel a few kilometres to vote, and that is just not manageable for them. They have certain limitations and there is no mobile polling station that goes to where these individuals live. Some improvements could probably still be made in this area. I do not think that we are pushing the idea that everyone should have clerks and secretaries come to their homes so they can vote and place their ballots in the box. However, some improvements could most definitely be made. We are also trying to make it easier for youth, especially students, to vote.
I stood for election the first time in 2000. That was not so long ago—just seven years ago. At the time, it was extremely difficult for some students who wanted to vote to cast a ballot. That was fairly recently, as I mentioned. When an election is held during the school year, students can vote in their host riding. However, they are usually on the voters list in the riding where their principal residence is located, which is often their parents' residence. A person cannot vote in two different places; you must choose where you wish to vote based on where you are at the time of the election. It is possible to vote according to the address of the parental home which, when you are a student, is usually your main residence. When in the middle of a school term, it is also possible to vote where you are studying.
In our area, we have the CEGEP of Victoriaville. It makes a lot of sense that students come there from other towns or even other areas. We also have a unique furniture and woodworking school in Victoriaville, where people from other parts of Canada come to study. These people have to be able to exercise their right to vote. It is very complicated. A system was established in 2000, which was described by many as bungled, whereby students would show up to vote, but they were not at the right polling station and had not received their voters cards, so they would be told that they were not registered. 
Accommodations can always be made, but people end up getting frustrated and turning back without voting—that is what these files are all about—and various solutions are sought. As I said, in 2000, many students experienced difficulties. We have to look at that very carefully, since it is tougher to ensure adequate turnout among young voters. 
It would be a very good idea to have polling stations in educational institutions, as we do in retirement homes and other places such as hospitals, where mobile polling stations can be set up. Taking that approach would certainly solve the problem at the CEGEP of Victoriaville, which I described a moment ago. I have had discussions with officials at Elections Canada who are considering doing just that. That would be great news. 
Young voter turnout is a concern: the turnout rate for eligible voters under 24 is half that of those 58 and over. A series of statistics show that much work does indeed need to be done with young voters to improve turnout. Among the 21-24 year olds—it is in fact 21½ to 24—the turnout for federal elections is a mere 35%. Among the 25-29, it goes up to 46%. Among the 30-37, it is 49%. Then, it jumps to 58% for the 38-47, which is incidentally my age group. It reaches 67% among the 48-57. 
The age group with a rather high turnout is that of the 58 to 67 year olds, with 75% of them voting in federal elections. As I said earlier, some people among those aged 68 or more have more limitations, making it harder for them to vote, and this results in a somewhat lower percentage for that group. However, older people have developed this habit of voting because it is important and no one can ever deprive them of that right. I am pleased to see these people react in this fashion. Among those aged 68 or more, the turnout in federal elections is still an impressive 71%.
However, contrary to what we may think, it is not that young people are not politicized. We have to be careful and realize that it is not all young people who do not care about politics. It is not true that they do not want to hear anything and that they do not understand. That is not how I see things. They may be cynical and disenchanted about politics in general, or politicians in particular, but their concerns have everything to do with politics. One simply has to visit a CEGEP or an organization with young people and talk to them to realize that they know very well what is going on, not only at the national level, but also on the international scene. I am thinking about young people's concerns regarding the environment, globalization and social justice. These are issues in which young people are not only interested but also involved.
Again, one simply has to visit a CEGEP. Earlier, I referred to the Victoriaville CEGEP, which I attended. I go back there regularly for various meetings, and I see how young people are aware of the world that surrounds them and of the challenges that it poses. 
Today, a lot more young people are involved in numerous causes, including, for example, international aid and the protection of forests and waterways. All kinds of organizations have been created in our region to protect the environment. In the Bois-Francs region, recycling and salvaging have long been taken to heart. Consequently, many young people are aware of this cause, and I am very proud of that. 
Being interested in politics does not necessarily lead youth to exercise their right to vote. Why not? Some people will say that it does not change anything. One can protest all one wants, get out to vote or do all kinds of things, in the long run, it does not change anything, because it is more of the same old, same old: politicians make promises that they cannot keep once they are elected. Examples come from the top down, and this is perhaps where work has to be done, by the government and the other parties. 
In fact, to reach youth, not only does one have to speak their language, but one must also address and consider their concerns. It is also necessary to speak the truth and avoid saying just about anything only to get a vote. Indeed, one should not promise all kinds of things without keeping one's promises, although, unfortunately, this is still the case, even today.
Let us remember all these recent political scandals. Let us consider the sponsorship scandal. Young people and their elders are still telling us about it. In face of such results, they wonder why they should vote or bother to trust people who created all kinds of schemes to get money or votes. The effect of such wrongdoing is that the reputation of all politicians is tarnished because some individuals decided to use a program for thoroughly partisan purposes. 
There is also the sense that politicians are in ivory towers making grand speeches. I am making one today. We have great ideas, but what really happens at the end of the day? I think I can generalize because it is not just young people who get this feeling. For those people, what can a government really do to directly solve their problems? Of course when we receive people in our offices, we as members know that we manage to help a number of them. We do not help them all. In many cases, we manage to get a resource directly from the government that we are affiliated with, the federal government, in order to help people. And often—and this is what I ask of my employees—my staff manages to direct people to the right place where they can get help in resolving their problems. For these people, not only is visiting a member's office interesting, but it allows them to resolve many problems. 
What is the Conservative government doing now when it comes to the Kyoto protocol and summer jobs? There was an uprising over summer jobs. I call this an uprising because there was outrage, especially in Quebec, when the former summer career placements program became Canada summer jobs. All of this makes people increasingly cynical. 
Nonetheless, I hope this will encourage people to go out and vote instead of saying it is not worth it. In my opinion, if something like the Kyoto protocol matters to someone, then it is very important that they exercise their right to vote to express their opinion. As everyone knows, the Kyoto protocol matters to the vast majority of Quebeckers. 
Bill C-55 will not solve all the voter turnout problems. We could talk about this for a long time to come. 
It is a step forward. It provides another opportunity for people to exercise their right to vote. However, we have to come up with other solutions. For example, the government could keep its election promises on the fiscal imbalance. Then people would say progress is being made, that something is happening, that politics yield results and that their vote matters, it counts and it is significant.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, but I did find the Bloc position on this to be somewhat contradictory. I do feel that in relation to his concern about maximizing voters, many people do not carry the kind of identification that is required to vote. 
The Bloc, by supporting the bill earlier on has actually disenfranchised voters and made it more difficult under some kind of an illusion that there is a massive voter fraud going on in the country.
At the same time, we are now pushing forward on a bill that would basically create a two day voting period. The first day, of which many people would take advantage, would be a day when advertising is allowed, where parties could take advantage of the opportunity to perhaps put forward issues that are new and that cannot be countered on the Sunday before the vote.
We would have a situation where parties, through their advertising, are going to be able to fool the voters when a massive number of voters are going forward to vote.
Right now we have a system where on the particular voting day there is no advertising allowed. Does the hon. member believe that we should extend that for the Sunday as well because of course this will become a two day voting period?
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I think that the attacks against the Bloc contained in the member's introductory comments are unfair. There is absolutely no contradiction between our present position and the bill the hon. member mentioned. The amendment proposed by the NDP opened the door to fraud. We are all in favour of increasing voter turnout but, at the same time, we must not forget—and the member is old enough to know about this— that at a certain time, dead people were registered to vote. Even today, people use all kind of tactics to steal elections. We must keep in mind that some monitoring is needed when people are exercising their right to vote.
In Quebec, voters must now produce some identification at the polls. I have never heard anybody complain about that. As my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber so rightly put it, voter turnout is higher in Quebec elections than at the federal level. We must monitor the situation while increasing turnout.
I did not have enough time to speak about solutions during my speech, but the member gives me the opportunity to do so. We could, for example, increase the number of advance polling stations. That would be a solution to improve voter turnout. We could improve accessibility in every riding, particularly in isolated or very large regions, by opening more advance polling stations. We could invest more in voter registration and in correcting the voters list. 
Things can be done and we are very open to some of the solutions put forward by the member. We can listen. However, we must be careful not to implement changes that make a bad situation worse.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government announced this bill to the media and members of the public with great fanfare. A number of young interns were used for a photo op for the bill. The buzz was that a big announcement was coming on democratic reform and it was democratic reform week. Everyone went out to the front of the Parliament Buildings to hear this great announcement. 
I asked a couple of the young interns who they were, where they were from, and who they worked for? Then the minister's announcement was about more advance polling. The government brought these young interns out for a photo op just to make an announcement about advance polling. It might have been a good idea, but it was about Conservative branding. It was like a fancy label on a soup can but the can only contained gruel.
I wonder what the member's comments are with respect to how the government approaches piecemeal democratic reform.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was listening carefully to my speech, I said just that when I indicated that Bill C-55 does not solve all the problems. I was not even aware that this bill had been announced with great fanfare. That is surprising. All the bill does is give people two more days to vote.
As I said when I began my speech, it is hard not to like sugar pie, but at the same time, there are many things that need to be done to improve voter turnout. The Bloc Québécois believes that the solution to low voter turnout is more political than administrative. What we have here is a far more administrative measure. We need to fight voters' cynicism about politics. The current government is not helping matters. When the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians are in favour of implementing the Kyoto protocol and the government does the opposite, it is not respecting the will of the people. Obviously, that makes people angrier and more cynical. It also happens when the government sets priorities that do not really reflect the public's priorities.
For example, I do not think that people's priority right now is to purchase $20 billion worth of military equipment, yet that is what the Conservatives are doing. People consider the environment a much higher priority than buying military equipment. But we have to be careful when we say that. We have to say that we are not opposed to equipping our soldiers properly. However, there has not been a clear policy for years—even under the former government—on the purchase of equipment for military operations. No, the government is waging a public relations campaign and saying that it is buying aircraft and used tanks. Unfortunately, in the past the government has bought submarines that sink and helicopters that do not fly. That was a serious problem. Today, when people see that, they wonder where their priorities are and whether the government is listening to them. That makes voters more cynical. The government needs to look in the mirror and not make a huge show of announcing this sort of bill, when there are many other possible solutions to this problem.
Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his excellent speech. I particularly encourage the initiative that he suggested about opening polling stations in schools. My concern is hearing from all the statistics that he provided that the turnout rate among youth is the lowest. I would like to get his view about the proposal to give the right to vote at 16 and if we would anticipate a 16% turnout for these young people. What does he think about this? 
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
In fact, if memory serves me well, a bill was introduced in this House by a Liberal member, but we did not have time to go through all the stages of this bill to give youths 16 years and over the right to vote. 
When this bill arrived on my desk, I did not have time to decide how I should vote in the House on giving the right to vote to youths at the age of 16. 
Today, we must be careful because a young person can get a driver's licence at 16. However, there are other obligations that only come at 18 years old. I think that, at 16 years old, one can be adult enough to exercise one's right to vote. However, as my colleague is asking, would this increase voter turnout? We see that it is lower among young people. The number of youths who would vote would probably increase, but when it comes to voter turnout as such, that remains to be seen. 
I believe this issue still needs to be discussed. 
Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill before us today. The purpose of this bill is to increase—or so we hope—voter turnout. Unfortunately, even if the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which we think will give more flexibility to voters, we do not believe it will increase voter turnout. This bill will only shift the vote from voting day to advance polls, as we saw during Quebec's last election. Participation in advance polls was very high, but total voter turnout was very disappointing. The same thing has happened in the past at federal elections: there were no clear links between voter turnout at advance polls and voter turnout on voting day.
In order to bring out more voters, we will have to look beyond strictly administrative matters, as my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska was saying,. If voter turnout is not as high as we would like, it is probably not because it is too complicated or too difficult, although this can sometimes be the case—I will get back to this later on in my speech—but it is also partly because people do not want to go and vote. This indicates something much deeper and more serious, which goes beyond the actual voting period. It is something all elected members must think about. And perhaps, as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said, we should change our way of doing things in order to encourage voters and show them how important their vote is.
I would like to compare voter turnout for Quebec National Assembly elections and voter turnout in Quebec for federal elections, for the House of Commons. Based on my information from Quebec, voter turnout for federal elections is consistently lower than turnout for Quebec elections, although it is the same pool of voters. I am not comparing the Canadian figures against Quebec figures. All voters in Quebec vote in greater numbers in National Assembly elections than they do in federal elections.
Ultimately, what incites people to get out and vote to choose their National Assembly representative, and what prevents these same people from voting to choose their House of Commons representative? In my speech here today, I will try to identify a number of factors that might play a role in people's decision. Among these factors, there are some that are more technical, such as those addressed by this bill. There are others, however, that are rather more philosophical and probably more important, although I do not have the statistics to support this in terms of any underlying motives.
I am somewhat new to politics, although I have taken part in two elections, one of which I unfortunately lost by 72 votes. Of course, when you lose an election by 72 votes, you quickly learn that every vote counts. You also quickly try to understand why every voter does not get out and vote, even when they say they will during your door-to-door visits, and you see your victory was only 72 votes away. You take the time to talk to voters, to try to understand their motives.
Technically speaking, there are some elements that will facilitate voting and can encourage people to participate. The bill before us, the purpose of which is to increase the number of days of advance polling, is certainly quite interesting, but this is far from the main reason and, by extension, the main solution. In Quebec, the advance polling period is more limited whereas, for a federal election, as soon as the writ is dropped, any citizen can go to the office of the returning officer and vote.
In fact, we can say that anyone can vote whenever they want during the election period, provided they can get to the office of the returning officer. This provision might work in urban areas, like my riding, where the office of the returning officer is not very far from people. Anyone in my riding can get to the office of the returning officer by metro. I imagine that in other ridings it is another story. And yet, voter turnout in my riding and in other urban areas is not as much higher as one might assume.
This leads me to think that the amount of time available for voting is not a factor. However, the issue of location seems to be important. A little earlier, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska talked about seniors who quite simply have a hard time travelling sometimes. Some live in residences for seniors with limited mobility. For them it is not an issue of knowing when they can go and vote because they are almost always at home. The issue is knowing how they will get to the polling station. In my riding, I have noticed that in many cases a polling station was set up directly in the residence. This is a good idea and simplifies the voting process. 
However, it is rather sad that similar measures are not taken for young people, students for instance. It seems to me that we should be putting a lot more energy into young students, especially, as the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska clearly illustrated, voter turnout for young people is disastrous. It is even worse during federal elections, when the rate is very, very low. 
