2009-04-03

Government Orders
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  moved that Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-18. 
As hon. members may know, I spent 30 years as a member of the police department of Woodstock, Ontario. I entered as a constable and retired from the force as chief of police. The well-being of Canada's police officers is a subject near and dear to my own heart.
What we have before us is a matter of unfinished business.
 This bill proposes certain technical amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act which would improve pension portability; in other words, transferring the value of benefits earned under a former plan to a new one.
The act was first amended in 1999, with the same intent. However, when work began on drafting the enabling regulations, it was learned the legislative changes did not go far enough. This bill would close those gaps. Once implemented through regulation, these amendments would modernize the RCMP Superannuation Act and bring it in line with the federal public service pension plan and other plans.
Specifically, Bill C-18 would do three things.
First, it would support Parliament's 1999 intention to expand existing provisions for election of prior service. Currently, members of the RCMP pension plan can transfer credits for prior service with a police force that was absorbed by the RCMP, with the Canadian Forces, with the Public Service of Canada, with the Senate, or with the House of Commons. Under new provisions, eligible members could elect to purchase credits from other Canadian pension plans; a municipal or provincial police force, for instance.
Second, is the matter of pension transfer arrangements that the amended superannuation act would support. As we know, a pension transfer agreement is typically a formal arrangement between two employers. It would allow a plan member to increase pensionable service by directly transferring the actuarial value of benefits earned under a previous plan to a new one.
Last, the bill contains other related amendments that would clarify and improve some administrative and eligibility aspects of the act. For example, it would validate certain historical calculations related to part-time employment and the cost of elections for prior service with a police force that was taken over by the RCMP. It would also better protect pension eligibility for those transferring benefits from the public service, the Canadian Forces, or for retired senators and members of Parliament who continue their career with the RCMP.
Greater fairness and flexibility in RCMP superannuation are important considerations. They are important benefits that this bill would deliver.
Like pretty much all employers in the country, the RCMP faces an aging workforce and stiff competition from other employers seeking to attract the best and brightest to their ranks. Somewhere around 700 members are retiring each year from the RCMP.
To replace retiring members and meet operational requirements in the future, the RCMP must attract and train a record number of recruits for the next few years. This is another area where improved pension portability may be important, especially when it comes to the recruitment of lateral troops. These are officers with at least two years' service, typically with a municipal or provincial force, who have decided to continue their careers with the RCMP. As such, their training is much shorter than that of regular cadets, at just five weeks.
The idea is to leverage the experience of lateral entrants to quickly develop fully trained police officers who are ready to take up their duties upon arrival in detachment. Once they are there, they require far less supervision by experienced officers, known as field coaches, than brand new constables. That frees up more resources for policing our communities.
Lateral entrants represent just a fraction of the cadets who graduate from the RCMP's training facility each year, roughly 3% or 4%, so we are not talking large numbers. However, at a time of attrition and an increasingly complex and challenging security environment, the RCMP needs all the personnel it can get. Pension portability can help attract experienced officers through the door.
In fact, I hold in my hand excerpts from the 2005 report of the Auditor General of Canada. In it, the Auditor General notes that the cost of training a regular cadet is about $30,000, compared to $2,000 for a lateral entry. Of the lateral entry program, the report states: “--this program is not attractive to potential employees as they cannot transfer their pension contributions to the RCMP pension plan”. All of that would change under the proposed amendments before the House today.
The RCMP Depot is currently capable of training up to 90 lateral entrants a year divided into three troops of 30, but up to now a typical lateral troop contains only about 16 entrants. We believe pension portability has a lot to do with that as, again, it is available right now only to former military police who are covered by the federal Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
I would also like to note that pension portability as it pertains to transfer agreements is a two-way street. RCMP members may occasionally seek employment with other agencies and organizations, for example, when a family relocates to a new community. If a transfer agreement is in place between the two organizations, then members can take their prior service with them as credit toward pension benefits.
Mobility and flexibility within Canada's security community is a good thing. It benefits the safety of all Canadians and today's generation of employees want options, opportunities and recognition for their good work. This kind of flexibility is already reflected in the pension plans of other federal workers, so I think it only fair that the RCMP members enjoy the same treatment.
It is important to take every reasonable opportunity to support recruitment to our national police force and the well-being and morale of its members. The House saw fit once already in the past to make the legislative adjustments it believed would facilitate greater pension portability to RCMP superannuation, but we have since learned those changes fell short of what was required to put enabling regulations in place to make it all happen. 
Let us do it now and not a moment too soon. I call on all hon. members to support the RCMP by supporting Bill C-18.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the Liberal Party will be supporting the passage of this bill.
I thank the hon. member for his speech. It was a useful speech to frame the debate. This is essentially a transfer agreement among various pension plans so that the RCMP is treated in the same fashion as are other people in the civil service.
There was a question, it seems to me, that arose a few years ago about when an RCMP officer went to a place like Haiti or Afghanistan, and worked there for a period of time and whether he or she would receive pension credits while serving outside of the country. I wonder if the hon. member could clarify that and whether it has in fact been addressed in the bill. 
I understand the inter-transferability between the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. What would be other examples where this proposal would benefit the RCMP from, say, other non-police forces? The hon. member is a former police officer. If he ceased to be a member of the House of Commons, would his pension credits generated here be receivable in an RCMP pension plan in the event that he went back to the RCMP?
These are the kinds of questions that will come up in committee but, nevertheless, are good for people to reflect on at this point.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, some of the questions from the member opposite are far too technical for me to answer today. I simply do not have the answers, but I am more than happy to find out for him.
The biggest single advantage to this amendment is that it will now allow the RCMP and other police agencies to be on level playing fields to have lateral movement. In the organization I came from, people left to go to the RCMP and vice versa. There were always difficulties for those members in trying to match up the pension benefits because the legislation was not there.
This is an opportunity for that whole area to be strengthened and to provide clarity. From my perspective, and I think from the community's perspective, one of the bad things that happens is that good young men and women want to do a great job in policing and for whatever reason decide they would like to continue their careers perhaps in other communities and the options are not available. When people are members of a municipal force they are located in that community, so they frequently look to move or, as I said in my earlier comments, it may be that their family is moving.
This will provide the opportunity to keep those good people within policing. It is what they have been trained for and what many of them have dedicated their lives to. It is a good opportunity.
I would like to thank my friend across the aisle for thinking that I might want to continue my career in policing. I think it is in the past as opposed to in the future.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I think he did a good job in encapsulating the importance of this bill to provide for mobility of transfer, mobility of pension credits, and also portability within the RCMP.
There are some technical aspects of this, and I do not want to burden the parliamentary secretary, but we have heard some concerns raised that senior RCMP officers did not get credit for the six month training period for which officers are now paid but were not years ago. There may be an anomaly with these individuals not getting credit for their training whereas someone transferring in from the OPP or somewhere else might.
Is the minister prepared to say the government would look favourably upon perhaps some technical changes in committee that may be needed to reduce anomalies and to make sure that there truly is a level playing field? Can he comment on that?
Our party is fully supporting this bill. It is unfortunate that previous legislation passed in 1999 was not really brought in with proper regulations and made workable. I want to commend the government on doing this now. We will be supporting it, but we would like to look at some of the possibilities that certain changes might need to be made. Would the parliamentary secretary be able to comment on that?
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I think some of the issues that are raised may be more in the realm of what they may be or may not be. Some of the issues may have been already resolved within the act itself. I think the proper place for us to examine those will be in committee.
The member who just asked the question is a valued member of that committee. I am certain he will have those questions and by the time this gets to committee, we will have those answers for him. I think they are appropriate, they are questions that may very well be out there from a lot of people. Within committee, will be the appropriate place to get those answers.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like ask my hon. colleague, a former RCMP officer, a simple question.
 Before Christmas the RCMP received a very nasty present. The government tore up its wage agreement, an agreement that would have simply given the RCMP wage parity with other police forces across this country. Right now we have a situation where we have a massive global deficit. RCMP officers are paid less than municipal and provincial police forces in Canada. They work extremely hard. They have the largest expanded coverage, not only within our country but they are deployed abroad under very dangerous circumstances.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague, as an RCMP officer, at his gut level, with his former brothers and sisters and comrades in the RCMP, does he not think it is an affront to every single RCMP officer in this country that his government tore that agreement up, and that it is in effect going to damage the ability of people to get into the RCMP and to retain the RCMP officers who do a remarkable job from coast to coast in our country and around the world? Will he commit to asking his government to change that deplorable decision and enable the RCMP officers to get the wage increase that they deserve?
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this member took this opportunity to get quite a ways off base. If he had been here a few minutes earlier, he would have heard that I was not a member of the RCMP. In fact, I was a member of a municipal police force in Canada.
This bill is about assisting RCMP officers, those who join in lateral entry or those who leave and take lateral entry to another force for whatever reason. If the hon. member was to make inquires and to listen to the committee, he would find that the RCMP have been able to recruit large numbers of new recruits. This government has begun the process that was ended by the former government in paying recruits while they are at depot, which is something brand new in these last few months.
I appreciate his comments, but I think that he is in the wrong venue, given the tenor of this bill.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary raised some issues that are important, and that is the ability of police officers to go from one force to another for a myriad of reasons. They could be going from a smaller police force to a larger police force that affords them an opportunity to expand their horizons, whether it be training or some special investigative unit and so on. It also permits the transferability from larger police forces to smaller police forces to bring that kind of expertise. It could be from strictly a personal or family ability to follow one's wife or husband in another job. 
The parliamentary secretary might want to educate the last questioner on what occurred when a member of his party was the premier of Ontario. Not only did he not give police officers raises, he cut back on their salaries by what was referred to as “something days”.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a former police officer with the Ontario Provincial Police.
The bill is about providing equalization to the RCMP and to those members who are currently serving and those who wish to join. I do know what my colleague is speaking about. We all suffered during a period of time when we were all forced to take time off even if we did not want to. I am not sure this is the proper place to debate those things today.
 This is a good bill. We need to take the high road on it and get it through the House in a hurry.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit of reading this bill last night. I can assure hon. members that if there is any need for insomnia cures, this would be a recommended bill to read. As the hon. parliamentary secretary said, it is a very technical bill. It will be debated in committee and will be supported by our party. The previous questions had to do with fairly technical issues about transferability and calculation of the pensions.
It is an important bill and it one which rectifies a number of inequities in our treatment of this very important institution and the men and women who constitute the RCMP and their role and contribution to our society. It builds upon the work that was done in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act in 2003, which modernized these pensions.
As I said, the Liberal Party will support the bill and it will be one that I hope receives a thorough review in the committee so these inequities can be addressed. 
Pensions have been a subject of concern for Canadians for a while now. Going back to the previous government, the Chrétien and Martin years, pensions were addressed as an overall concept, particularly with respect to the Canada pension plan. Over much protest, particularly by the Conservative Party but by others as well, the Canada pension plan was made into a viable, fiscally sound pension plan. In fact, it is fiscally sound for 75 years, which is the last year I heard. Primarily it was done by the upping of contributions by way of payroll deductions, which was good. Now we are in a very serious economic situation and we can take some comfort in the fact that the Canada pension plan is a viable one and Canadians can rely on that.
I am quite pleased the government has appointed the parliamentary secretary to review federally regulated pension plans. There certainly are some controversies around pension plans at this stage, particularly with respect to the ratios, the amounts of money that need to be set aside to fund the pension obligations. Those ratios are under strain.
One issue that will come up, particularly with respect to pension plans that will be unable to meet the criteria, is the issue of whether we would move the age of eligibility upward, which is a breach of good faith with those who have counted on 65 being the age of eligibility. That would have to be a question. I hope the parliamentary secretary and the government will address that. They will also have to address the huge meltdown in assets that has taken place.
Caisse de depot, for instance, has lost something in the order of 25% of its value over the last year, about $40 billion, some of it just by virtue of the market cycle, but some by virtue of very poor investments in asset-backed commercial paper. 
In this morning's news, the teachers' pension plan was reorganizing its portfolio away from direct investments in Canadian corporations and into less direct investments in a broader array of companies, particularly in derivative products. That is a decision, the consequences of which is the teachers' pension plan will have less influence in the boardrooms of the nation, which some might argue is not a good thing.
The entire pension field is operating in a real state of flux as the economics and the viability of pension plans come under question. We have for instance, the GM Chrysler pension plans and all of us have significant pressure for this bailout. The irony is that Canadian taxpayers, 70% of whom do not have pensions, are being asked to “bail out” the pension plans of Chrysler workers, GM workers and possibly even Air Canada workers.
I have been contacted, as I am sure other members have been contacted, about the inequity and unfairness of people without pensions being asked to bail out people who have pensions. This will strain the government's resources and it is a moral issue as to how parliamentarians react to those claims. These are questions will have to be asked.
 I commend the government for appointing the parliamentary secretary to at least stimulate the conversation and engage the debate. I wish the government had moved on this issue a bit earlier, as these questions will take a great deal of time to resolve and a great number of financial resources. We are in a situation where we have declining financial capacity, yet we are forced to address these questions.
On the narrow and specific issue of the Liberal Party's support for Bill C-18, we will vote in favour of having the issues raised here and others raised in committee. The Liberal Party supports the bill in principle.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. members for speaking in favour of this bill. It is a very important one and it is a long time in coming. Our party is certainly going to support it.
Private pensions are not portable, and we have a lot of miners, teachers, tradesmen, welders, machinists who go from job to job. Would his party be in favour of supporting portable pensions for private businesses?
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting question to which I do not have an opinion. Notwithstanding what my wife's views are, that I have opinions on everything, on this matter I do not. 
The issue of transferability of private pension plans from business to business is an interesting one, but a very problematic one as well. We operate in a context where the majority of Canadians do not have pension plans outside of the Canada pension plan. An issue may also be raised with respect to RRSPs.
I regret being unable to respond in a direct fashion. I certainly would not purport to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party on that issue.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all his hard work on this issue. We support the bill, as he mentioned.
I want to get back to an issue I spoke about before. The bill will only be good if the RCMP force is inspired and the morale is good. Right now the morale in the RCMP is very poor. The officers across the country work extremely hard and they work overtime. In my community in Sooke on the West Shore of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, RCMP officers are well overstretched in the jobs they do.
One thing that has demoralized them is the broken promise that took place in December when the RCMP's wage agreement was torn up by the government, even though the Prime Minister  had announced publicly that his government would honour it. We know this will negatively affect our ability to attract and retain RCMP officers, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said.
Does my hon. colleague not think the government should do the right thing, go back and honour the wage agreement that the Prime Minister promised the RCMP last year? In doing so, that would help us retain members in our force and attract new members to what is clearly one of the best police forces in the world.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of trust beyond the normal employer-employee relationship when we are dealing with Canada's main police force and the government. It is a special relationship where the RCMP is cast into a whole variety of roles, many of which are almost morally ambiguous roles, and it finds itself on the front lines of some of the most difficult situations that can be imagined.
I accept as truth the hon. member's assertion that the morale of the force is in some decline and that it is in a difficult situation. It is, therefore, somewhat anomalous that the government should, on the one hand, redress certain inconsistencies in pension legislation and yet simultaneously, in the later part of last year, effectively rip up the wage agreement.
I do not think that is a great way to encourage morale. We ask those people to do some pretty difficult things for us and the government should honour that trust. It should not only proceed with Bill C-18 but it should review its decision with respect to the wage anomalies.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support of the bill. I would like to talk about some of the issues raised by one of the other questioners from his party.
When we are talking about morale, does the member not think that the hiring of over 1,600 additional police officers for the RCMP is good for morale? Would he not say that attracting members to the force and having their morale start in a positive way, and paying recruits who were not paid before for their six months at depot, is good for their morale? Would he not agree with me that expanding the training facilities at depot is good for the morale of the RCMP?
If I were to tell the member that at committee, Deputy Commissioner Sweeney from the RCMP said that the recruitment process in the RCMP was meeting its goal, in other words, it was almost at the maximum ability of depot to train officers, would that not be good for morale?
While the wage increase is not where it should be, does the member not agree that some Canadians are taking advantage of some of the improvements to employment insurance by taking part, with some employers, in work-shares, so employment insurance is assisting people to stay at work? People are accepting no wage increases. At General Motors, the employees are accepting a wage decrease in order to keep their jobs. Would he not say that a 1.5% increase in employment is good for morale?
If morale were that bad, we would not see people wanting to become members of the RCMP. Again, I refer to the member for Toronto Centre. When he was the premier of Ontario, not only did he not give the police forces in Ontario a raise, in particular the police force of which I was a member, the Ontario Provincial Police force, he actually reduced their pay.
I wonder if the hon. member could respond to that.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I have never been a police officer but it seems to me that it is one of those jobs where people put their lives on the line each and every day. When they walk into an apartment building they have no idea what will happen or how it will come down. When they drive down the streets of Toronto, Vancouver or any other large city, they have no idea what will happen next. They, in effect, live life on the edge. We see way too many police officers either being injured or killed in the course of their line of duty.
