2009-04-24

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
 The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today’s third reading debate on C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants). I am pleased to note that the bill was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment. 
The Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and Bill C-14 is part of our strategy to address this problem. This bill proposes amendments to strengthen the Criminal Code’s responses to organized crime. Most notably, it is taking direct aim at the increasing use of violence committed by organized crime. With these amendments, we are demonstrating our commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada.
I am pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met March 30, April 1 and April 20, 2009 and heard from the Minister of Justice, officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and a range of stakeholders, including representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors and the Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers.
Bill C-14 proposes amendments in four broad areas.
First, it makes all murders connected to criminal organizations automatically first-degree murder, regardless of whether they were planned and deliberate.
Second, it creates a new offence to target reckless shootings involving the intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person.
Third, it creates new offences to respond to assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and the aggravated assault of a peace officer.
Fourth, it amends the gang recognizance provision to clarify that a judge can impose any reasonable conditions and to lengthen the period of the order to 24 months where an offender has been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence, terrorist offence or intimidation of justice system participant offence.
The bill received very strong support from almost all witnesses appearing before the committee. The proposed amendments to make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate, was well received. As you know, those convicted of murder receive a life sentence, but those convicted of first-degree murder are ineligible for parole for 25 years. In the case of second-degree murder, it is 10 years.
The committee heard evidence from officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics confirming that gang-related homicides are on the rise in Canada. In 2007, there were 594 homicides in Canada and 117 were gang-related. The committee also heard evidence from a prosecutor from Quebec that this amendment would be useful in securing first-degree murder convictions in gang homicides, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate.
As to the second key element of Bill C-14, the creation of a new offence to address drive-by and other reckless shootings, this would be accomplished by prohibiting the intentional discharge of a firearm when in so doing the shooter turned their mind to the fact that doing so could put the life or safety of another person at risk.
There have been claims during committee debates that this offence is redundant and already covered by section 244 of the Criminal Code. This proposed offence is different from the existing and equally serious firearm offence, section 244, because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person, something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases.
The proposed offence is punishable by mandatory minimum penalties, which increase when the offence is committed for a criminal organization or if it involved a prohibited or restricted firearm.
The proposed mandatory minimum penalties did have the support of the prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, who saw the penalties, including the mandatory minimum penalties, as significant and important tools for prosecutors and law enforcement in the fight against organized crime.
However, the issue of the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was not universally supported. The Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers had concerns with the use of mandatory minimum penalties. As well, the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was the object of a motion to amend by the Bloc Quebecois that would have deleted the mandatory minimum penalties and left only the maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment. This motion did not carry.
I would like to take a moment to explain Bill C-14's proposal to have a mandatory minimum penalty for this offence. First of all, the penalty scheme of the proposed drive-by shooting offence is consistent with the overall penalty scheme of the Criminal Code. There are already a number of offences involving the use of firearms where mandatory minimum penalties apply, such as attempted murder and assault with a weapon. 
Second, section 244, the existing offence of “discharging a firearm”, already carries a mandatory minimum penalty of four years, and the proposed offence is modelled on section 244. It would have created an inconsistency in the Criminal Code to have no mandatory minimum penalty in the new offence to address drive-by shootings but still have one in the existing section 244.
There should be no mistake about the government’s position, as reflected in Bill C-14: we need to take steps to address the lethal combination of guns and gangs. As an aside, I would also like to mention that the officials from Statistics Canada indicated that nearly 69% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm. In contrast, only 20% of non gang-related homicides involved firearms.
The third key element of this bill is aimed at providing increased protection for peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating new offences to prohibit assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences are punishable, on indictment, by a maximum period of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years respectively.
These amendments were also supported by prosecution and law enforcement officials and viewed as necessary and useful. In addition, this bill would require a court to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing an offender for any of the offences involving assaults against peace officers, as well as cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors or jurors. This sends the right message and demonstrates the seriousness with which Parliament treats such acts that undermine the rule of law and the criminal justice system generally. 
The fourth area of reform in this bill relates to the gang peace bond provision, which are preventive court orders requiring an individual to agree to keep the peace and to abide by other specific conditions. These amendments would clarify that, when issuing a recognizance order or a promise to keep the peace, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant. The amendments would also extend the maximum length of the order from 12 months to 24 months, if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These amendments also relate to those who are suspected will commit a terrorist offence or an intimidation of justice system participant offence. 
These elements of Bill C-14 offer important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. They can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity, and these amendments will ensure that the orders are used as they were intended. 
Police in Ontario use these provisions as part of their gang strategy to control the “small fry” in a gang. The prosecution witness that the committee heard from suggested that Quebec will start using this new provision in Bill C-14 as part of its own street gang strategy. 
I am pleased that Bill C-14 has been thoroughly examined by the justice committee and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law. 
This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. I am confident that Bill C-14 is a strong and urgently needed step in the right direction and I urge all honourable members to support its passage.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, organized crime gangs are both a national and a transnational problem. Up to 70% of the moneys that organized crime gangs derive comes from the trade in illegal drugs. They use those moneys to do other things, such as purchase and import illegal drugs. My province of British Columbia is seeing the effects of this, in bloody terms, with more than 19 murders this year.
Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, made a very impressive statement. He said that if we wanted to go after organized crime, would should go after the money.
The best way to undermine organized crime is to dismantle its markets and go after its money supply. One of the ways to do that is to address the issue of drug policy in Canada.
If undermining the drug market for organized crime is one of the best ways to get rid of organized crime gangs, would my colleague try to curry favour in his party to a revised approach to substance abuse in Canada and pursue the decriminalization of the simple possession of marijuana? Would he encourage his government to look at Norway and Portugal as examples? Those countries have significantly undermined organized crime gangs and reduced the use of both hard and soft drugs, which in turn has reduced crime.
Would he also ask his government to remove its legal appeal against British Columbia? The courts have said that the government has a moral obligation to allow harm reduction strategies like Insite and the Naomi project to have national exposure.
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in this bill.
His question is quite fair and appropriate. People from his province, British Columbia, have appeared before our committee. Representatives from the Vancouver Board of Trade told us that they wanted specifically to attack the element that is contributing to the wealth of all forms of organized crime, whether the Hells Angels, the mafia, and so on. We must attack the drug trade; that is important. If we cut off those organizations' source of revenue, if we are tough on that, if we can stop the drug trade, we will prevent such groups from operating, growing and terrorizing our communities. That is what we need to do.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my friend and I are on justice committee. We have heard from a substantial number of witnesses, none the least of whom came from the home province of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the city of Vancouver.
 My colleague might want to expound on the fact that the committee is going to Vancouver to study the very issues surrounding drug crime, gangs and organized crime.
It was made mention to drug and substance abuse, the addiction thereto and the large sums of money that the government has put forward for treatment. I do not mean giving people drugs, but giving them the kind of necessary counselling to help them shrug the habit. Could the member expound on that?
Could he also expound on some of the witness statements we received, which run counter to legalizing marijuana? If we legalize a problem, for example, marijuana, do we then say a bit of crack cocaine is okay provided a person does not have X amount?
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague through you. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and his extensive experience as a former police officer is truly appreciated. He presents the viewpoint of the officers who enforce our laws.
I would like to point out that the committee will be going to Vancouver, where organized crime is flourishing, because of a special request from British Columbia. There are gunshots on the streets and drive-by shootings there. The situation is so serious that members of the Chamber of Commerce, a non-governmental organization, are asking Parliament to visit to see how dangerous the city has become.
I would like to mention something else in reply to my colleague's question. Despite everything that is being said, our government is pursuing two objectives. Addicts will get treatment but traffickers will be jailed. Canadians must realize that. We will heal drug addicts but we will put traffickers in jail. That is for sure.
I would also like to say, in response to my colleague's question, that our government has provided a great deal of money to help addicts. We are not going to lock up addicts; we are going to heal them. I can assure you that our government will lock up traffickers. We are known for being very strong in that area. That is what we must do and that is what the citizens of Vancouver have asked us to do. For that reason we are going to Vancouver to see for ourselves whether organized crime is truly becoming stronger. We want to eliminate sources of income for organized gangs, the mafia and such groups by combatting the drug trade.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of mandatory minimums has seized Parliament on a number of occasions. I note that paragraph 244(2)(i) deals with intentionally discharging a firearm. Under the mandatory minimums, it says that if it is a prohibited firearm, the mandatory minimum is five years for a first offence and seven years for a second or subsequent offences. However, if it is not a restricted firearm, it is four years. 
With respect to the use of firearms, whether restricted or not, and the mandatory minimums, why is there a difference of one year when it would appear, from a public safety and criminal justice perspective, that the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence related to organized crime is equally as serious to the public interest?
[Interjection]
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in Bill C-14 whose purpose is to protect the public.
The citizens of his riding will be pleased, since they too want to feel safe. We are here to work together to ensure the safety of all our citizens. Many people say that mandatory minimum sentences will leave judges with very little flexibility; however, we must bear in mind that they are meant to send a clear message to criminals, specifically, that we are serious and we condemn certain actions, such as drive-by shootings and intentional discharge of a firearm.
We have seen some complacency in the past. We, however, intend to show that we are taking serious action against organized crime. When people involved in organized crime see that Parliament is beginning to give in, it grows stronger. When they see that Parliament and parliamentarians will not give in, that we are taking a stand, they are the ones who will give in, and that is our goal.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments.
We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is quite right. We have heard a number of witnesses speak about Bill C-14. These witnesses reminded us of the importance of taking action, especially given the current situation in several major cities, where there has been an increase in organized crime attacks using rifles. For example, the tragedies that have been unfolding in Vancouver over the past few months have really captured the public's attention and public concern is growing steadily.
I do not intend to speak for a long time. I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill. As there were no amendments in committee, this bill has remained unchanged since second reading in this Parliament. You might remember the excellent speech that I gave on this bill. Since nothing has changed, I intend to be brief on this Friday morning.
The one thing that is important to underline with respect to Bill C-14 is the cooperation that all parties showed in passing this important legislation. When the legislation was introduced, the Minister of Justice said that the opposition parties would obstruct and delay the bill and that the government was very much concerned that it will become very complicated to get it through the House of Commons. 
However, we saw the exact opposite in this place. When an issue of public security, as important as the fight against organized crime, is on the floor of the House of Commons, all parties showed a great deal of willingness to pass the legislation. The legislation, in our view, was a responsible and balanced measure to deal with the very difficult circumstance of gun violence in an organized crime context and the protection of peace officers and those in the judicial system.
I will remind the House that the legislation does four things. It would create sentencing provisions so that every murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is considered first degree murder regardless of whether there was premeditation. It would create a drive-by shooting offence, the discharge of a firearm with recklessness, and would impose a four-year mandatory prison sentence on someone convicted under that offence. It would create a mandatory minimum sentence with respect to assaulting a peace officer, an aggravated assault or an assault with a weapon of a peace officer or those who work in the judicial system. It also would extend the duration of recognizance for up to two years for a person who has previously been convicted of a gang related offence.
Those are four important measures. In our view, the legislation seeks to reassure the public and to send a clear message that Parliament will be very diligent with respect to the fight against organized crime.
However, what the legislation does not do is deal with the difficult problem of prevention, of giving the police the tools they need to pursue the gang members and those who are involved in organized crime. The government likes to focus on the sentencing provisions. Every time government members have a chance, they talk about how they have toughened up sentences, increased penalties and imposed mandatory minimums. 
We do not disagree that that is part of the solution. As long as they are balanced and appropriate, they can be part of a comprehensive approach to deal with the very difficult problem of organized crime. However, it is not the final answer to that difficult problem when police are telling us that they desperately need to modernize the investigative techniques at their disposal and that they need lawful access legislation that allows them, in a 21st century way, with, obviously, the provision of a court order, to have electronic surveillance on communications by different gang members. 
In the old days, when the police could get a wiretap order from a judge and listen to someone's home telephone attached to the wall in the kitchen, those days are over. The communication capacities of these organized criminal gangs are such that the investigative techniques that the police officers require to investigate and then prosecute these criminals need modernization.
One of the challenges in prosecuting an organized crime member, particularly with respect to a very violent crime or a murder, is often the reluctance of witnesses to come forward. There can be a terrible situation where people in broad daylight in a residential area or in a shopping centre will witness either a violent crime or a shooting and then when the police do an investigation and try to have witnesses give statements and ultimately testify once charges are laid, it becomes very difficult to get these people to testify because of the fear of reprisals.
Therefore, part of an investigation requires the ability to access electronic surveillance and exchanges of emails on blackberries or direct transmissions from one blackberry device to another. Our laws have not kept up with those communication instruments. 
When the Attorney General of British Columbia came to Ottawa some months ago, one of the things he asked Parliament to move quickly on was modernizing investigative techniques and lawful access. He also asked Parliament to deal with the problem of the two for one remand credit. I am very happy that Bill C-25 was introduced, which the Liberal Party will be supporting as well, once again to limit the extra credit given for remand time while awaiting a trial.
In our view, this legislation represents part of the solution. However, the government needs to spend more time focusing on what it can do to prevent crime and not simply punish somebody who is convicted once there is already a victim. The tragedy with crimes committed in accordance with Bill C-14 is that hey will be among the most violent and dangerous crimes because they are associated with criminal gangs. Once a charge is laid under these new provisions, a tragedy, without doubt, has taken place.
We will see victims of these organized criminal gangs on television and in our communities. At that point, it is important for those convicted of these crimes to face stiff penalties. However, we think it is equally important to ask those communities what tools, what law enforcement agencies, what social programs, what educational institutions and what addiction programs they need from us to prevent people being victims, which, ultimately, will make communities much safer.
As I mentioned, the Liberal Party supported this bill.
We plan on continuing to work with the other political parties in this Parliament when balanced and responsible measures to improve public safety throughout the country are introduced. But we will also insist at all times that there be a balance between imposing harsh penalties for the most serious criminal offences and providing provincial and municipal authorities and police forces with the tools they need to prevent crime.
We must help them to take action before citizens become victims or unfortunate situations arise such as those we have seen in major Canadian cities in recent months.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of issues that police officers in my province and across the country have been raising. He clearly articulated the asks from our Attorney General in British Columbia. In British Columbia, which, like the rest of the country but perhaps more so in my province, has very serious problem of organized crime.
I would like the member to expand on the challenges that police officers have in terms of being able to wiretap and follow electronic communications, and the ways in which they are able to improve the manner in which prosecutions take place. 
We have a serious challenge right now I know police officers are very frustrated with the manner in which prosecutions take place within our courts.
The other question I have for him goes back to the discourse that took place a little while ago between members of the Conservative Party which illustrated the difference in approach we have on a serious underlying issue affecting organized crime.
In many ways we are dealing with the symptoms of the problem and not the underlying problem. As I said, I go back to Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate for economics, who said, “If you want to go after organized crime, you've got to go after their financial underpinnings”. That is the worst news that organized crime could ever have. 
As one of my colleagues from the Conservative Party said, we need to enable people to shrug off addictions. Well, it is not as simple as that. As a physician, addictions are very complicated. They are rooted in neurochemical changes in the brain and extremely difficult to deal with. Many of the people who have substance abuse problems have what we call dual diagnosis. They also have a psychiatric problem.
Some very innovative addiction programs have been implemented. One of them in British Columbia is the NAOMI project started by Dr. Julio Montaner. it is a narcotics substitution program where under a physician's care the person actually receives a narcotic, which severs the tie between the addict and the crime that he or she engages in on the street, and the ties to organized crime.
What was found is that 60% of those hard-core narcotics addicts were off the street, back with their families and leading a life that was within the law. They were able to get back to work and get this treatment that they required.
Unfortunately, the government opposes that. In fact, it is using judicial means and mechanisms to prevent communities in our country from getting access to the medically proven, harm reduction strategies that work and, ultimately, reduce crime, reduce harm, reduce costs and reduce all the things that all of us want to accomplish.
