2009-10-09

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the new Liberal critic for crown corporations, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to join in the debate on Bill C-44. I look forward to this opportunity, my maiden debate as critic, and I look forward to many more.
I rise today to state our concerns with Bill C-44 and the government's attempt to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act and to legalize the activities of international remailers. While we have specific concerns about the bill, we will be determining as a caucus in the coming days how to best deal with it.
Crown corporations were created to provide standardized and essential services from postal delivery to energy development, resource extraction to public transportation. Crown corporations serve in binding our expansive, sparsely populated country, providing services where they would otherwise be inefficient and uneconomical for the private sector to operate. Providing universal yet affordable services to all Canadians, whether rural, urban or in remote areas through our crown corporations is one of those principles that bind us as a nation. Social cohesion in Canada rests on the shared institutions in which we can have pride.
Canada Post, through its very mandate, is dedicated to providing Canadians with reliable, affordable, accessible and universal services. For 158 years, Canada Post has been a pillar of the Canadian economy, connecting Canadians with their communities and their businesses. Each and every day, it processes some 45 million pieces of mail to nearly 15 million residences and businesses. It continues to meet or exceed delivery standards 96% of the time. It provides the lowest cost of sending a letter among all the industrialized nations, and it costs the same amount to send a letter from Halifax to Vancouver as it does to send a letter from Montreal to Ottawa. That will not be the case if the government is successful in its attempt to deregulate or privatize this public corporation.
Canada Post is a well-managed business that does not rely on taxpayer support and has been profitable for 13 consecutive years. It is one of Canada's largest corporations, employing almost 55,000 workers across the country, including 3,800 or more in rural and remote areas. It is a brand and an institution that Canadians trust.
Even before being elected to the House, I have always looked at Canada Post as one of those corporations that deliver, literally. Its motto is, “On land, online, we deliver”. I have often considered that to be true. Canada Post is award winning and world leading in its online services and second to none in its door-to-door service. To quote our friends from south of the border,“Through sleet, through rain and snow”, and, I will add, “from coast to coast to coast, it delivers”.
As the new critic responsible for crown corporations, I have studied this issue, consulted with former critics and I have heard from the minister of state and my other hon. colleagues. The issue in my mind is that the Supreme Court has ruled that Canada Post should maintain its exclusive privilege for domestic and international mail. Allowing remailers to continue to operate would cannibalize letter mail, reduce mail volume and revenue, and would erode the trusted corporation's ability to provide service in remote and rural areas. 
In a letter to Canadian postal workers, CUPW, on July 25, 2006, the then minister of transport stated:
 The activities of international remailers cost Canada Post millions of dollars each year and erodes the Corporation's ability to maintain a healthy national postal service and provide universal service to all Canadians. 
As we understand it, the problem hinges on the difference between the English and French language variations of the Canada Post Corporation Act, section 14. The English version restricts Canada Post's exclusive privilege to letter mail for addresses within Canada, while the French version expands the exclusive privilege to mail directed to international addresses. This discrepancy between the English and French version has allowed an industry to develop outside the intentions of the act. We are debating Bill C-44 because of this discrepancy.
As we know, for the past 20 years, private international mailers have entered the market undeterred and have capitalized on the language discrepancy and the lack of clarity within the act. What is a remailer? Private remailer firms collect international mail daily from Canadian customers and fly it as cargo to other countries or foreign destinations, either for direct entry into their domestic postal operations or to an intermediary postal administration, bypassing Canada Post altogether.
The U.S. postal service estimates that it loses 5% of its international mail volume each year to remail companies. Canada Post president, Moya Greene, has estimated that the illegal activities of the international remailers results in a loss of revenue for the corporation of between $60 million and $80 million annually. 
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in Canada Post's favour, stating:
 ...any one or more of the activities of “collecting, transmitting and delivering” letters is the exclusive privilege of Canada Post in Canada, including letters addressed to foreign destinations. 
In 2007, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-14, which died on the order paper because of an unnecessary election that the Prime Minister called. We remember when the Prime Minister broke his own fixed date election law. Not only does the Prime Minister obviously break his own laws, but he also ignores the laws of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The ruling cannot be clearer. When the highest court in the land clarifies an ambiguous section of an act, we must respect it. The court granted Canada Post an exclusive privilege over both domestic and international mail delivery. We have an obligation to respect its decision. In fact, section 14 was ambiguous and allowed new players to enter the market for a 20 year period. That fact does not make those actions legal.
In December 2008, a strategic review of the Canada Post Corporation was released, examining all aspects of Canada's postal service and providing some 60 recommendations. The report recommends against deregulation of our public post offices. Page 8 of the executive summary states:
 Canadians remain deeply interested in postal matters and intensely committed to the maintenance of a viable and effective universal postal service. There appears to be little public support for the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post and considerable, if not unanimous, support for maintaining a quality, affordable universal service for all Canadian communities. 
The advisory panel received submissions from individuals, businesses, community organizations and municipalities. An overwhelming majority of them opposed the deregulation of Canada Post. 
In 2008, an Ipsos Reid poll suggested that 69% of respondents strongly opposed deregulation; that is, allowing private companies to deliver letter mail in Canada.
Yet, does Bill C-44 not propose to deregulate postal service by allowing remailers to compete for the international share of the business? It is a slippery slope. Once competition is permitted in one segment of the business, what prevents the government to privatize, spin off, sell off or open competitions in other sectors of this crown corporation or in other corporations? What is the government's true agenda?
The government made a commitment to stakeholders and the industry that it would engage in future consultations before commenting on the recommendations of the report. Instead, the government acted unilaterally to introduce legislation to potentially deregulate the industry and that could create two standards of service: one for urban and one for rural communities.
What would the impact of open competition be on domestic delivery? Let us speculate on that for a moment. We know for certain that service to remote communities in rural areas would be jeopardized. Deregulation would raise prices, reduce services, destroy jobs, hurt the environment and reduce the security and privacy of mail.
Municipalities from coast to coast have written letters to the strategic review panel stating that postal deregulation would be bad for their communities.
A moratorium has existed since 1994 that protects the approximately 3,800 public post offices in rural and small one post office towns. Of the 647 municipalities that made a submission, only one municipality, Ponoka, Alberta, supported deregulation and, hence, is willing to eliminate its rural post office.
Unfortunately, the strategic review report also recommended that the current moratorium on post office closures in rural and small towns be replaced with new rules and procedures, including the ability to replace public post offices with private outlets. By eliminating small town post offices, we would kill jobs, isolate communities and deny them a vital link to the rest of Canada. Closing post offices in small rural and remote communities would prevent seniors from sending letters to childhood friends, disabled Canadians from accessing postal services easily and children from sending letters to Santa Clause at Christmas. 
Despite this electronic age of instant messaging, email, Facebook and Twitter, Canadians still value a stamped and sealed envelope, which carries strong sentimental value for their most special occasions: birthdays, weddings, funerals and/or other holiday greetings.
Seniors need accessible and reliable postal service that meets their needs. They are aware that with deregulation they would face higher postal rates. When the Swedish post office was deregulated, the standard rate increased by 90%.
Disabled rights organizations also oppose deregulation. Organizations representing blind people are concerned that deregulation would result in service cutbacks. Canada Post provides free mailing of braille documents and sound recordings. It is no secret that deregulation would result in cutbacks to these types of services because they are not profitable, but we engage in them to serve Canadians because it is our public service mandate.
Small businesses, too, would face rising costs and suffer difficulties as a result of a lack of postal services in their communities. These businesses would have no choice but to pass on increased costs to their customers in the form of higher prices.
Thus, deregulation jeopardizes high quality, affordable, accessible and universal postal delivery in rural and remote markets.
In fact, the revenue Canada Post generates by operating in large urban centres subsidizes the more costly services to rural farms, villages and isolated northern communities. Deregulation would open competition in lucrative urban markets and lead to the dismantling of rural delivery.
In other markets that have deregulated postal delivery service, we have seen increased prices. The cost of a stamp in Finland is $1.35; in Germany, 93¢; and in Sweden, 92¢. In countries that have not deregulated, the price of domestic mail has remained affordable, like in Canada, 54¢. It is the same in the United States.
The final point is the issue of jobs, one of the key and critical issues. The government has a dismal record of creating and protecting jobs. The introduction of this bill is no exception. Instead of putting forward meaningful legislation dealing with the creation of jobs, we find ourselves debating a bill that has the power to potentially eliminate thousands of jobs and destroy an industry.
The remail industry is driven primarily by subsidiaries of foreign postal interests that operate in a bulk mailing system designed for transnational overseas markets. Still, it is responsible for a not so insignificant number of jobs in Canada, some 2,000 or 3,000 according to some estimates. These jobs are generated from gross annual revenues ranging from $40 million to $80 million, depending on who presents the figures.
At any rate, it is a number that pales compared to the 55,000-plus workers who are employed by Canada Post Corporation, more than 3,800 of them in remote and rural communities employed in rural post offices. These positions are often the only jobs in some villages that are helping people connect across our nation. The value of these jobs goes far beyond the simple wages and benefits. These rural postal workers are envied by those who are seasonal workers in resource communities facing contracting industries and job losses.
Although the minister, in his introduction of the bill, neglected to mention or touch upon the special relationship that rural Canada has to postal service and to rural post offices, we on the Liberal side value that relationship. If the Conservatives are prepared to dismiss and abandon Canada Post's connection, indeed obligation, to rural Canada, Liberals will not stand idly by.
Those 3,800 jobs in rural Canada represent the viability of a people and a culture in Canada becoming increasingly urban, but the minister did not even mention that. He made no reference to the economic weight these jobs carry in rural Canada. He ignored entirely the impact the bill could have on those communities, despite the fact the Conservatives have received ample warning from communities across the country.
He referred scantily, almost dismissively, to the Canada Post strategic review, preferring to simply note that closing rural post outlets was one of the recommendations emanating from it. He would address the others. He did not make the connection between the impact of the bill and the implementation of the recommendations on the viability of Canada Post and its employees.
I would not blame him. His finance minister wants to privatize the corporation and his abilities to guesstimate the economic health of the country and the finances of the government would embarrass any six year old.
As we know, in 1994 the Liberal government imposed a moratorium on the closures of rural post offices. I remember the quote as though it were today, “As long as this Government is in power, no rural or small town post office will close”. We promised at that time not to make any changes to rural service without first undergoing a full and comprehensive consultation with Postal Customer Councils and that has not been accomplished today. 
Many Canadians are worried about the true long-term agenda of the Conservatives. Is it to weaken the government and crown corporations slowly, incrementally but determinately, so that eventually mass deregulation and privatization is the only answer?
Weakening Canada Post by opening a profitable area to unfair, unlevel competition is a recipe for the long-term degradation of Canada Post and its continued viability and sustainability. 
The bill needs work and further discussion to ensure that it will not lead to the deregulation and demise of rural and remote post delivery. At this time, we are agreeing only so far as to send the bill to committee.
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify some of the things my hon. colleague from Mississauga, who comes from an urban setting, has suggested about rural delivery.
My riding is 100% rural. As the minister in charge of Canada Post, I am very proud to ensure that the people of Canada and the House understand that a moratorium on rural post offices is maintained. She needs to understand that.
She is new to the portfolio and perhaps does not understand what we did recently with the Canadian Postal Service Charter. It is the first time in the history of the country that we have locked in an agreement between Canada Post and the people of Canada, ensuring that the service delivered by Canada Post is set out in a charter, which will be analyzed and reported on a yearly basis and reviewed every five years. It is interesting that she would not mention that it locks in service for rural delivery across the country, in a specific and very clear way.
It is amazing she would suggest that the legislation, which does not look after mail in Canada but mail outboard to international countries, would compromise any rural jobs. I see none of that taking place. Absolutely it is a massive leap.
Perhaps she is new to the portfolio. Perhaps she does not understand. Perhaps she has no idea. However, I want to ask her one question because she was not clear on her position on the bill.
Is she supporting the bill?
[Interjection]
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the minister that we will allow the bill to go to committee for considerations.
I fully understand the Canadian Postal Service Charter and the implications of it. While I am a newly appointed critic, I have been completely briefed on the issues. I have analyzed the file and I have spoken to the former critics. It is my responsibility to raise questions and concerns over issues that are not in the public interest.
What is not in the public interest is the deregulation of this industry. Dismantling our crown corporations and other public institutions, our crown jewels, is not in the public interest. It will lead, and we know this, to two standards of service, one for rural and one for urban. It will lead to reduced service, increased prices and job losses in communities that can least afford it.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member who just made a speech about maintaining postal services whether she realizes—I am sure it is the same thing in her riding as in mine—that there are a number of concerns about maintaining postal services, especially in connection with the Canadian Postal Service Charter. This charter raises a number of concerns regarding universal yet affordable services for all Canadians. In any case, many communities in my riding have sent me resolutions stating that we should uphold the moratorium on closing post offices, of course, and that we should maintain universal services for everyone.
In my view, Bill C-44 opens the door to the privatization, perhaps only partial, of Canada Post. I would like to ask the member if she is aware of that. I would also like to remind her that in 2005, under her government, the Liberal government, Canada Post lost between $50 million and $80 million a year to remailing companies. I would like to ask her if she has looked at the connection between what happened in 2005 and the bill introduced by the Conservative government.
[Interjection]
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns with the bill. There are many issues that need further consideration.
Why has the government not acted sooner? It has certainly had ample time to help resolve this issue. It had favourable support from all critics on all sides of the House. It sought accommodation with stakeholders. Why has the government waited so long? Why has it waited until today?
The Supreme Court decision came a number of years ago, in 2004. The strategic review was last December. Why has the government waited so long to take advantage of the goodwill in the House among our colleagues to seek a favourable resolution on this vital issue that affects all Canadians? It could lead to the deregulation of industries. It could lead to privatization. As we know, it certainly will lead to increased costs and a compromise of service in remote and rural communities, communities that a Liberal government is committed to serving.
Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, much has been said this morning about the exclusive privilege that we are trying to protect for the Canada Post Corporation. The member has given some eloquent comments about the concerns with respect to the bill.
It seems to me, though, what is most important is the link between that exclusive privilege and the protection of decent paying jobs in our communities.
The member, when asked by the Minister of State if she would vote for or against the bill. said that the Liberals would support it for now and see if they could improve it, but in the end she had no idea what the final position would be, which under most circumstances is fair enough. We often try to improve bills in the House. However, how do we improve on deregulation when we know it inevitably leads to privatization? We cannot suggest that if we improve the bill, it will make things better. We will have good deregulation as opposed to bad privatization.
It seems the member is trying to have it both ways. It is a bit like being a little bit pregnant, frankly.
I will follow up on the question asked earlier by the Minister of State. Could we get a categorical yes or no? Is the member in favour of deregulating Canada Post? Is she aware that it will lead to privatization? Does the member support that agenda? 
[Interjection]
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have been unequivocal that we do not support deregulation or privatization of any variety.
What the government is attempting to do is open up a lucrative market, while at the same time undermining another one. This is what the legislation will witness, the deregulation of a natural monopoly, an erosion of service, an increase in costs and an increase in job losses.
Our crown corporations are mandated through a public policy agenda to provide service in remote and rural areas that would otherwise be unaffordable and too costly for the private sector to deliver. That is why Canada Post is a monopoly. We support it and we do not support deregulation or privatization.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has outlined how important Canada Post is, not only to urbanites but to rural communities and how the previous Liberal government had protected it.
Canada Post is competitive. It provides excellent service. It covers coast to coast to coast. Why is the government introducing a bad bill, which is on a slippery slope to privatization of Canada Post? What is the government's ideological agenda?
[Interjection]
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious what the government is doing. It is opening the door to deregulation of industries, our crown corporations and our crown jewels and will inevitably lead to spinoffs, sell-offs and privatization.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said that she had been well briefed, had studied the bill and had a thorough understanding of it. What is strange is how she has missed a very important recommendation of the advisory panel, which says that the advisory panel recommends neither a general deregulation of the postal market, nor a reduction of the existing level of Canada Post's exclusive privilege, save for one segment, which is the remailing sector.
This has nothing to do with reduced postal service to rural Canada or to the rest of Canada. This is only to correct a part of the legislation that, if not corrected, will put many remailing companies out of business and hundreds and thousands of people out of work.
The member is starting to sound like NDP members, who sit up all night trying to dream up bad news scenarios to talk about in the House. It is not factual. The member should get her facts straight.
[Interjection]
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am completely aware of the recommendations of the report are and I am very aware that the legislation will lead to deregulation and possibly privatization.
 We have lost confidence in the government. We have lost the trust and faith in the government. It is a government that said it would not raise taxes. What has it done? It is about to impose a $13 billion payroll tax on small businesses, businesses that we need to help rebuild the economy and our nation.
It said that it would run a surplus. What has it done? It announced a $34 billion deficit, which grew to a $50 billion deficit and today is a $56 billion deficit. We cannot count on a government that cannot count.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois today about Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-44. This bill is the same as Bill C-14, which was introduced in May 2008. This bill would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, abolishing Canada Post's exclusive privilege to handle outgoing international mail.
We think that taking away Canada Post's “exclusive privilege” would jeopardize its revenues and have other negative repercussions, such as the reorganization of rural mail delivery and job losses.
As a first step toward deregulating outgoing international mail, the introduction of Bill C-44 erases any doubt about the Conservative government's intention to completely privatize Canada Post.
The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the privatization of Canada Post to any degree. The crown corporation must remain a public concern in order to maintain universal services and consistent rates throughout Canada and Quebec.
We should take a look at how the situation has evolved. On April 14, 1981, the House of Commons passed the Canada Post Corporation Act to turn the postal service from a department into a crown corporation. For the government of the day, a complete overhaul of the Canadian postal administration had become necessary because of the steady deterioration in the quality of service during the decades preceding the legislation. Serious disputes between the department and its employees, which led to a number of strikes that brought postal service to a standstill, were among the factors that contributed to the decline in the quality of service. 