It gets kind of elemental. It seems to me that if my employer is expecting me to put my life on the line each and every day, in each and every way, the least I could expect of my employer is to honour my wage agreements. That is as base and as elemental as it gets. Just simply honouring the collective agreement that they already entered into will do more for morale than pretty well everything that the hon. member mentioned previously.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, some significant problems of morale are attached to what is happening at the executive level within the RCMP. Does my friend and colleague not think that it is time for the government to engage the executive and broaden the grassroots of the RCMP so they would have the ability to influence what is taking place within their organization and unionize without striking, which would give rank and file members the ability to advocate for their considerable needs on the ground?
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is obviously far more familiar with these kinds of issues than I am. He does raise a rather significant issue with respect to the senior officers of the RCMP. I think that it is way beyond the scope of this particular bill. However, it does afford opportunities for the committee to review various issues of morale and clarify the lines of authority so that the men and women who put their lives at risk every day will be honoured in every way.
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about how members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have reached retirement age are treated. Many of them have had to make major sacrifices in the name of freedom and justice. Many of them have put their own lives and safety on the line. The Bloc is also aware that the RCMP is having some recruitment problems, and we believe that recognizing years of service with provincial or municipal police services could be part of the solution.
To ensure that all members of the RCMP receive just and fair treatment, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. That way, we will hear what various witnesses have to say and we will be able to take a thorough look at parts of this bill that raise issues. Studying the bill in committee will give us a chance to call witnesses from various groups so that they can all have their say about Bill C-18.
During this time of economic crisis, and given the fragile state of public finances, the Bloc Québécois is also concerned about sound management of public funds. That is why we are committed to a thorough examination of the viability of the RCMP pension fund and all possible financial repercussions of this bill.
On March 9, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-18 at first reading. Bill C-18 amends the pension plan created under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. Principal changes to the act provide the necessary powers to broaden past service provisions and to implement pension transfer agreements. Past service means buying back years of service for entitlement to a full pension. Bill C-18 sets the cost of buying back service according to actuarial rules. According to information from the Library of Parliament, the member is responsible for the cost of buying back past years of service. Buy-back can be financed through the member's former pension plan.
This bill contains a number of very technical provisions. I share the view that promoting lateral entries from one police force to another is a good thing. In general, I share the concerns of the members who have already spoken that people who have been in a job for a certain length of time and who are no longer happy do not perform at their best. When they stay in a job just because they want to keep their pension benefits, they do not perform at their best. If they are allowed to change jobs and transfer their pensions, they will start their new jobs with new enthusiasm, contribute fully and be much more effective. The various technical provisions will be studied in committee.
The RCMP divisional representatives in Quebec have some concerns. For example, until a legislative change was made, the time spent in training by cadets, as recruits are known, was included in their pensionable service. According to the RCMP divisional representatives in Quebec, though, the definitions in Bill C-18 still do not recognize the years RCMP cadets spent in training. According to the RCMP, this is an anomaly, because under Bill C-18, recruit training in provincial and municipal police forces would be recognized when officers join the RCMP, at least, for all the officers coming from police forces in Ontario and Manitoba.
The Bloc Québécois will look at all of this in committee and will benefit from the testimony of the stakeholders. Many members of the RCMP will soon be receiving their pensions. The figure of 1,600 was mentioned. These police officers will have to be replaced. It is important that potential members continue to know that they are exposed to certain risks, but that those risks are offset by attractive salaries and pensions.
Therefore, we want this bill to go to committee so that we can hear all the stakeholders.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges RCMP officers have across the country came as a consequence of the slaughter of RCMP officers a few years ago in the Prairies. RCMP officers must now travel by twos to calls that could be dangerous. This is more than understandable. The problem is the huge manpower deficit on the force.
The Government of Canada has said that it has put in some monies, but I would suggest that has been quite late in coming because it promised to do this years ago, and the needs of the RCMP are actually much greater. Also the monies are not there to pay for the RCMP officers on the ground to do their work. The RCMP budget does not cover the hours required to do the coverage. For example, in Sooke there is only 70% of a full complement. That 70% has to work more than 100% of what is required. Therefore, the officers accrue overtime, which is normal, fair and due to them, but it destroys the budget of the RCMP and therefore, the coverage declines.
Does the member not think that the government should forthwith put forward the resources to provide the RCMP officers the operating budget they need to do their work while they have a significant deficit in manpower?
[Interjection]
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. colleague about the RCMP not having adequate resources at this time. Not only does it lack resources, but it is constantly being given new duties. But that is not the issue here. I also completely agree with the previous speakers who denounced the way the RCMP was treated at the time of the last wage increase. RCMP members were told they would receive a certain wage increase, and that amount was later reduced. It seems to me that when a promise is made, it must be kept. True, in private companies, where some people were especially well paid, employees agreed to reductions, but again, those wage reductions were negotiated. We have not yet reached the point where wage reductions are necessary in the public service. When a promise is made, people have every right to expect that that promise will be kept. 
Now the RCMP faces other problems. In my opinion, some duties should be given to independent agencies. For instance, forensic laboratories come to mind. We would see increased credibility if those labs did not report to the police forces, given that they are called upon to testify in courts of law where they must appear completely independent and unbiased towards either the prosecution or defence. Furthermore, they have so many duties that turnaround times are getting longer and longer.
I learned this week that the RCMP's budget is being reduced this year. I had the figures yesterday—I do not remember the exact number—but it is several tens of thousands of dollars anyway. I do not understand such decisions. However, that is not the problem at issue in the bill before us. For this bill, we hope to reach a consensus to bring forward the necessary changes.
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, RCMP officers also face a human resources challenge. 
The human resources complaints are not dealt with properly or effectively. One solution I have proposed really comes from my experience working as a physician in the emergency room of a hospital. I have had the privilege of working with RCMP officers. As my colleague mentioned, they do an extraordinarily difficult job, often under dangerous circumstances. All of us need to remember that.
What would make it easier for RCMP officers to have their human resources challenges and other concerns dealt with is if they were able to unionize, not to strike, but to have their concerns dealt with through binding final offer arbitration if other forms of arbitration did not work.
Would my colleague support my private member's initiative to allow the RCMP to unionize as an essential service, but not to strike? In that way, the members of the RCMP could have their needs addressed in a responsible, fair and transparent way, which I think would improve the morale.
[Interjection]
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I was not prepared to talk about this issue this morning, but I can say that I agree that members of the RCMP should have the right to freedom of association, a right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is an officer whose name I have forgotten, but I remember the case well because I have read it several times and talked about it often. I could not find it in my computer's memory this morning, but it is there somewhere.
In the past, the Bloc Québécois has introduced private members' bills to enable people to exercise their right to free association. The officer whose name I have forgotten lost his case, but he lost it on the grounds that the union would have been part of the general public service union. The Supreme Court's decision rested on the fact that if there is to be a police union, it must be separate from public service unions because its members may, in the course of their duties, find themselves in certain positions. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not say that they do not have the right to form a union.
Therefore, I agree completely. It has occurred to me that, should I have the opportunity to introduce a bill, this subject would be my second choice, my first being the protection of journalistic sources. We will support a bill if it is well written and complies with the framework the Supreme Court has set out. Frankly, I think that your party is one of the reasons for this delay because this case was before the Supreme Court before 2006, even before 2004. I think it happened in the last millennium. 
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, one of the other challenges is that the RCMP and other police officers across the country are finding that organized crime gangs have the upper hand in many cases. Our legislation has not kept up with the advances in the technological abilities of those involved in organized crime. The real parasites in our society are profiteering off the status quo, driven primarily by drug money.
In British Columbia there have been over 40 shootings. There have been 19 deaths and 20 people have been injured. They are people who have been caught in the crossfire of drug battles, or people who have been part of the crime gang drug battles. Essentially, these battles are turf wars driven financially through drug money.
The government ought to be listening to the RCMP and other police forces in Quebec and across the rest of Canada. It should adopt the solutions the RCMP is asking for. The police should be able to share information, to extract information, to tap into the IT tools, such as BlackBerries, and use that information against those involved in organized crime.
One of the most difficult challenges is to ensure that the speed with which the judicial process occurs will quicken. Right now the judicial process is too slow. It needs to be more efficient. We need to support initiatives to improve those areas within our judicial system.
[Interjection]
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely broad topic. Personally, I completely disagree with this government's policies and the way it deals with crime. This government knows only one solution for everything: tougher sentences, and they definitely do not work. The United States has proven this, since their crime rate is much higher than that of Canada. Their homicide rate is three and half times higher than Canada's, and five times higher than Quebec's, I might add. 
I would remind the hon. member that in the past, I introduced a new method for dealing with organized gangs, and that was the integrated teams. When I was the Quebec minister of public safety, together with the chiefs of the Montreal police and the Quebec provincial police, I founded the famous Carcajou squad, which finally managed to break the back of the Hells Angels. I never asked for tougher sentences. The crimes committed by these people were serious enough that the Criminal Code allowed for extremely tough sentences, which they were given.
As for warrants to tap into devices other than telephones, it seems to me that we have already seen a bill on that. I am for it. I think we must find ways to tap into these new technologies. I could go on at length about this. The current government, with its tendency to follow the worst example of our neighbour to the south, is overlooking intelligent approaches that have been taken in other provinces. Once again, this demonstrates that we are indeed two very distinct nations. If we were one people— 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order. The time provided for questions and comments has expired.

Statements By Members
All You Need is LoveMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a special musical group that is very close to the hearts of many people in their hometown of Belleville, Ontario, and as far away as Liverpool, England. The group's name is All You Need is Love.
This tremendously talented group, comprised of members Andy Forgie, Mark Rashotte, Steve Smith, Vitas Slapkauskas, Al Haring, Francis Rose and Wayne McFaul, celebrate the ageless music of the Beatles, and for the third consecutive year, in 2008, were again invited to perform in Liverpool, England, during the extremely popular Beatle Week.
Not only do they thrill audiences in Liverpool, they are the star performers and organizers at a Beatles festival held annually in Belleville. These musicians also believe in giving back to their community and have, with their music, raised over $100,000 for women's shelters, locally and across Canada, and have also raised funds for the tsunami relief effort.
For their great achievements in music, for sharing some of the world's most beloved music with all of us, and for their dedication to helping those less fortunate, on behalf of the good citizens of Prince Edward—Hastings I wish to convey my sincerest congratulations and thanks.
VaisakhiMr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 14, Canadians will celebrate Vaisakhi.
Vaisakhi commemorates the day in 1699 when Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa, and Sikhs were given a clear identity and a code of conduct to live by.
On April 11, in Surrey and Vancouver, the annual Khalsa Day parade will be a huge event in which people from all faiths and backgrounds are welcomed. The celebration attracts over 100,000 people and is known as the largest Khalsa Day celebration.
I invite all members of the House to join me in wishing happy Vaisakhi and a happy Khalsa Day to all.
Invisible Work DayMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 7, as they have every year since 2001, the AFEAS and its members will take the opportunity to make government authorities and the public aware of the problem of unpaid, “invisible” work.
According to the AFEAS, lack of recognition for invisible work is one of the factors in the persistent inequalities between women and men. It is also a factor in the poverty of women who choose to take care of their children or their incapacitated, ill or disabled relatives. These mothers and caregivers continue to live in poverty when they retire.
During a recession, invisible work by families and especially women will increase. That is why, this year, the AFEAS and other women's groups in Quebec and Canada are reiterating that it is important that Canada measure and take into account the unpaid work in every family, as it promised to do at the World Conference on Women, held in Beijing. 
Churchill FallsJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, a very important event has taken place within the Canadian electricity market this week. For the first time in history, Newfoundland and Labrador is selling power from the Churchill Falls hydro project directly into the United States, through Hydro-Québec transmission lines.
It is a small amount of power, reserved from the 1960s deal that saw virtually all Churchill Falls electricity go to Hydro-Québec, which eventually reaped enormous windfalls, getting the lion's share of profits to the consternation of Newfoundland and Labrador.
But it is historic because it could be a first step and a building block for a Canadian power grid. It is based on a concept very much part of the American power grid, but new to Canada, called “wheeling rights”. The United States regulatory system requires participants in its electricity grid to allow others access to the grid through its facilities as a condition of participation.
Congratulations to Hydro-Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its parent, Nalcor, on this historic deal. We hope that this model can help show the way for the development of a true Canadian electricity grid, allowing cleaner, greener energy to be developed and marketed within Canada. We hope the federal government will step up to the plate and start playing a role in making this happen.
Community SupportMr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to share a story of hope and goodwill. In my riding of Macleod, there is the small community of Stavely, home to 500 of my constituents.
Stavely hosted the first indoor rodeo in North America, now in its 52nd year, and is well known for its hard-working volunteers and endless community support.
This past Saturday, a fundraiser was held to assist a family that has suffered from the results of an unfortunate car accident.
My wife Sandy and I joined approximately 1,000 people at this event, and through donations and live and silent auctions, the community raised over $185,000 to assist Dale and Tracey Ohler with the costs they are incurring since their accident.
Even during these difficult economic times, citizens came together to support a local family in need. I am proud of the support this community provides to its citizens in need, and I was proud to attend this event as a neighbour and a friend.
HealthKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, World Health Day is April 7, and despite Canada having the world's eighth highest per capita expenditures on health care, our system ranks 26th in the world in performance. This is leaving Canadians without treatment for months and even years, in pain, suffering and getting sicker. This is a national disgrace. 
However, the Canadian Medical Association has done a remarkable groundbreaking assessment that concludes that Canada should look east to Europe where costs are less, yet patients enjoy 17 the top 20 health care systems in the world. Most Europeans have universal coverage in mixed systems. They do not wait. They have timely access to quality care, and even expanded coverage for drugs and long-term care, all at a lower cost.
World Health Day should jolt Parliament to put health care back on the agenda and compel us to look to Europe to adopt their best solutions to ensure that every Canadian will have timely access to quality care when they fall ill.
100th BirthdayMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today honour a very special constituent and mark a very special occasion. On April 6, Grace Swanson will turn 100 years old. 
Grace came to Canada in 1913 as the eldest of seven children and settled in the beautiful city of Kenora. She married her husband Fred, and in 1930 they built a summer camp on Longbow Lake, where I also spend my summers. Like a true northwestern Ontarian, she enjoyed the incredible hunting and fishing that the Lake of the Woods area has to offer.
Grace supported her country in time of war by knitting socks for soldiers serving overseas. She volunteered for numerous elections over the years, volunteered at her church and enjoyed singing in the senior choir. 
Grace is a woman who has lived her life fully and shared her love of music, singing, ballet, painting and travel with those she loves. 
The fabric of this great country has been built by the contributions of seniors like Grace.
Congratulations to a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother and a great-great-grandmother. Happy 100th birthday to Grace Swanson.
Memorial Cup TournamentMr. Claude Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Memorial Cup tournament will take place in Rimouski from May 15 to 24. All eyes will be on our region as Canadians follow one of the most prestigious hockey championships in North America.
Competing in this event will be the champions of Canada's three junior leagues, which are currently in the midst of playoffs. My team, the Rimouski Océanic, is up against the Moncton Wildcats. I would like to invite my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe to wear an Océanic jersey if Rimouski wins this round, and I will do the same if Moncton wins.
I wish all the teams good luck, and I invite everyone to come to Rimouski in May to cheer these young hockey players on as they battle for the ultimate trophy, the Memorial Cup.
North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, April 4 marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the treaty that established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As one of the alliance's founding members, Canada is proud to celebrate NATO's 60th anniversary and to highlight its accomplishments in promoting peace and security.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the chief of the defence staff are in Strasbourg-Kehl this weekend to join with the other 27 NATO allies at a summit to commemorate this achievement. 
The NATO summit is a useful opportunity to reconfirm the commitment of NATO and its allies to securing and stabilizing Afghanistan, as NATO's top priority, and to ensure that allies commit sufficient resources to ensure success.
As we mark this historic milestone, I invite all members of the House to join with me in paying tribute to the men and women serving in Afghanistan.
Jessica CampaignMs. Siobhan Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Jessica Campaign was started by the family of Jessica Holman-Price, who was killed in 2005 by a Montreal city snow removal truck. 
The goal of the Jessica Campaign is to increase road safety by fitting side guards or under-run protection devices to all vehicles in higher weight categories. This will offer unprotected road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, protection against the risk of falling under the sides of such vehicles.
Research has indicated that actions such as the use of under-run protection devices and education campaigns can improve safety. While there is legislation in some European countries for these protection devices, no such legislation exists in Canada at this point. 
Newfoundland and Labrador has recognized the value of this safety measure and is installing side guards on its new fleet of snow removal equipment.
I ask the House to recognize the life-saving potential of under-run protection devices and move to ensure their use.
Ottawa 67'sMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the legendary hockey coaching career of Brian Kilrea, Ottawa native and head coach of the Ottawa 67's for 32 of the last 34 seasons. 
Brian's hockey accomplishments speak for themselves. He coached over 2,000 games, set a hockey record with 1,193 wins, led the 67's to three OHL titles and two Memorial Cup championships, was named coach of the year five times, even had the trophy renamed in his honour in 1996, and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2003.