Does my friend, who is a lawyer, not think that the government has a moral obligation to allow communities across our country to have access to the medically proven, harm reduction strategies that work, like the North American opiate medication initiative, the NAOMI project, in Vancouver?
[Interjection]
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca used the term “moral obligation”; does the government have a moral obligation. I think he would agree with me that it had a moral obligation to intervene in the case of a Canadian on death row in Montana. It took a federal court to force it to do that. The Conservatives had a moral obligation to deal with the case of Omar Khadr, who is still at Guantanamo Bay, a Canadian citizen who was a child soldier. It took the federal court yesterday to force them to do that. 
 I do not have a lot of confidence that the Conservative government accepts it has a moral obligation, as my colleague from British Columbia so correctly identified, to treat the addiction problem as one of health. My colleague, being a physician, knows more than I would about some of the medical aspects of addiction, but what I do know is that in British Columbia there have been a number of very progressive initiatives, whether it is Insite in Vancouver or whether it is the project he spoke about a minute ago. These initiatives have been supported by public health officials, by provincial law enforcement officials, by the Government of British Columbia. In our view, they are a very important part of dealing with crime prevention, treating the root cause of crime, which in many cases can be addiction, or as my colleague noted, in some cases can also involve a complex or difficult mental illness.
The Conservative government focuses on punishing those who commit crimes, instead of trying to help prevent crimes and deal with some of the root causes of crimes, such as addiction. Conservatives talk about an announcement they made some years ago about a drug strategy. That will do very little compared to supporting public health authorities and the provincial government of British Columbia in the example my colleague used.
My colleague also spoke about the issue of modernizing investigative techniques, lawful access, as it is known. He is absolutely right. The government has hesitated and has taken a great deal of time to introduce a bill that would modernize the ability of the police to deal with electronic surveillance of organized crime groups in a way that recognizes 21st century technology and not technology or instruments of communication that may have been around 50 years ago.
My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has a private member's bill that deals with exactly that issue. I think it was in 2005 that the then minister of public safety in a previous Liberal government introduced a bill, which was not passed by the time the 2005-06 election was called, to modernize investigative techniques and to give the police the tools they desperately need to go after these organized crime groups.
I agree with my colleague. There is very much a hesitation on the part of the government to complete the puzzle. Conservatives focus on one narrow band of the problem and we supported them with respect to increasing penalties, but we also believe they need a more comprehensive approach and they need to accept that harm reduction on addictions and some of the health-based research and projects that have begun in some parts of the country also form a very important part of reducing crime and helping people live healthy and productive lives.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the previous questioner who is a medical doctor when he observed that we have to go after the financial underpinnings of this issue. The best thing we can do to fight organized crime is to take away the proceeds of crime, the benefits and gains they make as a result of crime. The Conservatives really enjoy the public relations bump they get from talking about how tough they are on crime, and we see that they are not really that tough. It takes them forever to get actions before the House and they fail to deal with the root causes of the crime. In this particular case, the member is dead on when he says that if we can take steps to fight organized crime, that will help solve this problem. 
In Manitoba, we had one day last month where we had zero auto thefts, after being the auto theft capital of Canada for a number of years, because we set up a system whereby we have enforced immobilizers in cars. The auto insurance company in Manitoba pays for the installation of immobilizers and gives people a reduction in their car insurance. We have a suppression program, too, to chase down the chronic car thieves. We have managed to cut that down to having no car thefts over a 24-hour period last month. So there is proof that we can actually achieve results if we are determined to do something about the problem.
[Interjection]
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right, as was the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. If we want to attack the problem of organized crime, unlike the government simply focusing on the back end, on imposing stiff penalties, which will not be a complete answer, one needs to choke off the access to money. Whether it is the trafficking of drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, or increasingly, the theft of automobiles, if we can choke off the access to money that these organized crime groups need, it will go a long way toward reducing the crime rate and improving public safety in communities.
My colleague who just made a comment is a member of Parliament from the Winnipeg area. He is absolutely right. The problem of auto theft in Winnipeg has been a very serious issue. That is why we intend to attack that problem.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants).
First of all, I am delighted to be part of a team like the Bloc Québécois, which includes members such as our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, a former public safety minister in the Quebec government, who created the joint forces that gave rise to Opération printemps 2001 against the Hells Angels. Today in 2009, we are still seeing the results. These joint forces continue their hard work and continue to aggressively tackle organized crime, practically wiping out the Hells Angels.
Of course we are also very proud to have the hon. member for Hochelaga on our team. Since 1997, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, he has been proposing amendments to the Criminal Code specifically to attack organized crime and reverse the burden of proof when it comes to the proceeds of crime, so that the burden of proof does not always fall on the Crown in that regard.
At present, our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a renowned law scholar and criminal lawyer who practised law before being elected to this House. These are all members who can add to this debate and the other parties would do well to listen to the recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois.
Understandably, our party does not oppose Bill C-14. When criminal groups like street gangs disturb honest citizens and put their lives in danger, we must take action. We can improve legislation, strengthen the actions of police forces, provide them with tools that are more effective and better suited to new criminal realities, and most importantly, invest in crime prevention. We must take targeted action that produces real results. Yet the Conservatives seem to prefer only one approach, that is, suppression through punitive measures.
When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is always prevention. We have to attack crime at its roots. It is better to attack the causes of crime and violence than to wait until something gets broken and then try to fix it. That is the wisest approach, not to mention the most advantageous one, both socially and financially. Could it possibly be any clearer than that? We have to begin by attacking poverty, inequality and exclusion, all of which are fertile ground for frustration and its scions, violence and crime. 
People need to live in safe places, to be sheltered from extreme poverty, and to have access to an affordable education system. On all counts, the Quebec nation has made choices that set it apart from the rest. Its tuition fees are among the lowest in North America, its daycare network is exemplary, and its social safety net is designed to prevent families from slipping into poverty. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that gangs do commit serious criminal offences, acts for which they must be held accountable in court.
The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools that are available to enable Quebeckers and Canadians to live peacefully and safely. However, its measures must have a truly positive impact on crime. They have to give us more than rhetoric and fear campaigns. We need something better than an imitation of the U.S. system, whose results are dubious, at best. That is why the Bloc Québécois has devoted so much energy to its consideration of Bill C-14. During the committee's work on this bill, the members for Hochelaga and Abitibi—Témiscamingue listened to witnesses, asked the right questions, shared information and checked facts. In the end, the committee's study confirmed our initial position. We support the bill's goal to get tougher on street gangs.
That is why, for so many years now, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing measures to get tougher on criminal organizations, including street gangs, that threaten the safety of honest citizens. Getting rid of the two-for-one credit, among other things, is one Bloc Québécois proposal that the government has chosen to turn into a bill. That idea finally found an ear in the governing party, as has the concept of an anti-gang law, another Bloc Québécois proposal that has been around since the mid-1990s thanks to the member for Hochelaga, as I mentioned earlier.
That does not mean that the bill is perfect. In committee, we proposed an amendment that would have removed the minimum penalties, as they are not in keeping with Quebec's model of justice based on rehabilitation and reintegration. With regard to minimum penalties, members have to understand that we have a justice system in place that is based on judges, who are competent people. It is hard to watch the Conservatives, who probably would have liked to change the judges. They have tried to and have made appointments. 
Quebeckers, with the way they have always looked at justice, clearly have an effective justice system and competent judges. Every case is unique, and we leave it up to the judges to set sentences. That is how Quebec understands the fight against crime and how Quebeckers have administered justice day after day, year after year and even century after century. Why try to replace judges with minimum penalties now? That is where the problem lies. The Bloc Québécois will always be opposed to a justice system that does not provide an opportunity for all parties to be heard and does not simply let the punishment fit the crime. 
However, we are aware that some provisions of Bill C-14 are derived from existing offences. For example, clause 8 of the bill, which we hoped to amend, uses almost the exact wording of section 244 of the Criminal Code, which already provides for minimum penalties and which we tried to amend in 2007. These are not new provisions, but variations on existing offences.
Even though its amendment was rejected, the Bloc Québécois will not oppose Bill C-14. This bill has a generally noble objective, which is to reduce street gang crime. We share that objective. We cannot allow street gangs to do as they please and threaten the safety of honest people. To achieve that objective, the bill essentially proposes to use harsher penalties for existing offences and even minimum penalties in some cases.
The Bloc Québécois is disappointed that, to achieve such an important objective, the Conservatives are ignoring a series of measures that we find to be much more promising than mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also formulated a number of proposals of interest that the government should include. In short, even though our objective is the same, we do not agree with the Conservatives on the approach.
This does not mean that we are rejecting outright any proposal from the other parties. On the contrary. We are not like the Conservatives. The Bloc Québécois is very rigorous and will analyze the bill's provisions in committee to ascertain how effective it will be in achieving such an important objective. Even though the amendments we suggested were not retained, we will support the bill as long as the committee does its job.
It is worthwhile repeating what we suggested. First, we must combat the root causes of crime. We owe it to Quebeckers to take the fight against crime seriously, not to play petty politics with fundamental rights and, above all, to give them a true picture of the situation. Our party has taken this serious approach on a number of occasions, particularly in its steadfast commitment to ensuring the use of appropriate and effective measures to assess the pertinence of each bill. We have also been very serious in our ongoing concern for crime prevention, which should be at the top of the list of initiatives.
Tackling the causes of crime and violence, rather than waiting for things to break down and then trying to fix them, is the wisest, and more importantly, the most profitable approach, in both social and economic terms. We want this to be very clear. First, we have to tackle poverty, inequality and exclusion, all of which provide fertile ground for frustration and its manifestations: violence and crime. Recent events in Montreal—where the socio-demographic picture indicates that a large portion of the population is struggling economically—clearly demonstrate that the most promising approach is to try to give these people what they need to improve their living conditions. The Bloc Québécois has made some progress in that regard.
We have not been lenient when it comes to criminals and our actions prove it. Given that the activities of organized crime groups continue to increase year after year, thereby compromising public safety, the Bloc Québécois promised as far back as 1997 to insist that the federal government pass concrete measures to step up the fight against organized crime.
On September 24, 1998, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to combat money laundering and proposed that the $1,000 bill be taken out of circulation. That was a Bloc initiative. Although that bill died on the order paper, the Bloc did not back down. The government eventually followed through on the Bloc`s request and took the $1,000 bill out of circulation.
During the 2000 election campaign, the Bloc pushed hard to get Ottawa to finally pass anti-gang legislation, so we could lock up the outlaw motorcycle gangs that were running rampant in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is proud to have been the first party in Ottawa to bring forward the idea of anti-gang legislation and to have made it our priority until it was finally passed by Parliament. The convictions that resulted from the Hells Angels megatrials in 2004 have shown just how valuable this legislation is. 
The Bloc Québécois is also proud of its success in convincing the other federal parties to reverse the onus of proof for members of criminal organizations. This is what I was explaining earlier. Now, criminals have to prove that money and assets confiscated from them by law enforcement authorities did not come from criminal activity and that they are not living off the proceeds of crime. 
Today, these laws continue to provide enforcement authorities with a set of legislative and regulatory tools they can use to more effectively prosecute organizations or associations that have the hallmarks of organized crime. We saw this recently in Quebec, with Operation Printemps 2009, where police seized criminal assets. Now, the criminals will have to prove that those assets were purchased with money that was not proceeds of crime. Once again, reverse onus, which was proposed by the Bloc Québécois and passed by the House of Commons, provides police with effective tools.
Let us look now at what we are proposing, On June 15, 2007, the Bloc recommended a series of major changes to Canada's justice system. I will list the four proposed measures.
First, we are asking that the Criminal Code be amended so that when violent acts involving firearms or knives are committed, membership in a street gang is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
Second, we are calling for the creation of a fund that Quebec and the provinces could use to train crown prosecutors specifically for street gang trials. These proposals come out of the experience of the Government of Quebec, which created the organized crime prosecution bureau in 2001, with teams of prosecutors who specialize in organized crime. By training specialized prosecutors, Quebec has convicted 286 people of gangsterism offences. The bureau will be put to good use after Operation Printemps 2009. This group of specialized crown prosecutors will enable Quebec to tackle organized crime.
Third, since global positioning system (GPS) technology helps police prove and connect movements by gang members, the Bloc Québécois proposes to extend warrants for investigations using GPS surveillance to one year, so that they are valid for as long as electronic surveillance warrants.
Fourth, copies of all court rulings on street gangs and organized crime should be compiled and kept.
I invite all the other parties to listen to the Bloc Québécois recommendations, which were very relevant in the past.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have six minutes after oral questions to complete his remarks.
We will now move on to statements by members The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Statements By Members
ArmeniaMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, beginning on April 24, 1915, the Armenian people were subjected to suffering and death at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, a tragic event in history that our Parliament has since recognized as the Armenian genocide.
I rise today as chair of the Canada-Armenia Friendship Group to remember such events, not only to honour the memory of those who died and not just to solemnly acknowledge what has passed, but as a starting point to move forward in greater friendship and understanding between the two present day countries of Turkey and Armenia.
The Armenian Canadian community, consisting of 80,000 Armenians, has contributed greatly to Canada's culture and economy. Their participation in Canadian society helps to build a better Canada. I especially applaud their efforts to acknowledge their past while looking forward to the future to build bridges based on mutual respect.
By recognizing and remembering the Armenian genocide, we are all compelled as Canadians to do everything in our power to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again.
Armenia-Turkey RelationsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the majority of this House voted to recognize the terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people in 1915 as genocide. The opposition of 68 hon. members to this motion underlined the still ongoing debate about the sequence of events that led to this terrible tragedy.
Canadians have built a reputation as fair arbitrators in conflicts all over the world. Let us continue in this tradition and encourage the governments of Turkey and Armenia to move forward in their desire to normalize their relations.
It is with great encouragement that we learned yesterday that a comprehensive framework has been agreed upon by the governments of Turkey and Armenia to improve their bilateral relations. We must make sure that this road-map succeeds.
In the spirit of this agreement, let us support Canadians of Armenian and Turkish origin in their efforts to also come together in mutual understanding and respect.
Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic GamesMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is just ridiculous how little effort the federally subsidized Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has devoted to the francophone aspect of the games. 
At the countdown ceremony, the only francophone representation was a single musician who admitted that he had likely been chosen at the last minute because of his French name.
There is precious little francophone involvement in the pre-Olympic concert events. VANOC has defended itself by saying that there will be performances by Beast, a group from Quebec that sings in English, Bell Orchestre, whose website is in English only, and Manitoba Metis Music and Dance, which does not sing in French.
When will the government take VANOC to task for failing to comply with the terms of the contribution agreements relating to the presence of French at the games?
Chinese Canadian CommunityMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a number of prominent leaders in the Chinese community will be gathering in East Vancouver tomorrow. Their purpose is to recognize the noble history of Chinese Canadians, note their incredible contributions to our nation, and discuss current issues facing their communities. This important forum is organized by Canadians for Reconciliation, led by their president, Mr. Bill Chu.
On behalf of the federal New Democrats, I want to congratulate these citizens for their initiative and commitment to enriching our cultural and historical understanding.
New Democrats particularly wish to express our deepest admiration for the important contributions that all Chinese Canadians have made and continue to make to building Canada. Their accomplishments are even more impressive when we consider the backdrop of discrimination and racism that Chinese Canadians have faced throughout the last 125 years.
All Canadians owe a debt of gratitude for the social, cultural and economic benefits that the Chinese community has brought to Canada. Our country is a richer and better place because of them.
ArmeniaMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today as hundreds of thousands of people in Yerevan, Armenia lay flowers around the Armenian Genocide Memorial, Canadians of all backgrounds will join in commemorating the lives of those lost between 1915 and 1923.
This day 94 years ago marks the beginning of the brutal and systematic destruction of the Armenian people by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire. In this first modern genocide, approximately one and one-half million Armenians perished.
