2010-04-16

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River has seven minutes left to conclude his remarks.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. When I was speaking yesterday, I felt that I had to bring to the attention of the House what, in my view, was almost an extraordinary package of measures contained in Bill C-9. It was the scope of the measures contained in the bill that struck me. It struck me so much that I feel that there is a procedural anomaly extant here, that the bill is too big, too wide, and harms the ability of the House, of members of the House, to deal with its components.
As I mentioned, and maybe other members have done this, it would probably take me five or ten minutes to go through all the components of the bill if I read each statute and just mentioned what the amendment was all about. There are 11 income tax amendments. There are eight GST-HST amendments. There are a couple of Customs and Excise Act amendments. And there are some 20 other statutes amended.
In order to bring in a budget implementation bill, normally there is a ways and means motion that precedes the introduction of the bill. That is normal. That gives the House a heads-up. In fact, the government must have a ways and means motion adopted before such a bill is introduced.
I would not have a problem, and I do not think anybody would have a problem, with a bill that reflected, give or take, what was in the ways and means motion. If the ways and means motion implementing the budget has 10 or 20 separate items and the budget implementation bill that follows deals with those 10 or 20 separate items, I do not think we could argue that the bill does not reflect the ways and means motion and the ways and means motion does not reflect the budget because there is a theme. 
However, in this particular case, the bill goes way beyond both the ways and means motion and what I heard in this House in the budget. I think probably all of us were here to listen to the budget speech,. However, there are things in this bill which were not mentioned in the budget speech and there are other things which were not listed, mentioned, or itemized in the ways and means motion.
What this bill comes forward looking like is what we sometimes call an omnibus bill. It is an omnibus bill. At least that is what some would say at first blush. However, I must say that as I look at this bill, it is not even an omnibus bill. 
So, what kind of a bill is it? I will try and tell members why it is not an omnibus bill. But what kind of a bill is it? It is not even on the list of types of bills. It contains so many measures it looks like the House may be in the process of accepting a bill which is not an omnibus bill but which has dozens or hundreds of separate statutory amendments because there does not appear to be a limit.
If we can put 30 or 40 statutory amendments in this bill, why could we not put 50 in another one? How about 100? 
This is a little bit like the Texas senate. As I understand it, the Texas senate used to meet for about one week per year. What it did was take all of the legislation it had to deal with and put it into one bill. It had one bill that dealt with the dozens of pieces of legislation it wanted to deal with in the legislative body in Texas, U.S.A. It would meet for a week, debate for a week and pass the bill. Its members were out of town, gone, and it was done. That is how easy it is. Maybe we are heading in that direction. I hope we are not and I am still considering just what the procedural implications are, both at this point and later at committee and then report stages.
There is also another procedure the House has adopted over the years. It is not an omnibus bill issue; it is called the miscellaneous statutes amendment procedure. This is a procedure, which the House has accepted and used for many years, where a whole bunch of miscellaneous minor technical amendments to statutes, 10, 20, 30 statutes, are bundled. The Justice Department bundles them up, creates a bill, and the bill is put through the House. It is usually debated very quickly at second reading and then goes to the justice committee. 
If at any point along the way there is objection to any one component of the bill, that component is dropped. Otherwise, the bill goes through and these dozens and dozens of miscellaneous technical amendments are made, passed and done. It is really easy. This is not a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. This is a budget implementation bill. It is too big and wide. 
It is so big and wide that in the 10 minutes we each have here to talk about this bill, we will not actually get a chance to address some of these components. This has serious implications for the way we do our business and there may be another opportunity for me to talk about that in the House.
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's arguments. An important aspect of this bill specifically affects rural areas. The government is trying to sneak in the privatization of Canada Post, as the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel would say. Losses for Canada Post as a result of this privatization are estimated at about $80 million, and rural areas would suffer the impact.
In my RCM and in other rural RCMs, post offices have been closed down. Canada Post has even limited accessibility and mail delivery in an attempt to further centralize post offices in certain areas. Seniors and people with reduced mobility have a hard time getting their mail.
I have a question for my colleague. Will the Liberals let this bill pass, or will they stand up and tell the Conservatives that they have had enough of privatization and that they want to maintain our post offices? 
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks raise a very important issue. This bill contains financial measures and, like it or not, if the bill fails in the House, we are going to an election forthwith. We will not pass go or collect $200. 
I do not know if the member is asking whether or not we are going to have an election now. But he is right, this bill contains measures dealing with changes to Canada Post Corporation. Believe it or not, this bill contains a provision dealing with the complete divestiture of AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
In the past there have been separate bills dealing with the divestiture of Petro-Canada and Air Canada. They were separate bills and we debated a major policy issue, but no, in this bill it is buried. It could not help but be buried. When there are 30 tax and other measures in a bill, everything is buried.
Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member is close to being the dean in Parliament. I will have to look at my remuneration package to figure out that $200 remark and will get my assistants to work on it, but I want to ask him a serious question about omnibus bills. 
We do not use omnibus bills in Parliament in that name. However, in my short time here, which is about one-sixth of the time of the hon. member, I have seen various measures dealt with in one bill. I assume he is saying it is not against procedure to do same, but he would say that it is sneaky to do same and would not recommend it. 
I know he is a learned author in these matters of parliamentary procedure, but is he saying it is sort of legal but semi-moral or is he saying it is all political and we have to sort of, as he would say, not pass go and not collect $200?
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the $200 reference came from the game of Monopoly. It does not have much to do with what we are doing here today, I do not think.
An omnibus bill has a definition generally accepted by the House. The essential defence of an omnibus bill procedure is that the bill in question, although it may seem to create or amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose, which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.
This bill does not have one principle or thing. It ties together many disparate bills. It is not intelligible or useful for parliamentary purposes. We each get one vote on some 30 different measures, many of which should be stand-alone measures so that we can represent our constituents in dealing with those legislative measures and policy issues. Each of them is arguably quite distinct.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. 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.
 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 nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the division stands deferred until Monday, April 19, 2010 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) ActHon. Peter Van Loan:  moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent to split my time.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.
I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-5 to speak about how this government is continuing to deliver on its commitments to Canadians.
As the minister has noted, one of the strongest commitments our government made when we were first elected was to make our streets, our playgrounds and our communities safer places for everyone. We promised to take action and we have delivered.
We have passed tough new laws to crack down on crime. We have taken action to ensure that offenders are held accountable and that they serve sentences which reflect the serious nature of their actions. We have given police and law enforcement agencies more of the tools they need to do their job.
The legislation before us today builds on this impressive track record while also helping to ensure that the appropriate factors are better taken into account when it comes to considering offender transfer requests.
Today, when a Canadian citizen serving a sentence abroad requests a transfer to Canada, the minister shall take several factors into consideration in assessing these requests. The minister shall, for example, consider whether an offender's return to Canada would constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The minister shall also consider whether the offender has social or family ties in Canada and whether the foreign government or prison system presents a serious threat to the offender's security or human rights. These are important factors. 
Under the amendments, which our government is proposing, the minister would still be able to consider these factors. Bill C-5 would not change that. What it would do is clarify in the existing International Transfer of Offenders Act that the minister may also take other factors into account when considering requests for offender transfers. Among these additional factors is whether the offender's return to Canada will endanger public safety. Surely that makes sense. All of us want to ensure that our homes and our communities are safe, and that is what Bill C-5 would help to do.
In particular, Bill C-5 would help to ensure that in all transfer decisions due consideration is given to the safety of any member of the offender's family, the safety of children and the safety of victims. 
The government has already done a lot to give victims a greater voice in the justice system. Indeed, helping victims of crime has always been at the heart of this government's public safety and justice agenda. Our government is committed to ensuring that their voices are heard and their concerns are taken seriously. That is one of our highest priorities and why we have taken action on a number of fronts.
We have committed $52 million over four years to enhance the federal victims strategy so the government could better meet the needs of victims. Among other things, we have also created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and given victims the resources to attend parole hearings or seek help if they experience crime while abroad. 
Our government has also taken steps to keep our children safe, most recently introducing legislation in the other place to strengthen the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.
I am confident these measures have the support of all hon. members, as does our efforts to protect victims, family members and children under the provisions of Bill C-5.
Crime places a heavy toll on individual victims, their families, communities and society at large. That is why we need to take action to be sure that the scales of justice are balanced to include victims and some of the more vulnerable members of our society. That is why Bill C-5 is so important.
In addition to ensuring that public safety is a principal consideration of offender transfer requests, Bill C-5 would also provide for the consideration of other factors, many of which are in line with current reforms currently underway within the corrections system.
These include whether in the minister's opinion the offender is likely to continue to engage in criminal activity after the transfer, the offender's health and whether the offender has refused to participate in a rehabilitation or reintegration program. 
In addition, Bill C-5 notes that the minister may consider whether the offender has accepted responsibility for the events for which he or she has been convicted, including by acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community, the manner in which the offender will be supervised after the transfer while he or she is serving his or her sentence, and whether the offender has co-operated or has undertaken to co-operate with a law enforcement agency.
As well, the legislation before us today notes that the minister may consider any other factor which he or she considers relevant.
All in all, the legislation before us today would help to ensure that Canadian offenders who request a transfer are treated fairly and equitably while not being allowed to escape accountability if an offence is committed abroad. It is fair, timely and what Canadians want.
I therefore look forward to working with all hon. members to ensure swift passage of this important legislation so that we can continue to ensure that our friends, our family members and our loved ones remain safe.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-5 and to outline yet another way our government is delivering on its commitment to keep our streets and communities safe.
As my hon. colleagues have mentioned, our government has already done a lot of things in that regard over the last four years. We have taken steps to ensure that violent criminals are dealt with appropriately. We have introduced legislation to ensure that serious crimes are met with serious jail time. We have given police and law enforcement officials the tools and resources they need to do their jobs. All of these initiatives are vital to our work of building safer communities for everyone, as is the legislation before us today. 
Our government has made public safety the number one priority since we were first elected in 2006. That is what the legislation we have introduced today is all about.
Bill C-5 would help to ensure that Canadians continue to feel safe in their homes by strengthening the International Transfer of Offenders Act. Specifically, the legislation we have introduced recognizes that considerations of public safety are at the very centre of decisions about whether offenders serving sentences abroad are transferred to Canada.
Our government has also made sure that helping victims of crime remains at the heart of this government's public safety and justice agenda. We have committed to ensuring that their voices are heard and that their concerns are taken seriously. That is one of our highest priorities and why we have taken action on a number of fronts. The legislation our government is proposing would help further strengthen this track record by ensuring that the safety of victims can be taken into account when assessing requests for transfer.
As well, the changes that our government is proposing stipulate that the safety of family members and children can be taken into account. The minister would specifically be able to consider whether the transfer of an offender with assault convictions against family members would endanger their safety. The minister would also be able to specifically consider whether an offender incarcerated for a sexual offence against a child in a foreign state is likely to commit a sexual offence against a child if transferred to Canada. Surely, these changes make sense. 
The way things stand today, the minister is required by law to take several factors into account when considering a request for transfer. These include: whether the offender's return to Canada would constitute a threat to the security of Canada; whether the offender left or remained outside Canada with the intention of abandoning Canada as his or her place of permanent residence; whether the offender has social or family ties in Canada; and, whether the foreign entity or its prison system presents a serious threat to the offender's security or human rights.
Those are important considerations to take into account but nowhere in the current law is there specific mention of protecting the safety and security of law-abiding Canadian citizens. Nowhere is there any specific mention of victims, family members or children. These are serious omissions that the bill before us today would correct.
As well, Bill C-5 would allow the minister to consider a number of other factors when considering an offender's request for transfer. For example, the minister would be able to consider whether an offender who requests a transfer to Canada has refused to participate in career, vocational or educational programs while incarcerated in another country.
The minister would be able to take into account the circumstances in which the offender, if transferred to Canada, will be monitored and supervised after release. This is especially important given that one of the purposes of the act under the amendments our government is proposing would continue to be contributing to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community.
Bill C-5 would also allow the minister to take into account several other very important considerations when assessing an offender's request for transfer. These are: whether the offender has accepted responsibility for the offence for which he or she has been convicted, including acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community; and, whether the offender is likely to continue to engage in criminal activity after the transfer. 
Again, those considerations should surely help to guide decisions about whether to grant a request for transfer from an offender serving a sentence overseas. At the moment there is no clear legislative authority for the minister to take them into account. Bill C-5 would change that while also providing the minister with more flexibility in decision-making itself.
The legislation that our government has introduced today is designed to keep Canadians safe. It is fair, timely and what Canadians want. I therefore urge all members to work with this government to ensure its speedy passage.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech, and also my colleague before him who also made a speech. I never had the opportunity to stand and ask him a question but I will ask a question of my colleague from Ontario.
Bill C-5, from what I understand, is to enhance public safety, which is the major key plank of this legislation and which was never thought of before, as was pointed out by him. 
One of the things he said concerned the ability to rehabilitate, as assessed by another country. For example, if someone were in the United States right now and programs were available for him or her to rehabilitate, such as vocational and certain other programs, if that individual were unable or unwilling to take steps or measures to rehabilitate, that would be used against that individual applying for the transfer into this country. Is that necessarily the case? What about in countries that do not necessarily have the programs for rehabilitation? Should that not too be considered?