How can we make things easier for voters? Allow me to give a very concrete example. The École de technologie supérieure in my riding is attended by students from all over Quebec who live in university residences or in apartments located nearby. This makes for a university neighbourhood that is somewhat isolated, somewhat closed in on itself and focused on its own activities. On voting day, these young people are told to go cast their ballot in La Petite-Bourgogne, which is way over on the other end of town. I know this because I went door to door and I met with these people. I told them to go vote, and they asked me where the polling station was. I told them that it was in the same building as the La Petite-Bourgogne swimming pool, and they looked at me blankly because they had no idea where that was.
This is a problem because voters are not especially motivated to go vote, but they think they probably should. They are already less than committed. If things come up that make voting even more difficult, such as figuring out where the polling station is and having to travel a significant distance to get there, many of these less committed voters will be easily discouraged. They just will not go.
The same applies to the reminder cards that indicate the location. In Quebec, it helps that many or even most of the polling stations are in schools. People know where their local school is.
When I get my reminder card and I see that the polling station is at Saint-Henri high school, then even if I lose my card and I do not have the address, it is not a problem because I can remember that I have to go to Saint-Henri high school to vote. I know where it is because it is part of my community.
However, if the address indicated was that of residence xyz, of some centre or of a lesser known location, and that on election day I leave my workplace without that document, I may wonder where I have to go to vote. If I do not have the address and do not know where to vote, I will first have to go back home. These are minor inconveniences. However, when someone is not quite sure if he is going to vote, this might turn out to be the reason why, in the end, he will not bother. When most workers arrive at the same time to vote, there are waiting lines in some polling stations, because these locations are ill-suited and were not set up to make the process as quick as possible. In such cases, some people just turn around and go back home without voting.
I do not know whether studies were made on this issue, but I personally witnessed this situation. In the two elections in which I ran I, like many members of this House, toured polling stations to congratulate the election staff. I also took that opportunity to watch how the voting process was going. At about 5 p.m., the same scenario occurs everywhere, and particularly in those parts of the riding that have a large number of families and workers. People get to the polling stations and waiting lines begin to form. These workers get back home and they must cook supper, take the kids to soccer practice, pick up their little ones at the daycare, and so on. People all have obligations. I remember seeing a totally disorganized polling station. There were 10 or 12 polling booths inside, but they would only let people vote one at a time. This created an incredibly long waiting line. People estimated that they would have to wait 45 minutes or an hour, perhaps less. Since they had other obligations, they thought it was too complicated. Unfortunately, for reasons that I will explain in the second part of my speech, when people have to choose between their personal obligations and their civic duty, they increasingly opt for their personal obligations, rather than voting. 
I find that the bill we are debating today is merely interesting. A great deal of work remains to be done in terms of the location of polling stations and their physical layout. What can be done so that at peak times, when workers arrive after work, voting can be carried out as efficiently as possible so that voters do not have to wait?
I said that I would talk a little about some more philosophical considerations. I will attempt to show the difference between what happens during a Quebec election and a federal election in terms of the appreciation of the elected members. When you tell citizens that it is important that they vote for their elected representative because members are the representatives of the people, you must be consistent, you must respect the members and appreciate their work. Unfortunately, this is less and less evident. It was not the case with the Liberals and it is even less so with the Conservatives.
The only message, in Quebec at least, repeated by this government like a child short of arguments, is to the effect that the Bloc will never be in power and that it is useless. That is not an argument that voters accept, as shown by the election results. It greatly devalues the role of the elected representatives. I wonder if the Conservatives said the same thing to their supporters when they were in opposition. I would like the Conservatives to provide me with some quotes from speeches they made in their ridings where they told voters that they were useless because they were in opposition.
They would never have said something like that. Perhaps when the Liberals have an opportunity to ask me questions, they will confirm that since they have been in opposition, they have been useless. Obviously, nobody would ever say that because it just is not true. We all know that the work of opposition members is very important in our democracy: our role is to keep the government in check. We are the majority in this House, and that means a lot.
There are advantages and disadvantages to being in opposition and to being in government. Opposition members do not have their hands tied by their government's promises, and they can criticize the government's actions frankly. Being a Bloc Québécois member is even better because our only loyalty is to Quebeckers, and we do not have to make compromises with other Canadian provinces on their positions and interests.
I think that the Conservatives' attitude will continue to undermine the role of elected members and will have a negative impact on voter turnout in the future. That elected members should do this is deplorable and very sad.
There is also the matter of the Conservatives respecting decisions made by the House. That was also the case with the Liberals when they formed a minority government. How can the Conservatives—like the Liberals—go around saying that we have to improve voter turnout, then turn around and act like this when they are in power? Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have done the same thing. They do not respect the choice made by citizens who elect representatives to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons. That has been happening more and more often with the two most recent minority governments. That might partly explain the difference between the number of Quebeckers who voted in Quebec's provincial election and those who voted in the federal election.
I am curious to see what will happen in Quebec now that we have a minority government for the first time. Will the National Assembly's decisions be respected? The current government will have to see to it, but as things stand, people become disillusioned when they see that the government ignores unanimous decisions without even giving them the time of day.
This government has also disrupted committee work. It even went so far as to develop a little guide for committee chairs explaining how to emasculate the work of committee members. The government's actions have certainly undermined the members' work. 
We saw also what the government is doing in the case of former programs, such as Summer Career Placement—the new Canada Summer Jobs. In this case, members were entirely excluded from the grant allocation process. Of course, in the past, members were not distributing grants from the Summer Career Placement program, but they were part of the process. They worked with officials to establish local priorities and to provide some feedback on what was really happening in the field and where the needs really were. 
People appreciated this. They felt that they had chosen a member who would be able to make the right choices and to guide officials toward the right priorities for the riding. Unfortunately, the Conservative government decided to cut all this. From now on, only one elected member will deal with these files, that is the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. This minister does not know what is going on in each of our ridings and where priorities are. We find ourselves in an extremely partisan system, while previously, the system ensured that the elected member's work was appreciated. If the member made bad choices, constituents were able in the next election to tell the member that, if he did not take their priorities into account, they would replace him with someone who would do the job correctly. 
If all this were considered and a little more effort were made, I am convinced that the turnout rate in federal elections would improve a lot. 
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very eloquent speech. Of course, being himself a young man he is in a better position to understand why young people do not vote. In fact, I have the same glaring problem in my riding.
I would like to hear the member's comments on the idea of not only giving young people in our colleges and universities a day to vote, but also a longer period to register. Many of them do not have time to go back to their community to register. We could give them a longer period to allow them to register at their college, CEGEP or university so they can participate in the electoral process. That would surely encourage them to vote.
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion. As I indicated at the very beginning of my speech, serious efforts will have to be made to facilitate voting by youth, along the lines of what is currently being done for seniors, which is a great thing. We should continue to have polling stations in facilities for people with reduced mobility. However, there should also be polling stations in educational institutions and, as my hon. colleague from Rivière-du-Nord suggested, longer periods to go over the voter lists.
The CEGEPs and universities become the place of residence of the young people who study there. Students sometimes go home to their families over the weekend, but it is really at their CEGEP or university that they live. We have to reach out to them wherever they are. The chief electoral officer and electoral organizations have to try harder to reach them. Students have to be told that it is important to register. It has to be pointed out to them that we are making things much easier for them by having revisal offices on site, that it will take them less than ten minutes between two classes to register, which in turn will allow them to vote at their institution, also between two classes, come election day. That is what we should do. 
We need to go further, and that will prove even more difficult. The youth not attending CEGEP or university also have to be reached. I do not have any statistics on that, but I am convinced that, if the youth low turnout was split up between those who attend CEGEP or university and those who do not, the turnout in the latter category would be even more disastrous.
All political parties have to be aware of this. Youth not attending CEGEP or university are extremely hard to reach. They are hard to identify, and it is difficult to find out where they can be reached. This makes it difficult to encourage them to vote.
This is an effort that will have to be made. Serious thought will have to be given to it by all.
The Speaker: When debate resumes, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber will have six minutes left for questions and comments on his speech.

Statements By Members
Community Service LeadersMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I stand to pay tribute to two very special people who have recently passed on.
The first is Mr. George Kerr. George represented Burlington in the Ontario legislature from 1963 until 1985. He was the first environment minister anywhere in Canada. He had over 20 years of elected political service. George was a true leader in his community and in his province. He was my political and community service role model.
We also recently lost Mr. Hugh Bell. Hugh was a very well-respected business owner and community volunteer in Burlington. He understood the real meaning of service to his community. Hugh was always there to assist families and community groups in their times of joy and sadness.
Our community, our province and our country will miss these two outstanding Canadians. I know I will miss them.
My thoughts are with their families and friends. God bless them both.
Summit of Francophone and Acadian CommunitiesMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the summit of francophone and Acadian communities opens today in Ottawa. The purpose of this first summit, held at the University of Ottawa, is to develop a new vision for communities.
In all, more than 700 participants from all the provinces and territories will gather here in Ottawa.
The themes reflect the concerns of these communities throughout Canada. During my many travels across the country, I discovered how dynamic these minority communities are, and how much life they add to the development of our country.
Their work is essential in the fight to recognize the rights of francophone and Acadian minorities. I am happy to have this unique opportunity to congratulate them.
Once again, I thank the organizers, as well as the participants of this summit. You are a reflection of the vitality of our francophone communities.
Festivals and Special EventsMr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that the federal government transfer to the Government of Quebec the $60 million allocated over two years to support festivals in Quebec.
We know the minister already has the criteria in place, as agreed upon by members of the cultural community, as well as the Government of Quebec and the Canadian festivals coalition. So, what is the hold-up, considering that the summer season is just around the corner and this is when so many festivals are held?
In Berthier—Maskinongé, we have two major events that have important repercussions on our community's economy, tourism and cultural life. These two events are the Festival de la galette de sarrasin in Louiseville and the Festival de la truite mouchetée in Saint-Alexis-des-Monts.
The worst solution of all is inaction. I therefore call on the minister to do whatever it takes to ensure that our festivals obtain the funds they need to survive, and before the summer season is upon us.
Manufacturing IndustryMr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last weekend I joined my colleague from Windsor West and thousands from our community in calling upon the provincial and federal governments to act to protect our manufacturing industry. The rally “Our Jobs, Our Communities, Our Future” was a clear demonstration of the concern the people of Windsor--Essex have about the loss of jobs in this vital sector.
Later in the week I united with my NDP colleagues, the Canadian Labour Congress and again thousands of others on Parliament Hill in another rally to highlight the crisis in manufacturing and to present to the government a practical five point plan to address this problem.
Canadians have shown that we can be the best at manufacturing in the world. We want to continue that proud tradition but cannot continue to be a leading manufacturing nation without the proper tools.
It is time for the government to provide those tools and develop a manufacturing sectoral strategy and a national automotive policy.
Royal Society of CanadaMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Royal Society of Canada, the country's oldest and most prestigious scholarly organization, which came into being in 1882 at the initiative of the Marquess of Lorne who was then our governor general. The first meeting took place here in Ottawa on May 25, 1882. 
The society's primary objectives remain to promote learning and recognize remarkable contributions of Canadians. The RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada continues under the patronage of the present Governor General and it promotes and expands the founder's intentions.
The RSC has welcomed institutional members, which include all major Canadian universities. Together they sponsor forums on important issues of policy and ethics.
 As a founding academy of the Council of Canadian Academies, the RSC is a supportive, collaborative presence on expert panel assessments. International research partnerships are also part of the RSC's broad and multidisciplinary outlook.
 As a vital contributor to Canadian scholarly and cultural life, the Royal Society of Canada continues to build on its impressive traditions.
Drought AssistanceMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Thunder Bay, Rainy River, Kenora and Algoma districts have been suffering from a severe drought for nearly 12 months.
Cattle producers have been forced to sell down their stock and farmers have no money with which to buy supplies for the spring seeding.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his parliamentary secretary have both indicated that money is available. The minister stood in the House on April 17 and said he had put forward a disaster relief framework to which all provinces have agreed.
It has been three long weeks since the minister announced $7.5 million in drought relief funding for Prince George, British Columbia, but the farmers across northwestern Ontario continue to wait for help.
I call on the minister to stop the delays and provide funds to help the farmers in Thunder Bay, Rainy River, Kenora and Algoma districts.
SyriaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the last month Syria has sentenced several prominent human rights defenders, intellectuals and political activists to harsh sentences for up to 12 years' imprisonment for basic efforts to promote human rights and democratic freedoms in Syria. These acts contradict fundamental practices of democracy and respect for human rights. 
On April 26 the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a public statement on the human rights and democratic situation in Syria and urged the Syrian government to ensure that its domestic laws and practices are in keeping with its international human rights obligations.
Today the Government of Canada calls on President al-Assad to show clemency and grant general pardons to Anwar al-Bunni, Kamal Labwani, Michel Kilo, Mahmoud 'Issa, Khalil Hussein and Suleiman al-Shummar, and release these and all other political prisoners. In so doing, the government of Syria would encourage democratic freedoms and the development of genuine democratic participation and electoral processes in Syria.
Option CanadaMrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the most recent referendum was held in Quebec, pitting the sovereignists against the federalists, everyone had to comply with the law and the rules of the referendum debate.
But the federal government interfered in the debate and illegally spent at least $539,000, thereby flouting Quebec law. The current government was elected on its platform of greater transparency and accountability. It is surprising, to say the least, to hear the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities refer to the Option Canada affair as “minor issues”.
The minister is reducing a shameful episode in the history of Canadian democracy to a mere footnote. A $539,000 hole and no indication of the cost of the love-in in Montreal: these are not minor issues.
In the name of the transparency it prides itself on, the government must thoroughly investigate the issues not covered by Justice Grenier's inquiry and shed light on—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou. 
Summit of Francophone and Acadian CommunitiesMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the first summit of francophone and Acadian communities is taking place in Ottawa, from June 1st to June 3rd, under the theme “A Thousand Looks, one Vision”. Over 700 participants from every Canadian province and territory are gathering for this major event. 
Francophone and Acadian communities represent one million people. During the summit, their officials will spell out what needs to be done to define a future vision that will promote the development and vitality of these communities.
Our government is more than ever committed to the francophone and Acadian communities, as demonstrated by our pride in being a partner in this summit.
I wish to emphasize the critical work that the participants will accomplish, and I want them to know that our government is very interested in their proceedings. 
Long live Canada's francophone and Acadian communities.
Landscape Architecture AwardsMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that a company in my riding of Don Valley East, Schollen &amp; Company International, is a recipient of a National Merit Award in the 2007 Awards of Excellence in Landscape Architecture.
The landscape architecture profession is concerned with analysis, design, planning, management and rehabilitation of the environment around us.
Landscape architects integrate and apply knowledge of ecology, socio-cultural factors, economics and aesthetics to create environments that are functional, innovative and attractive.