 Perhaps even more important, though, a new room at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario will be known as the “Brian Kilrea Teaching Room”, a place where children receiving long-term care can continue their studies. This room will be a lasting legacy to Brian.
 I join with all parties in saluting his career, congratulating him and saying, “Way to go”.
Young FundraiserClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to stand in the House this morning to recognize a young man from my riding of Nickel Belt. 
Alexandre Petroski is an 11-year-old boy from the community of Lavigne. In May 2007, Alexandre's cousin passed away from cancer at the Toronto SickKids hospital. Since then, Alexandre has organized several presentations on the SickKids hospital to local schools in Chelmsford, Azilda and Timmins. He has also raised money by shaving his head and through MX for Children, a biking event.
Through those various fundraising efforts, Alexandre has raised a total of $34,000 for the Toronto SickKids hospital.
Alexandre is a young hero and a strong leader. I ask the House to join me in recognizing his hard work for our community and the Toronto SickKids hospital.
Leader of the Liberal PartyMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to know this Liberal leader very well.
He comes to Quebec and tries to pass himself off as a new René Lévesque, when in reality, he is a pale imitation of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
He speaks out against the interests of Quebeckers when he is outside Quebec and thinks no Quebeckers are listening. And when he is caught, he denies it like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
The Liberal leader has said he would like to remove Quebec's seat at UNESCO. Quebeckers will not let that happen.
And last weekend—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member knows that personal attacks are not allowed during members' statements, but clearly, that is what he is engaging in.
The hon. member for Repentigny.
Quebec Federation of University StudentsMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec federation of university students is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. With over 120,000 members, it is the largest young people's association in Quebec today. The federation was founded when the tuition freeze was lifted in 1989. As an advocate for the rights and interests of university students in Quebec, the organization is a major stakeholder in the field of education in Quebec.
One of its primary concerns is the fact that post-secondary education in Quebec is underfunded. Both the federation and the Bloc Québécois believe that the solution must involve returning federal transfers to their 1994 levels. It is time for this government to give Quebec the tools it needs to take charge of its jurisdiction over education.
I would like to thank the Quebec federation of university students for its contribution to the quality and availability of university education in Quebec. I would personally like to thank the federation's president, David Paradis, and its press secretary, Dany St-Jean, who are on the Hill today, for the excellent work they are doing for students in Quebec. 
Rwandan GenocideHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 7 marks the 15th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda.
The Canadian Parliament, in a unanimous motion, designated this day as a National Day of Reflection on the Prevention of Genocide, inviting us to appreciate and act upon the following lessons.
First is the danger of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide. Simply put, the genocide in Rwanda did not occur because of the machinery of death, but because of the state-sanctioned culture of hate.
Second is the danger of indifference and inaction in the face of incitement and mass atrocity. The horror of the Rwandan genocide is not only that of the genocide, but that this genocide was preventable. Nobody can say that we did not know. We knew, but we did not act. 
Third is the danger of a culture of impunity. Let there be no mistake about it: Impunity always means coming down on the side of the victimizer, never on the side of the victim.
Fourth is the danger of targeted assaults on the most vulnerable of the vulnerable: the women and children.
Fifth and finally is the importance of remembering the heroic rescuers, who confronted evil and prevailed.
Jamais plus.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's economic action plan, recognized as one of the best plans in the world, sure stands in stark contrast to the Liberal plan of flip-flopping and changing policy on the fly.
Liberals pretend to care about the forestry industry in one province and then they slam it by calling it a basement industry in another. Liberals say that asbestos exports need to be banned while in British Columbia and then say something completely different while in Ottawa. The Liberals say that they will gladly sit in a coalition with separatists and then they say that it would be wrong to sit with people who want to destroy the country. The Liberals pretend to support the auto industry while in Ontario and then they go out west and say that they do not support it. The Liberals say that they are all for the seal hunt and then they introduce a bill to ban it.
Canadians need a steady economic action plan, not a flip-flopping Liberal plan.

Oral Questions
AfghanistanHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all week, Canadians have been outraged by the new law in Afghanistan that authorizes marital rape. Their reactions are visceral. They are calling on the Prime Minister to take meaningful action.
What sanctions does the Prime Minister plan to take if the Afghan government does not renounce its despicable law, which denies Afghan women their human rights?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), CPC):  Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that she does not have the corner on moral outrage. This is, indeed, an offensive law and Canada is deeply troubled by it. I would hope that all parties recognize that we share this concern.
The Prime Minister has shared his indignation at the G20. The foreign minister spoke out at the Hague and will again at the NATO summit. We call on the Afghan government in the strongest of terms to honour its human rights treaty obligations and, in particular, the recognition of the rights of women.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the NATO summit begins today. The rights of Afghan women should be the top priority at that summit. The Conservative government must reassure Canadians, who are scandalized by the new law, that it will not stand idly by.
Can the Conservative government reassure Canadians now and assure them that the Prime Minister of Canada will not compromise on the fundamental human rights of Afghan women at the NATO summit?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to have been following international news.
 The Prime Minister, as I said, shared his indignation with other heads of government at the G20 meeting and he called directly and firmly on the Afghan government to honour its human rights treaty obligations under international law, including respect of the equality of women before the law.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the government talked about serious consequences. What will those serious consequences be?
When it comes to foreign affairs, it is difficult for Canadians to know where the Conservative government's priorities lie. We have certainly heard much discussion about the Minister of National Defence's campaign to become the head of NATO and yet Canadians have heard very little from that side on the issues of fundamental human rights. 
The NATO summit begins today. It is an opportunity the Prime Minister cannot waste. Do the Conservatives even have an agenda for this summit other than finding a new job for the Minister of National Defence?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, finger pointing and rhetorical fury may play well with the opposition, including the party opposite whose leader changes his policy positions as often as his socks, but with regard to this offensive law, the Government of Canada is dealing firmly and effectively with this issue.
The EconomySiobhan Coady: Mr. Speaker, the government still cannot report any progress in striking deals with provinces or cities for matching funds required to deliver the full economic stimulus package that was announced more than two months ago.
Today we are hearing again about steep job losses in the United States and Canada is not far behind. The Conservatives are sitting on their hands while thousands of Canadian jobs are at risk.
Why is the money still not flowing? Why are the Conservatives stalling on jobs for Canadians?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is taking unprecedented action to stimulate our economy and to protect Canadians during these difficult economic times. There will be ample information about how this money is spent through our quarterly reports to Parliament, a full accounting of spending in supplementary estimates, reports from the Auditor General and on our action plan website, actionplan.gc.ca. If the hon. member has not already been there, she should visit the website.
We are cutting red tape. The opposition should do the same.
Siobhan Coady: Action would be better than words, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, Parliament passed a motion calling on the government to provide a list by April 3 of the departments and programs likely to access the $3 billion in extraordinary spending. Today is April 3 and the government has had time to provide a plan showing how this spending will help our recovery and save jobs.
Is the real reason the government cannot account for this spending that it is making it up as it goes along?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not the ones to lecture us on accountability.
I am proud to say that much work has been done by our government over the past few weeks. A substantial amount of money has already been identified from this fund for economic stimulus initiatives outlined in our economic action plan.
I expect the member will see announcements by my colleagues over the coming weeks and I would encourage her again to monitor our website.
We do not need more roadblocks. We need more roads built.
Goods and Services TaxMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wrote to his Quebec counterpart to say that he was pleased Quebec is considering the possibility of joining the harmonized sales tax club. Reading between the lines, the government wants to impose the Ontario model and put an end to Quebec administering the federal GST, which the province has been doing quite well since 1991.
Why does the Minister of Finance want to fix something that is not broken and impose the Ontario model on Quebec? Is that what open federalism means for the Conservatives—taking advantage of the crisis to force Quebec into the mould?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week, we heard that Quebec's finance minister was open to the idea of making some changes to bring Quebec's situation into line with Ontario's. As we have been saying all week, we are ready to open good-faith negotiations.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. The government is coming up with all kinds of excuses for not compensating Quebec, and it is using the crisis as an excuse to force its model on the province. This government is in such a bad position and so vindictive that it has resorted to using tax policy for partisan purposes. Unbelievable.
Does the Minister of Finance deny that he is using fiscal weapons to impose his Ontario-style vision on Quebec?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, such negotiations do not take place in the House of Commons. The Government of Canada negotiates with the Government of Quebec, not the Bloc Québécois. We will keep a close eye on this issue, and as we have been saying all week, we are ready to begin good-faith negotiations.
Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the government harmonized its tax with the maritime provinces, it refused to compensate Quebec, invoking the 5% rule. Then, when it harmonized its tax with Ontario, it claimed there were exemptions that explained why Quebec was not compensated. Basically, the reasons change from one day to the next.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that by changing the reasons from one day to the next, not only is he being unfair to Quebec, but he is also making his own economic situation even worse?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can give all kinds of details from the past with his own interpretations, but personally, I will rely on what was said this week. Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, said that indeed, the tax was not completely harmonized. So, if Quebec would be open to certain changes in order to have a model similar to that of Ontario and complete harmonization, we could then begin good-faith negotiations.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that this government takes pleasure in creating obstacles and cultivating an anti-Quebec attitude. With the financial crisis we are currently facing, this behaviour does a lot more harm than good. 
Is the Minister of Finance trying to tell us that he is creating a new federalism? After the so-called open federalism, are we now seeing spiteful federalism?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government treats all provinces the same. We are also very pleased that Quebec has finally acknowledged that its sales tax was in fact not harmonized.
We understand Quebec is ready now to discuss joining the federal harmonized sales tax framework. This framework means a federally legislated and administered tax, a base that is essentially the same as the GST with the revenues shared with the participating provinces under an allocation formula.
AfghanistanMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the NATO summit, beginning today, the main focus will be the war in Afghanistan.
This week, Canadians from all political stripes expressed outrage after the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam raised the issue of the law put forward by the Afghan government that is an assault on women's rights.
As a member of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has pointed out, if western countries had been paying attention we would not be at this terrible point now. 
We want a very clear answer. Will Canada make women's rights in Afghanistan a top priority at the NATO summit and, if so, what other consequences against the Afghan government is Canada willing to discuss with its NATO allies?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has informed the Afghan government of the damaging effect this law could have. We have pointed out that we expect it not to be enacted. At the same time, we understand that the Afghan government intends to continue to review the law and to discuss it with civil society. We are monitoring developments closely. We are communicating directly and firmly, and we will continue to make our position known.
The EconomyLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the government's handling of the stimulus money, we learned yesterday that the government cannot report on any progress in reaching agreements with the provinces and cities for matching funds required to deliver the stimulus money.
This money was announced two months ago. The Prime Minister tells other countries to take urgent action, yet he cannot deliver it here at home. Why not?
Is it because no progress is being made, or is it because the Conservatives do not know what they are doing over there?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am proud to say that much work has been done in the past few weeks by the government in getting these funds out. We are negotiating with the provinces and municipalities to make sure that these funds go to the places where they are needed most to create jobs and stimulate our economy during these difficult economic times.
FinanceMr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bankers Association refuses to reveal how much it fleeces consumers with high interest rates and fees on credit cards. At a time when the lending rate is low, credit card interest rates are at an all time high and show no sign of coming down. It is time for the government to empower the Financial Consumer Agency to audit the credit operations of Canada's banks and get answers for consumers.
When will the government learn from its mistakes and take action now to help stop the gouging of middle-class Canadians by credit card companies?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, in budget 2009 we put in place some processes that will actually tighten up credit cards. We have been hearing from our constituents about their concerns and, in fact, the Senate banking committee is studying it. One other committee, and we are not sure if it is going to be industry or finance, will be listening to those concerns.
 We have already put in place a requirement for a minimum grace period on new purchases. We are putting in improved debt collection practices, and are requiring clear and timely advance notice for changes in rates and fees. That was in budget 2009.
Arts and CultureMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages does not know him, but Robert Lepage is internationally recognized and acclaimed. Mr. Lepage is a director, author, actor and filmmaker and, since yesterday, a recipient of the Governor General's Award. Mr. Lepage attributed this award to the international influence his work has. He also took the opportunity to criticize the cuts made to assistance for artists who want to tour internationally. Robert Lepage is right, and the government is wrong.
Will the minister do the honourable thing, apologize and correct this situation?
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my opposition colleague. Our government is already spending $2.3 billion on the arts and culture this year, far more than any other government in Canadian history. Since our government came to power, it has increased spending—yes, increased spending—by 8% across the board. In the next two years, we will invest $540 million in the arts, culture and heritage. That includes $276 million in new funding. Our government is showing a firm commitment to the arts and culture.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that no one believes them. Thousands of Canadians tell us every day that they do not want cuts to the arts. They also tell us that the government must support the CBC. This morning, we received a petition signed by 110,000 Canadians who support the CBC, but the government is turning a deaf ear.
Can we restore democracy in our Parliament? The Prime Minister wants to act like the new king of Canada, but that will not wash here. Parliament supports the CBC. Canadians support the CBC. Will he listen for once?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. The member can shout all he wants, but that will not change the facts. The facts are that our government has given more money to the CBC than the Liberals did.
In the March 27, 2009 issue of La Presse, journalist Nathalie Petrowski contrasted the funding we are providing with the savage Liberal cuts in the 1990s. She added that at that time, the office of the former prime minister had directed that nearly half a billion dollars in non-negotiated, draconian cuts be made, which amounted to a chainsaw massacre.
Parliamentary Budget OfficerJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Office has a mandate to “support Parliament and parliamentarians in holding the government to account for the good stewardship of public resources”. Yet, the Conservative government refuses to provide the full budget it promised. As a result, the PBO has begun to lose staff and expects to lose more.
When will the government stop paying lip service to accountability, and when will it live up to its commitments to the Parliamentary Budget Office it created?
Pierre Poilievre: That is a question for you, Mr. Speaker, you control his budget.
Let us talk about the five flip-flops of the week. The Liberal leader said he was against the asbestos sector, then he said he was for it. He opposed help for the auto sector in British Columbia, then he came back to Ontario and said he wanted even more spending on bailouts.
He signed the coalition deal, now he pretends he was never in favour of it. He was the first to propose a job killing carbon tax, forced it on his former leader, now he says, because it is not popular, he will not talk about it any more.
Then he said he supports the oil sands, but voted for a bill yesterday that was tiddlywinks, in his own words--
The Speaker:  The hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, that answer had absolutely no relevance to the question whatsoever, apparently because the government does not want to answer the question.
The Library of Parliament cannot give more money to the PBO unless the Conservative government gives it the necessary funds. It is a broken promise. It is misleading, and it is insulting to Parliament and parliamentarians.
When will the government fully fund the PBO as it promised in 2006? The hon. member should not recite a litany of nonsense.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports to the Chief Parliamentary Librarian, a position that the Liberal Party then supported. This is another flip-flop because it has now changed its position on that as well. 
I am prepared to draw that hon. member a map, so that he can find the Library of Parliament, and I will personally pay for a library card so that he can become more lucid on this matter. In the meantime, he might take the occasion to ask his leader why he has flip-flopped on five issues. Five issues in one week. That will be found in the Guinness book of world records, also in the library.
Forestry IndustryMs. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the giants of our forestry industry, AbitibiBowater, is facing serious financial difficulties. Employees are worried and nervous, and the Conservatives are doing nothing to reassure them. While they give billions of dollars to the Ontario auto industry, they are providing only minimal assistance to the forestry industry.
Although they managed to find $2.7 billion for the Ontario auto industry, the Quebec forestry industry must share a measly $170 million over two years with the rest of Canada. Is that what they mean by federalism that is open to Quebec?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the government is following the situation very closely. We are very concerned about the future of the company, and even more concerned about what happens to the employees of AbitibiBowater. That company has a presence in a number of Quebec communities. That said, what is encouraging is that AbitibiBowater is not throwing in the towel; it is seeking other solutions to implement its financial restructuring.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada is in the middle of an economic recession, yet the government is giving big contracts to foreign companies. They have ordered 1,300 military trucks from Navistar in the United States and 30 military buses from Germany.
Now the government is thinking about ordering five more buses from Setra in Germany, even though it is well aware that companies like Paccar and Prévost Car in Quebec have experience manufacturing these kinds of trucks and buses. 
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services assure the House that when it decides who gets the contract for the five buses, it will consider—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: the government must always ensure that the process is open and transparent, and that is what we are doing. We have to comply with international agreements, and we have to make sure that taxpayers get their money's worth. 
 That being said, our government is making decisions to help our companies be more competitive so that they can create jobs, not cut them.
The opposition should stop making all kinds of insinuations. There are rules, and we are following them. Canadian taxpayers will benefit.
Quebec BridgeMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec recently reiterated the request made in 2003 by the mayor at the time, Mr. Allier, to the Canadian Minister of Transport that it honour its commitment to completely refurbish the Quebec bridge. 
In order to prevent further deterioration, will the government act on the suggestion made by the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, that is, to complete the restoration and, once and for all, show a little respect for this national historic site?
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have taken real action in Quebec in relation to infrastructure funds, in relation to transportation, and working with the provinces and our municipal partners to make sure we get funds flowing to Quebec as soon as possible, and that we increase and make better the quality of life for Quebeckers.