Is that my understanding of it? Is that what he is pushing for? In other words, to rehabilitate someone or to gauge that person's ability to rehabilitate also depends upon the system in that country.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, with regard to a prisoner in the country concerned, yes, if that country does not have a prison system that affords the prisoner the ability for rehabilitation or to further his or her education and develop skills, this legislation permits the minister to take that into account.
The United States, Great Britain, Norway and other countries have similar correctional facilities to Canada. I would particularly refer to countries like Norway and Great Britain. When we visited the prisons in those countries we heard that 60% of their programs were adopted from Correctional Service Canada. It then would make it very easy for the minister to make that assessment.
The member rightly reflects upon and mentions the fact that we really do want to ensure that people are rehabilitated. Yes, in answer to that question, that is all taken into account under Bill C-5 and that would be one of the principal considerations that the minister would make.
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise to speak to Bill C-5. I have to start my comments by saying that it is not the first time the House has seen this bill. The bill was introduced last fall with much fanfare and a sense of urgency before being killed by prorogation. 
As with most measures introduced by the government, we are seeing them introduced two or three times with a sense of urgency. The Conservatives attack the opposition because the measures are not adopted right away, that we are standing in the Conservatives' way, only for them to kill their own bills, bring them back and feign that they have to be passed immediately. There is a renewed sense of urgency, even though they are the ones who killed the bills. It is no different with respect to Bill C-5.
I want to talk about the purpose of the international transfer program. If we are seeking to amend it, it would be wise to consider why it is there in the first place. I will read directly from Correctional Service Canada's annual report for 2006-07 as to why we have a transfer system in place in the first place. It states:
 The purpose of this program is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling them to serve their sentence in their country of citizenship. 
It continues:
 If offenders are not transferred, they may ultimately be deported to Canada at the end of their sentence, without correctional supervision/jurisdiction and without the benefit of programming. 
It goes on to talk about the fact that we may not even have any idea they had any criminal record at all, because there would be no record of it in Canada. It continues:
 At any given time, there are over 2,000 Canadian citizens incarcerated throughout the world. Canadians serving a sentence of imprisonment abroad are faced with serious problems such as isolation, culture shock, language barriers and have no means to address the root of their problems because of the lack of programs available to foreign nationals. 
It continues:
 Without the benefit of transfers, offenders are deported at the end of their sentence to their country of citizenship, often after having spent years in confinement and being totally unprepared for safe, secure and successful reintegration into society. Transfers provide offenders with the possibility of becoming productive members of the community, by contributing to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offender and their reintegration into society as law abiding citizens. 
Given that the Conservatives were attacking voraciously the fact that individuals were being transferred from foreign prisons to Canadian prisons, it is passing strange that an annual report would come out while they are in power talking about the essential nature of this program, not out of some sense of feeling sorry for these individual inmates, but as a recognition that it provides a critical function to public safety. If somebody commits a crime abroad, is incarcerated and does not receive the rehabilitation and help he or she needs to get better, when the individual is released, and he or she will be released, and deported back to Canada, he or she will not be ready for reintegration.
When we consider individuals who might be facing mental illness, and we have to remember that one in ten of those who are incarcerated are suffering from a very serious mental illness, and in the female population it is one in five, these Canadian citizens who are jailed in foreign jails and faced with mental health illnesses will not only not be getting any help, but will get much, much worse. What will land back at our doorstep inevitably is a much bigger problem.
When we scrape away the veneer of rhetoric and cut to the government's own words in the annual report for Correctional Service Canada, we recognize this program has important value, and that playing politics with it is frankly wrong.
It might surprise individuals to know that over 79% of the individuals in question with respect to this transfer program are Canadians in the U.S. These are individuals who are incarcerated in the United States. It is ironic, because the policies the government is pursuing right now of dramatically increasing incarceration fall very much into the model that is in the United States. We hear what a disaster that system is for the Americans right now. 
The U.S. system is so overwhelmed that the Americans have an inability to provide programs, services and rehabilitation, such that when experts are looking at Canadians coming back from U.S. prisons, they say they are at a much higher risk of reoffending. In fact, we know that in California, the rate of recidivism, the rate at which individuals repeat offend, is over 70%.
Imagine this. A Canadian citizen has perhaps committed a smaller crime. Most crimes are related to substance abuse. We know that more than 80% of inmates are facing substance abuse problems. We are going to take somebody who goes in for a non-violent drug-related offence and we are going to put that person into a crime factory in the United States. We are going to send people in as minor criminals and churn them out of a system that some, including the head of the John Howard Society here in Canada, have called “a gladiator school”.
Those people will return to Canada. What will they do then? I think it is a very dishonest portrayal when we try to scare people into thinking that these are criminals who have committed acts in other countries and they are going to come here and do bad things. Here is another way of thinking about that and a more honest way of putting it. These are individuals, Canadian citizens, who have committed crimes abroad and who will come home.
The question is, who do we want to come home? Who do we want to step off that plane? Would we prefer somebody who was transferred into a Canadian jail, received proper programming, was rehabilitated and would not reoffend, or would we prefer that people languish in a foreign jail, where they get no rehabilitation, where if they have a mental health issue, they are going to get no treatment and where if they have a drug issue they get no help? They return to Canadian soil ready to commit more serious, potentially violent crimes.
If we stopped and thought about it rationally for just a moment, we would realize that this program does have an important function in that regard. We also need to consider just how small a number we are talking about in terms of the number of people that were transferred in any given year. It ranges from a low, and we had it last year, of around 40 individuals who were transferred, to a high of about 90. The government makes this proclamation about how essential this bill is. Even if one forgets everything I just said, we are talking about 40 to 90 individuals.
The government goes on to say that under its administration, and it is very proud of this, it has stopped dramatically the number of transfers. Yet if we look at that same annual report and look at the number that was actually denied by Canada as opposed to by another jurisdiction, in the last year of a Liberal government, in 2004-05, there were four people denied. In the last year for which we have statistics, under the Conservative government in 2006-07, the number is seven.
Here is a matter in front of us of supposedly enormous urgency to change and a government touting how it has dramatically reduced the number of people it is allowing to come here. We have gone from four people denied to seven. That is in the annual report. That is some crisis.
It is under assault right now, but I think we have to recognize that Canada has one of the best prison systems in the world. Its mandate is rehabilitation. Our rates of recidivism are low. Despite the fact that the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge it, crime in this country has been consistently on the decline. I use Statistics Canada for my facts in this regard. I think Statistics Canada is an appropriate place to turn when we are trying to figure out what the crime statistics are in a country.
When the Minister of Public Safety was last before the public safety and national security committee, however, he said we cannot believe Statistics Canada; we cannot believe the facts, do not listen to them. He said instead that there were invisible crimes going on that were unreported and that those were skyrocketing. The types of crimes that we could not put our finger on or actually identify were going through the roof. I asked him where he was getting this information from, what was his source. His response was he got it from the Vancouver Board of Trade.
I submit that if I am going to use statistics on what is happening with crime in this country, I would be much more likely to use the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and Statistics Canada, all of whom tell us crime is in decline, particularly violent crime, as opposed to listening to the Vancouver Board of Trade on an issue that might be very local to whatever situation it is faced with.
The point is that the facts do not seem to matter, that what matters is the politics, that there is an attempt to use crime and issues surrounding crime as a wedge, as an opportunity to divide Canadians to try to extract political gain. I would submit that this is a relatively new phenomenon. In the House in the past, all parties have recognized that if there is one area in which we really should not be playing politics it is in crime, in keeping our communities safe, and that we should follow evidence-based systems that rely upon what actually works.
Let us take a look at what actually keeps our communities safe and reduces crime and focus on those things. Let us not play into false perceptions or sensational media reports with policies that do not work, cost billions of dollars, make our communities less safe but extract an inch or two of political gain at any given moment.
What we need to do in that regard beyond Bill C-5 is take a look at the trajectory of dealing with crime in this country. We need to look at the actual evidence of what has worked and not worked in other jurisdictions and at what we should be doing here in Canada. On that, I am going to come back to the American example of incarceration.
Many know that the American rate of incarceration is much higher than the Canadian rate. What people may not know is that was not necessarily always the case. If we go back to 1981, the Canadian and U.S. rates of incarceration were relatively similar, with the U.S. rate being about two times the Canadian rate per capita. However, Republican policies came forward that were aimed at “tough on crime” measures to drive up prison populations and that difference went from some 200% higher to nearly 700% higher, an increase of 500% in a very short period of time.
If there was a dramatic impact in terms of making the United States safer during that period of time, perhaps there could be an argument that literally tens of billions of dollars were spent for that additional incarceration. The fact is that in that period of time the United States witnessed the same decline in rates of recidivism and crime as did Canada. Violent crime rates and property crime rates right across the board are all down by about the exact same measure. The only difference is that the U.S. had to pay tens of billions of dollars more.
The evidence is that it has a far more sinister impact. If we consider the case of California, there is now a taxpayer cost of $8 billion a year with a prison system that is overflowing with more than 150,000 inmates. I mentioned before that over 70% of inmates reoffend upon release, are recycled back into a prison system that offers no programming or treatment to treat the underlying causes of their criminal activities. 
Because the U.S. system is so overwhelmed, the same people are not being treated and are being pulled back into the system in a never-ending loop of crime, victimization and cost. This is the model the government wants to follow. This is the direction the government is headed.
In addition, the Federal Court ordered the state government to release 55,000 inmates before they finished serving their sentences because the conditions of the prisons were unconstitutional. Canada signed a UN convention against double bunking and ever since then, we have been bringing that rate steadily down. 
The minister now says that to deal with the soaring prison population, we are going to return to that policy, the same kind of policy that is leading to higher rates of recidivism, which means less safe communities. Not only are we talking about billions in more costs, but ultimately we are going to be talking about higher crime rates with these policies. The question may be asked: Just how far have the Conservatives gone when it comes to spending on correctional services?
In two years' time, the budget of Correctional Service Canada will have increased by some 96%. The capital budget for Correctional Service Canada, in two years' time, will have been increased by 238%. Make no mistake, as staggering as those increases are, they are just the tip of the iceberg.
At the end of this month, Mr. Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will submit for Parliament's consideration the total cost of the government's measures. Get ready for sticker shock. The cost will be astronomical.
When we consider how poorly this system has worked before, let us consider what our alternatives are. Instead of spending billions of dollars on prisons, what are some of the things the government should be spending on?
Let us start with crime prevention.
In 2005, the last full year of a Liberal government, the National Crime Prevention Centre supported some 509 projects, in 261 communities, for a total of $56.9 million. Today, the Conservative government has slashed funding and programming by more than half, cutting every year. Now less than 285 projects are funded and actual spending on crime prevention has been slashed to just $19.27 million. That is a cut of more than half on crime prevention.
 This is deeply disturbing. We know from people like Dr. Irvin Waller, who has done extensive studies in this area, that for every dollar we spend on crime prevention, we save $7.00 on incarceration and $4.00 in eradicating costs dealing with both probation and re-entering. We are talking about saving $11.00 for every $1.00 we spend in prevention, yet the current government has decided to slash funding on crime prevention.
When I have gone across the country, I have had an opportunity to speak with boys' and girls' clubs, organizations that are right at the front line of helping youth at risk, of turning them away from a dark path toward a life of prosperity, paying taxes and happiness. I have talk to the Salvation Army and the YMCA. These groups are critical in providing that community support and resource to help young people. When I hear that their funding has been slashed, that they are in a position where they get less and less cash, even as they watch billions get dumped into prisons, it is tragic. It is tragic because It means there will be more victimization.
Perhaps this is one of the greatest flaws of the approach of the Conservatives to crime. They wait for victims. They let the crimes happen. Then they say that they will get the guys and really punish them. They say that they will throw them into really terrible, dark places, where they will learn their lesson.
However, because the Conservatives are cutting from the things that stop crime from happening in the first place, we have more victimization. Then because they are cutting from the ability of the prison system to deal with a manageable population, they are destroying their capacity, their ability to make those people better, ensuring that when they walk out the door, they are better and they do not commit more crimes.
We know that more than 90% of inmates will walk out the door of those jails. No matter how long we make those sentences, they will come back out. Again, we have to ask ourselves who we want walking out those doors.
The government often touts its position on victims of crime. The reality is it has been cutting there too. The Prime Minister has cut grants for the victims of crime initiative by 43% and contributions to the victims of crime initiative by 43%. Even on the front line of helping victims, the government is cutting, as it dumps billions into prisons. It is cutting from the prison farm system. It refused to act on the Correctional Investigator's report on Ashley Smith and the terrible problems in our prison system, with mental health and addictions issues. It is undermining police by refusing to even support its promise to put 2,400 more officers on the streets. something the Canadian Police Association called a betrayal. Despite engaging Mr. Iacobucci on Afghan detainees, the government ignores his recommendations when it comes to reforming the RCMP. 
Enough is enough. It is time for the government to actually listen to evidence and take real action.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that Bill C-5 will give more discretionary power to the minister to repatriate Canadians who are serving sentences abroad. 