Schollen &amp; Company International is one of the 36 projects located in Canada, the United States and China that have been recognized for excellence in all aspects of the landscape architecture profession.
The real winners, of course, are Canadians who get to enjoy these wonderful projects.
Sam FilerMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Sam Filer was the father of four, grandfather of seven and a Superior Court judge. We honour him today because he was a model of courage and compassion who set an example for all.
 He was a co-founder of the Canadian Committee of Lawyers and Jurists for Soviet Jewry, who helped thousands of Russian Jews find refuge in the west in the days of Soviet anti-Semitism.
When he was stricken with ALS, Sam Filer used his own illness to become an advocate for people with disabilities. In the end he could no longer speak but that did not stop him from delivering speeches full of warmth and humour which were read from the podium by his wife, Toni Silberman.
ALS could not take away his courage, but in the end it did steal his life. On March 28 Justice Filer was trapped by his illness in a house fire.
Today is the start of ALS Month. I know that nothing would make Sam Filer happier than knowing that his tribute today is being used to draw attention to those fellow sufferers who live on with the disease that could not destroy his spirit.
WestfestPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa Centre is fortunate to have some of the best festivals and community events in the country. Next Friday marks the beginning of one of our most exciting and successful events, Westfest, Westboro Village's festival of music, art and life, thanks to the volunteers and to Westfest founder, Elaina Martin.
Hitting the streets of Westboro Village on the evening of Friday, June 8 and continuing through to Sunday evening, and spanning 10 city blocks is a two day celebration showcasing excellence in music, theatre, visual, dance, spoken word, aboriginal and performance art with the focus on local Ottawa talent.
Westfest 2007 is pleased to welcome Kathleen Edwards home as the festival headliner on Saturday, June 9. 
It is the only festival in Ottawa to offer top level artists for free, featuring performances by 100 other Canadian artists as part of its 2007 edition.
I invite everyone to walk the streets of this 100% Canadian festival. It is Westfest and it is free.
Canadian Forces DayMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the courageous men and women of our armed forces past and present as Canadians celebrate Canadian Forces Day this Sunday, June 3.
We are a nation with a proud, distinguished and outstanding military history. From the Battle of Vimy Ridge to Juno Beach to our role in the Korean war, the bravery and dedication of our soldiers has never been doubted. 
The importance of these celebrations on Sunday cannot be overstated. 
We hold close in our thoughts and prayers those who currently wear our uniform in Afghanistan as they fight for the freedom of the Afghan people and for the security of our own proud nation.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in celebrating Canadian Forces Day this Sunday and to say thank you to those who have worn and continue to wear the uniform of the Canadian army, air force and navy.
Their sacrifices for our freedoms will not be forgotten.
Summit of Francophone and Acadian CommunitiesMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this weekend I will have the pleasure of representing the Bloc Québécois at the first summit of francophone and Acadian communities. This event, which is being held in Ottawa, is organized by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and over 600 participants are taking part in it. Several speakers will be heard, including the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, the chair of the former court challenges program, Guy Matte, the president and chief executive officer of the Montfort Hospital, Gérald Savoie, and the administrator of the international organization of the francophonie, Clément Duhaime.
Five issues will be discussed: the demographic and identity challenge; the daily lives of francophones in their own language; the strategies for collective organization and mobilization; the political power and the francophonie; and the economic vitality of francophone and Acadian communities. 
The Bloc Québécois is joining me in saluting this initiative and in wishing a great summit to all participants. 
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities will be held this weekend in Ottawa. This initiative by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada will bring together more than 700 representatives from these communities, to develop a vision for future development.
Francophones in minority situations have been working hard and long to advance their communities and, in spite of the real threat represented by assimilation, enormous progress has been made.
The political, cultural, economic development, communications and education sectors are all evolving very rapidly, and the direction set at this summit will no doubt guide our communities in the years to come.
I wish to congratulate the FCFA and the summit participants, who have clearly understood that networking and the development of a clear and precise plan for the future are essential to the development of their communities.
We are anxiously awaiting the outcome of your proceedings, and rest assured that the Liberal Party will be there to support you, as always. 
Canadian Forces DayMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a proud supporter of the women and men in uniform in service to their country within the Canadian armed forces and as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke whose riding is home to CFB Petawawa, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize the first Sunday in June as Canadian Forces Day.
I wish to extend congratulations to Pat Oland, entertainment chairperson of Legion Branch 517 of Petawawa, in organizing a Red Sunday, featuring 10 bands with local Canadian talent as headliners: Common Ground, the Nick Armitage Band, the Legacy, the Ghost Town Cryers, Freddy Vette and the Flames, the Memphis Mafia, the Demos, Split Decision and Quicksand.
Michelle's School of Dance will have games for the kids and a pie eating contest.
As a member of the House who with all my colleagues voted unanimously to support the motion that resulted in this proclamation, I encourage all Canadians to join in this year's theme of “Celebrating Those Supporting Us” on Sunday, especially to recognize the families of our serving soldiers. We all should get out there on Sunday and show we care.

Oral Questions
National DefenceHon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said:
 When the Leader of the Opposition is able to stand in uniform and serve his country, then I will care about his opinion of the performance of the Minister of National Defence. 
This is a truly disturbing remark. It says that the Prime Minister, who, as he said, has never been in uniform, has no right to judge the performance of his own minister. It says the military is beyond the control and direction of the people.
Who has the right to call the shots? Who is calling the shots?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our military. We are very proud of our Minister of National Defence. We are proud of him because he served this country in uniform for over three decades. He understands the military inside out because he has served on the front lines. As our troops are doing today, he has put himself at risk, and he made the decision to sacrifice the best years of his life in the service of his country. That is something we should all be proud of.
That is why we ask members of the opposition to treat our military with respect, from the Minister of National Defence on down, instead of with the kind of casual smear they love to throw around all the time.
National UnityKen Dryden: Mr. Speaker, again and again the Prime Minister has tried to decide for all of us who is a real Canadian. 
In 1995 the current Leader of the Opposition was in Quebec fighting for the future of this country.
 As the deputy leader wrote his books and did his important work, thousands of Canadians reacted with pride.
 What were the rest of us, including the Prime Minister, doing at that time? 
Millions of Canadians have not spent all their lives in Canada. They grew up in Sri Lanka and Lebanon and brought all their learning here.
 They are Canadians, real Canadians. When will the Prime Minister understand that?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are very proud real Canadians who stand up for what Canadian values are and for what Canadians believe in, everyday, ordinary middle class families, not jet-setters.
 We are proud to be engaged in the world and that is important, but we also put our country first. We put Canadian sovereignty first. We put our commitment to the country first.
As for the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the only reason one raises his commitment is because of his own words when he speaks of himself almost as American, when he uses phrases like the one in the New York Times of March 14: “As usual we were talking about ourselves, what America is--”
The Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.
Ken Dryden: Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is divide, divide, divide. For 16 months for this Prime Minister, no question matters unless it is a political question. It is all about creating wedges and divides, province against province, group against group, Canadian against Canadian.
 It is all about scoring political points, just like he tried to do yesterday: divide, divide, divide. When will the Prime Minister truly understand that he is the prime minister of all Canadians?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, every day we sit in this House and we listen to members like that launch this kind of attack against proud Canadians who are standing up for Canadian values, the Canadian values that we believe in, freedom, opportunity and hope, the values that my family came to this country for after they suffered persecution under Soviet rule and after they suffered the kind of fate that people are suffering elsewhere in the world right now under authoritarian regimes. 
We are standing up for that kind of freedom because it is the most important Canadian value. We will never stop standing up for freedom.
National DefenceHon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not impressed.
Despite the Prime Minister's disgraceful comments about our Leader of the Opposition during yesterday's question period, the fact remains that we still have an incompetent Minister of National Defence who should not be in charge of one of the most important departments. It is all well and good for this little Conservative government to attempt to distract us, but in the matter of funeral expenses—the latest chapter in the saga of mistakes by the Minister of Defence—the minister's behaviour and lack of compassion for the bereaved families is disgraceful and unspeakable.
Will the minister have the decency to present to this House the instructions he claims to have given in this matter, or are they also part of his imaginary world?
Mr. Russ Hiebert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government cares deeply about our soldiers. Not only has our government adopted a policy that it will compensate them above and beyond the normal funeral costs, but we have set the limit higher than the Liberals did. They set a limit of $4,600. We have repeatedly gone above and beyond that limit to compensate families.
More than that, we have repeatedly demonstrated our support for the military by providing helicopters to increase troop safety and, after years of neglect, we are building up the military and providing our troops with the safety they need to do their job in Afghanistan.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I understand that he must back up his incompetent minister. But either there are instructions or there are none. It is not complicated. That is what we want to know.
Will the parliamentary secretary show some decency and produce the directives to prove to us, once again, that the minister misled this House? If not he should pass on the message to him and he should tender his resignation on Monday.
Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this government has been far more generous with the families than the previous government was. We are going to continue to compensate them and address their concerns.
 I want to emphasize that unlike the previous Liberal government, we have invested heavily in our soldiers. We have provided substantial new benefits and we have invested in the care of our returning soldiers. Unlike the previous government, we care about our soldiers.
Option CanadaMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reference to the love-in, the Prime Minister said, “It was attended by Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Canadians who believe in their country and have the right to believe in their country”. Of course Canadians have the right to believe in their country, but they do not have the right to violate Quebec laws. These are not minor issues.
Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities apologize for what he said yesterday in this house and acknowledge that it is not a minor issue to violate the Referendum Act to the tune of at least half a million dollars, not counting the cost of the love-in?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, again, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is talking about something that happened 12 years ago. In the meantime, Quebec and Canada have made positive progress. In our case, this assembly here, including the leader of the Bloc Québécois, has recognized Quebeckers as a nation within Canada. I think that Quebeckers and Canadians, together, are resolutely committed to the future, and that is what is important.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, when the violation of Quebec law was described as a minor issue, that was not 12 years ago; that happened yesterday. In my opinion, the minister should have the decency to apologize and acknowledge that he cannot say such things.
They tell us this happened 12 years ago and yet they are currently investigating polls that were conducted in 1990. An investigation was ordered: we are told that what happened 12 years ago has been investigated.
I want to believe them, but let them table the results of the investigation and let them apologize today, not for what happened 12 years ago, but for what was said yesterday. If they knew the Quebec nation, they would not say that breaking its laws is a “minor issue”.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, that did indeed happen 12 years ago. I would like to remind the leader of the Bloc Québécois that one of the first things this government did was to finally cut off funding to the Canadian Unity Council, which, as you know, was the impetus to creating Option Canada.
Option Canada no longer exists. If the leader of the Bloc Québécois or his colleagues try to reach Option Canada, the phone will ring for a long time and the message will be that the number they have dialled is no longer in service.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that Justice Grenier had the full cooperation of the federal government during his investigation. That is entirely untrue. The federal government sent a lawyer who added numerous interventions specifically to prevent careful examination of federal spending. 
Why did the government go to so much trouble to protect the Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP from the investigation? What are they all trying to hide?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, let us all take a look at what the new Government of Canada has achieved since coming to power. We recognized that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada, we resolved the issue of Quebec´s presence at UNESCO, we resolved the fiscal imbalance issue. This concrete and positive action demonstrates very clearly that, together, Quebec and Canada are progressing just fine, thank you.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we have somewhat different opinions. The Prime Minister keeps saying that everything has been investigated. Well, if everything has been investigated, then he knows who financed the Montreal love-in, and how, and more importantly, why this spending was not reported to the chief electoral officer. 
Under the circumstances, he must table the report. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, once again, we are being attacked by the Bloc Québécois. What does the Bloc Québécois want? The Bloc Québécois wants to rewrite history. It cannot change the fact that, twice now, when Quebeckers were asked, they chose to remain in Canada. They decided to continue to work within the Canadian federation to improve their future. Following the last election in Quebec, not only will there be no referendum, but whoever takes over as leader of the PQ—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
Corporate TakeoversJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the foreign takeover steamroller is picking up speed as Canada's last steel company, Stelco, is on the auction block and working families in Hamilton are just the latest with an uncertain future, not just their jobs but also their pensions.
Will the government, for once, stand up for the working families in Hamilton, announce that any foreign takeover of Stelco will have conditions applied that ensure pensions are protected, jobs are safe and, finally, working families are not the only ones who shoulder the burden of foreign takeovers?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP policy now is that people cannot even sell their shares in a company. Stelco has not even been sold yet to anybody. It is just up for sale.
While we share the member's concerns and hope that Stelco will continue to be viable, we do not want to see that to be its priority. The law provides that any investment decision by a foreign takeover is approved on the basis of the best interests of Canada. 
We should look on the bright side. Unemployment is now at its lowest in 33 years. Since the Conservative Party became the government, almost half a million new jobs have been created and, guess what, that is 1,000 new jobs a day. That is a pretty good record for working people.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I should ask the House leader to come to Windsor to find out what the unemployment rate is there.
In the last 16 months alone, over 600 Canadian firms worth over $156 billion have been taken over by foreign interests. Not one was disallowed. That is up from $43 billion just two years ago, a whopping 365% increase. At this pace, our natural resources will be 100% owned by foreign companies. We will be mere tenants in our own country.
Will the government commit to the working families at Stelco to protect their jobs and their pensions, and will it commit to emergency hearings on foreign takeovers?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I heard good news from Windsor. I heard that the Lakeshore industrial park near Windsor, Ontario has attracted more than a dozen new manufacturing plants in recent years, resulting in 6,000 jobs. That is because the Canadian economy is on fire in a good way. 
Economic growth in the first quarter of this year on an annual basis is 3.7%. When we compare that with our big neighbours next door, the economic powerhouse of the United States with 0.6%, we are six times stronger than the American economy today.
The EnvironmentHon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States proposed that talks on climate change be postponed to the fall. He stated that he would refuse to attempt to limit global warming to 2o C and that he will refuse to work within the framework of the Kyoto protocol.
While Canadians worry about the direction being taken by the United States, the Prime Minister remains silent. On the eve of the G-8 summit we need a definite answer from this Prime Minister. Does he support the U.S. position, yes or no?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is that this government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How much, he might ask? Twenty per cent by 2020. It is huge.
After 13 years of Liberal inaction, we are getting it done.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I have bad news for the parliamentary secretary. Yesterday, a Deutsche bank report concluded that the government's climate change plan would lead directly to increased GHG emissions and that its numbers are fundamentally flawed. 
Now President Bush is talking about huge delays, weak targets and abandoning the Kyoto framework. 