Some examples of this are $210 million for smaller communities in Quebec under the building Canada fund, $200 million for larger centres under the building Canada fund, and $11.75 million for water filtration plants in Lévis, Quebec.
We are getting the job done for Quebeckers and we are giving them a better quality of life.
Quebec City ArmouryMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the question was about the bridge.
A year after it was destroyed by fire, the future of the Quebec City Armoury remains uncertain. The minister responsible for the Quebec City region says she does not know where they are with the investigation and still cannot say how and when the public consultations will take place. What a display of incompetence and amateurism.
What is the minister responsible for the Quebec City region waiting for to reveal how and when the public hearings concerning the Quebec City Armoury will be held?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the member can call the minister responsible for the Quebec City region every bad name in the book. The Bloc Québécois should be ashamed of themselves. I can say one thing: they sit here in this House, looking at the situation, not really knowing what is happening, and tossing lines in the water, just to see what comes up.
In the budget, we committed to holding public consultations. Why? So that the people from the Quebec City area can tell us their ideas, rather than simply coming up with willy-nilly plans, the way the other side of the House likes to do.
That being said, I can say this: we will be delivering the goods very soon.
The EconomyMrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, another week is drawing to a close, and it was a very bad week for many workers in Quebec.
In Beauce, more than 650 jobs disappeared in the past week.
In Saint-Félicien, in the riding of the regional economic development minister, SFK Pâte laid off 225 employees.
By the end of the year, more than 1,800 people will lose their jobs at Bombardier in Quebec.
Does the Minister of Industry still feel like saying we should “celebrate this great victory”?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about everything that is happening with the economic crisis. With the help of our economic action plan, we are going to do something about a very urgent situation.
Alexandra Mendes: Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not seem to take this news very seriously.
Will he have just as glib a reply for the 145 employees at the Norampac plant in Quebec City, which will be closing permanently, as Cascades announced yesterday?
And how will he reassure the 210 workers at wind turbine parts manufacturer GURIT in Magog who are also being laid off?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we sympathize with all the families of workers who are losing their jobs. For that reason, we have to act as quickly as possible, with our economic action plan worth more than $33 billion, and that is what we are going to do.
Forestry IndustryHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what will it take for the Conservatives to see that Canada's forestry sector is in crisis? Jobs are being lost. Businesses are closing and communities are suffering. Instead of action, we get idle boasting about recycled community adjustment funds.
Could the minister explain why the industry is telling a Commons committee it has no access to credit, research and development or other federal programs? Could the minister explain why the Conservatives sat on their hands while 20,000 forestry jobs disappeared?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what was actually said at the industry subcommittee yesterday by Mr. Rick Jeffrey. He said, “The future of this industry is great...For you, as the federal government, that means the Canada wood export program, the wood first program, the value to wood program, and the forest innovation programs that were in the last budget. Those are all great programs. They help drive innovation, they help keep markets open, they help us produce new products, develop new markets, and they also allow us to promote our products in those markets”. 
Even the member for Halifax West has to admit that we are getting the job done.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the loss of 20,000 jobs. That is not exactly getting the job done.
Again yesterday, we asked the government to protect the 12,000 jobs at AbitibiBowater in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. Perhaps the Prime Minister was in the washroom when we did that, because the Conservatives are still silent on this.
Why are the Conservatives not reassuring workers who are still waiting?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the problems in the forestry industry. That is why we asked this Parliament to pass Canada's economic action plan as quickly as possible, as it will help industries across the board, including the forestry industry.
Leader of the Liberal PartyMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition is elsewhere and he thinks that Quebeckers are not paying attention, the things he says are not in Quebec's best interest. It seems to have become a habit. When he gets caught in the act, his response is to deny, deny, deny.
Speaking somewhere outside of Quebec, he said that he wanted to take the francophone province's seat at UNESCO away. When he was in British Columbia, he said that he wanted to shut down Quebec's chrysotile industry.
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell us what the government thinks of that?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly not be giving the Liberal leader an opportunity to take away Quebec's seat at UNESCO. That is for sure. Nor will we let him make unfounded statements about the chrysotile industry. His disdain runs deep. Workers and people in Thetford Mines will not accept that. Our people have good memories, and we will not forget the Liberal leader's ignorant statements.
Public SafetyJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, this week an internal audit at the Canada Border Services Agency found that the security of seized items is shockingly inadequate. Guns are being left unsecured and illegal drugs are being dumped in garbage cans. More shocking is the government's lack of response.
Justice O'Connor, the Auditor General and New Democrats have all called on the government to give the Canada Border Services Agency proper oversight. 
Will the minister responsible now admit the government's failure to act and commit to provide the CBSA with the oversight it needs and Canadians expect?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, actually the report demonstrates the value of an independent, objective and timely internal audit service. The audit concluded that the control framework for the management of seized goods was not effective in providing assurance to management that seized goods were safeguarded, accounted for and properly disposed of.
CBSA is taking steps to correct that. I expect that most of that will be in place very shortly.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about serious national security concerns especially at airports and the Minister of Transport is making superficial announcements and doing stunts at those very airports. His spy games are not the kind of oversight we need.
Canada's border guards are doing good work to keep Canadians safe, but two internal audits now spanning 10 years show they are not getting the support and oversight they need to keep our streets and communities safe.
Will the government provide the CBSA with the oversight it needs, or should we expect more of the peek-a-boo politics we see from the Minister of Transport?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House and all Canadians that safety and security of Canadians is this government's number one priority and we are getting the job done. We support the recommendations of the Auditor General and agree that we need better tools to help ensure the safety and security of air travel and our government is committed to doing so. This message will remain clear in every province and every territory across Canada. 
What will not remain clear is the Liberal leader's message, because it seems to change from town to town, from city to city and from province to province.
Arts and CultureMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a time when the cultural community faces an uncertain future, Robert Lepage expressed his disappointment yesterday at the Rideau Hall ceremony where he received the Governor General's Performing Arts Award. He said, “I assume that I am receiving this honour because my work has been seen internationally. This is a perfect time to make such a gesture, because the government is jeopardizing assistance for artists who want to tour internationally.”
Once more, artists are condemning this government's lack of vision. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages restore funding for artists who tour abroad, or will he continue to ignore them?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition member.
I am surprised to hear that question from the Bloc Québécois. Look at the Bloc Québécois members. Their voting says it all. They voted against an 8% increase in arts and culture funding. They also recently voted against our 2009 budget, which contained a further 10% increase. Our government is standing up for artists, the arts and culture, and we will continue to do so at home and abroad.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Accent, the part-time language assistant program, has been abolished. This program helped people in minority communities learn and improve their knowledge of French. Just last year, 390 young people became part-time assistants. This program was working well, was appreciated by both the young people and parents, and had the advantage of costing just $2.6 million.
Why is this government making these cuts on the sly, with no transparency?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to explain that there has been no decrease in funding for education. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada is adjusting these language exchange programs to maximize results. In the past five years, applications for Accent, the part-time language assistant program, have dropped by 35%. However, Odyssey, the full-time language assistant program, will be maintained.
Our government is firm. Our commitment to official languages is firm.
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the new Australian government reversed the old Howard government's position and adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Shamefully, Canada remains only one of three countries who oppose this declaration. While Australia continues to improve its relations with its aboriginal peoples, the Conservative government continues to undermine them.
When will the government follow Australia's lead and endorse the UN declaration?
Mr. John Duncan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government takes our international commitments seriously and we are not prepared to sign on to this non-binding document because it is inconsistent with our Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the National Defence Act, Supreme Court rulings, policies under which we negotiate treaties, and does not account for third party interests.
This declaration does not balance the rights of all Canadians. Canada is a world leader on this issue and one of the few nations which provides for constitutionally entrenched aboriginal rights.
This government believes in delivering real results.
Anita Neville: Mr. Speaker, dozens of human rights experts around the country disagree with the government, yet it continues to flaunt it.
The government purports to stand for the rights of indigenous peoples. However, the Conservatives continue to impose their own agenda on them.
If the Conservatives choose to consult, they refuse to listen. If they did listen, they would know that aboriginal groups are against their matrimonial real property legislation.
When will they listen? When will they hear? When will the Conservative government respond to the unanimous call of Canada's indigenous peoples and endorse this UN declaration?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, advocates like that say that the declaration is straightforward and unambiguous. It is clearly not. Four nations initially voted against it, 11 more refused to support it, and 35 states were absent from the vote. I might add that the Liberal administration before ours refused to sign the document as well.
There are more than 50 countries that share our concerns. The declaration in its current form lends itself to many different interpretations. We will stick to delivering--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
Service CanadaMr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in Sault Ste. Marie people are waiting in long lineups to get assistance from Service Canada and it is only going to get worse. On June 1 passports will be necessary to enter the United States and Sault Ste. Marie is a border community. In Sault Ste. Marie, Service Canada is the passport office.
With the recession settling in and hundreds of people losing their jobs in my community, when is the government going to hire more people for its Sault Ste. Marie Service Canada office?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my hon. colleague that Passport Canada has opened a new processing plant. It has expanded regional offices and I assume his office as well. It has nearly doubled the size of its workforce since 2006 and expanded its network to 230 points of service, compared with only 30 under the previous Liberal government.
IndustryClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, Xstrata and Vale Inco signed agreements with the government when Inco took over Falconbridge. Under those agreements, jobs were guaranteed for several more months, but the workers were laid off anyway.
The Minister of Industry had said he would review the agreements, but the workers are still waiting. On February 23, 2009, we asked for access to that agreement, but our request was denied.
What is the minister trying to hide? Why is he abandoning the workers?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member knows that under section 36 of the Investment Canada Act, the minister is not at liberty to go into further detail regarding that issue.
The member might not know that before the budget was voted on in this house, a member of his own party said “Every single important piece that people in the community were looking for is mentioned”. It was the NDP member for Hamilton Mountain who said that.
I would ask the hon. member why would he vote against a budget that contained every single important piece that people in the community were looking for?
InfrastructureMs. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning Canada's transport and infrastructure minister made a significant announcement that will provide additional assistance for municipal infrastructure in all corners of the country. Could the parliamentary secretary to Canada's transport minister please inform the chamber of this important announcement?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hard-working member for the best question of the week. Indeed it is the best question because we have the best answer and the best news for Canadians.
This morning out on the front lawn on Parliament Hill, Canada's transport and infrastructure minister actually announced that as of Wednesday, April 1 this government doubled--that is right, it doubled--the federal gas tax transfer to municipalities from $1 billion to $2 billion. This money is going to Canadians. Also, we will be accelerating the payment schedule. We are moving up the first transfer from July to April this year. That is right, it will be three months earlier, in order to do a better job for Canadians.
Air CanadaMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Air Canada restructured under credit protection in 2004, ACE Aviation Holdings was created to sell off Air Canada's business assets. To do their part, Air Canada employees agreed to allow the company to postpone repayment of its pension liabilities. Air Canada's pension plan is now nearly $4 billion in deficit, with funding obligations of $462 million for 2009.
Having sold off the profitable divisions of Air Canada, ACE is now looking to distribute over $400 million to shareholders, but it has no plans to shore up the Air Canada pension plan.
When is the government going to act to protect Air Canada pensioners and workers?
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, the member is a little late because we are already working on this file very diligently. The government is very concerned about the recent Air Canada situation, and we are watching it very closely. In fact, one of the issues raised is the pension plan.
 The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Macleod, is working on this file. We should expect to hear something shortly, so pay attention. We will get the job done as we get every job done for Canadians.
International CooperationMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous motion yesterday in support of francophone Africa, calling for a review of the list of priority countries for CIDA’s bilateral aid, considering the privileged relations Quebec has with francophone Africa and the importance of the Francophonie in Quebec's international policy. 
Given the consensus reached by the Quebec National Assembly, and considering the submissions made by the Government of Quebec to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, does the Minister of International Cooperation intend to review the decision and support francophone countries in Africa?
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada believes that it is very important to focus our foreign aid, which is what we have done in this program. I have had the opportunity to speak to no less than nine of the countries that have been affected. I know the minister has also spoken to them. They understand what we are doing and why we are doing it, and every one of them is in support of what we are doing.
ChinaMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the previous government consistently failed to raise human rights with China and placed almost exclusive priority on trade issues. The current government got off on the wrong foot by failing to establish a respectful and positive relationship with that important nation. Indeed, the Prime Minister has yet either to visit China or to invite President Hu to Canada.
 We heard that the Minister of International Trade is set to travel to China imminently. Will he commit to raise the issue of respect for human rights in China, and work to establish a productive but principled relationship with that important country?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we always have a respectful relationship with our trading partners. It is also important to mention that we are in the process of opening six new trade offices in China, in six Chinese provinces, and expanded resources in other cities.
The hon. member would like to distort the facts. He would like to say that our international companies and corporations do not respect human rights or the environment. Nothing is further from the truth.
We also recognize that China is our third largest trading partner. We absolutely plan to continue to work in a respectful manner with it.
The EconomyMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action on the economy by working with the provinces to accelerate infrastructure spending to create jobs and to improve our communities. Just yesterday, a big announcement was made at the University of Manitoba.
 Could the minister from Winnipeg please explain more about the investments our government is making, through the building Canada fund, at the University of Manitoba?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, all Manitobans, including students, faculty, staff and athletes, will benefit from a major investment in the sports facilities at the University of Manitoba. This is a $35 million project with the province of Manitoba and this government to ensure there are necessary upgrades to sporting facilities and new sporting facilities at the university. 
This is part of our $12 billion stimulus that will help all Canadians.
Toronto Port AuthorityMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that the Minister of Natural Resources had some exaggerated expenses when she was CEO of the Toronto Port Authority. On top of her $200,000 annual salary and benefits, she spent another $80,000 in travel and hospitality. In response to these expenses, the port authority had to change and clarify its rules, but the Tory-appointed chairman of the port authority would not reveal how these rules were clarified.
This is a public institution. Why the secrecy? What is the government trying to hide?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is very typical of the low and partisan attacks by the Liberal Party. It is well-known and well-documented that all expenses incurred by the former president of the Toronto Port Authority were well within hospitality guidelines. In fact, the board of the port authority had said that all the expenses followed correct procedures and guidelines. The audit committee said the same thing.
Quite frankly, I find it troubling that the members opposite would take an issue such as this to try and smear the reputation of a hard-working minister.
Points of OrderNicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
As many people saw, during question period, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services made an inappropriate and rude gesture concerning me. He clearly suggested that I must have some kind of deficiency because I did not agree with the answer he gave to my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. To me, that was yet another demonstration of some government members' contempt for women, and I would like the minister to apologize for his gesture.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I did not make an inappropriate gesture. I looked at the member because I wanted to convey the idea that she should realize we have to take certain things into account when it comes to protectionism. I did nothing that could be construed as an insult. If that is how she interpreted it, that is unfortunate, but I see no reason to apologize because I did not do what she says I did.
[Interjection]
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but if the minister is showing symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, he should go to a doctor because everyone on this side of the House saw it. He really did make a rude, ill-mannered gesture.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I did not see anything.

Routine Proceedings
Canadian Security Intelligence ServiceDave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present, in both official languages, two copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, public report for the fiscal year 2007-08.
Committees of the HouseMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
Canada Health ActGlenn Thibeault:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-360, An Act to amend the Canada Health Act (Autism Spectrum Disorder).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the seconder of this bill, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
I am pleased today to introduce this private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Health Act, and to look at how we can include autism spectrum disorder in it.
 Yesterday was World Autism Awareness Day. I still wear my awareness pin proudly. We as parliamentarians need to work together to provide individuals with ASD and their families with the right supports. IBI training is a step in the right direction, but we need a national strategy.
I look forward to the day when all parties can stand together and show our support for individuals and families dealing with autism.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from my riding and from the surrounding area.
 The petitioners ask the government to introduce a new volunteer service medal award, to be known as the Governor General's volunteer service medal, to acknowledge and recognize volunteerism by Canadian troops.
They point out that during the period of September 1939 to March 1947 and also from June 1950 to 1954, Canadians who served our country received a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal. They ask the government to respectfully recognize this by means of the issuance of a new Canadian volunteer service medal, to be designated the Governor General's volunteer service medal, for those who have served since March 2, 1947. This would be for volunteer service by Canadians in the regular and reserve military forces and cadet corps support staff who were not eligible for the aforementioned medals and who have completed 365 days of uninterrupted honourable duty in the service of their country.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a large number of petitions signed by residents in my riding and beyond on the occasion of the one thousandth day of captivity of the kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. 