The Bloc Québécois is very worried about this. We saw the Conservatives fight tooth and nail in the House to defend their former candidate and MP Rahim Jaffer, in response to the allegations of impaired driving and cocaine possession. We have to wonder whether the purpose of this bill is simply to enable Conservative MPs or anyone who has their membership card to be repatriated.
It worries me that this would give so much power to a Conservative minister. Does the member agree with me?
[Interjection]
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the extension of these powers to the minister, when the system seems to have been working so effectively, will have to be very carefully examined at committee. If improperly used, this would create a situation that is much more dangerous.
I also agree that there seems to be a double standard. When it comes to Conservatives, if one does the crime one pays the fine, as opposed to their normal rhetoric.
Specifically on the issue of Bill C-5 and its application, the government will have to provide us with some very good reasons why these additional powers are necessary and assure us that they will not be abused in a way which is inconsistent with even its own annual report, which talks about how important these provisions currently are.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering tell me what he thinks about criminals who serve their time in foreign jails, are released and eventually come back to Canada with no monitoring, or prisoners who are transferred to Canada, serve their time in jail, and then paroled and followed by a parole officer with limitations of what they can do and where they can go? Would that not be better for public safety than having criminals coming from foreign countries with no rules?
[Interjection]
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the member makes an important point. We have to consider that most of the crimes committed are property crimes or crimes that are usually related to things like drug addiction. If we do not deal with the base cause of why that crime was committed, as an example I mentioned earlier in my speech that more than 80% of inmates suffer a serious substance abuse problem, if we do not break that cycle of addiction, then we will have a continuous loop of addiction, victimization, incarceration and back and forth. It is almost a guaranteed cycle. 
In foreign jurisdictions, in most cases, there is no opportunity to break that cycle. Therefore, we have Canadian citizens serving their sentence in a foreign jurisdiction where they will get no treatment for their substance abuse problem, no treatment for their mental health problem, should they have one, and then they will be dropped back on Canadian soil and we will be left to pick up the pieces.
Let us be clear about what those pieces will be. That individual's life will be in tatters, but there will be further victimization in all likelihood. Therefore, we create a situation that makes our communities less safe, it creates a higher likelihood of victimization and, at the end of the day, we will have to pay the price. Therefore, the cost is infinitely higher to not having that person transferred and rehabilitated.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, there have been 1,314 applications for transfer received by international transfers unit of Correctional Service Canada from 2002 to 2007. Of those, 519 were denied by the minister, who has the right under the existing legislation to do that, on the basis of threats to public security or not a significant link to the country.
Is that not working? Why do we need then Bill C-5, which purports to be for enhancing public safety, if the minister already has that discretion and has used it? I do not know the math of 519 out of 1,314, but it is almost in half the cases.
What is wrong? “If it ain't broke”, why fix it?
[Interjection]
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the member raises an excellent point, which all members of the House need to consider. 
What concerns me about many of the speeches and comments I have heard by Conservative members is their touting of the virtues of rolling back these transfers as if the objective should be to get to zero, as if we should try as hard as we possibly can to transfer nobody. Hopefully I have made the case that the cost of this, in terms of increased victimization, increased costs and more destruction of lives, makes absolutely no sense. 
The only motive I can think of to change something that clearly is already working, where half of individuals are already rejected, where the minister already has adequate powers, is the ideological vent is to roll the number right down to zero and stop transferring anybody. 
We will have to be very cautious with this and examine it very carefully at committee. We need to look at what the implications of these additional powers will be. If this is allowed to happen, the impact of it will be nothing but cost and pain for Canada.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government tends to give the impression that somehow the offenders who are transferred back to Canada will be out on the street, that they will be a danger to somebody. The fact is members know they will be transferred directly to jail. They will not be a danger to the public at that point.
In the last 29 years, almost 30 years now, only 1,351 offenders have been transferred to Canada, so we are not talking about a huge number. The member indicated that we were talking about small numbers.
This is all a public relations exercise. The—
The Deputy Speaker: I will have to cut the hon. member off to give the member for Ajax—Pickering about 30 seconds to respond before statements by members.
[Interjection]
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the member makes an important point. Under the veneer of rhetoric, under the talking points and the slick spinning in commercials, there is a complete lack of substance.
 I suggest that when we deal with matters as important as public safety, as important as the rehabilitation of people who have committed crimes, our first question should be this. What works and what does the evidence tell us? Then we should follow what works and what the evidence tells us instead of playing games with crime.

Statements By Members
Wine IndustryMr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have travelled on many national airlines, including Air Canada, around the globe for business and pleasure.
Other national airlines promote their local wine producers exclusively, but Air Canada promotes the competitors of our Canadian wine producers. Imagine. I have written to Air Canada on this matter, but the silence is deafening as it refuses to explain this policy that disadvantages our fine Canadian wine producers.
With a passenger market of international business investors and influential decision-makers and a widely travelled clientele, why would Air Canada not support our Canadian wine industry exclusively?
Our wines have won numerous international awards, and our ice wines are the best in the world. It seems logical to me that an airline that proudly carries our nation's name and maple leaf around the world would also proudly carry exclusively our wonderful Canadian wines around the world, too.
Come on, Air Canada, we have world-class wines. Air Canada should show its pride. It should support our Canadian wine producers and help create and support Canadian jobs.
Annie PopeScott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Annie Pope of Peterview, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Annie passed away suddenly on December 16, 2009. She was 60 years of age. Annie Pope was born and raised in Peterview and played a tremendous role in the development of her community.
Throughout her life, she addressed many social and economic issues for the betterment of her community through organizations such as the Peterview Town Council, Your Strength is Our Strength Club, the Seniors Resource Centre, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Laubach Literacy Council.
Annie was so proud of her latest accomplishment. She and others built the Quiet Corners Housing Complex in Peterview. She worked tirelessly with all levels of government to see that affordable housing was available to those in need.
There is no question that we have lost a great pillar of the community. Those who worked with her were touched by her spirit. Now we reflect on those memories and, more importantly, carry forward her community values and legacy.
Annie Pope was an inspirational community leader, a friend to everyone and a great Canadian. It was a pleasure knowing her.
Tourism AwardsMr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to point out the impressive number of awards won by tourism operators in the Drummond RCM at this year's central Quebec tourism awards. In fact, our businesses won 10 of the 16 awards.
 The award recipients include: Village Québécois d'Antan for a tourist attraction with more than 100,000 visitors; Quality Suites Hotel for lodging establishments with one to three stars; Mondial des Cultures for an event with an operating budget of more than $1 million, as well as the sustainable tourism award for its green practices; Hériot golf club for outdoor and leisure activities; Spa Bioterra for a tourist attraction with fewer than 100,000 visitors; Rose Drummond for agricultural tourism and regional products; and Cabane à sucre Chez Ti-Père for tourist development in food services.
I would also like to congratulate Carmen Hamel, from the Village Québécois d'Antan, who won in the tourist supervisor category and Dominique Côté, from Quality Suites, who took home the tourism leaders of tomorrow award.
National Housing StrategyMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour to participate in the 2010 homelessness hunger strike relay to raise awareness about this crisis in Canada.
The relay will conclude in June with a delegation to Ottawa by train to mark the 75th anniversary of the On to Ottawa Trek, when thousands of unemployed men rode the trains to demand fair work and wages.
I collected pages and pages of messages from people who know only too well the reality of homelessness. One person wrote, “Homelessness exists because society allows it to”. Another wrote, “No homes, no life”.
Bill C-304 for a national housing strategy is currently before Parliament and is finding strong support across Canada. In Vancouver we are on the verge of losing hundreds of shelter beds because of lack of funding and lack of federal leadership. The need for a national strategy could not be more apparent.
Many MPs have heard from their constituents on this bill, and I hope those voices will be reflected with all-party support for a national housing strategy when it comes to a vote.
Moose Jaw Central CollegiateMr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Central Collegiate of Moose Jaw and to inform this House, as well as all Central Collegiate alumni, about an upcoming milestone for this great institution.
Central Collegiate is the oldest operating public school facility in the province of Saskatchewan. On April 29 of this year, the collegiate will celebrate 100 years of developing our province's and our country's greatest asset, our youth. The school will be marking this day by hosting an open house and barbecue. 
Then on July 8 to 11, there will be a major reunion of Central Collegiate alumni, which will attract thousands of people to the city of Moose Jaw. I encourage all alumni to take part in these activities.
I congratulate Moose Jaw's Central Collegiate for 100 years of excellence and ask my colleagues to join me as we wish it 100 more years.
Quebec Entrepreneurship CompetitionMrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, during the awards gala for the south-west Montreal Island division of the Concours québécois en entrepreneuriat, two organizations from my riding, LaSalle—Émard, were awarded prizes.
The Bistro Monk cooperative won the social economy prize, and the Crepeblin Inc. factory won first prize in the bio-food category.
This gala has been a fixture in our community for 19 years. In that time, it has helped stimulate and encourage entrepreneurship and new business development.
I am therefore very proud and excited to congratulate Bistro Monk and its board of directors, Patrick Martineau, Suzie Boulanger, Lucie Martineau and Martin Martineau, as well as Crepeblin Inc. and its owners, Irina Malyavina and Viktoria Koulia.
On behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard, I wish them every success in the coming years.
Citizenship CeremoniesMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I have one of the greatest honours possible, the swearing-in ceremony of 52 new Canadian citizens in Edmonton.
Throughout the year I attend numerous citizenship ceremonies in my riding and congratulate new Canadians as they, and I along with them, repeat the oath of citizenship to express our commitment to Canada. It is an oath that I do not take lightly. I am proud to serve my country, both when I was a member of the Canadian Air Force and now as a member of Parliament.
As well, tomorrow is Law Day in Alberta. It is the 28th year that the Canadian Bar Association, Alberta Law Foundation and Law Society of Alberta have organized activities. Law Day provides an opportunity for Albertans to learn about their legal system and the role the law plays in our country. Our new Canadians will get to participate directly after their ceremony. 
I and the 52 new Canadians know that our country is the best place in the world to live. That is why Canadian citizenship is so highly valued by so many who seek to build a better life here.
The Aeneid in AfricaMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, L'Énéide, directed by Quebec playwright Olivier Kemeid, will be presented as part of the celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in October. This version of The Aeneid has received acclaim beyond Quebec's borders since it was created in 2007. In August, Olivier Kemeid will visit Africa for the first time, and he believes that the refugee camps in the Congo are filled with people like Aeneas.
Aeneas's sad fate is that he must flee to survive, running through the streets carrying his father on his shoulders and holding his child by the hand. This story of Aeneas, who is portrayed as a boat person condemned to wander to find a land for his son, is a modern-day version of The Aeneid, an epic poem written by Virgil between 29 and 19 B.C.
Once again, one of Quebec's creative minds will make a name for himself abroad with his huge talent. We wish L'Énéide by Olivier Kemeid a long run and every success during the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sealing IndustryMr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to signal hope for an important shift in international public opinion on the merits of the EU ban on Canadian seal products. This week, the influential British publication The Economist perfectly summarized the nature of this conflict.
 The Canadian government clearly takes the issue seriously.... 
 The Canadian government, for its part, feels duty bound to protect the interests of a number of its poorer citizens against lobbying from special interest groups a long way away. 
The evidence that the EU takes the issue seriously, however, is harder to find. The ban appears to be a cheap way to be seen to be doing something to protect animals, thus appeasing the animal welfare lobby by attacking a group of people who cannot fight back.
 I can assure this House that our government will not waver in our commitment to protect vulnerable Canadian sealers from the well-funded misinformation campaigns of professional anti-seal-hunt lobby groups. We applaud The Economist for speaking the truth on this most important issue.
Holocaust Remembrance DayHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year's national Holocaust Remembrance Day takes place at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder. 
This year is the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the surviving remnants of planet Auschwitz, the most horrific laboratory of mass murder in history. It is the 65th anniversary of the emergence of the United Nations from the ashes of the Holocaust, reminding us, as Kofi Annan put it, that “a United Nations that fails to be at the forefront of the fight against anti-Semitism and other forms of racism denies its history and undermines its future”. It is the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg race laws, reminding us of the dangers of state-sanctioned cultures of hate, of incitement and of indifference and silence in the face of radical evil. And it is the 65th anniversary of the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg, this Saint-Just of the nations, who showed that one person could confront evil, resist and prevail, and thereby transform history.
Let us pledge that never again will we be indifferent to incitement and hate, that never again will we be silent in the face of radical evil, that never again will we indulge racism and anti-Semitism, and that never again will we ignore mass atrocity and impunity. Jamais plus.
Small BusinessMs. Dona Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government understands that small businesses are the backbone of Canada's economy. That is why we lowered their taxes, reduced their paper burden, increased their lifetime capital gains exemption and much more.
Today, we are building on that strong record. Small businesses are concerned about rising credit and debit card costs, costs they would have to pass on to the consumers. That is why we are introducing a code of conduct to protect small businesses from this unfair practice of credit card and debit card companies.
The code will increase transparency, give small businesses a choice in the cards they accept and much more. It is precisely what small businesses asked for and we delivered.
PovertyMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to its credit, the Hamilton Spectator is currently running a 10-part series on poverty called “Code Red”, written by award-winning reporter Steve Buist. According to the statistics, the level of poverty that exists in parts of Hamilton is what one might expect in third world countries.