It is only in recognizing the atrocities of the past that we can learn the lessons of history and ensure that such callous disregard for humanity is never repeated.
I call on all members of the House to honour the victims of this genocide and stand firm with the Armenian Canadian community in recognizing the suffering of their forefathers.
TobaccoMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of contraband tobacco is continuing to grow across the country. Unfortunately, the government is doing nothing to address the problem. 
Contraband tobacco is generally smuggled into Canada as a low-cost alternative to legal tobacco products. After years of doing nothing, the only thing the government has decided to do is launch an advertising campaign. Canadians want and need real measures taken to protect both those who smoke from potentially dangerous, unregulated products and the tax revenues that ultimately pay for much of the health costs incurred by smokers.
The other victims of the government's inaction are the convenience store operators, who are in some cases losing 30% of their revenues. Convenience store operators ensure that tobacco products are only sold to those who are of legal age. On the other hand, smuggled tobacco is sold to anyone. 
Contraband tobacco represents a significant threat to the health and safety of Canadians. I call on the minister responsible to finally take the issue seriously and enact measures immediately to protect the incomes of legitimate producers.
Armenia-Turkey RelationsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the 20th century has been witness to some of humanity's greatest tragedies. One of these tragedies took place in 1915 when the Ottoman Empire collapsed under the onslaught of World War I. 
After more than four centuries of peaceful relations, a wave of nationalism broke into a frenzy of violence between Turks and Armenians. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in countless revolts, pitched battles and massacres. Others fled abroad. Many have come to Canada and made it their new home.
This terrible tragedy continues to haunt Turks and Armenians alike. Recently however, as mentioned before, the Turkish and Armenian governments have undertaken important steps toward normalizing their relations in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding. 
Our government supports recent efforts by the Turkish and Armenian governments to jointly study the still unresolved questions of their shared past. Canadians have a reputation as fair arbiters in conflicts all over the world.
We encourage the governments of Turkey and Armenia to move forward in their desire to normalize their relations. Let us also encourage Canadians of Armenian and Turkish origin to come together in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect.
Mont-Mégantic ObservatoryMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn on April 6, 2009, that the National Science and Engineering Research Council is putting an end to the $325,000 subsidy it provides every year to the Mont-Mégantic Observatory.
The eastern slope of Mont-Mégantic is in my riding. In the course of the various activities organized by the observatory staff, who have always invited us, I have seen for myself how this astronomical hot spot has become an important asset, not only for our region, but for all of Quebec. 
The observatory straddles the line between my riding and the Mégantic—L'Érable riding. In our local media, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the Prime Minister's political lieutenant in the Quebec, has admitted that he is completely powerless to reverse the decision, adding that it was not his government`s fault. In my opinion, it is clear that this cut can be traced back to this government, which has an ideological view of scientific research and gives in to pressure from creationists.
TaxationMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Conservatives are the only ones they can trust to soundly manage this economy during the financial crisis. Our economic action plan will stimulate the economy and put money back into the pockets of Canadian families. We have already reduced taxes by $20 billion. This is in sharp contrast to the Liberal leader's promise last week, when he said, “We will have to raise taxes”.
Canadians are troubled that the party opposite thinks that taking money out of the pockets of Canadian families is something that will help the economy recover. Now we know that the Liberals will raise taxes, impose a carbon tax, raise the GST, and end the universal child care benefit. 
The Liberal Party needs to be clear with Canadians. The leader should stand up in the House today and tell Canadians how much he will raise taxes, and who would be forced to pay them.
Bloorview Kids RehabPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Bloorview Kids Rehab is Canada's largest children's rehabilitation hospital. Dr. Robert Carmichael heads up the world-class pediatric dental clinic and Dr. George Sándor coordinates the oral and maxillofacial surgery. Notably, Dr. Sándor has developing leading-edge stem cell treatments using a patient's own stem cells to grow bone on a frame, which is implanted into the patient. Once the bone has grown and developed its own blood supply, it is harvested and implanted into the facial area being rebuilt.
Dr. Sándor must travel frequently to Finland, where he has obtained $3.2 million in research funding. He would like to patriate that new technology to Canada because we are falling behind in stem cell-based tissue engineering. Unfortunately, his many applications for government funding have not been supported.
I strongly encourage the government to look into this important matter. The entire dental team at Bloorview Kids Rehab is among Canada's best and it is making a big difference in the lives of disabled children with special needs.
JusticeDaniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the Bloc members for surprises. They surprised us by being the only ones—yes, the only ones—in this House to vote against families and, just recently, against children as well.
The Bloc voted against Bill C-268 sponsored by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, which will protect children from criminals who try to abuse, exploit, hold and even sexually assault them.
It is always surprising to see that the Bloc can find ideological reasons to oppose everything, even common sense and harsher sentences. The Bloc members really must be living on another planet if they believe they are defending the interests of Quebec and its youth by refusing to vote for a bill that would protect our children.
Under the circumstances, we can understand why the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup wants to leave the Bloc as soon as possible.
Genetically Modified FoodMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadian organic standards prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms in organic production. Crops with any detectable GMO contamination cannot be certified organic. For this reason, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate has opposed introduction of GM alfalfa into the environment. 
Should this be allowed, it will be impossible to prevent contamination of non-GM alfalfa. This crop will no longer be able to be used by organic farmers as a legume for nitrogen fixation in crop rotation.
GM alfalfa could also cause serious damage to the market for hay and pellets as well as to organic farming. Canada is the world's leading producer of alfalfa pellets and cubes. We will lose a large share of the market if our product contains GM alfalfa.
On behalf of organic farmers, I am asking the minister to reverse the decision to approve the sowing of GM alfalfa in the environment and to abolish imports into Canada of GM alfalfa or GMO contaminated alfalfa.
For the sake of our organic farming industry, let us do the right thing and prohibit GM alfalfa in Canada.
TaxationMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is showing time and time again that it is out of touch with Canadians. 
The ability of Canadian families to spend their hard-earned money is key to stimulating our economy. Conservatives know this, economists know this, and Canadians know this. 
The Liberals however just do not seem to get it. Canadians told the Liberal leader they want to keep their hard-earned money and in response last week the Liberal leader announced that he will have to raise taxes. 
Now that he has revealed his new tax-hike policy, the Liberal leader must fully disclose the details of his plan to Canadians. Which taxes will the Liberals raise, by how much will they raise them, and who will have to pay these higher taxes?
Goods and Services TaxMr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party attempted to woo Quebec on March 22 with such sweet nothings as, “I need you, I have seen the nation reflected in you, I promise to defend your aspirations”, but he quickly returned to the same old lines of his predecessors.
When Quebec's interests are contrary to those of Canada, federalist leaders have never gone to bat for Quebec. Harmonization of the GST is one of the best examples of that.
How can the leader of the Liberal Party accept that, for harmonization, Ontario receives $4.3 billion whereas Quebec, which led the way, is deprived of $2.6 billion? How can the leader of the Liberal Party explain that the Liberal government, in 1997, gave $961 million to the Maritimes for harmonizing the GST, while refusing the same thing for Quebec? Liberals, Conservatives, they are all the same.
FisheriesHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the need for ice compensation for fishermen and for plant workers from the northeast coast of Newfoundland to the Northern Peninsula and Labrador is self-evident. Thick pack ice has enveloped this area for weeks now and there are absolutely no signs that it will move off any time soon. This has prevented fishermen from participating in the fishery and from earning a livelihood.
This past week the minister responsible finally acknowledged the situation in the House and said on record that a response was forthcoming. My expectation of the minister is as follows: that the program be launched immediately; that it provide full EI benefits at each applicant's previous EI benefit rates; that it be available for a period of not less than 10 weeks of additional benefits; and that the program changes be brought in to make this a permanent feature of the EI system, so that fisheries workers will not have to endure the anxiety and frustration of waiting for a reluctant government like this Conservative administration on the needs of working families like these fishermen and plant workers.
TaxationMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Liberals are actually consistent on an issue. They want to raise taxes. 
They like high taxes and their leader just last week said, and I want to repeat the quote that he made, “We will have to raise taxes”. I respect their honesty: raise the GST, impose a job-killing carbon tax, and take away the universal child care benefit. They have tried to deny all of these statements by trying to cover it up after they accidentally blurted out the truth.
There is a reason they are called tax and spend Liberals. That is what they do. They tax hard-working Canadians and then they spend, spend, spend. 
Conservatives are taking action to help Canadian families with our economic action plan. Liberals are trying to help themselves to Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars.
How much would a Liberal government cost Canadians? We want to know. We need an answer. We need to know. What taxes will the Liberals hike, how much will they raise them, and who is going to pay for them?

Oral Questions
Foreign AffairsHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question about the Khadr case.
Mr. Justice O'Reilly's judgment is really quite straightforward. He says that there is such evidence of systematic mistreatment of this prisoner at Guantanamo that there is now a positive obligation on the part of the Canadian government to make representations to bring him home.
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question. What is it in Mr. Justice O'Reilly's decision that the Government of Canada now takes objection to?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see my colleague from Toronto Centre. We have not seen each other for the last couple of weeks.
On this specific issue, Omar Khadr faces very serious charges. We all know that. As a matter of fact, last night we were able to see television footage of Mr. Khadr's alleged building and planting of explosive devices that were actually planted in Afghanistan. Those devices are the devices that basically have taken the lives of young Canadian men and women.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, that is extraordinary. The minister just said that, instead of abiding by a Federal Court judge's ruling, the government has decided to continue its personal attacks on this young man, who was recruited at 13 and taken prisoner in Afghanistan at 15.
I will repeat my question, which, despite being very straightforward, remains unanswered. What is it in the decision—
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for Toronto Centre.
The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my response is straightforward: this man has been accused of very serious crimes. Last night, we saw video footage of him building bombs to kill Afghans, civilians and Canadian soldiers.
We will analyze the court's decision, and we will most likely appeal it.
Sri LankaBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the representative of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees referred to the 12 square kilometre zone in Sri Lanka, where 50,000 people are now trapped, as the gates of hell. Yesterday the Indian foreign minister was in Colombo. Others have gone to Colombo. 
Would the minister not think it wise now for Canada to have a delegation, I would argue led by the minister himself, go to Colombo to urge a pause in the fighting to allow for humanitarian assistance, and to ensure that over the next 48 to 72 hours we do not see a true, genuine, deep catastrophe--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support on this issue. 
As the House knows, we are very active on the file. We have seen this issue take place over the course of the last couple of decades. As a matter of fact, it is a conflict that has left a lot of civilian casualties. A lot of families are heartbroken by this.
We have called upon our allies. I have personally called upon Ban Ki-moon as well as David Miliband and others to help and step up the humanitarian aid. That is what is uppermost now.
The EconomyHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within the last 24 hours both the Bank of Canada and the IMF have been deeply pessimistic about the Canadian economy. The recession is intensifying. The economy is shrinking three times faster than projected. Joblessness is headed toward double-digit levels. Canada will not get back to where it was in 2007 until 2011.
As reported yesterday, is the government preparing a new budgetary update for September, or better still for June, before it has to make its second probationary report to Parliament on its failing record?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have Canada's economic action plan. The hon. member should allow that plan to work. What we will not do is what the leader of the Liberal Party has said, “We will have to raise taxes”. Those were his words. He did not say, “We might raise taxes”. He did not say, “We could raise taxes”. He said, “We will have to raise taxes”.
The hon. member should rise and explain which taxes will the Liberals raise, when will they raise them and who will have to pay.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in January 2006, the Conservatives promised never to tax income trusts. Nine months later, they did exactly that. They slapped a 31.5% Conservative tax on the savings of two million Canadians. They destroyed $25 billion in value, with no shred of justification. They were incompetent. They were dishonest. Now they are just as incompetent and dishonest about the recession.
Where is their plan to get back the 380,000 jobs Canadians have lost while the Conservatives have been in office?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly trying to distract from his leader's own words, “We will have to raise taxes”. He should indicate which taxes, when and who would pay. 
That is not the first time that the Liberal leader has said something of the sort. He called himself a “tax-and-spend, Pearsonian, Trudeau Liberal”. He said, “I'm not going to take a GST hike off the table”.
Given that he admits the Liberals will raise taxes, which taxes will they raise, when will they raise them and who will have to pay?
Foreign AffairsMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Federal Court ruling in the Omar Khadr case, the Prime Minister showed unbridled ideological stubbornness when he said he was considering filing an appeal even though he had not had time to study the ruling.
Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware that because of the Conservatives' obstinacy and mean-spiritedness, Canada, in the eyes of the world, is shirking its obligations and violating the rights of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with my colleague's preamble. We are considering appealing the decision once we have examined it.
It is important to remember that this individual has been accused of very serious crimes, Yesterday, a news program on the English networks showed this man apparently in the process of making the same sort of bombs that have taken the lives of a number of our soldiers, including Karine Blais, who died last week.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, even President Obama feels that justice is not being served at Guantanamo, and he is in the process of closing it. This is the second time in just a few weeks that the Federal Court has forced the government to meet its obligations to Canadian citizens in difficulty abroad. Former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour has condemned the government for acting in bad faith in cases such as Omar Khadr's.
Do the Conservatives understand that the only way to render justice and save face is to abide by the court ruling, comply with Canadian and international law and repatriate Omar Khadr?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and those of my colleagues are with the family and friends of Karine Blais, who will be laid to rest today.
We will appeal the decision. This individual was arrested for serious crimes, including setting bombs. We will study the decision and likely—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.
Firearms RegistryMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable just how much contempt this government has for institutions that form the very foundation of our democracy. It completely disregards Federal Court decisions, as well as decisions reached by the majority of members in this House. Instead of enforcing legislation, this government finds all kinds of ways to circumvent the law and encourage delinquency, as is the case with the gun registry.
Will the government enforce the law, respect the vote in this House, maintain the firearms registry and stop shirking its responsibilities?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what my hon. Bloc colleague does not seem to understand is that criminals, people who commit offences with firearms, do not use registered guns or hunting rifles. They use illegal guns. That is why our approach is the right one.
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the minister`s representative is quite right. They also use handguns, yet the Conservatives believe in the handgun registry. They need to be logical here.
The Minister of National Revenue very candidly admitted that the government had no intention of respecting the decision of this House.
Now that it is clear that the Conservatives want to dismantle the gun registry at all costs, will they transfer the resources and powers to Quebec, so that it may create and manage its own gun registry? That is what the Government of Quebec and all stakeholders are calling for.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we are taking action against criminals and gun traffickers, and we are increasing sentences. Unlike the Bloc, we respect farmers and hunters.
Canadian Flag PinsMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages tried to blame the gift shop, the Speaker's office and even the Board of Internal Economy for the made in China Canadian flag pins fiasco.
It turns out that the heritage department had a contract for over $200,000 worth of flags and pennants with a numbered company that imported 374 kilos of flag pins from China.
With thousands of manufacturing workers out of work here at home, why is the heritage department buying this Canadian symbol from China?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as indicated yesterday, the NDP members are somewhat confused on this issue. As the House knows, the decisions to purchase items available at the gift shop are made through the Board of Internal Economy.
The NDP is a member of that specific committee related to internal economy, and that concern has never been raised, to the best of my knowledge, or to anyone on this side of the House.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is dead wrong. We have the contract. We are talking about the heritage minister's department that purchased and distributed these made in China pins.
 This is a Canadian flag pin. It was a Canadian invention made by Canadian companies. Under the Conservatives, this Canadian symbol purchased by the government is now made in China.
Will the government stop blaming others and get these pins made in Canada?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I guess this causes me to bridge back to something called an economic action plan. That is where we are standing up for Canada.
I heard the member talk about standing up for Canada. That is why we are trying to create Canadian jobs and make investments in infrastructure right across the country.
We will not be lectured by the NDP about creating jobs in Canada. We are the party that is working to create jobs in the country. It is the party that votes against every one of those initiatives.