The petitioners protest his abduction from Israel during a cease fire arrangement with Hamas-ruled Gaza, where he is being held in complete isolation. The petitioners note he has been denied any and all rights afforded to him under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention to which Canada is a state party and which rights Canadians have a commitment to respect.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to insist that the Red Cross, United Nations and other humanitarian agencies uphold the applicable standards of humanitarian law, including proof of life, to visit the kidnapped soldier and communication between him and his family as a bare minimum, to insist that the governing Palestinian authority commit itself to the repatriation of Mr. Gilad Shalit and to use Canada's good office, in bilateral and multilateral discussions, to put an end to these violations of international humanitarian law, secure Gilad Shalit's release and return him to his family as a matter of fundamental decency and justice.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting a petition on the subject of the escalating level of communal violence against the Jewish community of Venezuela, a group which has been subjected over the past several years to an increasing and alarming level of violence, going back to 2004 when Venezuelan police authorities carried out a raid on one of the Jewish schools in the country. More recent, we have all heard of attacks on a synagogue in Venezuela. What Canadians may be even less aware of is the general abusive and dangerous language being applied by Hugo Chávez, the leader of Venezuela.
The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to do four things: first, express its outrage at government sponsored anti-Semitic activities directly to the government of Venezuela and its diplomatic representatives; second, to demand an independent investigation of attacks on the Venezuela Jewish community; third, to act on the London Declaration of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, which calls for a governmental response to activities like those carried out by President Chávez; and finally, to work with our international partners to ensure the protection of Venezuela's Jewish community and to safeguard against further anti-Semitic activities in that country.
Finally, the petitioners note their respect for the people of Venezuela, who they believe to be an honourable people, and do not support the activities of Mr. Chávez and other hooligans who have engaged in these kinds of activities.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 59 will be answered today. 
Mr. Dennis Bevington:  Did the government intervene in any way in the complaint against Dr. John O'Connor of Fort Chipewyan in Alberta, laid before the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons and, if so, (i) in which way, (ii) for what reasons, and (iii) which departments were involved?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, Health Canada physicians in their role as public health specialists for the department lodged the complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. No other government departments were involved.
Given that this matter is currently under investigation, neither Health Canada nor its physicians are able to comment publicly on the investigation. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 66 and 69 could be made ordered for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Luc Malo:  With respect to Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, for the 2008-2009 fiscal year: (a) how much money has been spent do date; (b) how much money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year; (c) for what specific line item was this money spent; (d) what portion of this money, in detail, was spent on hospitality, transportation, travel or liaising with stakeholders?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Alexandra Mendes:  Regarding requests for financial assistance made to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 financial years, by regional office, how many requests were approved and how many were rejected when submitted for the authorization of (i) the Regional Director, (ii) the General Director for Regional Coordination, (iii) the Vice-President for Operations, (iv) the President, (v) the Minister?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity speak today at second reading of Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, which is a long title.
I will first tell the House what this bill is not about. It is not about the RCMP, in general, as an organization. I think as all Canadians know, and for the benefit of those watching, it is important to understand that this debate is not about the issues that our party and other Canadians have with some of the actions of the RCMP, in particular, RCMP management failing to take appropriate measures to protect Canadians in terms of the policies regarding tasers and the ongoing debate about that. 
We are concerned of course about the failure to have policies that meet the test of Canadian values. We are very concerned about the failure of the government to provide proper civilian oversight of the RCMP, which was called for by Justice O'Connor and was implicit in Mr. Justice Iacobucci's recommendations. The Auditor General has pointed out some of the problems. We are also concerned about the government's failure to apologize for RCMP actions that contributed to the international torture of Canadians in Syria and Egypt.
Those are all things we have concerns about but this bill is not about those things. This bill is about the pay and benefits and the proper treatment of individuals who serve in our Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have a great respect for the work they do in protecting our communities. They serve, as members know, in many provinces as the provincial police force. They do in British Columbia and in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the exception of St. John's, Cornerbrook and Labrador City which are under the jurisdiction of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. They are a very important part of rural Canada. They are the means of support for our communities, not only in terms of providing great policing and risking their lives in providing safety to our communities, but they also play an important role in community activities as volunteers, as leaders of sports activities, being role models for individuals and those who wish to serve their country. We do have a lot of respect for what the RCMP do in our communities across the country.
On the issue of pay and benefits, we are concerned that the government, after agreeing with the RCMP, through its special service representatives, on a pay increase that was to take effect this year, putting it in its manuals and in its HR provisions, unilaterally withdrew that and reduced the pay increase, effectively reducing their pay. We are very supportive of the RCMP members in their campaign to reverse that decision. We are not happy with some of the things that the government has done.
We do, however, support this legislation which is designed to provide a level playing field for Mounties when it comes to their pensions, particularly with respect to the portability of service. 
In the federal public service, there are 75 transfer agreements with other agencies to allow the transfer of pensionable service from one employment to another. It is true for members of this House and it is true for most public servants under the public service pensions benefits act. It is also true in other parts of the country.
This legislation is long overdue. Legislation was passed in 1999 that was supposed to allow for portability of pensions. However, when the government finally, five or six years later, got around to drafting the regulations to make it possible, it was determined the legislation itself was inadequate to do what needed to be done. 
Therefore, here we are again, 10 years later, passing legislation to enable this to happen. I am certainly disappointed in that because I know the RCMP members have been looking for this kind of pension portability since the mid-1990s.
This is long overdue but we do need to study it. We support the principle of it because it is very important. Many individuals serving in municipal police forces across the country providing yeomen service to their communities may want to transfer into the RCMP and they should be able to take their pension service and pension credits with them. This bill would allow them to do that.
It is important that we have that kind of portability. It should be available to Canadians generally, but in this particular case we are dealing with employees of the Government of Canada through the RCMP and we want to assure people that we support these changes.
The other important part of this bill is that it would allow agreements to be made with other agencies to transfer those pension credits and the money that goes with them, because, frankly, every time there is pensionable service, there has to be an amount of money set aside. It is usually defined by actuaries as to how much money it would take to actually pay out the pension that one has earned and that money would be transferred in.
This bill would also give members of the RCMP the opportunity to buy back previous service. Even though eligible service may not have been pensionable in the other work, it would now be pensionable through this bill. There are provisions for the member who is paying the actuarial value of that, essentially buying into the service that is deemed to be pensionable service for the purpose of this bill.
This bill has significant monetary implications for individual members but it is designed to create a system that provides fairness to RCMP members, whether they are coming into the RCMP from another service or with other pensionable service, such as Canadian Forces service, military police service and other kinds of service that are deemed appropriate to be included in pensionable service for police officers, or whether they are going out of the RCMP for another opportunity in a different police service. 
We could have members of the RCMP who want to apply for jobs in other communities with another police service. This could be a significant advancement for that individual into a more senior position. We would not want them to be stuck in a job because of pension inflexibility when there are other opportunities for them.
We support the bill in principle. We have been advised that a couple of questions have been asked by RCMP officers, some of whom are part of the official group called the staff relations representatives, an internal RCMP group elected by the members in various provinces and who are on the RCMP payroll. It is not a union, which is another issue on which we are unhappy with the government. The government has been fighting unionization in the courts, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that RCMP officers are entitled to the benefits of the freedom of association guaranteed to everyone in this country under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, they are still having to fight and another court case is going on now.
The RCMP staff relations representatives are pleased that this bill is coming forward after more than a dozen years of trying to get this forward. However, other organizations and associations are seeking unionization and they brought forth some concerns as well.
As others have said, we do need to recognize that this is a very technical bill. Pensions are very technical and require actuarial considerations where costing is concerned. Any time a change is made, a cost is associated with it but the question is whether the cost will be borne by the individual who is getting the benefit or by the government for other policy reasons.
I will not be proposing changes here on the floor of this House at second reading. The bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security where there will be opportunities to look at the kinds of changes that might need to be made. There may need to be some adjustments to fix anomalies.
One anomaly that has been suggested to me is the potential problem of discriminatory treatment between people who have perhaps had their training with another force. I do not know all of the facts but the suggestion is that the training component in other police forces, the work they do as recruits, as cadets, is paid for in pensionable service. I think the OPP was mentioned as an example. Someone transferring from the OPP into the RCMP pension fund will be able to take that pensionable service with them and get credit for it.
RCMP officers who are recruited today and go to their training as cadets, are now paid. The six months that they spend training, they are salaried employees and, presumably, covered by the pensionable service. However, existing RCMP officers who were trained years ago, whether it was 2 years ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, that period of training is not included in their pensionable service. That seems to me to be an anomaly and there may need to be some arrangements made to allow that to be pensionable service so there is a level playing field. Some provision may need to be made for either that to be placed in pensionable service or that the members may be able to buy back that service as part of their overall pension.
Those are technical things about which we would look forward to hearing from the RCMP members themselves, whether retired or active, whether they are involved with a staff relations representative or whether they are involved with those organizations that are seeking unionization.
Having said all that, I do want to say that we support the bill. It is an important advancement for the benefits of RCMP members. It is something we can support on a stand-alone basis while we criticize the government for its inaction on a lot of other points, whether they be the wage rates that were rolled back, the failure to support unionization or the failure on another level to make changes to the RCMP organization that we think are desirable.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear that my friend from the NDP will be voting in favour of this legislation, subject, of course, to some of the issues that may come up in public safety committee, of which we are both members.
I listened intently to his preamble, which really had nothing to do with the bill, so I think it offers an opportunity for some questions that actually have to do with the bill. 
One of the issues he talked about and the reason NDP members are supporting the bill is that it is good for the RCMP. I am glad to hear they will be supporting the bill but, of course, the vote in the House will be the determining factor as to whether they do. We have been disappointed by some of those votes, which relate directly to support of the RCMP. I refer to budgetary items such as the hiring of 1,600 members of the RCMP. When we work really hard, we need extra bodies to help, and he and his party voted against that. 
He and members of his party also voted against money to expand Depot so they could train those new officers. He also voted against some of the other measures we took that will greatly enhance the RCMP's ability to do their job. 
I wonder if he would like to comment on those additional things. Why did he vote against those measures?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, does the member really think Canadians are that stupid that they do not understand that nobody votes separately on a budget item in this House, such as whether we should increase the number of police officers? We support the increasing of support for the RCMP, and we have supported that publicly. We know it helps to make communities safer. We need to act to prevent crime, not just treat criminals with the kind of harsh measures that the government seems to have as the only solution. 
Members opposite do this every day. They think that Canadians are really stupid and they do not understand that when we vote for a budget, it is the entire budget, all the bad things. The budget, for example, contains the rollback of RCMP wages. All the negative things are also in the budget. A budget is a statement of confidence in the government and we do not have it, which is why we voted against the budget. 
It is not a question of voting against individual measures. Obviously there are many positive things in any budget. If what the member said were true, no budget would ever be defeated and no one would ever really bother to have budget votes. The government would just say that this is its budget and everyone will support it because otherwise they will be voting against something positive.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for St. John's East for his fine speech and for his indication that the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading. 
I want to ask him something specifically about the importance of this legislation. In the province of British Columbia and in Newfoundland as well RCMP officers in many of our communities are the only police force. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the RCMP is the only police force there. I also understand that in many of our communities, and again this is the case in my community, we often have difficulty in filling the vacancies for RCMP officers. The bill currently before us may help in some of that recruitment and retention.
I wonder if the member could comment first of all on some of the challenges he sees with recruitment and retention of RCMP officers, but also how the implications in Bill C-10, which roll back that agreement, will contribute to some challenges for the RCMP in recruiting the members that many of our communities rely on. Rural and remote communities are often not the first community of choice. If we cannot make sure that RCMP officers are treated fairly with their wages and pensions, we are going to have increasing difficulties. I wonder if the member could comment on that.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, with regard to RCMP officers, first and foremost they are people with careers with families, who want to understand that they have financial security and that they are treated fairly. The bill is an aspect of that. They are going to have more security in their jobs and are more likely to stay in those jobs, and undertake the responsibilities of working in small communities, doing their duty in places where others may not wish to go because they will know they are being treated well by their pension system. That is an enhancement of that.
The taking away of pay increases is a bit of a breach of faith and does go the other way and increases the insecurity that RCMP members feel. We are very disappointed with that and why we strongly opposed it. It does affect recruitment and also affects perhaps even more retention, the people who might want to stay for an extra two years knowing they are going to get an increase, and that their pension will be increased and their security after work is going to be increased. They might say, “I might as well get out now because I am not being treated fairly while I am in”, so that is important as well.
First and foremost they are workers, they have families and careers, and they deserve fairness.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18 which is an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other acts.
From some briefings that were provided in terms of the content of the bill, I want to highlight a couple of the aspects of the bill. I also want to thank the member for St. John's East for highlighting some of the challenges that will be brought forward in committee. The NDP is firmly in support of the bill and the member for St. John's East has identified a few problems that could be resolved at committee, and hopefully the government and other members of the House will take a look at some of the shortfalls in the bill.
The bill aims to make RCMP pensions more portable by allowing for the expansion of existing election for prior service provisions and permitting the introduction of pension transfer agreements.
The pension portability schemes are generally enacted to improve recruitment options especially for lateral applicants. Without pension portability provisions, such as those allowed by Bill C-18, pension credits with former employers, for example, with a municipal police force, would not be transferrable to the RCMP pension plan, making a lateral transfer to the RCMP less attractive.
The introduction of pension transfer arrangements will allow the RCMP to enter into formal arrangements with other Canadian pension plans to permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the RCMP pension plan. Once implemented the pension transfer agreement sections will bring the RCMP pension plan into line with the federal public service pension plan which has approximately 770 pension transfer agreements.
We can see from that very brief outline that this is a very technical bill, but we can see that these kinds of pension agreements are already in place within the public service. It seems reasonable that the RCMP, who play such a critical role in many of our communities, should be able to have access to the same kinds of arrangements.
The member for St. John's East touched upon this, but I want to remind the House that these proposed changes have actually been in the works since 1995. Once again, what we have is long delays in dealing with some legislative amendments that could have been dealt with more than 10 to 15 years ago. It happened in 1995, in 1999, and it happened again in 2005.
Both the Conservatives and the Liberals simply could not get their act together in terms of addressing this anomaly. 
I am pleased that it has now come before the House, but I want to touch on a couple of other points that I know the member for St. John's East raised. I want to touch on them just so that people understand that the bill is still not perfect.
There have been some questions raised about the anomalies in the fact that although current recruits are being paid during training, previous recruits were not being paid. There are some concerns that they will not get the pension credit for that six months of unpaid training. That has changed, but there are current RCMP officers who are serving, who do not have that pension credit or the possibility of that pension credit. Therefore, I am sure that will be raised in committee.
There are other concerns that have been raised around the fact that civilian employees for the RCMP are treated differently. Again, I am sure that will be raised in committee with an opportunity for potential amendments.
I just want to talk about the importance of this for a moment. In the briefing that was provided it talked about recruitment and retention. In my community of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the RCMP are a vital part of the community. The RCMP is our police force. In the province of British Columbia, many of our communities are in that position. I know in Newfoundland that is also the case.
Therefore, this bill is an important one in terms of both recruitment of officers and ongoing retention. I know that in my own community of North Cowichan, as a previous municipal councillor I was part of the protective services committee. One of our roles was examining the agreement that we had between the RCMP, the province and then of course the municipalities. We were consistently short of officers.
I live in a very beautiful part of the country. It was not an issue around RCMP officers wanting to work in my community. It was the fact that recruitment was often an issue. Retention was an issue. There were some challenges with leave provisions. For example, when an officer went on maternity leave at that time, there were no provisions to replace that officer.
Bill C-18 is a very important factor when we talk about recruitment and retention. In many remote communities, it is very difficult to find officers to serve there. We need to make sure we are providing a compensation package, which includes pensions, that is very attractive so that we can recruit and retain.
There is another issue that has come up and has been mentioned a number of times in the House. When Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, was put forward, it negated the agreement that had been put in place with RCMP officers around wage improvements. I know members throughout the House have been receiving letters, phone calls and emails about the unfairness of this. 
I have an email from an officer who wanted to make sure that members understood the potential impact of the negating of that agreement in Bill C-10. The email states:
 For the last 135 years, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been at the heart of our communities, serving Canadians and keeping us safe. 
 From stopping liquor trafficking and gaining the respect and confidence of Aboriginal peoples to fighting child sexual exploitation and clamping down on gang and gun crime; Canada's national police force has always counted on men and women of sound constitution and good character to serve and protect. And for more than a century, that's exactly what thousands have done. 
 On December 11, 2008, Treasury Board modified a previously signed wage agreement that ensured the RCMP could compete for the best and brightest new talent and offer an incentive for seasoned members to stay with the force. The original agreement was supported by the Commissioner, the Minister of Public Safety and approved by Treasury Board as recently as June 2008. 
 Changes to this previously-enshrined agreement will inflict irreparable damage to ongoing efforts to retain current members and will have serious consequences for recruiting new cadets--a stated priority for this government--who do not qualify for incentives afforded to members with more than five years experience. 
 This Treasury Board decision poses long-term challenges for bolstering public safety in Canada. Without significant changes, the legacy of this decision will be a series of negative and enduring repercussions for RCMP capacity building; particularly when it comes to recruiting new cadets. 
Further on, the email goes on to state:
 I write to ask that you act to protect the integrity of Canadian public safety; frontline RCMP officers ask only that the existing, signed agreement be allowed to stand. In full-recognition of the serious economic challenges we face as a country, the men and women of the RCMP are committed to abide by the letter and the spirit of that agreement for the next two years. 
It goes on to talk about the fact that the RCMP, of course, played a significant role in this country's development and expansion, and that it will continue to play a very important role in public safety in our communities.