The Prime Minister continues to hide his agenda, hide the fact that he is supporting Bush behind the scenes and is hoping no one will notice. Everyone is noticing. When will he show some backbone and at least be honest with Canadians about his collusion with Bush at the G-8?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary's invitation is not one that was designed to provoke a lot of yelling on the other side. He simply wanted to have a look and now we will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary and perhaps be able to hear his answer.
[Interjection]
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said “we didn't get it done”. The member for York Centre said “why didn't we get it done?” The leader said “I'll be part of Kyoto but I say to the world I don't think I'll make it”.
That defeatist attitude is what caused the environmental mess. We are not defeatists. We are getting it done. We will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
AfricaHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the upcoming G-8 meeting, aid to Africa will be discussed because it is widely agreed that not enough is being done.
The previous Liberal government had a comprehensive plan responding to the new partnership for Africa's development and money was flowing out.
The government has yet to act on its promises to Africa and is no doubt set to make more empty promises. 
When will the government stop talking about Africa and start acting and keep its promises?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we all know that the empty promises came from the former Liberal government. In fact, our Prime Minister at the last G-8 summit announced an investment of $450 million over 10 years to help victims in Africa. Not only that, this year we announced a partnership with the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation to fight HIV-AIDS, most of that being in Africa, of $120 million. That is getting it done.
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, that is not so. The government makes announcements but the money is not actually going out.
At the 2006 G-8 meeting, the Prime Minister committed $250 million in new funding for AIDS but only $50 million was allocated in the estimates. We do not even see if the money is flowing.
Why is Africa taking a back seat with the government?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we can prove this with evidence. I was in Africa last summer in Mozambique. Eleven and a half million children in primary schools are receiving textbooks. That is very important. When those children think of textbooks, they think of Canada. That is delivering the goods.
The EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following Minister Beauchamp, the president of the Montreal exchange, Luc Bertrand, is the latest person to express disappointment over the government's green plan. He feels that the targets are not strict enough, which will do nothing to encourage Canadian companies to trade carbon credits. Visibly furious, Luc Bertrand went as far as to say that, like a policy, a government can be changed. 
Will the Minister of the Environment recognize that his plan's lack of scope is compromising the establishment of a carbon exchange, one of the most efficient tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, we announced our commitment to a domestic carbon market and a regulatory framework. The detailed regulations are currently being worked out with the industry.
I am wondering what the member does not understand about yes.
Bernard Bigras: What we do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government is not creating conditions favourable to the establishment of such an exchange. That is the truth. 
The G-8 will meet soon, and climate change is on the agenda. The Prime Minister said he would be bringing along his green plan, a plan decried by everyone.
Will the minister recognize that, with the proposal as it is, the Prime Minister's suitcase will not weigh much, the same way that his credibility does not weigh much internationally when it comes to his commitment to set ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, a domestic carbon market is very much part of our plan. Yes, we will be going to Berlin to the G8+5, the global forum, to discuss with our international partners the carbon market.
However, Canada now has a framework plan that includes a domestic carbon market. The answer is yes, oui.
I also want to wish the member a happy birthday.
Festivals and Special EventsMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is on the funding of festivals. First, it was the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, and now it is the Minister of Industry, who said yesterday that his government does not throw money away.
The government justifies its refusal by saying that it wants to avoid another sponsorship scandal. This is ridiculous. It is not the festivals that were responsible for the scandal: it is the Liberals. Quebec is offering to the minister, as a temporary solution, to apply its own criteria. Are we to understand that, by turning down Quebec's solution, the minister is suggesting she does not trust Quebec's ability to save the festivals? 
Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has announced new funding of $60 million over two years. We are in the process of developing the framework to ensure the funding gets to the people who deserve the funding and who require the funding. It is that simple. It is a work in progress. The funding will be available once we know that we have proper control over the people being able to get the funds.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, organizers of major festivals and smaller ones are all panicking. Why target festivals? After all, they are a source of money, through taxes, for the state. This is taxpayers' money. When will the government give them their money? 
Instead of creating another fiasco, as it did with the summer career placement program, why does the government not apply the existing Quebec criteria, and thus save the festivals while there is still time? 
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is very close to the festivals. We have an annual budget of about $7 million to support festivals, including, among others, those of Montreal, the Quebec City major festivals, and those of the various regions of Quebec. In recent days and weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet Gilbert Rozon, and also Alain Simard. We told these gentlemen that Canada Economic Development would maintain their current envelope, that is about $700,000 for each of these two festivals, in addition to $300,000 in repayable loans, to support the 25th anniversary of the Just for Laughs Festival 
Corporate TakeoversHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 28, the Prime Minister said “...the budget did promise the government would review...foreign investment legislation”.
Two days later, yesterday, he reversed himself when he said “I don't think players who are involved in takeovers...can expect the government to change rules”.
If the Prime Minister does not intend to change any of the rules, is this just another broken promise, flip-flop from the budget?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. As the member knows, the Minister of Industry did state that we would be putting forward a panel on that. I want to thank the member for his support on the industry committee and for looking at this in greater detail in the fall.
Unfortunately, his own leader does not have such a responsible outlook. Let us hear what the National Post had to say about the Leader of the Opposition:
 Now [the Leader of the Opposition] is making matters worse. How bizarre and sad it is that the Liberal party's egghead-in-chief--an academic by training and disposition--is giving lip service to policies that haven't been in vogue among educated people since the age of disco. 

Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can take his economic advice from Terence Corcoran, who is responsible for one job, his own. We will take our economic advice from industry leaders like Laurent Beaudoin, Gord Nixon and Dominic D'Alessandro who are responsible for thousands of Canadian jobs and who believe that his government is failing to protect Canadian economic sovereignty.
The fact is that the Minister of Industry already prejudged any panel's findings when he said that eliminating foreign ownership restrictions would be good for Canada. The fact is that he has already given the green light to giant takeover firms to take over Bell Canada. When will he admit that he is selling Canada out?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the facts do not support the member's statement. He talks about the different advice that he takes. Maybe we want to look at what he said in the past. Not so long ago he said:
 I believe we need to replace failed regional economic development programs and corporate welfare with dramatic corporate-tax reductions, because the market can pick winners and losers better than bureaucrats. 
He said that in the Ottawa Citizen on May 17, 2003. Is the member out of touch with his past or, like his party, is he out of touch with all Canadians?
Canada Summer JobsHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mismanagement and bungling of the Canada summer grants program continues. 
On May 17, the Minister of Human Resources promised that he would post on his website the list of organizations that have received Canada summer grants, broken down by ridings, by the end of the month. It is now June 1 and that list is nowhere to be found on that website.
What is the minister hiding? Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's students are in a labour market that is experiencing one of the lowest unemployment rates in over 30 years. The Canada summer jobs program is providing good quality jobs. The jobs are higher paying, they are higher quality, and they are for a longer duration. We are committed to ensuring that this program helps students.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the answer had nothing to do with the question, which is about accountability and transparency.
The minister said in this House there were examples of groups that should have received funding but did not. He said he would make all of this public. He has not.
How do we know which groups were worthy and which students should get the opportunities?
Canadians deserve to know the new criteria he has adopted. Why is there still no transparency or accountability from the minister about the Canada summer grants program?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, the summer student program is in progress. There have been some concerns about the program. The department is examining those concerns as the second round of funding is being delivered. The government is committed to students succeeding.
Wage Earner Protection Program ActMr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Bill C-55 was unanimously passed by the House. On December 8, 2006 the Minister of Labour tabled a notice of motion in order to finally table the bill. This bill is now being delayed by the Bloc Québécois, which, as usual, would rather see legislation that would help Canadian and Quebec workers fail.
Can the Minister of Labour tell us when the wage earner protection bill will be tabled?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, what are we talking about here? We are talking about a bill to protect wage earners in the event of their employers' bankruptcy. This bill was unanimously passed by Parliament. It was even passed in the Senate. But the Senate had asked to see technical changes before the law came into force. As Minister of Labour , I worked with my colleagues to prepare these technical changes. This is what we must send to the Senate for consideration, but the Bloc Québécois does not want to support workers. They are letting us down. They say one thing one day, and the next day they change their mind. This bill simply has to be fast tracked to the Senate. 
Northern DevelopmentDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, many times I have brought a voice to northern concerns about the industrial development of the Mackenzie Valley. Northerners are not opposed to development, but not at the expense of our pristine wilderness. Implementing the NWT's protected areas strategy, including areas as the Ramparts and the Horn Plateau, would show the people of the north that the government takes them seriously. 
On January 31 the minister committed to move forward with his cabinet colleagues on protecting large areas of the NWT under the protected areas strategy. It is five months since he made this commitment. When will the people of the north see the action promised?
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the extension of the pipeline infrastructure northward up the Mackenzie Valley is, in my opinion, in the national interest.
Indeed, how it happens, when it happens, who builds it, and at what rate of return is fundamentally driven by private marketplace forces. We will continue, as a government, to work for Canadians and to work with all stakeholders in the best interests of Canadians.
National ParksDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer was a little off topic.
Another action the minister committed to was the expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. The Nahanni has been recognized by UNESCO as a world heritage site. However, the current park reserve only covers a small part of the Nahanni watershed. By expanding the park's boundaries, more of this important area will be protected.
When will northerners see action on protecting this unique and special ecosystem?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, we have worked with the member and a number of my colleagues in this House regarding the Nahanni. It is a beautiful part of Canada. We look forward to continuing to work on the Nahanni with the other members.
Festivals and Special EventsHon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have found a simple solution to help the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women resolve the issue of festivals for this summer. The Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec already has a grant program for festivals, with very specific criteria and very clear objectives.
Why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, in order to avoid the looming crisis, not transfer Quebec's share to her Economic Development Canada counterpart, who could immediately deliver the program to all the regions of Quebec?
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting question coming from the Liberals, particularly considering this is $60 million of brand new money over two years that is covered in the budget. 
It is the budget that she and her colleagues are going to be voting against. I cannot imagine the size of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the government does not realize the importance of the festivals in Quebec. They are not just important cultural activities, they are also important economic and tourist activities for all the regions of Quebec. I am thinking of the Tadoussac music festival, the truck rally in Notre-Dame-du-Nord, the Rimouski jazz festival. The minister does not want to transfer money to Quebec. Three months later she still does not have any criteria.
Why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage  not trust her colleague at EDC to deliver the program? Is rivalry between two ministers going to penalize the regions?
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I can only restate that I do not understand the question coming from the Liberal Party. I just do not understand when that party stands four-square against the budget, the budget that is going to be providing the funds. 
How does the member not see the size of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party on this particular question?
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Raymond Chan (Richmond, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week the Indian Affairs minister claimed that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs believed the government was one of the best governments it has worked with. As it turns out, it was the minister's fantasy. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has now publicly declared that the minister's statement was completely inaccurate and counterproductive.
Will the minister apologize to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and to this House now for shamefully misrepresenting the truth?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, the minister has contacted Chief Phillip. We remain committed to building positive working relationships with first nations, Métis and Inuit groups, but nobody is fooled by the Red Green comedy hour across the way. 
The Liberals are trying to change the channel because they say they support our troops, they say they support tough on crime legislation, and they say they support aboriginals, but they keep voting against it. Support Bill C-44 and bring human rights to aboriginals.
Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, the truth is the Conservatives have managed in 16 months to take relations with aboriginal people to a new low, from the high point it was at under the previous Liberal government. 
Under pressure at committee to explain why his government has done so little, the minister resorted to misrepresentation, exaggeration and inaccuracies.
Will the minister set the record straight and apologize today?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Liberals will not support Bill C-44. Why do they not want aboriginal Canadians to have the same human rights that other Canadians enjoy? Shame on them. Get on the program and support the government's initiative to bring human rights to first nation Canadians.
Manufacturing IndustryThierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry admitted that his half measure involving an accelerated capital cost allowance would not stop the catastrophic job losses in the manufacturing industry. 
Will the minister undertake today to announce a series of support measures to help businesses in such poor shape that they cannot pay taxes as well as leading edge businesses on which he pulled the plug last month?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that manufacturers are very happy this week with what the government is doing. We had a great response to the industry report. This week the minister tabled the government's response to the industry committee's manufacturing report. 
Stakeholders have told me specifically that it is the best budget for manufacturers. We can take the advice of Perrin Beatty, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, who said: 
 The government's response to the recommendations...show that it is listening to Canadian manufacturers, and delivering for them at a time when manufacturers need it most. 
We are very proud of that.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, rather than saying that all is well, the government should realize that, in Quebec alone, 31,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector in the first four months of the year. It is often the older workers who find themselves without any resources from one day to the next.
For once, could the Minister of Industry show some initiative and announce an industrial strategy that would also include an assistance program for older workers who are victims of globalization?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously not paying attention. We already announced initiatives for older workers. He needs to start paying attention to what is in the budget that he supported. 
Canadian manufacturers have been hit hard and we recognize that. Budget 2007 sets the foundation to help manufacturers, their employees, and communities that depend on them. It includes initiatives, such as a two year writeoff for machinery and equipment that will help boost cash flow and investment, regulatory harmonization, initiatives that encourage investment in innovation, and investments in workforce capabilities, transportation and border security.
We are very proud of what we are doing for manufacturers.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is well known for its willingness to help other countries and extend a helping hand to people in need.
Northerners are well known too for their generosity. Northern Youth Abroad is a well-respected organization which, for years, has taken northern youth to other parts of Canada and Africa to volunteer their help. NYA has just been told by DFAIT that funding will be cut this year, six weeks before the students travel.
When will DFAIT reinstate funding for this important organization? What does the government have against its northern youth?
Brian Jean: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to change the channel. The government, in its very first budget in 2006, contributed $3.7 billion in new investments for aboriginal Canadians. The last budget was the largest budget in Canadian history for first nations.
We recognized the problems the Liberal government left. It did not do the job. We are getting the job done for first nation Canadians.
The EconomyMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada warned that Canada's standard of living is at risk because of lagging productivity. What was one of the reasons it cited for this drop in productivity? The Liberal sponsorship scandal and a lack of accountability in government.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board share what this government has done to bring accountability and transparency back to Ottawa?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on page 26 the report shows the Liberal ad scam weakened productivity. It states, “In addition to the loss of millions of taxpayer dollars, the federal government also lost a considerable amount of approval”.
However, keep the hope alive, Mr. Speaker. The report goes on to say, “...there has been a resilient change of culture in the federal government regarding transparency and accountability”. It is like a ray of sunshine at the end of a long, cloudy day.
Rail TransportationMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the quality of rail service in western Canada is deteriorating at a time when both CP and CN are making record profits. Zellstoff Celgar Pulp Mill in Castlegar is paying premium prices for rail service that is getting progressively worse.