With a groundbreaking health mapping project, the research shows there is a 21-year gap in life expectancy between wealthy and poor neighbourhoods within the city. This represents the loss of an entire generation. However, no MPs should think their ridings are immune. Similar situations exist in communities from coast to coast to coast. The “Code Red” series has revealed that, more than anything else, social determinants of health, such as education, housing, social supports and income do affect overall health.
No Hamiltonian enjoys seeing our community reflected this way, but we need to face the truth. The truth is that, until we have a federal government with the political will to provide national leadership to eradicate poverty, the whole truth is that this is a code red for Canada.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past year, we have seen the leader of the Liberal Party flip flop repeatedly. He has changed his mind a number of times on a number of things. But the opposition leader has never changed his mind about wanting to increase taxes.
Quebeckers and Canadians are well aware of the consequences of tax hikes. They kill jobs and hinder economic recovery.
Once again, the leader of the Liberal Party is proving that he is not interested in Quebeckers and Canadians.
The leader of the Liberal Party only thinks of himself, but our government understands the priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians and is working to stimulate the economy. Quebeckers and Canadians can benefit from the strong and steady economic leadership that our Conservative government has to offer.
Federal Spending PowerMr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, another broken promise has been added to the Conservative government's list: limiting the federal spending pseudo-power. This is further proof that, for the government, recognition of the Quebec nation is nothing but an empty gesture. 
To date, Ottawa has meddled in all of Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions. In fiscal 2008-09 alone, more than $60 billion was spent in areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction.
For that reason the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to eliminate the presumed federal power to spend in Quebec's jurisdictions that would give Quebec the automatic and unconditional right to opt out with full compensation.
If this Conservative government was truly serious when it says it recognizes the Quebec nation, it would stop meddling in our jurisdictions and support this bill. 
Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada to celebrate one of our great achievements. Tomorrow, April 17, marks the 25th anniversary of the enactment of section 15, the equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section states:
 Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 
We have come a long way since section 15 was enacted, but we still have far to go. Fortunately, we have organizations like the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund that works to ensure that the law guarantees substantive equality for all women in Canada. Everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is time to update the list of tax increases supported by the Liberal leader and his party. 
Earlier this week, the Liberal Party voted in favour of creating a levy on digital music devices, also known as the iPod tax. This is on top of a recent pledge to hike job-killing business taxes, a move businesses have said will immediately stop Canada's steady job creation.
Also on the Liberal tax hike list is a plan to raise the GST and, of course, no one can forget the Liberal leader's boasts that he was the first to tout a carbon tax on everything. No wonder the Liberal leader calls himself a tax and spend Liberal.
 The Liberal leader needs to tax more so he can spend more. He is already on the record promising billions of dollars in unaffordable and reckless spending. Higher taxes and reckless spending do not create jobs, nor do they promote economic growth. 
Simply put, Canadians just cannot afford the Liberal leader's tax and spend agenda.

Oral Questions
EthicsMark Holland: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that on September 9 the former minister for the status of women sent a letter to the most senior municipal officials in Simcoe county, her cousin, no less, urging that he and his council hire Wright Tech Systems and adopt its bio-dryer technology.
What the letter failed to mention was that her husband, Rahim Jaffer, and his business partner were in a position to personally profit from a company whose business plan had a projected value of more than $1 billion.
Has the government obtained this letter and provided it to the RCMP? What other letters written by that former minister pumping this company is the government aware of?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member in question is no longer a member of the ministry. If the member opposite has any concerns he would like to forward to the Ethics Commissioner for her to look into, I would urge him to do so.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to do better than that. That member was a sitting member of cabinet. 
The government has further documents that must be provided to the RCMP. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has admitted to the media that he met with Mr. Jaffer and his business partner and that last August they sent him three funding proposals for the green infrastructure fund. One of these proposals was for a biomass drying system, the exact same technology provided by Wright Tech Systems.
Has the parliamentary secretary handed over the proposals he received from Mr. Jaffer to the RCMP and, if not, why not?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, when this issue arose, the Prime Minister referred the matter to the relevant authorities. We are certainly prepared to co-operate in any way possible, if asked.
I do know that the letter the member mentioned is on the front page of the Toronto Star, which is why I suspect it would not be terribly difficult to get.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, let us review what the Prime Minister actually did in this case. 
The Prime Minister claimed that his government did three things when he received the allegations last week. He claimed that he had referred the matter to the Ethics Commissioner. She now says that she received no formal request and is only monitoring media reports. He claimed that his officials briefed the former minister on the nature of the serious allegation. The former minister said that they had not. Finally, he claimed that he was referring the matter to the RCMP.
My question is for the minister responsible for the RCMP directly. Has the RCMP launched a formal criminal investigation into these allegations, yes or no?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did the right thing. When serious allegations were brought forward against one of his ministers, he immediately referred the issue to the relevant authorities. It is not our place to direct them to do or not to do anything. We have confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to do the right thing. The matter has been referred to them.
The most important thing is that the Prime Minister acted expeditiously and ethically. The Prime Minister did the right thing.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that the former status of women minister was promoting a firm that her husband and Mr. Gillani wanted to buy and then take public in a $1 billion deal. She even wrote a letter to the senior municipal official of Simcoe County, her cousin, suggesting he use this company. 
A proposal that Mr. Jaffer submitted to the green fund looks an awful lot like this company's business plan. Will this information be provided to the RCMP? 
John Baird: Let us be very clear, Mr. Speaker. No funding was recommended and no funding was given with respect to this project. The government acted ethically, properly and expeditiously. When these concerns were raised with the Prime Minister, he did the right thing. He referred them to the relevant authorities and we have confidence that they will do the right thing.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he referred the allegations to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, but the commissioner said that she has not received a formal request and that she is getting her information from the newspaper. He said that his team informed the former minister about the allegations, but she says this is not true. He also said that he referred the issue to the RCMP.
Can the Minister of Public Safety tell us if the RCMP has launched a formal criminal investigation? Yes or no? 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was made aware of these serious allegations, he did the right thing. He forwarded them to the relevant authorities so they could make a determination as to what to do.
Obviously, those authorities will make those determinations, as is appropriate. It is not the place of the government, it is not the place of a political actor to stand on the floor of the House of Commons and announce a criminal investigation. Maybe that was the way the previous government operated but it is not the way this government operates.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that the former minister for the status of women personally intervened to promote a business with which her husband, Rahim Jaffer, the former chair of the Conservative caucus, was connected. By writing to the municipality of Simcoe to encourage officials to purchase technology distributed by Wright Tech Systems Inc., the former minister allegedly used her elected office to help her husband, who was trying to become a partner in the business.
Can the government confirm that it was these allegations of influence peddling that were passed on to the RCMP?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when we were made aware of the allegations, we forwarded them to the appropriate authorities. The allegations do not concern the activities of this government. Needless to say, we support the Prime Minister's decision to refer these documents, the allegations in question, to the authorities concerned.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the former minister has always claimed that she did not use her position to help her husband. Yet by intervening directly, using her office letterhead, that is exactly what she did. Not only does this violate the House code of ethics, but it may be a criminal offence.
When will the government confirm that it is these allegations of influence peddling that were forwarded to the RCMP? Just a minute. This circus has gone on long enough. It is time—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the members of this House that the Prime Minister acted as soon as he was made aware of these allegations. He forwarded the documents and the allegations to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that she could take the necessary action, and he also referred them to the RCMP.
The Prime Minister did the right thing under the circumstances.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, every day, we learn more about the allegations that prompted the government to remove the former minister for status of women from the Conservative caucus. First came the cocaine, the prostitutes, the compromising photos and the bank accounts in Belize. Then we found out that the Conservative couple may be involved in a complicated accounting scheme to inflate the value of an environmental company with the help of federal subsidies.
When will the government reveal the information that was supplied to the RCMP?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, serious allegations were brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and let us look at what he did. He immediately referred the matter, not just to the Ethics Commissioner but also to the competent police authorities so that they could make a determination as to how to follow-up on the issue.
The Prime Minister showed that he did the right thing. He acted expeditiously. I support the way the Prime Minister handled this important issue.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to understand that the atmosphere has become unhealthy. We are doing our best to find out whether the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the RCMP are going to investigate the matter, but the process has already begun in the media: drugs, blackmailing, secret bank accounts in a tax haven, influence peddling, misuse of the minister's office and equipment, and on and on. More and more troubling revelations are coming to light.
To put an end to speculation and promote healthy debate, will the government tell us what information was supplied to the RCMP?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before and I will repeat again, serious allegations were brought to the attention of the Prime Minister. He acted expeditiously and ethically and referred the entire matter to the relevant authorities. That was proper. That was the initiative that Canadians would expect from someone with high ethical standards. I support the way the Prime Minister handled this important issue.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the minister can repeat his message over and over again but the government is doing a really sloppy job.
Government members say that they forwarded to the Ethics Commissioner serious and credible allegations about wrongdoing by a member of cabinet but the Ethics Commissioner said that she had received no substantive information. 
The Prime Minister will not tell the public what the information is, and he has not told the Ethics Commissioner either. Has he at least told the RCMP or is he keeping the Mounties in the dark as well?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me very clear to the member for Vancouver East. When the allegations were brought forward to the Prime Minister, he referred the matter to the competent authorities.
He is not in a position to say whether they are true or untrue. It is not for his judgment or conclusion; it is for the relevant authorities. That is why he acted ethically, that is why he acted expeditiously, that is why the Prime Minister did the right thing.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, now we learn that the former minister wrote to officials in Simcoe to promote a company in which her husband was involved. This is, to use the government's own phrase, a serious and credible allegation of misconduct.
There is a simple question. Will the Prime Minister file a formal complaint with the Ethics Commissioner or will he, once again, only pretend to do so?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. There are allegations against a member of Parliament who is no longer a member of the ministry.
 If the member opposite has evidence that anything that has happened is inappropriate, I would encourage her to do the right thing, to follow the example of the Prime Minister, and forward any allegations or any information she has to the relevant authorities so that they can do the right thing.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will not take action on this latest allegation, then we will. We have written to the Ethics Commissioner to inform her of the former minister's actions and to ask her to undertake a formal investigation, something that this government will not do.
Apparently, the Prime Minister does not even know how the Conflict of Interest Code works. Maybe we should teach him, if he wishes, or does he believe that now that he has tossed the minister out of the Conservative cabinet and caucus, no investigation is needed? What does the government believe?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we believe that it was important that when serious allegations arose that were brought to the Prime Minister's attention, he took action expeditiously. He took action in the best ethical sense and he referred the matter to the RCMP and the relevant authorities. That demonstrates good judgment.
 I support what the Prime Minister did and, ultimately, obviously, the member for Vancouver East has learned a lesson from the Prime Minister and she has followed suit.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, accountability is the Prime Minister's job. The Prime Minister claims he learned of serious allegations involving his troubled former status of women minister only recently, but much was obvious months, even years ago: Mr. Jaffer's inappropriate use of government resources going back to 2008, his use of the Conservative logo featured in a Macleans magazine article last October. And his company improperly lobbied the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities last summer.
Why did the Prime Minister take so long to act and be accountable?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite really does stretch it. 
When serious allegations were brought forward, the Prime Minister acted expeditiously. He acted ethically and he referred the matter to the relevant authorities. If the member opposite has any evidence or any concern going back to 2008, I do not know why she did not take any action back in 2008.
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister acted expeditiously to hide the truth. 
The Prime Minister clearly ignored warnings that his minister's husband was involved with unsavoury characters when police found cocaine in a vehicle that she owned. Drug crimes are a serious criminal offence, punishable by years in prison and are linked to murky organized crime operations.
When it became apparent seven months ago that one of his ministers could be compromised by organized crime, did he or did he not order an enhanced security investigation?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dignify some of the outrageous comments made by the member for Don Valley East.
Here are the facts. Serious allegations were brought to the Prime Minister's attention. Within a matter of hours, he referred the matter to the relevant authorities, so that they could make a determination. He acted ethically. He acted expeditiously. The Prime Minister did the right thing.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Richard Colvin is a diplomat with 20 years of distinguished service to Canada. He remains a high level employee of the government in perhaps our most important foreign mission, the embassy in Washington.
When Mr. Colvin and others raised serious allegations, the government said he was not credible. However, when the Prime Minister got second-hand information from Mr. Gillani, known as Big Daddy G, the government fired the status of women minister, booted her from caucus and, called in the police. 
Why the hypocritical double standard?
John Baird: Big Daddy G, Mr. Speaker? This coming from Big Daddy E? That is quite outrageous.
I suspect like most members of this place and the member for Malpeque, I had never heard of this individual until last week. Serious allegations were brought to the Prime Minister's attention and what did he do? He immediately referred the matter to the competent authorities. That demonstrates a high ethical standard. That is the right thing to do. The Prime Minister did the right thing.
AfghanistanWayne Easter: Let us look at this double standard a little further.
On the one hand, credible, distinguished public servants, of stellar service to Canada, who bring forward serious allegations against the government are dismissed as not credible. Yet, when evidence comes forward from anonymous sources, possibly connected to the underworld, the Prime Minister accepts their word as gospel and calls in the police.