In a context that favoured the organization of public service workers in the 1970s, the postal workers' union waged an intense struggle for better working conditions in an environment that was being transformed by the mechanization and automation of mail processing. Administration of the department was made more complex by factors such as worker demands, a serious annual deficit that climbed to $600 million in 1981, and an increasingly competitive market. 
The federal government’s top priority was to give the new postal administration the autonomy required to develop business objectives that would make postal services self sufficient in Canada, and also improve labour relations and service. The new crown corporation was given the “exclusive privilege” of collecting and delivering letters in Canada. The monopoly provides it with a guaranteed source of revenue that allows it to deliver mail to everyone, no matter where they live in a country, at affordable rates. In other words, it allows Canada Post to use the money it makes in high-density areas to provide service in non-profitable low-density areas. This practice is known as cross-subsidization. That is important. 
In addition, among the changes that made it possible to achieve these new business objectives were the franchising of postal outlets, the privatization of other services, rate increases, the closure of post offices, especially in rural areas, technology development and use, and the penetration of new markets such as the acquisition of Purolator in 1993. As a result, in 1989 Canada Post made its first profit since 1957.
Today, Canada Post collects, processes and delivers over 11 billion pieces of mail a year throughout Canada, and between Canada and more than 200 postal administrations around the world. It serves approximately 14 million urban and rural addresses in Canada. Canada Post's products and services are sold through a network of some 23,000 retail outlets. It counts itself among the largest corporations in Canada in terms of gross revenue and is the sixth largest employer in Canada.
Canada Post Corporation, which is responsible for traditional postal operations, is the principal component of the Canada Post Group, which also includes Purolator Courier Ltd., epost, Innovapost, Progistix Solutions Inc. and Intelcom Courrier Canada Inc. 
The Canada Post Corporation, which handles traditional postal activities, is the main component of the Canada Post Group, as I said earlier. In addition, the Canada Post Group remains profitable today, although its consolidated net profit after tax was $90 million for the year ending December 31, 2008. I would remind the House that the Canada Post Corporation has been subject to federal income tax since 1994. It also pays provincial tax and large corporation tax.
In addition to paying tax to its shareholder, the Canada Post Corporation pays it a dividend. Based on its financial performance in the previous year, Canada Post declared and paid $80 million in dividends to the Government of Canada in 2006. In 2007, it paid $48 million in dividends, and in 2008, $22 million. We can see that, with time, Canada Post is becoming less profitable and paying out less in dividends to the government.
What remailers do is collect bulk mail from business customers in one country and send it to another country with lower postal rates, where the mail is sorted and then remailed to a third country.
For example, a Canadian company that wants to send mail to the United Kingdom can deal with a remailer. The company sends the bulk mail to a post office in another country, where it will be sorted for a fraction of the price, then remailed to the United Kingdom.
Remailers have been working in Canada for over 20 years. In 2006, it was estimated that there were between 5 and 7 remailers in the country. The largest are Spring Global Mail, Key Mail and DHL Global Mail. They use the services of some Canadian industries and do $150 million in business.
It is important to understand the dispute between the Canada Post Corporation and remailers. Canada Post states the following:
 For the last 10 to 15 years, several companies, some of which are surrogates of postal administrations abroad, have been collecting lettermail in Canada and bringing it to other countries where it is processed and remailed to other countries. Under section 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act, Canada Post has the exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting and delivering letters in Canada. 
 Canada Post initiated court action against several of these remailers. Through actions and appeals the matter was put before several courts. In all instances, the courts confirmed Canada Post’s interpretation of the Act. 
 For several years, Canada Post tried to resolve this issue diplomatically via the Universal Postal Union, of which most postal administrations are members, as well as through direct negotiations with violating remailers. When this did not effect compliance with the law, Canada Post reluctantly resorted to litigation. 
I emphasize the word “reluctantly” because it is important. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I sit, brought in Canada Post and the remailers. The first recommendation in our first report indicated that we wanted the jobs in these companies to be retained. That was the goal. It is important since Canada Post told us in its statement that it tried several times, through the Universal Postal Union, to negotiate with these companies.
It is important because in his speech on October 7, 2009, in the House, the Minister of State responsible for Canada Post, among other things, said:
 There are two kinds of outboard international remails. [...] First, a piece of mail going to another country can go to a country with a lower regime cost. 
 ...that is one way that it can and would be allowed. This actually goes back to the ratification of the 1999 Beijing congress on the Universal Postal Union. That is one way that it can be done. 
There are two methods and one of the methods is legal and that is what everyone has always focused on. When we talk about $150 million worth of business in 2006, that figure has surely gone up since then. It was difficult for us to get the exact figures. When Canada Post says it is losing between $60 million and $80 million, that means that the remailers are still in business.
With that in mind, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, responsible for examining crown corporations, looked at this issue. Our recommendation pointed out that since one way of operating is allowed by law, there is no need to change the law to allow these businesses to continue remailing under international agreements. Canada Post used the international platform and went to arbitration through the Universal Postal Union.
The Conservatives have not understood one thing: private corporations have a bad habit of not being all about service. They are there above all to make money. In recent years, they have launched huge operations with major public institutions such as universities and Quebec CEGEPs, by signing contracts with these universities. They were in the process of taking over Canada Post's market piece by piece.
I understand the decision of the President and board of directors of Canada Post. At some point they decided that enough was enough. Under the law, they have the right to do certain things—I read to the House the text delivered on October 7 by the minister responsible—but there are other things that they do not have the right to do and they have been told to stop. When I met with these companies' lobbyists, I told them to stop always wanting to expand. They are targeting Canada Post revenues, leading to their decline. What does that mean? It means that the government is considering privatization. The president of Canada Post, Moya Green, was hired at the time by the Liberals. We cannot ignore the fact that the president's stated goal, which is now gaining increasing support from the Conservatives, was to make Canada Post attractive for privatization. 
That is clearly the goal, despite what many departmental documents say. An election is on the horizon, and they do not want to scare people. It is clear when we see the work that was assigned by the former minister, the member for Pontiac. He wanted a report that would open a crack in the exclusive privilege. In fact, by attacking the exclusive privilege and allowing companies to collect mail and send it overseas, the Conservatives are now opening up that crack. This will probably permit companies to collect all the mail from a major organization and process it abroad—and maybe even send it back here. Once the exclusive privilege has been breached and a company can take mail to be processed abroad, that does not mean that no letters will come back. What will happen then? It will end up before the courts. Canada Post will come in second, and will be forced to prove that the mail that was collected was intended for us, and that will not be easy. 
That is what the Conservatives want. They want to open a crack in the exclusive privilege. Canada Post's profits are dwindling, but what matters to us, to Bloc Québécois members, is that services must be maintained throughout Quebec at the same rate. That is our objective. We know that the hidden agenda of the Conservatives is to open things up to competition. Once again, they are making speeches and haranguing us to tell us to open up to competition.
Rural areas in Quebec will never be able to compete with urban areas. How far will the Conservatives' need for competition go? I think it will never end, no matter what they may tell us today.
They released their latest report because there was a threat of election. They decided to sweep some of their ideas under the rug to hide them. We are not fooled. We hear them, we are listening. I listen to the minister's colleagues in committee. We know that they want privatization.
We will always be there to prevent privatization, especially when Canada Post services are currently under attack.
The government's report even makes it possible for services to be provided in a different way once postmasters retire.
The government sees it like this: they can close post offices and provide services at postal outlets, which are often located in shops or convenience stores.
My colleague from Drummond went through a difficult situation this week. What are Canada Post and the Conservative government doing to obtain the public's consent? They offer more services to a community. The postmaster retires. They could replace him, but what they really want to do is contract the services out to a private outlet located in a shop that is open for longer hours than the post office.
However, what happened with my colleague from Drummond was that it came to light that a contract had been signed with a convenience store owner, and the contract was due to expire in 2010. Then Canada Post decided to impose new advertising standards. Lacking the means to do what the crown corporation wanted him to do, the operator could no longer provide the service. Canada Post therefore closed that outlet and opened another four or five kilometres away, and then some 5,000 people had to drive their cars to pick up their mail. That is what happened.
Clearly, Moya Greene, the corporation's president, will have achieved her objective. She wants to close service centres, because she thinks there are too many and they are too expensive. Of course people will have to travel to get their mail and that is what we will do. They are choosing to do something indirectly that they refuse to openly admit. The fact that the Conservatives are supporting Canada Post's actions just shows their hypocrisy.
Bill C-44 is therefore a way to create a crack in Canada Post's exclusive privilege of collecting the mail. There is a reason I gave a little background information, because that exclusive privilege was granted to Canada Post. Before becoming a crown corporation, with the government as its major shareholder, it reported directly to the government. Now it is a crown corporation. As I said earlier, it pays federal and provincial income tax, as well as corporate income tax. It has a board of directors and acts more or less autonomously. It would not take much to be able to privatize it.
Of course as long as it is generating income for the government, things are fine. However, the problem is that the Conservative government is beginning to realize that the way things are going, profits will continue to dwindle. So naturally, there is tremendous temptation. The temptation to privatize began with the Liberals and continues with the Conservatives. Of course, as soon as a private corporation takes over, it will be like what happened with Air Canada. Since Air Canada's privatization, no one can say that the service has remained the same throughout Canada as it was when it was the government's responsibility or when it was a crown corporation. They want us to forget that.
When it comes to service in French, we all know that Air Canada receives more complaints than any other. It is legally obliged to provide service in both official languages. Yet that company is the subject of the greatest number of complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages, because it does not provide the service. That is a fact.
As soon as Canada Post is privatized, there will be fewer services in rural areas, and the Bloc Québécois will never be a party to this creeping privatization. What the government is doing is opening up a crack in Canada Post's exclusive privilege, and it will be the beginning of the end. The end, in our opinion, is the privatization of the corporation, which is clearly not acceptable. As soon as it is privatized, service in rural areas will not be as good as in urban areas. Who knows, one day there could well be two sets of postal rates: lower rates for urban areas and higher rates for rural areas. We have to nip this in the bud.
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is suggesting that the privatization is sort of the thin edge of the wedge.
If that is indeed what he thinks, then why are the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP not pushing us hard to bring in a charter?
That was an initiative brought in by this government. The charter locks in stone that that will never happen. The idea of Canada Post going into privatization is absolutely absurd. It has a universal, effective, efficient system. It actually has the number one brand name in Canada, ahead of Tim Hortons, ahead of Canadian Tire, as deemed last year. It is a great corporation, and it is going to stay that way.
This bill does not do any of what is being suggested by the opposition. It takes absolutely nothing away from Canada Post. All it does is allow for competition on outbound, international mail. That is all it does. It does not compromise one little bit any mail that is delivered in Canada.
We have to understand that this is a very small tweaking of a piece of legislation, the Canada Post Corporation Act. It is not going to lead to anything other than a more efficient, effective operation in Canada, as well as to making sure that we retain jobs for the international remailers. It will mean more jobs in Canada, more money in Canada, and a greater ability to compete as a nation.
Why is the Bloc not pushing us to put in a charter that locks in stone the very things the member is suggesting we would try to attempt to privatize or to move Canada Post into being?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the minister to look at the history of Canada Post. That is why I gave some background earlier, because Canada Post was given the exclusive privilege so that it could be profitable. That was the goal. He says that this is a little bill, and it is true, but it is probably the most damaging little bill. It says this:
 Section 15 of the Canada Post Corporation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): 
 (3) The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada. 
I have said and I will say again that this is the beginning of the end of Canada Post's exclusive privilege. That is what the Conservatives want. I gave him the example, because now remailers will be able to send lettermail abroad. How do we know they will not collect all an institution's mail, even mail that could end up back here in Canada? It will be up to Canada Post to prove that this mail was sent from Canada and wound up back here.
That is the hypocritical Conservative way of achieving their ends without saying so out loud. The minister knows it full well. The companies know it full well because, in committee, Canada Post was asked not to go further or the companies would want to take over the entire market. Obviously the remailers do not hesitate to keep going. They want even more of the market.
Bonnie Crombie: Mr. Speaker, allowing outbound mail is the first step on the slippery slope to deregulation. The government said that it would preserve the integrity of our crown corporations. Here it is attempting to dismantle and deregulate them, perhaps even privatize these crown jewels.
The government also said it would create jobs. It said it would create 200,000 jobs. Instead, it has lost 500,000 jobs. I want to ask my hon. colleague his opinion, because I believe there are more than 55,000 jobs at stake here. Are there jobs to be gained or jobs to be lost with this legislation?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.
Jobs are at stake with the structural cuts and the way Ms. Green operates. However, attacking Canada Post's exclusive privileges will take business away from it. And if business is taken away, there will be less income, fewer jobs and fewer services. That is the problem I have in all this.
My problem is rural service. I represent a rural riding and I want to be sure that Canada Post's service will still be available nearby, as it always has been, and that it will cost the same from one end of Quebec to another and from one end of Canada to another. That is what the Bloc Québécois members want. We rise every day to defend the interests of Quebeckers and opposing this bill is one way of doing so.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments after question period.

Statements By Members
Bear Ball Hockey TournamentMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was proud to attend the annual Bear Ball Hockey Tournament in North Vancouver this past month. I would like to draw attention to this growing annual charitable event and pay tribute to the organizers, John and Jennifer Bear.
This is the fifth consecutive year that the Bears have put on this four-on-four ball hockey tournament. Over $20,000 has been raised over the years in support of Camp Goodtimes, a free summer recreation camp run by the Canadian Cancer Society for children and teens suffering from cancer.
This remarkable achievement highlights the power that every Canadian holds to better our communities and our country and to make a difference in the lives of others. I salute the passion of John and Jennifer Bear and the efforts of all players, sponsors and participants over the five-year history of this successful tournament.
World Hospice and Palliative Care DayMr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October 10 marks the annual World Hospice and Palliative Care Day. All around the world, there are people who need hospice and palliative care but cannot access it.
Canada has an opportunity to play a leading role on the world stage to raise awareness and bring vital health care services to those who need them most. This year, for the voices of people living with life-limiting illnesses, for those who care for them and for the families of those who need care, let us all show that we can do more to bring help and hope to those less fortunate than ourselves.
Help Line for Immigrant WomenMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September 15, a multilingual help line opened simultaneously in Laval and in Montreal in order to encourage women from cultural communities who are victims of sexual assault to break the silence.
More than 80% of sexually assaulted women who receive help speak a language other than French or English. Sexual assault is no more prevalent among immigrants, it is just that these women are more vulnerable because of their linguistic situation. Even if they call 911, they cannot make themselves understood. The help line, available in 13 languages in Laval and in 12 languages in Montreal, aims to remedy this deplorable fact.
Another goal of this new service is to inform these women that only their husband will be arrested and not them, as would be the case for some in their country of origin.
The Bloc Québécois commends the Shield of Athena community agency for implementing this important tool for women.
AfghanistanMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after eight years of fighting a war in Afghanistan, there is more corruption, more drug trade, more civilian and troop deaths and more insurgency. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans still do not have access to potable water.
Everyone agrees that there is no military solution possible and that a new direction is needed. New Democrats have opposed this war right from the beginning. We believe that spending $9 on war fighting and $1 on development is wrong. We believe that spending $18 billion on a combat mission is wrong.
Canada must formally announce to NATO the withdrawal of our troops, and we should do it now. Canada must bring hope, peace and stability in Afghanistan by gathering countries in the region to support negotiations to end the war. We must establish a road map for peace.
It is time to end the war, not extend it.
Champions of Mental Health AwardsMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the seventh annual Champions of Mental Health Awards, which took place on October 7 as part of Mental Illness Awareness Week. These awards celebrated individuals and organizations that have made outstanding contributions to the advancement of mental health issues in Canada.
Lieutenant Colonel Stéphane Grenier, Chief of Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk and our own Minister of National Defence received awards. I was proud to be with friends and colleagues who recognized the action taken by members of our government and the Canadian Forces. Under their leadership, we are eliminating the negative stigma associated with mental illness and operational stress injuries.
The “Be the Difference” awareness campaign and the operational stress injury social support program show that this government is working with the Canadian Forces to improve the care available to the brave men and women who serve our country. They do so much for Canada and the world that we must do everything we can for them.
Our government continues to invest in this important issue that affects our soldiers, our families, our colleagues and our country.
National Co-op WeekHon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week is National Co-op Week, and with today's economic challenges and the changing face of the global economy, it could not be more timely.
With some 13 million co-op and credit union members in Canada joining some 800 million members worldwide, the popularity of co-ops and credit unions has grown, largely because of the advantages they offer in today's uncertain economic environment.
With globalization, concentration of ownership and ever-advancing technology, co-ops and credit unions provide an alternative to their investor-owned competitors, one that carries with it shared values and principles designed to ensure fairness and equity. And, of course, they are owned and controlled by their members.
National Co-op Week aims to raise the visibility of these organizations while improving understanding and awareness of co-operatives.
In closing, it is important that we all take the time to reflect on the importance that co-operatives have in our society, in our culture, and in our economy.
Sergeant-at-ArmsMrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as MP for the riding of Miramichi, I rise today to pay tribute to a man all of us know as the Sergeant-at-Arms but very few of us know of his roots. Yes, Kevin Vickers is a constituent of mine and a true Miramichier.
This week I attended an event, along with a few of my colleagues, which recognized Kevin Vickers for his long, outstanding service to our country and his efforts to promote bias-free policing and diversity in the workplace.
The people of Miramichi celebrate with this son the recognition bestowed upon him by the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada.
Kevin is a role model for many youth back home. We are so proud of him.
Bloc Québécois PlanMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although the Liberals and the Conservatives do not seem to know how to balance the budget, there is a party that has proposed the best plan for fighting the deficit—the Bloc Québécois. We are not the ones saying it. A southern Ontario paper has said so. 