The first step to improve rail service would be to have a quick resolution to the ongoing CP strike, a resolution that is fair to both sides. It is not right that a company making record profits should be asking for a sweetheart deal from workers.
Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities force CP Rail back to the bargaining table and tell it to negotiate a fair settlement for the workers?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the right to strike is recognized by the Canada Labour Code. However, I believe that all members will agree that settlements are reached when both parties come to the table to agree on the renewal of the work contract. Our mediator continues to support both parties in this endeavour.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, we need a firm commitment from the government to improve rail service in Canada. Our credibility as an exporting nation is at stake, as is the survival of many rural communities. If Celgar cannot ensure reliable and efficient delivery of its product, over 400 employees could be thrown out of work.
It is the duty of the government to act. Will the minister tell CP to be fair, not only to its workers, but also to stop gouging businesses that rely on rail transport?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, we know the importance of these two railway operators, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, CP Rail. Once again, I can only encourage the parties to come to the table with the support of our mediator, who is trained to truly help the parties reach an agreement. It is at the table that the solution will be found.
Citizenship and ImmigrationHon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 2006, the refusal rate for temporary residence visas has been too high. This means many Canadian families are unable to have their relatives or friends from overseas attend funerals and weddings.
The government shows no compassion when it denies a daughter in India the chance to go to her father's funeral in Canada.
When will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration take real action to improve the application process for temporary residence visas?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously we would not get into the specifics of any particular case, but I can say that the minister does use her discretion, whenever she is able, in a proper way.
We always look at issues of security and importance to the Canadian society. Whenever we can, we are generous and compassionate.
JusticeMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our party because they wanted a government that would finally get tough on crime.
Despite all parties making such promises in the last election, it is only this party that is keeping those promises. Our approach is meant to be tough but balanced. It respects the rights of the accused, but does not allow those rights to take precedence over the community's rights to be safe.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada say how Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill, will help make our communities safer?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for all of his work on making Canada a safer place.
Despite Liberal efforts to gut the bill, Bill C-9 has received royal assent and comes into effect six months from now. On that day, criminals who commit serious personal injury offences will no longer get a Liberal get out of jail free card to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. Instead, they will receive a Conservative go directly to jail card.
 Canada's new government does not play games with violent criminals. We are committed to making our streets and communities safer and, as the Minister of Justice said, we are just getting started.
Democratic ReformPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, on democratic reform, the government keeps undermining a good idea by using cheap branding tricks.
Recently the Minister for Democratic Reform shamelessly used student interns as a backdrop for an announcement on electoral reform. Now this week in the House of Commons debate he used a third party validator, Apathy Is Boring, without its consent.
Did the minister have the permission of Apathy Is Boring to use it as a validator for his bill on electoral reform, yes or no?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I was simply reading from a public statement that it made. If it is in the public realm and posted on its website, that is entirely acceptable.
The bottom line, and the most important part, is it said that it was a good bill, that it would enhance voter turnout and encourage more young people to vote. That is a good thing for democracy and for Canada.
Points of OrderMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to adopt the following motion:
That the government's notice of ways and means motion No. 13, tabled in the House by the Minister of Labour on December 8, 2006, be deemed adopted and that the bill listed on the order paper under “Introduction of Government Bills” and entitled “An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and chapter 47 of the Statutes of Canada, 2005” be deemed to have been introduced in the House, deemed to have been read the first time and printed, deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported with the following amendment: 
“That clause 32 of the bill be replaced by the following:
Paragraphs 67(1)(b) to (b.3) of the same statute, as enacted by subsection 57(1) of Chapter 47 of the Statutes of Canada 2005, are replaced by the following:
 (b)any property that as against the bankrupt is exempt from execution or seizure under any laws applicable in the province within which the property is situated and within which the bankrupt resides;
(b.1) goods and services tax credit payments that are made in prescribed circumstances to the bankrupt and that are not property referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(b.2) prescribed payments relating to the essential needs of an individual that are made in prescribed circumstances to the bankrupt and that are not property referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(b.3) without restricting the generality of paragraph (b), property in a registered retirement savings plan or a registered retirement income fund, as those expressions are defined in the Income Tax Act, or in any prescribed plan, other than property contributed to any such plan or fund in the 12 months before the date of bankruptcy”,
deemed concurred in at the report stage as amended, and deemed read the third time and passed”.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, before we go further on this, while this does sound like we may be heading toward progress and while it does sound optimistic, I do not believe we have had an opportunity to consider all that was said. A lot of it was technical languages, and certainly we would deny unanimous consent until we have an opportunity to do that.
I think it would be in the interest of all the parties to sit down and achieve that unanimous consent.
The Speaker: I take it there is no consent then, from that statement.
PrivilegeThe Speaker: On May 15, the hon. Leader of the Opposition raised a question of privilege concerning the circumstances surrounding the inability of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to elect a new chair. I wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for raising this matter, as well as the numerous other members who made interventions. 
I took the matter under advisement and undertook to return to the House.
 The Chair needs hardly to remind the House that, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 128, states:
 Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member. 
That said, I understand the impasse has been resolved. The Standing Committee on Official Languages met yesterday, elected a chair and has taken up its business.
Accordingly, since the situation has been addressed in the best traditions of this place, that is through negotiations among the parties and action taken in the committee itself, I believe there is no need for further comment or intervention from the Chair.
I thank all hon. members who contributed to this felicitous outcome.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Criminal CodeHon. Greg Thompson:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie).
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
First Nations Land Management ActPeter Van Loan:  moved that Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act, be read the first time.
 (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time) 
PetitionsHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by over 600 petitioners. 
As a result of recent events relating to friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan and because of the nature of these unfortunate incidents, the integrity, professionalism and reputation of members of the Canadian Forces has been called into question. 
The petitioners call upon the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister to take immediate action to ensure that members of our Canadian Forces be given the full respect they deserve, that they are not treated as common criminals and that all efforts be made by the Canadian government to protect the reputation, livelihoods and mental health of those individuals when such incidents occur.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions signed by almost 500 Canadians.
The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Old Age Security Act to eliminate the 10 year residency requirement for OAS and guaranteed income supplement, to work with provincial governments to waive the enforcement of financial support in situations of genuine immigration sponsorship breakdown involving a senior, to establish a nominal public transit charge for all seniors in Canada and to provide government funding for more affordable housing for seniors who are members of specific ethnic communities.
The petitioners note that uniting seniors with their families through immigration is a core aspect of forming strong, healthy and vibrant communities in Canada. They believe these measures would greatly assist in meeting those goals.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have over time a number of constituents write in about an important issue to them. These constituents from the communities in my riding of Martensville, Osler, Hague, Langham, Warman, Blaine Lake and other parts of my riding call upon Parliament to end the registration requirement, in particular for the non-restricted long guns. They would like that to happen sooner rather than later.
Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 100 of my constituents, drawing attention to the alarming level of violence against indigenous women and girls. The petitioners urge the Canadian government and Parliament to condemn this violence and work toward a solution.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of hundreds of members of my constituency and Canadians across the country with respect to their concerns about the human rights situation in the Philippines.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 193.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:  With regard to services provided to the Prime Minister’s Office: (a) by Ms. Michelle Muntean, (i) how much is Ms. Muntean being paid on an hourly and annual basis, (ii) what are the terms of her employment, (iii) what is her official title, (iv) in terms of her employment supervisor, to whom does she report, (v) from which departmental budget is she paid, (vi) what are the details of the expenses submitted by Ms. Muntean, or on her behalf, from January 26, 2006 to April 19, 2007, including the dates for which the expenses were incurred, the breakdown of the figures according to month, and, if applicable, the service provided, and (b) what other contracts, in which services of a similar nature are provided, have been approved by the Prime Minister, or his staff, since January 26, 2006 and, if contracts to individuals were approved, (i) how much were they being paid on an hourly and annual basis, (ii) what are the terms of their employments, (iii) what are their official titles, (iv) in terms of their employment supervisors, to whom do they report, (v) from which departmental budget are they paid, (vi) what are the details of the expenses submitted by them, or on their behalf, from January 26, 2006 to April 19, 2007, including the dates for which the expenses were incurred, the breakdown of the figures according to month, and, if applicable, the service provided?
Sylvie Boucher:  Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records indicating Michelle Muntean is an employee, public servant or exempt staff, or that she submitted expenses for payment for expenses incurred by her or on her behalf. Since the services provided that were referred to in this question were not described, we are unable to ascertain whether there are any other contracts in which “services of a similar nature” have been approved by the Prime Minister or his staff since January 26, 2006.
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Galipeau):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Canada Elections Act.[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Citizenship Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I will now convey to the House a ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-14. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
Hon. Jay Hill: moved Motion No.1: 
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-14, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 30 on page 2. 

Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, a bill designed to address a provision in the Citizenship Act. This bill reduces the distinction between natural born children of Canadian citizens and foreign born children adopted by Canadian citizens.
Every year Canadian parents welcome into their families children born in another country. These adoptive parents are Canadian citizens. The adopted children become part of a family, but their parents must complete yet another step before their children can officially be part of the Canadian family.
We are talking about the adoption of foreign born children, often barely out of infancy. Our government believes that Canada should welcome them as warmly as their adoptive family.
This government is taking action through Bill C-14 to grant citizenship to foreign born adopted children without their first having to become permanent residents. We promised to support Canadian parents who adopt foreign born children. We promised parents that we would grant citizenship to their adopted children if the adoption met the requirements of the bill which will protect the best interests of the child and Canada and which recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces and the territories. This legislation, Bill C-14, delivers on these promises.
We need to make it easier for Canadian parents to obtain Canadian citizenship for their foreign born adopted children whether the parents reside in Canada or abroad. We need to give children adopted overseas access to citizenship without first having to apply for permanent residence. And we need to show Canadians that we want new families to be able to come together as quickly as possible.
The legislation before us today is the product of extensive study and consultation. This issue has been examined by several standing committees in previous sessions of Parliament. 
Parliamentarians support the principle of this legislation, but most important of all, Canadians support the principles of this legislation. At the same, if we are to fulfill our duty as parliamentarians, we must remove the amendment to Bill C-14 referred to in the motion which adds an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for adopted persons only whose application is refused under the provisions of Bill C-14.
There are jurisdictional issues that are of significance. It is important to remember that in Canada the matter of adoption falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments. 
In the case of adoptive parents living in Canada, the province or territory where the parent resides is an integral part of the adoption process. Bill C-14 as it was originally drafted does not alter or interfere with that. However, the introduction of the proposed amendment to create a separate appeal mechanism has the potential to undermine the role of the provinces and territories as the competent authority in a receiving country.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has consulted with the provinces and territories on the implications of the proposed amendment. In general, they are very concerned that the inclusion of the Immigration Appeal Division as a separate appeal mechanism will usurp their authority by permitting the granting of citizenship on humanitarian grounds.
I would like to quote from a letter received from the Quebec minister of immigration and cultural communities voicing the province's strong objection to the adoption of this amendment. The letter states that the authority of IRB members could interfere with Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction with respect to civil rights, as members could, in some cases, grant citizenship to a child whose adoption may not comply with Quebec requirements according to Quebec's international adoption authority. The letter also states that in addition to the constitutional issues raised here, such a decision would have a major impact on the individuals involved. It goes on to say that if an adoption is not recognized in Quebec, then a new parent-child relationship cannot be established and a pre-existing parent-child relationship cannot be terminated.
If the Immigration Appeal Division grants citizenship to the adopted child without the province approving the adoption, there is a real concern that a child could be in the province as a citizen without a legal parent. We must remove the proposed amendment to ensure that this bill respects the jurisdiction of our provinces and our territories which are partners in this issue.
The proposed amendment to Bill C-14 to add a mechanism for an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for adopted children only would, if passed, create a discrepancy within the Citizenship Act. It would create a separate appeal mechanism only open to a select few.
For programs to work well, they must be fair and apply consistently. The current Citizenship Act has an appeal mechanism in place for the Federal Court system. The introduction of an alternate appeal mechanism in the case of adopted children would not enable us to maintain fair and equitable citizenship programs.
This government recognizes that Canadian citizenship is valuable. We have a responsibility to protect it and make sure it is granted appropriately. I can assure hon. members that we have taken note of the concerns that were identified through our consultations and we are taking action that is necessary to address them.
This bill addresses the possibility that some individuals may seek to adopt children merely to help them acquire citizenship, so-called adoptions of convenience, adoptions that are taken for no other reason than to acquire status in Canada. However, if the proposed amendment is allowed, Bill C-14 would no longer be able to guard against adoptions of convenience in the same way.
We designed Bill C-14 to maintain a number of safeguards to deal specifically with these concerns and to ensure that Canadian citizenship is protected. The safeguards include the existence of a genuine parent-child relationship, and that relationship must be demonstrated. It must be clear that the best interests of the child are met. A proper home assessment must be completed where applicable. The birth parents must give their consent to the adoption. No person will achieve unwarranted gain as a result of the adoption, or it will not be allowed. The proposed amendment does not contain these safeguards.
In conclusion, Canada is diligent in maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process and in protecting children. We must act in the best interests of the children and in the best interests of Canadian families who have opened their hearts and their homes to provide love and opportunity to the children.
Let us all support the efforts of Canadian families. I urge all members of the opposition to do the right thing and support the deletion of the immigration appeal division amendment, so as to ensure that this bill respects the jurisdiction of our provincial and territorial partners and can be passed without further delay, so the process is open to those who wish to proceed with adoption and have it confirmed by citizenship upon the adoption being granted.
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member please explain to the House which jurisdiction is responsible for the verification of the authenticity of an adoption? Is it a provincial jurisdiction or is it a federal jurisdiction?
[Interjection]
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, my sense is that it would be provincial. I cannot give a direct answer to that, but I would suspect that to be the case. 
The adoption process is something that is done through the provincial jurisdiction. The concerns of the federal government primarily are to ensure that some very basic requirements are in place, that it is not an adoption of convenience, that the best interests of the child are paramount, and certainly it works in conjunction and in cooperation with the provincial jurisdictions.
 What is significant in this bill and in the amendment is to ensure that once the provinces have gone through their processes to ensure that the adoption is final, the parents, without having to make an application through permanent residence to have the child become a citizen, can have it given to them as they arrive into the country. That is significant.
Omar Alghabra: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity to speak on this motion today. 
This motion is intended to refine Bill C-14, an act that proposes to amend the Citizenship Act to extend automatic citizenship to children who are adopted and were born abroad. 
Bill C-14 is a Liberal bill that was introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-76 under the previous Liberal government.