Why does the government choose to believe Big Daddy G but calls Richard Colvin a liar? Why?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, we all enjoy the member's rhetoric on a Friday morning in Ottawa, but the simple fact is when allegations are brought forward under any file, whether it is national defence or other files, when allegations are brought forward, they are investigated thoroughly, and they are forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Appropriate action is taken.
That is what a government that is grounded in ethics, is grounded in what is right for Canada, is grounded in what is right for Canadian soldiers, is grounded in what is right for Canadian citizen, does and that is why we are the Government of Canada.
Mr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to testimony at the Military Police Complaints Commission, the main concern of Canadian troops was avoiding another incident like the one in Somalia, where detainees had been mistreated by Canadian soldiers. That explains why the government was so quick to hand over the Afghan detainees.
Is that not the government's strategy, namely to hand over detainees as quickly as possible regardless of whether or not they will be tortured?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the government and certainly the Canadian Forces take their international obligations under the law and the Geneva conventions extremely seriously. Whenever credible allegations have come forward, they have been investigated. They are currently being investigated by the Military Police Complaints Commission. Justice Iacobucci is looking at documentation. They have been reviewed by several levels of court. They have been reviewed by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. They have been reviewed by the RCMP. They have been reviewed by Canadian Forces boards of inquiry. 
Let us give credit for work previously done and let us let new work to be completed.
Jean Dorion: Mr. Speaker, Canadian troops have used the Afghan security services to get admissions from detainees. Canada does not practice torture; it contracts it out. That was confirmed by a military report from October 2007.
In this context, will the government acknowledge that Canadian troops are acting as the judge in their own case and that only a public, independent inquiry will help shed light on this affair?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, no such confirmation was ever made. The member opposite is making that up.
The Canadian soldiers, the Canadian military, the diplomats, and everybody involved with the mission in Afghanistan take their obligations under international law and the Geneva conventions extremely seriously.
We have put a lot of trust and a lot of faith in people like the Chief of the Defence Staff. We have put a lot of faith in every member of the Canadian Forces on down, unlike some of the members opposite who tend to agree and want to agree with people who bring forth outrageous allegations against those members, from private to four-star general.
We find that a little outrageous and we are going to stand behind our troops all the way.
Rights & DemocracyMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the new president of Rights &amp; Democracy confirmed that since the arrival of Jacques Gauthier, the government's henchman supposedly appointed to clean house, outside contracts rose to $400,000 and were not tendered.
How can the government tolerate public money being used to fund attacks intended to discredit the previous administration and justify the Conservative government taking control of Rights &amp; Democracy?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that Rights &amp; Democracy is an independent organization. The government has never been and is not involved in its day-to-day activities. The man responsible for its operations, Mr. Latulippe, appeared before the parliamentary committee yesterday. All questions that members wanted to ask or could have asked were put to him and he answered them. That is his job and part of his duties.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, reiterating the Minister of Foreign Affairs's statement, the new president of Rights &amp; Democracy, Gérard Latulippe, claims that the organization is independent. However, at the same time, he confirmed that Rights &amp; Democracy must align itself with the Conservative government's foreign policy.
How can they say, on the one hand, that it is an independent organization and, on the other hand, that the organization's mandate is subordinate to the pro-Israel policies of the Conservative government?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, once again, I invite my colleague to read, not just glance at, but read the act. He will discover that section 13(3) of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act states that the board must have knowledge of Canadian foreign policy. It is right in the act.
AfghanistanMr. Francis Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ongoing hearings at the Military Police Complaints Commission defy the very principles of our justice system. Witnesses who testify have full knowledge of what is contained in documents but cannot disclose the censored portions to prove their testimony. The government and its lawyers, who have full access to uncensored documents, claim witnesses' testimony lacks proof. How convenient. Meanwhile, members of parliament, Canadians, and even the commission chair are barred from seeing the full documents.
How can the Conservatives justify this flagrant abuse of our justice system? How could such a process ever be a proper vetting of the facts?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the facts have been vetted many times by many different organizations. They are being vetted now by the Military Police Complaints Commission. They are being vetted by Justice Iacobucci. The Chief of the Defence Staff has said as recently as yesterday, I think, that obviously all new allegations will be examined carefully, just as they have been examined in the past. The CDS takes his responsibility seriously, the Canadian Forces as a whole take their responsibility seriously, and so do we.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, the chair of the commission, the man who is to decide if there was neglect, if there were mistakes, if any Canadian officials may have been complicit in wrongdoing, has absolutely no access to uncensored documents. Have we ever heard of a court where the judge cannot see the evidence?
Meanwhile, government lawyers are free to review them and claim whatever is blacked out is simply unimportant. This is no way to get to the truth. But the truth, of course, is something the current government has proven unwilling to disclose.
When will the current government do what is right, do what is just, and call a public inquiry?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that three years ago this government replaced a flawed transfer arrangement that was put into place by the previous government in 2005. It updated the procedures. We have been working very steadily with our allies in Afghanistan.
Are things perfect in Afghanistan? Clearly, they are not. That is why we are there. That is why we are working with the Afghan authorities to raise their level of competence, to raise everybody's level, so they can be confident that, in fact, justice has been done in the past and will be done in the future.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, new revelations about torture in Afghan prisons are all pointing in the same direction.
Richard Colvin, Cory Anderson, Nicholas Gosselin, military police officers and the interpreters who accompany our troops on the ground—all of these people, under oath, have clearly said that abuse was common, that the government was aware and that it willingly turned a blind eye.
The Prime Minister is responsible, but he would rather blame Canadian troops.
When will we see the public inquiry that Canadians are calling for?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, what is loco here is the Liberals' continued blind acceptance of allegations as fact and, by extension, defaming the Canadian Forces.
The simple fact is the Canadian Forces, the CDS, at all levels, have taken into account all of the information available, including some of the information that the member refers to. That is what a competent authority does. It looks at all the evidence, analyzes all the facts, and takes the appropriate action. That is what the Canadian Forces have done to this date. I am sure that is what they are going to continue to do in the future.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Gillani, a fraudster and known criminal, made allegations against a minister, the Prime Minister called the police.
When Richard Colvin, a career diplomat who has served our country for over 20 years, brought forward evidence of torture in Afghan prisons and of the wilful blindness of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister attacked him. 
Why believe a criminal but attack the reputation of a distinguished Canadian diplomat?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, apparently the trial has already been conducted and people are being deemed guilty or innocent. I thought we had a judicial process for that. I thought we had an inquiry process, whether it is with the RCMP, the Ethics Commissioner, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the Supreme Court of Canada, or the board of inquiry from the Canadian Forces. There are any number of investigations that have gone on, that are currently ongoing. Let us let them run their course.
Credit and Debit Card IndustryEd Holder: Mr. Speaker, small businesses in my riding are concerned about the practices of credit card companies.
Small businesses, including those in London, are just looking for fairness. They want the freedom to choose which card networks they use so that they control their costs and pass the savings on to their customers. Having competitive businesses keeps and creates jobs.
My observation in this House is that the Conservatives are the only ones talking about what matters to those job creators in London and across Canada, and that is the economy.
Would the parliamentary secretary please inform the House about what the government is doing to help small business today?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from London West for finally asking a question about the economy.
We all know that small business plays a vital role in Canada's economy and job creation. When small business raises concerns with us we listen.
Today we released a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry to encourage choice and competition, to help prevent unfair business practices and to help protect businesses from rising costs.
The credit and debit card industry has until May 17 to adopt this code voluntarily or our government is prepared to take action to regulate them through the legislative process.
AfghanistanMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a document I received shows that when detainees were not forthcoming during questioning by Canadian officials, they would be sent to the NDS for further interrogation. We have heard testimony that this meant torture. Yesterday a military police witness testified that they had no responsibility for detainees once they handed them over. This document backs up what a top-level military advisor, known as Pasha, described as “outsourcing torture”.
Where does the buck stop? Who is accountable for Canada's outsourcing torture to the Afghans?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, once again we are talking about allegations. The top level military advisor he was talking about is a translator. 
The simple fact is that the Military Police Complaints Commission is hearing a lot of evidence from a lot of people. What it does is it investigates all allegations, analyzes the facts and the evidence and, if warranted, it lays the appropriate charges.
We are working with our Afghan allies in Afghanistan to bring their level up to something, not approaching Canada's level, unfortunately, but to a higher level than it has been in the past.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, what Pasha, the interpreter, gave us was a first-hand, eye witness account of an NDS colonel's proposal to murder a detainee. He said that Colonel Yassin said that NDS would not accept a sick detainee and that when the Canadians insisted, Colonel Yassin removed his pistol, put it on the table, and said, ‘Here is my gun. Go shoot him. Give me the body and I will justify it for you”. 
Their intentions were clear and yet the detainee was still transferred.
No more excuses. The need for a public inquiry is obvious to everyone, seemingly, except for the government. Why will it not call a public inquiry?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, as usual, my hon. colleague is misstating the facts. The NDS official in question did not propose murder. He was being dramatic, I assume.
The simple fact is that we did not turn over that prisoner. We took him back to the hospital in Kandahar, operated on him, made him healthy and turned him back over to the NDS. That is what we do. We look after our Taliban prisoners better than anybody else, better, frankly, than the Taliban looks after their own. We take them into our hospitals and we make them as well, as we do with the rest of the Afghan people. That is what we are doing across the country there. We are raising everybody's level.
EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 2008, the former federal environment minister, the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, announced with great fanfare that a carbon exchange would be created in Montreal.
We have learned that the studies are finished, the mechanisms are ready to be put into place and, despite all of that, the government is going to delay the creation of the carbon exchange yet again.
Will the government admit that the only thing keeping the carbon exchange from opening is its own lack of political will?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, not at all. The member well knows the government's commitment to the environment and in an harmonized continental approach.
While the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition is into publicity stunts again, our government is taking real action on the environment. The greenhouse gas emission report just delivered to the United Nations shows a 2.1% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
We need to remember that it was 13 long years of Liberal inaction, supported by the Bloc, that saw massive increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
We are getting it done.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government will use any excuse to put off the creation of a carbon exchange for as long as possible. They have cited the economic crisis and a lack of international consensus, and now the minister is saying that they have to wait for the American plan.
Instead of using such flimsy excuses, will the minister acknowledge that the real reason behind his inaction is a lack of political will and his desire to give his oil company friends more time?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but mention the statement made in Calgary yesterday by the hon. member's leader. He was in western Canada, as we all know. I will quote him in English so that we fully understand what he said:
 I’m fighting for my own interests, you’re fighting for yours. Fine. I’m not opposed to the tarsands. 
He is not against the oil companies. But what does his party member think? Maybe he should talk to his leader.
Public SafetyBrian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has asked for a cost-sharing agreement for its RCMP detachment. The three mayors met with the minister in 2007 and wrote to him in December 2008. I wrote to the minister myself in January 2009. The problem has not yet been resolved.
Only two of 269 communities have no such agreement, and both are located in south-eastern New Brunswick. Why the discrimination? When will Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe get an agreement?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in discussions with these communities and the discussions are ongoing. When there is an upgrade to it, we will make the member opposite aware.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, there has been three years of discussion. We need some action. 
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has been well-served by Codiac RCMP but costs have soared and municipalities are now urgently forced to look at changing the model. The main reason is the government's lack of action on a request for the same cost-sharing agreement that 269 other communities in Canada enjoy.
Would the minister tell us why he does not care at all about policing concerns in southeastern New Brunswick? Why the delay, the deceit and the discrimination?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the minister does care about policing across this country but in this case the discussions will continue and we will report to the member in due time.
Vale IncoClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the strike at Vale Inco nine months ago, the Conservatives have claimed time and time again that this is exclusively a provincial matter. However, Vale Inco reps have met five times with the senior bureaucrats, six times with ADMs, eleven times with the chief of staff, once with the PMO, once with the Minister of Labour and once with the Minister of Industry.
Are these 25 meetings not the real reason why these Conservatives are refusing to show leadership regarding the Vale Inco strike?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we continue to monitor this situation. We hope that both sides can come to a settlement because the sooner the better for the people of Sudbury.
 In regard to the Investment Canada Act, we evaluate a quality to proposed reductions throughout the entire international enterprise.
Vale Inco had announced temporary shutdowns in other parts of the world and have not specifically targeted Canada. We do see Vale Inco planning to stay invested in Canada for the long term, but we do continue to monitor the situation.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, we know that Vale Inco is using strikebreakers to carry on its operations in Sudbury.
Not only is Vale Inco using scabs regardless of the problems that is causing for the community, but a very credible report suggests that several of these strikebreakers have come from the United States.
Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism tell us whether temporary work permits were issued to foreign workers employed by Vale Inco?
Is the government letting scabs into the country?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, I already commented on the Vale Inco situation as it relates to the Investment Canada Act.
 I will make a comment, however, on the NDP strategy to adopt only made in Canada policies, policies that would raise barriers around our country, policies that would make it impossible to sell Canadian products around the world and policies that would be absolutely devastating to Canadian companies, the Canadian economy and specifically to Canadian workers.
Fairness at the Pumps ActMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry announced a fairness at the pumps bill that would ensure that Canadians get what they pay for when they go to fill up their cars and trucks.
One Liberal touted this announcement as a phantom issue, one that Canadians did not really care about. Can it be that the Liberals are so out of touch with Canadians that they think Canadians do not care about being ripped off at the pumps?