This plan proposes a 1% surtax for people who earn annual taxable income of $150,000 or more, a fight against tax havens, the end of gifts to oil companies, rationalizing military purchasing and cutting bureaucratic spending. These measures could save $16 million annually without taking even one penny from the middle class and the less fortunate.
These are the elements of the best plan to fight the deficit, the Bloc Québécois plan.
As stated at the very end of the editorial, it is in the best interests of the Prime Minister to listen to and read this article. If the Minister of Finance does not wish to be deprived of his prize, he need only implement the Bloc Québécois plan.
Local Food DayMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, people across the planet will be celebrating World Food Day on October 16. Today, the Friday before Thanksgiving, our Conservative government, in conjunction with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is celebrating Local Food Day.
Canadian farmers provide some of the most affordable food in the world. However, they face a significant challenge in the amount returned to the farm gate. Studies show that only 27% of a family of four's weekly grocery bill goes back to the farms where the food was produced.
Choosing locally produced foods reinvests in local economies and local farmers. I urge Canadians to choose locally produced products when they plan this year's Thanksgiving menu.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to extend to all Canadian families, especially the people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, a happy and joyous Thanksgiving and an informed Local Food Day.
BrazilMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament whose riding is home to the largest Brazilian-Canadian community in Canada, I am honoured to offer congratulations to the city of Rio de Janeiro on its winning bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games. Rio de Janeiro becomes the first South American city to host the Olympics. It is an honour which is well deserved.
Brazil is the largest economy on that content and ranks among the fastest-growing economies in the world. The selection of Rio de Janeiro is further recognition by the nations of the world of the growing importance of Brazil upon the world stage.
In 2016, Canada will join with nations of the world as we gather in Rio de Janeiro to celebrate athletic excellence, international co-operation and the common bonds of humanity that bind us together in competition.
 Until then, as president of the Canada-Brazil Parliamentary Friendship Group, I invite all members of Parliament to join with me in extending our congratulations to Rio de Janeiro and to Brazil.
Truth in Sentencing LegislationMr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have told us loud and clear that they would like to see more truth in sentencing. That is why our government introduced Bill C-25 to end the practice of two for one sentencing.
Bill C-25 was supported by provincial attorneys general of all political parties. Police associations, victims groups and Canadians support Bill C-25. Bill C-25 was passed unanimously by the House of Commons, yet one Liberal senator said that the Liberal members of the House of Commons got it wrong. 
Why will the Liberal leader not get engaged, show some leadership and see to it that this bill is passed? 
This proves that the Liberal leader is not sincere in fighting crime. He says one thing in public, but behind the scenes, something very different is taking place. He is not in it for Canadians. He is in it for himself.
Tax HarmonizationMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the constituents of the Niagara region are strongly opposed to the harmonization of the provincial sales tax with the GST. Families in my riding of Welland are in a daily struggle to make ends meet. Placing an additional 8% on essential everyday purchases is the wrong decision to make.
Unfortunately for Ontario families, the Conservatives and the Liberals agree that raising taxes through harmonization is a good decision.
The Niagara region has been hit exceptionally hard by the decline in manufacturing jobs. The Conservative government should be focused on what is really important, making changes to EI and the pension system to put more money in people's pockets rather than being obsessed on raising sales taxes by 8%.
In harmonizing sales taxes, the Conservative government is shifting the tax burden from big business and big banks and forcing all Ontarians to pay more.
New Democrats will continue to stand up for all Ontarians and will oppose this tax grab, especially at this critical time when governments should be finding more ways to put money back into people's pockets rather than finding more ways to take money out of their pockets.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals' simplistic thinking is evident. While the Liberal senators are using every possible means to gut Bill C-25, which limits credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, the leader of the Liberal Party is unconcerned and has no empathy for victims. It is ironic coming from this very leader who, just yesterday, was himself playing the victim and acknowledging that he would actually have to work. 
This sad spectacle shows once more that to be a Liberal is to be out in left field and short on ideas.
Our government has the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians at heart. We will not allow the true victims of crime to bear the burden because of the Liberals or because of the Bloc, which votes against everything. 
2009 Nobel Peace PrizeMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama, making him the third sitting U.S. president to be awarded this prestigious award.
His election brought hope all over the world. The prize recognizes President Obama's efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation, advocating multilateral diplomacy and dialogue instead of the repressive and confrontational approach of the previous administration. Immediately upon taking office, he reached out to nations previously viewed as “the enemy”, stating in a speech given in Cairo that this cycle of suspicion and discord had to end.
He is also being recognized for his commitment to nuclear disarmament and to fighting climate change.
President Obama has definitely set the winds of change blowing, in deep contrast with the world view of the previous administration and that of its friends from the Conservative Party of Canada.
Mental HealthHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to Canadian Mental Illness Awareness Week.
Canadians living with mental illness have been cast aside for too long, and too few sufferers dare ask for the help they need.
This week provides all Canadians with the opportunity to better understand mental illness. By encouraging those affected to seek help, we can reduce the burden of mental illness on sufferers and our society.
The negative attitude of the public and of health professionals only adds to the heavy burden on society and on sufferers, who deserve help and understanding instead.
I particularly want to pay tribute to Darrell Powell and his work on injury due to occupation and the link with mental illness. We thank him for his vision and his courage.
TaxationMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that the Liberals wish to have an “adult conversation” with Canadians about raising their taxes. This is not surprising. The Liberal leader describes himself as a tax and spend Liberal. He says he wants to increase the GST. He was the first Liberal to argue for a carbon tax on everything.
Why would the Liberal leader want to make it harder for Canadians to pay their bills and provide for their families? It is simple. He needs more money to pay for all of the big ticket spending projects he has promised. 
His agenda is now clear for all to see. If he has the chance, taxes will go one way, up.
Thankfully, unlike the Liberals, this government believes that Canadians deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. That is why Canadians know we are the party and the government of lower taxes.

Oral Questions
Government AdvertisingMr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government had a choice: to inform Canadians on how to protect their health against H1N1, or to use taxpayers' money as a slush fund to run campaign ads. Ten to one, costing tens of millions of dollars, the Conservatives chose themselves over Canadians, to abuse the system and treat tax dollars like a Conservative war chest. 
Worse, the Prime Minister was warned beforehand by bureaucrats that this crossed the line. The Prime Minister knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
With civil servants saying that they have never seen anything so blatant as this self-promotion, will the government repay taxpayers and stop this abuse?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the action plan website and advertising campaign further increased transparency and accountability to Canadians. We want Canadians to have information about all of the important measures in our stimulus package, like the home renovation tax credit, but again we know where the Liberals stand. They voted against home owners receiving this credit. 
It is little surprise that the Liberal member does not support informing Canadians about these important economic stimulus programs and initiatives. After all, the Liberals voted against these recession fighting measures in their relentless pursuit of an unnecessary and opportunistic election.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, what is clear is the Conservatives want to use taxpayer money to keep them in power. 
In fact, Peter Aucoin, professor emeritus at Dalhousie University and expert on government advertising, said, “Expecting public servants to manage government communications that has a partisan spin to it is a misuse of public power”. It is an abuse. It has even been called “a form of political corruption”.
Senior bureaucrats told them not to do it. Every Canadian knows the Conservatives are treating taxpayers' money like a personal slush fund. In a difficult economy, with thousands of Canadians fighting to make ends meet, can they really look taxpayers in the eyes and justify this gross abuse?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how information on the H1N1 virus is an abuse of any government spending.
The government has a long-standing commitment to communicate important services and benefits to Canadians. We will continue to live up to our responsibility, especially during this economic crisis.
Is the member opposite suggesting that Canadians do not have the right to know about the home renovation tax credit?
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, what is an abuse is choosing ten to one to promote themselves instead of Canadians' health. That is an abuse.
“Every funding program across the government is being politicized”, said one civil servant. Another said, “They do it for their own needs. They're not in it for people. Welcome to this Prime Minister's world”. 
Yes, welcome to the Prime Minister's world, government as a partisan weapon of attack, every program, every service twisted and contorted to serve the Conservatives' ends. 
The Prime Minister was elected to serve but he has forgotten who. Will he end the abuse and finally put Canadians first?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, advertising is a key way for the government to reach large numbers of Canadians on important issues of public concern, such as H1N1, elder abuse, Canadian Forces recruitment and the home renovation tax credit.
We are not surprised the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals do not want Canadians to know about measures like the home renovation tax credit. After all, they voted against them in their relentless pursuit of an unnecessary and opportunistic election.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are acting in their own best interests and not to help people.
That is what public officials and experts are saying when they see the tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on partisan and politicized government ads.
Treasury Board regulations prohibit that kind of advertising. Our institutions must not use public funds for partisan purposes.
When will the President of the Treasury Board put a stop to this? When will he ask the Auditor General to look into it?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, advertising is a very useful way for the government to communicate with a large number of Canadians on issues like the H1N1 virus, elder abuse, the home renovation tax credit and recruitment for the Canadian Forces.
The government has long been committed to informing Canadians about the services and benefits they are entitled to, and we will continue to honour our commitments, especially during this global economic crisis.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, Peter Aucoin, a professor emeritus at Dalhousie University, said, “It's so blatantly obvious. If this isn't partisan advertising then nothing is.”
The Conservatives were already warned in January that they should not create a website to stroke the Prime Minister's ego, and that making the taxpayers pay for it would be considered a misuse of public funds.
Why does the government continue to break the rules, and why not ask—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat, advertising is a key way for the government to reach large numbers of Canadians on important issues of public concern like H1N1, elder abuse, Canadian Forces recruitment and the home renovation tax credit. While we are determined to make sure Canadians know about these important issues, the opposition is determined to bring on an unnecessary and expensive election.
Employment InsuranceMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec lost 3,700 jobs last month, 1,100 of them in the forestry and mining sectors. Since 2007, a total of 47,000 jobs have been lost. A complete overhaul of the employment insurance system is needed now more than ever because half of all unemployed workers are not eligible. Forestry workers, tourism workers, people in unstable jobs, young people and women always have a hard time qualifying.
When will the government understand that Quebec's priority is to make changes to employment insurance eligibility?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, in our economic action plan, our government implemented measures to help affected workers. The real question here is this: why does the Bloc Québécois always vote against measures to help workers? Quebec workers need help.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should tell that to the 3,700 Quebeckers who lost their jobs last month. He should explain that to them.
Why does the government not understand that we have to improve EI eligibility criteria and improve benefits by increasing income replacement rates from 55% to 60%? We need a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system.
When will this heartless government understand that? The Conservative government is heartless indeed.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced new measures, including five extra weeks of benefits to help unemployed workers who need it. We also extended the work-sharing program by 14 weeks, which will help workers. We also expanded training programs for workers for up to two years. That is another measure. And for long-tenured workers, we have added an extra 5 to 20 weeks. But the Bloc voted against those measures.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was unable to refute the claims that her employment insurance bill will benefit very few unemployed workers. She said that her department's figures were based on estimates, predictions and extrapolations. Basically, she cannot predict how many unemployed workers will meet the criteria set out in her own bill.
Why will the minister not introduce any real reforms that will help workers, instead of hurling these grossly exaggerated figures at us?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the measure for long-tenured workers, that is, an extra 5 to 20 weeks, will be available to those workers who need it. Fathers and mothers will need that money to pay for groceries, utilities and the mortgage, and the Bloc Québécois is about to vote against this measure and against Quebeckers.
Mrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two weeks the minister has been unable to assess the impact of her bill on various industry sectors. Yet the Bloc Québécois is already able to say that forestry workers in Quebec are highly unlikely to benefit from Bill C-50, because they have been through a number of periods of intermittent unemployment, which excludes them from these new measures.
Why does the minister not acknowledge that her bill is designed for workers in the auto industry in Ontario?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, all the Bloc thinks about is playing politics and voting systematically against all our measures to benefit Quebeckers and Canadians.
I invite the Bloc members to be more discerning, take their role as parliamentarians seriously and really represent Quebec's interests.
Tax HarmonizationMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians gather together this weekend in their homes to give thanks, why is it that the Conservative government is making it more expensive to put food on the table and buy that home in the first place?
According to the B.C. Real Estate Association, the government's HST rip-off will significantly increase the cost of buying a home. It says that the biggest losers will be consumers, and regardless of any rebate, the cost associated with buying any type of real estate will still increase.
Instead of making homes more affordable so hard-working people can put roofs over their heads, why is the government leaving them out in the cold?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House knows, that is a provincial issue. I would encourage the hon. member, when he goes home this weekend, to talk to members of his own legislative assembly.
There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in those questions because every time we have tried to reduce taxes for Canadians, NDP members have voted against it. The actions that we have taken have left $3,000 in the pockets of ordinary, four-member families. The NDP voted against that every time.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it was the government's brilliant idea to use taxpayers' money to bribe the provinces to raise taxes on those same taxpayers. 
The bottom line is that the HST hurts families. Even minor hockey is being targeted. Yesterday, the Prince George Minor Hockey Association said that it has worked hard to keep costs down, but the so-called hockey-mom sales tax is going to hit parents with higher costs.
Why does the government hate hockey? Why will the government not let kids play Canada's game? Just let the kids play.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, that is more hypocrisy. In fact, I believe that the NDP voted against an initiative that we put in place to actually provide tax credits to families for their children to participate in sports. It is incredible that he and his party voted against that.
 They stand in this House and proclaim to represent their constituents, yet they vote against tax reductions that leave more money in Canadians' pockets.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, to quote the Ontario Minor Hockey Association:
 Parents who want to register their kids for minor hockey is just one group of many that will be negatively impacted by this tax. 
Four Conservative leadership candidates in the province of Ontario said in a letter to the Minister of Finance, “This HST will cost Ontario taxpayers billions of dollars”.
If this is a provincial decision, why did these provincial Conservatives write a letter to the federal minister asking him to stop his plans for the HST?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, once again, all of the initiatives that we have put forward in reducing taxes and leaving more money in taxpayers' pockets have been fought by the NDP, whose members stand in this House, supposedly proudly, and vote against Canadians, against the home renovation tax credit, which has been incredibly successful across this country.
I would really like to be in the member's shoes when he goes home to his constituents for Thanksgiving weekend and says, “I voted against something that is good for all Canadians”.
AfghanistanMr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is more and more confusion in this government about when Canadian troops will leave Afghanistan. Some Conservatives are saying that it may take another motion of the House to determine the fate of this mission.
Will the government abide by the resolution adopted in the House in March 2008, which says that the mission will end in 2011?
We want the truth and nothing but the truth.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, let me be very precise for my hard of listening friend across the way.
The government has been clear. The House of Commons was clear. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Minister of National Defence has been clear. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been clear. I have been clear.
Let me be clear one more time. Our combat mission will end in 2011.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, clear as mud.
Why is it that the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs tells committee members they will have their chance to debate the continuation of the mission? Why is it that the defence minister told the press that the mission remains as it is until such time as Parliament opens it up?
Will those members issue retractions? All Canadians and our brave troops want to know the truth.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should get the mud out of his ears.
I will say it one more time. Canada's combat mission will end in 2011. Please listen up.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Richard Colvin was the first Canadian to see inside the Afghan prison system.
The government used to brag about the fact that he and others were there inspecting those facilities, finding out what was going on, and informing the government of those realities.
Now, Richard Colvin wants to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission. He has already sent the commission his testimony in writing. He wants Canadians to know the truth.
Why has the government launched eight different legal manoeuvres to shut up Richard Colvin? Why that cover up?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to individual witnesses, none have been prohibited from testifying.
The MPCC's list of witnesses was compiled before the Federal Court decided that the MPCC's mandate was limited to military policing matters only.
Mr. Colvin has submitted his affidavit to the MPCC. His affidavit is being reviewed under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that nothing would affect Canada's national security if released. This review is expected to be completed before his affidavit is discussed when the public interest hearing resumes on October 14.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it needs to be made clear that there is nothing here that questions the conduct of Canadian soldiers. They are not the problem. This is all about the wilful blindness of the Conservative government.
To stymie that complaints commission on torture in Afghanistan jails, the Conservatives are trying to get rid of the commission chair, Peter Tinsley. His term is up. The Conservatives will not extend it. The normal practice would be to extend the tenure of incumbent officials when their terms expire in the middle of incomplete proceedings.
What is the government so desperately covering up?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, that is just nonsense. Mr. Tinsley, the current chairperson, has served in that position for the past four years. He has reached the end of his term. We appreciate his dedication to the position.
He has been advised he will not be reappointed to serve a further term of office. This is in keeping with previous chairpersons who also only served one term. 
A new chairperson will be appointed following a public competition process. While a replacement is yet to be named, we have great faith in the commission's other designated officials who will continue to carry out their duties and the commission's mandate.
The EnvironmentMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board has just added its voice to those calling on this government to take concrete action on climate change. In the absence of clear rules, companies are reluctant to invest in reducing greenhouse gases.
Will this government listen to the Conference Board and the companies who are saying, “Stop talking, start doing something and give us the regulations.”?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government is taking leadership and real action to fight climate change.
I ask that member to support the plan which is a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The United States Senate is now looking at very similar targets, a 20% reduction by 2020. Our international partners are following our lead on fighting climate change. 
The Bloc needs to support those programs.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, this government keeps making bad choices. Instead of putting a value on carbon, it is favouring its friends, the oil companies in western Canada that are exploiting the oil sands, by investing $120 million in carbon capture and storage, a technology whose effectiveness is disputed.
Will this government continue to turn a deaf ear to the calls of the investors who are demanding clear regulations and a carbon tax in order to be able to invest in the future?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the member ignores the fact that climate change is a global issue. It needs to have a global approach. It has to have a harmonized approach.
That is why we have been working hard with our international partners. That is why the clean energy dialogue is ongoing. That is why we are preparing for a new climate change pact. 
The member needs to get on board, and not support a carbon tax that is being supported and proposed by the Liberals.
Agriculture and Agri-foodAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, producers under supply management have cause to be worried as pressure is mounting for the Doha round to reach an agreement in 2010. This summer, the government agreed to sign the press release issued by the Cairns group calling for the negotiations to resume. This press release does not mention the need for a balanced trade approach nor does it propose improving the agreement that would weaken supply management.
Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food realize that his government's actions contradict his reassuring words, and do not calm the fears of Quebec workers, just like the Minister of International Trade who refused yesterday in committee to exclude supply management from free trade talks with the European Union?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The member was at committee yesterday where we discussed supply management in great detail. Our government has been very clear and very firm in support of supply management. Our negotiators on agriculture and our negotiators at the WTO have been very firm in protecting supply management.
As a matter of fact, the government has protected supply management to a degree that no other government in this place has ever done.
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, producers and processors have been asking the federal government for a program enabling them to deal with the unfair competition resulting from the new regulations on specified risk materials, or SRM, that are even stricter than those of the United States. The Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food has said that the announcement of a $50 million program for the slaughter industry does not meet the needs of businesses governed by the SRM regulations. 
What does the minister plan on doing to support producers and processors who bear the costs of managing specified risk materials?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government stands beside farmers. We work for farmers. We have implemented a number of funding programs, for example, to help our livestock and pork producers.
We have in place our business risk management model to help all farmers across the full spectrum, and we are working, in particular, for our farmers in Quebec.
Federal AppointmentsMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is fixated on rewarding Conservative loyalty. The minister's answer and the ongoing political patronage saga is indeed an insult to Canadians who took the Conservatives at their word to abolish this type of behaviour.
Where is this public appointments commission they promised that would set standards for federal cabinet appointments? There were 37 Conservative appointments in just six weeks.
It has been almost four years. When will the Conservatives practise what they used to preach? Do it now.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject, not only the premise but also the substance of the hon. member's question.
All appointments by this government are subject to rigorous scrutiny. The appointments in question went to extremely qualified candidates. Our appointment process is open, transparent and competency based. 
The government will continue to appoint individuals based on merit.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, at least I wrote my own question.
The Conservatives' message to Canadians is that if they want help from the government, they had better be a card-carrying Conservative.
How about awarding postings to four Conservative insiders last month, including two to the Toronto Port Authority board. Who did that? It was the Minister of Transport who did that.
Might the Minister of Transport explain why his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, is currently under investigation for organizing a Conservative fundraiser straight out of the Toronto Port Authority head office?
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, it was our government that actually brought in the changes. We brought in the arm's length powers under the Accountability Act to be able to have agencies investigate such matters.
It just so happens that the Minister of Natural Resources has told me that she has received correspondence from the Ethics Commissioner and that correspondence has cleared her of all allegations.
PensionsHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I met with Joe and Marlene. Joe had worked for Nortel for over 20 years. He contributed to his pension plan and now, because his company has gone bankrupt, that pension has been gutted and there is no help from the government.
Just a few short years ago, the current Prime Minister actually said that he wanted to kill the Canada pension plan. What would Joe and Marlene have done? How would they ever have been able to pay their heat, their utility bills and their grocery bills if we did not have the Canada pension plan?
Will the Prime Minister admit that he was wrong and that he has no intention of killing the Canada pension plan?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the pension issue regarding Nortel is a provincial issue and should be dealt with by the provincial government in Ontario.
When the opposition asks this type of question, I am reminded by the quote from their party leader who said, “Nothing is personal in politics, because politics is theatre. It's part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel”.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, just as a reminder to the parliamentary secretary, the Canada pension plan is a federal responsibility and something that we are supposed to be looking after.
Seniors are under attack continually, whether we are talking about rising utility bills, the higher cost of living or low interest rates. 
 The last time the Prime Minister actually studied this issue, he was very much in support of killing the Canada pension plan and privatizing it. Where would seniors be today? Where would Joe and Marlene be today if they did not have the Canada pension plan to rely on?
We want to know if the plan is under attack and whether it will be protected in the future.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we can safely say that the Canada pension plan is intact, the old age security is intact and the guaranteed income supplement program is intact.
We have done more for seniors in two years than the Liberal government did in 13 years. We have established a minister of state for seniors and a national council for seniors so we can listen to seniors and do things for them. We introduced pension income splitting, doubled the pension income tax credit and raised the GIS exemption from $500 to $3,500.
We have done a number of things for seniors that the Liberals failed and refused to do over 13 years.
The EnvironmentMr. Tim Uppal (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to an environmental strategy that Canadians can trust and believe in.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources please tell this House and all Canadians how this government is investing in green technology and promoting leading-edge research in carbon capture and storage?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park for his incredibly hard work and his successful work on this file.
We have another good news story out of our economic action plan. As everyone knows, our government is committed to investing in green technology and yesterday we announced a $120 million investment in carbon capture as part of our clean energy fund. This announcement is a joint venture with government and industry. It will develop a fully integrated carbon capture and storage project. This project will see the capture, transport and storage of over one million tonnes of CO2 per year.
NortelMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that executives at Nortel have filed a staggering $25 million in claims for pension bonuses and severance payments.
Those who drove the company into the ground are pursuing massive payouts while rank and file Nortel workers are in danger of losing their own pensions. In Quebec, Nortel pensioners are being protected by the Quebec pension plan but that is not so in the rest of the country.
When will the government finally protect Nortel workers who have been left out in the cold?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, and the hon. member knows this, the Nortel pension issue is a matter for the Ontario government to work on.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, do you not love it? In Britain and in the U.S., they are protected but not so in Canada.
We also know that the federal government is buying the Carling campus of Nortel. Some of that money could be used to help Nortel employees who have been struggling with the company's collapse. Nortel employees are taking a backseat to large creditors and are being forced to watch as the remains of the company are divided up while the government is watching.
Will the money going to Nortel for the purchase of the Carling campus find its way into the hands of Nortel workers or to the executives who destroyed the company? 
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, once again, our thoughts are always with workers who lose their jobs and workers whose pensions are affected.
However, I would remind the hon. member that this is not a time for political gamesmanship. The fact is that the jurisdictional responsibility for Nortel pensioners in Canada lies with the Ontario government. The situation is different from what it is in other countries.
BiotechnologyNicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Government of Quebec unveiled its new biopharmaceutical strategy. It includes an initiative along the lines of the Bloc Québécois' economic recovery plan, which proposes to allow businesses to claim on a quarterly basis tax credits for research and development.
What is the government waiting for to act on this proposal from the Bloc Québécois that would ensure that all businesses can have access to cash and reinvest it immediately in their development activities?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, on this issue and on many other issues, it is interesting to hear the Bloc stand up and talk about a variety of things and attack this government.
I want to quote, if I could, France's finance minister, who, in talking about Canada's overall approach during this global economic slowdown, said: I think …we can be inspired by …the Canadian situation. There were some people who said, ‘I want to be Canadian’. 
I wish all members in this House felt the same way.
Nicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, while Quebec strongly supports its biopharmaceutical industry, this Conservative government refuses to act on the issue of innovative pharmaceutical companies' right to appeal. This jeopardizes investments in research and development.
When will Canada create a fair right to appeal in terms of competition?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, on research and development, this government has taken steps that no other government in Canadian history has taken. We have invested $5.1 billion in science and technology through Canada's economic action plan. 
The result of that, in terms of Canada's competitiveness, is that the World Economic Forum recently announced that Canada would be one of only two industrialized countries that would emerge from this global slowdown in a more competitive position than we went in.
Canadian HeritageMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year's Conservative strategic review caused a loss of $4 million for the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum. This reduction makes it very difficult for management to fulfill its responsibilities and protect the well-being of employees. So much so, that subcontracting is widely used, thus depriving employees of job security.
When will the Conservatives direct the management of the museums to go back to the table to negotiate an end to the strike that damages the reputation of these two national emblems?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that national museums are independent from government. However, we do urge the parties involved to keep working toward a resolution. 
The member should also know that funding for our national museums has gone up every year since this government took office. It has gone up over levels from when the Liberals were in government. The member should know that because on the last budget I think he actually supported it initially and then voted against it later. However, he did originally think museums deserved more money. We have always felt that way.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, this is misleading the public again.
The strike by the 420 employees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum has entered its third week. These employees are simply asking to be paid the same as other Canadian museum employees. The Conservatives' cuts to culture are starving our museums.
When will the minister help these two museums find solutions, so that their employees can have fair working conditions?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, a federal mediator has been working with the parties even before the strike began and continues to work with them to bring about a solution. We are monitoring the situation closely. We are urging the parties to come to an agreement in the interests of all Canadians.
Federal AppointmentsOlivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story of shady fundraising behaviour. 
Michael McSweeney, a registered lobbyist for the Cement Association of Canada, organized a fundraiser for the Natural Resources minister from his corporate office. Robert Poirier organized a fundraiser for the Industry minister and was rewarded with an appointment to the Toronto Port Authority, better known as the Tory pork authority.
 Will the ministers actually admit that using private companies, crown corporations and lobbyists to raise money for themselves is unethical and unacceptable?
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question but the reality is that I have answered this already in the House. We are the government that brought in a third party and strengthened third party powers to arm's length agencies to be able to deal with these kinds of matters. 
As I have said before, the Natural Resources minister has had correspondence from the Ethics Commissioner who has cleared her of all allegations. They are totally unfounded.
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, actually that is not true. This behaviour is not new. We saw it when the Liberals were in power and now we are seeing it with patronage appointments to the immigration board, to our judiciary and to the boards of crown corporations. 
Appointments are a reward program for bagmen, campaign managers and failed candidates. The more pork they bring into the Conservatives, the more rewards they will get. 
When will the Conservatives stop this abuse and stop this unethical and illegal behaviour?
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, the witch hunt that is being attempted by my hon. colleague and her party, and one over here, is absolutely unfounded. I do not know why she believes that she is more valid to be able to speak to this than the Ethics Commissioner. We strengthened those powers and the member in question has been completely cleared.
Employment InsuranceDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to helping those hardest hit by the global recession. This is why we introduced legislation that provided from five to twenty extra weeks of EI for unemployed long-term tenured workers. These Canadians have worked hard, paid premiums for several years and now they need help while they search for new employment.
 Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tell the House what he is hearing from witnesses who are before the committee that is discussing this right now?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I will share what we are hearing. Yesterday in committee we heard from the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Steelworkers, both which support speedy passage of Bill C-50.
However, the witness that had the greatest impact was Rosalie Washington, who lost her job after 20 years. She literally pleaded with all parties to support the bill. It will provide her with much needed help so she can put food on the table for her three children.
The Liberal leader should stop caring only about himself, start caring about hard-hit Canadians like Rosalie Washington and support our bill.
Canadian HeritageMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the House adopted a motion calling on the government to recognize Exporail in Quebec as Canada's national rail museum.
The Canada Science and Technology Museum's board of directors has since approved a plan that would see it become the owner of Exporail's assets, valued at around $100 million, for only $1. However, the government has nixed the deal.
 Why can the government not recognize a good deal when it sees one? Is it because it would involve an investment in culture? Is it because it would involve an investment in Quebec? Or does the government have something against celebrating Canada's rail history?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is surprising to get these questions from the party that has most recently voted against culture and against initiatives to increase funding to national museums.
Not only is funding at its highest levels under the Prime Minister, but our government has created two new national museums in Winnipeg and Halifax. It has delivered more support for arts and culture than any government in history. It may pain the member opposite to hear that, but the facts speak for themselves.
Post-secondary EducationMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of Education is calling for the federal government to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over education and pay Quebec directly its “fair share” of the $507 million earmarked for the Canada student loan program, and to do so, “as soon as possible”. This way, the Government of Quebec could limit the student debt load and increase its financial support.
Why does this government insist on imposing its program on the people of Quebec, who are asking for the unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation instead?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, the government is negotiating with the Government of Quebec with respect to student assistance. However, we have put a number of programs together for students to put more grants in their hands, $250 a month to low-income Canadians and $100 a month to middle-income Canadians. There are 100,000 more students benefiting than under the previous Liberal government and the Bloc has voted against those proposals and against students across the country.
Canadian HeritageChris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, 420 workers have been on strike for almost three weeks at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum. The impact of the strike is of national significance.
The museum has just announced the cancellation of its most important fundraising event and programs have been seriously curtailed, all because the museum's CEO will not negotiate the same job security protections that are already in place at other federal museums and institutions.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage go beyond the lip service offered earlier by the parliamentary secretary and take real action to pressure the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation to get back to the bargaining table?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, if the member was listening, we are monitoring the situation. We are urging the parties to get back to the bargaining table.
We have appointed a federal mediator. He has been working with the parties. It is important that the parties work in the best interests of all Canadians.
JusticeMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up with a justice system that puts the rights of criminals ahead of law-abiding citizens.
Too often, the sentences of offenders simply do not correspond to the serious nature of their crimes. That is exactly why our government introduced a bill to end the practice of reducing criminal sentences at a ratio of 2:1 for time served in pretrial custody. The bill has the broad support of victims groups and the law enforcement community.
 My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why would Liberal senators gut the bill, despite it being passed unanimously by the House?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today there has not been one question from that side of the House about victims of crime. I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North for his interest.
Canadians have told us loud and clear that they want criminal sentences to reflect the seriousness of a crime. We on this side of the House have always known that the Liberals have been soft on crime. Canadians know that and they have proved it yet again.
The Liberals are gutting our truth in sentencing legislation by passing an amendment that continues the practice of two for one or three for one sentencing. Now they are threatening to do the same—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.
Official LanguagesMrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Community Groups Network has informed us that organizations that receive official language funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage are informed upon submitting their applications that they will not receive funding for their projects before August. These applications are for the period starting in March. Ten-month projects must be compressed into five months.
What does the government plan on doing to ensure that organizations will have the funding they need to complete projects that are very important to promoting our official languages?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is a strong supporter of our country's linguistic duality. It has delivered the goods. We allocated a record $1.1 billion in funding for the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. This money will strengthen francophone and anglophone communities throughout the country, and will bring language and culture to new communities across Canada.
MuseumsMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, employees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have been on strike for several weeks now. They held a demonstration today to denounce the government negotiators' attitude and to demand employment security as protection against subcontracting.
Why are museum employees being denied the protection enjoyed by other public employees? Why is there a double standard?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, so the member can understand, and as I said previously, we have urged the parties to come together and work to reach an agreement in the interest of all Canadians. 
We have appointed a federal mediator. He had been working with the parties even before the strike began. He continues to work with them to bring them to the point of solution.
HealthMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, H1N1 should not be about politics. It should be about the health of all Canadians.
According to the latest information, vaccines will be coming out sooner rather than later. While it is good news for some Canadians, first nations are not heard in this report. We have been asking for months to put aboriginal people as a priority on the list of recipients of the H1N1 vaccine. 
Will the government confirm that all first nations, not just remote ones, will be seen as a priority for the vaccine?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Chief Public Health Officer, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, has established the guidelines that will be applied for the H1N1 vaccine. We rely on the expert advice of the medical community in developing the guidelines that will be used to roll out the vaccine when it is produced.

Routine Proceedings
National DNA Data Bank of CanadaHon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 13.1(2) of the DNA Identification Act, I have the pleasure to submit, in both official languages, the 2008-09 annual report of the National DNA Data Bank of Canada. 
Royal Canadian Mounted PolicePeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2008 annual report on the RCMP's Use of the Law Enforcement Justification Provisions. This report addresses the RCMP's use of specified provisions within the law enforcement justification regime, which is set out in sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code. It also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.
Electronic SurveillancePeter Van Loan: Lastly, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 2008 annual report on the use of electronic surveillance, pursuant to section 195 of the Criminal Code.
Committees of the HouseDean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I am pleased to table on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, in both official languages, the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “Issues and Challenges Related to Local Television”, tabled in the House on June 19.
The response reaffirms the government's vision of Canada as a hub for creativity and innovation, building a strong and prosperous country that is on the leading edge of the digital revolution. It outlines actions that the government has already taken to implement that vision by putting Canadians first as consumers, citizens and creators.
Moving forward, the response indicates the government will continue to seek ways to ensure an environment that is conducive to strong, creative and innovative Canadian business.
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the response of the Government of Canada to the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics entitled “The Access to Information Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”, tabled in the House on June 18.
Also, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the response of the Government of Canada to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics entitled “The Privacy Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”.
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the response of the Government of Canada to the second report of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan entitled “Report on Canada’s Priority Number One in Afghanistan: Helping to Enhance the Afghan National Security Forces”.
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “A Study of the Crisis Faced by Certain Industrial Sectors in Canada”, tabled in the House of Commons on June.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I am pleased to table on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, in both official languages, the government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources entitled “Combining our Energies: Integrated Energy Systems for Canadian Communities”, tabled in the House on June 18.
Foreign AffairsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under section 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, eight treaties of the International Maritime Organization and one treaty of the International Labour Organization.
Treaty number one: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), Annex IV: Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships;
Treaty number two: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), Annex V: Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships;
Treaty number three: Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), done at London on September 26, 1997, Annex VI: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships;
Treaty number four: International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, 2001, done at London on October 5, 2001;
Treaty number five: International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995, done at London on July 7, 1995;
Treaty number six: International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, done at London on February 13, 2004;
Treaty number seven: Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, done at London on November 11, 1988;
Treaty number eight: Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, done at London on November 11, 1988.
Treaty number nine: Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, done at Geneva on February 23, 2006.
An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation to the joint meeting of the defence and security, economics and security, and political committees, held in Brussels, Belgium, February 15-17, and the annual economics and security committee consultation with the OECD in Paris, France, February 18-19.
Also pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have to honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation to the visit of the economics and security committee, a subcommittee on Transatlantic economic relations, held in Ottawa May 6-8.
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActHon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following:
 That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23 shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately then, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, second reading stage of Bill C-23 shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments. 