Debit CardsAlex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, John Scott and Gary Sands, of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Mr. Scott told us that between 50% and 70% of all grocery store transactions involve debit cards. The current fee is 5¢ per transaction.
If the Competition Bureau allows Interac fees to go up, that will have a devastating impact on every small business in this country.
This is exactly what I have heard from independent grocers and others in my riding. 
Will the minister ensure that there is no change in the current Interac policy so our small businesses can survive?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have already put in place the necessary legislation to allow us to proceed with regulations, legislation that the NDP voted against. We are presently working on the detailed regulations related to that.
 However, whether it is credit card, a debt or debit fees, what Canadian consumers and small businesses cannot afford is what the Liberal Party leader has indicated he will do when he said, “We will have to raise taxes”. The question is this. Which taxes will he raise, how much will he raise them and who will have to pay?
Employment SituationMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every day we hear of new layoffs in Quebec: 210 at Gurit in Magog; 225 at SFK Pâte in Saint-Félicien; 145 at Cascades Norampac in Quebec City; 140 at Rio Tinto Alcan in Montreal; 275 at Alcoa in Bécancour; at Bell Helicopter, at the CBC, and the list goes on.
Why do the Conservatives not have an action plan that shows that they truly understand what is happening in Quebec and Canada?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic action plan is a bold plan. It is in place now and we are working with the Government of Quebec, the communities and all economic stakeholders. We will succeed.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if that is the plan, no wonder Tory times are tough times, because the list of job losses continues.
There are more of them: 227 at Rio Tinto in Beauharnois; 245 at Komatsu America Corp. in Candiac; and we know about all the job losses at Bombardier and Pratt &amp; Whitney. These are just the job losses in Quebec. Record job losses are occurring all over Canada.
Why is the government not taking real action to address these job losses and prevent more Canadians from losing the jobs they already have?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we are creating jobs with Canada's economic action plan. It does so by building roads, bridges, hockey arenas and other construction.
We have cut taxes for the average family in the latest budget by roughly $500. We have given people a $1,300 home renovation tax credit to help builders and contractors get more work.
What we will not do is what the Liberal leader has suggested he will do when he said, “We will have to raise taxes”. He has to indicate which taxes will be raised, how much they will go up and who will pay. They were his words when he said, “We will have to raise taxes”. Those are not our words.
Canada Revenue AgencyYasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue refuses to discuss the plight of Mr. Leroux because, on the advice of the previous Conservative minister, it is before the courts. Perhaps I could take a different tack.
Is it common practice for either the present minister or the previous minister to advise Canadians to sue Revenue Canada to trigger a political payment as settlement?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, given that this specific case is before the courts, I cannot comment.
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, an affidavit sworn by the Conservative member for Cariboo—Prince George, on March 31 of this year, states that Mr. Leroux initiated his claim solely on the advice that he was given by the minister's office.
Could the Prime Minister advise the House what remedy he has for taxpayers who are misled by his minister and thus face financial ruin?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
When taxpayers feel wronged by the system they can appeal.
Goods and Services TaxMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us that he did not want public arena negotiations about compensating Quebec for having harmonized its tax. Yet the Minister of Finance himself sent the media a letter in which he laid out his conditions—the reasons he hopes to avoid compensating Quebec to the tune of $2.6 billion.
Will the minister acknowledge that his demand that the province turn tax collection over to the federal government is just an excuse for not compensating Quebec?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, Quebec administers its own sales tax system and collects the GST on behalf of the federal government. In return, Canada has paid the province $1.77 billion to date.
We are ready to work with the Government of Quebec to facilitate the transition to a harmonized tax.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, every province but Quebec receives compensation for harmonizing its tax. The government has recognized the Quebec nation, but it refuses to recognize a motion passed unanimously in Quebec's National Assembly asking the federal government to pay the province $2.6 billion for having harmonized its tax. What could possibly be clearer?
Will the government admit that it is making excuses to avoid compensating Quebec, and that this whole song and dance is just a way to avoid cutting a cheque?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that Quebec has not yet harmonized its sales tax. Quebec retains full control over collecting and applying its sales tax.
We are ready to work with Quebec to facilitate the transition to a harmonized tax.
The EconomyMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has hinted that he might release his economic statement earlier than usual when we come back in September, which suggests that the existing budgetary measures are inadequate. After telling us that everything was fine, we are now seeing another flip-flop. That is why the Bloc voted against the budget, refusing to be pacified by the minister`s cheerful words.
Now that the minister recognizes that the budget is inadequate, why is he waiting until September to take action?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I guess it is no surprise that the Bloc members voted against the economic action plan, and here they are suggesting that we need to come out with another plan so they can vote against that as well.
I will quote a very well-respected economist who said: 
 To their credit, on January 27 [the government] didn't believe the private sector forecast, and they actually lowered the forecast for the key factors of a nominal GDP. 
We were well ahead of this. We put in place an economic action plan that some parties over there did not read let alone vote for. Canadians are happy that they have a government that supports them.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, every day that goes by and every job that is lost show us that this government is making things up as it goes along. The government's modus operandi is simple: first, it denies the facts and then it agrees to act only when things hit rock bottom. 
Could the Minister of Finance not try a different approach for once and bring forward his economic statement before we hit rock bottom?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the only approach that I see that is wrong is voting against an economic action plan that actually provides new jobs for Canadians because it provides a stimulus into the economy. Not only does it provide new jobs but it helps employers keep money in their pockets. 
Unlike what the Liberals want to do, which is take more money out of Canadians' pockets by raising their taxes, we would rather leave taxes in the pockets of Canadians so they can make their own decisions on how to run their businesses and run their homes.
Canada-U.S. BorderHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, businesses in Mississauga—Brampton South are going through some very difficult times. They depend on trade with the United States for the bulk of their exports. However, the border continues to thicken because the Conservatives are incapable of dispelling myths about our ability to secure it, myths that persist at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
What are the Conservatives going to do to set the record straight? Canadian jobs depend on it.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the party on the other side, which created so many problems with the previous administration in the United States, has trouble now that we can deal with the current administration.
 Things are happening. We have been dealing with the current Obama administration. Quite frankly, things are better now than they have been in a long time.
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, jobs in Mississauga and across Canada rely on sound U.S. border relationships. While the government sits idly by, Canadian jobs pay the price.
This is no time to be an apologist for Janet Napolitano. It is time for action to defend Canadians. Canadians depend on their government to protect them. Canadians rely on their government to help them through difficult times.
It is time the government stops with the photo ops and starts delivering. When will the government stand up and protect Canadian jobs?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not hear what I said. We did not go out and trample on dolls that represented the former American presidents. We have been dealing with the current secretary.
What we will not do is hurt the businesses in her riding by increasing taxes on Canadians that affect everybody's business.
Canadian Council on LearningMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have cut funding for the Canadian Council on Learning, which has had to reduce its staff by 20% and close its provincial offices. The council's services include skills transfer and acquisition for workers who have to find a new job.
Why are the Conservatives depriving the unemployed of a resource that helps them retrain for the job market?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all government programs are reviewed to ensure they provide value for money. However, I can tell the member that the Canadian Council on Learning literacy funding has been extended to March 2010.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, that is only for one year. We learned that the government has cut the funding for the Canadian Council on Learning, which provides retraining and skills transfer services to help workers adapt to a changing labour market landscape.
Regardless of the generosity that he claims, what sense does it make to cut funding to an organization that helps workers to acquire the skills to find new employment while hundreds of thousands of jobs are disappearing across the country?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, we are quite committed to improving Canadian literacy and essential skills to build a highly skilled workforce, not only for now but into the future. We have invested $45 million into the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills for the development of literacy and essential skills; $500 million per year in new labour market agreements that deal with literacy skills; and an additional $150 million this year for language training for new Canadians.
We are putting money into the areas that need money most.
JusticeMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past Monday, in committee, Bloc Québécois members attempted to weaken Bill C-14against organized crime. The Bloc wanted to reduce the minimum sentence for drive-by shootings.
On Wednesday, Bloc members voted against the bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, which would punish criminals who traffic in children.
The Bloc's ideology is to defend criminals rather than victims.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain the objective of the government's approach?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Anyone who commits a crime against young victims—whether kidnapping, trafficking or assault—deserves a minimum sentence. Society finds these types of crime truly repugnant. There can be no negotiating when it comes to protecting our children against these despicable crimes.
I was outraged on Wednesday evening in this Parliament. I just do not understand why the 47 Bloc Québécois members, including their leader, voted against the protection and safety of our children. It is very clear to the Conservatives that there will be no more lenient sentences for child molesters.
AfghanistanMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned new facts about the Afghan law and how it attacks the rights of women and children. It is actually worse than what we were told before. It acknowledges sexual intercourse in a marriage with minors. While sex with minors is generally prohibited, it is made legal by paying a fine with no criminal sanctions. The law spells out no repercussion for rape of an adult woman, including violent rape causing physical harm.
I have a simple question. Was the Canadian government aware of these details of the Afghan law that has outraged so many Canadians and so many Afghans?
Lawrence Cannon:  Mr. Speaker, when this issue was first brought to our attention, the Prime Minister, as well as government officials, acted very swiftly. We intervened vis-à-vis the Afghan government. We have the assurances, not only from the president but from the whole of cabinet that the Afghan government will be reviewing this piece of legislation.
I want to remind my colleague that it is not a piece of legislation that is in force. The Afghan government is reviewing the legislation and it will take out of the legislation every individual aspect that is counter to its constitution and to the human rights of every individual.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we did not hear this from the government. We heard this from people on the ground in Kabul. What I am outlining here are facts that the Conservatives did not tell us. Does the government want to know why this information was sent to us? It is because women in Afghanistan are not being protected and their rights are not being asserted. Our government is not doing enough because we have not heard this story about rape and minors. 
Did the government know about these new facts? What is it doing to protect women and children in Afghanistan? What is the answer? It is pleading--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague can shout until his lungs are blue but, to make it quite clear, we do have people on the ground. Our ambassador, Ambassador Hoffman, and our officials are actually intervening with the government. Those are the people who are responsible to this House and to this government. They are giving us the information and they are putting in practice what we have asked them to do.
As for what this government is doing in Afghanistan, as for what our men and women are doing in Afghanistan and as for what we are doing in terms of aid, I ask the member to go and see exactly what we are doing to help and promote women's rights.
Agri-food IndustryMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the 98% rule has just made another victim. Leahy Orchards, the largest applesauce producer in Canada, is located in my riding; it will have to invest $200,000 this year alone to change its labels because the sugar content of its products exceeds 2%, even though 100% of the apples it uses come from Quebec and Ontario.
Will the government reverse its decision before the industry is made to spend money needlessly to comply with a standard that makes no sense?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the consumers have requested that we act to protect their interests.
The consumers of Canada want to know that when they reach on the shelf for a product that is made in Canada, they want the label to read “Made in Canada”. They want to know that virtually all of the content is Canadian.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the consumers are confused. They say so themselves and they say so publicly.
The Minister of National Revenue is just like his government. Despite growing evidence, he continues to stubbornly refuse to review the 98% rule. It is a ridiculous standard. There is growing evidence, yet the government is obstinate in its insistence on imposing a standard that does more harm than good. The government has to change that standard immediately. What is it waiting for? 
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, we are listening and working very closely with Canadians all across the country and they were very clear. They want to know, when they purchase products with Canadian content, that the product is identified as such.
The problem before was that the “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” labels were not reflecting what was in the products themselves.
Consumers want to know. We are delivering real solutions. Now Canadians know that when they buy “Made in Canada” it means made in Canada.
Canadian ForcesGerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the plight of Trooper Kyle Ricketts and his family stirred the nation when this soldier was critically injured by a roadside bomb on March 8 while in Afghanistan, requiring a dozen or more reconstructive operations on his road to recovery.
Trooper Ricketts' parents wanted to be at his side while he endured these painful rounds of procedures. However, Sadie and Maurice, seasonal workers living in Newfoundland and Labrador, were told by Service Canada that if they left their community to attend to their son for the duration of his treatment, they would be stripped of all EI benefits; no income.
The minister, however, personally intervened and assured them that this would not be the case. Could she now please report to the House on the status of that?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not in the House today but I will be happy to take that matter up with her and have her report back to the member in due course.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I will report to the House. They did indeed leave to go to their son's side with the minister's reassurance. However, after spending several weeks there, they were told that they were only eligible for one week of benefits. Not only that, but the Ricketts were then told that the government intended to file for collection of any benefits that were paid beyond one week. To add insult to injury, they will effectively be prevented from requalifying for EI because of the seasonal nature of their work.
Mr. Speaker, are you listening? They will be forced to pay the money back.
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, we do not need to take any lectures from that member. We are always looking at cases on an individual basis with compassion and we do that in every particular case.
If the hon. member has a specific case in mind, he should raise that with the minister and with me and we will deal with it effectively.
EmploymentMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has just realized that Canada is in a recession. He is asking Vale Inco to explain the temporary closing announced in Sudbury. It is about time.
Why did he not ask for an explanation from Xstrata and why continue to hide the agreement between the company and the government?
Will he explain to Canadian workers and families why they will not have access to employment insurance for the first two weeks of their unemployment?
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the recent actions of this company. The government knows that the company made conditions when it hired these people and when they came into the country. We fully expect the company to live up to its agreements, and if it chooses not to do that, we will take action to make sure it does.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the people of Espanola are worried. The Domtar pulp and paper plant has been in town for generations and is the biggest employer in the region.
However, the U.S. government is about to provide a subsidy for a by-product of the pulp and paper industry called black liquor. If this massive subsidy goes through, it will provide an unfair advantage for U.S. pulp and paper mills and impact gravely on ours.
Will the government finally take a stand for the forestry sector and the people for Espanola and do something about this black liquor subsidy?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of the Canadian forest sector as a valuable employer in all areas of Canada and we take this matter very seriously. We are concerned about the impact that this tax credit may have on Canada's forest sector. We are examining this closely and considering our options.
Consumer AffairsMr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is becoming more competitive as one of the leading nations in the online economy. The online marketplace represents a major segment of Canada's economy, at about $62.7 billion in sales per year. At the same time, there has been an enormous increase in the vulnerabilities and threats to the Internet and online commerce.
Can the Minister of State for Science and Technology please tell the House what action the government is taking to address this problem?
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. He is absolutely correct.
I want to let the House know that we intend to table legislation today to combat these online threats. Our proposed Electronic Commerce Protection Act aims to boost the confidence in online commerce by protecting privacy and personal information and addressing the security concerns of consumers here in Canada. It will deter the most dangerous forms of spam, and that is our intention.
This kind of positive legislation is exactly what we need right now to help our economy. What we do not need are increased taxes planned by the Liberals, which would kill jobs.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said that his government is working to ensure that graduates with considerable professional experience who come to Canada can work here, but his department refused to renew a work permit for Moulay Lemrini and rejected, on April 20th, his humanitarian grounds application. If he leaves Canada, some 30 people will lose their jobs, and another hundred or so will lose income.
Will the minister take another look at this case so that Mr. Lemrini can keep working in Canada?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question from the hon. member. If she would like to meet after question period, I would be happy to take her concerns up with the ministry. However, at this point in time, she has not indicated a name or file number or whether she has the authority to speak on behalf of the individual in question.
Science and TechnologyMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, $162 million in budget cuts over three years will soon result in job losses in the scientific research sector. The vice-president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Gary Corbett, added that the current government has taken so much away from scientific research that it is dangerously close to a critical point. 
Does the Prime Minister realize that these cuts will drive researchers away? This is all the more disturbing given that the Obama administration is about to inject $15 billion into research while our government makes these cuts.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In the last three budgets, this government has increased funding to the granting councils by $205 million.
In the 1990s, when we hit our last recession, the Liberal approach was to gut, cut and gouge the scientific community. They cut $442 million from our scientists and universities. Our approach is different. During this economic downturn, we have increased funding to the scientific community by $5.1 billion.