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would inform this House about the importance of this bill, especially for Canadian consumers.
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, indeed, yesterday the member for Pickering—Scarborough East labelled this a phantom issue for Canadians. Only the Liberals would refer to the fact that Canadian consumers are losing millions and millions of dollars because of inaccurate pumps as a phantom issue.
Let us be very clear on the distinction between our two parties. 
The centrepiece of the last Liberal election campaign was a carbon tax that would have significantly increased gas prices. Over the past year the Liberal leader proposed raising a broad range of taxes, from sales taxes to corporate taxes. 
On the other hand, this government has lowered taxes across the board and introduced measure after measure to protect the Canadian consumer.
Fishing IndustryMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is in crisis. Fishermen are struggling to make a living and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans continues to restrict them with unnecessary regulations. With low prices, some fishermen want to use the buddy-up system to assist them during this time. Unfortunately, the minister has shut the door.
No one is asking her to change the program criteria, just to make the program fair to all. Will the minister review the buddy-up program with the objective to make this system fair and allow equal access for all fishermen?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the fisheries committee for his question. He is right that the fishing industry across Canada, and especially in Newfoundland and Labrador, is facing some significant challenges.
However, I reject the premise of his question because the minister has allowed certain flexibility to the industry. We have introduced measures for enterprise combining and buddy-up to allow fleets to better adjust to markets and resource conditions.
JusticeMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is continuing to impose its regressive Conservative agenda by stealth. Just as it did when it wanted to dismantle the gun registry, it is introducing another private member's bill to reopen the abortion debate. The Prime Minister, who promised not to challenge the right to abortion, has nonetheless given this bill his blessing.
When will the government stop imposing its regressive ideology on the women of Quebec?
Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's position is clear: we will not reopen the abortion debate.
The EnvironmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a major environmental climate change conference starts in Cochabamba, Bolivia in only three days. More than 70 countries, such as France, Russia and Spain, will be there, including the majority of those least developed nations, those whose populations will bear the heaviest burden from climate change.
The government has not indicated how Canada will be represented at these important international talks. Will the minister please explain who will represent Canada or will our seat at the table be empty again?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that our government, along with 117 other countries representing over 90% of the world's emissions, have signed on to the Copenhagen accord.
This week the IEA executive director, Nobuo Tanaka, praised Canada's recent climate change targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. We already know that our emissions are going down. Under this government, we are getting it done.
Human ResourcesMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at the human resources committee on Wednesday, the member for Beaches—East York confirmed that the Liberals want to take away choice in child care from Canadian parents. However, we should not be surprised. The Liberal leader has said that he would get rid of the UCCB, and the Liberal MP for St. Paul's said that mothers who stay at home to raise their kids do not have “a real job”.
Could the minister inform this House how our Conservative government's approach to children and families differs from that of the Liberals?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government does not agree with the Liberals on the issue at all. We believe that a strong family is part of the foundation of our great country. We believe that parents know what is best for their children, which is why we are providing choice in child care, $100 a month with the universal child care benefit, because we know that parents know that our Conservative government is the only one that will stand up for choice for them.
Vale IncoMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for eight long months hundreds of workers in Labrador and thousands in Sudbury have been out on strike at Vale Inco operations. Families are suffering, communities are hurting. The Conservatives have taken a hands-off approach, abandoning workers, while in Labrador scab labour keeps filling the pockets of the company. 
When foreign interests take over, they are supposed to ensure a net benefit to Canadians.
Will the government stand up for Canada's interests and hold foreign companies accountable? Will the government stand up and tell Vale Inco to get back to the table, negotiate in good faith, and demonstrate there truly is a net benefit to Canada?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously to an hon. member, we do continue to monitor the situation. We hope that it gets resolved quickly in the interests of the people of Sudbury and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The hon. member rightly points out that this is an issue of provincial jurisdiction. 
We continue to monitor the situation and continue to look out for the best interests of all Canadians.
Canada PostMr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the budget implementation bill, the Conservative government is trying to slip in a provision to make outgoing international mail accessible to the competition, thereby attacking Canada Post's exclusive privilege and opening the door to full deregulation of the crown corporation.
Does the government realize that by avoiding debate on the issue, it is being anti-democratic? Will it agree to remove this provision from Bill C-9?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we support the important role that Canada Post plays in Canada not just for individuals and families, but also for Canadian businesses and the Canadian economy. We certainly have no intention to deregulate that one now.
ChileJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government's aid to Chile in the wake of the earthquake that rocked the country on February 27, 2010, I would like to know the government's complete list of commitments to current aid for the victims in Chile along with other efforts still under consideration. 
When will the Canadian government match dollar for dollar the personal donations of Canadians for the victims of the earthquake in Chile as it did for the earthquake in Haiti? When will the government give the same treatment to Chile as it gave to Haiti?
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada were exceptionally generous in the situation in Haiti. The Government of Canada matched that kind of generosity. 
The difference is the difference in the economies, the difference in the countries. The approach the Government of Canada is taking with respect to Chile is significantly different from the approach with respect to Haiti. 
The member's question belies the fact that he does not recognize the difference between the two societies and the two situations.
Presence in GalleryThe Deputy Speaker:  I would like to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of Her Royal Highness Princess Astrid of Belgium, the Roll Back Malaria Partnership Special Representative.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear! 

Routine Proceedings
Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French RepublicLawrence Cannon:  Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House and pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to table, in both official languages, the Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital signed on May 2, 1975, as amended by the protocol signed on January 16, 1987, and as further amended by the protocol signed November 30, 1995, signed in Paris on February 2, 2010.
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of South AfricaLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House and pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to table, in both official languages, the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding Mutual Assistance between their Customs Administrations, signed in Johannesburg on October 30, 2009.
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 five petitions.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation ActHon. Jay Hill:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the question of privilege relating to mailings sent to the riding of Mount Royal.
 If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the sixth report later this day. 
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the question of privilege relating to mailings sent to the riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore.
 If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the seventh report later this day.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Canadians from eastern Ontario and western Quebec concerning the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti.
The signatories are asking the government to be more flexible in determining who can be included in the family class. Specifically, they want the government to create a special immigration process to enable Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members who were personally and directly affected by the January 12, 2010, earthquake in Haiti, regardless of their age.
Daniel Petit: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadian citizens, I am presenting an initial petition condemning cyberporn and seeking to protect young people from becoming victims of child pornography.
I am presenting another petition from a group of Ontario citizens, also condemning child pornography, to prevent individuals who use online child pornography from attacking our young children.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by dozens of people from the riding of Nickel Belt. 
The petition states that when Canadian-owned Inco was acquired by Vale S.A. in 2006, the company made undertakings to the Government of Canada. When Canadian-owned Falconbridge was acquired by Xstrata, it also committed to undertakings with the Government of Canada. Industry Canada, Vale S.A. and Xstrata have refused to make these specific undertakings public. 
Therefore, the petitioners request that the Minister of Industry and the House of Commons amend section 36 of the Investment Canada Act in order to make the details of undertakings made by foreign companies during Canadian acquisitions public. They further request that the Minister of Industry make the undertakings made during the acquisition of Inco and Falconbridge public. They support Bill C-488, Bill C-489 and Bill C-490.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present. 
The first petition is on the long gun registry. It says that the long gun registry was originally budgeted to cost Canadians $2 million, but the cost spiralled out of control to an estimated price tag of $2 billion a decade later. The registry has not saved one single life since its introduction. 
The petitioners would rather see their taxpayer dollars being used to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They are therefore calling upon the House of Commons to support any legislation that would cancel the long gun registry and streamline the Firearms Act.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the second petition regards skin cancer. 
One in seven Canadians will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. Melanoma is the most serious type of skin cancer. It is one of the most rapidly increasing cancers in Canada and is the second most common cancer in young adults.
The petitioners are calling for support on a national skin cancer and melanoma initiative to provide much needed access to newer drug treatments and funding for research and educational programs.
The third—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
Dozens of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising. 
Legislation of this type has been in effect in Europe now for well over five years. The question is why Air Canada passengers should be treated better in Europe than in their home country, Canada.
 Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed these rules, it would cost them nothing.
The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the earthquake in Chile. As members know, on February 27, 2010 there was an 8.8 magnitude earthquake in southern Chile. Communities across Canada mobilized and money has been raised already. 
The question is when the Prime Minister is going to give the same treatment to the victims of the earthquake in Chile as he did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the earthquake in Chile.
Questions on the Order paperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 31, 32, 38, 89, 110 and 117.
Hon. John McKay:  With specific reference to the Development Assistance Accountability Act, in detail: (a) why has the NGO KAIROS had its funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) removed; and (b) how does KAIROS’ policies and programs not fit within the mandate of the Act or CIDA priorities?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: a) The Official Development Assistance Accountability Act (2008, c.17), stipulates that official development assistance may be provided only if the competent minister is of the opinion that it (a) contributes to poverty reduction; (b) takes into account the perspectives of the poor; and (c) is consistent with international human rights standards. 
This act provides a framework within which CIDA plans its directive development programming and responds to proposals from Canadian organizations.
CIDA receives more proposals than it has the budget to fund, so that even some proposals that meet the broad framework of the act must be turned down. 
b) Since taking office in 2006, our government has indicated both in Speeches from the Throne and subsequent budgets that we would be working to make Canada’s international assistance more effective.
A critical element of our effectiveness agenda is to focus our resources both geographically and thematically. Another element is to ensure that all of the projects we support deliver results that make a real difference in the lives of those living in poverty. With CIDA’s new approach to aid effectiveness, some program and project proposals will not be funded.
Ms. Megan Leslie:  With respect to the appointment to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Governing Council of Dr. Bernard Prigent, Vice President and Medical Director of Pfizer Canada: (a) as per the requirements for Order in Council (OIC) selection processes, what were the selection criteria developed to outline qualifications required for the position in question; (b) as per the requirements for OIC selection processes, how was the pool of suitable candidates reached; (c) before the Minister of Health made the recommendation of this appointment to the Governor General in Council, did she consult with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on the appointment and, if so, what was the Commissioner’s opinion and the reasons for it on the matter, and, if not, why not; (d) was anyone at CIHR given any opportunity to comment on the appointment prior to its announcement and, if not, why not, and, if so (i) who was given this opportunity, (ii) what responses were received, (iii) were any concerns of objections raised and, if so, what were they; (e) what options are available to the CIHR President, Governing Council members and Scientific Directors before and after an appointment is announced if they disagree with an Order in Council appointment because they anticipate it could negatively affect CIHR’s ability to fulfill its legislative mandate; (f) what options are available to the members of the CIHR Standing Committee on Ethics before and after an appointment is announced if they disagree with an Order in Council appointment because they anticipate it could negatively affect CIHR’s ability to fulfill its ethics mandate; (g) was anyone (apart from anyone at CIHR) outside of the Minister’s Office given any opportunity to comment on the appointment prior to its announcement and, if so, what were the responses, and, if not, why not; (h) did the Minister of Health consider names from pharmaceutical companies other than Pfizer and, if so, why was the Pfizer person selected instead of someone from a different company, and, if not, why not; (i) did the Minister of Health consider names of individuals from business sectors other than the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., banking, natural resources, etc.) and, if so, why was a person from the pharmaceutical industry selected instead of someone from a different sector, and, if not, why not; (j) where did Dr. Prigent’s name originate for consideration for membership on the CIHR Governing Council; and (k) who participated in any discussions with the Minister or her staff about the Minister’s recommendation of Dr. Prigent for membership on the CIHR Governing Council?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: a) Section 7(4) of the CIHR Act states that: “the governor in council shall appoint as members of the Governing Council women and men who are able to contribute to the achievement of the objective of the CIHR in the overall interests of Canadians. The governor in council shall consider appointing women and men who reflect the highest standards of scientific excellence and women and men who reflect a range of relevant backgrounds and disciplines.” When making appointments, the governor in council also takes into consideration the government's policy commitment of the science and technology strategy which states: “As the government fills vacancies on the councils’ governing bodies, it will seek out more business and community representation to ensure that the composition of granting council governing bodies reflects Canada’s broad economic and national interests.” 
