2008-03-07

Government Orders
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  moved:
 That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government. 
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
It is an honour for me to speak to this important and serious motion today. This motion speaks to the priorities of families today. It speaks to an issue that has very serious consequences in Canada and will have profound consequences for future generations. It speaks to Canada's role in the world and our desire to be leaders—not laggards—on the world stage.
It speaks to the flawed and the failed agenda of the government. It speaks to the respect that is due to this House and the majority expression of opinion that has been delivered by the House of Commons.
Of course, I am talking about the issue of climate change, the government's flawed plan and the work that Parliament did to get the country back on track.
Seventeen months ago the Conservatives put forward their clean air act, Bill C-30. It was clear when it arrived that it was dead on arrival. It would allow climate change to worsen and worsen dramatically.
We did not want to accept continued inaction on the environment. That is why I asked and secured agreement from all party leaders that the bill be sent to a special legislative committee to challenge all of the members of the House to roll up their sleeves and get down to work to create legislation in which everyday Canadians could take pride and from which all of us could draw some hope and inspiration for the future.
With concern about climate change at an all time high, this is exactly the kind of action that Canadians wanted to see and this special committee did not disappoint us. It worked long hours. It was applauded by some as a rare example of the cooperation a minority Parliament is supposed to foster.
The committee finished its work nearly a year ago. Environmentalists were quick to say that the new clean air and climate change act was a “breakthrough”. It included major changes that the NDP has championed from the start, including real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the short, medium and long terms; a fixed cap for major industrial polluters, to reduce their share of emissions; a greenhouse gas emission pricing system; strict air quality standards for each pollutant; and strict vehicle fuel consumption standards.
Finally, we had a comprehensive environmental plan that would get results. They said it was impossible. The Conservatives put forward poor climate change legislation, but this Parliament put forward good legislation for Canadians.
We repeatedly called on the government to bring this improved clean air act forward for a vote. The heads of 10 of Canada's leading environmental organizations wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to bring this bill to a vote. They said that the bill represented “a huge step forward for environmental protection in Canada and an important leadership opportunity”.
Sadly, the government refused to listen. There was no stopping its stalling on the environment. That is why last May the NDP used its opposition day to call on the government to bring the amended Bill C-30 back for a vote as soon as possible. A clear majority of the House supported that motion: 155 votes to 121. I thank each and every member of Parliament who voted with us because it recognized how we reach important decisions.
However, the government still was unmoved. It prorogued the House and brought in a throne speech that abandoned the improved clean air act and our international responsibilities on climate change. That is just one of the reasons why the NDP opposed the throne speech.
That brings us to today, 10 months later and our next available chance for an opposition day motion. We have been constructive. We have been consistent. We have been determined, but we cannot wait for action on climate change any longer. We cannot have confidence in the government's environmental plans.
Ordinary Canadians across the country are getting more and more worried about the future of their kids and grandkids. They are seeing the air get dirtier. They are seeing the pine beetle devastating forests and the forest industry. They are having to tell their kids not to swim in our lakes.
This week, the residents of Salluit, a village in northern Quebec, were forced to consider moving their village because of climate change. Mudslides, buckled roads and sinking buildings are threatening the village. Because of the risk of natural disasters brought on by the warming climate and melting permafrost, residents are having to consider leaving their ancestral lands.
That is the reality of climate change today. The inaction of the current government and past governments has forced families and communities to make tough choices.
The government's failed approach on the environment needs to stop, but we see no indication of that happening. Its so-called “turning the corner” plan has been panned across the board. Its accelerated corporate tax giveaways to the big polluters in the budgets give no sign of hope. It refused outright to eliminate now the tax advantages to the tar sands and it sided with laggards like George Bush in international negotiations. 
Even this week it is filibustering yet again my private member's bill that sets out targets for the period after Kyoto, the same targets that were embraced in Bali and based on the best available science. What did it do in last week's budget? Millions for unsafe nuclear power development and millions for pumping pollution underground. This is no solution.
Is it any wonder that on the 10th anniversary of the signing of Kyoto we are 30% above the limits that should have been established and honoured.
Canadians have no confidence that this government will deal with the crucial issue of climate change. Time is short. Every month, an estimated 65 megatonnes of greenhouses gases are emitted into the atmosphere. There is no time for more mistakes. With every delay, the crisis grows worse.
Most of the members of this House are well aware of this, and families today are as well.
They see the evidence everyday. The NDP cannot have confidence in a government that ignores these signs and ignores the signs that the climate change crisis is actually affecting our communities today. We are not talking about some far away time in the future. 
The government is ignoring the conclusions of our best scientists and the best scientists in the world and those who have won Nobel peace prizes. 
This government, like George Bush's government, is putting on the brakes and stopping progress to deal with the biggest crisis facing humanity today which is climate change. Yet, the Conservatives put the interests of oil and gas companies, the biggest polluters, in first place and help them out with our tax dollar subsidies.
It is very clear that we cannot have confidence in a government that is willing to turn its back on this Parliament, on the Canadian people, on the people of this earth at a time when decisive action is required. Could there be a more important time to express in this House a sentiment of non-confidence? I do not believe so and that is why we have tabled this motion today.
 That is why we call on members of this House who believe as we do that this is a critical issue requiring a collaboration of action on the part of all of us here to send a message to the government that what it is doing to our climate is unacceptable to Canadians.
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to acknowledge that it is right that everyone in this House should care about our environment and should want to act proactively to preserve our environment, to protect it, and to make things better.
Certainly, we now see that Elizabeth May has joined forces with the Leader of the Opposition. I just wanted to ask this member, who has been around this House longer than I have, if he feels that the previous government acted proactively on behalf of the environment? Does he see anything in the Leader of the Opposition that indicates to him that the action that he desires would be carried forth by the Leader of the Opposition?
 The Leader of the Opposition last night tried to pass a motion of non-confidence in the NDP. What does he see from this leader that indicates to him that there would be proactive action on behalf of the Liberal Party?
[Interjection]
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, I choose not to really offer observations on the conduct of other leaders. 
I just simply wanted to say that I thought there was a moment of hope in this chamber when we were able to secure agreement from all parties on the issue of climate change to send a piece of legislation to a special committee.
In fact, it was done in a way, using the procedures of the House, that allowed all parties to bring forward their best ideas, to remove those elements of the climate change legislation that would not work, and to replace them with a plan that represented the best thinking of this House.
 This does not happen very often, I think members would agree. But when it does happen, it should be celebrated. And not only that, it should be respected.
I remember that the former leader of the opposition, now our Prime Minister, used to say that a prime minister, particularly in a minority government situation, had a moral obligation to respect the decisions of the House of Commons. 
I do not know what happened to that moral commitment. Where did it go? Where is the respect for this House of Commons on an issue that Canadians universally want us to grab a hold of?
If there was one issue that Canadians would tell us they want us to work together to address, it would be the climate change crisis and that is exactly what was done by this House. But the attitude of the government is totally disrespectful to this House of Commons. 
That is why we have been forced to place a motion of non-confidence on this issue, specific to this particular action by the government, or inaction as it would more appropriately be called.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, listening to the leader of the NDP, one has to wonder just how tight is the ideological straitjacket of the NDP. The people of Canada look to a government to responsibly address climate change, to responsibly address pollution and carbon emissions. They want a government that will show leadership. That is what we have done.
While we were creating a made in Canada plan that works for Canadians, that is saleable to the world, and we were costing it very carefully, all along the way the NDP and the former Liberal government were supporting a Kyoto plan that had absolutely no cost attached to it, no reachable goals that were realistic and was vague at best. That is not responsibility.
While the NDP would support a plan that gave little regard to whether we ran a huge deficit in our environmental plan, we are not like that. We do not do that. We will address the environmental challenges we have.
[Interjection]
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the forests around Prince George and in the riding represented by the hon. member are being devastated as a consequence of climate change by the invasion of a beetle that because of the warmer temperatures is now able to do enormous damage. I have often spoken of my visits to this area to see the absolute devastation.
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: They had a chance but they blew it.
[Interjection]
Jack Layton:  Irrespective of the commentary, which does not make any sense, Mr. Speaker, and is coming from the member who is trying to shout me down right now, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who is interrupting my effort to try to respond to his remarks, I am sure his constituents will be interested to read Hansard and find out that he actually does not want to hear an answer from me, because he continues to speak over top of me. 
Nonetheless, I wish he would think a little more about the devastation being caused by climate change to the forests of British Columbia, because I recall a time when his party and its various precursors used to say that climate change was some kind of myth, that it was not going to happen, that there were not going to be consequences, and that it was some sort of socialist conspiracy.
 In fact, now we see millions and millions of trees completely devastated, forests completely devastated. The result is that people are being thrown out of work. The consequences are dramatic. We can close our eyes, as the member is apparently suggesting we should do, or we can take action. The government has refused. That is why we have no confidence in that member's party, the governing party.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I looked forward yesterday to engaging in this debate in this Parliament, and am pleased to do so today, because this is a rare moment in this House, in which we get to talk about the actual fundamentals and principles of what it is to have leadership in this country.
First, I would like to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for first proposing the very notion that we could take a bad piece of legislation and together make it better.
Recently I had the great honour of spending time with the Nisga'a. I live in northwestern British Columbia and represent a region that is more than 30% first nations, who have some of the longest and proudest traditions in our country's history. 
At this time of year, the Nisga'a have a tradition going back thousands of years. It is called Hobiyee. It is the bringing of the light from the darkness. It is the calling back of the salmon to return to the rivers that sustain the people and have sustained them for generation after generation.
 At this ceremony, I had the great honour to be brought in with the chiefs in full regalia in front of hundreds of Nisga'a dancers, singers and drummers. This ceremony going back centuries is a call to the leadership to have vision and courage and to stand up in defence of the community to provide the leadership the community needs.
 That is what the member for Toronto—Danforth has done for this country in allowing this act to come back to Parliament, in demanding that its rewrite is done and done properly and that we are able to have a free and fair vote, and in saying that if this government and this House refuse, this government no longer has the confidence of this Parliament and should be taken to task.
When the leader of the New Democrats called many of us to Parliament, he gave us a very clear and simple direction. He said that while we would be on the opposition benches, we also should seek the place not simply to oppose but to propose, because there was something lacking in this country and in particular around the debate on climate change. What was lacking were consistent and serious proposals that Canadians could get behind and thus for once start to feel proud of the work of Parliament, this place.
 That is exactly what the NDP did when the member for Toronto—Danforth stood in his place and called upon the Prime Minister to create a special committee in which all parliamentarians could engage, in which Canadians could see in the full light of day our best ideas, the to and fro of debate, in order to land upon and arrive at the best piece of environmental legislation to take on the greatest challenge this generation has faced.
In the deliberations, we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Some members who are in the House right now were at those talks. We heard from industry, environmental groups, first nations and labour activists. We heard all about the best pieces to put into this legislation, because we all realized at first blush that the bill when it first arrived was dead upon arrival. There was not a hope of its passage. There was not enough credibility. Canadians were simply not behind it.
 Through that process and through the engagement of Canadians, we were allowed to have a fulsome debate. We realized that yes, it could be done, and yes, it could be done well, and that Parliament could finally take a lead in tackling dangerous climate change, which we are seeing the effects of each and every day in this country.
Now, let us juxtapose that with the recent experience of all Canadians in witnessing the absolute debacle of the Bali negotiations at the UN, in which our minister went forward and stood side by side with the United States in opposing any progress on the challenge of climate change at the international level.
 I spoke to one of the lead negotiators from Canada at the very end of these negotiations, when Canada was completely isolated. Even the U.S. had left and had joined with the UN. Canada was standing alone. I looked down at that negotiator's lapel pin because he had a Canadian flag on it. We talked for some time. I looked at his flag and just as an offhand comment said, “That is such a wonderful flag and it fills my heart with pride just to look at it”. It is the flag standing beside you, Mr. Speaker.
He looked down at the flag and said, “Do you know how hard it is to walk around with this flag at this negotiation?” These are his words. He said, “Do you realize how embarrassing it is to represent Canada's position?”. It was the purported position of the Conservative government. I told him not to worry, for just as the Nisga'a celebrate the light coming from the darkness, we too will celebrate when this country gets back on track and represents the interests and views of Canadians on climate change.
As members of Parliament, we all share a responsibility. Many of us have stood in our places in debate, at committee, in our constituencies and across the country, recognizing what first drew us into a life of public service, to serve on behalf of the public, to understand what it is to truly represent people. In that representation is the requirement for leadership, the requirement for vision, the requirement to have the courage of our convictions to stand in our place and vote for the things we believe in, to fight for the things we believe in, and to represent the people who sent us here to get good things done.
As we talk about climate change, I note that just yesterday the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development released a report containing 14 chapters, nine of which the government showed a failing grade on. I do not know if 35% on a test is acceptable to the Conservatives, but it is not acceptable to New Democrats and it is not acceptable to Canadians.
Every Parliament is seized with scandals, with debate and with central issues. I would suggest that this Parliament has been called upon by the Canadian people to take on the challenge of climate change and to make the decisions necessary so that in some years hence, when we are all sitting back, retired and looking back on our careers, we can say that we did the right thing, the right thing not only for this generation but for the generations to come.
I am reminded again of being with the Nisga'a, listening to the songs, hearing the drummers and speaking with a leadership that goes back millennia about what is required for true leadership. The Nisga'a say it is our role to speak on behalf of others and to speak with courage, knowing that there are difficult decisions and that we must cross over partisan interests that may occupy us and seem important in the moment. We have to realize that new place where we can go to achieve something together, something in which we can all share and all be proud of. Then we can return to our constituencies and to those people who sent us here with pride in our eyes, knowing that we did the right thing. That is what this motion calls for today.
I and many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have spoken about this for many years. In 1983 the NDP was the first group to raise the issue of climate change in this place. For many years, it was shuffled off. It was put off as not being a priority. By some members who are sitting here today, it was put off as not being a reality. They said it was a complete fiction that we did not need to deal with.
Slowly but surely, the public came to understand the issue more. The science became more confirmed and the path forward for all of us became more certain. Unfortunately, we still find ourselves in a place where the narrow, short term partisan interests override the interests of the generations to come and override the interests of doing what is right for the planet, for our communities and for our country. That has to end.
The NDP has been clear today. This is as clear as it gets: the legislation, which the will of this House has supported, must be brought back to Parliament for a free and fair democratic vote, and if not, then the government no longer has the confidence of this Parliament and should be brought down.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches presented by both the leader of the NDP and the party's environment critic and what is interesting about their comments is that they are both confused. 
On the one hand, the leader of the NDP is actively seeking the cooperation of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois at committee to pass his bill, Bill C-377, which cannot pass without the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.
On the other hand, he refers to Bill C-30, the backbone of which is the Liberal Party of Canada's balancing our budget plan. As the leader of the NDP puts it, the bill was originally punted to a legislative committee because he had a special deal with the Prime Minister. Then he realized that the Prime Minister was not serious whatsoever in seeing that legislative committee bring the clean air act to any successful completion and we brought forward the balancing, our department budget program and plan.
I am confused because one of the longest serving NDP MPs, the member for Winnipeg Centre, believes differently than his own leader. He says that the federal New Democratic Party may need to enter into some kind of informal coalition with the Liberals or risk, in his words, “political obscurity”. That statement came from a veteran NDP MP, one of the top and longest serving MPs in that caucus.
What exactly is the NDP's position here today? In the case of--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the only confusion that Canadians are faced with is what exactly the Liberal Party of Canada plans to do when a clear and concise motion is put before the House for a free and fair democratic vote. 
We in the New Democrats are determined to force the issue of climate change onto the political agenda. Every member of this caucus has stood in question period, in debates in the House and in committees to say that legislation needs to be brought forward. 
The lack of clarity on the part of other opposition parties is what is confusing Canadians. Leaders from other parties stood yesterday and said that while they agreed in principle, they would not agree to vote. A great rift occurs when principles do not match votes and that rift cannot be fixed by simply obscuring the issue. 
We are calling upon the Conservative government to bring back the amended clean air and climate change act for a free and fair vote. If it does not do so, then we will drop the government. I encourage the member to join us.
Hon. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the previous government left Canada with one of the worst environmental records among the OECD. For the last 10 years, this has been well-documented in former environment commissioner reports. The previous government had no plans and no cohesive framework. There were lots of talk and lots of confetti but no action.