Again, I come back to my own community of Nanaimo-Cowichan. I know RCMP officers there are absolutely dedicated women and men who often contribute a lot of their own personal time to be involved with youth, first nations and a variety of community organizations. They often sit on committees contributing in a very positive way to the overall health and well-being of our communities.
I would argue that we should ensure once again to not only look at pension changes that will significantly contribute to recruitment and retention but that we also look at negotiated signed agreements. I know the member for St. John's East raised the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of the RCMP to form a union and the current government continues to fight that.
The RCMP has a staff association in place to represent its interests. My understanding is that RCMP members have stated that they would agree not to strike, but there is no reason why, in a democratic country, our police force could not have the mechanism to organize and represent itself in terms of labour management issues.
One of the reasons that this discussion around pensions is so critical is because in today's current economic climate there are some serious challenges with pensions. One of the elements that was raised in a current pension issues and trends paper talks about bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. Fortunately, at this point, the RCMP's pension fund is not in this kind of situation and would not likely ever be.
Many Canadians are very concerned about what is happening to their pensions in the current economic climate. One of the things that has been identified is this bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. It states: 
 The laws concerning bankruptcy protection and pension insurance are closely related to the rules governing pension funding. If pensions are fully funded when employers enter bankruptcy protection, then bankruptcy laws do not matter much to the fate of the pension plan. On the other hand, if pension plans are underfunded when the employer becomes bankrupt, then the question of the nature of the claim that the pension fund has on the bankrupt company is critical, as is the question of whether the pension deficiency is insured. 
This is just one aspect of some very serious problems going on with pensions right now. The member from Hamilton will be going out to the public to talk about the kinds of reforms that are needed to pension plans.
 Bill C-18 talks about portability. Many members will be surprised that I am quoting from a C.D. Howe Institute commentary on pensions, but the portability of pensions is an absolutely critical aspect. Again, for RCMP officers we are recognize that portability of their pensions is extremely important. Members of municipal police forces should have the ability to move from the municipal police force to the RCMP and not lose their pension credits. It is a very important aspect.
The C.D. Howe Institute is talking about pension portability from job to job across Canada. It is not talking specifically about RCMP officers; it is talking about all Canadians. I would argue that as we set the standard for RCMP officers to have that portability, we should make sure that other Canadians have that pension portability as well.
In this particular case, the C.D. Howe Institute makes another recommendation. To put it into context, it says, “Canadians must understand that they all do not need to become experts in life-cycle finance and investments to achieve this goal”. It is talking about maintaining standards of living in retirement. The member for Sault Ste. Marie has been a tireless advocate on poverty generally but certainly on poverty as it relates to seniors. One of the aspects that significantly impacts on seniors is changes that were made to the Canada pension plan.
In the context of the Canada pension plan, I am getting a number of emails from people who are concerned about what is happening with the investments in the Canada pension plan. People want us to raise that here in the House. They are concerned about how the Canada pension plan is currently managed. However, that is outside the scope of Bill C-18.
The C.D. Howe Institute indicates that Canadians should be insisting that their elected representatives and employers play informed and constructive roles in inserting the major missing piece in Canada's current pension system that would deal with the inadequate coverage in retirement savings facing millions of Canadians.
Part of the issue is that, first of all, many Canadians simply do not have a pension plan. We are talking about portability in the context of Bill C-18, that pension plans in Canada largely are not portable and we cannot take them from job to job, and because we are talking about this with Bill C-18, I would argue that at some point we need to introduce legislation that talks about portability across this country.
I touched on the bankruptcy provisions. Many pension plans in this country are underfunded. If a company goes into bankruptcy protection, workers are at risk. In my riding we see forestry company after forestry company laying off people. There are some concerns as these companies go into bankruptcy protection with their underfunded pensions that workers who have worked 30 and 40 years, rather than going into retirement, have to go back to work. It is critical that we, as a House, perhaps using Bill C-18 as a kickoff point, look at conducting a broader pension review. I know the government has been talking about examining what is happening with pensions, but we need to move on this very quickly.
 Women have been very concerned about what is happening with pensions because many women do not have either a private or a public pension. We are very concerned that we will see an increase in seniors living in poverty.
Many women have been in part-time, seasonal, contractual employment. This means that when they retire at the age of 60 or 65, they will only have access to the Canada pension plan, and because they have been in that kind of part-time, seasonal, contract employment, they will not have the full Canada pension plan.
The group WE*ACT has put together a number of very good proposals for overall reforms to the pension system. Unless we act quickly, we are going to see a spike in seniors poverty once again. I would encourage the House to use Bill C-18 as a catalyst to move quickly.
Again with Bill C-18, we have seen a bill that was looking at amendments back in 1995. We simply cannot wait that long for the kind of pension reform that is necessary. There is a wave of baby boomers, the first edge of which is turning 65 as we speak, that is going to change the face of retirement in this country. All too often we ear very sad stories about people who, after working for over 40 years, come up to retirement and find that they have to work at a McJob to survive in retirement.
There are a whole number of other issues that are facing seniors as they retire, such as the lack of availability of long-term care, home care support, access to prescription drugs, access to hospitals, and access to all kinds of other support programs for seniors. That is outside the scope of Bill C-18, but I would hope that we would put together a proactive package that looks at that whole range of issues.
We often hear in this House of the social determinants of health. I would argue that we also need to look at the social determinants of aging, and at such things as housing and income security. Because there is this wave of baby boomers coming up to retirement, this would be an opportunity for us to be proactive and we could put together a package that would have some meaningful impact on people as they retire.
In conclusion, Bill C-18 is a very important move toward protecting our ability to make sure that our communities are kept safe. It is important that we put together a package that will encourage young men and women to see the RCMP as a viable career opportunity, and make sure that the pensions help in our ability to retain police officers.
I am very pleased to say that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. I look forward to hearing from the member for St. John's East about testimony that will come forward at committee. Perhaps some amendments will be made to deal with some of the deficiencies that are currently in the bill before the House. Hopefully it will help us to ensure that our communities stay safe and well protected.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.
My colleague is someone who knows very well the issues of our aboriginal and first nations people. We all want to see more recruitment and retention of aboriginal and first nations people in the service. Does she see this as an opportunity to invite more aboriginal and first nations people into the service? If the pensions were portable, people right now who might be fully trained and are wanting to go into the service could take their pension, which perhaps is with the public service, and go into the RCMP.
The other question I have is in regard to the need of our rural areas to have more representation in the RCMP of people who are from the rural areas. Does she see this bill as helping in any way to recruit people from the rural areas, as well as aboriginal and first nations people?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Anybody who has ever worked in human resources management knows that an essential part of recruiting people to a particular career or profession is to ensure that attractive packages are in place. One of the aspects of Bill C-18 is the portability of pensions when officers have served with other police forces. In many parts of this country there are tripartite agreements in place where the police force is band operated. I would hope the bill would include that.
Tripartite agreements are a whole separate issue. In many communities, we have had a great deal of difficulty because either the provincial government or the federal government is dragging its feet when it comes to signing those tripartite agreements so that first nations officers serve their own communities. However, that is another issue. The portability of pensions is extremely important around an attractive incentive program to recruit and retain officers.
Rural officers are the other aspect of this. Many of this country's communities are either fly-in communities or they are not easily accessible by rail or road. It is absolutely essential to recruit rural officers who have a good understanding of what it is like to live in a rural community. Again, the portability of pensions is an important aspect. Officers from large urban centres may want to go to remote and rural communities. However, they will not be able to transfer their pensions from a municipal police force to the RCMP force if we do not pass this bill.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her statement and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre standing up and making sure that we are able to ask questions. I want to highlight a couple of things about Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. 
Last month in my riding, I had the opportunity to attend the Tri-Force Regimental Charity Ball. It is an event that is put on by our local police forces: the RCMP, the OPP and the greater Sudbury regional police. This is just another example of the great work done by our law enforcement officers across our great land. They raise money for local charities. Specifically, this one was for Crime Stoppers. It was during that event that several RCMP officers approached me to talk about a few things that were happening here on the Hill. They talked about their concern for the rollback of their wages. Another discussion was about the portability of their pensions. Many of the officers approaching retirement age want to ensure that they have a secure retirement that they can enjoy.
It is important for us as parliamentarians to outline what we think are the important pieces of this bill that will benefit RCMP officers. I would like the hon. member to do that for us.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, I was reminded that about a month ago there was an RCMP appreciation night in the city of Nanaimo. The funds raised went toward supporting the local mid-island crisis and relief centres. Thousands of dollars were raised that night. It was a way of honouring the RCMP officers, but it was also a way of working with the RCMP to raise funds for a very important initiative. The RCMP officers generously gave of their time to attend that event and support the crisis centres. They also work very closely with the crisis centres. We know that those crisis centres have saved lives.
As members have pointed out, this is a very technical bill, but the portability of pensions is absolutely critical. We have been talking about the fact that the non-portability has been a barrier. 
Also, RCMP officers have not been paid as well as other police officers in this country. That is the sad part of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. It rolls back a negotiated wage increase that would have made some steps toward the RCMP being paid the same rate as other police forces. 
Right now, the non-portability of pensions is a deterrent to attracting officers. If officers want to move from a municipal force to the RCMP, it is a deterrent for them to do it because they will not get credit for their time served with the other police forces. This bill will remedy that. That is an important step toward recruitment and retention. Again, I believe that all members in the House will be supporting the bill. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member from British Columbia, in Northern Ontario, in the Nickel Belt and in Sudbury we do not have RCMP officers. We have the Greater Sudbury Police Service, which is second to none, and I want to make that quite clear.
If we had RCMP officers in Northern Ontario, what would they bring to those communities?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. What we would not want to see is the RCMP poaching from some of the very good police forces that are in place. That is not the objective of this.
The RCMP has extensive experience in rural and remote communities throughout the country. In many parts of the country the RCMP is the only police force. What It would bring to places like Northern Ontario is an understanding of what it is like to serve in rural and remote communities.
I think most of us, if we have not been lucky enough to visit some of these communities, have no understanding of what it is like to live in them, where fly-in is the only access. Some communities are accessible by ice roads, but with climate change, access times are diminished.
First, the officers bring training and experience that helps them work in these communities. For example, they are often on call 24/7. We know that has been a problem in some of the communities because they have been unable to retain or recruit officers. Also, they are very visible. In the rural and remote communities the officers are on the streets every day. They are very visible and the community is small enough so everybody recognizes them. They also play an important part, and I addressed this earlier, in the overall health and well-being of the community. They would bring a very broad perspective to some of the northern communities in Ontario.
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to put a few thoughts on the record today about the bill and about why this caucus intends to support it. However, we also think it is important we have a debate around it.
If members have read the briefing notes that were prepared for the legislation, they will know we are cleaning up work that should have been done more effectively and properly under the Liberals back in the 1990s, when they passed an act on pensions for RCMP officers.
Over the last few years we have changed the rules for doing business in the interest of expediting the will of the governing party to the detriment of a good political process of oversight, which includes getting it right the first time, dotting all the is and crossing all the ts. Instead of doing that, we are back here today cleaning up work that should have been done right the first time.
In the few minutes I have, I want to talk about that because it is important. The bill, as presented, is a bit of a no brainer in terms of people supporting it. We thank the government for bringing it forward and we all need to get behind it. However, we need to ensure we do the right thing, which is to committee. Then we can invite all those who will be affected by it, or who may want to speak to it because of other concerns, or may want to bring other ideas to the table before the committee. We want to ensure they get a chance to do that.
Because of the way the House has been operating, particularly surprisingly under a minority government, legislation gets pushed through rather rapidly. Many people are concerned that we do not understand the full and complete impact of legislation on the lives of those who are directly affected by it and those who may be indirectly affected by it at the end of the day. Therefore, we need to look at that.
The other thing I want to speak about for a few minutes is something close to my heart. As I have done my work on trying to eradicate poverty in our country, I have been looking at this for quite some time. I have been at it now for almost 18 and a half years, both at the provincial legislature in Toronto and the federal level.
 This comes from my work in the community where I ran a soup kitchen and worked with families that were under stress, trying to ensure their children would get a good start in life. They wanted to ensure they were supported and were aware of and knowledgeable about the services provided by governments and other organizations so they could live in dignity, as children, as families and as seniors.
It is important for all us to consider what we do for those who are perhaps in more privileged positions, and say that with some caution. They might not always be as privileged as some might think. However, for those who have pension plans, we need to ensure we make it as fulsome, supportive and as lucrative as possible for them. They have worked and have paid into it and they deserve it because of that effort.
The great majority of Canadians do not have pensions, never mind the portability of pensions. The government needs to think about that as well, as we move the bill through the House. A lot of seniors across the country are struggling to make ends meet. Even on the very good program under Canada pension, because of inflation, the cost of living and other factors, seniors are struggling to pay their bills, their rent, their mortgages and their ever-increasing fuel costs. They have worked hard to build our country. They have participated in the industry of our country. Now they are in their twilight years and they find themselves struggling.
We are talking about enhancing pensions for a particular group in our society, which is the right thing to do, to ensure those pensions are portable. What they have earned by way of pension in other sectors, they get to take it with them to new sectors. It is important that we consider others who would love to be in a position of having a pension, other than Canada pension, to live on in their future years.
I want to talk a bit about that. We are living in difficult economic times. Many people struggled and pinched pennies to put away a little something above and beyond the Canada pension so they would have something to allow them to stay in their homes, or to look after family members, or to educate their kids or for their grandchildren who end up at their doors, who they have to look after. This bit of extra money set aside in their working years has now almost completely disappeared. We did not put in place those rules and regulations, which we now say we should look at for the RCMP, to protect and guaranteed that their money would be there for them when they retired.
I would like to go back to the whole issue of the process and why we are here today. It is 10 years after the Liberal government of the day passed a bill that affected the pensions of RCMP. The Liberal government did not finish job. Somehow things fell off the table or were pushed under the carpet.
We do not pay enough attention to the importance of the processes that we put in place. Earlier in our history people may perhaps say we were not as sophisticated or connected communication-wise to ensure what we did was here the right thing. We need to ensure that when we do something, we do it completely and we understand the full ramifications of how it affects people.
Having served in the provincial legislature, as the member knows only too well because he worked there, the rules of that place were changed three times under three different political parties. The first time was when the provincial Liberals became the majority government in the late 1980s and they tried to rush their agenda through the legislature, without due process or considering the input of so many who had something to say or had some concerns about some of the legislation. 
I remember some of the Liberal members were totally opposed and angry about what was going on. They explained what the impact would be, but nobody would listen because the government of the day was in a big hurry. It wanted to make changes and put in place the things it thought were in the best interests of the broader public, which at the end of the day sometimes turned out not to be. With the new rule changes, members were not given the chance to consider what could have been done to make it better.
I remember my party, when it became government in 1990, did the same thing. We were not sure we would be there very long, and that turned out to be the case. We wanted to get stuff done. We had pent up expectations when we finally came to power in 1990. We did not want these old-fashioned, long-term, difficult processes or hurdles, such as going to committee, going out on the road, listening to people, listening to more people and considering their input. We were in a hurry. We wanted to get it done.
To be frank and honest, we did some things as government, at that time, that had we thought longer about, had we opened up to more public input, listened to more people and been more considerate about, we might not have done. It might not have been so damaging to us politically at the end of the day. We got thumped big time in 1995 because of some of the things we did, not all of the things. 
We did some pretty good things, I have to say, between 1990 and 1995, some of them in the area of social policy where we changed rules and regulations in the workplace, for example, and we tried to improve the lot of seniors and our first nations in the jurisdiction of Ontario. 
However, we did some things that we might have thought longer about, that we might have been more willing to expose to the processes of the legislature at that particular point in time, which would have been helpful to us and ultimately to the broader public of Ontario. We did not do so and we paid a political price later. 
I say that to the government members in this place at this time, and I say it to the Liberals because they are propping up the government in its rush, in its haste to move forward on some things. I believe we would all be better served if we took a little bit longer and if we were more open to constructive criticism from others, not only inside the House but others out there who may want to speak to the issues, who have more to offer, who may have more understanding or may have studied or researched longer some of the things we address here as, for the most part, generalists. We need to respect the role of committees. We need to allow committees to do the work that committees are thought able to do, or at one time in our history, did, when they travelled across the country.
As a matter of fact, I speak to people who served in both the House of Commons and legislatures across this country in days gone by, who would not only travel across Canada to hear from people on things like the piece of legislation before us today and other very important public policy matters, but would travel across the world to get input, to see what other people were doing, to hear from other people as to whether what they tried worked, how it is working now, how long they had been at it, and what else should be considered as we look at the same challenge that perhaps they have dealt with, maybe in a different way. Perhaps we could add to it and we would contribute our intelligence to that discussion as well.
We seem to be, in this place these days, in one heck of a hurry to get through things, to get stuff out the door and to change the way we interact with each other, do public business and put in place public policy.