Employment InsuranceMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, women are returning to work from maternity leave to find their jobs and EI benefits gone. The point of maternity leave is that one's job is protected. The point of EI is that if one loses one's job, it is there for that person.
I want to be clear. We are not asking about an extension of EI. We are asking about access for women returning from maternity leave who find themselves out of work. 
Will the minister guarantee that employers fulfill their obligations and expand EI to include new mothers?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, the EI program as we now know it and as it existed under the previous Liberal government existed with respect to the benefits in the same fashion when the unemployment rate was higher.
That said, there is no question that if anyone is laid off or fired during maternity benefits, the individual is entitled to continue those benefits until those are completed. 
If the individual comes back to work and has been laid off or the work is not there, the individual can certainly file a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the labour program. There are provisions that the individual can use, because if anyone is doing anything that is not proper, that needs to be addressed.
HealthMr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised an issue in the House that is of serious concern for the province of New Brunswick. 
On March 31, 2009, Canadian Blood Services announced its decision to relocate the provincial blood services centre. This centre is in my riding of Saint John and it serves the needs of New Brunswickers. 
There has been a lot of confusion created as to the role that the federal government has when it comes to the operations of CBS. Can the Minister of Health please clarify what role the federal government plays with respect to Canadian Blood Services?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians will always be a priority of the Conservative government. Canada has one of the safest blood systems in the world. Health Canada is at arm's length from the corporate and operational decisions of Canadian Blood Services. Decisions on relocations are made by the CBS board of directors and the provincial and territorial governments.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Michelle Simson (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a young mother in my riding is struggling to make ends meet due to the Conservatives' refusal to make changes to our EI system. Because she was laid off before returning to work from maternity leave, she does not have the required hours to qualify for EI. 
The recession has created problems that were not foreseen by the current EI system. How fair is it when a company closes its doors that some employees will receive EI but new mothers will not?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, we are always concerned, of course, when anyone loses his or her job or gets laid off. We certainly have taken steps to expand the program in a variety of areas.
With respect to those who come back to jobs that are expected to be there, if they are not there, the individuals are entitled to file an unjust dismissal complaint under the labour program or with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. 
That said, we have added millions of dollars to the program, but one thing we will not do is raise taxes like the other party has promised to do in many of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.
Government AssistanceJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Premier Gary Doer has assured residents north of Winnipeg that they would receive financial aid for damages from the floods. In addition, 300 homes have been damaged in the Peguis First Nation community and the cost of damages may exceed $1 million.
The communities of Manitoba need a federal government that will step in and act now. Can the President of the Treasury Board indicate the level of financial support for Manitoba residents, and more important, when will they see help?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, in fact, the President of the Treasury Board is on the ground with the public safety minister in Manitoba talking to stakeholders, talking to the victims of the flood. We are on the ground, we are getting the job done.
 I think the province and the federal government are working very well together, along with first nations. Thank goodness that we are getting the job done for Manitobans.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMs. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government recently unveiled a new logo for organic products and a standardized “Canada Organic Regime” designation, but certified products from other countries will be allowed to bear the same logo as Canadian organic products. The Fédération d'agriculture biologique du Québec has condemned this decision on the basis that the criteria for organic certification abroad may be different from ours.
Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to go back to the drawing board and come up with a proper policy, ensuring that consumers are no longer misled and that we do justice to Quebec producers?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, what matters is consumers, and consumers want to know what the content of the products they buy is. We have taken action. When the label says “Made in Canada”, it means made in Canada. We are protecting the interests of Canadians.

Routine Proceedings
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 one petition.
Intellectual Property RightsLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the treaty known as the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, signed in Geneva on December 6, 2005. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.
Youth Mobility AgreementLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, as well, under Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure of tabling an agreement between Canada and Spain on youth mobility programs, signed in Ottawa on March 10, 2009.
Emergency Management Co-operation AgreementLawrence Cannon: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling under Standing Order 32(2), in both official languages, an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on emergency management co-operation, signed at Washington on December 12, 2008.
Electronic Commerce Protection ActGary Goodyear:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Business of SupplyGordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that Monday, April 27, and Tuesday, April 28, shall be allotted days.
PetitionsMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition in support of a national housing strategy. The signatories to this petition are from around Halifax and Dartmouth, in Nova Scotia. They were actually collected by Community Action on Homelessness, an organization that is committed to housing and homelessness issues in Nova Scotia.
The signatories are calling for the swift passage of private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. They call for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing.
Both the signatories and I look forward to the minister's response.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House a petition signed by hunters, farmers and rural people who would like to see us scrap the billion-dollar long gun registry, which has not saved lives and has diverted resources away from people, away from real public security. 
These farmers and these hunters are not criminals. By targeting people who legitimately use long guns in rural communities, we do not stop handgun crime in urban communities; thus I present this petition.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Jeffrey Robinson, of Mississauga South. 
He remembers the Prime Ministerboasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said “the greatest fraud is a promise not kept”.
The petitioners, who are in fact all from my riding, remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts but he broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax that permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners therefore call upon the government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions, as shown in the finance committee hearings; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to introduce for the second time a petition asking Parliament to reject the Canada-Columbia free trade agreement until its impacts on human rights have been assessed by an independent panel. 
The petitioners also ask that the agreement be renegotiated with the respect for fair trade practices to take into account its environmental and social impacts in a way that really respects the rights of workers and all other affected people. The petitioners are very concerned by the violence inflicted by the Colombian paramilitary groups on workers and members of civil society and by the fact that more than 2,200 unionists have been murdered since 1991.
The petitioners believe that all trade agreements signed by Canada must be based on fair trade principles, namely the respect of social justice, human rights, workers' rights and good environmental practices.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 88 will be answered today.
Hon. Shawn Murphy:  With regard to the Canada Ecotrust for Clean Air and Climate Change that was announced by the government in February 2007: (a) what are the details of each project, including its explanation, cost, start date and current status; (b) what is the detailed explanation of the amount of all greenhouse gas emission reduction attained by virtue of the projects; and (c) what is the detailed explanation whether or not the funding of these projects was incremental to existing provincial or territorial environmental spending?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: 
With regard to a) Budget 2007 confirmed the arrangements for the trust fund for clean air and climate change by establishing a third-party trust, a $1.5 billion initiative, to provide resources to provinces and territories that identify major projects that target real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. These projects range from infrastructure to community energy efficiency campaigns. 
The ecotrust for clean air and climate change is a transfer payment to the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories have the flexibility to draw the funds over three years according to their respective schedule and priorities. Provinces and territories report directly to their residents on the commitments and progress made under the trust. 
The Government of Canada has made a number of joint announcements with provinces and territories regarding the planned expenditures under this trust, and in many cases provinces have publicly acknowledge the use of ecoTrust funds in their budget and project announcements. 
Under this type of funding arrangement, the provinces and territories are not required to report to the government on how they use that money to achieve results. Provinces are encouraged to acknowledge in their public announcements the funding contribution provided by the Government of Canada to reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
For example: Alberta’s recent budget announced $1.1 billion for carbon capture and storage and projects funded through the climate change and emissions management fund and Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change. Alberta received close to $160 million of ecotrust funds. Nova Scotia acknowledged the financial assistance of the Government of Canada’s ecotrust in its 2008 report “EcoNova Scotia for Clean Air and Climate Change”. The Ontario government has identified that ecotrust is financially contributing to initiatives, including: the development and implementation of policies to monitor, analyze and address smog and air toxins; expansion of the GO Transit system; and the establishment of a bio-energy research centre associated with the Atikokan generating station. 
With regard to b) Under the operating principles of the trust, provincial and territorial governments are encouraged to report directly to their residents on the expenditures financed and outcomes achieved as a result of the funding provided through the trust. 
In its climate change action plan in 2006, Quebec estimated that it would be able to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 10 megatonnes below otherwise projected levels for 2012. Subsequently, Quebec indicated that the $349.9 million in federal funds under ecotrust would enable it to achieve 13.8 megatonnes in reductions by 2012. This is an increase of 3.8 megatonnes attributed by Quebec to the $350 million it received under ecoTrust.
To estimate the likely emission reductions from the ecotrust contribution, we used Quebec’s estimate as the basis for estimating the total ecoTrust emission reductions. 
1. $350 million/19 megatonnes in incremental reduction (3.8 megatonnes times 5 years) = $18.5 per tonne; 
2. $1,500 million total Trust Fund / $18.5 per tonne = 81.1 megatonnes – cumulative reductions over five years; 
3. 81.1 megatonnes / 5 years = 16.2 megatonnes per year.
With regard to c) The trust fund provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to draw down the funds over three years according to their respective schedule and priorities. The trust fund is allocated on a per capita basis and provides a minimum of $15 million per province and $5 million per territory to support efforts to develop technology, improve energy efficiency, and undertake other projects that will result in significant environmental benefits.
The intention behind ecotrust was to provide funding to provinces and territories that would allow them to supplement their current activities related to climate change and air emissions, thus allowing greater achievements in emissions reduction. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 85, 86 and 89 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is it agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Michael Savage:  With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many were rejected; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by province and federal electoral district; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far; (d) how much funding is left; (e) how many major projects under this program will or went to expand existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went towards (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; and (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Funding applications that went towards (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communication more accessible?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. John McCallum:  With regards to mortgages: (a) how many loans for 40 year amortization mortgages has the government guaranteed (i) since January 1, 1993, (ii) since February 6, 2006; (b) since February 6, 2006, how many loans for 40 year amortization mortgages has the government guaranteed with zero down payment from the client; (c) as of March 10, 2009, what is the government’s contingent liability related to guarantees for all mortgages which were entered into with (i) a 40 year amortization period, (ii) a 35 year amortization period; and (d) as of March 10, 2009, how many mortgages entered into with a 40 year amortization period have been purchased by the government through the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Scott Andrews:  With regard to the previously cancelled procurement processes by the Department of Public Works and Government Services for two Joint Support Ships (JSS), on behalf of the Department of National Defence, and 12 mid-shore patrol vessels, on behalf of the Canadian Coast Guard: (a) is there a procurement process for vessels under the JSS project currently being pursued and, if so, (i) is there a plan to move forward with another request for proposals for the vessels during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, (ii) what funding has been allocated to pursue this project in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; and (b) is there a plan to pursue a competitive bidding process for the acquisition of mid-shore patrol vessels for use by the Canadian Coast Guard and, if so, (i) has money been budgeted to pursue this project in the 2009-2010 fiscal year and, if so, (ii) how much, (iii) through which department?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), be read the third time and passed. 
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill at third reading.
 Bill C-14 proposes to amend the Criminal Code in several important ways. It facilitates the prosecution of gang related and organized crime and it makes our communities safer by introducing several new initiatives.
Specifically, Bill C-14 makes murders connected with organized crime activity automatically first degree and presumptively planned and deliberate. It creates three new offences: one, intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless about endangering the life or safety of another person; two, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm to a peace officer; and three, aggravated assault of a peace officer.
The bill also extends the maximum duration of a recognizance to two years for a person who has been previously convicted of an offence involving a criminal organization, or intimidating a justice system participant. The recognizance conditions have also been clarified, which is another positive attribute of the bill. 
In simple terms, this bill is aimed at reducing gang related violence, reducing drive-by or public shootings, and protecting our justice system officials, notably our police officers who have to deal with gang activity on a daily basis.
The bill is timely. It is helpful. It is a measured and defensible response with aspects that all Canadians can and should support, but it is not sufficient nor will it alone address all of the aspects of violent crime and gang activity that we need to address.
I would like to place the bill in the context of my own riding. I live in and represent the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, a riding that straddles the east and west sides of Vancouver. All Canadians have seen the violence that has erupted in Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In the last four months alone we have had over three dozen shootings and at least 15 deaths. We have had public shootings in our streets, at homes and in shopping centre parking lots. Two women have been shot; one was murdered in a car in front of her four-year-old son. This outburst of violence, of gunfire, of deaths, many of which are obviously gang related, deserves a swift and strong response from all parliamentarians. We New Democrats are prepared to support such a response. 
Indeed, just six months ago, New Democrats campaigned on renewing and strengthening our federal crime program. New Democrats called then and we call now for: 2,500 more police officers across Canada to be added to our forces; improved witness protection programs; more resources for prosecution and enforcement; toughened proceeds of crime legislation; better coordination between RCMP, border services, provincial and municipal police forces; and better and more prevention programs to divert youth at risk. Just as important, indeed it is critical that there be an understanding of and commitment to the concept that crime does not just happen, that it is a product of the health, or not, of society at large. Crime is connected in many ways to poverty, to unemployment, to weakened family units, to inadequate social supports. 
It is this last component that I believe sets the New Democrats apart from the other two national parties. New Democrats understand that only a balanced and multi-faceted approach to crime will pay dividends and actually work to reduce it. New Democrats believe we must be tough on crime, but we also believe that we must be equally tough on the causes of crime. Punishment, prisons and locking people up longer alone will not solve our problems.
Last week on April 16, I held a forum on crime, gangs and violence in my riding. I invited all of the community to attend. I specifically invited the administrators, teachers and students of all four high schools in Vancouver Kingsway: Windermere, Gladstone, Sir Charles Tupper and Eric Hamber secondary schools. I would like to thank the administrators and staff of these schools for their dedication to their students and the work they do day in and day out that actually helps build and improve those young people's lives. 
I held the forum at Windermere High School. We screened a locally made film called Warrior Boyz, a wonderful film directed by Ms. Baljit Sangra and co-produced by the National Film Board. This film was shot in Surrey, British Columbia. It examined the real lives of youth in gangs, at risk and ex-gang members, youth 15 years old, 18 years old and adults. This was a dramatic, sensitive and nuanced look at the lure and realities of gangs to our youth.
 After the film we had a vibrant and robust discussion. I listened to the views of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway. I listened to the voice of teachers. I listened to the voice of parents, the voice of social workers, the voice of ex-gang members and the voice youth. What came out very strongly was that if we truly want to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, we need to take a balanced, intelligent and caring approach.
 We need to strengthen support for families, they said. We need better jobs so that parents can work less and spend more time with their children. We need stronger economic health across the board for all Canadians. We need universal, accessible, affordable, quality day care. We need youth programs and community centres. We need more money and support for our education system to provide programs for music, art, drama and athletic programs to keep our youth active and engaged. We need better access to universities, technical schools and apprenticeships to give our young people hope for the future. We need policies that nurture our youth and adults, not punish them solely.
An ex-gang member came to my forum spontaneously. This was a hardened criminal who had spent many years in prison, and he spoke eloquently. He now actually is reformed and speaks to thousands of youth every week in British Columbia. He spoke of the causes that led him into a life of crime and into gangs. He told us that his was a life of deprivation as a child. He was a victim of domestic abuse. The first hug he said he ever received was from a gang member in a federal penitentiary. His first sense of belonging happened in prison.
What is the message from all of this? The Conservative approach of only cracking down on crime while reducing social supports for our families, our youth, our teachers, our social workers, our workers themselves, is wrong. It will not work. It is not what people across this country or the people who came to my forum want.
What people do want, what they need and what they have a right to is to be safe and secure in our communities, safe and secure from crime, and safe and secure from economic deprivation. Our children have the right to play safely in our schoolyards and parks. Our seniors have the right to walk safely in our streets and in their homes. They also have the right to dignity and a life of economic security. Women have the right to be safe everywhere, at home, at work and in our streets. We all want a Canada that is peaceful and free of guns.
This week has been a strange week in Canadian politics. As the Conservatives claim to get tough on crime, as they say they are cracking down on crime, they are trying desperately to make it easier to own and transport guns in this country. They say they want to reduce crime, but they adopt policies that make families poorer, attack women, do nothing to build stronger social, educational and health supports in Canada.
I will give an example in my riding. The government in its budget, in its so-called economic action plan, refused to increase the funding for the only federal program that supports employment for at-risk youth, kids who left school, kids who are on the street, kids with substance abuse issues, kids in poverty.