If countries like China and India do not start taking action, what effect will that have on Canada's global emissions? I would like the hon. member's thoughts on that.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will get no argument from me when discussing Liberal failures on the climate change issue. 
She mentioned the Commissioner of the Environment who was in front of committee yesterday. He said that there had been far too much talk and not enough action. He was, in effect, referring to both the Conservative and Liberal administrations and he was equal in his condemnation. 
There is a principle here that my hon. colleague seems to enjoy stating many times, and I have heard it from her own Minister of the Environment. Using the excuse of Liberal failure is a call to inaction by the current government, which is a failure of intellectual thought and process. Canadians simply will not tolerate it. Canadians want to see concrete action and, if not, whoever is currently holding office should be thrown from office to the furthest places of this country.
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this very important issue. 
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.
As a Canadian, I am very proud and always will be proud to be Canadian. I believe, unlike the member from the NDP seems to indicate, that we live in the greatest country in the world and I am very proud of that and have never been ashamed of my country, nor my flag.
The motion presented by the member for Toronto—Danforth calls into question the House's confidence in the government on the environment. Let me reassure the House, however, that the government is committed on delivering real results, real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and the environment, which is so important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Climate change is, indeed, one of the biggest threats to our environment, to our people and to the future of our earth. This reality is clearer today than it has ever been and it is a threat that this Conservative government and this Prime Minister takes very seriously.
Here at home, unlike previous Liberal governments, we have taken real action and we are proud of these first steps. With our turning the corner plan, we will, for the first time ever, require industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution by implementing the toughest mandatory targets in Canadian history. I am proud of that.
The end result is that our national strategy will reduce in absolute terms Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. What is significant to note is that our plan is not only effective, it is responsible. Our plan marks a new era in Canadian environmental responsibility. Our approach takes our economy into account. It goes to great lengths to protect the standard of living of Canadians no matter where they live and it goes beyond any other plan to ensure it takes real action to protect our environment.
Our government also recognizes that Canada's north is one of the areas that will most quickly bear the burden of climate change. We have committed more than $80 million for science research on adaptation that will help the north deal with climate change. I have seen these changes first-hand and I assure Canadians that they are taking place. This will be of great help to the rest of the world as well because, in the Canadian attitude we share, we share the world's responsibility and we will help the rest of the world in understanding how to adjust to the new reality that we are all facing.
However, we admit that it has been an uphill battle to move Canada forward. We have been here for two years and we have had our work cut out for us. Thirteen years of complacency and mismanagement by successive Liberal governments crippled our environment, set us far back and it crippled our international environmental standing. We inherited a huge mess from the previous Liberal government. We inherited a landscape of patchwork environmental programs that did little, if nothing, to minimize Canada's carbon footprint in the world.
In fact, by the end of 2005, emissions had climbed to 33% above the target levels set in the Kyoto protocol. One of the toughest issues we have faced is how to meet the 2012 targets, given the situation Canada has been put in by the previous Liberal government.
Had that government not left us in such a precarious position, perhaps we would have been able to do that by the 2012 deadline. However, we have had to deal with 10 years that has been lost due to inaction. This fact has already been debated in the House repeatedly. In fact, all parties agree, even members from the Liberal party, including the leader himself, have said that they did nothing.
Our position on the subject was very clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne that was put before the House for a vote. I am glad to see that the Liberal Party supports our environmental policies and I want to thank the Liberals today again for supporting the government on a continuous basis through the budget.
They supported the Speech from the Throne, the mini-budget and, now, I am proud to say, this budget, which all contained great things to clean up the environment. It is clear that the Liberals support our government, our responsible position and our realistic approach to environmental protection. Again, I thank members of the Liberal Party.
I would like to also address the issue of Bill C-30, which is also mentioned in today's motion. The Conservative Party worked in good faith on the Bill C-30 committee to try to improve the clean air act. I know that for a fact because I was there. I was in every meeting and I saw what took place. All members of the Conservative Party worked earnestly and in good faith trying to get real positive results for Canadians.
Our government is committed to improving the environment on behalf of all Canadians. This includes bringing forward concrete and realistic industrial targets to reduce greenhouse gases and improve the air we breathe and improve the health of Canadians.
In committee last year, the government supported amendments brought forward by every party to improve and strengthen Canada's clean air act, and brought forward others of our own. We worked or tried to work cooperatively. We took politics out, unlike the other parties. Sadly, in most cases, we were opposed by both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.
We brought forward a reasonable amendment to achieve tough vehicle emission standards based on the North American market, the integrated market in which we live, standards that would be supported by labour. What did the Liberals do in return? They voted it down and knowingly played politics by imposing standards that would have been impossible for industry to meet without shutting down the Ontario auto industry.
The Liberals also played politics by writing Kyoto targets into the bills with no conceivable plan to achieve them, again, playing politics. It was hard for Canadians to believe that the Liberals had ever put in place a plan to achieve Kyoto five years ago. Today it is even harder. As the Liberal member for Halton said:
 I heard [the Prime Minister] yesterday in a speech say, in one breath, that action must be taken, while in the next he added that reaching Kyoto targets would be “fantasy”. 
 Is he right? Technically, yeah. We’re so far behind now that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down. 
Indeed, even when the Liberals were in government, it was easy for them to offer the moon with no hope of ever delivering it. We know how they governed the country and Canadians certainly do not want to go back to that. Now that the Liberals are no longer in government, it is even easier for them to tell Canadians that they want to achieve Kyoto emission targets. 
The opposition also gutted parts of the clean air act, Bill C-30. We told the opposition not to mess with the health of Canadian children and not to mess with the health and the quality of life of Canadians, the elderly and those suffering from respiratory illness. What did it do? It gutted those important sections of the clean air act. The opposition members should be ashamed of themselves.
What did Canadians lose in the rush to gut the clean air act, led by the Liberals and the environment critic, the member for Ottawa South? Canadians should know that the opposition removed many new regulations that would have helped to better protect the health of Canadians and our environment. We lost, for example, mandatory national air quality standards, mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards, increased research and monitoring of air pollutants, and tougher enforcement rules for compliance to air quality regulations. Shame on the opposition.
The government put forward 15 pages of concise new regulation making authority to protect Canadians' health and our environment, and the opposition just ripped them up. What did the Liberals add instead? They inserted clauses to delay action by implementing and requiring six months of consultation around a new investment bank before we could move forward on tough new regulations for industry. This was a delay tactic. The Liberals inserted complex and unworkable requirements that made it harder, not easier, for the government to act on air pollution.
Even worse, the Liberals inserted a clause that would have allowed political interference into air quality standards. For instance, the Liberals wanted the Minister of the Environment to exempt “economically depressed areas” from air quality standards for three years. Would this allow the Liberals to buy votes? Was it their intent in this particular section to exempt certain Liberal rich voting areas of the country from air quality regulations while punishing those areas that were not Liberal? We do not know what they thought but they were thinking the wrong thing. 
The Liberals imposed the Liberal leader's carbon tax plan into the bill, a plan that would lead to zero greenhouse gas reductions. The health and the prosperity of Canadians depends on the quality of the air we breath, the quality of life. The integrity of our environment is tied so uniquely to that. It is very clear that only the Conservative government members were prepared to put the environment before politics.
However, all is not lost. Our government committed to bringing back the parts of Bill C-30 that had all party support. Unlike the Liberals, the government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air we breath and the health of Canadians. Our actions speak louder than words. We are getting the job done. We will take no lessons from the Liberals or members of the NDP who cannot get it done for Canadians.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and a direct question for the parliamentary secretary about the motion today.
I will quote for the House, for our collective memory, a quotation by the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister. He said:
 What's become apparent is that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will grandstand on these things [but] it is up to us...to decide whether the time has come to have an election. 
He went on to say, “I think in Canadians' judgment—it is not that time”.
Is the parliamentary secretary telling us now that it is the position of the Prime Minister that he wants to have an election? If he does, why does he not cross the street, go see the Governor General and call for an election?
[Interjection]
Brian Jean: Is that not just like the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker? Something so serious as the quality of life of Canadians, the future of our country, the future of the world and the Liberals play politics with it, straight politics.
That is why Canadians do not respect that party any more. That is why they want the Conservative government to lead the country and to clean up our air and water to get the quality of life better for Canadians.
Let me give a quote in response:
 Scientific capacity in the federal government could not help but be affected by the last five years of cuts. 
That is from the Toronto Star, October 9, 1999. That member said this.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary is about the automotive industry.
The minister and the government have cut the eco-auto rebate program. This was the incentive program of $116 million, a disastrous program that did not have an effect on the positive influence to buy vehicles.
We have a transition in the auto industry which is an opportunity to get greener technologies. At the same time the government is cutting the $116 million, it is going to keep in place the $50 million tax on the companies. It has rolled out a new program worth $50 million a year, but at the end of the day it has actually cut the automotive sector back by $8 million per year, and it continues to keep the $50 million tax in place.
What is the government preparing to do, given that the United States is going to be instituting loan guarantees and a series of other initiatives to secure the new green auto industry? The fact is that what we have shown is the government actually cut the $116 million, which the Minister of Finance did not roll over into initiatives, and it has only introduced a $250 million five year program, which once again will be funded by a tax on the industry itself.
[Interjection]
Brian Jean: I lost track of that, Mr. Speaker, because there was so much rhetoric.
However, let us talk about something someone has said in reference to the bill the NDP has now proposed. Mark Nantais, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, said in relation to the bill: 
 That (revised bill) could end up having some perverse impacts, in terms of fleet turnover, and the ability of people to afford these vehicles. 
There is no question that the NDP, from time to time, comes up with these perverse ideas that could not work. We know that.
However, let us talk about some really good things that are happening. We did a good eco-auto program. We had a two year program. It worked well. It brought to the attention of Canadians what was important. What is important with the fleet and what is important for Canadians is what we are doing. We are taking positive steps.
The rebate program raised consumer awareness on fuel efficient models. In fact, the industry even added new fuel efficient models to its fleets.
Let us talk about some of the things we are doing. We have invested $33 billion, the biggest investment ever, in things like public transit and cleaning our water. Infrastructure investments in our latest budget, which the Liberals supported us on, and I thank them, include $500 million for public transit capital investments, $250 million over five years to support research and development for greener more fuel efficient vehicles, $63 million over the next two years to look at ways to get older polluting vehicles off the road and $13 million over two years to accelerate access to renewable fuels for cars and trucks.
We are getting the job done for Canadians, for a better quality of life. cleaner air and the environment.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as members know, the world met in Indonesia for the 13th United Nations climate change conference in December last year. The meeting was an important step in the ongoing international process under the UN to address climate change. The meeting in Indonesia was also another opportunity for Canada to demonstrate its international leadership on this issue.
 From the very beginning of these discussions, Canada's position has been that we must have an effective, binding international framework that leads to real greenhouse gas reductions. To reach that goal, all major emitters, such as China and India, need to be on-board. The world moved closer to reaching that goal in Indonesia.
Our government is proud of the principled position we have taken. With the United States now signed onto this framework, results of this conference can show progress. We see that as an important first step.
Make no mistake, the next two years will be a challenge, with long and intense negotiations. Canada looks forward to meeting that challenge and to working with our international partners to develop a global solution in the fight against climate change.
 Climate change is a global program, requiring global solutions. We see that with the agreement we reached in Indonesia. Let me be clear. Canada is committed to the United Nations process. We are committed to an international framework driven by science. We are committed to taking action with our turning the corner plan. Unlike the Liberal Party that sat around and did nothing for 13 years, we are taking action.
For a moment, though, let us look at the performance of the Liberal leader in Bali. He said that he would never criticize his government while abroad. He did, several times. The Liberal leader intentionally came to Bali to undermine and sabotage the work of the government at an international conference. That is a shame.
Canada understands the global threat to climate change requires a truly global solution. The scientific work of the International Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, tells us that we must stop the rise in greenhouse gas emissions and make significant cuts in emissions over the next 50 years if we are to prevent drastic consequences. This government supports the conclusions of the IPCC as the world's pre-eminent scientific body on climate change. The science is clear. The world must take immediate action on climate change.
Therefore, this government is taking action, with Canada's national plan “Turning the Corner: An Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution”. Our plan will continue to deliver realistic and achievable results on cleaning up our environment. It is focused on broad action here at home and continued international leadership on the world stage.
Our agenda includes: absolute reduction in greenhouse gases of 20% by 2020; further reductions of 60% to 70% by 2050; a domestic carbon market; a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic, including a world class Arctic research station; national air pollution regulations; an action plan on clean water to protect our rivers, lakes and oceans; and tougher enforcement that will make polluters accountable.
Over the last year, Canada has been at the forefront of international action on climate change, including the leadership shown by the Prime Minister at the G-8, at the OPEC summit and at the United Nations.
Canada was also proud to play a leading role to achieve historic success at the Montreal protocol conference, where over 190 countries agreed on eliminating substances that would harm the ozone layer and would contribute to climate change.
Canada will continue to play an important role in this negotiation process. Specifically, Canada continues to articulate that a post-2012 climate change agreement should include: a target date for stabilizing emissions and goals for global emissions reductions by 2050; the strongest action and commitment by all major emitters; adequate consideration for national circumstances so as not to unduly burden the growth of any single country; consideration of a sectoral approach to appropriate cases where countries agree on specific targets for emissions reductions from highly globalized industries, such as concrete and fertilizer; the elimination of trade barriers to green technology to support the demand for this new technology; a clear price signal on carbon to support the use of market mechanisms; a mechanism to provide credits for reduced emissions through reductions of deforestation, as more than 20% of global emissions result from deforestation; and due consideration for the need to adapt to the warming that scientists tell us will occur, regardless of immediate action.
What the government will not do is mislead the international community like the Liberals did for 13 years. When the Liberals signed on to Kyoto, they had no idea of the costs to the Canadian consumer, or the impact it would have on the Canadian economy. They wrote a number down on the back of a napkin in an attempt to trump the Americans, and now we find ourselves 35% above our Kyoto targets. 
I agree 100% with the Toronto Star columnist, Chantal Hébert when she said:
 Among the opposition leaders, only [the Liberal leader], who sat for a decade in government, stands to be called to account for how far behind Canada has fallen on the road to Kyoto. 
The Liberals had no intention of meeting the Kyoto targets. Instead, they were prepared to send billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to buy hot air credits from Russia. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us hear what former Liberal environment ministers had to say.
Former Liberal environment minister Christine Stewart said, “The Minister of Finance could never find money for Kyoto which was a terrible disappointment to me”.
The article goes on to say:
 Stewart today says that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien...“didn't get environment”. She also says Natural Resources minister [the member for Wascana] accompanied her to “reassure,” the domestic oil industry because of the tremendous amount of “pushback,” Kyoto was getting”. 
Let us hear what former Liberal environment minister Sheila Copps had to say:
 I remember very well when (Chrétien) actually endorsed Kyoto, he called me before he went to South Africa because he was getting tremendous push back from the bureaucracy, the department of finance, the former minister of finance...and all of those attached to the natural resources…including [the member for Wascana] and Anne McLellan. (They) were viciously against Kyoto. 
Sheila Copps went on further to say:
 We burned thousands of pounds of paper with briefing notes from the department of Natural Resources and the Department of Finance showing us why we could do nothing because it was an economic disaster. 
Yet for all those years, Canada deceived the international community. The Liberals talked and talked and never backed it up with action. Only the Liberal leader can be held to account for that.
The fact is our government cannot take responsibility for the inaction and mistakes of the past 13 years under the Liberals, but what Canadians can expect is that we will take action to clean up the mess left by the Liberals. That is why we are moving aggressively to cut greenhouse gas emission and fight global warming in our country. 
When it comes to failed international agreements, it is only the Liberals that know failure. Unlike the Liberals, we are getting the job done on the international stage.

Statements By Members
Medal of BraveryMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I was privileged to witness Constable Ryan George Hutchison, a constituent from my riding, along with Robin Mole accept the Canadian Medal of Bravery at Rideau Hall from Her Excellency the Right Hon. Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada.
On August 21, 2005, Constable Ryan Hutchison and paramedic Robin Mole rescued two young girls from drowning in the waters of Lake Erie in Leamington, Ontario. The two victims, aged 11 and 13, were struggling to stay afloat some 10 metres from the shore, unable to swim back due to the strong waves.