This legislation seeks to minimize the difference in eligibility for citizenship between adopted and natural-born children of Canadian citizens. Under the current system, parents of children adopted abroad must first apply for a permanent residency for the children and ensure that they meet the residency requirements before they can apply for the children's Canadian citizenship.
There are countless Canadians who are choosing to adopt children who were born abroad, and they are choosing this route for a variety of reasons. Many are building their families. Others choose to adopt abroad to rescue children from very difficult situations in order to provide them with a hopeful and promising life. Canada should work to reduce any existing obstacles that adoptive parents may be facing in their attempts to build upon their family. The very act of adoption and welcoming a new member to a family is a noble act. 
While the federal government should refrain from interfering with the family's decision regarding who they adopt, the same government should work to eliminate any barriers that families may face in fully integrating their new son or daughter into the community once an adoption has been approved by the welcoming province.
The process of adoption is a provincial jurisdiction, as my hon. colleague just explained. Once an adoption is finalized at the provincial level, the passage of this bill would ensure that Canadian citizenship automatically would be granted to the adopted child.
Bill C-14 is good legislation. Its objectives are meant to help Canadian families welcome their newly adopted children. This House supported Bill C-14 at second reading and forwarded the bill to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for a thorough examination. Last year the committee approved the bill, but in good faith added three amendments that were intended to improve it.
One of those amendments is the amendment that this motion before us intends to exclude. This amendment would provide the opportunity for failed citizenship applicants to appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
As I mentioned, this amendment was tabled in good faith. That is why it was supported by the majority of the committee members. However, upon further examination and consultation, it has been revealed that this amendment may create several problematic and unintended consequences. Many provinces have already expressed concerns that this amendment may result in an infringement of provincial jurisdiction if a province has rejected an adoption application for one reason or another.
The Bill C-14 legislation instructs the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to grant automatic citizenship to the applicant if the applicant has met all of the provincial adoption requirements, thus leaving no discretion where an error of judgment could occur. As such, the necessity for an appeal mechanism is almost non-existent.
The fear is that some may use this proposed appeal process to pressure provinces in their adoption decision process. Some provinces are concerned that if this legislation were to pass as is, an adopted child may enter a province or a territory as a citizen without first having the province formalize the adoption.
 If this were to happen, it could cause serious legal and financial implications with respect to child protection. Several provinces have written to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration voicing their concerns about the unintended consequences that may arise if this bill is adopted in its current form with the amendment.
After thoughtful examination of the feedback I received and a detailed discussion I had with departmental officials from Citizenship and Immigration, I believe that it would be prudent to support this motion and agree to remove this amendment.
This is an important piece of legislation. I think many Canadians have been following it with great and keen interest. I think that working with the government to ensure that we have a good bill, one that both respects provincial jurisdiction and fulfills federal responsibilities, is critical. We in the Liberal Party never place politics ahead of good policy and we are determined to perform our duty of delivering good legislation.
I look forward to voting on this motion as quickly as possible so we can get back to the business of passing Bill C-14 in this chamber. I sincerely hope that once this motion is adopted the government will move quickly to bring the bill back to the House for its final reading.
In closing, I want to express my grateful thanks to the officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada for taking the time to brief me on this motion. The information session they provided was pivotal in helping me conclude that supporting this motion is the right thing to do for this bill and for Canadians.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-14, mostly because it respects Quebec's jurisdiction over adoption, by allowing the Quebec government to determine whether an adoption is in accordance with Quebec legislation. Quebec law already protects the rights of children. The Bloc Québécois is in Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to defend Quebec's existing jurisdictions.
However, Quebec has to be able to conclude international agreements on adoption because they fall under Quebec jurisdiction. This is still a problem. I will come back to that later. I hope will have enough time to do so.
The bill amends the Citizenship Act to reduce the distinctions in eligibility for citizenship between children born abroad of Canadian parents and foreign children adopted by Canadians. The bill will make it easier for any person who was adopted by a Canadian after February 14, 1977, to obtain Canadian citizenship; it will reduce the requirements for obtaining Canadian citizenship for adoptees who have reached the age of consent and, finally, it will reflect the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to obtaining Canadian citizenship.
We have one major concern: this bill must respect Quebec's laws. Thanks to everyone's work, including the Bloc Québécois, of course, but also the Government of Quebec and the negotiations that took place between the federal government and the Government of Quebec, Quebec succeeded in ensuring that its jurisdiction over adoption will be respected. Clause 2 of the bill would add paragraph 5.1(1)(a), which states that the adoption “was in the best interests of the child”, to the Citizenship Act. The Bloc Québécois supports this. 
The amended paragraph 5.1(2) states that it is Quebec's responsibility to determine whether or not the adoption meets Quebec's requirements. In other words, this clause says that Quebec is responsible for determining whether or not an adoption complied with the Civil Code and adoption legislation. If the Quebec adoption authority finds that the adoption complied with Quebec legislation, the federal government can grant citizenship to the child. We are pleased that this measure has been introduced and that the Constitution will be respected.
Finally, and this is a little sad, this morning we talked about another proposal concerning the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect workers, for which unanimous consent was sought. The only thing the Bloc Québécois asked for was that the legislation respect Quebec's jurisdiction and the Civil Code of Quebec, but the government refused to support it. That was a little strange, and might even seem paradoxical. We ensured that Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected in terms of Bill C-14, but in terms of another bill relating to the portfolio of a minister from Quebec—even though the minister is from Quebec, or perhaps because he is from Quebec—we were unable to ensure recognition of one very simple principle: respecting Quebec's Civil Code.
Back to Bill C-14. There are already provisions in Quebec's legislation that take into account the best interests of the child. Section 543 of Quebec's Civil Code states that: “No adoption may take place except in the interest of the child and on the conditions prescribed by law”.
Section 32 of the Civil Code states that: “Every child has a right to the protection, security and attention that his parents or the persons acting in their stead are able to give to him”.
Section 33 states, “Every decision concerning a child shall be taken in light of the child's interest and the respect of his rights”.
This has been a long-awaited bill. In granting adopted children citizenship more quickly, the federal government is finally taking account of the best interests of the child.
At present, adopted children are not treated the same as biological children born abroad to Canadian citizens, which, according to a Federal Court of Appeal decision, violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Adoptive parents already have a long series of procedures to follow in order to adopt a child.
Speeding up the process to obtain citizenship for these adopted children will thus lighten their burden. What was once an unnecessarily complex process is being simplified and this acceleration will facilitate the integration of these adopted children into their new host society.
Now, another contentious issue remains between the Government of Quebec and the federal government, that is, Quebec's ability to negotiate its own international adoption agreements. We believe that Quebec should be able to conclude its own adoption agreements with other governments. In order for Quebec to exercise its powers in the area of adoption and civil rights, it must be allowed to conclude its own adoption agreements with other countries. However, the diplomatic shackles imposed by Ottawa prevented it from doing so. This was the case with Vietnam, for example, and we all know what happened there. 
The Conservative government claims that it is open to Quebec and that is practising a new federalism, but it still refuses to recognize the validity of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, which states that anything that falls under Quebec jurisdiction should remain Quebec's jurisdiction throughout the world. This means extending Quebec's internal jurisdictions internationally. This is the Guérin-Lajoie doctrine, which is still not recognized by the federal government. As long as this is the case, Quebec cannot be fully autonomous in its areas of jurisdiction, as originally set out in the Constitution. 
Consequently, Quebec cannot take action, any more than other countries can. It is up to Ottawa to move on this issue. It is not up to other countries to interpret Canada's constitution. As long as the federal government tells other countries that it has exclusive jurisdiction over international relations, those countries will refuse to sign treaties with Quebec. We understand, because to act otherwise would amount to interfering in a federal-provincial dispute. Quebeckers find that rather painful. I can just imagine what it must be like for Vietnam to try to follow this sort of debate.
The painful episode of the adoption treaty with Vietnam revealed that the federal position is not only bad for Quebec, but downright dysfunctional and increasingly indefensible. In fact, this episode shows, more eloquently than any speech, that the federal government needs to give Quebec the chance to fully assume its constitutional authorities, including on the international scene. This is just one example that shows how important it is to Quebeckers to achieve full sovereignty, because that will correct all these situations where the federal government is refusing to recognize Quebec's authorities when the time comes to exercise them abroad.
This issue will become increasingly important, because we are living in an age of globalization where there are more and more exchanges. For example, international adoptions are increasing in number. More and more, decisions will be based on country-to-country talks. If, every time Quebec wants to go ahead, it has to engage in years of federal-provincial struggles without even being assured of having some small measure of permission to exist on the international scene, then clearly Quebec society will not be able to move forward.
We also saw this recently at the Kyoto conference in Nairobi, where poor Mr. Béchard, Quebec's environment minister at the time—get this, Mr. Speaker, I know you are sitting in your chair and I hope it is comfortable—asked permission to speak for 45 seconds. The federal government refused. If Quebec had been a sovereign country, it could have talked all week in Nairobi, just like all the other countries. This is one more example that shows the need for sovereignty.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again today to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). 
Before I begin, I want to digress for a moment to send best wishes to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as she is recovering from her surgery yesterday. We hope she has a very fast recovery and is back to her duties as quickly as possible.
In this corner of the House, New Democrats strongly support this legislation. We strongly supported it earlier this year and in the last Parliament when the same bill was introduced by the previous government. We are relieved that it is finally back before the House for report stage and hope that we can do whatever possible to see its passage expedited and finally have this legislation enacted in Canada. This legislation is long overdue and is expected by many people in Canada.
The bill would amend the Citizenship Act to allow a grant of citizenship to a child adopted overseas by a Canadian. It would ensure that adopted children are treated the same as biological children under the provisions of the Citizenship Act. In doing so, it would make citizenship automatic for adopted children, as it is for children born to Canadians. As has been pointed out earlier, it would eliminate the need for an adopted child to first become a permanent resident of Canada and have to apply for full citizenship later.
The New Democrats also support the motion introduced by the government to delete the provision for an appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board, an amendment that was added during the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's consideration of the bill.
I will quote directly from the report stage of the bill. The amendment reads:
 Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. 
I actually proposed that amendment when we were discussing this legislation in committee so it might seem strange that I now support deleting that addition. I also want to point out that the exact same amendment was proposed by the Bloc Québécois in committee. The amendment by the NDP was the one selected for debate first. All three opposition parties supported the amendment at committee.
Our concern was for an appropriate appeal if there were ever a denial of automatic citizenship for a child adopted by Canadians. I think everyone would admit that that seems unlikely, given the kind of process that is in place regarding international adoptions, but we also know that as humans and as our lives meet, through the laws of the land, especially around issues of citizenship and immigration, there is often a way to find an exception that requires an appropriate appeal, which is where our concern stems.
The amendment also came from a heightened awareness of committee members about appeals in the area of citizenship and immigration, concerns such as the failure of the present and previous governments to implement the Refugee Appeal Division, as provided for in the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and other problems related to the appeal process.
All of us wanted to ensure that there was an appropriate appeal in the legislation for any situation that might arise regarding the citizenship of a child adopted overseas. This position was also suggested and supported by witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association which called for such an appeal to the IRB. It actually was the Bar's recommendations and testimony before the standing committee when we considered Bill C-14 that this be in place.
The representative for the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association, Stephen Green, noted that the only option currently, given the provisions of Bill C-14, would be for a judicial review and that it would be a very limited review at that point. That is why this came to the committee's attention and why the amendment was proposed.
I must say that during the committee discussions I listened carefully to the arguments that were put forward by the government and by the parliamentary secretary and I did see some virtue in those arguments.
There was some discussion about withdrawing the amendment at that time but other members of the committee were keen to see it remain and, since the exact same amendment was waiting on the agenda for us, it remained. I did not withdraw it at that time. Since the amendment passed at committee, there has been feedback on the specific appeal proposal, particularly from the government of Quebec but also from other provinces, which were very concerned about its inclusion.
I want to say very clearly that I do not want to see the legislation further delayed. I maintained that position when the parliamentary secretary and the government raised concerns about the appeal since the committee dealt with it. I have always said that if a proposal were brought forward that I would be happy to act on it and give an opinion on it as quickly as possible so that the legislation is not delayed in any way.
Given the concerns that have been raised, now that we have the proposal to withdraw the appeal procedure that is included in the current revision of the bill, New Democrats have agreed to support the motion from the government to remove the appeal provision that was added by the committee.
It is time to get on with this important bill that would make the lives of many families and many children much easier. However, we will watch closely to see if any situations arise that would benefit from a particular appeal mechanism. If so, we, and I am sure other members of the House, will make every possible effort to ensure an appropriate mechanism for appeal is put in place as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I also know that you were asked to rule on a point of order related to this amendment that we are now talking about, but it appears that it will be removed from the bill since I believe all parties are supporting that step. 
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff for the work that was done to address those issues. I believe it was an important discussion and I want to say that by supporting withdrawing the amendment at this stage, I am not conceding to the government's position on the point of order it raised and which was not upheld by the Speaker's ruling.
While it might seem that the hard work was in vain now that the specific clause is to be removed, I want to express my appreciation for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and think the issues raised were important to the ongoing operation of the House.
The bill before the House today is a better bill than was proposed to us early in this Parliament. Other amendments made at the committee and which are going forward make the regulatory review and the coming into force provisions of the bill much more explicit.
It was our consideration of what happened with other legislation in the area of Citizenship and Immigration, particularly the concern of members on the committee about the failure to implement the Refugee Appeal Division, that caused us to look more carefully at the provisions for regulatory review and coming into force, to make them more explicit and to put specific timelines specifically on the coming into force provisions.
As a result of those amendments passing, we have a much better bill before us and much greater accountability for the government when it comes to the implementation of this important legislation.
Families and their adopted children have waited far too long for the bill. It has taken two Parliaments to get it through. I hope we are on the verge of accomplishing that, and anything the New Democrats can do to expeditiously complete the task related to the legislation, we are prepared to endeavour to take those measures. 
 I think there are other places where we need amendments to our citizenship legislation. I am glad the minister recently announced that she would propose in the fall further amendments to deal with the question of lost Canadians but, unfortunately, I believe those are only half measures and do not deal with important situations related to war brides and war children. I am hoping that we can see a better proposal than has recently been announced by the minister when we return in the fall.
We also need to look at the provisions of revocation of citizenship and the oath of citizenship. I believe the Citizenship Act needs a complete overhaul and not just a piecemeal approach as we have been receiving from the government.