I believe, in the end, that will not only hurt the government party that is in power, as it bears the responsibility and the brunt of mistakes that often get made in that kind of environment, but it affects all of us who have been sent here to give leadership, to be responsible, to take responsibility and to act on behalf of our constituents, those communities that are so fragile, particularly in the difficult economy that we face right now. It is important that we do the right thing. 
We are inviting other members of the House of Commons to get up and speak to the bill and so many other pieces of legislation that work their way through the House these days, on which we seem to be the only ones speaking. 
Every now and again we hear from a member of the Bloc Québécois, who are certainly engaged in an interesting and important way in the development of social policy, in my experience, for Quebec and for this country. 
However, mostly in this place these days, every afternoon, day after day, it is New Democrats standing up, raising issues, putting on the table concerns we have, introducing the research we have done on behalf of a certain piece of public policy or an approach that the government wants to take, challenging it and pointing out the deficiencies, suggesting changes that would make it better, suggesting that the work we do here that is so important find its way to committees so that we can bring in other people and have their input. Then we can listen to them, and at the end of the day, once we have heard from those people, we can actually make amendments to the bill that would reflect the fact that we heard and listened. We do not think we have all the answers. Somebody else might bring something else to the table. So we need to do that.
We are saying it again in this instance, as we have week after week, month after month, over the last four and a half years that I have been here, as subsequent governments, first Liberal then Conservative, have tried to ram stuff through in a hurry, in a way that presents opportunity for mistakes to be made. 
Back in the late 1990s when there was a bill presented to the House to be helpful to RCMP officers and their recruitment, in giving them the comfort they need to go out there and do their job well because they know they are going to be looked after in their retirement years, we dropped the ball. We made a mistake. This place made a mistake. Somehow this fell through the cracks. 
I would hope and expect that it did get before committee, although there is even the odd time in this place when a piece of work that is going to affect so many finds it way through first, second and third reading without even getting to committee. We need to think long and hard about that. Often that kind of haste is a mistake, and if that is what has happened in this instance with this bill, here we are now, trying to correct it, and hopefully we will correct it. 
Hopefully we will deal with the bill in a way that will reflect the spirit of the bill, what is intended, and that it will be sent to committee and we will invite witnesses, and if need be, we will travel a bit to hear from people who perhaps cannot come and speak to us about what impact they think this will have, so that we can do the very best for our very important officers of the law, the RCMP. They have been given the back of the hand, frankly, by the government through what it has done with the budget that we just rushed through this place in a matter of a couple of weeks, only a short time ago, to reduce a commitment that was made through proper labour negotiations with the RCMP, for them to now find that in fact that is not going to be honoured.
Here we are again, speaking to our RCMP officers through the work we do here, saying to them by way of getting the bill through the House and dealt with properly that we appreciate and understand the difficulty of their work, the fact that so many of their colleagues in the last few years have been killed on the job, have given the ultimate sacrifice in the protection of the public and our communities. We apologize for that action that has reduced their income as they go out and do that work, and for the message that sends in terms of confidence, and we will do the right thing by them in this instance.
We will get the bill to committee where we can fix any holes that might be in it, bring forward some amendments perhaps and hear from some people as to what else we should do. In doing that, we would consider the need to make sure that all Canadians, no matter what job they are doing and no matter how they are contributing to the overall good of our communities and our country, would also have a pension. They would not only have the Canada pension, which is a vehicle that is very important in this country, but they would also have access to those other small pots of pension money that become so important at the end of the day for so many of the things that we all want to contribute to in our community, to our families and in looking after ourselves.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie he is my neighbour, and he too knows the vastness of northern Ontario. 
Greater Sudbury is home to the Sudbury RCMP detachment, with 17 officers and two public service employees. This detachment provides excellent federal policing services to the city of greater Sudbury, the districts of Manitoulin, Cochrane, Timiskaming, Nipissing and Parry Sound. These great public servants provide service in an area that is bigger than some European countries. The important thing for the House to understand is that these individuals put their lives at risk every day and provide services to this huge area of our great country.
I wonder if the member could speak about the importance of having federal policing services in northern Ontario.
[Interjection]
Tony Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member for Sudbury very publicly how much I appreciate the contribution he makes in this place in his role as a member of Parliament and how good it is to have him as a colleague in northern Ontario, working on behalf all those really wonderful people who call our wonderful part of that province home.
Absolutely, the contribution that the members of the RCMP make in so many unique ways because of the areas they work in, the areas they specialize in, makes a big difference in our communities.
In my own community we have a detachment that, because of the proximity of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, plays a lot of different roles in terms of the traffic that goes back and forth between our two countries and the unlawful activity that might take place. That in fact is dangerous work, because one does not know who is coming across the border, what they are bringing with them and how they might be armed, in order to protect oneself in doing that work.
Therefore, absolutely we need to be doing everything we can in this House, given the very dismal track record of the government, particularly recently in taking away that increase in pay they were expecting to get, to at least protect their pensions and make it possible for those who moved to the RCMP from other policing jurisdictions to actually bring their pensions with them.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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. Barry Devolin):  Motion agreed to. Accordingly the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek the consent of the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 3 consideration of the motion that C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.
The issue of social and environmental responsibility for Canadian companies abroad, particularly Canadian mining companies, has long been a concern for the Bloc Québécois.
Canada is a world leader in the mining industry. It has a huge presence in Africa, where most companies are Canadian or American and are incorporated or listed in Canada.
For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements, significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations.
That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies when operating abroad. But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach.
Also, we have always defended the recommendations in the advisory group report entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, whose recommendations were unanimously supported by civil society and the extractive industry. 
While Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction, we believe it has flaws in terms of what the national roundtables advisory group recommended. For example, Bill C-300 does not provide any clear, independent and transparent process to ensure accountability or to monitor Canadian companies' compliance with accountability standards.
Here is a review of Bill C-300 by Delphine Abadie, Alain Deneault and William Sacher, the authors of Noir Canada: Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique, published by Écosociété in 2008.
First, the bill does not take the Canadian International Development Agency's policies and activities into account.
Second, it does not take Export Development Canada's lack of transparency into account.
Third, it does not take into account instances of political interference attributed, in some cases, to Canadian diplomacy in southern countries on behalf of Canadian mining interests.
Fourth, it does not take into account the harmful role of the Toronto Stock Exchange in the appreciation of mining claims often obtained suspiciously in southern countries.
Fifth, it does not say whether and under what terms, Canadian companies can or could be prosecuted civilly or criminally in Canada for injurious actions attributed to them abroad.
Sixth, it does not provide for an independent body to receive complaints from foreign nationals, leaving it rather to the minister.
Seventh, it does not provide a process to evaluate the damages to populations outside Canada and consider implementing redress programs.
Eighth, it totally ignores the numerous cases of abuse by Canadian companies already recorded in many credible documents. I am thinking of expert reports from the United Nations, parliamentary reports, conferences held in parliamentary precincts, reports from independent organizations like Amnesty International and Global Witness, comprehensive investigative reporting, compelling documentaries, assessments by recognized experts, and so.
Here are some representative cases cited in Noir Canada with respect to Canadian mining companies' detrimental activities in Africa.
The first example is from Bulyanhulu, Tanzania. In the summer of 1996, bulldozers and the national police force were used to expropriate several hundred small-scale miners and clear the way for Canada's Sutton Mining to exploit the area. Fifty-two people were buried alive in that operation. Sutton Mining was then bought by another Canadian company, Barrick Gold. Canada's diplomatic service was actively involved in the affair; allegations of interference are well founded. The Government of Norway, the Lawyer's Environmental Action Team, Friends of the Earth, Rights &amp; Democracy—an organization founded by the federal government itself—Mining Watch and master's student Dennis Tessier have all stated publicly that these allegations are credible and alarming. 
The second example is Banro, a company that helped kindle the bloody conflict in the African Great Lakes region in eastern Congo between 1997 and 2002. Millions died in that conflict, and untold distress was inflicted on the people in the form of rape, recruitment of child soldiers and destruction of villages.
The third example has to do with Diama-Manantali and Sadiola. The Canadian International Development Agency steadfastly supported dam construction projects that profited Canadian engineering firms. These dams, which have a catastrophic impact on the people—think of floods, loss of arable land, ecosystem destruction, disease, social tension and so on—allowed IamGold to turn a 38% profit on operating an open pit mine in Sadiola, another project with a disastrous impact on the people.
The fourth example is the Talisman corporation, which had to leave Sudan after, according to several sources, it apparently ordered the Sudanese army to violently remove any civilian presence in the vicinity of its development site. This passage from Noir Canada shows that Talisman was pressured to leave Sudan because it was registered on the New York stock exchange, not just the Toronto exchange.
Another book that has been written on this topic is Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast, published by Hyperion in 2007. On page 62 is a paragraph that reads:
 The Sudanese regime, supported by Canadian, Malaysian and Chinese oil companies, was able to wipe out whole populations in south-central Sudan, leaving the way clear for the oil companies to start pumping the oil. 
This information is supported by a memo from the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The book I quoted from has an introduction written by none other than Barack Obama, who was then a U.S. senator, and a preface by Elie Wiesel.
Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction. But to put an end to injustices by Canadian and foreign mining, gas and oil companies, we must make sure that they fully respect human rights and environmental rights, without exception.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we support this bill.
Fundamentally, this project regarding corporate social responsibility is about taking the responsibilities, the rights and the standards that we enjoy here in Canada, that people have worked so hard to put in place, and ensuring that those standards on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights are applied to Canadian companies when they do their business abroad.
I do not have to tell members that this is important work that we have done here, and we continue to do that kind of work, protecting the environment and protecting human rights and labour rights here in Canada, but it is absolutely critical that we establish standards that are consistent when our companies are doing operations abroad.
I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for his initiative. I also have to reference a couple of my colleagues who brought this issue to the House. The member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre prior to me was Ed Broadbent. He worked tirelessly on this file, on democratic reform, and he pushed to have the round table report written.
Members will know that the round table report was a good way of getting to the issue by bringing people from both civil society, including some of the groups that were mentioned by my friend from the Bloc, as well as from business. Mr. Broadbent, during his entire career in terms of academia and public service, as a member of this House and as leader of our party, always wanted to see the model that has worked so well in other mature democracies, where we bring together all of the disparate groups of business, labour and civil society, to forge good policy.
I must give credit. That was done. We had the report. It was tabled and the government was asked for a response over two years ago. It was not until just last week that we received a response from the government. I am actually very upset, disappointed and surprised that the government did not take the advice given to it from business and civil society to do the right thing.
Instead of bringing in standards, along the lines of what I just laid out, on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights that should apply to Canadian companies doing business abroad, and bringing in an enforcement and monitoring mechanism with an ombudsperson, what did the government do? It brought in voluntary guidelines. Just put those two words together and I will leave it to members if they think that is sufficient. 
Instead of an ombudsperson, it brought in a counsellor. Counsellors have a role. We go to them for advice sometimes, but they have no business in this file. What the government did was play around with nomenclature. It said that instead of an ombudsperson there will be a counsellor. 
What the government did was an insult, to be blunt. After years of waiting for a response from government on this important file, it gave back thin gruel. It might as well have not responded at all because the consensus report by business and civil society was very clear as to the road forward. All it had to do was adopt the recommendations.
I remember well at committee, having a motion put forward at the foreign affairs committee asking for a response from the government. It said, “It's okay. We're working on it”. Two years later and this is what we get.
This is an important initiative. We have to forge ahead. We cannot let this ball be dropped. We cannot let it be watered down. We cannot let the government's response be seen as a responsible response to all those people who worked so hard on this file.
What is this about? I want to talk a bit about the extractive industries abroad. I worked for half a year in Latin America in countries like Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, I saw directly what happens to everyday people when a company comes in, obtains rights to drill or mine and moves people who have been there forever off of their land because they are allowed to do whatever they want. They pull the resources out of the land, make a profit and leave town. They often leave behind tailings, a devastated environment, people who received meagre wages and an economy that is not better but worse. As they leave the country, they bring with them a handsome profit.
I know that most people who invest want to ensure their investments are ethical. Most people believe they are. I do not know anyone in my neighbourhood or constituency who would sleep well if they knew that the profits they were making off their investments were made at the expense of human suffering or environmental degradation. Sadly, most of the time they have no idea what is going on. This bill and the idea of corporate responsibility would shine a light on what is going on abroad and ensure we have standards and oversight in place.
 I know many members of the Conservative caucus believe strongly in human right and in ethical investment. Many are members of faith communities and the old adage that one should not make a profit off the back of their brother is consistent with their faith. It is something that is understood and internalized by them. I am not sure that they know this as members of the Conservative caucus but they have not taken this opportunity. 
Many faith groups have gotten behind this initiative, as well as civil society groups that believe strongly in the representation of workers and indigenous peoples in third world countries. Since I pushed my private member's bill initiatives at committee, the number of petitions from faith groups of all faiths that I have received in support of the bill has been tremendous. They have been very determined to see that what we do abroad is something that is consistent with our values. For them, it is consistent with their faith. For them, there is a direct connection between their faith and what happens to our companies that are investing abroad.
I am a little surprised that the Conservatives would allow voluntary guidelines to replace an ombudsperson with a counsellor. It does not seem to be consistent with many of them and their work within faith communities and the grassroots communities that we all work with. I challenge those within the Conservative caucus to take a look at the private member's bill here, take a look at their response that took two years and really measure it. I challenge them to talk it out with some of the people who are behind these initiatives in their faith communities. I think they would have a different opinion than the opinion they have provided. I challenge the members of the Conservative caucus to do that.
In summary, this is the way forward to get responsibility in our investments abroad. This would ensure that Canada's name is solid and that the article we saw in The Globe and Mail yesterday about Canada's reputation will not be repeated. This would ensure that when we have mining companies in South Africa, Latin America or anywhere else in the world where Canada is involved in enterprise, we will not be seen as exploiting people, nature or any of the other conditions that we seem to be exploiting. We need this and we should support it. I stand here gladly supporting this initiative and my party will as well.
Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the members for Scarborough—Guildwood and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour have already spoken very eloquently to this question, as have others I will just add a few brief comments from my own perspective.
Once we lived in a disconnected world, protected by distance, geography, oceans, mountains and deserts. Once governments and corporations could do anything they wanted, wherever they wanted to do it without any real consequences. That is no longer the case.
Now we live in a very connected world. Economic problems do not respect borders or distance nor do greenhouse gases, disease or security. What we do in one place as governments and corporations affects all of us at home in our place. That is the reality of the global world in which we live.
As to the impact of corporations on international relations, let us look at the history of the last 50 years, at the last century and more in Central America, South America, Africa and the Middle East and at what some companies have left behind. As the member for Ottawa South has said, they have left tailings and environment degradation, but some companies have also left a resentment toward the home countries of those companies that many years and decades later still define the relationship between those two countries, still define the understandings that those citizens have of those foreign countries.
Those are immense consequences for all of us, not just the companies, to deal with. It is those realities that are behind the need for Bill C-300.
About two years ago, I was in Sudan and Darfur and, like everyone else, I was haunted by Darfur. I tried to imagine what possible resolution there might be to its ongoing tragedy. What was so clear and so frustrating was the capacity of a country, Sudan, and its president, no matter the vehemence of world opinion, to do what it wanted to do if it wanted to do it with no real transforming consequences, to bog down, to distract with false hope, to wear out the patience, whatever, to do what it wanted to do.
Every governmental representative I spoke with from Canada and from other countries and every NGO said the same thing, that they were having no real impact on changing President Bashir's direction.
Only one country and one company could have an impact if they choose to do something and that country was China and the company was the state company of China Petroleum. Almost 80% of Sudan's GDP came from oil and the great majority of its oil goes to China Petroleum.
With China and China Petroleum's ongoing support, despite other sanctions and despite being charged by the International Criminal Court, Bashir knows he can continue on. What will be the results for Africa, for the world and for China's future in Africa? There are consequences of our global and corporate actions halfway around the world, and big consequences for the future.
One other thing I heard again and again in Sudan and Darfur was, “Where's Canada?” Beyond the aid offered, where was the voice, the diplomatic voice with those of many other nations that was needed to help bring this situation toward a human resolution?
What I kept hearing was that Canada had no idea how influential it was, that we had no history as a colonizer, no history of intervening or imposing on other nations, militarily or economically, and that we had no real history of exploiting and taking advantage of local governments and local populations. They trust us and know they can work with us. They know our reputation and it is a well-earned reputation. Our reputation is precious and it matters. It matters now and it will matter in the future.
In this global world, nobody is really the big guy. Even the United States, with all of its power, economically and militarily, nobody is truly that big and that powerful in a global world. 
Our challenge for the future, even more than economic, environmental or security, is the challenge of getting along, and that means working with others and talking, listening, negotiating and compromising. That means trusting and being trusted. 
That is our history and our instinct. That is our reputation and we cannot put it at risk. What Canadian companies do outside our borders matters. It matters to Canadians and it matters to the world, which is why Bill C-300 matters.
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about our Conservative government's commitment to promoting corporate social responsibility, or CSR practices, for extractive sector companies operating abroad.
I am very encouraged by the progress our government has made over the years with regard to CSR. This government not only encourages this approach to doing business but sees an active role for itself in supporting companies to develop and implement CSR practices.