Alerted to the scene, Constable Hutchison and Mr. Mole grabbed a life ring and dove into the water to reach the girls' side. Swimming against a strong tide, they managed to bring the girls back to the breakwall where they were pulled to safety. The strong waves knocked Constable Hutchison back into the water, submerging him numerous times. He was eventually rescued by emergency crews who had arrived at the scene.
The people of Chatham-Kent—Essex are very proud of Constable Ryan George Hutchison and Robin Mole for their acts of bravery.
Aboriginal WomenMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we recognize International Women's Day later this week, I feel this is an occasion to point out a true injustice served by the Conservative government.
Last September, after more than two decades of struggle, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples finally cleared its last hurdle when it was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Though the declaration did pass by a margin of 144 to 4, shamefully, Canada was one of only four countries to vote against it. This is nothing to be proud of.
The Conservative government's refusal to support the United Nations declaration shows a blatant disregard of the struggles of aboriginal women in Canada to achieve equality. Canada's aboriginal women deserve better, especially during the week when the world is recognizing International Women's Day.
It should not be questioned. The rights of aboriginal women are also human rights and they should be honoured.
Women's Excellence GalaMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a prelude to International Women's Day, the AFÉAS of central Quebec held its first-ever Excellence au féminin gala in Drummondville, honouring women in our region in the categories of business, politics, education, health and family. 
In the business category, the award was given to Louise Boisclair, of Saint-Léonard-d'Aston, while the politics award was handed out to Francine Auger, of Victoriaville. Francine Lafond, of Saint-Wenceslas, was chosen from among the finalists to win the education award.
The health award was handed out to Micheline Côté, of Saint-Grégoire, for her involvement in the Bécancour—Nicolet-Yamaska health and social services centre. Johanne Latreille, of Victoriaville, was honoured in the family category.
Lastly, the first-ever award for women's excellence was given to Francine Ruest-Jutras, the mayor of Drummondville.
On the eve of International Women's Day, I want to express my deep admiration for these women. Congratulations to them all. 
Status of WomenMs. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate International Women's Day. We celebrate the courage and resilience of those women who have worked for over a century for equality of opportunity. We celebrate those women whose work is well known and those whose names we do not remember but we remember their spirit and the changes they have made.
Sadly, there are many women who have nothing to celebrate on International Women's Day: the woman who sleeps in a doorway because there is no national housing strategy; the woman at the food bank whose daughter tugs her sleeve and says, “Mommy, I will try not to eat so much”; the woman who makes 70% of what her male counterpart does because there is no pay equity plan; and the woman who cannot get safe child care because there is no national child care plan.
However, I remain hopeful and optimistic, because I know that Canadian women and women globally have incredible courage and resilience. They will continue to work, to speak out and to move forward the goals and dreams of women for equality, fairness and justice.
Bonnyville PontiacsMr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to a dedicated group of young men who lace up their skates and play their hearts out each and every night, all in the pursuit of a common goal. With Hunter from Kool FM calling their names from far and wide, they sprinkle in a mix of hometown talent, like Isley and Cadrin.
After 62 games and months of travelling and dedication from players, including Jensen and Gerhardt, Coach Mercier and the training staff have the boys ready to go. The Bonnyville Pontiacs are ready to roll to an AJHL championship.
In their quest for glory, the Bonnyville Pontiacs do far more than entertain a small rural community. They inspire and stoke the dreams of parents and children alike.
This year the dream is in reach. With Easton's scoring and Chenard's tending, Sherwood Park is already behind them. Whether the road to the cup goes through Fort McMurray or Camrose, it does not matter, because this is the year of the Pontiacs.
Status of WomenHon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating International Women's Day. It is therefore important to highlight the value of women to our society and underscore the issues that affect them. 
There is no doubt that women have made a significant contribution to Canada's social, economic, cultural and community life. All the same, we must recognize that they have had to face many challenges and overcome numerous obstacles throughout history. Let us not forget that women are still fighting for equality and respect.
International Women's Day reminds us that we must not only provide more funding for women, we must also recognize the sacrifices that our mothers, sisters, daughters and wives have made. I ask my colleagues to join me in urging the government to make women a priority so that Canada can truly join the 21st century.
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to an extremely devoted group of citizens in my riding. I am talking about all the women ambulance attendants, police officers, firefighters and military personnel in my lovely part of the country. 
I would like to thank all the women ambulance attendants in my riding who are always there to respond to the needs of the community. I would like to thank all the policewomen who, by working in the schools with our young people and by risking their lives fighting crime, are always there when we need them, making our citizens feel safe. I would like to thank all the women firefighters who risk their lives to save those of people in distress, and I would also like to thank all the women serving in the Canadian Forces who risk their own lives to serve this country. 
On May 25, 2008, I will be proud to demonstrate my profound gratitude at a special event. To mark this event, I invite you all to bring your families and celebrate in Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. We hope to welcome many visitors. Congratulations, once again, on a job well done.
Mathieu ÉmondMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I were saddened to learn of the passing of Mathieu Émond, a Varennes firefighter who lost his life in the line of duty on March 4. Mr. Émond demonstrated courage and exemplary dedication in fighting the fire.
This tragedy reminds us that we should never forget that the firefighter's profession is dangerous, but essential for society. They are very courageous indeed to put their lives on the line every day to save others. They deserve our utmost respect for the acts of bravery they carry out every day without hesitation.
I wish to extend my most sincere condolences to his spouse, Mrs. Sarah Larochelle, to his young daughter, to his family and to all those who loved him and are bereaved. I would also like to pay tribute to this gentleman who sacrificed his life while serving his community, a selfless act worthy of the highest consideration and everyone's gratitude.
Foreign AffairsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as members of this House know, the Americas is one of this government's top foreign policy priorities. 
We continue to be concerned about the recent escalation of tensions in the Andean region. We call on our Andean partners to pursue a constructive dialogue aimed at resolving these tensions and to work together to reinforce regional stability and to fight terrorism.
Canada demonstrated its renewed commitment to the hemisphere through active diplomacy in this week's OAS permanent council special meeting forging a unanimous declaration on the crisis.
We will continue to promote mutual respect and reconciliation among our hemispheric partners in the wake of recent events, as well as support efforts to build a strong peace that embodies our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Human RightsHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I spoke yesterday in the House of the danger of anti-Jewish terror, the targeting of Jews because they are Jews, we in the House did not know that at that moment, in a tragic irony, a murderous terrorist assault on a Jewish school in Jerusalem was taking place. Nor could we even fathom that, in an obscene declaration, Hamas would actually bless the terrorist attack and call for more, while thousands celebrated the killings in the streets. It reminded me of the words of Mideast scholar Fouad Ajami. At the time of the Passover massacre, yet another anti-Jewish terrorist attack, he wrote: 
 [The suicide bomber] did not descend from the sky: He walked straight out of the culture of incitement.... He partook of the culture all around him--the glee that greets those brutal deeds of terror, the cult that rises around the martyrs and their families. 
This culture of hate must end. This incitement must stop. For it is this Hamas sanctioned hate and incitement that leads to Hamas rockets targeting Jews in Sderot and Ashqelon and terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. We need a culture of peace, not a culture of hate.
Arctic Winter GamesHon. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the athletes participating in the 2008 Arctic Winter Games, which will be opened by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Sport on Sunday, March 9 in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. This is an extraordinary event, bringing together athletes from circumpolar countries and regions to compete in sport and celebrate their cultural values.
Budget 2008 has committed to invest $164 million every year to support excellence in the participation of sport from the playground to the podium.
For years the Liberal Party ignored sports. We are pleased the Liberals have now decided to show confidence in this government by allowing the budget to pass the House of Commons. This government is restoring pride for our athletes and for Canadian sports in general. 
Congratulations and thanks to the thousands of coaches, officials, event organizers, volunteers and parents who have supported the athletes throughout the years in preparation for this competition. Good luck to our athletes.
Automotive IndustryBrian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to call upon this House to institute a national auto policy. The Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, continues to move the auto industry in the wrong direction and cost Canadian jobs.
The 2008 budget in particular adds taxes to the auto industry and eliminates funding for new technology and programs that could actually create green sustainable jobs.
Why does the government continue to pursue trade policies where we cannot actually ship our auto products into other markets because of tariff and non-tariff barriers put on Canadians?
I call upon the Liberals to stand up and stop this disastrous auto policy. The Minister of International Trade, was a Liberal before he crossed the floor. He said the Conservatives would kill the auto industry. Well, he is right and he is doing it with his colleagues right now.
Status of WomenMr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, later this week women around the world will celebrate International Women's Day and its theme, “Strong Women, Strong World”.
We will remember Canadian trailblazers, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby, whose fierce determination overcame the prejudices of their time to pave the way for women to be recognized as persons in Canada.
This is also a time to remember that there is still more to do. Remember that Canadian women still only earn 71¢ for every dollar a man earns. Remember that the Conservative government cancelled the court challenges program. Remember that the Conservative government shut down the law commission. Remember that the Conservative government closed the doors of 12 out of 16 Status of Women regional offices.
On the eve of International Women's Day, we salute Canadian women and call on the government to stop making decisions that thwart their progress.
Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame GalaMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I denounced the CBC's attitude toward francophone artists. I will go one better today because the CBC decided to cut images of all francophone artists from the broadcast two months ago. In fact, that is why Martin Duchesne, a Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame board member and the Quebec bureau chief, stepped down.
He said that in previous years the francophone broadcasters were told to keep away from the anglophone broadcasters and keep their speeches short. The artists had to leave an empty chair between francophones and anglophones for the sole purpose of editing images out of the broadcast. This event was planned and structured to eliminate francophone artists from the televised gala.
What is even more appalling in this entire affair is that not a single member of Parliament from Quebec, except those from the Bloc Québécois, stood up in this House to denounce the CBC's shameful attitude toward francophones.
Status of WomenHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week delegations from around the world were in New York to attend meetings of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
After two years in government, the only thing the Canadian delegation could tell the world was that it intends to develop a so-called action plan to advance women's equality in this country. There are no details, no timetable.
Two years ago the government's action plan led to the elimination of the court challenges program, the law commission, and 12 out of 16 Status of Women offices. 
More than 17 Canadian organizations, representing thousands of women were at the UN. The reaction to the Canadian plan was swift, “all words, little action, no money for women”, all thanks to the Conservative government.
We agree that the Conservative government has turned back the clock on women's rights and slammed the door in their faces.
On the eve of International Women's Day, the Liberal Party applauds Canadian women, their achievements and the many organizations that advocate on their behalf, even if the Conservative government will not.
International Women's WeekMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, International Women's Week ends on March 8, which is International Women's Day. 
Our government is working to support women's full participation in Canada's economic, social and democratic life, which will help achieve equality for all women. 
Our government has taken real action to support women and their families. This week, we announced that five new women's shelters will be built. This will help fight violence against first nations women and families.
In addition, we have announced 14 more projects that will receive a total of $3.4 million in funding. For those of us on this side of the House, equality is not just a symbol; it is, first and foremost, our reason for being.
I would like to take this opportunity to personally salute all of the women in this House on this special day of ours.

Oral Questions
EthicsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to scuttle its Cadman scandal. It is now even highlighting other Conservative scandals, and it is a long list, to take attention away from that taped conversation which captured the Prime Minister's very own words: “the offer to Chuck”, “there were financial issues”, “replace financial considerations”, “financial insecurity”, “make the case”. These have nothing to do with a party nomination.
When will the government realize this issue will not go away until the Prime Minister finally answers?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Liberals' enthusiasm for their Friday leader. That is good to see.
As I have said, the only considerations ever presented to Chuck Cadman were the considerations that we wanted to have him rejoin the Conservative caucus and present himself as a Conservative candidate.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the only thing piling up faster than snow in Ottawa is the number of Conservative scandals the Prime Minister will not investigate.
However, he is not the only Conservative to have a revealing conversation back in 2005 about Chuck Cadman. The now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works had one too, also with a journalist. The parliamentary secretary explained the exact death benefit issue that was so crucial to Mr. Cadman. Again, that had nothing to do with any party nomination.
Can the government not see that stonewalling will not work, not this time?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are going to be fixated on this as a consequence of their not accepting the facts and not accepting Chuck Cadman's own words that the only offer made to Chuck Cadman was our desire to have him run for us in the campaign, and for him to be the Conservative candidate in that election. That is the central fact of this.
The Liberals are going to be continually spinning in the mud as they continue to ignore that fact.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the government's explanation is just not credible.
If those “financial considerations” mentioned by the Prime Minister on that tape back in 2005 were only to get Chuck Cadman to run as the Conservative candidate, if that was the only goal, then surely the party interest would be ongoing. 
How many efforts were made to persuade Mr. Cadman to become a Conservative once again after the May 19 vote on the 2005 budget?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman was always welcome to rejoin the Conservative caucus. As a matter of fact, after that vote there were a number of times when I saw Chuck Cadman around and I would tell him he was welcome back to our party any time. There were always efforts to have Chuck rejoin us. He was always welcome to come back.
The Liberals can continue their conspiracy theories, but the truth is they have already made up their minds on this issue. They have already decided that there has been a crime here without any evidence whatsoever. They have made the accusations outside of the House of Commons and they will be seen in court.
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to evade the issue as much as he wants, but Canadians want some answers. On a tape recording, we clearly hear the Prime Minister say he authorized two legitimate representatives from his party to offer “financial considerations” to Chuck Cadman. The offer was to compensate Mr. Cadman for any losses he might incur if he changed his vote and an election was called.
Thus, the question is very clear: what losses are we talking about for which Mr. Cadman was offered compensation?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the only offer was the one I mentioned yesterday, and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and last week. We wanted Chuck to run for the Conservative Party.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, today is Friday. The Conservative government is pretending that it does not understand the seriousness of this scandal. We are talking about buying a member's vote. The government may not know this, but that is illegal. It is prohibited by the rules of the House of Commons. It is prohibited by the Criminal Code. It is prohibited by the Parliament of Canada Act. It is prohibited, period.
Does the Conservative government understand that it is the public's confidence in its elected officials that is at stake here, and that we are talking about a completely flagrant lack of respect for our democratic process?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague and friend does not hurt himself when asking his questions. He is pretty energized today.
I can understand if my colleague does not want to take my word for it. He does not have to. That is fair. That is common in our parliamentary procedure. 
I would ask him to just take the word of Chuck Cadman himself when he was interviewed by Mike Duffy. Mike Duffy asked him, “--Conservatives were prepared to offer you an unopposed nomination if you would vote with them, and also help with campaign funding and so on. Was that offer actually made?” Chuck Cadman said, “Yes...that was the only offer on anything that I had from anybody”.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister did not stop bragging that the Conservatives would establish good relations with the United States. With an alleged leak by his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, the Prime Minister has completely missed the mark, to say the least, unless, when he promised better relations with the United States, he was thinking only of relations with the government of Mr. Bush.
At the end of the day, is the leak not just an attempt by this right-wing Conservative government to help the Republicans in this presidential race?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The government is working to get to the bottom of this matter. 
It is important that Canada has very good relations with the United States. It is our largest trading partner and it is our neighbour with whom we share a long border. An incident of this type has the potential to harm the construction of those kinds of good relations and that is why we take it seriously.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not hesitate to fire Jean Chrétien's press secretary, Françoise Ducros, and to throw Carolyn Parrish out of their caucus under similar circumstances. 
Since the investigation now extends to the Prime Minister's Office, and since Mr. Brodie, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, is the alleged source of the leak and is clearly in a conflict of interest, what is the Prime Minister waiting for to suspend him until the investigation gets to the bottom of this situation?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have taken action in this regard and there is an investigation taking place. We can all agree that an event like this is not helpful to Canada–U.S. relations and the NAFTA has been very positive for Canada and the United States. 
Canada has certainly enjoyed the benefits from a significant increase in jobs, an increase in the standard of living, and an increase in average incomes. These are all very positive things. The United States has experienced similar benefits. So, we all agree that this is important and we want to maintain those good relations. That is why we take this matter seriously.
EthicsMeili Faille: Mr. Speaker, now we have the problem of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie. Before that, it was the political interference of deputy press secretary Soudas in Michael Fortier's office. There was also the director of communications' refusal to comment on the Cadman affair.
Is this not proof that the Prime Minister's inner circle, as well as all members of this government, do not practice what they preach when it comes to transparency?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we are quite proud of our record on transparency and the introduction of an unprecedented accountability act that provides for transparency. 