This caused the closure of the Baristas program, a wonderful program, in co-operation with Starbucks and the Pacific Community Resources organization, that trains at-risk youth to work in Starbucks. It teaches them money handling skills, customer service skills and organizational skills. This program, which was delivered on Broadway in East Vancouver, shut down two weeks ago because of the government's inaction.
This example shows in stark terms the shortsightedness and fallacy of the Conservative get tough approach. These youth do not need a handout, they need a hand up. They need support.
The government cut this program and wants to jail youth, when there are other ways to make these people secure. Instead, these youth who need help learning how to survive are being turned away from positive directions in this regard and are left with very few alternatives.
The bottom line is healthy, economically secure and supported individuals and families do not turn to crime. While we will never eliminate crime entirely, we need to recognize the clear link between strong social supports and reduced deviant behaviour. New Democrats recognize this, but the government does not.
I am pleased to move the bill forward. As I said at the beginning, we should and do have no tolerance for gangs, guns and violence. We need to express our most serious opprobrium as national legislators. The bill does that.
 New Democrats will continue to do our part to get tough on crime. We will also continue to bring the voice of intelligence, compassion and reason to address the causes of crime so all Canadians can move forward in safety and security.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 is another small bill. I will make a couple of comments on the history. We have had a number of pieces of legislation from the government, which are purported to be tough on crime. As the member noted, this is a situation where a crime has to have occurred before the effect of the bill comes into play. It involves mandatory minimum sentencing and conditions under which certain sentencing will occur.
Although Bill C-14 deals with the Criminal Code, in an aspect of dealing with organized crime, it is not a comprehensive solution. This is the problem I have with the bill.
I agree with the bill and I will support it, but I will not support the government's initiative in terms of saying that we have addressed the problems of organized crime.
 As I understand it, there is significant argument about mandatory minimums being a deterrent. I very much doubt the people involved with guns, drugs and organized crime are worried about the Criminal Code or look at the penalties to determine whether they will get in or out of the business. It really is ludicrous when we think about it.
On top of that, some of the mandatory minimum sentences seem to be reflective of other issues, whether it is a prohibited weapon or not and that somehow affects it. I asked the justice critic for the Liberal Party whether it really mattered to anybody if a firearm were used in the commission in the crime. I do not care if it is prohibited or not.
 Could the member elaborate on this? I agree with him fully that we need a comprehensive approach to deal with organized crime, and prevention must be part of that solution.
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally agree with what the hon. member has said. The gist of the New Democrat position has been and continues to be that we take a comprehensive approach to this very complex problem.
Prevention is the key aspect that is always missing from the current government's position on crime. In fact, it is even worse than that. It is my understanding that the amount of prevention moneys that were available in 2008 were not even spent in their entirety.
 The government, besides not putting money into specific crime prevention programs, also completely fails to recognize the underlying social causes that lead to increased criminal behaviour.
Again, the member is quite right that the bill is not comprehensive. In fairness to the government, I do not think it is intended to be. It is part of a suite of bills that the government has put forward. I would put this statute in that context. What is missing from the government is that the suite of bills the government has put forward is not complete. It is a one bedroom apartment when what we need is a complete house of legislation.
I also point out that the bill has a bit of an aspect of window dressing. Its main aspect of making gang related shootings and killings a first degree murder really does not help much. It would probably be the case now that any gang related murder would be planned and deliberate under current legislation. We would press the government to bring in meaningful legislation in that regard.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague keeps saying that the government is doing nothing to help prevention. I point out that individuals living in Vancouver's downtown eastside will benefit from two new treatment services thanks to an investment by the Government of Canada.
 These two new treatment initiatives represent the creation of treatment stabilization beds and the launch of an effective service delivery model, so persons with more disabling disorders have a range of treatment options. As part of the national anti-drug strategies treatment action plan, these new and comprehensive treatment service initiatives are aimed at helping individuals with complex, mental health and addiction problems, with a focus on women involved in the sex trade living in Vancouver's downtown eastside. This is just one of the many things we are doing to help prevention.
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I did say, or would say, the government has spent nothing on prevention, or is not committed to any prevention. What I said was its attention to prevention is weak and insufficient, and I would urge the government to do more.
I point out that we passed a motion in the House, democratically, that urged the government to increase EI benefits to 60% of wages, and the government has refused to implement that. What does that mean? Recently I read that the incidence of domestic and spousal assaults had gone up. I am told by social scientists and experts that this always happens. There is always a correlation between increased spousal assaults and violence in the home when there is increased financial insecurity.
When the government had a chance to put more money in the hands of families that need it right now, it said no.
My friend points to two treatment centres in Canada as being their response to prevention of crime on a national level. That is grossly insufficient and it is no answer to Canadians.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, one of the most effective prevention measures is a head start-like program. Last week, with Jane Goodall and the Jane Goodall Foundation and the Assembly of First Nations and Chief Phil Fontaine, we rolled out a head start program called the “Roots and Shoots Program for Children”. I compliment Dr. Gina Cosentino from the Assembly of First Nations, Barbara Cartwright and Jane Lawton at the Jane Goodall foundation for their hard work in making this happen. This would not have happened without them.
What we know, and recent evidence looking at neurosciences shows this very clearly, that the presence of abuse, the withdrawal of basic needs in a child can have profound, long-lasting effects well into adulthood. In fact, it even puts people at risk of suicide, depression and an inability to cope with life's stresses. We have even seen genetic markers that show early childhood abuse or the withdrawal of the basic needs of a child has this profound impact.
Conversely, enabling children to have a loving, caring environment with proper parenting and proper nutrition shows very clearly that it can have a positive effect. Head start programs are proven to reduce youth crime by 60%, teen pregnancies and keep kid in school longer.
Does my hon. colleague not think the government should bury its ideology, work with the provinces to implement a head start-like program for children and the “Roots and Shoots Program for Children”?
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago representatives of the Canadian Teachers' Federation visited me in my office in Parliament. They talked to me about poverty in students and children, particularly young children aged 5 to 11. They reminded me that the House passed a resolution in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. It is now 20 years later and the poverty statistics for children in Canada are exactly the same. We have made no progress.
When the Conservatives try to talk about prevention programs, I would remind them that it would start with ensuring that our children have the ability to go to school and pay attention and live lives of dignity. Why? Because children, as the teachers told me, come to school poorly dressed and hungry. They cannot pay attention. They are distracted. They are ashamed. Their parents move around and they have to change schools, so they do not have educational stability. What happens to these kids when they do not get that early head start in life? What happens to these kids when they are 14, 15 and 16 and do not have an educational future in which to look forward?
These conditions lead many children, who have poor prospects for the future, to despair. Every dollar we invest in our young people, in our children in programs like head start, as my hon. colleague just pointed out, is true crime prevention. It is an investment in our future that all parliamentarians should support, and I urge them to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Human Pathogens and Toxins Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 22 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this issue, a bill that deals with human pathogens and toxins. It is an issue that is very important for all Canadians. It is a public health issue that has both domestic and international implications.
The bill deals with the proper handling of human pathogens, the safety and security of our researchers, and those involved in treating people who are ill. They have to be engaged. This bill ensures that Canada's laboratory legislation is in line with that of other international partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
I want to take this opportunity to showcase an area of excellence that perhaps many Canadians are not aware of. In Winnipeg, we have one of only 14 level 4 laboratories in the entire world. Dr. Frank Plummer is the chief scientist there. As a Canadian, I want to compliment the people who work at the Public Health Agency level 4 laboratory in Winnipeg and the work that Dr. Plummer and his team have been doing there.
In fact, just last year, they made some groundbreaking discoveries into HIV-AIDS. They were studying Kenyan prostitutes that seemed to have a resistance to the HIV virus. They have managed to do a lot of work on identifying aspects around that, which I hope will have implications for us in order to deal with this. It is one of the biggest scourges to ever hit our species. It has already claimed more than 35 million lives so far that we are aware of and it is probably a lot more than that.
I also want to talk about the issue of laboratory testing. We saw tragically last year in Newfoundland where the testing of pathology samples was not done in an effective way. Many women received diagnoses that were not correct and subsequently received medical care that was inadequate, unnecessary and sometimes damaging to their health. We cannot allow that to happen and no one in the House wants that to happen. There is an opportunity on the part of the government to work with the provinces to establish national standards for immunohistological and pathological testing for tissue samples.
In my view, we need to have a national standard for immunohistochemical testing in our country so that laboratories all operate under the same standard. We need to have national electronic reporting standards, national quality management standards, and common follow-up and reporting standards. This is important because patients will understandably go in with a great deal of anxiety to be tested for something they are deeply worried about. Oftentimes, they are worried that they may have cancer. It is exceedingly important that we develop national standards as to how those patients are treated and how the reporting mechanism takes place, so that no patients fall through the cracks and all are able to receive timely knowledge about test results. It is also important to have national licensing and regulations for this.
I also want to talk for a minute about the issue of pathogens in two ways. First, we have natural catastrophes that take place, such as what we are seeing potentially right now in Mexico. We know that the flu pandemics that occur roughly every 20 to 30 years kill many people. We know that this happens and that it is going to happen again. The virus that does this is an avian flu virus that generally begins somewhere in south China. This virus is an RNA virus. It has eight genes. It is pretty sloppy. These genes come and go very easily when the virus multiplies.
That type of virus is very difficult to treat and follow because it is always changing its structure. This virus is in aquatic birds. As they move through their breeding patterns, which run from Indonesia to Siberia, those birds actually fly into areas where there are domestic birds. There is a transference of this virus to domestic birds. If this virus keeps on changing, the danger we have is that the flu virus will change itself so much that it can go from aquatic birds to domestic birds, swine to humans, and eventually from human to human. That is our worst case scenario.
That has happened in the past and we know it will happen in the future. There are dozens of viruses that have actually moved from animals and birds to humans. HIV is an example of that. There are other viruses that are residing in animals. We know those viruses will change and cross the species barrier and affect us. The important thing is to have the mechanisms in place with the proper surveillance, the proper approach and the rapid response that is required.
I do not hear anything from the government as to what it has been doing to improve our surveillance and response capabilities. This has to occur under public health because this is a public health issue. The government has an absolute moral obligation and a duty to the public to establish a surveillance mechanism that is national and that ties up with other countries, so we would have an international surveillance mechanism. We also need to have rapid response. If we have a rapid response to natural pathogens and natural outbreaks, then we can also apply it to bioterrorism.
One of our concerns is that we could have a chemical, biological or radiological attack on our shores. These viruses can run from anything from anthrax to botulism to small pox. Our concern is that we do not see the government responding to this issue, which is an international issue. 
The biological and chemical weapons treaty that exists needs to be strengthened. We also need to work with our partners. There is a great opportunity to intelligently work with the new administration in the United States. We would not only have a North American surveillance mechanism but we would lead in this area so that we are able to transfer this in order to develop the international surveillance mechanism that is required to not only deal with natural pathogens but also to address bioterrorism.
Groups have been trying to acquire these materials, the source of which exists in many government labs, and some of these exist in the old U.S.S.R. One of our concerns is the post-collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the fragmentation of that country. There are many laboratories and sources of these pathogens in some of these countries. The control mechanisms on these pathogens, as the control mechanisms on nuclear material, are wanting.
There is also the issue of the scientists in these countries and what they are doing with their time and expertise. It is very important for us to see this as not only a national problem but quite frankly an international problem. We as a nation can use our fine scientists, like Dr. Frank Plummer and his team, and many others in our country, to work together to provide a surveillance mechanism that our country and our citizens need.
Part of the response must also involve our reserves. The reserves in our country and our Canadian Forces are exceptionally well-trained people. At some time I would like to hear the Minister of National Defence tell the House what he is doing to enable our reserve forces to have the tools to respond to chemical, radiological and biological warfare that may occur and affect our citizens. 
There have been some tests and responses here in Ottawa by our military. That is wonderful, but what they need is a greater investment in training and equipment to enable them to respond in an effective way.
 I will simply close by saying that in the human pathogens and toxins act to which we are speaking, the government must not see this simply as a local issue, a national issue, but as an international issue.
The government has to listen to some of the studies that have been done that provide good solutions, such as the Walkerton inquiry, to make sure we have national standards for water, to prevent domestic waterborne disease outbreaks, and deal with the studies that have been done on past reports in Newfoundland and adopt those national standards. It should also work with our international partners, so we truly have an integrated mechanism of surveillance and response to these challenges that can be lethal and that affect and kill millions of our citizens.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned and seized with the issue of pathogens and protecting the health of Canadians. We have heard on the news recently concerns about what is happening in Mexico and concerns about protecting Canadians coming from Mexico, and for that matter people living in Mexico.
Coordination is one of the challenges that we face in this country. The member laid out the need for investment in a more robust infrastructure. One of the areas we need to do more on as it relates to this legislation is coordinating the facilities in Atlanta with those in Winnipeg. 
What does my colleague think of the approach the Americans have taken in the past in terms of sharing data and protecting human health? Does he believe that we have enough infrastructure in place right now to do what this legislation is asking for?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that. That question must be posed to the government and the government must be able to provide the House and our citizens with a response. We have to ensure that we have the ability to engage with the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. We are looking for not only a North American integrated response for surveillance standards and containment but we are also looking beyond North America.
As I mentioned before, south China is generally the source of the avian flu. China is investing a lot of money right now into its primary health care structure after it suffered a collapse. As a result of the history that Norman Bethune, a great Canadian, had with respect to the Chinese, there is an opportunity for the government to engage the Chinese on the issue of public health.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-11, report stage Motion No. 1 ostensibly requires that the regulations being drafted and proposed, and appended to the legislation, go through the appropriate standing committee for review. I want to indicate that I support this very much. The reproductive technology act had a similar proposal. Over 200 draft regulations have yet to come on a piece of legislation that passed many years ago. This means that significant aspects of the reproductive technology act are not even in force yet because regulations have not been propagated.
I want to simply ask the member whether or not he supports Motion No. 1, that the draft regulations go before a committee so it can ensure that they properly reflect the enabling provisions of the legislation in question?
[Interjection]
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We fully support Motion No. 1. This is too important an issue to not do it right. It is an issue of public health and public safety. We will work co-operatively in a bipartisan way in the interests of our citizens and their health to ensure that it is done right. The government will see our team as a very willing participant. We will give the best of what we have to ensure that the bill will serve the needs of our citizens and the safety of our citizens now and into the future.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  I declare Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2 carried.
Hon. Greg Thompson:  moved that Bill C-11, An Act to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, as amended, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division stands deferred until Monday, April 27 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I move that we see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Atlantic Lobster FisheryHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.):  moved:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a program to reduce the effort on the Atlantic Lobster Fishery to ensure a viable industry for future generations with a lobster license retirement plan, and provide adequate funding to remove a number of lobster fleets from the water by cancelling licenses. 
It is a pleasure to stand in the House today but I stand here with some great concern as the lobster industry is so vitally important for the Atlantic region and my riding. What must happen is we need to reduce the effort. 
I have the privilege of representing a great area in Atlantic Canada in eastern Prince Edward Island, the riding of Cardigan that has been very kind to send me back to the House a number of times. It is an area that is heavily dependent on agriculture, fisheries and tourists. 
Without a doubt, there are big problems in the fishery this year. There are also problems in the agricultural field. Potato growers and vegetable growers are having a lot of difficulty. However, in the fishing industry there is a problem. Over the years we have seen a decline in the species and in other species and because of this we have placed more emphasis on the lobster. This has placed great stress in the fishery and the landings have declined over the past years, especially in lobster fishing areas or LFAs which I represent.
I can recall, when I became involved in politics over 20 years ago, visiting different harbours across eastern Prince Edward Island. We have two different areas, 24 and 26A. Area 26A is referred to by most people in Prince Edward Island where I live as the south side.
When I was looking for the nomination in Cardigan, I was touring these harbours and talking to the fishermen. The catches at that time were somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 pounds for a lot of fishermen, and that is great fishing. Now some of these fishermen catch 4,000 to 6,000 pounds.