In this regard, we share the goal of this bill in ensuring that Canadian companies follow the best possible practices at home and abroad. However, I am concerned that legislating corporate activity forces companies to follow a bureaucratic set of rules rather than to be innovative and create best practices that respond to a particular circumstance. The CSR best practices for one company in one region may not be suitable for another company operating elsewhere.
Not only would Bill C-300 limit the scope of CSR activities for Canadian companies by being too prescriptive, it would severely impair the ability of this government to provide the necessary guidance and assistance to avoid or mitigate potential problems. I should also point out that Bill C-300 is unnecessary.
The Canadian government's departments and crown corporations, implicated in the legal framework proposed by Bill C-300, already have in place a number of policies and guidelines to ensure that their clients are good corporate citizens. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is undertaking a comprehensive initiative to improve the capacity of its trade and diplomatic offices in Canada and abroad, so that they will have the information and tools that they need to provide timely and effective CSR counsel, advice and advocacy to our companies operating abroad.
A key element of this government's CSR approach has been adherence to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises, which recommend voluntary benchmarks for responsible business conduct. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is home to Canada's national Contact point, a senior level official responsible for promoting awareness of the OECD guidelines and for reviewing reports of specific instances of non-compliance with these guidelines.
In addition, Export Development Canada, or EDC, established in 2005 a compliance officer to enhance its transparency and accountability. Much like an ombudsman, the compliance officer operates independently from EDC management, reviewing complaints from stakeholders and promoting dialogue.
Withdrawing the support from these organizations provided to Canadian companies, as Bill C-300 proposes, would restrict access to vital services and financial capital. It would be counterproductive to promoting CSR best practices within the extractive sector and would put Canadian companies at a serious competitive disadvantage.
Furthermore, the proposed legislative changes would not have their intended effect. Cutting companies off from government assistance after they encounter a problem overseas is precisely the wrong thing to do. It would only serve to exacerbate the issue, further damaging Canada's reputation and that of our companies operating abroad. The preferred approach of this government is to give them the tools and information they need to avoid these problems in the first place.
As we know, in 2006 the government hosted a series of national round tables on CSR and the Canadian extractive sector in developing countries. Following these round tables, the advisory group presented their recommendations on how Canadian companies could meet or exceed leading international CSR standards and practices. Since the conclusion of the round table process, the government has met with representatives of the extractive industries and civil society in a variety of fora to continue the dialogue on a number of issues related to trade and development, including CSR.
On March 26, 2009, the Conservative government tabled its new CSR policy in Parliament, entitled “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector”. This new strategy was developed through consultations undertaken with a number of stakeholders, including the national round tables, as well as recommendations raised by the former Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
“Building the Canadian Advantage” will improve the competitive advantages of companies in the Canadian international extractive sector by enhancing their ability to manage social environmental risks. This strategy is founded on four key pillars, which I would like to outline today.
The first pillar calls for continuing assistance from CIDA for developing-country governments to enhance their capacity to manage natural resources in a sustainable and responsible manner. 
The Conservative government recognizes that resource governance, transparency and accountability in developing countries are critical to ensuring that the extractive sector contributes to poverty reduction. These factors are also essential for creating a business environment that is conducive to responsible corporate conduct in countries where Canadian companies operate. 
The first pillar builds on existing initiatives where CIDA has played a key role. For example, in Peru, CIDA has worked extensively with the government, mining companies and affected communities to develop regulatory requirements for social and environmental management. CIDA has also assisted Bolivia to establish a tax collection unit for hydrocarbon, generating over $1 billion in annual revenues that have been reinvested in public services for impoverished Bolivians. 
The second pillar of the strategy calls for the promotion of internationally recognized voluntary CSR performance and reporting guidelines. Building on Canada's adherence to the OECD guidelines, the government will promote the following international CSR performance guidelines.
First is the international finance corporation performance standards on social and environmental sustainability for extractive projects with potential adverse social or environmental impacts. This is the de facto performance benchmark for projects in developing countries that require substantial financial investment.
Second is the voluntary principles on security and human rights for projects involving private or public security forces. At the 2009 plenary in Oslo, Canada was welcomed to this process as the first engaged government under the new participation framework. 
Third is the global reporting initiative, or GRI, for CSR reporting by the extractive sector to enhance transparency and encourage market-based rewards for good CSR performance. The government will work with stakeholders to develop GRI supplements for oil and gas and junior mining companies. These widely-recognized international standards will form the basis for Canada's commitment to increasing the quality and quantity of voluntary CSR reporting by Canadian companies operating overseas. 
The third pillar of the strategy involves support for the development of a new CSR centre of excellence.
The government is currently discussing with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum in Montreal to provide a home for the CSR centre of excellence.
Finally, the fourth pillar of the strategy calls for the creation of a new office of the extractive sector CSR counsellor. This office would be responsible for providing assistance in the resolution of social and environmental issues related to Canadian companies operating abroad in this sector. The counsellor will review and document the CSR practices of Canadian extractive companies operating abroad and advise stakeholders on the implementation of CSR performance guidelines.
Requests for review by the counsellor may originate from an individual, group or community, or their representative, that reasonably believes that it may be adversely affected by the activities of a Canadian extractive company outside Canada. The counsellor will undertake reviews with the full consent of the involved parties. The counsellor will issue a public statement after each review and submit an annual report to be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of International Trade.
The strategy calls upon all Canadian companies working internationally to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with the host government and local communities, and to develop and implement CSR best practices. The strategy also proposes a voluntary dispute resolution process that ensures fast and effective results, while remaining independent and at arms reach from government.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate that the Government of Canada, including the departments, agencies and crown corporations implicated in this bill actively support CSR principles and have independently taken steps to promote social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is absolutely essential in a globally competitive, well-regarded extractive sector. However, Bill C-300 is not an efficient, effective nor desirable mechanism for achieving this end.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for presenting this private member's bill on corporate accountability.
In the 38th Parliament, a similar but much stronger member's private bill was presented by the former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent. New Democrats have long stood for corporate accountability as a principle of international trade. I strongly believe that Canadian companies who operate overseas must be held to the same standards as they are in Canada.
Canada must see to the protection of workers, their families and the environment everywhere Canadian companies operate. I realize that that is what this legislative measure is trying to do. Unfortunately, I do not think it succeeds.
Bill C-300, an act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is not perfect. Its scope and application are too limited, and its enforcement mechanisms lack teeth.
There are three main areas of concern that I have with this piece of legislation.
First, the bill should be expanded to include all incorporated companies in Canada, not just companies receiving support from the Government of Canada. This is a significant loophole that would greatly weaken the application of the bill.
Second, the legislation should include additional provisions within the Criminal Code to strengthen its enforcement mechanism and to ensure that all companies operating in Canada have the same legal duty to protect workers' rights in their foreign operations as in their domestic operations.
Third, this piece of legislation should establish an ombudsman to carry out the provision of this legislation rather than relying on the minister.
As usual, the Liberal caucus and its members claim to uphold certain principles, in this case that of corporate accountability, but again they fail to deliver effective legislation to enshrine those principles into law. 
While I always welcome progress on a matter of global corporate accountability, Bill C-300 would only encourage a fraction of companies operating in Canada and would have no meaningful enforcement mechanism. In other words, this bill is only aimed at encouraging companies to respect the principle of corporate accountability and not enforcing such behaviour.
Bill C-298 is a far more effective piece of legislation. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood should consider putting forth or accepting two amendments to his bill similar to clauses contained in Bill C-298, especially the establishment of an ombudsman.
Overall, I feel that these issues can be resolved at the committee level, which is why I will support this bill through second reading. The most troubling thing about this bill is that it is a private member's bill. The Conservative government should be making this issue a priority and investing the appropriate resources to finally address this concern.
As a retired steelworker and Vale Inco employee I know first-hand how important it is that we stand together as workers to protect each other. I have worked for close to 35 years for a mining company which has operations outside of Canada and I want to show my solidarity with my brothers and sisters throughout the developing world by supporting the bill through second reading.
As the late Rosemary Brown said, “unless all of us are free, none of us will be free”. It is time for our government to take global corporate accountability seriously and set out clear expectations and consequences for all Canadian companies operating abroad.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood for coming up with an excellent and much needed bill that more than 90% of Canadians would support if they were sitting here in the House. 
The bill is needed because we are an exporting nation. We go abroad and work in some of the toughest, most difficult and impoverished countries in the world. Canadian companies can and should be leaders in corporate social responsibility, which is what my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood is trying to do. We are trying to lead.
 Why is there a need for this? In Sudan, oil is fuelling the conflict in Darfur and will fuel the catastrophe that is likely to come in the southern part of the country. We have seen the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since World War II. More than five million people have been killed and more than 1,000 people are dying day in and day out. This conflict has been fuelled with coltan, a substance that we have in our BlackBerries, cell phones and other electronic products, and by diamonds and gold. These products are being mined and taken out by private companies.
In Burma it is rubies and oil. In Nigeria, oil is fuelling a catastrophic problem in the delta in that country. When I was in Belize I tried to stop a Canadian company from Newfoundland that was poised to build a dam. It did build the dam which destroyed the largest central contiguous jungle and rainforest in Central America. A Canadian company did that, which is why the bill is needed and more so because we know it is the private sector that can help developing countries to become self-sufficient.
It is no thanks, of course, to our government which stripped CIDA from supporting eight African countries that need our help, including countries like Zambia, Malawi and Cameroon that are trying to get back on their feet, but what does the Canadian government do? It removes the funding and puts it into countries in South America and the Caribbean because that is were it wants to do business. It is a naked effort on the part of the government to forsake our humanitarian objectives for commercial objectives, not understanding that commercial objectives and humanitarian objectives go hand in hand. That is where the bill sits.
The bill would provide businesses with a framework to operate in these difficult countries, a framework that involves an obligation to account, report and adhere to the environmental standards that all Canadians want our companies to embrace. In doing so, they would lead and set an example, not only for other companies but for the recipient countries. 
The biggest challenge developing countries have is not from the lack of aid they receive externally but from the predatory governments that are riven with corruption. They cannot provide the environment to enable them to have an economy that functions properly and a government that is unable to provide for the basic social needs of its people, including health care and education. They lack the capacity and that is where aid would come in.
However, there is also a role for the private sector. Through the bill, the private sector would benefit from better profit if it would treat the local populace well, the environment well and work to build capacity so that a developing country will be able to take care of itself.
One of the cruellest things we do is persist in the standard myths that we have today that more money is the answer. We need to build capacity in developing countries. We need to invest wisely. We need to enable and obligate domestic governments to operate in a way that is not predatory and not riven with corruption. The private sector has an important and effective role in this.
Talisman is one Canadian company that has done a very good job in providing a framework for corporate social responsibility for its own company. I am very impressed with its initiative and I have talked about it often because when Canadian companies do a good thing, as the Talisman did in this case, they should be applauded.
The Canadian government has a role. By working with the private sector, as my colleague is doing, we can provide the framework for the obligation to report.
When the European Union put forward the obligation for European countries to report what they spent in developing countries, the EU found that corrupt officials were far less likely to ask for money back. It caused a diminishment of the amount of money that was moving back and forth under the table, an act that is so corrosive to the ability of any country to remove the cancer and blight that is corruption.
It is an obligation of the Canadian government to move this forward. It is also an obligation for the government to set standards and to behave in a way that is responsible, congruent with good environmental principles, good social policy, good technical support and transparency in order to set an example for the private sector and for other countries.
We would like to see Canada branded as an international model for corporate social responsibility. We want to recognize companies as leaders in corporate social responsibility. We would also like to ensure that we disseminate best practices. This is very important, because whenever I have been in other parts of the world, I have seen the great hope and possibility. I have a particular interest and passion in sub-Saharan Africa. More than 50% of the world's natural resources sit in sub-Saharan Africa. Our extractive industries are there. Many of them are in war-ravaged places, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
We need to facilitate and encourage those companies to operate in a way that does not contribute to the disasters that exist in those parts of the world.
I have a proposal right now, through supporting the Heal Africa Hospital in Goma. Goma is the epicentre of the rape crisis. My proposal is to ask Canadian companies working in the extractive industries there to fund a $1 million infrastructure project to provide for the expansion of the only hospital there. Many of the people there have suffered horribly. In many of the villages, 70% of the women have been raped. Those women have suffered horrible injuries. This lone hospital, run by Dr. Joe Lusi and his wife Lyn, is the last and only opportunity for these people to be treated, so we are asking Canadians companies to help.
Companies, interestingly enough, would also benefit in their own way because their profits would increase. The health of the working population would improve and the companies' relationship with local areas would improve. 
What is absent in the world today is a leader who recognizes the private sector as the best engine of growth within developing countries and provides the tax base and infrastructure that these countries need to be self-sufficient.
Aid is not the answer. It is a myth to suggest that it is. To use Nigeria as the example, it has generated some $230 billion from oil over the last decade. This far exceeds by orders of magnitude the amount of money Nigeria could possibly receive from aid. Yet people who go there see a country riven by poverty where the people are no better off than they were as far back as 10 years ago. Why is that so? Where has that money gone? That money was provided by private companies, big oil-producing companies. This bill would enable us to build the framework. In the case of Nigeria, that private money could be used transparently to build capacity and the judicial, political, economic, social and public sector framework that is the only hope of a country like Nigeria to become self-sufficient.
In closing, I want to thank my colleague for introducing the bill. All of us in the Liberal Party fully support it. Instead of trying to be obstructionist about it, the government should roll up its sleeves, get behind the bill and support it for the good of our country, for the good of our private sector and for the good of some of the most impoverished countries in the world.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members for their contributions to this debate. Naturally I prefer some members' opinions over others, but nevertheless that is the nature of debate. I thank each and every member who has contributed over the last couple of hours of debate.
We are in the final hour of debate on second reading and Bill C-300 will go to a vote on the principle of the bill.
The need for CSR supervision has already been decided. It no longer forms part of the debate. All sides agree, even the government, that there is a need for some form of CSR supervision. The debate has moved from should we do something to really how we should do it.
It may have taken the government a number of years, but on March 26, in its press release, the Government of Canada effectively admitted that there was a serious CSR issue in our country and in the extractive corporate sector. If there was no such issue, then there would have been no such announcement.
Now we will talk about whether Bill C-300 is the best response, or Bill C-298 or the government's press release.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, ideally the government would have taken over this issue and framed the response around the creation of an ombudsman, an independent officers of Parliament. Regrettably that did not happen. Now we have three choices: the government's press release, or CSR lite, as I have taken to calling it; private members' Bill C-298, creating an ombudsman; or Bill C-300, reposing the responsibility in the two ministers with sanctions.
Unfortunately Bill C-298 requires a royal recommendation and for reasons alluded to earlier in the debate, would be dead on arrival as it proposes something that a private member's bill cannot do, namely spend taxpayer money. Only government with the approval of Parliament can do so.
As delighted as I would be to support the NDP party, both for its previous member, the member from Halifax, Alexa McDonough and the member from Ottawa Centre, Ed Broadbent and currently the member for Ottawa Centre in Bill C-298, unfortunately this would be an exercise in futility.
That really leaves Bill C-300 or CSR lite.
Bill C-300 proposes a scheme of accountability which would include an ability to investigate, make findings, deal with frivolous and vexatious claims, report to Parliament and gazette the results. The government proposes an order in council appointment to assist in dispute resolution. Bill C-300 proposes a modest array of sanctions with BDC, EDC, CPP and various promotions. The government proposal is free of consequences for any offending company.
Bill C-300 proposes a review and report to Parliament. The government response, CSR lite, proposes a report by various ministers, and the tabling of that report by the Minister of International Trade to Parliament. 
Therefore, should we not just declare a victory, issue a press release, pat ourselves on the back and go home? While I like and respect the Minister of International Trade, even he does not think that he is going to be the Minister of International Trade forever. A new minister may well not be so enthusiastic about CSR and may withdraw the order in council appointment. What a prime minister can make, a prime minister can also unmake.
The only meaningful protection is legislation. Bill C-300 is legislation. A press release, followed by an order in council appointment, is not. Legislation has to be repealed by an act of Parliament. An order in council proceeds at the whim of Parliament.
The effectiveness of the councillor is dependent upon the consent of the involved parties. Bill C-300 does not depend upon the willingness of the accused party to co-operate. In fact, it presumes the opposite. Bill C-300 may not have as optimistic a view of human nature as does the government, but possibly it is just a little more realistic.
While joining hands and singing Kumbaya may be a wonderful experience in Muskoka on a glorious summer night or even Haliburton, it does not cut it in the harsh light of daily life, let alone operating a business in some dreadful conditions.
I would urge all hon. members to support this bill. I am extremely grateful for the support that I have received, that this bill has received, over the past weeks and months from Amnesty International, CCIC, Development and Peace, EFC, Halifax Initiative, Mennonite Central Committee, MiningWatch, World Vision, and the list goes on and on.
I did want to thank each and every person who has supported this bill, and I hope that all hon. members see fit to vote in support of Bill C-300.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly 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. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion, the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 20, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:20 p.m.)