In terms of the specific issue at hand, there is no doubt that the leak of an internal document like this is not helpful to relations between Canada and the United States. The fact that our own history as a country includes a political party that campaigned saying it would scrap NAFTA and then did not do that while it was in office, of course creates an accentuating element to the situation. So, that is one of the reasons why we do take this seriously.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps members could restrict themselves to heckling on their own questions, instead of other members'.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, in terms of ethics, the truth is that after being in power for only 24 months, this government has a rap sheet as long as, if not longer than, the one the Liberals accumulated in 10 years. Not only is the Conservatives' conduct deplorable, but they are also trying to hide the truth. They are making a mockery of their promise to be beyond reproach.
Will they finally admit that their transparency is a facade and that they are following in the previous government's footsteps?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member spoke about our party's record. Our record is impressive. Take, for example, NAFTA and the economy. This morning, we learned that 43,000 new jobs were created throughout Canada in February. That is an impressive record. We are proud of our record, especially in times like these. It shows that our government's budget and economic programs—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Canada-U.S. RelationsJack Layton: Mr. Speaker, an internal investigation is not enough and the government knows it. When a junior official from Environment Canada leaked documents that were unfavourable to the government, the Conservatives called in the RCMP and had the young man arrested and handcuffed. However, when the Prime Minister's chief of staff leaks information in order to help the Republicans in the U.S. election, the Conservatives simply conduct an internal investigation. This smacks of a cover-up.
The question is quite simple: why the double standard?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I welcome back the leader of the NDP from his visit on the U.S. television circuit, which I gather was very successful in reaching the audience he was really trying to reach.
We know this was about NAFTA, which is something we take seriously because NAFTA has been very important for Canada's economy and has benefited Canada. I am very pleased to see that the leader of the NDP has now come to the table, after years of opposition, to agree with us that NAFTA is important and that we need to do everything we can to preserve positive relations with the United States so we can have a strong trading relationship.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, this leak about NAFTA has not only damaged our relationship with a future possible president and damaged the Obama campaign, but it has hurt our relationship with the Americans.
Today we learned about a further problem. Canada's credibility has taken another blow because an American congressman has pointed out that our trade minister, the government's trade minister, told him in private that the government was prepared to renegotiate NAFTA, and yet publicly they are saying the opposite.
There is something that the government needs to do here. One, apologize to the American--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, that question from the leader of the NDP is totally off base. I cannot understand why he would say that the government is not strongly committed to NAFTA. In fact, on the issue that he was asking about earlier, the risk in this situation is, of course, the possibility of harm to our relations with the United States, which is why we took action quickly. We made our position clear and I will make it again clear, and that has been helpful. The American ambassador himself has indicated that it has been helpful and that the U.S. has moved on from this issue.
We are strong supporters of NAFTA and we continue to be strongly committed to NAFTA. I am glad that the leader of the NDP is coming to the table as a strong defender of NAFTA today as well.
Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most Americans have a tough time naming our Canadian Prime Minister but they sure are starting to learn the name of Ian Brodie and his role in leaking privileged information to mess up the Democratic primaries.
Another name Americans know well is that of Scooter Libby. Will the Prime Minister address this national embarrassment and fire his chief of staff, or would he rather keep denying and just wait until things turn out for Mr. Brodie like they did for Mr. Libby?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to everybody's attention that the member for Halton has been letting everybody on the Hill know that he has released his new book. I do not know if it is autobiographical in nature but he is having a launch for his new book entitled Greater Fool.
The book deals with issues in the United States, in which he has a great interest. I know that in the past he has been a great supporter of NAFTA. We think that agreement is important and our relations with the United States are important. I hope he will agree with us on the importance of working to strengthen that relationship.
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the plug. Canadians now understand that Mr. Brodie's leak of information to help the Republican buddies in the U.S. had a direct impact on one of the closest Democratic primaries in American history.
If the Prime Minister will not take decisive action with his staff he will end up wearing this. When will the Prime Minister fire Scooter Brodie?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and the government House leader have said, we take this matter very seriously and, for that reason, we have asked for an investigation by the Privy Council and we will continue. Once the results are known, we will take action.
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most Americans would not recognize the Prime Minister if he was standing right in front of them, but in the past few days the name of his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, has become as familiar to them as the names of any of their favourite television stars.
Ian Brodie made a serious mistake. By interfering in the U.S. primaries the way he did, he not only tarnished Canada's international reputation, but he put our trade interests with our biggest economic partner at risk.
When will the Prime Minister show him the door?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as I and the Prime Minister have stated, we take this matter very seriously, which is why there is an investigation by the Privy Council. Once the results are known, we will take action.
However, what Canadians would like to know is what kind of action the Liberal Party is taking by putting forward a non-confidence motion for the opposition parties themselves.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Mr. Speaker, the clerk of the Privy Council is the Prime Minister's highest ranking official. The Prime Minister's chief of staff is the most senior political employee. These two men are required to rub shoulders and work together on a regular basis.
How can the clerk of the Privy Council investigate someone he has to work so closely with? Does the Prime Minister realize that we do not need some phoney investigation for him to fire his chief of staff?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that we put complete importance on our relationship with the U.S.A., which is why we need this investigation. Once the investigation is completed, based upon the results we will act on that investigation.
What we would like to know is why the Liberals are not raising issues like the budget and the economy. As the report stated today, 43,000 new jobs were created in the economy in Canada. That is where they should be focusing their energy.
Status of WomenMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages told us that she does not need a lecture about an issue as tragic as the recriminalization of abortion. But she is the Minister of Status of Women, and she is the one who should be staunchly defending a woman's right to abortion.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages assure us that she will do everything she can to stop this assault on women's rights?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has almost crossed the line to deliberately misleading Canadians about the vote that took place on a private member's bill.
Our government is 100% committed to tackling violence against women and that is why we introduced the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which I am pleased has passed into law.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may have their blinders on, but the women of Quebec and Canada do not. 
The president of Quebec's Campaign Life Coalition, Luc Gagnon, has said that Bill C-484 is the first step towards recriminalizing abortion. Joyce Arthur, of the Abortion Rights Coalition, said that once a person is found guilty of murdering a fetus, the Supreme Court will use the verdict to determine that a fetus is a human being.
Will the minister listen to the Bloc's recommendations and convince her colleagues of the dangers of voting for such a bill?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it completely wrong. Our government is committed to fighting crimes against women and that is why we introduced the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
I should add that the bill the hon. member has raised was a free vote among our party. It was a private member's bill and we were pleased to have a free vote on that issue.
Official LanguagesMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more and more people in Quebec—90% of the population—are using French in the workplace. However, in the Montreal region, the rate drops to just 70%. Over one quarter of Montrealers work in English. Three quarters of anglophones work in English.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages realize that French is under threat in Quebec and that Quebec workers would have more opportunities to work in their own language if the federal government respected the Quebec nation's language in its Canada Labour Code?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, as we on this side of the House have always said, we are working to strengthen Canada's linguistic duality. As usual, all the Bloc can do is whine and complain. It never has a positive contribution to make, especially when it comes to official languages.
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, we do have something very positive to contribute: Bill C-482. The minister could accept the truth of the Bloc Québécois' reasoning and support our bill, which would improve the language of work situation in Quebec by protecting the interests of Quebeckers—their language—and by requiring the Canadian government to comply with Bill 101 when applying the Canada Labour Code to the Quebec nation.
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we on this side of the House are working hard to promote both languages in Canada.
EthicsHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told a senior Ottawa journalist that his party was working on a deal for Chuck Cadman and that serious financial considerations were on the table.
He now says that we should not believe what is in the press and yet he regularly cites articles when he believes they support his position.
Will he do himself a favour and admit that he outlined this scheme to a journalist in 2005?
James Moore: No, Mr. Speaker, because it is simply not true.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is lucky the media has not produced a tape of his comments, but maybe it will.
Let us try this again. What did the parliamentary secretary mean, in 2005, when he said that his party was trying to work something out to address Mr. Cadman's family finances?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the column that my colleague is citing from yesterday's Globe and Mail is false.
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services  misused the July 15, 2005 newspaper article as evidence that Mr. Cadman was planning to run again, but, once again, the government's spin is at odds with the facts. What the article actually reported was that Mr. Cadman had planned on running again until April, when he was told that he had only a few months to live.
Did the parliamentary secretary even bother to read the article or was he trying to mislead the House?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, this is really all the Liberals have left. We have been clear and consistent on the facts of this case. There was the one meeting on the 19th where Doug Finley, Tom Flanagan and Chuck Cadman got together and we made an offer to him to rejoin the Conservative caucus. That was the only offer that was put on the table. We have been clear and consistent about that. The Liberals are persistently trying to change their lines of attack because they are operating without the basic facts of the case that Chuck Cadman himself presented to Canadians. 
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, they can keep running but sooner or later they will need to come to account. This is the Cadman family that is giving us the facts, not them.
The article is further proof that Mr. Cadman had no intention of running again. What is worse is that the Prime Minister would have known this because he had at least two meetings in April and May with Mr. Cadman personally after he was diagnosed.
 When will the Conservatives drop this fanciful idea that Mr. Cadman was going to run again and just tell us the truth and admit that they offered Mr. Cadman a bribe?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, there was no offer of a $1 million life insurance bribe. Any accusation to that effect is false. The Liberals have made the accusation but it is incorrect, libellous and we will see them in court.
The EconomyMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with increasing global economic turmoil, it is more important than ever that Canada's government remain vigilant and keep its fiscal house in order.
Under the leadership of the Conservatives, taxes are at the lowest level in nearly 50 years, the unemployment rate is at its lowest level in 33 years and Canada's debt burden is at its lowest level since the 1970s. More Canadians are holding on to their jobs. More Canadians are able to make future plans with confidence. More Canadians are working.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update the House on Canada's employment picture?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the finance minister, last fall, anticipated that there would be some economic volatility so he put in $60 billion worth of tax cuts that stimulated the economy. The result of that is a 33 year low in unemployment, 43,000 new jobs, which brings us to a grand total of 800,000 net new jobs since this Conservative government took over.
Status of WomenPenny Priddy: Mr. Speaker, full time working women in Canada earn, on average, $39,200, compared to men who earn $55,700. This is a wage gap of $16,500. The Conservative agenda has made a $5 million cut to women's funding, eliminating funding for research and advocacy for women's equality rights. It fired 61 people working toward equal rights for women.
Why did the government ignore Canadian women in the budget and how can Canadian women trust the government?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that our government has increased the women's program budget by 76%, to the highest level it has ever reached. Furthermore, on March 4, 2008, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages allocated funding totalling $1,934,732 to seven national women's groups for projects that empower women everywhere—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, for a supplementary question. 
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative agenda is clearly hurting women. Double the number of women live under the poverty line, the low income cut-off, as compared to men. Women are earning only 71% of the incomes that men earn, and that is only in their best earning years. It is worse in the rest of their earning years, leaving all kinds of women in this country behind.
We talk about aboriginal women and girls being left behind in the thousands. We talk about immigrant women. We talk about single mothers being left behind. What about senior women, for whom the best this government can come up with is to tell them to get a part time, minimum wage job in a big-box store? That is not the attitude we need. What is the government doing about this?
Sylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, women in Canada need help. That is why, this week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages announced the following amounts: $528,800 to Women in Cities International for a project entitled “creating safer communities for marginalized women and everyone”; $479,798 to the Native Women's Association of Canada for a project entitled “violence prevention toolkit”; $358,600 so that immigrant and visible minority women—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Science and TechnologyHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Dr. Arthur Carty told the industry committee that the need for a national science adviser has never been greater and that the government is “tarnishing” Canada's international reputation as a science and innovation leader by cutting that position. He also said that he is “dismayed and disappointed” that the Conservatives find scientific advice “unwanted”.
Why did the minister mislead this House by telling us that Dr. Carty is leaving voluntarily and that he supports the government's latest attack on science?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we actually found out a lot yesterday. According to Dr. Carty, the former Liberal government concocted a science adviser, a position that was underfunded and understaffed, without a clear mandate, without a job description, with a huge expense account, without a reporting structure, without results, and without access to the cabinet and the Prime Minister.
 It sounds like the Liberals are still disconnected from ordinary Canadians. This is another example of Liberal misspending and mismanagement. We feel that science and technology is so important that we replaced the Liberal position. We created a position with--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kings--Hants.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this is interesting, because before Dr. Carty spoke out, the industry minister said about Dr. Carty that he has made “significant and valuable contributions to Canada's international agenda”. He told this House that “Dr. Carty is a respected Canadian whom I hold in very high regard”. 
Why, then, did the Conservatives kill Dr. Carty's position? Was it because Dr. Carty, like Linda Keen, dared to speak truth to power? Is it because this government prefers ideology to evidence?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, like I said, what we killed was that Liberal position, a Liberal position that was underfunded and understaffed, without a clear mandate, without a job description, and with a huge expense account.
This gives me the opportunity to talk about what we have replaced it with. We replaced it with STIC, the Science, Technology and Innovation Council, chaired by Dr. Howard Alper, a well-known scientist. By the way, it has a clear mandate and a clear description. It has public reporting.
 I want to thank that Liberal member for allowing our budget to pass and our science and technology strategy to go through. I really do appreciate his support and so do Canadians.
Government AppointmentsMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is so much work to be done on the environment, it is a shame and a pity that the minister has been distracted by his own ethical problems.
On the issue of a bribe of a federal appointment, was the Prime Minister's Office certain that this minister was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he did his interviews with the OPP? Did the PMO authorize the minister to intervene in the OPP's decision to send the O'Brien file to the RCMP?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to go to the doctor. I almost had a heart attack. I thought the Liberals were going to ask a question on the environment, but no, they are not there. They are asking the same silly questions they have asked about imaginary scandals all the way through, but this one has a bit of an ugly side, an uglier side than usual.
 That is because the member is asking a question in which he is suggesting that not just this government but the OPP is actually engaging in wrongdoing. That is the extreme point those members have gotten to. It is why nobody takes any of their allegations seriously: because there is no basis for them. The more it is demonstrated that there is no basis, the wilder the accusations get.
The fact is that the OPP cleared the minister. There was no wrongdoing.
Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for over six months the Conservatives have used every dirty trick in their infamous disruption manual to block hearings into the Conservative in and out election financing scheme. It got so bad that MPs were forced yesterday to elect a new committee chair.
Will the new chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or the vice-chair, confirm that a democratic vote allowing the committee to study the in and out scheme and hear directly from the Conservative candidates themselves will be his first order of business?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. vice-chair of the committee.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that with the election of our new chair, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, there will be a new spirit of cooperation at our committee and we can finally get to this study. 
Canadians have a right to know all about how the in and out scheme worked and they need to know this before the next election in case the Conservative Party plans to use this scheme again.
SeniorsMr. Raymond Gravel (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Ernest Boyer, President of the FADOQ network said: “The 2008 federal budget will definitely not help low-income seniors improve their lot”. Yet, when in opposition, the Conservatives promised to rectify the injustice perpetrated against seniors because of poor management of the guaranteed income supplement.
Given the current year's surplus of more than $10 billion, could the Conservative government not pay its debt to seniors who were adversely affected by granting full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement—monies to which they are entitled?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that our seniors have built this country and they deserve to play a vital part through a strong voice at the cabinet table. We have increased the GIS to 7% and we have created a Secretary of State for Seniors. We have created a national advisory board to advise on seniors issues.
In the 2008 budget, we increased the exemption for GIS from $500 to $3,500. We want to thank the Liberals for assisting us with the passing of that budget.
National DefenceMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when speaking before the La Baie Chamber of Commerce, the Bagotville base commander insisted that the main landing strip is in urgent need of repair as the surface layer has practically disappeared.
Can the Minister of National Defence guarantee that this urgent work, estimated at almost $25 million, will be undertaken this year—in 2008?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Bagotville runway is deteriorating far more slowly since I stopped landing on it.
However, I can also assure the hon. member that serviceable runways are obviously key to the operational capability of any Canadian Forces base, especially a base such as Bagotville. We are putting a lot of money into Bagotville with the air expeditionary wing. I can assure the hon. member and the House that it will receive all the infrastructure it needs to do the great job that it has been doing up until now and which I know will continue.
Public Works and Government ServicesMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works and Government Services contracted with ProFac to manage the department's real property inventory. Public Works and Government Services also uses contractors for other work. The department is careful about paying all its suppliers, and it pays interest on late payments. 