We must remember that there is a major change in the cost of operating fleets now from the mid-eighties and the late eighties when I was talking to these fishermen.
I would like to quote from a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that was presented on March 31 of this year at Pooles Corner presented by Bobby Jenkins representing the Southern Kings and Queens Fishermen's Association. It is so important that we get information, as we would say where I come from, the horse's mouth. The fact is that these people know what is going on and it was great to have my colleagues there. Mr. Jenkins said:
 Let me give you a few examples of how our costs have increased and how our income has shrunk to dangerously low levels, a few examples of costs, say, 10 years ago and today. Item one is bait. Ten years ago it was 15¢ a pound; today it's 75¢ to 90¢ a pound. We use approximately 1,500 pounds a week. Multiply it by nine. Labour was $400 a week 10 years ago and it's $800 to $1,200 a week now, average 10 to 12 weeks. Fuel 10 years ago was 20¢ to 25¢ a litre; now it's 70¢ to $1.40 per litre. We use 200 to 400 litres per day. Insurance rates 10 years ago were $400 a year; today they are $3,500. 
For docking fees, what one did 10 years ago was pull one's boat in and tie it up. Today people pay somewhere between $700 and $1,000. All these expenses add up. It takes from the bottom line. 
Maintenance 10 years ago was $2,000; today, it's $5,000 to $7,000. A new propeller 10 years ago would cost $500; today it's $1,500 to $2,000. You could build a trap 10 years ago for $20; it's $60 now. 
As we can see, the costs have skyrocketed over the past 10 years and, as was indicated at the standing committee, the prices have declined substantially. For example, the following was said at the standing committee:
 Our lobster prices have been shrinking. In 2005-06, we received $5.50 a pound for canners and about $6 a pound for markets. In 2008, we received $4.25 a pound for canners and $4.50 for markets, with no rebates. In 2009, we have heard of prices of less than $3 a pound for canners and maybe $3.50 for markets. 
The prices, of course, depend on supply and demand and lobster is a luxury item in restaurants. 
With a reduction in fleets, there will also be a reduction in the requirement for the people who help. I want to indicate to the House that there is a lot more to this than the man who owns the boat and the captain involved. We have the people who supply the bait, people who drive the trucks and people who work in the factories. When a licence for the boat is taken out, the captain always had people who we refer to as the corps and these people will not have a job if this should work. This will work one way or the other. Either we will have no lobster left in certain areas or there will be a reduction in the traps in the sea.
I want to indicate to the government and to the members of this House that I want to be sure that HRSDC remembers not only the fishing problem but the people who work for the fishery in Atlantic Canada.
As vice-chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I was pleased to travel across Atlantic Canada and Quebec and to hear first-hand from the industry. I hope it will provide some insight for the members of the committee, as well. We received well-thought-out presentations and great detail on the state of the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada and the concern for the future of the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada.
I have been hearing those concerns long before the committee toured the east coast, which is why I suggested the committee hold hearings and why I am moving this motion in this House today. I am trying to take some pressure off the dwindling lobster stocks and, in turn, hopefully provide a reasonable option for fishers who want to retire or fishers who cannot make ends meet and want to go to another career.
If there is a program implemented that would be a reduction in effort on the Atlantic lobster stock, then this would be of great value to the industry. It would mean that we would have an industry for generations to come. What I hope is that the members of the standing committee, and I am sure they did, will come to realize the great concern they have in Atlantic Canada. Most of the area I represent is rural and the inshore fisherman is vital for the economy of the area I represent.
 I also want to bring to the attention of the members a problem that can even escalate the problem in the fishery. It is the funding for the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, which is very important centre. I have seen some of the work that it has done and it has done a lot of work to preserve stocks and ensure the fishing operations are done well. It also has done a lot of work on how to handle lobster, how to prepare the meat and how to ensure we export a much better product. What we want to do is ensure that if we export less lobster or less fish we take care of it in the best way possible. That is why I urge the government to ensure that this centre is properly funded. 
Times have changed in the past 25 years and technology has improved when it comes to fishing lobsters. That is why new technologies are so important. It also means the introduction of modern methods of surveying the bottom to see rock formations and being able to determine the best areas for lobster habitat and to set the traps. With all this technology, people know exactly where the lobsters are and therefore, if people are not careful, it is much easier to deplete the stock. All I want to do is make sure there are fewer traps on the sea bottom and that lobsters have a chance to continue and not be depleted.
In Atlantic Canada the fish species have been in decline and it is getting to the point of some stocks being in danger of being depleted. We do not want this to happen to our lobster stocks. The fact that other stocks are in decline forces more fishers to turn to lobster as a major part of their yearly income. This has placed an additional stress on the lobster stock. Now is the time to act before it is too late. This is why I moved the motion to get support from the House and the government to act now before it is too late, to make a commitment to ensure a number of our fishers can exit the fishery and reduce the pressure on the stock so that we will have a viable industry for many years to come.
Let us not wait until the lobster fishers are faced with the same decline as the cod fishermen were in Atlantic Canada. Everyone knows how long it has been since the cod stocks were in good shape. In fact, they are not in good shape to this day. Fishermen listening to or watching what is happening in the House of Commons are certainly aware of a major issue that existed in my riding of Cardigan and the Souris area. 
Members of Parliament have to push, in my opinion. There were times when people did not have the same view that I had. Not everyone had the same view when the herring fishery was being depleted in eastern Prince Edward Island. There was great support from my district and I pushed as hard as I could. With a lot of effort and a lot of work, we were able to save the herring stocks.
There is a still a big problem. There is still difficulty for lobster fishers to get enough bait. As most people who are involved in the fishery know, herring is the food fishery for all the fish in the sea. I remember when the trucks, perhaps 25 or 30 16-wheelers, left the town of Souris. That is pretty hard to accept. With a lot of effort, we stopped that. I thank everybody that was involved. That is what we do not want to happen today. When the bottom is covered with traps and the catch is going down, we want to make sure we do something for the fishermen. 
In the riding of Cardigan there are two lobster areas. One is LFA 24 in the spring season, May and June, where the fishers set their traps in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from East Point to North Cape. There is another area on the other side of Prince Edward Island where fishers set their traps in the Northumberland Strait. This area, as I indicated before, is LFA 26A. It is generally referred to as the south side.
We do not want to see a repeat of what took place in the herring fishery and the cod fishery. We want action by the government today, as soon as possible. 
The Speaker has indicated that I am running out of time, but I have so much to say. 
To give everyone a picture, even if fishermen go broke, the fact is their licences are assets. The bank takes them and sells the licences to somebody else and the stock continues to be depleted. I urge the government to make sure that this practice stops.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up this issue. We work together on the fisheries committee and in fact have done some travelling to look at the lobster fishery from this perspective and others. Later on in this debate I will have an opportunity to comment on the initiative that he has brought forward, as will one of my other colleagues.
I have a question of clarification. He used the word “fleet”. I wonder if he could define that for us. It is somewhat confusing. We have had some discussions on our side about what he might mean by that. For example, the Oxford dictionary defines it as a group of ships sailing together or under the same ownership. I am wondering if he means that or if he is just referring to an individual enterprise, which I think is the term we more commonly use. 
[Interjection]
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I guess I did not spend enough time with the Webster's dictionary and too much time with the fishermen. The fact is where I come from we talk about the fishing fleet and the fact is it is one boat.
 I want to compliment my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I know he is very concerned. I am sure that he will push to make sure that proper action is taken in the House of Commons to ensure there is a viable lobster industry in Atlantic Canada.
I know he understands very well that when the fishermen go broke because they cannot get enough fish, the licence is an asset and will be taken by the bank and sold to somebody else. The fact is if we do not take these fleets out totally, we will be doing nothing to take the pressure off the lobster stocks in Atlantic Canada.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, my friend and a friend to the fishing industry, who moved this motion. He is a member from Prince Edward Island. He understands the fishery. He understands what it needs in order to survive and prosper, but also to ensure the prosperity of the families that will support the fishery for many generations to come.
Everything the member has said this afternoon makes absolute perfect sense and is consistent with the evidence that has been brought forward to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It was the member who brought forward this motion who actually got the committee, engaged us all, to study the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada to provide the government with solid recommendations for its future. I certainly hope that the hon. member's motion is incorporated into the recommendations of that study.
I would ask my friend and colleague, is he confident, based on the views of fishermen that we have heard to date, that his motion can and should indeed be incorporated into our final recommendations regarding the Atlantic lobster study by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans?
[Interjection]
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Newfoundland who also has a great understanding of the fishing industry.
My colleagues from every corner, Liberals, Conservatives, NDPs and Bloc, listen to the people on the ground. The thing is we have to find out from the people on the ground exactly what is going on. In my opinion, everybody who was on that committee certainly has a great concern for the lobster fishery, but there might be some little difference in how we wish to deal with it.
When my colleagues talk in caucus, sometimes they cannot be in with the crowd; sometimes in caucus they have to be not in with the crowd. I would urge my hon. colleagues to be sure that they explain to caucus, and where possible influence cabinet, that if something is not done, these fishermen will go broke. 
One might think that will take them out, but it will not. The only way that the pressure on the lobster stocks in Atlantic Canada can be relieved is to have a buyout. Some talk about what they can pay. If they are going in the hole, they cannot pay very much.
Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Cardigan. I made a first visit to Magdalen Islands and to Yarmouth. 
When we travelled around with the fisheries committee a few weeks ago, it was a very good experience. We had an opportunity to visit four locations, including a location in the riding of my colleague and friend who moved this motion today.
I do agree with him in some respects, in terms of taking the pressure off the stock and that it is going to take a reduction and effort to actually do that. The question is whether we should implement a program that is a licence retirement plan. I appreciate his comments that we might view this a little differently, but I think we all realize that this is important. From my perspective, we certainly support the underlying goal of the hon. member's motion to ensure a viable industry for future generations. It is the method of how we go about it that we have to discuss. We are going to have some recommendations on that from our fisheries committee, which will be coming about very soon.
Without a doubt, all of us and all the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recognize that the lobster industry faces significant and daunting challenges. The member went through those, and therefore I do not have to do that. He talked about a number of things in terms of the cost pressures that have gone up. We have seen that in the agriculture industry. I represent a rural riding, and these cost of production issues are hitting us. We also heard about a number of other challenges that are facing the industry too. One of them under discussion was the grey seals which are starting to have an impact. Whether it be predation, or taking the bait and destroying traps, all these things are causing problems for the fishers and are worthy of a discussion as to what we do about them.
In my remarks today, I want to discuss several of the initiatives and strategies the government has launched to help the industry adjust to the challenging economic times and foster sustainable communities in Atlantic Canada. To understand the nature of the issues that inform the motion now before us, allow me to provide some vital context. If I have time, I am also going to talk about some of the testimony that we heard, which leads me to the conclusion that maybe we need to think about this just a bit more.
Atlantic lobster is Canada's most lucrative fishery. The value of lobster landings in 2007 alone was $560 million. This amount represented some 35% of the total value of commercial landings in Atlantic Canada fisheries.
Lobster is a major export for Canada. In 2008, lobster exports earned $920 million, or approximately 24% of the total value of the country's seafood exports. Consumers around the world, particularly in the United States, Europe and Japan, all enjoy Canadian lobster as a high quality, healthy food. Many of us in Atlantic Canada look forward to the opening of the season when we can start enjoying it on our decks.
The lobster industry is the economic cornerstone in many communities in Atlantic Canada. There are nearly 10,000 lobster enterprises in operation, providing jobs for approximately 30,000 harvesters. Most of these harvesters work inshore on relatively small boats and they are determined to protect the quality of both their product and the marine environment.
Given the importance of the lobster fishery, the government continues to do its utmost to support the viability over the short and long terms. Budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, included a number of measures designed to assist many industries, including the lobster fishery.
One area of particular focus is access to credit, a factor crucial to the success of businesses all along the lobster value chain. Several components of the recent federal budget improve access to credit. The Business Development Bank of Canada received $250 million in capital to increase the market's lending capacity. For instance, budget 2009 also invested a further $100 million in the bank to create a time-limited working capital guarantee. To support greater collaboration among the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Export Development Bank and public sector financial institutions, the government established a business credit availability program and allotted up to $5 billion in new financing.
Canada's economic action plan also established a new Canadian secured credit facility to support financing vehicles and equipment. We also increased the Business Development Bank's paid-in capital limit to $3 billion so that it can benefit from future injections of capital.
We also were in Montague, and I appreciate the intervention made by my colleague from Wetaskiwin on hearing about all the challenges regarding access to credit in this industry. He said that maybe it was time that the fisheries committee, as part of its study, heard from some of the financial institutions. The committee agreed unanimously that was an important factor which will be coming up very soon.
Another component of the recent federal budget is the community adjustment fund which will provide $1 billion over two years to stimulate the creation and support the maintenance of jobs in communities impacted by the current economic downturn. Designed to prioritize single industry communities dependent on the resource of manufacturing sectors, the fund will support transition plans, science and technology initiatives and other measures that promote economic diversification.
Regional agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, are responsible for the delivery of these investments. I fully expect entrepreneurs and communities dependent on the lobster industry will develop and submit CAF proposals. Funding could then be eligible to flow to proposals that support initiatives that may include seafood marketing, eco-certification, which we also heard was a major issue and could potentially have a cost impact on this industry, traceability and harvester managed conservation activities.
It is also important to note that the government recently partnered with Canada's Maritime provinces on an international lobster marketing initiative worth $450,000. The initiative will include advertising and media campaigns, retail promotions, chef events and market research, all intended to help boost the currently low market demand for lobster products.
Along with these and other measures, the government continues to work with all stakeholders to address structural issues in the lobster fishery. Fisheries and Oceans, in its ocean to plate approach to fisheries management, calls on stakeholders to work toward a common goal of sustainable, economically viable and internationally competitive industry, which is exactly what my colleague from Cardigan is looking to do with the lobster industry.
We want to adapt readily to changes in the resource and market conditions, extract optimal value from world markets, generate comfortable incomes for workers, drive economic activity in coastal communities and attract and retain skilled workers.
When we talk about some of the consensus issues across the stakeholders, I want to draw on some presentations that were made to the committee. When we talk about the diverse opinion on this industry and what should happen.
 Mr. Jenkins said, “Getting back to the buyback, we're wide open here”. 
 Ms. Richardson said:
 I guess the buyback is not on the table for us either. We have not contemplated it. We have not talked about it. Well, we've talked about it, but it's not on the table. Our guys feel like their enterprises are there. 
They feel that there is a continual thing that they can do. 
Mr. Christian Brun said: 
 In other words—and I think this has been documented in literature—buyouts in the past have often proven that there's an effort creep-up afterwards. In other words, if you eliminate some fish harvesters or participants, the people who remain get better gear or better equipment, fish harder, and actually end up fishing relatively somewhere around the same amount. 
I tend to concur with the recommendation by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council which said:
 The FRCC supports options that involve self-rationalization within the industry. The FRCC concludes that a government-funded buyout of licences is not an effective means to deal with the over-capacity in the lobster fishery. If it is decided that a buyout is preferred then it should be done in conjunction with other mechanisms that will ensure that the fishing effort is not allowed to increase following a buyout. 
In my view, the motion now before us, although it does have good intentions and I really appreciate the members' comments, would fail to achieve this goal as it suggests one solution when I think there may be others and when there is a wide array of evidence which suggests that maybe it would not be workable and it would need to have the buy-in of industry and it might not lead to the lowering of fishing effort. 
I agree with the solution that we can work with industry to help it self-rationalize and we do need to decrease the fishing effort. That is one of the things I am hopeful will come out with strong recommendations from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion by the member for Cardigan, which essentially calls for a licence buyout program for Atlantic lobster fishers. 
Although a number of industries are looking for support from Ottawa, the Conservative government seems to have relegated the fisheries to the sidelines.