The Deputy Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
 And fewer than 25 members having risen: 
 Fewer than 25 members having risen the motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
Committees of the HouseHon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I believe you will find consent for the following motions. I move:
 That, in relation to its study on organized crime, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to Montréal (Quebec) and Halifax (Nova Scotia), in the Fall of 2009 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move: 
 That, in relation to its study on northern economic development, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Iqaluit, Nunavut, in the Fall or Winter of 2009-10 and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on northern economic development, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in the fall or winter of 2009-10, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on correctional services, mental health and addictions, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to Saskatoon and Maple Creek, Saskatchewan; Kingston, Ontario; Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec and Dorchester, New Brunswick, in October/November of 2009, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study on correctional services, mental health and addictions, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to London, United Kingdom and Oslo, Norway, in the Fall of 2009 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 

[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsChris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today on behalf of dozens of constituents in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. Specifically, I would like to thank Mr. Daniel Charles who brought this petition to my community office.
The petitioners have highlighted just some of the incidents of the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and indeed throughout the world. Human rights advocates have long documented discrimination against the Christian community in Pakistan and have raised serious concerns about the further marginalization of an already poor and disenfranchised community, yet the state offers virtually no protection.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
The petitioners therefore ask the Government of Canada to use its diplomatic clout with the government of Pakistan to protect Christians from persecution and make them feel safe, secure and equal. In the meantime, they ask the Government of Canada to assist Christians from Pakistan with their applications for refugee status and permanent residency in Canada.
Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present from constituents in my riding of Langley.
The first one says that there are a number of severe, potentially life-threatening conditions that do not qualify for disability programs because they are not necessarily permanent or because of waiting lists for surgeries, which lengthen the recovery time. Residents find themselves losing their homes and livelihoods while trying to fight these severe medical conditions.
They are calling upon the House of Commons to adopt legislation to provide additional medical EI benefits to at least equal to maternity EI benefits for people who find themselves in the above situation.
Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, the second petition, again from constituents in my riding of beautiful Langley, says that it has been 40 years since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion. Since January 28, 1988, Canada has no law to protect the lives of unborn children.
They call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, because of the bankruptcy of Nortel, I would like to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians that states:
 The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act currently do not protect the rights of all Canadian employees laid off by a company who are receiving pensions or long-term disability benefits during bankruptcy proceedings.
The people do not have any preferred status over other unsecured creditors. Employees are unlike any other creditors. They have been largely responsible for creating value for all stakeholders. Unlike debit holders, banks and suppliers, they are not diversified businesses taking risks and managing tax writeoffs for financial losses.
Currently under the Investment Canada Act, the federal government fails to ensure proceeds of sale for Canadian assets to foreigners are allocated to Canadian employee-related claims before funds are permitted to leave the country before these requirements are met.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of all Canadian employees and to ensure that employees laid off by a company who are receiving pensions or long-term disability benefits during bankruptcy proceedings obtain preferred creditor status over other unsecured creditors and to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure employee-related claims are paid from proceeds of Canadian assets sales before funds are permitted to leave the country”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I want to remind the hon. member that he should not read the petition verbatim, but summarize it.
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, I would like today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the village of Cowley, Alberta.
The post office in that community has been in operation since 1900. It plays a key role in the social and economic life of my constituents by providing the infrastructure that healthy communities need to thrive and that businesses need to grow.
This petition, signed by 110 people, which is actually over 50% of the population of Cowley, requires that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities maintain the current moratorium on post office closures and consider withdrawing the legislation to legalize remailers.
Tim Uppal: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents opposing Bill C-384, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
I would also like to thank the Catholic Women's League of Sherwood Park for its hard work on this.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by dozens of Manitoba residents. It calls for equal employment insurance benefits for adoptive parents. Under the current EI system, adoptive parents are given 35 weeks of paid leave followed by a further 15 of unpaid leave. Under the law, a biological mother is given both the first 35 weeks and the latter 15 weeks as paid leave.
Studies have shown that an additional 15 weeks of paid leave would help parents better support their adopted children and handle many of the specific issues they must face.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-413 which would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an adoptive parent would be entitled to the same number of weeks of paid leave as the biological mother of a newborn child.
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present petitions from the people of Trinity—Spadina asking us to support a universal declaration on animal welfare. They point out that animals can feel pain and suffering and that all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering.
We know that a majority of Canadians have pets and rely on them for companionship. Often when there is a natural disaster, animals are forgotten during the relief efforts and emergency planning. That is why the petitioners are supporting a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 279, 317, 327, 403 and 405 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Judy Sgro: With respect to the Veterans Affairs program for the compensation of those who were exposed to Agent Orange: (a) how did the government come to the decision on the years that would be covered for those who were exposed; (b) how did the government arrive at the compensation amount of $20,000; (c) why will the government not compensate the widows of those who were exposed and met the qualifying conditions, but who have since passed away; (d) how many applications for compensation has the government received to date; (e) how many of those applications have been approved; (f) how many applications have been denied; (g) how many of those denied were refused because the veteran has since passed away; (h) how many of the applications denied were due to a medical condition that was not deemed to meet the government’s criteria; (i) what mechanisms did the government use to determine which illnesses would be covered and which would not be considered for compensation; (j) how many cheques have been issued and delivered; and (k) was the departmental funding cut of $33.6 million completely due to a program criteria which resulted in lower than expected numbers of beneficiaries?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mrs. Carol Hughes:  With regards to the performance of the access to information system in the government for fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, for each department and agency subject to the Access to information Act: (a) what was the number of requests received; (b) what was the number of requests answered within the 30 day time limit; (c) what was the number of requests answered within 60 days; (d) what was the number of requests answered within 90 days; (e) what was the number of requests answered within 120 days or more; (f) what is the number that were appealed to the Information Commissioner; (g) what is the number of deemed refusal complaints found by the Commissioner; (h) what is the number of request that have been referred to the courts; (i) what is the number of requests that have been ordered to be released by a court; and (j) what is the amount spent on administration of the Act?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:  With respect to Dorchester Penitentiary: (a) how many plans are there for renovating or completely rebuilding it; (b) what are the operating costs associated with each of these plans; and (c) is the government currently implementing any of these plans and, if not, why not?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Andrew Kania:  With respect to federal infrastructure spending in the constituency of Brampton West, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to: (a) the date the money was requested in the riding; (b) the dollar amount requested; (c) the dollar amount received; (d) the program from which the funding came; (e) the department responsible; and (f) the designated recipient?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Andrew Kania:  With respect to applications to sponsor family members for visitor’s visas and permanent residency, made by residents of the constituency of Brampton West: (a) what is the average processing time for applications made to sponsor family members from (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) all countries aggregated; (b) what is the approval rate for applications made to sponsor family member from (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) all countries aggregated; (c) what are the top five main grounds for denying claims and their rates of usage for applications made to sponsor family members from (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) all countries aggregated; and (d) what are the details of all refusals with the dates, names and reasons?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderMr. Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reference to a question I asked on October 1. Upon my review of Hansard, I used the word “deliberately”. On advice that it may be unparliamentary, I wish to withdraw the use of that word in reference to the Conservative efforts to cover up the failure of the job creation program. 
I was not aware I used the word “deliberately” that day but after reviewing Hansard, I see it is there. I would like to withdraw it to ensure it is not in contravention of parliamentary standards.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for his apology and withdrawal. I assume the issue is therefore put to rest.

Government Orders
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that we are proceeding with Bill C-23 as we just had a motion dealing it.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Yes.
Diane Bourgeois: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor today so that I can continue the debate on this free trade agreement with Colombia. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-23 for a number of reasons. And we are not the only ones who oppose this bill. The whole of Colombian civil society, the unions that are trying to help workers in Colombia and a great many groups in Canadian civil society have also criticized this agreement.
This agreement is premature. Moreover, it does not take into account the serious problems in Colombia, especially with regard to human rights and respect for individuals. Colombia is one of Canada's minor trading partners. Canada exports grain to Colombia, which in turn sends us products that are often hand-made. Where this agreement could be important to Canada is in connection with the extractive industry. Colombia is among the Latin American countries that are very rich in ore. Canadian mining companies that set up there need protection, because these countries are not safe.
It is no secret that Colombia is a country with a great many guerillas. What is more, President Uribe is not known for promoting social justice or upholding human rights. When we first started talking here in this House about this free trade agreement with Colombia, the ambassador of that country sent tonnes of documents to members of Parliament. We received those documents in our offices. We were told that there had been changes, that President Uribe had changed his ways in the past few years and that Colombian law had changed. That is not exactly true.
We recently read a blog by Linda Diebel of the Toronto Star, who accuses the hon. member for Kings—Hants of trying to whitewash the Uribe government by peddling untruths. Diebel scoffs at the member's claim that there are no longer any paramilitaries in Colombia. That is the line we got from various Conservative members who have spoken. It is shameful; these people are prepared to hide the truth to advance their agenda and adopt an agreement that is decried by many in the general public, in the world and in Canadian civil society.
Linda Diebel reminds the hon. member for Kings—Hants that the new death squads that have formed and that the new groups of drug traffickers are just the old paramilitary groups and they still have close ties to the army. According to Diebel, he is wrong to say that the situation of murdered unionists in Colombia is improving. She goes on to say that recent figures show a slight increase.
She roundly condemns this member's campaign to whitewash the Uribe government, which has been condemned by the main human rights groups. This is a president who ignored the actions of the death squads when he was governor of Antioquia.
What does this mean? It means that when our investors, who want to make money, go to such a country, they need protection. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is not about trade and, I reiterate, is all about investments. Because this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make the lives of Canadian investors easier, especially for those investing in mining in Colombia.
 Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia seems ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. These measures are similar to the NAFTA chapter 11 provisions and are particularly dangerous in a country where labour or environmental protection laws are uncertain at best.
We should remember that, with respect to foreign investment in certain countries such as Colombia, there are few if any rules that protect people against environmental disasters. There are no provisions with respect to child labour or working women, for example, or to protect workers in general. These are countries where a human being is not necessarily valuable and it is up to us, I believe, as a civilized country that recognizes the importance of the human being, the importance of prohibiting child labour, and the importance of ensuring gender equality, to set rules for our entrepreneurs so that they do not disregard human rights and are cognizant of environmental protection, even if the environment is not that of their own country. 
I have seen slides, pictures showing, for instance, that the ground in areas where some Canadian extractive companies were mining was so polluted that river water turned pink. This water had become unusable for the local people, who then had to walk miles every day to fetch water. The groundwater has been completely contaminated for decades, perhaps even centuries to come. It should be possible to tell a Canadian mining company that, because it is contributing to water pollution in an area, action will be taken against it. But if the company is penalized somehow and cannot operate, it could sue the government, increasing its chances of being able to continue to not give a damn about the environment and human rights.
That is one of the reasons why we oppose this free trade deal. It provides excessive protection to Canadian extractive companies. It is one thing to protect Quebeckers and Canadians, but this agreement ought to include standards to protect the people and the environment.
There may be a few words about them here and there in the agreement, but that is not enough.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's fine speech.
It is not just abroad that many Canadian companies are doing this kind of thing. Companies mining for uranium have done some testing at Sept-Îles on the North Shore. They did some drilling and took some core samples, and everything was left on site. Everything was left with no supervision from Environment Canada, and the Canadian government does not care. 
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had to be called upon, because these Canadian companies are doing this not only abroad, but also in Quebec on the North Shore, for instance, in uranium mining. They left exploratory samples—they were hoping to find uranium—on the side of the road that runs along the Moisie River, a salmon river, as well as near the water intake for the city of Sept-Îles. Not only are environmental regulations needed, but we must also be much more vigilant, because companies are doing this kind of thing right here, as well as abroad, and they have no qualms about it.
I wonder if my hon. colleague knew that this was happening not only abroad, but also in Quebec. I would like to hear her comments on that.
[Interjection]
Diane Bourgeois: Madam Speaker, I can tell my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Manicouagan, that we are aware. It is appalling, because a few years ago, the OECD called on all countries to abide by world standards and regulations that would require all countries to have strict environmental standards. 
Obviously, Canada has not gone along with this. It said that it would abide by this through agents that have a name I cannot remember right now. That said, it is not true that we warn all companies that they must be careful of the environment. The things my colleague mentioned, what is happening on the North Shore, as in Colombia, can be seen by people who take VIA Rail here. If you go to British Columbia or travel across Canada on VIA Rail, in some areas, you can still see those infamous creosote railway ties, treated with oil to preserve the wood. They are there, rotting on the side of the railway tracks. You can see piles of white barrels that contain harmful products right beside the tracks.
Unfortunately, here in Canada, we have no regulations to force or require companies to make a habit of protecting the environment. That is unfortunate. Perhaps the environment is not important to this government.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has time for a very brief question.
Yves Lessard: Madam Speaker, I grew up in a mining region in northwestern Quebec. I can therefore speak to the mining companies' thoughtlessness and lack of concern for the environment over the past years and decades. One need only go to the far north, including the areas around James Bay, Ungava Bay and Hudson Bay, to witness the aftermath of their activities, much like in Abitibi.
My question for my colleague is this: measures like the ones being taken here, which will give the go-ahead to Canadian companies to act—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member has just 30 seconds to respond to her colleague's question.
[Interjection]
Diane Bourgeois: Madam Speaker, I would say that it would tarnish Canada's image. That is a shame because we must not forget that Quebec has done more than its part to improve Canada's image and that, if not for Quebec, Canada's reputation would be even worse.
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, Canada is a country that has standards, both for human rights and for labour law. That is why I cannot support the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia. If Canada is to stand up for human rights and the protection of workers, we cannot sign a free trade agreement with a country where workers do not have basic freedoms.
The government believes that a free trade deal with Colombia is a good idea because of “modern economics”. Free trade, however, does not benefit everyone equally. Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said last year, “Standard economic theory does not say that everyone will be better off as a result of trade liberalization, only that the winners could compensate the losers”. Free trade will not benefit the common people of Colombia. 
The Canadian Council for International Co-operation reports that this trade agreement would have a significant impact on Colombia's agriculture which represents a significant portion of the country's GDP. The proposed free trade agreement is slanted and Colombia stands to lose the most. Clearly, those who will hurt the most are those who are workers at the bottom of the ladder.
In Colombia, labour laws do not give workers basic protection. Its labour code does not meet the International Labour Organization's minimum standards. I would expect that Canadians would be outraged if this were the case here in Canada. Why should Canada encourage trade with a country where workers' rights are not valued?
Violence against labour organizers in Colombia is rampant. There have been 2,685 union workers killed in the last 25 years. Due to impunity, 97% of these murder cases remain unsolved. It is not only that Colombians do not have basic workers' rights, they are incapable of asking for them because their very lives are threatened.
Someone who recently came to Canada from Colombia and is living in Ottawa said:
 Free trade means big countries like Canada versus [a] small country like Colombia. Colombia has no final products...industry is not well developed. Colombia has a lot of basic natural resources, so big developed countries like Canada can take advantage... [getting] cheap natural resources, tax free. Then the natural resources are processed abroad. For Colombia, it means that jobs are created outside. There is no benefit for common people. Free trade with Colombia is a sophisticated way to take advantage of the common people...It's not a secret, in Colombia the guerillas, paramilitary, the police and drug dealers work together. You never know who is who; you never know who is honest. 
This statement from that Colombian woman clearly demonstrates that violence affects day-to-day life. Here in Canada we take human rights for granted. We cannot forget that our actions affect what happens elsewhere, and that we have a responsibility to help our own economy without hurting the lives of others in a faraway country.
As a member of the United Nations, we have international obligations, and this legislation demonstrates that the Conservative government is not respecting those commitments.
Even the United States Congress rejected a free trade agreement with Colombia. American President Barack Obama has said, “We have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights”. 
The Conservative government is only concerned about Canada's economic interests, without regard to possible effects on the Colombian people. Colombia is not such a significant trading partner for Canada, but the benefits for Canada will not be significant enough to justify this trade agreement.
The Prime Minister has stated that it is a “ridiculous” idea to expect other countries to deal with their social, political and human rights problems, but I know many Canadians who feel that it is a more ridiculous position to encourage a trade system that does not uphold the rights of its own people.
In the past, Canada has sanctioned irresponsible governments. We cannot turn back and imply that leaders can do whatever they want without consequences. Canada cannot set a precedent that suggests that economic interests outweigh basic human rights. 
International pressure should be put on the Government of Colombia to allow for the development of democracy there. We should not be encouraging trade in a place where labour organizers are routinely targeted. We need to work toward a better strategy for international investments that would benefit Canadians as well as the hard-working people of Colombia.
This free trade agreement does not achieve the goal of supporting the hard-working people of Colombia. International investment must be done in a way that respects human rights and is sustainable in every sense of the word. The free trade agreement inhibits the rights of Colombians. We must not support this agreement. We must show all Canadians and our trading partners that human rights remain a fundamental value and priority of the Canadian people and their government.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. There have been 2,690 trade unionists murdered in Colombia since 1986. Twenty-seven trade unionists have been murdered there just this year alone. Colombia is not a significant trading partner of ours. In fact, in that region, it is only the fifth largest trading partner in Latin America.
Why is the government so directed to get this agreement signed when we see this total lack of human rights? Why does the government keep pursuing the same sorts of agreements, such as this one and the Canada-Peru agreement, which are all patterned on the FTA? Why does the government not look to the European Union for better examples of trade agreements that bring all the countries up and provide fair trade provisions, as opposed to this model, which results in a race to the bottom for the lowest common denominator?
[Interjection]
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the Conservative Party supports free trade with Colombia that violates human rights and democracy, but I am surprised that the Liberal Party is now in favour of it in the name of free trade.
I do not understand why the Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.) rejected a letter sent to him last spring during the leadership convention in Vancouver by over 50 prominent Canadians, calling on him to oppose the deal. When the Liberal trade critic and foreign affairs critic travelled to Colombia in August, they were briefed by a majority of supporters of the Colombian regime and they failed to see the kinds of human rights violations and the negative impact this trade deal would inflict on the hard-working people of Colombia. I do not understand that either. They have closed their eyes to the Colombian people. It is very surprising. 