I live in hope that we may see a completely new Citizenship Act before the House to be debated, to update some of these important provisions. However, I am glad we are getting on with the question of overseas adoption and facilitating the citizenship of children adopted overseas.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and many others have said, this is an extremely important issue not only for adoptive children and adoptive families, but for our country. With our declining birth rate we need to rely increasingly on immigration to ensure we have the necessary citizen base for the future of our country. This has certainly been a passion of mine over the last number of years but it is not because I have been an adoptive parent myself.
As a member of Parliament and as someone who has family members and friends who have been in the position where they have availed themselves of adopting children, I am quite familiar with the issue. I think all members of Parliament, regardless of party, do come in contact from time to time with parents who either have not been able to conceive naturally or have made the choice to adopt children. In some cases, they have very generously made the choice to adopt children, in addition to their naturally conceived children.
 I was very pleased when the former Liberal government picked up on this and offered a tax incentive for adoptive parents to offset some of the huge costs they incur when they make the choice to either start or to enlarge their families. We are all aware of the numbers. With some of these foreign adoptions, the costs can literally run very quickly into tens of thousands of dollars. It was an important step forward when the Government of Canada at the time did that. It showed its appreciation through making a change to our tax law to assist adoptive families. As the member himself said during his remarks today, this particular bill is another step in the right direction.
As we debate, consult and formulate plans on how to help all Canadian families, not just adoptive families, we are looking for good, new ideas on how to assist in that. Has the hon. member given some thought to that or does he have some other ideas of additional ways that we can reach out and help adoptive families?
[Interjection]
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue because it brings a measure of equality and fairness to adoptive children that is already extended to the biological children of Canadians. We needed to fix that problem and it is good that we have finally managed to move it along the agenda. I hope we can complete the process here today without further need for debate or discussion on this important legislation.
 We need to get on with this because families have been waiting long and have lobbied long and hard for this. If anything can speak to the need to recognize the importance of adoption and of including adopted children as full members of the family and as full Canadians, this bill clearly points in that direction.
We should get on with this legislation and ensure it becomes law as quickly and as expeditiously as we can manage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. 
 (Motion agreed to)
Greg Thompson: moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The chief government whip is rising on a point of order.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the Chair a bit by surprise, but there has just been consultation among all the parties and I think you would find the unanimous support of the House this afternoon for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), be deemed read a third time and passed. 
I also believe that you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Does the minister have the consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried.
 (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 
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
Employment Insurance ActMark Eyking:  moved that Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the third reading debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-278, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. This bill, if adopted, would extend the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.
Unfortunately, our rules in this House dictate that unless this bill gets the necessary royal recommendation from the Conservative government the question on the motion for third reading will not be put. In other words, the bill will die.
I cannot understand why the Conservative government will not allow this bill to proceed, as the majority of members in this House have supported this bill at second reading and have endorsed it again at report stage.
The Conservative government is aware that we have received support from across Canada and from all 308 ridings. The Conservatives all realize there is support from across Canada for this bill. We have received support from doctors, nurses, oncology departments, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and, most importantly, from constituents all across Canada who are battling illness and whose EI benefits have ended.
I am pleading on behalf of all those people across this country who need our help and I am asking the Conservatives to find it in their hearts to do the right thing and give this bill a royal recommendation.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if he has done an evaluation of how much this would cost the EI program. Has he done any cost analysis?
[Interjection]
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this question has been asked.
There are two ways of looking at this bill. Yes, it is going to cost the EI program. The cost varies. As we realize, a study was done by HRDC, and also by the committee, I might add. It could vary from $300 million to $500 million so it is probably around $400 million. The cost depends on whether everybody fills the whole amount of weeks.
More importantly, it has been found in most European countries that bridging workers when there is illness is a net benefit to society. They are not lost in the welfare system or the pension system. When we bridge them through that sickness to health, they come back to work. Those countries are finding that time and time again. Especially in our society, where there is going to be a shortage of workers, we could keep these sick workers and help them through.
At the end of the day, it is a net benefit to our society. That is why the government should support it.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I was aware of that the member was not going to get the support from the government side of the House. This is absolutely cruel.
 We all have had constituents come into our offices who happened to get sick through no fault of their own. If they are laid off they have the benefit of the EI system for a considerable length of time, but when they get sick, which is clearly beyond their control, they cannot acquire benefits. The hon. member's bill would create some humanity for those individuals who get sick.
I am wondering if the Conservative government gave any reasons for not allowing this royal assent. We know there is a surplus in the EI fund, which the government opposite tends to be using in other ways, such as buying military equipment and so on and so forth. It is using the surpluses from that workers' fund.
What reason is the heartless government on the other side giving for not supporting workers who happen to get sick on the job?
[Interjection]
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for being here this afternoon and raising that question. 
Yes, the Conservatives asked questions. They asked questions at committee. They said there were other programs, but there are no other programs. There are no other government programs. The other program is welfare, and if someone has a home and a car, that person cannot get welfare. As well, getting onto a disability pension takes a year. They also mentioned insurance systems. For the average person who works in a Tim Hortons shop or in a fish plant, there is nothing for them. 
The excuses are getting watered down. I really think that the Conservatives know this is a good bill. It is too bad, because they should have done the right thing and had it in their last budget. They knew it was coming. If they wanted to take credit for it, they could have taken credit for it and put it in their last budget, but they did not do that.
I have talked to many members from the Conservative Party who believe in this bill. I will not name them in this House. Like the member for Malpeque said, every MP across this country has constituents coming to their offices on this issue, and they are finding out these people are losing their cars, et cetera. 
One of the most important things we find out about people who get cancer and need chemotherapy is that on top of all the treatment and finding the money for the drugs they are hit with the financial stress. That was brought up in committee by the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. These people have undue stress, which complicates their recovery and prevents them from getting well.
There are no excuses for why we cannot have this bill passed. Our country is doing well. These people have contributed. They have paid in. The employers have paid in as well. Employers believe in this bill.
I think that one of the most important things I can do in this House is to bring this bill forward. A lot of MPs agree with me. I hope in my heart that before the year is done we will have some changes in the EI system to accommodate these people.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also join the debate on the third reading of Bill C-278, the bill that calls for EI sickness benefits to be extended to a maximum of 50 weeks.
Our new government understands the importance of supporting our friends and neighbours who face illness and disability. Canadians have seen our budgets. They appreciate the action that their new government has taken for them over the past 15 months. They know who is standing up for them. 
They have seen us introduce the new registered disability savings plan to help parents and others save money to care for family members with disabilities.
 They have seen a Canada disability savings grant of $1,000 annually to promote the financial security of children in lower income families.
They have seen a $30 million investment in the Rick Hansen “man in motion” Foundation, which will help transform research into actual benefits for Canadians living with spinal cord injuries.
They have seen a $45 million new enabling accessibility fund to help Canadians who are recovering from or dealing with challenges to participate in their communities.
That is the new government's vision for meaningful ways to improve EI. The Liberals, by contrast, including the sponsor of Bill C-278, voted against each of these measures.
While the member who sponsored this bill is no doubt well-meaning when he comes to ask the House for support, I am not sure where his support went when it came to supporting the same people through several of this government's budget initiatives, which I have just outlined.
Like me, many Canadians may also wonder why he and his Liberal colleagues never did a study, passed a motion, or proposed this legislation in the 13 years that they were in government.
However, the Liberals' touch and go interest in sickness and disabilities and their spotty record alone are not reason to question this bill.
 Canadians want to know how effective a new benefit will be. Is it suitable for the problem? Is it appropriate for the benefit to come from this revenue source? Canadians want to know what assurances are being offered that the benefit and the revenue source are sustainable.
When the Liberals were on this side of the House, effectiveness and sustainability were principles to which they at least paid lip service. With some programs on their watch, however, they low-balled estimates of cost. and later Canadians were left holding the bag after costs spiralled out of control.
Canadians know that our concern is not about questioning a gap that exists for some. It is about finding the right solution. It is about affording the right solution. It is about sustainability.
What is the vision of the Liberals and the opposition? It is a bit of a patchwork and not really much of a vision at all.
The Liberals would have Canadians think of and look at the bill as a one-off reform to EI, yet they have voted with the NDP and the Bloc to support several EI bills. That is their true package of reforms.
The cost of the three EI bills they have proposed as an alternative to our vision would add $6.2 billion in new annual costs to implement them. That amount of $6.2 billion in new annual costs would bankrupt the fund in very short order.
How much time and study did the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP put into making sure that these new costs were warranted and that the benefits would address what they were intended to address? It was a little over an hour of study per bill, plus about an hour each for clause by clause review. That works out to over a million dollars of new spending per second of consideration by the committee. 
Canadians expect their elected representatives to have a little more respect for them and the public's money. On this side of the House, that is what we do, and so it is that we remain ready to support worthy initiatives and solutions.
 Bill C-278  proposes a solution. It remains to be see whether this is the right solution coming from the right program. It remains to be seen whether it is affordable. It remains to be seen if it is sustainable. We may be ready to sign on if the member Sydney—Victoria provided government with answers to the questions the Canadian public has about his proposed solution.
Canadians are wondering if EI is the right program to expand for this new benefit. It is simply not enough to eyeball the fund's surplus and suggest that it drive a solution. Solutions need to consider the Canadian public interest. They should determine whether the need is limited merely to those who pay into EI or if it is broader, and I do not suppose that all members were able to review the transcript of the committee's proceedings at clause by clause review.
One of the fundamental shortcomings of expanding EI for the new benefit identified is it does nothing for a vast number of new Canadians. New Canadians disproportionately start their own businesses rather than being employees. They and others who are entrepreneurs run their own businesses and do not pay into EI. Why not a plan that helps them, too?
 In fact, the solution the bill proposes stands to make things worse for some new Canadians. The private health and life insurance that they are able to purchase depends on a stable relationship with public insurance. Bill C-278 introduces a major change in the relationship between public and private insurance. It does so without any analysis of the impact being offered.
 Will private insurers, which often cover a higher percentage of wages and for longer periods, cease to offer products that are used by the new Canadians and other entrepreneurs as a result of Bill C-278?
The House just passed Motion No. 243, which proposes that the human resources committee do a study of CPP disability this fall. Ought not this program, which is more broadly available to Canadians, be considered as one way to catch those who do not benefit from an EI program? Do Canadians not deserve a chance to reflect on their options, be consulted and provide their input?
EI sickness benefits have been structured to complement a range of other supports available for long term illness and disability. These include benefits offered by employers, private coverage held by individuals and the long term disability benefits available under the Canada pension plan and provincial programs.
However, there was no study, so no consultation and no answers for new Canadians, who the government wants to welcome and encourage to come here. There were no answers for all of us who may be called upon to fill the space that may be vacated by private insurers whose richer benefit programs are rubbed out.
Canadians are also asking about cost. Without deciding whether EI is the right program for this new benefit, how much will Bill C-278 cost?
During his appearance at the human resources standing committee, the member for Sydney—Victoria testified that the bill would cost approximately $250 million a year. Estimates from the department, however, suggest it would be more like $1.05 billion a year, four times the member's estimate.
Canadians will still recall that numbers were never the Liberals' strong suit when they were government. Now that they are opposition, not much has improved. 
The discrepancy between $250 million and over $1 billion raises more questions than it does answers. Where did the member get his numbers? What did the human resources standing committee have to say to reconcile the huge and costly difference? Nothing. At the end of the day, the discrepancy went unanswered.
The member and the opposition, which is supporting the bill, are so quick to support an idea, which is long on good intentions, that they are forgetting public trust requires us to do due diligence.
Canadians made it clear in the last election that it was not acceptable for their government to be sloppy with public funds. They are tired of well-intentioned programs running out of control.
Canadians continue to have some questions about this bill, which have not been answered by the member for Sydney—Victoria. They have not been answered by those who are supporting the good intentions of the bill.
 It is precisely because the duration of sickness benefits is such an important issue for all Canadians that our government believes this matter deserves very careful consideration. It is because it is important that we want to find a solution that is sustainable, smart and effective.
Members may in fact recall that Conservatives on the human resources committee supported the notion of studying the potential extension of EI sickness benefits, as proposed in the February 2005 HUMA report.
As Canada's new government, we acted on that by asking officials in the Department of Human Resources and Social Development to gather the facts and evidence that would inform us all in how to build the right solution. Their work in this regard is underway.
The member for Sydney—Victoria and the opposition are putting the cart ahead of the horse. They are not looking for the facts from the department. They passed on Motion No. 243, presented to gather the facts themselves. The opposition did not want to listen to any of the people who helped contribute to the public and the private insurance programs.
Let me tell the House what we do know about how the current maximum 15—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gatineau.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today to Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine). I take this bill very seriously, as well as the fact that I have the honour to speak to this issue.
This bill extends the maximum period for which benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 to 50 weeks. I believe this is a very laudable principle and the Bloc Québécois supports it wholeheartedly. 
To put things in perspective, I will say that the Bloc Québécois worked hard at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to get a report on EI reform through in February 2005, and that it continues to ask for its implementation. In the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked relentlessly on improving the system. This bill builds on the spirit of recommendation 27 made in the February 2005 report, which says: 
 The Committee recommends that the government study the possibility of extending sickness benefits by 35 weeks for those who suffer from a prolonged and serious illness. 
The bill is totally in this spirit. 
The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of substantial improvements to the EI system and while the Bloc intends to vote in favour of the bill, the House must nonetheless remember that the bill introduced by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle is more comprehensive than that of the Liberals, who still do not propose a fundamental reform of an EI system that is ill adapted and inaccessible for 50% of those who should be insured. For the benefit of this House and of all those interested in the issue—who are many in Quebec and Canadian society—I will read some of the 28 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. 
First, the committee recommends the creation of an independent EI fund.
Second, on the administration issue, the committee recommends that the money in the fund be used only for EI purposes and not to pay back the federal government debt. That money comes from employers and employees. It must be used as employment insurance for employees who, at some point during their career, find themselves in need. EI benefits then become a solution for them. The government, be it Conservative or Liberal, should not be allowed to help itself freely from the fund to finance its expenses. Workers in need deserve the respect of the government.
The committee also recommends the following: that employers be reimbursed overpayments of premiums—what else would it do?—; that a standard eligibility period of 360 hours be established throughout Canada and Quebec; that the maximum period of regular benefits be increased to 50 weeks; that the benefit period be extended by five weeks in order to cover what is known as the spring gap, the period of about one and a half months where there are no benefits before seasonal work begins again. This would provide seasonal workers with income needed for their families rather than having them live with considerable uncertainty.
We are also asking for additional benefits after the 50 weeks for workers who are 50 and over, especially for those having difficulty finding work because of their age, for those experiencing a form of discrimination I would say.
The benefit calculation should be based on the 12 best weeks of insurable employment. This will provide a more decent income for our citizens who need it. Therefore, the calculation should be based on the 12 best weeks and not on the 12 last weeks. 