Why is ProFac late in paying its subcontractors? Is ProFac using these delays to finance its own operations at other contractors' expense?
James Moore: No, Mr. Speaker.
The EnvironmentMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's Great Lakes are an integral part of our lives. Not only are they a source of recreation for millions of Canadians, but we also make a living from them.
Our government recognizes that uncontrolled discharge of ballast water and sediment can lead to the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens which destroy our Great Lakes habitats.
Could the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities explain what the government is doing to clean up the marine environment?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. Without a doubt, it is the best question I have heard all day.
It is true that our government has done a great deal—much more than the previous government—in this regard.
I want to remind the members of this House that even before the completion of the review of the Canada Shipping Act, which we reviewed quickly, we took a zero tolerance approach to marine pollution by any ships in Canadian waters. This is a historic first for Canada. As well, in 2006, we introduced regulations—
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.
Science and TechnologyMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the sale of Canada's largest space company, MacDonald Dettwiler, and the Canadian RADARSAT-2 satellite will give unprecedented control of Canadian technology, bought and paid for by Canadians, to an American firm, Alliant Techsystems. First built by the Canadian Space Agency, Canada has spent $524 million for the promise of “priority access” to the satellite in cases of emergency, including oil spills and suspect vessels entering Canada's north.
 The final say on the sale rests with the industry minister. Will he meet the March 22 deadline to stop the sale?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, from what came out in committee this week, we found that this was another example of Liberal mismanagement. What this issue underlines is the legacy of the Liberals and how it affects Canada today. In 1998 the Liberals sold Canada out by signing over RADARSAT-2 to MDA because the Liberals could not negotiate a deal.
I can tell the member right now that there is a process in place and the minister will follow that process.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get an answer from the industry minister, let us try the foreign affairs minister.
The sale of RADARSAT-2 to Alliant Techsystems is against Canada's national security interests. The U.S. company may be planning to use the RADARSAT-2 technology for weapons control. This same company also builds landmines banned by Canada and the UN. It also builds cluster bombs. Canadian law requires the minister to make his decision with “regard to national security and the defence of Canada”. 
Will the foreign affairs minister exercise his statutory authority and stand up for Canadian sovereignty by refusing to approve the transfer of RADARSAT-2's licensing authority?
Colin Carrie: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Industry who is responsible for Investment Canada. Any sale of MDA will require his approval. No approval has been granted. The Minister of Industry is also responsible for Industry Canada, Technology Partnerships Canada and the Canadian Space Agency.
The House can be assured that Canadian taxpayers' dollars will be protected and the proposed MDA transaction will require the consent of the Minister of Industry.
Public Works and Government ServicesMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, ProFac puts off paying its suppliers and does not pay interest on late payments even though it collects interest from Public Works and Government Services Canada when the government pays late. According to the Association de la construction du Québec, ProFac often takes 90 to 150 days to pay.
Why does it take ProFac so long to pay its suppliers? Why does ProFac not pay interest on late payments? Why are ProFac's deadlines for responding to calls for tenders often too short and why are the results of its calls for tenders not made public?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking for a lot of information. I can get the answers after question period. This is a serious matter and it deserves a very serious response. It is very technical. I can talk to him about it after question period.
The EnvironmentDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, this is astonishing: the Liberal member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca continues to attack both this Conservative government and the B.C. provincial government for, get this, wanting to stop the discharge of raw sewage into Victoria harbour.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is it so important to health and safety to stop this dumping of raw sewage, something the Liberals failed to do in 13 long years?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was shocked when the Liberal Party of Canada had a member of its shadow cabinet come out and say it was okay to dump raw sewage into the Pacific Ocean. This is intolerable. It is wrong. It should not be happening in 2008.
We are committed to taking real action. We are coming forward with regulations to ban this practice so that we can protect our oceans.
 While I am up, I want to condemn the NDP's non-confidence motion and say shame on those members, and I want to thank the Liberal Party of Canada for its confidence.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Six Nations, in my riding of Brant, has 12,000 residents. Many of those residents boil their water because it is unsafe. 
In October 2005, the Liberal government committed $10 million to refurbish the water treatment plant in order to address this deplorable situation. The Conservative government, 25 months later, has not honoured the commitment and those residents continue to boil their water.
 We all know that aboriginal issues are not a priority for the government, but surely providing people with safe drinking water is the government's minimum obligation. When will Six Nations receive the necessary $10 million?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when our government first took office, we had a situation wherein 193 first nations communities across the country had water that was not drinkable. We have brought that number down to 83. 
The member feels our government has not taken aboriginal issues seriously. Would members of his party extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations women on reserve? I do not believe they will support it.
The EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report issued yesterday by the environment commissioner puts a number to the Conservatives' inaction. Progress has been made in only a small minority of the 14 areas studied, and nine were described as unsatisfactory. Nothing about this Conservative government's attitude inspires hope for any political will to remedy the situation.
How can the Minister of the Environment explain his government's poor results when it has been in power for over two years now?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner's report emphasizes that it is very important to do more to clean up Canada's Great Lakes. We have to work harder on resolving the problems that were created by the previous government.
There is nothing the Bloc Québécois can do. The only thing it can do is talk. The only thing it has to offer to Quebeckers is a national conversation on the environment.
This party, this government, is getting things done.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, over 100 Canadian scientists were asked to write a crucial report on the state of climate change in Canada, which the government has tried to bury for more than a year. The report will say that Canada is in for far more droughts, landslides, extreme heat and smog and more violent and damaging storms. Communities are in deep jeopardy if the government does not act.
The Minister of the Environment must explain why he has stalled on the release of this report and what his government plans to do about it. Why should Parliament have any confidence in the government and its inaction on the environment?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to read the report from the Department of Natural Resources. It was scheduled to go out today. I understand someone got enthusiastic and put it out the night before. We welcome a discussion on the report in the future.
The member wants to bring down the government for our policies on the environment. That is wrong and it is misguided.
 At times in my life, I have suffered from self-confidence issues, and it means so much to me to have the support of members of Liberal Party of Canada. They like me. They really like me.
Fisheries and OceansHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
 Considering the Conservative government yesterday would not allow a take note debate on fisheries issues at the WTO, a very important fisheries issue, would the minister now ensure that the government changes its tack and starts supporting the fishermen at the WTO? If not, the fishermen could lose their employment insurance and their capital gains tax exemption. Even the port repair and the gas tax card are on the table.
Will the government change its tack and start to support the inshore fishermen?
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the last two years the hon. member has seen us clean up overfishing on the east and west coasts, ensure that we have a solid owner-operator policy, put millions of extra dollars into infrastructure and open up the north. Does he think, for one minute, that we would stand by and let anything like that happen to our inshore fishermen? Not a chance. 
Points of OrderPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, today during question period, a question was asked by the member for Churchill of the chair or the vice-chair of the procedure and House affairs committee of the House of Commons. The answer from the vice-chair, who is the member for Hull—Aylmer, was an entirely inappropriate answer.
 I direct you, Mr. Speaker, to pages 827 to 828 of Marleau and Montpetit where it says:
 During the Oral Question Period...a committee Chair may respond to questions, provided they deal with the proceedings or schedule of the committee and not the substance of its work. 
The nature of the response was one that was very substantive and partisan in nature, very much betraying the legitimate role of a chair or vice-chair of the committee in responding to these questions.
The reason for that rule is they are in a role similar to yours, Mr. Speaker, of being neutral and even-handed. On the issue in question, what we are seeking is even-handedness so the issues they study are issues that deal with both sides and all parties equally. However, setting aside that debate on substance and the need for fairness, what we have had here is a serious breach. What makes it worse is it was clearly a pre-calculated breach.
 The opposition House leader and I have canvassed this issue before the Speaker after previous question periods. He is fully aware of the rules. Yet the question was prepared, the answer was prepared, it was done so knowingly and it was knowingly a breach of the rules of the House of Commons, and this is a matter that requires your attention, Mr. Speaker.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this issue was, indeed, raised a few days ago by me, in a point of order with the Speaker. The Speaker at that time indicated that he had allowed the government House leader to answer on behalf of a committee chair because no one else on the committee, like the vice-chair, rose to address the question that had been put before the House.
 Today, a question was asked of a committee chair. The committee chair was unable to answer, so the vice-chair rose to provide the answer. The question was about the agenda of the committee. The questioner referred explicitly to the agenda for the next meetings of the committee and the vice-chair spoke of asking for a new spirit of cooperation among committee members and the timeliness of dealing with the committee's agenda.
 The question and the entire answer were entirely within the rules of the House.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I invite you to review the Hansard because you will find that is not at all the case. The response that came from the vice-chair of the committee, the member for Hull—Aylmer, was one that was quite substantive, quite partisan and expressed comments and opinions on the issue, which is entirely inappropriate for the chair to do while playing the role of chair.
The situation in which I rose to respond to a question when no one else in the House did, including the vice-chair who was here, is entirely different. I, as a minister, am not limited by the restrictions that are clearly set out in the rules that apply to a chair when asked in that role and to answer in that role.
Therefore, there is obviously a nice diversion there by the member, but the material fact remains that the vice-chair has clearly overstepped his bounds. I know the people on that committee feel strongly about the appropriate role of a chair, and we have had the unfortunate situation of a recent removal of a chair. I will leave it to members of that committee on how they wish to deal with this very serious matter.
However, in terms of a spirit of cooperation, it is not a good start. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you seek a form of an apology and a retraction from the vice-chair of the committee.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we were just treated to hearing the government House leader say that if no one else rises in the House to address a question put to a committee chair, that the government House leader is entitled to respond to that question, and he can be as partisan as he wants, but that there are tougher strictures that apply to everybody else in the House. This is a matter of the government wanting one set of rules for it and another set of rules for everyone else. 
The fact is the question was in order and the answer dealt with the agenda of the committee. It called for a spirit of cooperation and it asked for timeliness in moving the agenda forward. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that answer.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The government House leader has suggested that the Chair take this matter under advisement, review the blues and the answer that was given by the vice-chair of the committee. That is good advice. It will be taken and at some point the Chair will get back to the House with respect to the point of order raised by the government House leader.

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 one petition.
Railway Safety Act Review Advisory PanelLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Railway Safety Act Review Advisory Panel, entitled “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”. 
Criminal CodeHon. Stockwell Day:  moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read a first time.
 (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time) 
PetitionsCarol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great honour today to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
The first petition deals with the youth justice system. The petitioners say that it is ineffective and a meaningless act at present. They ask that Parliament enact new legislation that would provide stiffer penalties to young offenders.
Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from the citizens of the Biggar area.
The petitioners ask that the historically unique locomotive roundhouse in Biggar, Saskatchewan be deemed a national heritage site.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 169 and 173 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Hon. Joe McGuire: With regard to contracts and investments under the Industrial Regional Benefits (IRB) Policy: (a) which contracts have been awarded by the government since January 1, 2006 that require the prime contractor to make sub-contracts and investments; (b) what were the names of the prime contractor and the clients; (c) what was the description of the contract; (d) what was the contract period; and (e) what were the details of any and all sub-contracts and investments agreed to under the IRB policy, including (i) the name and location of the companies receiving the sub-contracts or investments, (ii) the description, (iii) the value, (iv) the time period, (v) the Canadian content value for each?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Libby Davies: With regard to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and the government's anti-drug strategy: (a) what stakeholders were consulted in forming this strategy and what documents or studies relating to drug trends were analyzed; (b) what were the departmental recommendations regarding harm reduction; and (c) what documents were commissioned externally by government that contributed to the strategy?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Business of Supply[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): When we were last discussing this matter there were five minutes left for the hon. member for Northumberland--Quinte West and he now has the floor.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, upon reflection of this government's record on greenhouse gas reductions and the actions taken by the Minister of the Environment, in particular our reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050, Canadians will see that this country has finally taken aggressive steps toward achieving reductions on greenhouse gases. 
For 13 years under the Liberal government these reductions were not only nonexistent but actually plunged further down to a negative situation. Emissions actually went up by 35%. 
Our government has done something about that, but we have also done more. CO2  is not considered to be a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas but not considered a good one. This government has decided to reduce those things that make us sick and has identified over 220 negatives in the environment. 
Canadians are applauding that and they will continue to applaud what our government is doing. They will see some concrete action, some direction.
We heard earlier this morning the NDP ranting and raving, and complaining about inaction. What they should really be talking about is a way of working collaboratively with the government to make sure that we reach these achievable goals.
One of the things that Canadians really need to know about all the bluster that we have been hearing from the NDP is that it will cost literally thousands of jobs. Yes, we have to do something about this, but it goes down a path that I do not think any reasonable Canadian wants to go down.
We heard during question period and during questions from the NDP in debate this morning about some of the serious threats we are under from the global economy vis-à-vis our manufacturing jobs and the actions that the finance minister has taken to stop that flow. 
I fear that the action that the NDP is taking will have an even more negative effect not only on manufacturing jobs, jobs in the forestry sector, mining jobs and other sector jobs but on Canada's ability to be a world provider of energy. I refer specifically to things like nuclear energy, natural gas and petroleum that are actually helping to drive the economy.
On Saturday we had a town hall meeting in my riding and we discussed industry and jobs and manufacturing. ESCO is a company in my riding makes furnaces and items such as that. It ships a huge percentage of its products to the oil sands in Alberta and to Saskatchewan. I wonder about this preoccupation by the NDP members. How can those members tell companies like ESCO that it has to do away with its huge market that is providing jobs to people in my riding who have lost manufacturing jobs? I caution the NDP from going down that road.
In my previous intervention, I talked about some of the statements made by environment ministers in the previous government. That should send a signal to Canadians. No matter what official opposition members say about the environment, they should be ashamed of their track record. Once they come to that realization, they should then work with the government to make this better. I do not see that from them right now.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member talk about loss of jobs. Certainly, in British Columbia we are seeing loss of jobs due to the impact of the climate change crisis.
Earlier during debate, the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about the pine beetle epidemic. The forests in British Columbia are literally being laid waste. 
Without the kind of urgent and meaningful action, the forestry sector in British Columbia, particularly the interior in the north, will continue to see massive job losses. Not only are we talking about massive job losses, many communities are at threat in terms of the fire season and fires that could get out of control.
I would like to ask the member about the kinds of strategies that are required to look at forestry and fishing. We have certainly seen some climate change impact on fishing. 
Children are showing up in hospitals with asthma. We simply cannot disregard the impact of climate change. I wonder if the member would like to address the impacts of climate change on some of our industries in Canada.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does bring up some very salient points.
What are we doing? The $1 billion community trust is specifically for those communities which are totally reliant or significantly reliant on an industry such as the forest industry.
She mentioned the pine beetle. This government has contributed millions upon millions of dollars that will help communities that are affected by the pine beetle infestation.
I know something about the pine beetle infestation from personal experience in British Columbia, visiting my son who lives there. When I first flew out to see him some years ago, as we entered into B.C. airspace, we could see the vast green forests. A few years ago those green forests had patches of rust. Now there is just simply too much of it.
What caused the infestation? Climate change. We know that at -30° for two or three weeks helps control the pine beetle. Forest fires have also been mother nature's way of keeping control of the pine beetle.
It is a terrible scourge on the forest industry that we know is moving into Alberta. We are working with the provinces to do something about it.
The hon. member is right that it is a problem, but she is wrong when she said the government is not doing anything about it. As I said, there is the $1 billion community trust and the huge amounts of money being poured into the communities with regard to how we are fighting the pine beetle.
She mentioned the things that do make us sick, the real pollution, the things that cause asthma. The government is taking action there, not just voluntary action, as the previous government did, but we brought in some of the toughest environmental legislation. It will not be voluntary. There will be significant fines for people who produce too much greenhouse gases and significant fines for those who pollute our air.
Right now as we speak, the Minister of the Environment is working with industry to develop ways, in a cooperative stance at the present time, on how they can meet those reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
 Very shortly, those numbers will be released by the industry and the minister will be making some significant announcements with regard to what the government will do in the next step in reducing those greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the NDP's motion today.
Before I get into the substance of some of the issues raised in the motion, I do want to make a few general comments about the nature of the motion and some of the motivating factors behind this motion.
First, I would like to remind the House that the official opposition of any political stripe does possess, in the case of a minority government, a certain amount of power. That power culminates, I believe, in the exercising of a decision which would take down a minority government and cause an election. It is a power which, I believe, has to be exercised responsibly, judiciously, and one that cannot be taken lightly.