I certainly hope that the Liberals will change their minds. I hope that they will not support this trade deal nor jump in bed with the Conservatives.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the United Kingdom ended military aid to Colombia because of the human rights record. Forty-three foreign companies in Colombia have been accused of having ties with paramilitary groups.
In 2008, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation there improved. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment study be undertaken to determine the real impact of the trade deal. The government has ignored that report.
In John Turner's day, the Liberals were opposed to a free trade agreement. Not only have they resolved to sign on to that agreement, but they are actively supporting this particular agreement. Why will the government and the Liberals not look back to 2008 and that House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommendation to have an impact study done? Why not have that study done first before we proceed?
[Interjection]
Olivia Chow: Madam Speaker, we know we are in a minority government, and we know the Conservatives cannot pass this trade deal without the support of the Liberals.
I want to quote Colombian senator Jorge Robledo who said:
 You can be sure of the fact that should this free trade agreement be ratified, Canada will become extremely unpopular and disliked by the people of Colombia. 
Maybe I could rephrase that, that for the people of Canada the message to the Conservatives and the Liberals should be that “You can be sure of the fact that should this free trade agreement be ratified, Liberals and Conservatives will become extremely unpopular and disliked by the people of Canada and Colombia”.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak on Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
I want to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois will not support this bill. Why? Because the Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments. Indeed, this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection. It will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining. It is important for those watching us today to understand that usually bilateral agreements are signed to promote free trade, not investments.
This reminds me that, when I first came to the House of Commons, in 2000, the first to contact me were representatives from major Canadian banks. They were lobbying for legislation to allow them to merge their institutions. The Bloc Québécois doggedly opposed bank mergers in Canada, because we figured that dividends that grew every three months were enough for the shareholders, but also in terms of services provided to the public. As I put it to the lobbyists, why merge banks if there is no problem? They said it was to increase their investment power. They wanted to buy big banks, and the example I was given was that of the United States. 
History will judge the Bloc Québécois, but one thing is sure: had the major Canadian banks been allowed to merge, as the Liberals and Conservatives wanted them to be at the time, there would have been a high price to pay now for having done so, and Canada would not be among the first countries expected to emerge from this economic recession, quite the contrary. Our ability to come out of the recession is predicated on how major the Canadian banking system is. Moreover, if we, Quebeckers, are so fond of the concept of a banking system focused on serving the public, it is because we have developed the largest banking service cooperative in Canada and North America: the Desjardins Movement. We are proud of that for one simple reason and that is—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. chief government whip on a point of order.
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Speaker, I thought we were talking about Canada and Colombia, and we seem to be talking about banks and merging banks. I do not think the speaker is on topic.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I was talking with one of the clerks and I did not hear the last part of what the hon. member said, but I would just ask that we get back on track.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I was using bank mergers as an example. If my colleague had followed my speech from the start, he would have learned something, because it is a good example of what can result from investing at all costs. If the Canadian banks had merged, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Party wanted, we would have witnessed a debacle just as catastrophic as what happened in the United States.
Bill C-23 is supposedly a free trade agreement. In fact, it is quite simply an investment agreement. That is what is dangerous. The government wants to enable private companies that specialize in mining development to invest more in Colombia without having to respect human rights or protect the environment. This is terrible, because it shows that this Conservative government is willing to do anything, as it proves daily. It gives tax credits for oil sands development, the dirtiest industry on the planet. It is not the Bloc Québécois that says that. The Economist and other newspapers around the world judge these things and find that the oil sands are the worst polluter in the world. Once again, the Conservative government has subsidized the oil companies to the tune of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of dollars since it came to power.
This is a concern because with Bill C-23, this free trade agreement, which is an investment agreement, will allow private Canadian companies to invest in the mining sector without having to respect human rights, working conditions or environmental standards. This will be a disaster.
Earlier my colleague from the north shore gave examples of what mining companies have done in the past in his region. He might get a chance to ask me the same questions. If we do not restrict private companies, whether they are in mining development or banking, all they will want to do is make money at all costs. That is why I maintain that banking and mining companies are all the same. Oil companies respect absolutely nothing. They want to make profits at all costs and pay dividends every three months to their shareholders and bonuses to company CEOs. That is what happened in the banking system. They wanted so badly for things to go well in the banking system that they even paid CEOs to give speeches in chambers of commerce. Every banker in the world was fleeced. Fortunately at the time there were parliamentarians like those from the Bloc Québécois who prevented Canadian banks from merging. We saved their life.
Today, once again, I am pleased that the members of the Bloc Québécois are here to prevent such bills from being adopted. My Conservative colleagues can laugh but they know the power that the opposition can command when it decides that a bill will not pass. They know it. 
Today, they tried to prevent us from speaking about Bill C-23. However this Parliament has rules to prevent Conservative governments from using every means to stifle public debate and democracy. Conservatives stand in the way of democracy. They prove it every day.
Quebeckers decided, in their wisdom, to send worthy representatives to defend their values and their interests. Quebeckers do not see their interests and values reflected in a free trade agreement that is nothing but an investment agreement. It is not a true free trade agreement. It is an agreement that allows companies to make investments, and I will say it once more—it cannot be said enough times—without respecting human rights and the rights of individuals. I will not go over all the examples of what has happened in Colombia to unionists who have been assassinated and so forth. My colleagues have already talked about this.
Allowing our corporations to do business with a country that does not respect human rights, the rights of individuals and the rights of workers may serve the private interests of certain Canadian corporations but is not of benefit to Quebeckers.
Once again, we will act as the conscience of Canadian companies. We cannot leave it up to capitalists to respect human and environmental rights. We can forget that. The oil sands are an excellent example, in terms of pollution and from an environmental standpoint. We cannot leave it up to those companies to respect the environment. All they care about is their profit margin. When one is also supported by a Conservative government that is willing to use public money to pollute, this adds up to the oil sands. This always makes me chuckle, because oil is a non-renewable energy source.
We are happy to have hydroelectricity in Quebec, which we paid for ourselves, without a penny from the federal government. Not one cent of the federal government's money went towards creating Quebec's hydroelectric system. Quebeckers paid for it. We will be able to meet the Kyoto targets, which the federal government will never be able to do. It continues to be the laughing stock of the planet, which it will prove once again in Copenhagen in a few months' time.
Fortunately, Quebeckers have the members of the Bloc Québécois to defend their values and interests.
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to listen to this member and all the nonsense he has been spewing out for the last 10 minutes. Members of the Bloc have been here for 16 years and they have never deviated from the thought: big private company, bad; small company, good. They do not get it that big companies create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people in this country. 
Let us talk about the oil sands in Alberta. Under the Liberal government no money went to the oil sands companies to help them develop new technology for cleaning up the environment, not one cent--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, I recognize the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of what the government House leader brought up before, I must ask the Conservative member, what does this have to do with the trade deal?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Again, I would invite all hon. members to come back to the subject at hand which is the free trade agreement.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
[Interjection]
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I am simply responding to what the Bloc member was saying when he talked about the big oil sands developers that were taking government money and still polluting. He does not get it. The reason the tax credits went to these firms was to help them get technology to clean up the environment. He will not admit that. 
What is wrong with Canadian companies going abroad and teaching those companies about environmental rights, about workers' rights, and helping those countries, which may be lacking in those areas, to develop the standards that Canada has? I ask the member that.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, the simple good reason is that there is nothing in the agreement brought before the House that promotes respect for environmental laws. Once again, I am not the one saying this. The international press has described the oil sands as the biggest polluter on the planet. That is a fact.
If the Conservative government wants to invest money to pollute, that is its prerogative, but that is not what Quebeckers want. As I said earlier, we developed our hydroelectric power with our own money, with no help from Ottawa. That is why one day, Quebec will be capable, as a country, of getting by without any federal money.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative members opposite, I rather enjoyed the member's presentation. When he was talking about the role of the big banks here, he was in fact going to be relating that to the free trade agreement with Colombia and how a free trade agreement would also facilitate the takeover of Colombian businesses and so on by these banks. 
If it were not for the opposition in the House stopping the merger of those banks, we would have had bank mergers, and we would have been in a huge mess come the recent recession. So, in fact, the opposition inadvertently saved the government from being in the same mess that the United States government is in. They should be thanking the member opposite--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I have to be honest with my colleague. His party, the New Democratic Party, did not want bank mergers. That means they have a conscience. Quebeckers are proud to serve as the conscience of the Americas. I encourage NDP representatives to continue acting according to their conscience and stop supporting a Conservative government that is one of the worst polluters on the planet.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Manicouagan has time for a very brief question.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, the companies that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred to are not just making money, they are harming the health of their own workers and that of people living in the regions in which they operate. The activities of companies looking for uranium on the north shore, mainly around Sept-Îles, are detrimental to their employees and people living on the north shore.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has 30 seconds.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Manicouagan, who provides us with regular updates on what mining companies have left behind in the region along the north shore. Things would be even worse if the member for Manicouagan did not work so hard to bring these polluters into line. I would like to thank him for his work.
He is the eyes and ears of the people, and he is working to bring mining companies on the north shore into line. However, other people will have to be responsible for whipping them into shape in Colombia. We will not always be able to be there, and that is why we have to vote against this bill.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the party, contrary to this particular aspect of what the Conservative government is doing. I consider the Conservative government to be so desperate to sign a trade deal with literally anybody, that it seeks one with Colombia. It wants to be like the big boys out there and say that it can play too.
I first want to put on the record that the NDP is not against trade deals. However, we would like to see deals that are fair trade deals, not trade deals that upset the environment and the workers' rights. Everyone knows that Colombia has one of the worst workers' rights records in the world. Everyone knows that a unionist in Colombia does not have a very long shelf life, as they say. The reality is that the paramilitary, with the backing of the government and others, has supported basically the riddance of some union members and other people on the left who wish to speak up for social rights, justice and the environment.
What does the government do? It seeks out friendships and trade deals with countries of this nature on the premise that we might be able to improve things and may be able to improve their situation. How has that worked for thousands upon thousands of workers in Mexico right now? Do members remember when NAFTA came along? All tides were going to rise up and the workers of Mexico were going to have the same quality and standard of life that we have in Canada.
That has not happened, and do members know why? The control is lost to governments and is turned to multinational corporations. That is what these deals are all about. 
The fact is we, in the NDP, and others, and I assume the Bloc as well, are opposed to these deals because they completely ignore the human rights element and environmental aspects in Colombia. All they do is make these particular profits and motivations for trade paramount and everything else secondary. It is lust like the free trade deal and NAFTA. When we asked about labour rights and about environmental rights, what happened? They were put in a side deal, to be talked about later.
We in the NDP have been asking over and over if the government is serious about human rights and environmental rights in Colombia. Those rights should have been put into the main body of the text. The first things that should have been negotiated were human rights, workers' rights and the environmental rights and then we talk about the economy of scale and the opportunity for companies to trade back and forth and make a profit, which they should be able to do. However, we cannot separate them and put one in a side deal.
It is funny that we never hear about the economic aspects of these big resource companies being put in a side deal. They are always in the main body of the text and workers and the environment are always on the side, to be talked about later. That is not fair and it is certainly not right.
What we have said very clearly about any trade deal is that if the premise of the trade deal is to create an economy for both sides to lift up workers and their communities, then must be equal on both sides. It cannot just be a one-way street, which is what is happening here.
We know the committee on international trade was dealing with this but the government circumvents the work of the committee and goes ahead anyway. Why would the government ask a committee made up of all parliamentarians to study this particular aspect and then go ahead and proceed with it anyway? The government is circumventing its own members of Parliament. As Garth Turner once said, “The sheeples won't say anything. They're afraid that their committee chairs or something else may be taken away from them”.
The reality is that if a committee has been tasked to look into an agreement or into a particular legislation, the government should never be signing on until that work is done, a report is tabled in the House and a thorough review and analysis has done by all parliamentarians, instead of the government just riding roughshod ahead superceding Parliament's wishes in this particular regard.
I cannot say this enough. If our children looked to this Parliament, they would see a massive debt and deficit that we are leaving for them. We are leaving them an environment that, by all standards, is worsening on a daily basis. Now we have no idea if our children will have the security of long term employment that we ourselves had. This is the legacy we are leaving our children.
What does the present government do and what did the previous government do? They both rushed out to make these trade deals thinking that if we just keep trading with countries like Colombia everything will be better. That is simply not true.
For those of us who have toured Mexico, we know that a lot of people in Mexico are not better off by NAFTA. There is no question that some communities have done better, but most Mexican workers are not that much better off than they were before. We were promised that the workers in Mexico would have similar rights to our workers in Canada, but when the trade deal was signed, thousands of Canadians lost their jobs and a lot of businesses left Canada to go elsewhere. 
We are still in debt and have a massive deficit, and what does the government do? It searches out countries like Colombia with a terrible human rights record and bad environmental standards and we want to trade with that country. For the life of me, I do not understand why the--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for allowing me to interrupt him.
At noon today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons put forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.l that would prevent any new amendments to Bill C-23.
In my view, moving this type of motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 is out of order for the following reasons.
Standing Order 56.1 has to do with any routine motion for which unanimous consent has been denied. Standing Order 56.1(b) defines a routine motion. It may be required, and I quote:
 —for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. 
I do not think that a motion to prevent an amendment or subamendment to a motion for second reading of a bill can be classified as a routine motion based on the definition in Standing Order 56.1(b). I believe that it is a motion to limit debate much as moving the previous question would, and, I should add, Marleau and Montpetit consider the previous question to be a motion to limit debate.
I would like to bring to your attention a ruling you made on September 18, 2001, in which you stated:
 The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. 
I am certainly willing to recognize that the government is being innovative with the wording of its motion, but the fact is that this motion is basically designed to limit debate. In that sense, I believe it should be ruled out of order, since it was introduced pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to support the argument and the point of order put forward by my colleague from the Bloc.
 I was just reading the ruling that came from the Speaker on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, and I would agree that what the government did today by preventing further amendments was really a motion to limit debate. 
It has been clear in rulings from the Speaker that there is a lot of concern now about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1. The member is entirely correct about the Standing Order being about routine motions, whereas what took place today was clearly an attempt by the government to limit debate, which is not appropriate under this Standing Order.
The government has other Standing Orders that it could use, such as Standing Order 71. There are other measures that it could use. For the government to try to ram this through at the last minute by using Standing Order 56.1, definitely limits the debate of members. 
Madam Speaker, I would hope that you would examine this very carefully. A creeping, sort of incremental change is taking place where the government is continually relying on this particular Standing Order to expand the horizon of what it wants to do. It is really an inappropriate use of this particular Standing Order.
I hope the Speaker will uphold the earlier decision that was made in 2001 to make the confines and the appropriate use of this Standing Order clear. It clearly was not intended to be used to prevent further debate by members, which is what is actually happening right now because it was allowed.
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Speaker, it is our contention that we are following the rules of the House. Standing Order 56.1 has been used a number of times in the House, most recent, in the softwood lumber debate. We believe we are using it accordingly.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: I would like to read again, for the benefit of the chief government whip and yours, madam Speaker, the part of Standing Order 56.1 which states that such a motion may be used for the following purposes:
 —the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. 
There is no mention of motions to limit debate. The purpose of the motion introduced by the government today under Standing Order 56.1 was to limit debate. In that regard, I think that the Speaker's ruling of September 18 was clear. The government could have used other means besides Standing Order 56.1. 
I would therefore encourage you to consider our point of order.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Speaker, as I said before, I believe our position will be upheld. We believe we are following the rules.
What I suspect is the two opposition parties do not have any more speakers and they are trying to fill the time until 1:30 so they can get out of here.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, with great respect to the member from the Conservative side, I was right in the middle of a speech. If truth were an island, you would be uninhabited right now. Try a little honesty in the House next time. I—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I would ask the hon. member to address his comments to the chair.
I thank the hon. members for their contribution to this point of order. All their arguments will be taken into consideration and a decision will be brought back in due course. This is indeed a very serious matter.
I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and the other members for submitting arguments for and against. We will take these arguments into consideration.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I want to reconfirm that the Canada-Colombia free trade deal was signed on November 21, 2008, right smack in the middle of the international trade committee dealing with this effort. I have to ask the government this. Why would it have the committee undertake a study of this deal and, while doing its work and before the reports can be tabled, sign the deal anyway?
What about the Conservative members on that committee? Are they pawns in a game? They should do whatever they are told and not worry about things. “Pretend you are wasting all this taxpayer money on studies, witnesses and reviews, don't worry we're not going to listen to anything you say anyway because we're going ahead and signing it”. 
This is the problem with the Conservative government. It promised us accountability and transparency. What did we get? An incredible number of Conservative bag people, Tory hacks and political contributions. This is its accountability review. “If you donate to the Conservative Party, you too can be a judge in Canada”. This is the type of system we want to tell the Colombians about, that they should follow our lead, that corruption begins at the highest places, even in our Canadian democracy?
Getting back to the free trade deal, we firmly believe these deals should be based on fairness, equality, the rights of workers, the rights of people and, most important, the environmental standards for both countries. If these deals were predicated upon those items, then we would probably be very supportive. However, we get backhanded deals, we get told all kinds of wonderful things by the government, “Don't worry, be happy”. Bobby McFerrin sang that song years ago and won a Grammy for it, but the Conservatives would never win a Grammy for that, I can assure everyone.
 They Conservatives are deliberately misleading the House and Canadians when they make these deals without fair and proper observation by the committees and a thorough analysis and debate by the House. This is why we are here.
I remember when the Conservatives were on this side of House, they stood on their chairs like banshees and screamed and yelled every time the Liberals tried to pull something like this. It is quite amazing to know that the Liberals are very supportive of this. They are in the pockets of the Conservatives on this deal.
At the end of the day, only time will tell if these trade deals are successful. I can guarantee one thing. We have seen other deals that Canada has made in other areas of the world and the workers are still no better off. The environment is getting worse and the debts and deficits of those countries are rising.