The rate of benefits should increase from 55% to 60% of their earnings.
Finally—this is the last item that I wanted to highlight from the list—we are asking that the waiting period be eliminated for persons in approved training programs, so that they are not sent on training without any income. That is a bit of a contradiction. We want them to be trained in order to return to the labour market. However, if they do not have any income, they are not interested in training because they will not have any money to meet their needs during the weeks of training approved by those responsible.
This bill highlights the importance of reforming employment insurance. As such, we hope that parliamentarians, my colleagues here, will vote in favour of the real improvements proposed in Bill C-278. I would like to go through my list of these major improvements, which is similar to the one given earlier. 
First, we must reduce the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional unemployment rate. Second, we must increase the benefit period by five weeks. Third, we must increase the weekly benefit rate from 55% to 60%. Fourth, we must eliminate the waiting period. Fifth, we have to eliminate the distinctions between new entrants and re-entrants to the work force. Sixth, we have to eliminate the presumption that people who are related to one another do not deal with each other at arm's length. Seventh, we have to increase the maximum annual insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500 and introduce an indexation formula. And finally, the benefit calculation must be based on the 12 best insurable weeks. 
It is important that we all support this bill because it offers solutions to problems experienced by vulnerable people who lose their jobs. As someone said earlier, that is the heart of the matter. This affects people who are sick and need their benefits extended. In that respect, we must consider a universal 360 hour requirement to receive employment insurance benefits.
I see that my time has run out, but I would just like to add that it was important to me to talk about this bill. We must go forward with this kind of bill. We have to think of the people whose employment situation makes them vulnerable. That is our duty, and we must fulfill it.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine).
This is a very important proposal and I would hope, as the member for Sydney—Victoria pleaded earlier, that a royal recommendation might be forthcoming from the government to deal with this important legislation.
The legislation, as we have heard, would extend the possibility of EI benefits in the case of illness from a maximum of 15 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks. That would be a very important improvement to our EI program.
We need to make those kinds of improvements to our EI legislation. We know how many Canadians depend on EI at some point or other in their working lives. We know how important it is to people from coast to coast to coast in Canada.
I found it passing strange that the parliamentary secretary argued that somehow passing the bill would be a detriment to new Canadians, to new immigrants in Canada and that somehow they would not benefit from this kind of legislation.
 I do not think anything could be further from the truth. Many new immigrants, new Canadians, and many people new to the workforce in Canada would directly benefit from the provisions of the legislation. I do not for a second understand why the parliamentary secretary would suggest otherwise.
In fact, many new Canadians have come to Canada because of Canada's social programs. They know Canada is a society that shows concern for all of its citizens and seeks to work together collectively to help citizens over difficult periods in their lives. Legislation like the EI legislation is exactly one of the things that makes Canada attractive to people considering immigration.
We must make improvements to the EI legislation. This has not been done for many years and it needs to be undertaken. We have heard many times, and I will repeat, that there is a $50 billion surplus in what is collected from workers and employers for this program. There is far more money taken in by the government in terms of the EI check-offs that both employers and employees pay than is spent on delivering the program.
We do have the ability to fund improvements. The money that is collected from the EI contributions workers and employers should be used for the program. This is particularly important for workers, but I know that employers also recognize the importance of our EI program.
The ongoing debt that Canada experiences should not be paid on the backs of workers who need the support of the EI program. That $50 billion we talk about sometimes is an EI fund. The Conservatives in the past have even talked about formalizing it as an EI fund. That money should be used for employment insurance programming, and the bill would go some way to ensuring that would be done.
As a member of Parliament and as a constituency assistance, I have spoken to many people in the almost 21 years that I have served in those capacities. They face terrible hardship because of the limitations on EI, especially when combined with the length of time it takes to qualify for CPP disability benefit and with the generally low levels of social assistance.
I do not know how many times I sat with people who faced the end of their medical benefits and who were still unable to return to work. The pressure of that moment was unbearable for many of them and for their families. It was often one of the most difficult moments when I had to stand in solidarity with someone who came into the office in which I worked or into my current office.
We know that economic security can be a factor in recovery from a serious illness or injury. The stress of being unable to pay our rent, or to buy food or to provide for our children does nothing to help anyone recover. 
I am convinced that the bill might even lessen health care costs by helping to ensure better conditions for recovery from a serious illness or injury.
We know that often people are forced to consider long term disability when, if only a slightly longer recovery period had been available, they would have been able to return to work. They would have been able to see their recovery out and get back to their jobs. We know it is much harder to get back to the workforce from CPP disability or from any disability program than it is from EI medical benefits.
 It would be a great personal benefit to Canadians who become ill or are injured in their recovery and return to work if the provisions of this bill were implemented in Canada. It would be a great benefit to our society. I believe it makes sense to take the actions necessary to get people back to work rather than have them just get by on welfare or have to claim CPP disability. 
We know the recovery time for serious diseases is often longer than the 15 weeks that are now possible for an EI medical claim. Cancer patients, breast cancer patients and leukemia patients in particular can require 9 to 12 months to recover. We also know that when someone returns to work too early after a serious illness the consequences can be both serious and expensive.
That is why organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Lung Association of Nova Scotia support this legislation. Representatives from both of those organizations testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that was studying this bill.
Mr. Kenneth Kyle, the director of public issues at the Canadian Cancer Society, provided the standing committee with five reasons that the Cancer Society supported this particular legislation. 
First, he noted that diagnostic times are often long for full cancer diagnosis and there are often waiting times between surgery and treatment, making the 15 weeks a serious limitation.
Second, he noted that treatment and recovery are often spread out over many months for cancer patients. 
Third, he noted that collateral financial stresses, the costs of uninsured treatment and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatment, special diets, those extras that occur around the time of a serious illness, particularly with cancer, are also a hardship that this bill would serve to relieve.
Fourth, he said that chemo patients can be immune suppressed for a period of time and need to remain segregated from groups, thereby requiring longer than the 15 week period to ensure their recovery to full health and the ability to work.
Fifth, he noted that the lingering effects after treatment with chemotherapy are sometimes difficult to document, including issues like chemo fog, fatigue, personality changes, things that often make a return to work difficult in the parameters that are currently envisioned under the Employment Insurance Act.
Those are all excellent reasons that we should be giving serious consideration to this legislation and that the government should be giving serious consideration to ensuring there is a royal recommendation for it.
I want to point out that doctors would still be required to provide a medical certificate so that the decision about EI medical benefits, even if it is extended to the 50 weeks, would still be made on the basis of medical evidence, which is as it should be.
We also know that currently the average EI medical benefit claim is for 9.5 weeks. This would be a significant improvement and would allow others to take advantage of that important option.
We had a debate this afternoon about the estimates of the cost of extending this benefit. In committee, testimony was given that it would be around $250 million a year. The parliamentary secretary said this afternoon that her estimate was closer to $1 billion a year. I hasten to add that it is clear we have a $50 billion surplus in the EI fund that would allow us to undertake this kind of important change to the EI legislation. I believe this is an affordable course of action to take, but more than that, I also belive it is the right thing to do.
I will conclude by again calling on the government to ensure that a royal recommendation is possible for this legislation so that we can ensure that Canadians who face a serious illness or injury have the appropriate length of time to recover, get back into the workforce and not have to take other measures that are less desirable both for them personally and for society as a whole.
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by paying tribute to the front line health care workers, volunteers, advocacy groups such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society, and the home care workers who have done so much to help craft this bill and whose efforts on behalf of sick and disabled Canadians mean so much.
We are here to discuss Bill C-278, presented by my hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria, in Nova Scotia. This bill aims to extend the maximum period for which EI sickness benefits may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, in the event of illness, injury or quarantine.
Current legislation allows the claimant to receive up to a maximum of 15 weeks. The time for which a claimant is eligible is determined by a medical certificate from a health care professional attesting to the person's inability to work and stating the probable duration of the illness.
Many of us have had constituents, friends and family members who have experienced financial hardship as they recovered from a debilitating disease or trauma, such as cancer, heart disease, or any other serious illness we face as a nation.
A persistent scenario, however, and one very familiar to many MPs is the reality that there are people who have applied for EI sickness benefits and have received the full 15 weeks but are still unable to return to the workforce within the stipulated period.
When the Employment Insurance Act was adopted in the 1990s, sickness benefits were compassionately paid to people who could not work temporarily because of an illness.
Certainly, this financial support is an incentive to allow individuals to focus on treatment and get well so that they can return to the workforce as soon as possible.
Our Canada pension plan does not have the flexibility to allow people to receive benefits if they are in a position to eventually return to work, if they cannot work for a prolonged period or if they leave the job market and later want to return to work, given the length of their illness.
I hope to present my own bill, now on the order paper, to amend the Canada pension plan, or CPP, so that people who suffer from an episodic illness may receive benefits from the system under the circumstances that I just mentioned.
Many people in this country mistakenly believe that recipients who have exhausted their sickness benefits need only apply for Canada pension plan disability benefits. As I'm sure many of my hon. colleagues know, this system has very strict eligibility criteria. Access to benefits is often refused because the disability is not complete. The few people who do meet the eligibility criteria must go through an application process that takes about three months. Then there is an even longer waiting period before they begin receiving their CPP disability benefits.
Furthermore, most doctors approve CPP applications only if the illness is expected to last more than a year.
Today Canadians encounter three grave and growing threats to their health: cancer, heart disease and stroke. Many of these illnesses which once represented death are now curable or preventable all because of new and constantly emerging technologies. 
Let us be clear that the existing system is not doing enough. Because our health system is so weak and wait times are so lengthy, for most individuals waiting for care, 15 weeks is insufficient to cover wait times for diagnostic tests prior to receiving a diagnosis. Then there is a further lengthy period of time before treatment can begin. Therefore, how can we as policy makers expect 15 weeks to include the recovery period when individuals at the end of that time might still be waiting for treatment to begin? Cancer treatment could typically continue over a period of several months.
This can have financial consequences for families, who must bear the costs of uninsured treatments and drugs, travel costs for specialized treatments, costs for special diets and non-prescribed medical supplies.
For example, a 2004 survey of women with breast cancer revealed that at least 76% of respondents had not worked for more than 15 weeks; 75% said that the 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits did not cover the treatment period.
Indulge me while I quote from some of the testimony given by Mr. Kenneth Kyle, the director of public issues at the Canadian Cancer Society, when he attended the legislative committee hearings studying this bill. He said:
 For many patients the recovery from the effects of cancer often takes many months. Requiring recovering cancer patients to return to the workforce before they have regained some measure of improved health is to put in jeopardy the patients' and their families' prospects for recovery. 
The head of oncology at the Cape Breton Cancer Centre, Dr. Ron MacCormick, is on record as saying that he would be more than willing to testify to the fact that it can take up to one year after treatment for a person who has had cancer to begin to regain his or her energy. In fact, most oncologists will tell us that treatment, surgery, chemotherapy or radiation alone can take up to a year, so we are not even talking about the recovery period.
As decision-makers, we have not yet considered these patients who are forced to work during the current 15-week benefit period, much less the people suffering from chronic illnesses such as sickle-cell anemia, requiring periodic hospitalization, or those who suffer side effects from prescription drugs.
The bill will greatly help people who have had bypass surgery and who cannot return to work during the usual eight to twelve week recovery period. It will also help the many stroke survivors who have moderate or minor disabilities and are not eligible for CPP because they do not have what is considered a serious disability. 
The harsh reality is that diseases such as these are striking younger and younger people. Many of them have not had an opportunity to properly begin their careers, establish themselves or invest in RRSPs that they might be able to access in the case of illness. Many of them have the potential and expectations of returning to the workforce to continue their careers. 
At the risk of berating the point, we are an aging society. It is therefore even more important to put in place the necessary financial support systems to bridge the gap for those workers who depend solely on employment insurance sick benefits while incapacitated.
According to the 2007 cancer statistics, there is a five year relative survival ratio of 80% which means that people with cancer have an 80% likelihood of living for five years after diagnosis compared to similar people in the general population.
Since I do not have much time left—thank you, Mr. Speaker for the warning—I would like to conclude by saying the following.
I would urge my fellow members to support the bill. It is a bill for our times. EI sickness benefits remain the only viable vehicle to help alleviate the financial burden for individuals suffering from a major illness and for whom 15 weeks is simply not enough to get better and return to work.
The bill will die unless the government brings forward the necessary royal recommendation. The Conservatives appear to be deliberate in their lack of movement on the bill. The way that the Conservatives are behaving, and actions speak louder than words, one can only assume it is their intent to let the bill die.
Again, I call on the government to bring forward a royal recommendation, so that the bill can become law and Canadians can indeed regain the faith they obviously need in knowing that their government cares about their health and well-being, and is not playing petty politics with their lives.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is an extemporaneous speech. I was not really going to speak, but I wanted to just mention that the hon. member bringing forward this bill has missed a golden opportunity.
I have been here for almost 14 years. I have never been chosen for a private member's bill, yet he was chosen, and what did he do when he introduced his bill? He had 15 minutes to explain to me and to others in this House why this bill should be supported. Instead, he chose to take a few cheap shots at the Conservative Party and then he sat down.
There was no opportunity to ask questions because we ran out of time. I would have liked to have asked him some questions. But he missed an opportunity which he had handed to him, which I would have loved to have had for my private member's bill.
Second, and I am not sure about this because my memory is no longer perfect but I do recall that a similar bill like this was brought in here previously when the Liberals were in power. It seems to me that the Liberals all voted against it. For them to now come here and say that the Conservative government is refusing to give the royal recommendation to this and thereby not allowing it to go forward, they did the same thing when they were here. 
There must be some valid reasons. I have not had an opportunity to study those reasons indepth, but there must be some reasons and I believe that our parliamentary secretary put it right on the line, and that is, when we make changes like this to our social programs, they must be done rationally. They must be done with full accountability and they must be done in such a way that they are sustainable.
Those are the questions which need to be asked instead of ranting and raving here, and calling us all those names which they love to use. They hope that by repeating them often enough there will be people who will think that we do not care about these people. We do. We care deeply about them. We are bound and intent to establish programs which are, as I said before, sustainable, cost effective, and truly open and accountable.
I really wish that the member would have taken the time to deal with his bill and to present it in a way that would have persuaded me to support it. I just wanted to get that off my heart.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Pursuant to the Speaker's ruling of April 18, the Chair declines to put the question on the third reading motion because the bill requires a royal recommendation and no royal recommendation has been received.
Consequently, the order for the third reading of the bill is discharged and the bill is withdrawn from the order paper.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
 It being 1:48 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:48 p.m.)