A key consideration for the GIC is the CIHR mandate, which, as outlined in the CIHR Act, includes “accelerating the discovery of cures and treatments” as well as “facilitating the commercialization of health research in Canada and promoting economic development through health research”. As such, Dr. Prigent has been appointed as an individual for his skills and experience, including international clinical experience and personal competencies.
b) Members of CIHR’s governing council have an interest and expertise in health research and how research knowledge can be applied to improve the health of Canadians, strengthen the Canadian care system or improve the effectiveness of products and services. Highly qualified potential candidates are identified through a variety of means, including the scientific community, key partners in health research, advisory boards and past and present governing council members. 
c) No. The conduct and actions of governor in council, GiC, appointees while in office are governed by the Conflict of Interest Act, the Ethical Guidelines for Public Office Holders and the Guidelines for the Political Activities of Public Office Holders. 
d) Appointments to the CIHR Governing Council are made by the governor in council, on the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. When making these appointments, the GiC takes the appointment criteria outlined in the CIHR Act into consideration. Candidates who are able to make a significant contribution to CIHR, meet demographic requirements and possess the skills and competencies that the governing council as a whole should possess, may be recommended to the minister by the president. Recommendations are welcome and Dr. Prigent was recommended to the minister by Dr. Alain Beaudet, president of CIHR. 
e) The options available to the CIHR president, governing council members, scientific directors and members of the CIHR standing committee on ethics are the same options as available to all members of the public. Dr. Prigent was recommended to the minister by Dr. Beaudet.
 f) The options available to the CIHR president, governing council members, scientific directors and members of the CIHR Standing Committee on Ethics are the same options as available to all members of the public.
 g) Appointments to the CIHR governing council are made by the governor in council, on the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. When making these appointments, the GiC takes the appointment criteria outlined in the CIHR Act into consideration.
 h) Dr. Prigent was appointed to the governing council based on his skills, experience and personal competencies, and following recommendation by Dr. Beaudet. 
i) In order to fill a gap in expertise and experience identified by the governing council, candidates with international experience in pharmaceutical innovations were considered. 
j) Dr. Prigent was recommended to the minister by Dr. Beaudet. Dr. Prigent’s appointment responds to a request from the CIHR governing council to recommend a candidate with international experience in pharmaceutical innovations, along with valued competencies such as demonstrated leadership, strategic decision-making, integrity and accountability to the Minister of Health. 
k) Appointments to the CIHR governing council are made by the governor in council, on the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. When making these appointments, the GiC takes the appointment criteria outlined in the CIHR Act into consideration. 
Hon. Maria Minna:  With regard to the Employment Insurance (EI) program: (a) how many individuals applied for EI between September 1, 2008 and November 5, 2009; (b) what percentage of those were women, and what percentage of those women were denied EI; (c) what percentage of (a) were part-time workers and what percentage were full-time workers; (d) what percentage of (a) were the result of (i) job loss, (ii) parental leave, (iii) compassionate leave, (iv) maternity leave; and (e) how many individuals in (b) will receive extended benefits under the legislative changes proposed in Bill C-50 from the second session of the 40th Parliament, An Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act, of the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: a) A total of 3.91 million applications for EI benefits were submitted electronically between September 1, 2008 and November 5, 2009. Paper applications are only given out in exceptional situations and account for approximately 1% of the total applications received. 
b) Women represent 40.6% of this volume of applications. The ratio of denied claims is not available by gender. 
c) The percentages of (a) that were full time or part time workers are not available. 
d) The percentages of (a) that were the result of: (i) Job Loss = 73.5% (ii) Maternity/Parental leave = 11.8% (iii) Compassionate Care leave = .05% 
e) There are 323,259 women with active claims that have the potential to receive extended benefits under the legislative changes in Bill C-50, An Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act. 
All women who have or have had active claims in 2009 and 2010 are eligible for the 5 additional weeks of regular benefits provided by budget 2009.
Of over 2.7 million Canadians who are self-employed, over 940,000 of those are women, or approximately 35%. These women are now eligible to register for EI special benefits, which the government introduced in Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, which was passed and received royal assent in Fall 2009.
As announced in budget 2010, all Canadians who have a close family member murdered as a result of a crime will be more easily able to access EI sickness benefits, as a part of enhancements to the federal victims strategy.
And the government recently tabled legislation to provide all members of the Canadian Forces with better and more flexible access to EI parental benefits that are interrupted or deferred due to mandatory deployment. 
Hon. Carolyn Bennett:  With respect to the recommendations of the Trans Fat Task Force final report, TRANSforming the Food Supply, and the government’s ensuing two year voluntary trans fat reduction period, that ended in June 2009: (a) what is the status of the release of the final round of trans fat monitoring data which was due in June 2009; (b) what is the government’s official response to the two year voluntary reduction period; and (c) what does the government plan to do regarding its stated commitment, from June 2007, to develop trans fat regulations?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: a) Health Canada posted the fourth (4th) set of data from the trans fat monitoring program on its website on December 22, 2009. This information is available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tfa-age_four-data_quatr-donn_store-eng.php. 
b) Overall, results obtained from the trans fat monitoring program from 2005-2009 indicate that through the voluntary approach, industry has made progress in reducing trans fats in their products while not increasing saturated fats. Most of the foodservice industry, as well as many prepackaged food manufacturers have been successful in reducing trans fats in their foods. For example, 78% of french fries and 86% of crackers were meeting the trans fat limit. The results also show that there are some sectors that face challenges in reducing the trans fat content of their products. For example, some bakery products, donuts, cookies, and desserts remain high in trans fat. Additionally, small and medium-sized food service operators face challenges controlling their ingredients for their products. As such, product reformulation in these sectors has been slower.
 (c) Health Canada has been analyzing the impact of the voluntary program on the average trans fat intake of Canadians. The results indicate that further reductions are needed to fully meet the public health objectives and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Currently, the department is analyzing the most effective way to achieve the public health objectives, which includes assessing regulatory and non-regulatory options. 
Hon. Navdeep Bains:  With regard to Pearson International Airport: (a) what are the government’s plans, including timelines to address congestion in the next 25 years; (b) how much government and Greater Toronto Airport Authority funding is budgeted for this expansion; (c) how much has the Department of Transport collected in rent from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority for each year since fiscal year 2005-2006; and (d) how much have the government and its agencies spent on land acquisitions since fiscal year 2005-2006, where is this land located and what are the budget and locations proposed for future acquisitions?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: a)The Greater Toronto Airports Authority governs financial and operational management of Pearson International Airport. Questions concerning congestion at Pearson International Airport should be directed towards the airports authority as these questions pertain to its lines of business. 
b) Questions regarding the Greater Toronto Airports Authority’s plans to expand its infrastructure should be directed towards the airports authority. The Government of Canada does not plan to fund airport infrastructure expansions to deal with congestion at Pearson International Airport. 
c) The following is a list of the fiscal year rent collected (including the impact of rent deferrals/repayments) from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority: 2005/06 - $140,206,000; 2006/07 - $152,794,000; 2007/08 - $151,276,000; 2008/09 - $144,974,000; 2009/10 - $142,811,000 (forecast); Total Rent - $732,061,000. 
d) Questions about general Government land acquisitions should be directed to Public Works and Government Services Canada. With regards to Pearson International Airport, the Government of Canada does not plan to pursue any land acquisitions.
Mr. Marc Garneau:  With regard to research and development (R&amp;D): (a) what specific obligations, if any, did the government establish for General Motors and Chrysler to perform R&amp;D activity in Canada when it agreed to provide each company with a financial rescue package in the spring of 2009; (b) what undertaking did each company provide to perform R&amp;D in Canada; and (c) what percentage does their Canadian R&amp;D activity represent with respect to their total R&amp;D activity?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to research and development, R&amp;D, the response is as follows: a) The conditions set out by the governments of Canada and Ontario for Chrysler Canada to receive additional support included assurances that Chrysler will encourage training and R&amp;D in Canada in partnership with Fiat. 
For General Motors (GM), at the time the agreement was signed, the government required, and GM made a commitment worth approximately CAN$1 billion toward R&amp;D investments in Canada starting in 2010 and going through 2016. 
b) Chrysler has undertaken to develop linkages between Fiat’s research activity and Canadian universities, colleges and other research institutions with respect to automotive R&amp;D and educational activities. Chrysler also performs R&amp;D activities in Canada at its Automotive Research and Development Centre, a joint venture between Chrysler Canada and the University of Windsor. 
 GM plans to invest approximately CAN$1 billion over the next seven years in green R&amp;D and innovation focusing on energy diversification, fuel economy improvements and vehicle electrification, through its Oshawa-based engineering centre. Canadian suppliers and universities will be critical partners in this research and innovation. 
c) The information is commercially confidential.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski:  Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 3, 15, 16, 17, 22, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 68, 73 and 87 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. 
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:  With regard to the transitional measures for Employment Insurance economic regions: (a) will the economic regions change after April 10, 2010; and (b) will the transitional measures for the economic regions be completely eliminated after April 10, 2010?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mrs. Maria Mourani:  With regard to the $25 million in humanitarian assistance that Canada provided to Lebanon over two years, as mentioned in a August 16, 2006, backgrounder on the Prime Minister’s website (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=5&amp;id=1287): how was this $25 million spent, specifically (i) which United Nations organizations or NGOs received funding, (ii) what was the nature of the projects funded, (iii) how much was provided per project, (iv) in which year were they were carried out?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Maria Mourani:  With regard to the additional funding the Government of Canada allocated for Lebanon at the International Conference of Support to Lebanon, held in Paris in January 2007 (http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/lebanon-liban/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng&amp;highlights_file=&amp;left_menu_en=&amp;left_menu_fr=&amp;mission=): how has the additional $20 announced by the Government of Canada been spent thus far, specifically (i) which United Nations organizations or NGOs have received funding, (ii) what was the nature of the projects funded, (iii) how much was allocated to each project, (iv) in which year were the projects carried out?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Maria Mourani:  With regard to the Skills Link program of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, which organizations in the Quebec region received funding under this program, how much was allocated per project, what was the duration of the projects and the addresses of the organizations sponsoring the projects (i) in 2007, (ii) in 2008, (iii) in 2009?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Larry Bagnell:  In the matter of global warming, the thawing of the northern permafrost, and damage to infrastructure: (a) has the government conducted any studies to ascertain the level of potential damage to all government infrastructure in the Territories of Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut; (b) what is the cost associated with this damage to replace, reconstruct, or stabilize this infrastructure; (c) what is the time frame in regard to making these repairs or replacing damaged infrastructure; (d) have municipal and territorial partners been advised of the level of damage as a result of thawing permafrost; (e) have residents of the North been advised of potential hazards resulting from global warming; (f) what are the monetary costs associated with the said study; (g) when was the study conducted and by whom; (h) how is the government monitoring northern infrastructure deterioration from global warming; (i) how frequently is the infrastructure being inspected; (j) is any of the economic stimulus money earmarked for the three territories being directed to repairs or new construction of infrastructure damaged or weakened by thawing permafrost, and, if so how much; (k) what are the names of the projects, the associated costs, the location of the projects and the projected completion dates for all projects funded by earmarked money as specified in (j); and (l) given that the MacKenzie Valley pipeline is a major infrastructure project scheduled for the North, has the government applied its assessment of global warming and permafrost melting damage to this project as well, and, if so (i) what were the results, (ii) what are the government’s plans in this matter?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Massimo Pacetti:  What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in fiscal year 2007-2008, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Massimo Pacetti:  What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in fiscal year 2008-2009, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Luc Desnoyers:  With respect to military contracts between $5 million and $100 million awarded since January 2006 that include industrial and regional benefit (IRB) requirements, for each contract: (a) what is the name of the principal contractor; (b) what is the name of the Canadian company that concluded a partnership agreement with the principal contractor under the IRB Policy; (c) briefly, what is the project’s description; (d) where will most of the project be carried out; (e) how long will the project take; and (f) what is the project’s IRB value in terms of the IRB Policy?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Andrew Kania:  With regard to government print advertising: (a) how much has the government spent on dealing with the H1N1 pandemic through advertising in Canada, broken down by province; and (b) when was each advertisement published, and in which publication?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kirsty Duncan:  With respect to the climate summit in Copenhagen and climate change: (a) what criteria needed to be met in order to be part of the Canadian delegation; (b) what were the name and position of each member of the Canadian delegation, what expertise and skills did each bring to the table, and for what time period were each in Copenhagen; (c) what was the total budget for the delegation, from flights to accommodation and living expenses; (d) what, if any, offsets were purchased for the delegation; (e) what was the description, in detail, of the Canadian climate change plan, and when will it be revealed to Canadians; (f) who were all the stakeholders consulted in the development of the plan, and how does each goal/target reflect or does not reflect each stakeholder's views; (g) did the government include the voice of Canadians who are on the “front line of climate change”, and were those who will be impacted by climate change meaningfully involved, and, if so, how; (h) what accountability measures, if any, were in place to ensure that the Canadian delegation would be responsible to those Canadians who will be particularly impacted (e.g., those living in low-lying areas and Aboriginal peoples); (i) what has been the stakeholder response to the plan, particularly from business, NGOs, scientists, and all stakeholders, and if available, what is the actual response of stakeholders' consulted; (j) what were the specific goals of the Canadian delegation, and how do they compare (in advance and afterward) with those of the G20 or OECD in terms of baseline, absolute reductions, and target date; (k) did the Canadian delegation support the notion that climate change is not just an environmental issue, but rather a human rights issue and a justice issue and, if so, what is the description, in detail, of Canada's position; (l) did the Canadian delegation listen to the world's “frontline voice”, such as Bangladesh's and the Maldives', and act upon scientific and humanitarian evidence; (m) what were the projected costs of mitigating acid precipitation and reducing chemicals that destroyed stratospheric ozone, the costs of inaction, and what were the actual costs required; (n) what are the projected costs of adapting to and mitigating climate change in Canada today, and what are the costs of inaction for each year, five years, and decade delayed; (o) will the government commit new research dollars to support global climate research and services; (p) in detail, what percentage of 2009's stimulus was “green”, and how was it a “triple win” for the economy, jobs, and the atmosphere, and going forward, what specific targets in Canada's climate change plan will be a “triple win”; and (q) what are the costs the government is willing to pay to mitigate climate change, and how do these costs compare with the projected economic, environmental and social costs of climate change?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kirsty Duncan:  With respect to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI) and the Level 5 Laboratory (L5L): (a) what are the details of the initial request for proposals for the CHVI; (b) what amount were the government and the Gates Foundation planning to invest in the CHVI and what were the scheduled dates for investment; (c) how many bids for the CHVI were submitted and by which organizations; (d) what are the details of the CHVI process for determining suitable award winners; (e) what were the selection criteria for awarding the CHVI bid and who was responsible for identifying the criteria; (f) how many people made up the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids, how were they selected, and from which disciplines and geographic areas were they drawn; (g) were representatives from the pharmaceutical industry invited to be part of the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what date did each representative serve and, if not, why not; (h) what were the results for each of the selection criterion for each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI and how were the bids ranked; (i) did the independent evaluation committee for the CHVI bids reach a recommendation, and, if so, on what date, and to whom was the information conveyed in the government; (j) was there a steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, who were the members, who was the chair and what was its mandate; (k) were there changes to the steering committee for the CHVI bids and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons; (l) was any organization bidding on the CHVI informed, formally or otherwise, that it had been chosen to host the facility and, if so, how and on what date; (m) did the federal government put up a notice on its Web site to announce that the CHVI project had been cancelled or would not proceed and, if so, on what date; (n) was the notice in (m) removed from the Web site and, if so, on what date and for what reason; (o) have each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI seen the results of the peer-review process and, if so, on what date and, if not, why not; (p) what constructive criticism was given to each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI; (q) what specific problems were identified that prevented each of the organizations bidding on the CHVI from being selected; (r) why were bidding organizations not encouraged to redevelop their CHVI bid; (s) why and by whom was the CHVI cancelled; (t) on what dates was the CHVI project cancelled, were the submitting organizations formally informed and was the Canadian public informed; (u) what do “changing needs” and “reallocation of resources” mean in relation to the cancellation of the CHVI project; (v) what post-mortem audit does the government plan to undertake to investigate how Canadian investigators and research centres failed to meet the selection criteria for the CHVI bid; (w) how will the planned CHVI investment monies be spent; (x) what are the details of both the CHVI’s and the L5L’s history from January 2009; (y) what are the organizations involved in the L5L, and what, if any, overlap (e.g., goals, funds, personnel, etc.) exists between the International Centre for Infectious Diseases, who was bidding for the CHVI, and the L5L; (z) what, if any, involvement does the government have in the L5L; and (aa) what, if any, review process is in place for the L5L?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Denise Savoie:  With respect to the pending sale of the CANDU reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: (a) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted into the impact of this sale on (i) Canada’s national security, (ii) energy resilience, (iii) global nuclear non-proliferation, (iv) human rights, (v) global security, and what are their results; (b) what is the full amount of federal funds dispersed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, from its inception to present, from 2000 to date, and in the last available fiscal year; (c) what is the amount of federal funds dispersed to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited specifically for the CANDU reactor division, from its inception to present, from 2000 to date, and in the last available fiscal year; (d) what is the government’s estimated surplus or shortfall between the total federal funds dispersed for the CANDU reactor division and the expected sale price of the division; (e) by what other means does the government plan to recover the federal funds dispersed for the CANDU reactor division in the future, and what is the estimated amount to be recovered; (f) what is the division’s net income from its inception to present, from 2000 to present, and for the last available fiscal year; (g) what is the estimated market value of the division; (h) what is the government’s target sale price of the division; (i) what is the government’s full assessment of the present market outlook for CANDU reactor division, including potential for sales and competitive challenges from next-generation light-water reactors; and (j) what steps has the government taken, or will the government take, to ensure that this sale will never result in the enrichment of plutonium to weapon-grade status by any actor as a result of CANDU reactors?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund, since March 2009 to present: (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 provincial 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 go 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)
[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
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActJay Hill:  moved:
 That in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill; 
 and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day designated for the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. 