Yet this very important industry has many challenges as it faces a more complex problem: the decline of certain stocks and the fact that others, which have been under a moratorium for years, have not recovered.
The Bloc Québécois has long called for a licence buyout program for certain species, such as ground fish. In our opinion, this is necessary for the survival of the east coast fisheries.
The member for Cardigan will have no problem getting support from the Bloc Québécois for a program to rationalize the fisheries as long as that program is funded with new money and the buyouts do not affect regional shares of the fish stocks.
I would like to take a moment to look at what has led to this problem. How have we reached the point where we are setting up programs to pay fishers to stop fishing?
From where we stand, the problem is that both the Conservatives and the Liberals as acting as if they no longer believed in the viability of the fishing industry. The Liberals have failed to manage the resource with a view to ensuring sustainable development. They have tolerated overfishing and have let marine infrastructure deteriorate.
As for the Conservatives, they are keeping the industry in uncertainty with their arbitrary management of the resource. The Liberals are to blame for the depletion of fish stocks. By failing to respond to foreign overfishing and to carefully manage groundfish stocks, the Liberals have mortgaged the future of fisheries and made moratoriums necessary.
The Conservatives are managing the resource arbitrarily. Under the current Conservative government, fisheries management is more arbitrary than ever. Loyola Hearn, the former fisheries and oceans minister and member for a Newfoundland riding, seemed to care only about Newfoundland and the Maritimes. There are many examples.
First, in 2006, Loyola Hearn allocated an additional quota of 7,000 tons of shrimp to Newfoundland fishers, despite the fact that markets were already saturated. As a result, in the middle of the fishing season, Quebec fishers had to agree to a 2.5¢ cent drop in the landing price.
Second, the current Conservative government was slow in implementing a review process for the sharing of seal stocks, because the status quo was favouring Newfoundland, the former fisheries and oceans minister's home province.
Third, on November 8, 2006, lobster fishers from the Magdalen Islands had the McLeod shoal, a high potential 50 nautical mile square fishing zone, taken away from them and given to PEI fishers. 
Since the last election, we have a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who acts just like her predecessor. In early April, the current fisheries and oceans minister approved a shrimp harvesting plan for the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 2009, which provides for the quota to be permanently allocated to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Clearly, that is an outrageous decision.
Once again, a minister favours her province. The present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans represents one of the four ridings of Prince Edward Island. Moreover, the minister reduces Quebec and New Brunswick quotas to give them to provinces who do not even have a shrimp processing industry. This is a blatant scandal. The decision completely ignores precautionary and preservation principles since the total catch limit is being raised by 1,000 tonnes despite the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists recommended the status quo. 
We can understand better now why we have to pay fishermen to stop fishing. For decades, successive Liberal and Conservative governments allowed overfishing and squandered fish resources for short-term political gain. The Bloc Quebecois is asking for an end to the politicization of fisheries management. Decisions must be taken on the basis of scientific data. We must stop seeing fish stock as electoral goodies that can be given to a region.
In the last election, the Bloc proposed an ambitious plan to stimulate the fishery. That plan is now more pertinent than ever since besides helping workers in the industry, it could stimulate the economy at a time where it continues to sink. Let me describe the main features of the plan.
In terms of marine infrastructure, major investments have to be made to repair core small craft harbours in Canada and Quebec.
Concerning the cost of licences, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must reconsider that cost to take into account the value of landings and ensure the implementation of a policy regarding the reimbursement of the unused portion of fishing licences. 
On the seal hunt issue, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must guarantee Quebec a share of seal quotas so we can have a viable industry in Quebec. It must also put in place an assistance plan with respect to groundfish to help industries, plant workers and fishers. 
The Bloc Québécois proposes that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do another round of fishing licence buyback. In the short term, the federal government must develop special EI measures and put in place a program for older workers.
In terms of international competition, the Canadian government must participate actively in the development of an enforceable international framework so that an environmentally-friendly aquaculture industry can be developed. 
Unless a reciprocal bilateral agreement ensuring freer access to markets is signed, the Bloc Québécois believes that Canada should impose a tariff equal to that allowed under the most favoured nation status on imports of seafood products from WTO member countries. 
In conclusion, we are saying yes to a new round of licence buyback. However, we believe that it is even more important to put a stop to political patronage in this industry and to implement a real policy to stimulate the fishing industry.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking today to Motion No. 284 which seeks to ensure the sustainability, both economically and ecologically, of the important Atlantic lobster fishery. The motion calls for the development of a lobster licence retirement plan, with adequate funding to decrease the number of lobster fleets.
As an Atlantic Canadian and representative for Halifax, the riding that actually includes fishing communities like Sambro and Ketch Harbour, I am happy to lend my support to this motion in the hopes that the lobster fishery can be maintained. We know that this motion has wide support among lobster fishers who have been calling for a licence buyback for some time.
Additionally, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council report called “Sustainability Framework for Atlantic Lobster 2007” suggests a buyout of lobster licences as one of the ways to reduce the stress on populations when coupled with mechanisms to ensure that the fishing effort is not allowed to increase following a buyout. The report says:
 Following the groundfish collapse of the early 1990s, the overall fishing effort did not decline substantially as enterprises shifted their fishing effort into other fisheries, particularly shellfish. Therefore, a buyout option can only be effective when combined with other measures to restrict fishing effort or mechanisms that allow for self-adjustment within the industry itself 
The FRCC recently appeared at the House of Commons fisheries committee and made it clear that the $600 million industry was at risk because of overfishing. At the committee, representatives noted that overcapitalization, fierce competition and today's larger, more powerful boats mean that there is nowhere for the lobster to hide.
We in Atlantic Canada know the dangers of overfishing all too well. However, with so many of our communities dependent on the fishery for survival, it is essential that the government provide the kind of support that this motion calls for.
The marine committee of the Ecology Action Centre in Nova Scotia points out that today lobster fishing is the only fishery where a large number of coastal residents can still make a living. Ensuring that the lobster fishery remains an owner-operated fishery and working to improve access to small-scale sustainable fishing practices for coastal residents will help rebuild our coastal communities, while helping to restore a sustainable fishery.
The current situation for lobster fishers in the east has been well reported. Just yesterday, the St. John's Telegram printed an article about the start of the season there and the worries that the fishers face about the current low market prices, which is around $3.00 to $3.50 per pound. Those low prices make it a challenge for anyone to make a living, especially when the value goes up dramatically with the middle-man dealers who sometimes mark up the catch as much as 34%. 
The recession has also dealt a serious blow to the industry. Already burdened by the fact that their work is seasonal in nature, these fishers are now facing significantly lower incomes when they are able to work. Over the holiday season, lobster fishers in the Maritimes made news with a campaign to turn lobster into a Boxing Day tradition. Hundreds of families took part, cooking up a feast of the clawed creatures in support of an industry facing great challenges.
In addition to maintaining the economic sustainability of the lobster fishery, we have a responsibility to maintain the ecology of the ocean resources that we benefit from. It is another important reason why we must do what it takes to reduce the number of fleets. Overconsumption of resources is an epidemic in Canada, where we are fortunate to have an abundance of them. Those resources are not infinite however and the passing of this motion would greatly aid in the survival of lobsters as a species.
It is just as important that we protect our ocean as part of a strategy to aid the industry. This past November, the Irving-owned barge the Shovel Master sank off the coast of Nova Scotia near Yarmouth, taking its load of 70,000 litres of petroleum product to the sea floor. This part of the coast is a vital lobster habitat and the lack of action to clean up the wreck is putting thousands of lobster and hundreds of fishers' livelihoods at risk. 
The regional environmental emergency team, a joint venture between provincial officials and Environment Canada, has made it clear that it is content to let this oil spill happen in slow motion, creating a date for a plan to make a plan and then setting a later date for the actual plan for the cleanup.
The ship's owners have undertaken their own internal investigation and have, suprisingly, declared that there is little risk from 70,000 litres of diesel fuel in a precariously positioned sunken barge in the lobster fishing area. The federal government needs to protect our coastlines and our lobster resources by seeing that this environmental emergency is dealt with immediately.
That action, along with a strong effort to reduce the impact of over-fishing, will significantly help lobster fishers and the communities that depend on them. It is time to act and ensure that the lobster fishery does not face the same fate as other fisheries. I am very proud to support the motion for that reason.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and support the motion put forward by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Cardigan in Prince Edward Island. I also want to salute him and his efforts on behalf of his constituents and Atlantic lobster fishermen throughout the region, who face very difficult times.
The member for Cardigan has shown real leadership, insight and dedication to what is best for them. Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have been engaged in a study on the circumstance, future and viability of the Atlantic lobster fishery. We have become starkly aware of the incredibly difficult circumstances that fishermen from this region of Canada face, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Edward Island.
It is gravely serious. Market conditions are at an all time low. Price has declined dramatically and at an incredible rate. The market has basically collapsed within the last 12 to 24 month period. Prices are now at an all time low of nearly 50% of their historic highs. In addition, resource concerns are very clear in certain lobster fishing areas. Those concerns cause quite a lot of anxiety about whether this is a fully sustainable fishery into the long term in those individual lobster fishing areas because of recruitment issues.
The member for Cardigan has shown leadership on this issue and brought it forward to the floor of the House of Commons. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also represents a constituency from Prince Edward Island, yet we have seen nothing from the minister to protect that vital industry, an industry that supports her island economy. We hope the House can guide the minister further through passing this resolution, giving her some strength while she sits at the cabinet table and implores upon her colleagues to successfully get a lobster licence retirement program and get it fully funded.
The member for Cardigan had it perfectly correct. He was absolutely right. Many solutions can be used to assist the fishermen. However, the one thing we have seen very clearly is that without an organized reduction in lobster fishing capacity, one that results in not a transfer of that capacity but permanent reduction or elimination of that capacity, the serious problems that certain lobster fishing areas face will not be solved.
Those of us who paid close attention to the evidence, discussion, words, wisdom and experience of the lobster fishermen understood that a lobster licence retirement program might not be necessary in certain lobster fishing areas. However, it is necessary for those areas that face a serious over-capacity challenge to meet the needs of a fully sustainable future fishery for generations to come. Without that sustainability, we do not build the sound foundations of a reliable industry.
Many challenges are occurring in this industry, markets being one of the most predominant right now. As I said earlier, the price now paid to the land values is almost 50% below historic highs of what fishermen were paid in many areas. That will change if the government concentrates on the necessary tools and resources to generate new markets and pierce through those obstacles that market conditions for Atlantic Canadian and Quebec lobster currently present.
One thing that can change the resource prospects in terms of ecological and environmental sustainability over the long term is the reduction in capacity in specific fishing areas where it is required and a permanent reduction, a reduction that is conducted with the full support of lobster fishermen from that area. They need an opportunity, and some are looking for an opportunity, to exit the fishery and to do so with dignity and respect and to provide for a livelihood for those who remain. That is a critical point. Those who remain will be able to continue on in this industry and maintain reasonable livelihoods for their families. That does not look like a prospect that can be sustained into the future under the current conditions.
Those are the efforts of the member for Cardigan. I wish he were the minister because he would introduce some sound judgment and good policies into the fishery. However, that is the judgment of the member for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island and that judgment is shared by so many of his colleagues and those in the industry. We hope it is shared by colleagues from across the way as well, and that we, by passing this motion, continue our work within the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the Atlantic lobster study. 
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hails from Prince Edward Island and is the minister responsible for the well-being of this industry. We are trying to give her some ammunition so she can go to her cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister and get the tools required to get the job done. To date she has not done that.
We have had stimulus packages to respond to industries in peril in Canada. While we may debate the various aspects of those stimulus packages as they relate to those industries, we will leave to another time. However, when it comes to the $1 billion lobster fishery or the $4 billion fishery at large, not one penny has been invested to provide a stimulus and to provide a good solid foundation for a future fishery by the government, not one penny.
I could argue the point about how banks and the auto sector have been getting billions. This is not about pitting one against the other, which is so often the tactic of the government. This is simply to say that there is a necessity in many industry sectors. There is a necessity to apply Government of Canada resources to solve a critical problem in the Atlantic lobster fishery, which the government has not done. In fact, it is going even further in terms of its destructive path.
The member for Cardigan raised an issue about the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovations. In the course of our travels and in meeting with lobster fishermen, organizational heads, committee chairs and others, we heard time and time again a sorry story about how the Conservative government was shutting down a vital organization involved in the coordination of research, development and the implementation of new technology and innovation into the fisheries sector. It is doing it at a critical time when the industry needs it the most, and that is now. 
The Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovations, CCFI, has proven itself time and time again. Yet that track record of success is met with the back of the hand and a blind eye. Funding is being cut now and the organization may close, even though it enjoys the support of fishermen, fishermen's organizations and the fishing industry generally throughout all of Canada. 
I implore the government to seek some wisdom before it shuts this institution down. I also implore the government to consider well the wisdom of the motion that has been put forward by the member for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, someone who knows this industry probably better than anyone in this place. He understands not only where it has been, where it is today, but where it will go in the future. We need the motion passed and we need it acted upon immediately.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion moved by the member for Cardigan. As I said a little earlier, I appreciate the interest he has in all fisheries issues. I know he stands up for the people of Prince Edward Island when he addresses these fisheries issues, perhaps only superceded by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who also hails from Prince Edward Island.
The motion reads as follows:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a program to reduce the effort on the Atlantic Lobster Fishery to ensure a viable industry for future generations with a lobster license retirement plan, and provide adequate funding to remove a number of lobster fleets from the water by cancelling licenses. 
Let me say at the outset that I do applaud his intentions, because having a viable, sustainable fishery, whether it be for lobster, crab, or Pacific salmon, is our government's highest priority. We are keenly aware of the real challenges that face this sector as a result of the global economic downturn.
The question before us as parliamentarians is, is the solution proposed by the member for Cardigan the right one? In fact, all responsible parliamentarians should be asking themselves that question with every piece of legislation, whether it be private members' bills or others that we see. It is our obligation, in fact, to ask ourselves whether there might be some unintended consequences from what is before us.
We need to ask ourselves, does what the member is proposing call for a course of action that could perhaps be counterproductive to the larger goals of the lobster industry or even to the country as a whole?
We need to ask ourselves, could it derail the progress that continues to be made in modernizing the lobster industry in this country?
These are legitimate questions that we will be asking. In fact, these are questions we are also addressing in the standing committee.
There is much about this motion that we have no difficulty with at all. It says, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should implement a program to reduce the effort on the Atlantic Lobster Fishery”.
We think that is part of the solution. Many of the witnesses we heard on our recent travels said this as well.
It talks about ensuring a viable industry for future generations. That is what we want to do. The question is how we get there and what is the best way to get there.
Clearly the biggest problem facing the lobster industry at the moment is that demand and prices are quite low. In the wake of last fall's economic downturn, the bottom fell out of the international market for Canadian lobster. People are buying less lobster around the world, and in the United States, one of our main markets.
In fact, this spring, lobster season looks especially difficult because many processors have substantial inventories, mostly frozen lobster, known as popsicle packs, leftover from last year's harvest.
So not only is the demand falling on the one hand, but the supply is relatively high. Of course, that creates a problem in the market, and the price is quite low.
Let me assure the House that the government is working with the provinces to boost lobster marketing efforts. Perhaps I will get to refer to this later on, as we come back to this in the weeks ahead.
Clearly, in the short and medium term, lack of demand and low prices threaten the viability of many businesses in the lobster industry. Harvesters who rely on borrowed money to finance their operations are particularly vulnerable. They either need to repay their debts or need more access to capital to maintain and invest in their enterprises. 
These are some of the things that our government has been working on. Clearly, the lobster industry faces a multitude of complex and interrelated problems, and there is no magic bullet solution. As we get to speak about this later, we will outline what our government is doing to address these challenges.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have five minutes left to complete his remarks the next time this motion is before the House.
 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 1:50 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:50 p.m.)