It is fair to say that this motion is more than tinged in partisanship. The leader of the NDP made comments this morning that were somewhat troubling to me and to the official opposition. He made comments, for example, around the notion, in my view, that the NDP is prepared to put this motion in a confidence form because it is unwilling to cooperate with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada in taking the time necessary to expose for Canadians just what has been happening with this minority government.
In particular, this minority government has taken some effort to cover up what are now four raging fires out of its control: first, the in and out election advertising scandal; second, the Ian Brodie affair now spiraling out of control in the United States of America fed, in my view, by the leader of the NDP going on CNN international news just last night and telling the world about Mr. Brodie's conduct; third, the Cadman affair, where the Prime Minister refuses to refute what is clearly irrefutable, that is, his voice on tape speaking about offers to a tragically sick member of Parliament at the time; and fourth, the O'Brien affair, where the Minister of the Environment is now involved in having to defend himself repeatedly from all kinds of negative coverage involving his interference in municipal affairs. 
There are other issues that are ongoing here that the government does not want Canadians to know about. Why is that? Why is it wrong for the NDP to play partisan politics with this motion? It is wrong because it is important for Canadians to get to know more about the character, the nature, the values, and the approaches taken by this Prime Minister and his reformed Conservative Party. 
So, with respect to the politics of this motion, that is all I really wanted to say, except that it is unfortunate that the NDP, by couching this important climate change debate on a motion of confidence, is really aiding and abetting the government in its attempts to hide from plain public view what has been happening on a number of key fronts.
Let me turn now to the substance of the issue which is in the motion.
The motion is right in this respect: the reformed Conservatives cannot be trusted to do the right thing, either domestically or internationally, to fight the climate change crisis. They simply cannot be trusted.
We know the scientific evidence is overwhelming. This at a time when the government refuses to renew the funding of the climate change and atmospheric research foundation's programs and at a time when, last spring, the government cancelled the largest single university-based research initiative and effort in climate change science.
The world's leading scientists told us again in Bali that an increase in the earth's temperature of just 2° to 4° would lead to a catastrophic disruption of life as we know it today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that a 1° Celsius increase could lead to 10% of land species facing extinction and 80% destruction of our coral reefs. This is now very serious business, business that should not be couched, in my view, in partisanship, as has happened here through this NDP motion.
The IPCC's fourth report in May 2007 says it is possible to limit temperature increases to 2° to 2.4° but only if we stabilize within 15 years our worldwide emissions and we move to cut those in half by 2050. Here is the kicker: We know that the economic costs of taking action now, today, aggressively are much less than the costs in the future if we fail to act.
The former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, conducted a review on the economics of climate change for the planet. He concluded that the costs of ignoring climate change could be 5% to 20% of GDP, more than the costs of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined. 
In contrast, the cost of tackling the problem can be limited to 1% of global GDP today if we act now. There are many effective low cost options already available: financial incentives to develop and deploy existing technologies; tradeable permits and carbon credits; renewable power investments; and voluntary programs, of course, which have been used around the world. 
In 2007 the world's largest and leading management consulting firm, McKinsey and Company, showed that a great deal could be achieved in the fight against climate change without placing an undue burden on our economy, if governments provide incentives for the development and deployment of green technologies. It concludes that the annual worldwide cost for making the needed emission reductions to avoid worst climate change in 2030 is only .6% of that year's projected GDP.
We agreed to the Kyoto protocol in this country in 1997 and despite all of the desperate misinformation from the Conservative Party, it became international law in this country only in 2005, when enough countries had ratified the protocol. It set targets, yes. It also created a mandatory international trading system, one now abandoned by the government because it has unilaterally abandoned Canada, the only country of over 170 to abandon the Kyoto treaty. We have been completely isolated, as we saw in Bali, when we came together with the world to negotiate a framework for the second phase of the Kyoto protocol.
The Minister of the Environment went there and in the last two hours of a seven day meeting, he finally folded because he was under so much pressure to sign on to an international declaration calling for a 25% to 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. He was the only minister to hold out, working in partnership with the Republican administration which was not even part of the official negotiating sessions, but under pressure he finally folded.
Here is the problem with signing on to such a declaration. The government's own “Turning the Corner” plan runs completely in the opposite direction of that commitment. 
Study after study, including the Conservatives' own advisory body, have shown that the Conservatives will not even meet their own modest targets and will allow our emissions to continue to rise until 2050 and beyond.
The Conservatives talk about regulations. We just heard one of their members say that they have the toughest regulations in Canadian history. Check the facts: There are no regulations. The government has tabled no regulations yet. Nothing has been brought into force on clean air. There are no regulations on climate change greenhouse gases. They have exempted new facilities by giving them a three year grace period. They are pricing carbon at a $15 a tonne payment into a technology fund which is grossly less than what it should be.
It has been a pattern that we have seen south of the border about denying, delaying and ultimately deceiving one's own people about taking action on climate change when in fact that is not happening.
First the Conservatives came into power in 2006 and killed all of the Liberal measures that were in play, but then they brought them back in a re-gifted fashion in half measure. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the National Energy Board and many others, their plan cannot meet their weak targets, and emissions will continue to rise.
The claim that emissions will peak in 2010 in their plan is baseless. The claim that it will meet its target of 20% below 2006 by 2020 is baseless. There are so many exemptions, loopholes, bogus compliance options and such lack of detail that there is no way to conclude that this framework will have any positive effect at all.
In fact, because of the overall weakness, Tom d'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, representing 150 of some of the largest companies in Canada, came to committee just two weeks ago and said that the government's, I think negligence using my words, in this respect is actually harming Canadian industry by perpetuating policy uncertainty that hinders rational investment decisions so we can continue the transition that we started years ago to a carbon constrained future and carbon constrained economy.
Those are the facts about the domestic plan and our international performance. It is not even worth getting into the details of the  minister's  performance in Bali because that action speaks for itself.
What happened previous to the Conservative government arriving? While the Prime Minister was denying even the existence of climate change--he said that he did not believe in greenhouse gases--we brought in four increasingly aggressive climate change plans during the two previous governments, culminating in project green launched by our leader of the official opposition in 2005.
The Pembina Institute said at the time that project green was “over six times more effective” than what the Conservative government has offered today. We offered large scale funding for alternative energy. It was cut. We invested in biofuels. It was cut. We conducted a highly successful public awareness campaign to teach Canadians about the dangers of the climate change crisis. It was cut. We introduced energy efficient retrofit programs for Canadian homes and buildings. It was cut, particularly for the poorest in Canadian society who need the most help. That is the track record of the government since 2006.
Let us talk about where we want to go now. Let us talk about how we intend to deal as an official opposition with the climate change crisis. 
First, we are going to have a comprehensive plan using the full range of tools to fight global warming. We are going to do that first and foremost by putting a price on carbon so the polluter pays. We are going to provide serious support for renewable energy and other ways to reduce emissions. There will be help for Canadians to conserve energy.
Here is a twist: We are going to work in partnership with our provincial governments on both mitigation and adaptation. We will not dispatch in this case our Minister of Finance or the Minister of the Environment to pick fights. Canadians are sick of the tawdry games. They are sick of the intergovernmental bickering. They want their governments cooperating not just on economic plans, but of course, on environmental plans, and we will do so.
That is why approximately a year ago our party, the official opposition, produced the “Balancing our Carbon Budget” plan. This plan is the backbone of the reworked and reformulated clean air and climate change act, Bill C-30, which the government killed. In fact, it is my theory the Conservatives prorogued Parliament in order to prevent that bill from coming back to the floor of the House of Commons to be debated openly. That has been raised by the leader of the official opposition several times. This--
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking correction if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the member used a report of some sort as a prop during his speech. I think that is the Liberals' fifth environmental plan or some number like that and it is still not workable. Is the member permitted to use that book as a prop? If not, perhaps he could withdraw it. If so, then I stand corrected.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Ottawa South knows that we do not use props, but sometimes members use a report when they want to quote from it. That is likely what he was doing. I will trust in his good faith and he will continue his speech, for which he has three minutes.
The hon. member for Ottawa South has the floor.
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected, and I thank you for your lenience. I would put to my hon. colleague that if he would like a copy of the report, it is available on our website.
We have a plan to move forward. We have devised a carbon budget plan that brings in the 700 largest polluters responsible for 50% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, a plan with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party for that matter, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We had to rewrite the feeble Bill C-30, the clean air act, but as I mentioned, the Prime Minister in his wisdom killed that when he prorogued the House and refused to bring the bill back.
We are going to continue by bringing in our new power production incentive to expand renewable power to 12,000 megawatts by 2015, instead of the 4,000 megawatts the Conservatives are planning. We want incentives for onshore wind, offshore wind, small hydro, geothermal, wave and tidal, solar and biomass energy. We want 10% of Canada's total electricity output from low impact renewable sources by 2015. That is enough for three million homes.
We are going to create a $1 billion advance manufacturing prosperity fund to help position Canada as a leader in the manufacture of greener technologies and products. We are going to remain committed to the Kyoto protocol process and the UN negotiations that will set targets for the second commitment period post-2012. The fact is good environmental policy is very good for our economy, encouraging research and development, new technologies and lots of jobs.
In conclusion, it is no wonder that Matthew Bramley, the president of the Pembina Institute has called our carbon budget available on our website, “the strongest proposal for regulating industrial greenhouse gas pollution made by any political party in Canada”.
With respect to the motion, the NDP may say that it cares about climate change, but it is the reason we have a Conservative government today. Its members brought down the Liberal government right when the world came to Canada for the 2005 Montreal climate change conference, despite all of the leader of the NDP's rhetoric. He is accountable to the Canadian people for that decision. He will ultimately be accountable for these kinds of partisan moves. As we move forward, I look forward to working on behalf of Canadians to deal with the climate change crisis.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear a member of Parliament stand in this House of Commons and brag about his party's five different plans to deal with climate change. Of those five different plans, he claims that all of them supported the Kyoto accord. 
It is interesting that he himself has been a noted opponent of the Kyoto accord. I will read what he said in the Globe and Mail on January 29, 2002. He said, “If Canada does ratify Kyoto...the cost...would be as much as $40-billion a year”. 
He then said, “But when people see the costs, they are going to scream!” He said that in Canadian Speeches, January 1, 2003, volume 16, issue 6, if anyone wants to look at that.
His brother also promised to close Ontario's coal-fired plants by 2007. Of course we all know that to this day roughly 30% of Ontario's electrical generation comes from coal fire, so that promise has not been kept and those coal-fired plants continue to emit greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
It is interesting that he is taking a different position now that he is the Liberal spokesman on the environment. I could go through quote after quote of evidence that he was a lifelong skeptic of the Kyoto accord. As soon as it came into the public lexicon around the environment, he said that it was impossible to meet and that it would cost billions of unaffordable dollars to make it happen. Even in 2002, while his own party was in power, he said that Canada had a huge job ahead to meet Kyoto, a job that his party did not get done, according to his own deputy leader.
I have another quote from the National Post by the Liberal environment critic on the Liberal Party. He said, “the [Liberal] party was involved in a 'medium-sized car crash' during the recent federal election”. 
That member is a man who has become the high priest of hypocrisy on the environment. He has said one thing for his entire professional life and performed a spectacular backflip since taking this position in order to take advantage of political opportunities.
I wonder it the member would indicate whether he was telling the truth then or telling the truth now.
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, those remarks are hardly worth stooping for.
I would like to go back to some of the evidence around the government's turning the corner plan.
The Pembina Institute is now saying that the government has little chance of meeting its target whatsoever. It says that there are at least eight loopholes and gaps that undermine the credibility of the government's target for 2020. 
The World Wildlife Fund and the Tyndall Centre have said that the government has set reduction targets that are well below what is achievable, and, in some cases, cuts that have already been achieved in the oil sands by companies operating there are well below what the industry already plans to do. My that is aspirational.
The proposed plan means that the windfall profit for tar sands companies could be in the order of $30 million to $700 million, according to the report.
The C.D. Howe Institute says that the government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatons.
 The National Energy Board says that under two of its three scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise.
It is all there in black and white. The government does not have a track record.
With respect to the member's personal comments, I will leave that to the voters of Nepean--Carleton to decide.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I know the member was here listening to the New Democrat speeches that started this debate and , therefore, heard the history that it was 17 months ago that the government introduced the bill. It went to a special committee which the leader of the New Democrats asked for. There was reluctance at first but then we as parliamentarians gathered round the table, brought ideas from all sides and rewrote the legislation from top to bottom, All parties, I remind my colleague, moved amendments. 
A number of months ago, the NDP brought forward a motion to the House calling upon the government to bring the legislation back. The motion carried because the majority of members in this place, including those in the member's caucus, voted to bring it back. 
We all put our best efforts forward, our best ideas and our best work, to make the legislation work in order to take on the issue of climate change, which many of us talk about, and this was the action in which we could back up our talk. This is what Canadians were looking for.
What is my colleague's opinion on the government's agenda in the absence of bringing Bill C-30 back? What has the government put in its place? Has it put something better that the member feels more comfortable with? Is there any sign of hope in the government's current agenda to deal with climate change in juxtaposition to what we were able to accomplish as parliamentarians together and that was the clean air and climate change act?
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the NDP environment critic but I am also in agreement with the Prime Minister who, when as leader of the opposition, was asked about abstaining on the Liberal government's 2005 budget vote. This speaks to my earlier comments. The Prime Minister said:
 What's become apparent is that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will grandstand on these things [but] it is up to us in the Conservative Party to decide whether the time has come to have an election. In our judgment -- I think in Canadians' judgment -- it is not that time. 
The Leader of the Opposition will decide in due course when the time is right.
It is important to be honest with Canadians that part and parcel of the motion put by the NDP is a partisan tactic. We are not prepared to have the Conservative government's four or five scandals swept off the table because we believe it is important for Canadians to get the true sense, the nature, the values, the approach and the tactics of the Prime Minister. Whether it is the Brodie affair, the Minister of the Environment's meddling in municipal affairs and all kinds of other things, we really want Canadians to get a sense of the in and out scandal. We want them to get a sense of exactly what kind of government we are dealing with.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have Canadians get a little more sense of exactly what type of government they have because it is a government that is creating a better economy. It is a government that has created over 800,000 net jobs. Year over year, net income increases per household have been 4.5%. We are moving on creating new justice reforms that will create safer streets and communities.
We are moving on the environment. This budget alone set aside over half a billion dollars for new green technologies, such as carbon sequestration. We have a new auto strategy for the auto industry that will create greener, cleaner cars.
 The member held up a Liberal Party plan a few moments ago and said that it was the Liberals' plan for the environment. Let us talk about what that would cost. It would cause gasoline to go up to more than $1.60 a litre by 2008-09; 275,000 Canadians, principally in manufacturing, would lose their jobs; and the unemployment rate would rise by 25% by 2009. 
Is the member standing in the House and saying that the Liberals will be fighting the next election on “Vote for me and I will cause a recession?” I do not think it will work.
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, it is very revealing going to the character and value of government. The numbers cited by the member are the numbers that were cited by the Minister of the Environment at the Senate committee when he mounted an attack on the Kyoto protocol implementation act for Canada.
I will again ask the member and the government to table one shred of analysis but, of course, there is none. What we found out was that the government was just making it up. When people do not have evidence, they bamboozle and raise their voice but they do not actually answer with evidence. 
The challenge for Canadians, who now know that they need to cut through the noise, is to understand that there is no climate change--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day. To begin, I would like to reread the motion put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth.
 That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government. 
At the outset, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this non-confidence motion because the Conservatives have clearly reneged on Canada's promise concerning the Kyoto accord. I expect that all over the world, governments that signed the Kyoto accord are wondering why the Conservatives have chosen to do this to Canada. Why did the Conservatives go back on our country's word, tarnishing Canada's reputation and, unfortunately, that of Quebec, on the international stage? More specifically, the Conservatives chose to ignore the fact that Quebeckers want Ottawa to comply with the Kyoto accord. 
Even worse, since they came to power, the Conservatives have done nothing to step up federal efforts to fight against greenhouse gases. They should perhaps acknowledge this. They have been in power for nearly two years now. Yet they are constantly blaming the previous government, which, it is true, did not live up to expectations. However, the Conservatives are responsible for dealing with this issue now, and they have had more than two years to put in place a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they have not done so. 