Where is the proof that these deals actually succeed in the long term and who do they benefit? Who are the main beneficiaries of these deals? Who is pushing the government so hard to get these deals signed so fast with a country like Colombia? 
As my hon. colleague from Prince George said earlier, is it not our responsibility to help them, to work with them, to assist them with worker stability and the environment? Absolutely, but we do not need a trade deal to do that. We can send a lot of people there to assist them in moving forward in a more democratic manner. This is why this deal should not be ratified. 
The bill should be killed. I am glad to see the Bloc Québécois and the NDP siding on this very important issue.
Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I sit on the trade committee along with a number of colleagues. This debate has been dragged out in the trade committee for an enormous period of time. We visited Colombia. There have been over 30 hours of debate in the House on this issue.
Quite frankly, there is a side agreement in this free trade agreement on the environment. There is a side agreement on human rights. This is some of the best legislation that we have ever put forth in a free trade agreement with another nation. 
My question for the member is very simple. Name a free trade agreement that provides jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers that the NDP has ever supported? This is an ideological argument. This has nothing to do with reality.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, he just said it. He proved my point. He said that the issues of the environment and human rights were in a side agreement.
My question for my hon. colleague from the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which by the way is a beautiful area of the country, is this. Why are the side agreements not in the main text of the agreement? Why do they have to be in a side deal? If they are so important, why are they not in the main text?
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Madam Speaker, over the last five years, the Canadian government, through CIDA, has provided $64 million of aid to the people of Colombia, institution building, security and helping to rebuild the lives of the people of Colombia, socially and in terms of governance, after 40 years of civil war. Since 1972, the Canadian government has provided around $355 million of aid to the people of Colombia.
We are already engaged as a country in Colombia. Canada is already a partner in Colombia. If the NDP's aversion to this trade agreement is based on what is going on in Colombia, then the logical corollarary of that is those members ought to be opposed to Canadian aid to Colombia.
 Is that the case? Are they opposed to sending aid to the people of Colombia? Or is it an ideological aversion to all free trade agreements that is crafting the NDP members' position on this? Is it their position that it is all right to give the Colombian people fish, but we should not give them fishing poles? It is alright to give them direct funding and aid, but for goodness sakes do not buy their products? Is that the NDP approach to foreign development?
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, if a union member in Colombia had a fishing pole, he would not be fishing for very long. He would probably be murdered by somebody.
We have no aversion to CIDA helping Colombia or any other country that requires our help.
 A letter was written by someone from Common Frontiers, who was very angry over the member's viewpoint of what was going on in Colombia. If my hon. colleague, from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, honestly believes this is the proper way to go, then why are environmental, human rights and labour rights not enshrined in the main text of the body? Why must these things always be in the side deals? Those members refuse to answer that question.
It is quite telling as to why they refuse to answer that one very critical question to help those people on the bottom rung of the ladder in Colombia and around the world.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Sherbrooke has time for a very brief question.
Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, it will be hard for me to be brief.
Can my NDP colleague confirm the increasingly obvious complicity between the Conservatives and the Liberals?
For all intents and purposes, the member for Kings—Hants, who sits on the committee, dreams only of being the Minister of International Trade or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade. Can the NDP member tell me whether he senses this complicity?
For less than 1% of our exports, they are willing to renounce human rights and environmental rights and pave the way for the paramilitaries, the corrupt Uribe government and drug traffickers to keep on doing business at the Colombian people's expense.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, in short, he is absolutely correct.
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I know that I do not have much time left to take part in this debate, but I am obviously happy to add my comments to everything that has been said here in this House.
I congratulate the Bloc Québécois and NDP members who are taking a stand so that globalization has a human face. Here in this Parliament, I learned quickly that we had to weigh the pros and cons of each bill. I do not understand how anyone can be in favour of this bill. That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of free trade and has advocated for free trade since it arrived in the House. Moreover, the people of Quebec are in favour of free trade.
But I do not understand how anyone can be in favour of a free trade agreement with a country that has absolutely no respect for human rights, environmental rights or workers' rights. There have been many, many speeches in this House that have demonstrated just how corrupt the Colombian government is.
Canada absolutely has to shoulder its international responsibilities by setting an example and helping the people of these countries. Saying that there is no problem trading with a country that denies all the rights I have just mentioned is not a good way to set an example.
I would now like to address an aspect that has not been discussed as much in this place and that is investment protection. When I first came here to Parliament Hill, I was a parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for Joliette, who was the international trade critic. A great deal of time was spent discussing investment protection and chapter 11 of NAFTA, which has been perpetuated by the Conservative government in every free trade agreement.

Private Members' Business
World Autism Awareness Day ActShawn Murphy:  moved that Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to move this bill. This bill originated in the Senate and I am pleased to continue the work in the House. I want to publicly thank Senator Jim Munson for guiding this bill through the Senate. I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, for seconding the bill.
The purpose of the bill is rather simple. It is to raise awareness about autism, a neurological condition that affects an increasing number of families in Canada and around the world. According to some reports, autism affects more children worldwide than cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined. Published reports put the rate of children living with autism at one in 165. Recent reports that originated in the United States put that number quite a bit higher.
It affects all races, all regions and all walks of life. To a certain extent, autism isolates those who have it from the world around them. Many different therapies are available, but the waiting lists are extremely long. Many of the accepted methodologies are partially covered by our health care system in some instances while in other instances they are covered by another envelope of government altogether outside of the health care system.
While there is much to learn about autism, we do know, and this is an uncontested premise, that the earlier the treatment can begin, the more successful that treatment tends to be. When people with autism do not receive timely treatment, it means that they are denied the tools they need to succeed and participate in and contribute to society.
Both waiting lists and costs are barriers. Treatment for autism can cost up to $65,000 per annum. Each province has a different approach to funding treatment and far too many families have to refinance existing loans, find second jobs, or make other sacrifices to ensure that their children receive the necessary medical treatment they need. There is no consistency across Canada and I submit that there is no equity or fairness either.
Untreated autism can lead to a lifetime of exclusion and often results in individuals being placed in institutions at a cost far greater than the treatment would be. A year or two ago, the Senate wrote and published an excellent committee report entitled “Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis”. I urge every member in the House and those watching on TV to read that excellent report.
Financial strain, fatigue and constant worry for their child erode the mental and physical health of parents. Parents need our help. This is an issue that cries out for a response from the federal government, our 10 provincial governments, and the three territorial governments. 
I could go on about the lack of a federal strategy, the lack of necessary research, et cetera. However, I will stick to the bill.
This bill talks about raising awareness. Let us make it absolutely clear that today will not immediately change the reality of one person affected by autism. They will still have to fight to get treatments and make sacrifices to pay for these treatments, but if Canada were to acknowledge their reality, even for one day, those families might no longer feel so alone.
On April 2, World Autism Awareness Day, people with autism and their families will feel the respect and admiration they deserve from their fellow citizens. To a limited extent, such a day will show support, but it will also send a message about autism to those who do not know about this condition.
It will be an opportunity for people to learn about autism and recognize that there are many families in their communities living with autism, including neighbours, friends and colleagues who deserve to have their reality acknowledged and supported by governments at both levels.
In the United States, I submit, much more is being done to address autism. The combating autism act of 2006 authorizes nearly $1 billion in expenditures over five years to help families with autism.
This landmark single-disease legislation recognizes autism for the national health crisis it is. This funding will double expenditures on existing programs, including a significant increase in spending for research.
President Barack Obama has promised to support increased funding for autism research, treatment, screening, public awareness and support services. Until Canada gets to the same level of support, let us at least recognize that autism is serious and affects a growing number of families. Let us as a House declare April 2 of each year World Autism Awareness Day.
All children have the right to succeed, and as parliamentarians we have the responsibility to ensure that all Canadian children have the necessary tools to do so. It is clear that this issue goes well beyond party lines and connects Canadians from coast to coast, from all regions and all walks of life.
Many colleagues in the House have been very helpful on this particular issue and have supported this and other bills that have come forward. I would like to again thank Senator Munson, and the hon. members for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Sudbury, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont and Verchères—Les Patriotes for their admirable work.
In closing, I want to remind hon. members that Canada has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These international conventions commit us to take action to see that children with disabilities enjoy a full life in conditions that ensure dignity, self-respect, self-reliance and full participation.
Let all hon. members take one more step forward and join the 192 other countries of the world that have made April 2 World Autism Awareness Day. Autism can no longer be ignored in this country. More needs to be done for those whose lives are affected by this disorder.
I hope, as a member of Parliament, everyone will support the bill, and I hope also that as members of Parliament, Senators and Canadians, we can work collectively to ensure that Canada will soon have a national autism strategy. 
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, are we resuming debate?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I want to clarify that we are resuming debate.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.
This initiative follows that of the UN, which, in 2008, proclaimed April 2 as World Autism Day in order to encourage families affected by this disease to call for the services to which they are entitled. In Quebec, we already have Autism Month—the month of April—while in Canada it is the month of October. We are right in the middle of Autism Month. It works out well that we in this House can discuss Bill S-210, introduced by a Liberal senator.
From the outset, certain aspects of the preamble of Bill S-210 are inconsistent with the constitutional rights of Quebec and the provinces. Even though this is 2009, even though the Bloc Québécois has been here since 1993 and even though before the Bloc Québécois arrived a good number of MPs from Quebec from various parties defended the interests of Quebec in the House, we have always talked about federal interference in provincial jurisdictions. It seems to go in one ear and out the other and again today we must explain, and explain again, how important it is for the government to respect provincial jurisdictions.
We are therefore of the opinion that any reference to a national health system, which is an area under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, should be removed from the bill, and we wish to propose amendments to Bill S-210 to that effect.
However, we do support the basic premise of the bill. Autism spectrum disorders are affecting more and more children around the world, so it is important for families to have access to a growing range of appropriate services. If the federal government wants to invest money in health care, we will not stand in its way. But the trouble starts when it tries to impose conditions. We all know that this matter falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction and that Quebec is in charge in this area. The government should therefore transfer the necessary funds, and Quebec will develop its own policies, just as it has always done so well.
A World Autism Awareness Day is a good idea, not only because it will raise public awareness of this complex syndrome, but also because it will encourage people to help improve thousands of families' quality of life.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about some examples from my riding. One of the prime examples is an organization dedicated to the well-being of families with autistic children or children with learning disabilities. That organization is the Centre de stimulation L'Envol, a community organization that opened its doors in Victoriaville in 1996 and offers stimulation and recreation activities for children aged 0 to 12 with communication disorders. 
L'Envol's mission is to promote the availability of a complete range of special services to support families and help children with developmental disorders reach their full potential.
In 1994-95, Marguerite Bourgeois, a mother of two children with serious communication disorders, had no access to special services. She got an idea, and she decided that it was up to her to take charge and open a centre in Victoriaville to help families like hers. She got parents together, developed a plan for an early stimulation centre, and presented the plan to various community partners and the regional health and social services authority. 
Thanks to the financial support of various social organizations and private donations, the Centre de stimulation L'Envol opened its doors in Victoriaville in September 1996, as I said.
I will give two short definitions to illustrate the specific nature of L'Envol's client base. I think that pretty much every member of this House can think of a number of people around them, perhaps even in their families, who have children with this sort of communication disorder. One cannot be unaware of it.
Pervasive developmental disorders include several qualitative impairments ranging from mild to severe in three developmental areas: social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and stereotyped patterns of behaviour and interests. Autism is the most well known.
Dysphasia is a pervasive impairment affecting verbal communication which is characterized by a slow and atypical development of the power of comprehension and use of language. How severely individual aspects of speech are affected will vary from one child to the next and even in the same child. To varying degrees, dysphasia disrupts verbal communication, socialization, learning in school and the performance of certain tasks. This gives an idea of the areas in which the Centre de stimulation L'Envol in Victoriaville does its work.
Each region of Quebec has several organizations sharing the same goals and working to help families and parents. On l'Envol's website, which I visited this morning, we can find several interesting testimonies from families living with this hardship, although these testimonies do show that there is hope. That is why it is important not only to raise public awareness, but also for the public to make financial contributions to help these people. 
I will take for example the testimony of two individuals whom I know well: Geneviève Poudrier and Guy Désilets, of Victoriaville. They have one child and they share their experience on L'Envol's website. Let me quote them briefly.
 We were very worried when we learned that Benjamin [their child] was not developing like all the other children. At 32 months, he did not say a word and played alone, lining up his cars, his sausages or his pieces of toast. We put a lot of energy into giving him what he needed: stimulation. Now, he says simple sentences, knows his letters and loves finding words and reading short books. Benjamin plays with his friends at day care and gives us a warm welcome when we go to pick him up. 
We can see from this testimony from the parents that things were very difficult for them initially. It must be very hard for parents to see that their child is not developing in the same way as his friends. But a little later, with stimulation, thanks in part to L'Envol, the child made remarkable progress. Obviously, every child will progress at his own pace, but without stimulation, the parents would not have gotten the results they did.
Guy Désilets, Benjamin's father, is an officer with the Sûreté du Québec in the Arthabaska RCM, in my region, and he decided to get involved. He organized a golf tournament for police in the region to raise funds for the Centre de stimulation L'Envol. Year after year, his golf tournament has raised more than $15,000 for the Centre de stimulation L'Envol. It is truly a phenomenal success. L'Envol has used the money to replenish its stock of games for the children and to keep the cost of its services as low as possible. I would like to pay tribute to police officer Guy Désilets for his excellent initiative.
Since 2003, and I will conclude in a moment, Quebec has had an action plan for those affected by autism. We have to continue moving in that direction. We have to further encourage governments to adopt policies like the one adopted by the Government of Quebec.
Bill S-210 opens the door to a national strategy, which poses a problem, as I was saying earlier. However, with the necessary amendments, the Bloc Québécois would have no problem supporting such a measure. The need to continue building awareness stems from the fact that autism spectrum disorders and pervasive developmental disorders currently affect about 60 children per 10,000, while in 1980, it affected 10 per 10,000. It affects all children equally, regardless of social conditions, race and ethnicity. It affects people from every social class. That is why I am asking the members of this House to carefully consider Bill S-210.
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, again it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democrats to lend our support to this important measure introduced by the Senate, Bill S-210, to enact world autism day from a Canadian perspective.
I want to go very briefly into my own personal history on this particular subject at hand. As few years ago, I was walking from my office into the Centre Block and I noticed a man by the Peace Tower flame and he had a sandwich board sign on him saying “Autism in medicare now”. 
I will be honest that I was very ignorant about what he was trying to say so I asked him what his concern was. That then developed into a very nice friendship. That person's name is Mr. Andrew Cavachuk. Mr. Cavachuk has done yeoman's work in trying to raise the level of awareness, not just for his own son but for all children across the country who have autism spectrum disorder.
Autism comes in various forms and different ranges, from Asperger syndrome, to flight risks. to non-verbal and so on. 
In my travels throughout my own riding, I found a fair number of people who have children who are autistic. One personal friend of mine in Vancouver has two children who are autistic. Anyone who has met children with autism find they are some of the most beautiful, kind, wonderful and the most loving children one could ever possibly meet. What their families require is support. They need support from the federal government. 
This is why we moved our own national autism day. We presented a bill before the House of Commons which has not come up for debate in terms of enshrining that autism is in the medicare system. We do not want the federal government to tell the provinces what to do.We know that the delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility. However, what we have said over and over again is that there is no reason why the provinces need to reinvent the wheel. 
That is why we have asked repeatedly for a national autism strategy in Canada. We know there is a patchwork quilt of efforts across the country. In Nova Scotia, a handful of children get assistance, whereas in Alberta I believe the family can receive assistance from the government for children up to 18 years of age.
No matter where someone lives in the country, children who have autism should be able to receive the care, treatment and support they need right across the country.
I am sure some members remember a few years ago the very emotional press conference in Toronto where a couple of people had to make the decision to leave Ontario, their birthplace and the place where they raised their children, because their child had autism and Alberta could provide better care than the province of Ontario.
As a society, no one should have to live through that. We are a much better society than that.
What we have asked the federal government to do is to coordinate a strategy--I know the Bloc does not like hearing this word--a national strategy. What we would like to do is bring the health ministers and the experts together, along with the federal government and devise a strategy so that every province, territory and first nations reserves can have the expertise and the information at their hands to develop the support systems to assist these families and their children.
Autism was first described to me by a young boy named Josh Bortolotti who is from Ottawa. For those of us who have known Josh for a long time, people should watch out for this young man because one day he could be the prime minister of this country. His sister has autism and he made it his personal life's crusade, when he was 12 years old, to fight and to stand up for his sister because she could not do it herself. Josh Bortolotti is a tremendously fine young man. Every year he asks us for pledges for his cause to raise funds for autism. 
If young children like this can show us in the House of Commons the leadership that is required, then my hat is off to Josh Bortolotti, his family and especially his sister because I know one day she will get the help that she needs.
It is not just for the children. It is also for the parents. Many parents do not understand the concerns of autism. They do not understand what their children are going through until sometimes it is too late.
 It was described to me that autism is like a puzzle. This is why applied behaviour analysis and IBI treatment are so very important, to get these children the minute that they are diagnosed and to work with them through repetition over and over again to develop their brains so that they can lead productive lives.
When we had press conferences a few years ago, we heard from specialists from Quebec that if a child is diagnosed at age two with autism, and that child and the family are worked with intensively for four years then that child can go to a regular school without any teaching assistance at all. That is the kind of investment in these children that we need. The unfortunate part is we do not believe that the provinces will ever have enough money to do this on their own. This is why we think it is imperative that the national government work with the provinces, territories and first nations reserves to ensure that we do not reinvent the wheel, to ensure that no matter where people live in this country, children and families with autism can get the help they deserve and most importantly, get the support they have.
At last count, I understand, there are close to 400,000 people in this country who have some form of autism and that number is rising rapidly. I will never forget the time Hillary Clinton, now a senator in the United States, offered a $200 million aid package for various research centres, for various states and various schools in this regard, because the national government of the United States understands that this is a very serious issue. It put a lot of federal money into this issue in order to assist families and to assist researchers in developing, hopefully one day, a complete understanding of what causes autism and to see how we can mitigate it in the future.