As I mentioned, since they came to power, the Conservatives have stubbornly delayed coming up with a credible plan, for example, by not bringing Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act before this House for final debate. The government is dragging its feet on developing a credible plan and implementing real, effective measures. Even worse, the Conservatives cut the few environmental programs the previous government had put in place. As I mentioned, these programs were relatively weak, but they were still a step in the right direction. In most cases, the government realized its mistake and reintroduced watered-down versions of the programs. 
The budget provides fresh evidence of the Conservatives' approach, which is to cut a program, then realize their mistake a few months later and try to bring back a watered-down version of the program. For example, in the previous budget the government introduced a rebate program for purchases of hybrid vehicles, which are more compatible with our greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Consumers were extremely frustrated with this program. I know that every member of this House must have received letters and comments about how long it took to set up the program. It was announced with great fanfare, but there was still no money, and there were no regulations in place so that consumers who bought hybrid cars could receive the rebate the Conservative government had promised.
This measure is slowly being implemented, but it is not yet as effective as it could be. Last week, it was announced in the budget that the measure will be withdrawn next December 31. It is just unbelievable and I am convinced that Quebec and Canadian consumers are wondering why the Conservatives are acting this way. What was useful last year is no longer applicable. We just laid the foundation for this program which, I am convinced, will be re-established by this or the next government.
We need these types of incentives. Many believe that the reason the Conservative government cut this program has more to do with the fact that North American manufacturers find it quite difficult to compete with Japanese auto makers in particular. I am convinced that that also applies to European car manufacturers and that this measure benefits Japanese car dealers.
I noted when Parliament resumed that most ministers who drive hybrids—and I congratulate them—own Toyotas.
This leads us to believe that the elimination of this program was prompted by the demands of North American car manufacturers. Once again, the government gave in rather than trying to have North American car manufacturers do the right thing and adapt to the new demands of consumers, who are aware of the effects of greenhouse gases produced by individual transportation. We know that we have to reduce greenhouse gases and support public transportation. When we buy a vehicle, if we decide to buy a green vehicle, the government should acknowledge that effort—particularly since these cars are relatively expensive—and recognize that state assistance is not at all inappropriate.
Even worse, as I mentioned, the government cut programs and then brought them back. As if that were not enough, the Conservative government tabled a so-called green plan designed to spare the major western oil companies, which is clearly not the objective of the Kyoto protocol. In short, the Conservative government completely ignored the clear will of Quebeckers, 75% of whom, as we know from poll after poll, support the Kyoto targets and Canada's commitments in that regard.
For that reason alone this motion deserves to be adopted and this government no longer deserves the confidence of the House.
I am thinking about the Conservatives' extremely ideological decisions that respond to the interests of certain industry sectors. Obviously I am referring to the oil industry. As soon as it was elected, the minority Conservative government showed its disregard for the Kyoto protocol, even though it was trying to say out of one side of its mouth that it would not renounce the government's signature. From the other side of its mouth it seemed to being saying—and we understood this quite well—that the Kyoto protocol targets were not at all on the government's radar.
This government's actions contradict Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol. Hon. members will remember that the Conservative election platform did not mention the word Kyoto once. That was already an indication for the entire population of Quebec and Canada that this government—and many of us are not surprised—prefers to meet the financial needs and appetite for profit of the major oil companies in western Canada rather than the environmental and economic needs of Quebec. This is also true for a number of regions in Canada. I am thinking of Ontario, among others, which is currently going through a major manufacturing crisis.
On October 19, 2006, after pushing back the presentation of its plan to fight greenhouse gases a number of times, the Conservative government finally delivered Bill C-30, presented as the Clean Air Act, to address the smog phenomenon, but it did not contain any fixed targets to reduce greenhouse gases or any timeline consistent with the Kyoto protocol. 
Worse yet, in the notice of intent introduced at the same time to indicate the path the government intended to take in the application of Bill C-30, the Conservatives mentioned that they would hold consultations in three phases to determine the reduction targets with the provinces and industry, effective fall 2006. This would be staggered through to 2010, giving a clear signal that nothing would come into effect before the end of 2010. The first Kyoto targets are set for 2012.
Just in the way the government announced its very clear timetable in its notice of intent, it was already reneging on Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol.
As for long-term targets, the government said that it was determined to ask for advice on the feasibility of reducing Canadian emissions by 45% to 65% based on 2003 levels—not by 2015, not by 2020, but by 2050. This is a perfect example of how the Conservatives do not take this seriously, and these targets are much lower than the Kyoto proposals. This does not bode well for the future of the Conservative government's position in international negotiations. 
Since the bill was completely unacceptable, in terms of targets, timetable and methods, and had no chance of being passed in its original state, on December 4, 2006, the Conservatives authorized Bill C-30 to be sent to a special parliamentary committee for amendment. However, it categorically refused to improve the bill and include the Kyoto targets, which clearly showed that the government was repudiating its international commitment and heading off on its own.
This time, it was not the international community or consumers, but all the members in opposition who wondered how the Conservatives could—based solely on ideology—go against the democratic will of this Parliament and of all Canadians and all Quebeckers. We must remember that the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers voted for parties other than the Conservative Party. It is practically a coincidence that the Conservatives are currently in power.
This kind of stubbornness is very questionable. It not only shows an undemocratic tendency and the clear intention not to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but also represents an ideological straitjacket that will be very difficult to get out of, unless, as we hope, there is an election very soon. 
The Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties had to reshape Bill C-30 in order to include reduction targets that comply with the Kyoto protocol and the territorial approach. It is extremely important to remember that we need the territorial approach, which Europe has been taking since 2005 with its carbon exchange. This approach would allow us to reward the efforts of Quebec's manufacturing sector and penalize companies that have been making no effort and have continued to pollute since 1990, the reference year for the 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This means that Canada, with Australia, is one of the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. We need to ask these corporate polluters to increase their efforts.
I often refer to the following example, and the members of this House will understand. In a fundraising campaign, the first dollars are always the easiest to bring in. It is when we have nearly reached our goal that it becomes more difficult.
In Quebec, manufacturing companies have been able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 20% to 25%. They have nearly reached their targets. Now they are being asked to make an effort as though they had done nothing already, and this will be the hardest part. The effort the oil industry is being asked to make, however, will not only scarcely or not at all make up for its lack of effort over the last two decades, but will also be the easiest action it could take. Not only is this completely unacceptable from an environmental standpoint, it is also completely unfair to Quebec and the sectors that have been making an effort since 1990, particularly Quebec's manufacturing sector.
Still stubbornly refusing to join the Kyoto protocol, the Conservative government refused to proceed with further study of the bill. Finally, after months of waiting, countless delays and a campaign presenting Kyoto compliance as the economic apocalypse, earlier, during the last speech by a Conservative member talking along those lines, we heard a complete lack of credibility.
Only the American Republicans are falling for it—and at least they are more subtle. President Bush issued a directive stating that federal institutions should not purchase oil derived from methods that emit more than the world average of greenhouse gas emissions. This worries several of our oil companies in western Canada, and rightly so, since our oil sands extraction methods produce a great deal of pollution. Sure, this concerns only a very small part of the American market. But it sends the message that even Bush's Republicans are more progressive than this Conservative government and this Prime Minister.
The government has made the Kyoto protocol out to be the apocalypse. On April 26, 2007, it reproduced an action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution, but the plan is tailored to be gentle on the oil companies. As part of this plan based on reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions, companies will have to reduce the intensity of their emissions based on the 2006 levels.
There are two problems here. First, the date they have chosen is 2006, and not 1990 as set out in the Kyoto protocol. Choosing 1990 as the date would honour the efforts made by the manufacturing sector.
This means that all that was accomplished in Quebec between 1990 and 2006 will not be taken into account, which is completely unfair, once again. Second, intensity is a measure of the reduction per tonne of emissions produced. But if a company produces five times more, it will contribute even more pollution than it does now. We need absolute reduction targets, and not intensity targets. 
Even if the Conservatives like to believe that their plan will stabilize Canada's emissions between 2010 and 2012 and reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 relative to 2006 levels, we have to say, quite frankly, that this is not enough. Just as in a number of other issues dealt with this week and last week, whether it be the Cadman affair, the NAFTA leak or the Soudas affair, the government's explanations always come up short. In this case, it is very clear that with the plan presented to us on April 26, 2007, greenhouse gases will not be reduced in Canada and these emissions will continue to increase. Even if the Conservatives' most optimistic forecast is realized, that would allow Canada to achieve the level required under the Kyoto protocol by 2024, or 12 years after the deadline. Again, that is the most optimistic forecast. It will very likely be some decades later.
I want to reiterate that the Clean Air Act, as reshaped by the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, responds to the Kyoto protocol targets, the needs of Quebec's economy and a good portion of Canada's economy, and to Canada's and Quebec's environmental needs.
This legislation includes fixed targets for greenhouse gas reduction that are consistent with the Kyoto protocol. In other words, it calls for a 6% reduction of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions for each year from 2008 to 2012, with respect to 1990 levels. As I said, these are fixed targets, but this time for the post-Kyoto period. They include the creation of a carbon tax,which is extremely important for establishing a carbon exchange that would allow market forces to support government regulations; the creation of an independent agency to monitor and govern the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrial emitters, not only to ensure that we achieve the targets, but also to be able to establish this carbon exchange with the necessary credits that will be sold by those who perform well to those who perform less well; and finally, the fact that the territorial approach is recognized. This bill corresponds to the democratically expressed will of the Canadian and Quebec public, and responds to the needs of the public and to our international commitments. We therefore have no problem with the NDP motion.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that you are allowing me to continue my speech for another two minutes. I still have a lot of information that I would like to share with my colleagues, those from the Conservative Party in particular.
Galbraith, the Canadian-born economist who lived in the United States and served as an advisor to Kennedy, said something like “Democrats read only other Democrats; Republicans do not read at all”. 
I think we have the same situation here in this House. Perhaps the opposition parties read only what the opposition parties produce, but the Conservatives do not read. This forces the opposition parties in the House to present documents that do not reach the Conservative members, documents that those members would likely be unable to read. I would therefore remind the House that the environment commissioner issued a report yesterday, a report that is extremely critical of the Conservative government's actions. The report contains 14 chapters and describes any progress made as quite mixed. Nine out of 14 sectors are completely inadequate. I will discuss at least one or perhaps two of them, if time allows. I will begin with the federal contaminated sites.
In Shannon, Quebec, a site was contaminated by the Canadian army and the Department of National Defence stubbornly refuses to decontaminate this land, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for years.
The strategic environmental assessment process is also the topic of one of the chapters on which the commissioner worked the hardest. We are told that it makes no sense at all. I hope to have the opportunity to quote part of this report during question period. 
In closing, everyone in this House, in Quebec and in Canada is wondering what the Conservatives think they are doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): On questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo--Prince George. I hope this will be a short question, because I will have to interrupt at 1:15 p.m.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Joliette as he gave his presentation and all the time I was thinking about the hypocrisy of what he was saying. He is criticizing this government in saying that our plan is not this and not that and does not meet his expectations.
 Yet when this government put forward a program of $116 million for the public transit trust to help with vehicles in Quebec and clean up the pollution and emissions coming from those vehicles, that member and that party voted against it.
While the Bloc continuously called to the previous Liberal government for $300 million for an ecotrust and was refused, we gave $350 million for the ecotrust to help Quebec clean up its environment and meet some of its goals, but that party voted against it.
That party and the NDP are brothers and sisters in hypocrisy. They say one thing but do another. They do not know good environmental programs when they see them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The member for Joliette has the floor. I hope his reply will be just as brief.
[Interjection]
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that the Conservative government is the real hypocrite. 
For months we were told that the Kyoto protocol would be honoured, but that was never this government's intention. During the election, they were not honest enough to tell Quebeckers and Canadians that the Kyoto protocol would not be respected. They have introduced a plan that will increase greenhouse gas emissions and they want to make Canadians and Quebeckers believe that the plan will reduce emissions. That is not true.
They are suggesting that the fight against climate change is bad for the economy when the opposite is true. It opens new economic opportunities, particularly for Quebec. The only way the government wants to help Canada's economic development is by supporting the oil industry and the Alberta oil boom. They could not care less about anything else.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): As it is 1:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 10, 2008, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Mrs. Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, could we ask for unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  There is no consent, so we will suspend until 1:30 p.m.
 (The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:17 p.m.)
[Stage Direction]
(The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
HealthPatricia Davidson:  moved:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Health should regulate non-corrective, cosmetic contact lenses as medical devices under the Hazardous Product Act or the Food and Drugs Act. 
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to rise today and bring attention to a most serious matter, one that has been taken lightly for too long. Hopefully in my address today I will be able to successfully enlighten the House as to the severity of this matter.
 Hopefully we can begin to have a fruitful debate on an issue that stems in part from a crucial lack of regulation due to a classification oversight. Today I will show the House how this very same lack of regulation is putting Canadians in communities from coast to coast to coast in a greatly elevated atmosphere of risk.
 I am speaking, of course, of the issue of non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses regulation in Canada.
Today I have the privilege of being able to present to my fellow parliamentarians what we could consider the initial phase in opening up a larger debate on the various benefits of regulating non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses.
In the next few minutes, I ask members to listen to my words about the severity of this issue, because the first time I spoke with members of the Canadian Association of Optometrists, I was sincerely surprised at the underlying health issues associated with using these contact lenses. What is truly needed to alter the existing status quo toward non-corrective lenses is change within the essential classification policy.
In the past, prevailing conventional wisdom was that the coloured contact lenses that some of our high school age children have perhaps actually worn were not a Class II medical device. This is in direct contradiction to the fact that while non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses pose no refractive merit, they still possess the identical health risks that corrective lenses do and in fact are more dangerous than regular corrective lenses. This belief is shared by eye care professionals across the industry.
 Countless individuals across all age barriers are consumers of these unregulated contact lenses and countless individuals are increasing non-repairable damage to their eyes without even knowing it. 
Motion No. 409 states quite explicitly:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Health should regulate non-corrective, cosmetic contact lenses as medical devices under the Hazardous Products Act or the Food and Drugs Act. 
This brings about the necessity of amending either the Hazardous Products Act or the Food and Drugs Act in order to bring non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses under the same regulation as corrective lenses.
As such, we can successfully alleviate the risks associated with the use of non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses. We can ensure that consumers of such a product are receiving professional supervision when it comes to matters of their vision. Thus, regulation is needed to ensure that non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses are properly fitted to the individual eye.
There is a simple reason why non-corrective lenses are more strenuous than corrective lenses for the human eye. For those who have never handled a contact lens before, I point out that they are incredibly light in weight. Thus, a contact lens maintains its light weight and possesses a strong refractive capacity by being composed mostly of water.
 It is the nature of the refractive capacity that allows the contact lens to serve as a corrective lens. Because it alters a bodily function--in this case it allows the human eye to focus better and increase our overall field of vision-- it is recognized as a type II medical device.
Corrective contact lenses are quite comfortable. They breathe, although most opticians still advise that there is an associated risk of wearing even a corrective contact lens.
Recently, my executive assistant, on a visit to his optician here in Ottawa, was surprised to learn of non-repairable damage done to his cornea. He had been wearing a corrective lens with a cosmetic tinting to alter his eye colour, albeit slightly.
 It was the thin layer of ink within the contact lens that suppressed his cornea's natural ability to breathe. Over time his cornea became scratched. This is also known as a torn cornea. As such, and at the request of his optician, my assistant switched to a corrective lens without the cosmetic tinting. This allows his eyes to breathe much easier during the course of a day, although his optician has advised him that he should ultimately consider ceasing to wear lenses on a daily basis permanently.
Accordingly, the risks associated with wearing a lens over the cornea are greatly increased with the usage of a coloured contact. Thus, the damage to my assistant's eye could have potentially been far greater had he been wearing a non-corrective cosmetic lens. Yet, despite this increased risk, there are zero regulations for non-corrective contact lenses. 
Wearers of these lenses almost always wear the lenses to alter their eye colour to a more desirable tone. This requires a thin layer of ink injected into the watery contact lens. This pocket of ink blocks the natural path of oxygen one would find in a corrective non-coloured lens.
Moreover, in 2003, the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists reported that a contact lens, coloured or not, was a plastic foreign body that rests for hours, days or weeks on the most delicate and most important image-forming structure in the eye: the corneal epithelium.