While we are working toward that, the people with autism in Canada need to know. I spoke to the hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform who used to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health. We all worked together collaboratively a couple of years ago to bring a motion forward in the House which was adopted by all of us on that type of strategy. Unfortunately, over two years later we are still talking about it. We do not have a national strategy. 
We are asking once again, with great respect to the government, because we know that government members have people in their constituencies who have this concern, and we know members of the government and the Conservative Party care about this issue as much as anyone on this side does. I ask if we can work in collaboration, if the House can really work together as it has done for other items over the years, such as the veterans' charter, to form and develop a national strategy for the development and treatment of autism, to help those children and their families. Then world autism day will be more than just a symbolic gesture or a date on the calendar. It will actually give these people hope, and hope is what they strive for. This is what keeps them going every day.
I have had the pleasure of meeting many children with autism. I have worked with organizations like FEAT of B.C. which is Families for Early Autism Treatment. I have worked with Mr. Cavachuk, Laurel Gibbons and people in my province of Nova Scotia who ask that autism be part of the national medicare package. But while we are working toward that goal, we need to make it loud and clear to these people that they have the full support of not only the Senate but also the House of Commons so that when world autism day becomes a reality, not only can we bring awareness of this issue to our country and the rest of the world, but maybe we could assist those researchers, those practitioners, and those families, and most importantly, give those people a hand up so they can lead productive lives.
If we do that, it will be a great day in the House of Commons and a great day for all Canadians. I say God bless to all the children with autism and to their families, and may the bill pass fairly quickly.
Sukh Dhaliwal: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this legislation and to second it. I appreciate the work done by the hon. member for Charlottetown to bring the bill to the House. I would also like to thank the Senate for the great work it has done on this legislation. 
A day to mark autism awareness has never been more important here in Canada.
If we go back just six years ago, autism was not recognized as the problem it is today. A 2003 study estimated that approximately 1 in 450 Canadians suffered from one of the various forms of autism. That would be about 67,000 Canadians across Canada.
The worst thing about this mysterious condition, however, is that this number is higher among children and it is increasing every year. In fact, the Autism Society of Canada reported there has been a steep rise in the number of cases in the three provinces that monitor these numbers closely: Saskatchewan, Quebec and my own province of British Columbia. A children's hospital study in Montreal put the number at around 1 in every 147 children. According to a study in the U.S., it used to be around 1 in every 150 kids but now the number may be closer to 1 in 100.
Such a big change; such a huge increase in only six years.
As a Senate study makes clear, the reasons for this increase are difficult to pinpoint. In many respects, it could be because the very definition of autism has now become much wider. It is true there is now more exposure in the media for such mysterious forms as Asperger syndrome.
The truth is that we would not have to knock on many doors in almost every neighbourhood in Canada before we would find a family that is now trying to cope with autism. That family may be struggling with the mysteries of autism and the huge toll it can take on their day to day lives.
In fact, within my own community, Louise Witt and Amber Himmelright have quite a lot to say about what the Government of Canada is doing about autism, or should I say not doing.
When the Conservatives first came into office they talked a good game about a national autism strategy. They knew what Canadian families were saying about the kind of sacrifice autism required.
I have three children of my own and I can tell members that I feel fortunate that I am one of the few Canadians who might not be faced with a threat of personal bankruptcy if just either my boy, Arjan, or one of my daughters, Keerat or Joat, was diagnosed. It is not uncommon for families to pay more than $60,000 a year, and that is just for the basic treatment.
The worst thing is that the cost for effective treatment also varies widely from province to province. Imagine how heartbreaking it would be for someone to realize that if he or she lived in another part of the country or if they only had more money their child would get the needed care.
The government has known these facts for some time but, as I said, the government did what it normally does. It leads with communications and then real action limps along later, sometimes much later.
Two years ago, the government announced a website to give families information and $1 million over five years to set up a research chair. There is still no research chair and that website is not much to speak about either.
We could say that the government had to cut back on plans with the state of the deficit being what it is, the deficit it could not see and then denied for as long as it could. Perhaps the government realized it could not fulfill the promise it made to thousands of families across this country who are looking for real leadership and who are waiting for a real plan.
It is a difficult conversation the government must be having with those families now. Louise Witt will say that there are many who must bring professional therapists up from the U.S. because they cannot find these special services in Canada. In my own riding, in all of Surrey and Delta, there are only a handful of trained therapists, and they are overbooked for months in advance as it is.
The worst thing is, whether it is in Surrey or Delta or whether the therapist comes from the states, there is so little health care coverage that the bill breaks the bank anyway.
It is also difficult for the government to talk about other promises on autism, like the stakeholder symposium. Again, as Ms. Witt said, the symposium was held in secret. It was only for hand-picked invitees, those who would probably go easy on the government and downplay the kind of support families need.
All of that does not matter though, because no one can tell us what came out of this symposium anyway. We would be waiting a long time to hear from the government. Maybe it did not like what it heard and is afraid to act upon it.
All of that said, this bill is in some small measure a way to put autism back on the national agenda. If awareness can get people talking, it might get the government to listen.
For the families who are facing bankruptcy, who are forced to put their children in foster homes because they cannot afford the day-to-day support, and for the parents who are trying every possible medical breakthrough they can in the hopes of seeing their children able to cope with this affliction, awareness is only a first step but it is an important one.
That is why I ask all members of Parliament to support this bill.
Lois Brown: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity today to speak to the issue of autism, in light of hon. Senator Munson's Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.
This government recognizes that autism is a serious health and social issue, affecting many Canadian families and individuals from all walks of life, and that more knowledge and awareness of this condition is necessary. That is why the government has committed important resources and funds to autism research and knowledge dissemination. It is also the reason why the federal government has declared April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day in Canada.
Over recent years, attention to this condition has been on the rise and, fortunately, so is our knowledge about autism.
 In November 2007, the Government of Canada hosted a symposium devoted to the very subject of autism knowledge. This event provided a wonderful opportunity to bring together leading Canadian researchers, policy-makers and people affected by autism to discuss the latest in autism research.
Since the topic being discussed here today is autism awareness, I would like to share some of the key findings and points of view that were offered at the symposium.
Those directly affected by autism contributed many valuable perspectives. Some stressed the importance that autistic individuals be heard and be in charge of their own lives. Many stress the importance of understanding people's capabilities as well as their challenges. A key message, however, is that individuals affected by the condition can and do succeed with the right supports.
Research is recognized as a key enabler of change across a spectrum of different issues and this is also true in relation to autism. The symposium was a venue for a wide variety of Canadian researchers to share their latest findings on this issue. These findings include a growing understanding that genetics play a role in autism and for the first time researchers have been able to show how changes in some genes contribute to autism. Findings also indicate that autism genes may act differently in boys than in girls.
In terms of diagnosis, progress is being made in identifying the early signs of autism. Some of these can be detected by 12 to 18 months of age, allowing for earlier intervention. Symptoms of autism can include impaired communication, difficulty in engaging in interactive play, a lack of eye contact and social smiling and decreased social interest. While this is not an exhaustive list, it provides some insight.
Canadian and international studies show that autism spectrum disorders are more prevalent than previously believed. However, this should be considered in the context of improved diagnostic techniques, better reporting and a broader definition of autism.
With respect to adults with autism, it also recognized that there was a need to offer supports across the lifespan. Moreover, adults with autism could suffer from co-morbid conditions, which furthers the need for supports.
I hope that by sharing some of these thoughts and findings today, I have contributed in a small way toward increasing awareness of autism. It is clear that much is known about this condition, but equally clear that much remains unknown.
I am confident that as time goes on, the challenges posed by gaps in knowledge and lack of awareness will be overcome. In addition, I hope that in declaring April 2 World Autism Awareness Day, the government has greatly encouraged the exchange of knowledge in order to increase awareness and comprehension of this serious condition.
Andrew Saxton: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity today to speak to the issue of autism in light of Bill S-210, respecting world autism awareness day, being sponsored in the House by the hon. member for Charlottetown.
Autism is a health issue that presents lifelong challenges to those affected, as well as to their family members and society as a whole. Having easy access to information and knowing we can trust that information can make a huge difference in the lives of these families. This government wants to ensure that all Canadians have access to the same high quality, evidence-based information on autism.
Because we still do not know what causes autism and need greater understanding of the most effective treatments and interventions, the federal government is pleased to work with partners and stakeholders to promote autism awareness by investing in activities which support a stronger evidence base. This is why the government, in November 2006, announced several new initiatives to strengthen research to enhance our understanding of autism.
First, the federal government has been working toward developing options for autism surveillance. Recognizing that autism surveillance is new globally and may be technically challenging, the Public Health Agency of Canada has been working with researchers to see what could be done in Canada.
Between November 2007 and May 2008, the Public Health Agency of Canada undertook a consultation process to examine options for development of an ASD surveillance program for Canada. As well, in December 2008, the Government of Canada approved funding for Queen's University to expand its existing ASD surveillance system. This activity now includes children in Manitoba, southwestern Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is another step toward creating a national surveillance system for ASD.
Second, Health Canada continues to enhance its website on autism. It holds useful information, including links to respected external sources.
Third, this government committed to establishing a chair in autism research and intervention, and our government is hopeful for a successful outcome.
The minister is looking at alternatives that are in keeping with the original intent of this funding. Further, last year the federal government provided funding to the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, CAIRN for short, to translate its acclaimed autism information website into French. Canadians can now log on to the popular and respected site and access French or English summaries of autism research, presented in terminology that is useful to families that need it.
In 2008 this government committed $75,000 over two years to the Offord Centre for Child Studies to support autism research priorities and to host a conference to be held this fall. In addition, the CAIRN website will be further updated in order to offer Canadians access to the most recent autism research available.
Between 2000 and 2008, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, the Government of Canada spent or committed approximately $35.3 million in autism-related research projects. These projects are led by researchers at universities and affiliated teaching hospitals across Canada.
As one of CIHR's 13 institutes, the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction is supporting autism-related research and is working with partners in the autism community to set research priorities, reduce duplication and accelerate the translation of knowledge into improved health. For example, CIHR is funding a team, led by Dr. Eric Fombonne from McGill University. The aim of this program is to train the next generation of researchers and uncover the mysteries of autism.
CIHR is also funding the autism research of Dr. Jeanette Holden at Queen's University and her multidisciplinary team of over 60 researchers, clinicians and parents from across Canada and the United States. Dr. Holden's team is examining the causes, origins and effects of autism spectrum disorders and the effects of treatment on persons with autism.
As well, along with Genome Canada, CIHR provides support to the autism genome project. This initiative will help to increase our understanding of the genetics of autism, which could, in the long term, lead to early diagnoses.
Finally, in November 2007, this government hosted a national autism research symposium, which brought together researchers, service providers, policy-makers and those affected by autism to share knowledge and informed research priorities.
This government is confident that enhanced knowledge will lead to real results. Although we have made great strides in increasing the knowledge and awareness, there is still much to be done.
Through our activities, the federal government is contributing to increased awareness of the challenges faced by individuals with autism and their families.
Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise to speak on this important issue today.
Hon. Senator Munson's bill, Bill S-210, respecting World Autism Awareness Day, is an important issue that for far too many years has been overlooked by Canadians and misunderstood by them. In the last decade, especially in the least two years certainly, our government has brought autism to the forefront and recognized the importance of increased research and dollars to help families with autism.
Our government recognizes that autism is a serious health and social issue, affecting many Canadian families and individuals from all walks of life and that more increased awareness of this condition is necessary. That is why this government has committed important resources and funds to autism research and knowledge decimation.
 Our government also declared April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day in Canada.
We are striving to ensure that all Canadians have access to high-quality, evidence-based information about autism. We are dedicated to working with partners and stakeholders in order to better comprehend what causes autism and how we can better coordinate the most effective treatments and interventions. We also work with our partners to promote autism awareness by investing in activities that support a stronger evidence base.
We know about autism. There is a growing understanding that genetics play a role in autism. For the first time, researchers have been able to show how changes in some genes contribute to autism. Other proof indicates that autism genes may act differently in boys than in girls.
Progress is also being made in identifying the early signs of autism. Some signs can be detected by 12 to 18 months of age. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned earlier, this allows for earlier intervention.
Let me tell members about some of the signs, as mentioned earlier. They can include impaired communication, difficulty in engaging in interactive play, a lack of eye contact and social smiling and decreased social interest. These are but a few of the examples of early diagnosis.
Evidencing Canadian and international studies show that autism spectrum disorders, or ASD, are more common than previously believed. We should remember this in the context of improved diagnostic techniques, better reporting and a broader definition of autism. It is also recognized that adults with autism also have a need for support throughout their life. They may also suffer from secondary illnesses that may also require medical follow up.
One question that comes to mind is government action. 
We were pleased to announce, in November 2006, several new initiatives to improve ongoing research to enhance our understanding of autism.
First, we have been working toward developing options for autism surveillance. Between November 2007 and May 2008, a consultation process was put in place to examine options for the development of an autism spectrum disorder surveillance program for Canada.
Following that, in December 2008, the Government of Canada approved funding for Queen's University to expand its existing ASD surveillance system. We are happy to say that the program now includes children in Manitoba, southwestern Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Our government continues to update the Health Canada website on autism. On it, people can find useful information, including links to respected expert website.
Last year, our government provided funding to the Canadian Autism Intervention Research Network, or CAIRN, in order that it could translate its acclaimed autism information website into French. Canadians can now log on to this respected site and access French or English summaries of autism research that are easy to use and family friendly.
Last year our government committed $75,000 over two years to support autism research priorities and to host a conference that was held last week. In addition, the CAIRN website will be further updated in order to offer Canadians access to the most recent autism research available.
Since the early two thousands, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have spent approximately $35.3 million in autism-related research projects. These projects are led by researchers at university and affiliated teaching hospitals across Canada. That $35.3 million spent in the last decade has probably advanced autism research further in the last 10 years than we have in the previous 50 years. It is extremely important. I certainly commend our government for continuing this research, and I commend the previous government for starting it. This is very important for early intervention and understanding of autism.
As an example, the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction, a part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, is supporting autism-related research. It is working with partners and stakeholders in the autism community in order to set research priorities, avoid duplication, and speed up the translation from knowledge to health.
They are also funding autism research at Queen's University. Experts there are part of a multidisciplinary team of over 60 researchers, clinicians and parents from across Canada and the United States. The Queen's University team is examining the causes, origins and effects of autism spectrum disorders, and the effects of treatment on persons with autism.
Early in its first mandate, the government hosted a national autism research symposium, which brought together researchers, service providers, policy-makers, and those affected by autism to share knowledge and inform research priorities.
 I hope that my words today have provided hon. members with the opportunity to see the efforts made by our government toward increasing awareness of autism. We must continue our efforts to improve knowledge and find solutions to those dealing with this condition.
I hope that in declaring April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day will help to highlight the challenges and that it will trigger everyone's level of awareness and comprehension for this serious condition.
The government has reacted to an issue that affects many Canadians. Quite frankly, the importance of having this informed debate in the House of Commons only leads to a further intelligent discussion on this subject. Unfortunately, like many health issues, we have for far too long ignored this important issue. Families have strived to cope with autism on their own. Priority research was not available. There was no safety net available. They did not have a network of individuals they could turn to and they struggled mightily through the years with this very issue. 
We are headed in the right direction. We know there is more that needs to be done. I certainly appreciate the work this government and other governments have done so far, and at the end of the day will lead to working right across the country with autistic members of families, and help them to live more full and fruitful lives.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to speak very briefly about one of the most terrible conditions that can strike a child and family. I first learned about autism at an intellectual level. From reading about Temple Grandin, who is a professor at a university in Colorado and suffers from mild autism, I learned what it might be like to experience.
She has written a book describing what it is like and how she has conducted her life. She gives a bit of a picture about the kinds of shutters, walls, doors and barriers to communication that the condition of autism places around people. It is a fascinating book. She has gone on to tremendous success and has provided the world with a view of autism that helps to expose a little bit of the mystery of why children who are so bright, lively and intelligent seem to withdraw from the rest of the world, and what it is like being inside that little cell they get trapped in, where they are unable to communicate or express feelings that nevertheless exist.
It is a fascinating way of exploring what the world of autism is like. In terms of actually experiencing what it is like for those who are family members, I had that experience working here on Parliament Hill. Leaving the Hill every day a few years ago, I used to notice that there was always a man there at lunch time. He would come up wearing a sandwich board with a motto about the importance of autism.
Those of us who work and spend a lot of time up here sometimes wind up getting to know the protestors who are here frequently. This man was a public servant who, during his lunch hours, would come and protest on Parliament Hill because his son was autistic. The experience of having a son facing autism, and the lack of funding and support for the early onset treatment that he and his wife felt was necessary were destroying them financially.
They recognized that it was destroying others financially. They wanted to draw attention to the plight of parents in their position. I had the chance to chat with this man, whose name was Andrew Kavchak, and learn about some of the terrible emotional and financial costs that can be imposed on a family that has a child suffering from this terrible disease.
I mention both of these examples because they are both examples of individuals trying to draw to our attention the importance of dealing with autism. This is what Bill S-210 attempts to do. It attempts to draw further attention to the condition of autism on the understanding that it is only when we as a society realize how severe and devastating this illness can be that we as a society will be able to focus the attention upon the condition necessary to allow us to overcome it.
We must mitigate the circumstances for those who suffer from autism, those who live in families that have been affected by autism, and those in the future who should have a reasonable expectation that we will find a way of ensuring that other children and families do not fall into the trap of autism.
Madam Speaker, I see that you are indicating to me that my time is up. In conclusion, I do think that this is a worthwhile initiative and I am glad to support it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member will have approximately six minutes when this bill comes up again for debate.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
 It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, October 19, pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)