Contact lenses are composed of tiny polymers that are cooked together by the miracle of modern chemistry into long, intertwined strands that form a curved plastic sheet. These units effectively create a barrier that prevents normal amounts of oxygen from reaching the eye.
As stated already, this process is much worse in coloured contact lenses, of which the majority of cosmetic lenses are.
The lack of oxygen to the cornea is extremely damaging. When one sleeps with these coloured lenses still placed over the cornea, oxygen starvation increases further potential for damage. During meetings with opticians, I have personally heard of stories whereby students in university, completely unaware of any risk, would wear disposable lenses, which were to be thrown out after a month, for longer than six months on occasion.
Again, the risk increases when we are discussing these terms in regards to non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses.
There are literally thousands of people across Canada right now doing damage to their eyes and they do not even know it. What is worse is that they will not know because they will never be made to see an optometrist in order to obtain non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses as they would be forced to under existing regulation for corrective contact lenses.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks to proactive studies into the damaging effects of non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses, we are now seeing research that indicates the strong risk of wearing these lenses. The industry has collectively united and organizations, such as the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, the Canadian Association of Optometrists and the Optician Association of Canada, have lobbied to see what type of regulatory controls can be applied to non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses.
Thus, for nearly five years the Canadian Association of Optometrists, also known as the CAO; the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, the COS; and the Optician Association of Canada have actively lobbied Health Canada to regulate non-corrective lenses under the auspices of the Food and Drugs Act regulations. 
As a result of the lobbying efforts by the CAO, COS and the Optician Association of Canada, Health Canada commissioned a third party risk assessment of cosmetic contact lenses. This study determined that the risks associated with non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses were indeed sufficient enough to justify regulation by Health Canada.
However, to this day there has been a succinct lack of progress made on this health issue. This is despite numerous reports on the dangers of lack of regulation on the issue.
Motion No. 409 would open up the regulatory book and allow Health Canada to ensure that manufacturers of these contact lenses would be forced to assume a certain degree of stewardship responsibility for the distribution and sales of these non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses.
Without this regulation, studies, such as the 2003 review of “Ocular Complications Associated with the Use of Cosmetic Contact Lenses from Unlicensed Vendors” taken from Eye &amp; Contact Lens: Science and Clinical Practice, vol. 29, issue 4, will be for naught.
This study used retrospective, observational and clinical settings to determine that coloured contact lenses being dispensed without a prescription or proper fitting procedures being utilized posed a sincere health risk. As such, the study was successful in calling attention to the unauthorized sale of cosmetic contact lenses.
Since the initial appearance of health issues related to non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses appearing on the radar of health and eye care professionals, there has been an influx of Canadian reviews by organizations such as CAO, COS and the Optician Association of Canada that show uninformed lens wearers are increasingly experiencing acute vision threatening infections and inflammations in addition to a ciliary flush in one or both eyes. This is in addition to the more common conjunctivitis.
Other common issues that appear in association with contact lens use include: corneal abrasions, giant papillary conjunctivitis, corneal ulcers and microbial keratitis.
In all of my meetings with eye care professionals, I have noticed a common theme among the repeated calls to action on this issue. There are three main areas of concern recognized by eye care professionals.
It has been deemed essential that regarding a regulatory framework for non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses there should be a consistent legislative and regulatory framework for the federal regulation of contact lenses.
In addition to the call for a consistent legislative and regulatory framework of this issue, it was also deemed critical that there be a transparent, evidence and science-based process when changes are being considered to regulations that affect the eye care profession.
Moreover, it should be an inclusive process that takes into account the expertise of eye care professions, who have been calling attention to this serious issues for quite some time now.
Furthermore, supporters of Motion No. 409, within the eye care profession, are quite prepared to support any changes to existing parameters regarding the existing framework, and are willing to assist where necessary.
There is a reason why I am passionate about this motion and it has to do with our responsibility in this House to ensure the safety of Canadians, especially in regard to their own personal health.
Furthermore, the support of the various members of the CAO and COS is a testament to the commitment of qualified eye care professionals to ensure that this motion is properly supported.
It is also important to note that Health Canada is fully aware of the repercussions of this motion and, as such, is supportive in its views that non-corrective lenses must come under the same regulation as corrective lenses. Only with the support of the House is this possible.
I call on fellow parliamentarians today to support Motion No. 409.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for bringing this motion to our attention. 
Like many Canadians, I was completely unaware that these coloured contact lenses were not regulated and shocked to hear of some of the results of wearing these devices, especially among our most precious resources, our young children and grandchildren.
The hon. member mentioned that this first came to her attention when her executive assistant went to the optometrist. What other diseases and damages can these lenses do to the eye and are they repairable, as far as her investigation into the matter is concerned?
[Interjection]
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the general population is unaware that there is no regulation is the largest issue that we are dealing with here. People are not aware that these lenses are not regulated. There are regulations in other countries. There are none in Canada. 
In addition to the things that I have talked about, with the flow of oxygen which can cause swelling and ulceration of the cornea and ultimately infection, there can be an accumulation of debris such as dirt or dust if the lens is not properly fitted. 
If there is no regulation, there is no one to teach proper fitting and do the proper fitting. An accumulation of debris can certainly damage the cornea and cause infection as well.
People may experience chemical or allergic reactions to the lens. I think we are seeing allergic reactions to different substances much more often in our society today. 
If people are not taught the proper way to handle these lenses, they can be contaminated with micro-organisms. Again, we are looking at serious irritation or infection. There certainly are a lot of different issues that can affect people. Some of these conditions can be corrected and some are not able to be corrected. Serious damage can be done.
Some of the lenses can cause temporary changes in the shape of the cornea and that can affect people's vision and perception. Night driving can become a problem for some people. 
The dangers are wide-ranging. Anyone who has vision as I do certainly knows that it is something we need to protect. I feel very strongly about this motion. I hope the motion is supported in the House. 
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I have one follow-up question and only because this is a serious issue. I suppose when a person is caught by surprise and something as serious as our eyesight is damaged, that would be the last sense anyone would ever want to lose. Our eyesight is one of the most precious senses we have.
 I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the relationship between her motion and Health Canada's ability to be able to regulate cosmetic contact lenses. What have been the results of her investigation with that aspect of her motion?
[Interjection]
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I have made my motion as broad an aspect as I can to give Health Canada a chance to address this the best way possible. I have asked for amendments to the Food and Drugs Act or to the Hazardous Products Act. That will leave it open for Health Canada to see which is the best way to go forward with the motion, so that non-corrective lenses can be regulated as a device.
Mr. Glen Pearson (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support the initiative of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. We sit on the same committee and she always brings out some pretty good arguments. I am glad to support this motion.
Currently, decorative contact lenses are unregulated and considered a cosmetic. Thus, consumers can purchase these lenses on the Internet or even in retail stores. Studies have proven that contact lenses that are improperly manufactured or used without appropriate medical supervision can cause serious eye infections and even loss of vision. 
The gift of sight is not something that we can take for granted. Furthermore, I believe this motion is put forward as preventive medicine. Given the burdens on our current health care system, every prevention is key in the fight against many diseases, including those which affect our eyes.
In January 2005, American legislators raised a concern about eye problems that consumers had experienced due to poor labelling and packaging of non-corrective cosmetic lenses sold right over the counter. The legislation they put forward is similar to the motion put forward by the member for Sarnia—Lambton and seeks to reclassify non-corrective coloured contact lenses as medical devices and allows the FDA to regulate the sale of these contact lenses.
The American legislation passed in July 2005 and was signed into law in November of that year. The American Optometric Association has applauded the introduction of this federal legislation.
Eye care professionals here in Canada also agree that this is something whose time has come. They agree that there must be legislation for the federal regulation of contact lenses. In their opinion, both corrective and non-corrective contact lenses should be considered medical devices and should be regulated accordingly.
The physical and other characteristics of those lenses are identical to corrective power lenses. The only difference is refractive power. More importantly, the very real health consideration associated with improper fit and the wearing of these lenses applies equally to both cosmetic and zero power lenses.
The legislators in the United States saw the importance of this and reached consent on it in 2005. I think it is time for all of us here in Canada to realize the dangers to people with these things being sold over the counter or on the Internet. 
I want to commend the member for Sarnia—Lambton for putting this motion forward and we in the Liberal Party will be supporting her initiative.
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. This is the member I know from the Standing Committee on Health. It is the role of each member of this committee, on which I have the privilege of sitting, to raise awareness and bring up this kind of situation in which products could be sold before proper analyses or studies are done. I thank her for doing so.
What she is proposing today is that Health Canada should conduct more studies on the use of cosmetic contact lenses. The problem is that cosmetic contact lenses are considered to be cosmetic products instead of medical devices.
According to the optometric, ophthalmological and optical associations, the potential adverse effects of contact lenses on the user's health are the same whether they are corrective or cosmetic, since both types come in contact with the surface of the eye.
This is why these associations have been asking since 2000 for all contact lenses to be considered health products requiring more than cosmetic care. Since customers can purchase lenses without consulting a professional, eye-care professionals say that these people are endangering the health of their eyes. Currently, users of cosmetic lenses that are not prescribed by a vision specialist are thought to be more at risk than contact lens users who have consulted a specialist.
I would also like to recall the fact that in Quebec, various laws require consumers to have a prescription for corrective glasses and corrective contact lenses. Consumers are not required to consult a vision specialist for cosmetic lenses.
What the member for Sarnia—Lambton has brought up is that cosmetic contact lenses must currently respect the quality regulations set out in the Food and Drug Act specifically as they apply to cosmetic products. If the product presents a danger of any kind to the consumer, Health Canada must take action and issue a warning or have the product taken off the market. After Health Canada issued its warning, several pharmacies decided to pull cosmetic contact lenses from their shelves.
That being said, Health Canada has already examined the possibility of considering cosmetic contact lenses as medical devices, just like corrective contact lenses. Heath Canada officials concluded that, under current legislation, cosmetic contact lenses must still be considered a cosmetic product.
The motion put forward by my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton raises several questions concerning the terms and objectives of this motion. Do eye care professionals want this product to be regulated in order to explain to consumers basic rules regarding hygiene, use and the dangers of contact lenses, whether cosmetic or corrective? Is the product dangerous because of its poor quality or because people do not know how to use it properly?
The information and facts provided by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton seem to suggest that cosmetic contact lenses should be provided on prescription only, in order to ensure their proper use. The complexity of this problem lies in the fact that there is not enough information about the use of cosmetic contact lenses and the health problems they have actually caused. 
However, it is clear from information obtained from various eye care professional associations and Health Canada, as well as from the information provided by my colleague, that the improper use of cosmetic contact lenses may pose a risk to health, including the health of adolescents.
It has been shown that adolescents have a tendency to share lenses, which immediately increases the risk of developing various types of eye infections. Does this mean that the product itself is dangerous or that the improper use of the product poses a danger to young people? To ensure more appropriate use of cosmetic lenses by youth, practical health and hygienic advice should be provided by an eye specialist when these products are sold.
However, this is far from being a matter for federal regulation given that the services of eye specialists, as I explained before, are governed by provincial professional codes.
For this reason, the Bloc Québécois would like to note, first of all, that the health of eyes is vital. Consequently, it is important to clearly define the objectives of this motion and its implications for legislation governing medical devices.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up on behalf of all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and offer our unequivocal support for the motion and to congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton. 
This is a very important initiative on the part of the member and it ought to be supported by everyone in the House. In fact, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you undoubtedly will find, at the end of this debate, unanimous support for the motion because it makes sense. It makes sense because it protects Canadians.
The motion would ensure that this medical device, the lenses that may only be used for cosmetic purposes but are put in our body and create problems, would be regulated. It is as simple as that. It would ensure that a product, which is put on the market that could harm the health and well-being of Canadians, would be regulated and that there would be some onus of responsibility on the part of these corporations that are flooding our markets with devices that have only cosmetic value, but could cause harm to our citizens. They must be held to account.
We recently talked about new products in the area of tobacco, cigarillos designed to entice kids to start to smoked. They are not regulated because they are a cigar product, not a cigarette product.
It goes without saying that we must look at this area. In fact, when we look at some of the medical fallout from these unsupervised decorative lenses, people will know what we are speaking about. There are corneal ulcers, conjunctivitis, corneal edema, allergic reactions, corneal abrasion, reduction in visual acuity and contrasensitivity. 
In 2002 the food and drug administration warned consumers about these cosmetic lenses. It said that there was serious risk of permanent eye injury, potentially leading to blindness presented by non-corrective, decorative contact lenses distributed without a prescription and without proper fitting by an eye care professional. That is six years ago.
In 2005 the United States finally did amend the federal food and drug cosmetic act to establish that all contact lenses, regardless of whether they were cosmetic or not, would be covered under the protections of that act.
In the United States all contact lenses must be approved and issued under the guidance of a qualified prescriber. We are saying the same should happen in Canada. Health Canada still distinguishes between corrective and non-corrective lenses, even though the health implications for their use are virtually identical.
We obviously support this. I congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton. I also congratulate the Manitoba Association of Optometrists, which contacted me about the importance of this issue, and all the associations of ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians throughout the country that have spoken out on this issue long and hard.
 I congratulate the member for her vision and foresight on this issue. I wish her well. I think she is proposing to have this addressed under the Food and Drugs Act or under the Hazardous Products Act. I support either venue and I wish her luck on this initiative.
If and when we pass this motion, I wish her luck in convincing her colleagues in the government to act on it. At the time when we are dealing with such an issue, her own government is busy trying to move away from the precautionary principle, the do no harm principle, and leading us down a path of progressive licensing on all kinds of products, which means we lessen our vigilance on the front end and pretend we will take some actions after these products are on the market.
As we know, when it comes to something like unregulated contact lenses, the harm is done, the damage is done and it cannot be corrected. We cannot go back. We have to act in the first instance and ensure that when products are put on the market, they do not harm Canadians.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, previously I asked my hon. friend from Sarnia—Lambton a few questions. I think everyone here today is pleased to know that she has been on this issue and has stirred up enough interest that we will do something about it, and I know we will.
One of the things I was shocked about is the products have been available in the Canadian market for some years and have never been the subject of regulatory framework. As I said, I am glad the proposed motion is intended to address particular safety concerns relating to the importation and sale of these non-corrective lenses.
We sometimes think we save a few dollars when we go to direct consumer sale of items such as this, but we fail to realize that these types of products eliminate the interaction between the consumer and the health care professional with regard their proper use and care. That includes in these instances cleaning, disinfecting and storing the lenses between use.
Therefore, it is good now that we will subject these non-corrective cosmetic lenses, hopefully, to the requirements of the medical devices regulations. It will require manufacturers of these products to meet pre-market safety, effectiveness and quality requirements. Manufacturers would be responsible for various post-market activities, including record keeping, complaint handling, mandatory problem reporting and recalls. As part of these requirements, the manufacturers would also need to provide adequate instructions for the use, so consumers could use the product correctly.
Product labelling would also include necessary warnings, precautions and contradictions to educate and inform consumers regarding potential risks and benefits of non-corrective lenses.
We are advised that the minister supports the policies contained in Motion No. 409 and agrees that the potential risk of non-corrective contact lenses be managed by the provisions of the medical devices regulations, following an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act.
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary for Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak in support of Motion No. 409, a proposal to regulate non-corrective cosmetic or decorative contact lenses as medical devices under the Hazardous Products Act or the Food and Drugs Act.
Over the past several years associations, such as the Canadian Association of Optometrists, have met with the Medical Devices Bureau, Health Products and Food Branch Directorate and also the Product Safety Bureau (Cosmetic Division), Healthy Environment and Consumer Safety Branch.
Health Canada has examined the legislative authority of the Food and Drugs Act and the Hazardous Products Act.
In 2000 it was concluded that non-corrective contact lenses did not clearly fall into the category of a cosmetic product, a medical device or hazardous product and that more scientific evidence was needed. 
Therefore, that brings us to this motion. I will not repeat what has already been said. I will just say that I commend the member for bringing forward this motion. I think the fact that it received unanimous consent is an indication of the member's foresight and an example of how this Parliament can work.
Have a good week-end!
Patricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the House for speaking on this issue today and for the support that they have shown thus far. I certainly hope Motion No. 409 is successful today.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I did not hear any dissent. Is there any dissent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. 
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 2:08 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:08 p.m.)