[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. The minister knows full well that the Canada-Colombia agreement is a bad agreement.
The Bloc Québécois wonders why he is fast-tracking a bad agreement.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to inform the House that there are 30 minutes for questions. If the member has a question or comment on this motion, he can use that time.
The motion is moved, so we can start the debate.
If members who are interested in asking questions could stand, I could get an idea as to how to allocate the time accordingly. We will try to keep questions to about one minute and responses to about one minute to accommodate as many members as possible.
The hon. member for Wascana.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a surprise on a Friday afternoon. Would the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons or the minister of trade be so kind as to explain why the government believes this extraordinary measure is appropriate in these circumstances? 
If this dubious motion were to pass, could the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons give the House any indication when the day, which is referred to in the motion, would in fact be allocated by the government? 
Also, could we have a specific confirmation from the minister of trade that the amendment to this legislation, which was discussed earlier in the debate, as proposed by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, will in fact be accepted by the government at committee stage of this bill?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I will take those three questions in reverse.
 First, in terms of the motion proposed by the member for Kings—Hants, as I have indicated previously to the House, that is acceptable to the government and we will treat it accordingly.
Second, the date proposed for the debate to continue under this motion would be Monday after this coming weekend.
Why do we need a motion like this? The purpose of the House, the purpose of our parliamentary system is to give an opportunity to allow views on issues to be aired. We allow for full and proper debate. We often trouble ourselves with what does represent a full and proper debate.
In the House, through the previous session and the current session, a total of 89 members from the opposition parties have spoken to the bill. There has been considerable debate. In particular, I point out that the New Democratic Party members, who have taken the lead, have delivered 38 speeches in opposition. They actually have 37 members of Parliament, so there has been an awful lot of opportunity for them to let their views be heard.
Similarly the Bloc Québécois members have spoken 35 times and they have a total of 48 members. Therefore, there has been—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister said. But what people need to understand is that the Conservative Party chose to prorogue the House. The Conservatives are the ones who put an end to the debate. If they had not prorogued the House, the debate likely would have ended.
I have a problem with the fact that the Liberals are in lockstep with the Conservatives on this issue. We do not need a time allocation motion, but time to debate a bad bill. 
The Canada-Colombia agreement is a bad agreement. All members need the opportunity to speak to this bill and explain to Quebeckers and Canadians that this is a bad agreement both for Canada and for Colombia.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the issue that because of the prorogation, there is an opportunity for all the speakers to speak again. It is all the same members of the House. It is the same Parliament. The technicality on which the member relies on for that argument is not one that we are talking about here. We are talking about the spirit and the intent of allowing a full and fair debate, a full exploration of the issues.
In this situation there have been 35 speeches by 48 Bloc members. We have had 38 speeches from the NDP members, with 37 members from that party. Clearly these two parties, which fiercely oppose the bill, views have been heard and they have been heard thoroughly.
I do not know at this point in time if there are any new novel arguments or new novel points to be made. It is in circumstances like this where there is a clear intention to delay and obstruct a bill like this that a motion like this—
The Deputy Speaker: Questions, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, there is one little novel question, and that is the election that is coming up in Colombia. I am sure it is just a coincidence that the government is now trying to ram through the bill just before the election. It is sort of an interference in that election process that it wants to have this deal signed and delivered for its friends in Colombia.
On this side of the House, the NDP members, and we know our colleagues in the Bloc, oppose this deal. It is a bad deal for the people of Colombia.
Notwithstanding the fact that there has been debate on the bill, why is the government now trying to ram it through at this time just before the election in Colombia? Is there some kind of deal that it made with that government to try to get the bill through? Is that what the government has tried to do?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the deal that was made was a free trade deal, which was signed some years ago. It has been debated in Parliament for literally years now and it is an agreement that we would like to see passed.
However, clearly there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever to any electoral events in Colombia. There is every indication that whomever might win any upcoming election would still be strongly supportive of any free trade agreement. In fact, I know my hon. friend is quite familiar with the procedures of the House. We will still have to face committee, report stage, third reading and if we get through that process here, then it has to go through the exact same process—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I too am opposed to what I would describe as the government muzzling us on Bill C-2. The government is trying to shove down our throats an agreement that has to be debated before it can be adopted.
It is somewhat ironic that the government is trying today to muzzle us when the Prime Minister promised, during the election campaign, that there would be a full debate on all international agreements signed by Canada. Now he wants to block debate on these issues.
My question is for the minister. How can he try to muzzle us when, across the border in the United States, parliamentarians are slowing down and trying to find out more about the impact such a free trade agreement might have on such things as human rights and the environment?
How can the minister, who goes on about harmonization with the United States every chance he gets, try to muzzle us today when across the border they are doing everything they can to slow down the adoption of a U.S.-Colombia agreement?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I paid attention when President Barack Obama delivered the state of the union address. The message he gave was quite the opposite of what our friend represents. He actually indicated the importance of moving forward on free trade with Colombia, notwithstanding that this was not a position traditionally held by his party.
Clearly there is a broadening consensus, whether it be in Europe, the United States or here in Canada, that a free trade agreement and the implementation of that agreement with Colombia would be a positive thing, economically for the people of our countries as well as for the people of Colombia. That is why we are moving forward with it.
Brian Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister some pretty simple questions. They have to do with the annual review of human rights both in Canada and Colombia, which has been grafted on to the tree of the bill, I suppose, making it more palatable to many.
First, does he think that takes away a lot of the concern there might have been with respect to the bill? Second, why was it not contemplated in the first place? Third, in the future will the government graft such automatic reviews in any bilateral agreements that it undertakes?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, first, on the proposed amendment from the member for Kings—Hants, that is one of the reasons why we need to get this to committee. That amendment cannot be put until we are at committee and past second reading here. To the extent there are some who look to rely on that for certainty and reassurance, this will happen once we get to that stage.
With respect to the amendment as we have heard it and have had it proposed, it should be clear that this government is quite satisfied with the progress Colombia has been making on human rights. I have not heard any critics credibly say that the free trade agreement we have proposed, the free trade agreement that has been signed with Colombia, would adversely affect human rights. They simply say there are reasons why we would not want to do it, and this is a chance to shine a spotlight on human rights in Colombia. In fact, most agree that it would improve the situation of those living in Colombia.
As far as our government is concerned, the parallel labour accord and the parallel environmental accord are sufficient. However, we do not have an objection and we are quite happy to support the amendment that has been proposed by the Liberal Party and the member for Kings—Hants.
We do not think it is necessary to have it in every free trade agreement. We understand there are special concerns and circumstances that have arisen in this case, which need to be addressed. That is why we have agreed to it in this circumstance.
 We believe our general standard practice of the labour accords and the environmental accords have been sufficient to address the concerns with most of the countries we enter into free trade agreements.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions. I think it is telling that the minister has suggested this is somehow novel. I do not think there is anything novel about this. The government seems to be shutting down debate. When did it come up with this idea? Why did he not share this procedural parlour trick with everyone? If it was something he is doing in good stead to get his legislation through, fine, but he should not pretend that this is anything but the government trying to ram something through and limit the debate.
As was suggested earlier, this place shut down for an awfully long time. It was the government's decision to prorogue Parliament. The minister will know this. Even before he was the minister of his current portfolio, he was in cabinet. He knows that prorogation means a reset on the legislation. It is not credible for the minister to say that while the government prorogued, everyone knew the positions on this particular bill and we should just have what we had before and bring it forward. That is not how it works in our system. 
When Parliament has prorogued, it means that all legislation has to be brought back, and it means that we go through the procedure and process of debate again. He claimed that he knows that the opposition is against the bill and that is grounds to limit debate. I would like him to go back to when he was in opposition and to credibly stand by those comments.
The government should not be in a position where it can limit debate like it is doing now. Mr. Speaker, let me finish. We have 30 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. In fairness, we do have a 30-minute debate here, but there are other members who wish to ask questions. I will go to the Minister of International Trade.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has a very interesting concept of the idea of limiting debate. The NDP has 37 members in the House. The NDP has delivered 38 speeches in opposition to this. I do not see how, under any conceivable notion, one would see limiting debate to one further day as an unreasonable limitation of their right to speak.
I can understand why the NDP members have difficulty coming to positions in caucus when that is their view of insufficient debate. However, the one thing we do know is that they never have difficulty coming to a position on free trade agreements. They have opposed every single one that has ever come along. 
Our job as a government is to allow full debate to occur. That has happened, but it is also to get some work done here, get some results and get the free trade agreement in place so that we can improve the working conditions for Canadians, improve our economy and create jobs and opportunity for Canadians and Colombians.
We want to make progress forward in a world where free trade is indeed the wave of economic growth in the future and not look back to the days of protectionism in the past that the NDP yearns for. Well, guess what; it is a better world today. We trade all around the world. Jobs are created all around the world and everybody has a higher standard of living as a result. That will be the case here in Canada and in Colombia after this agreement.
Jean-Yves Laforest: Mr. Speaker, how could the minister say to a Liberal MP that he did not believe that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would have a negative impact on human rights in Colombia?
This agreement will allow a significant increase in investment in mining companies in Colombia, namely Canadian mining companies. Over the years, the mining companies' activities have been detrimental to human rights in Colombia. Thousands of people have had to move away from their usual surroundings to large cities and they have lost their autonomy. A number of unionists defending the rights of those people have also been killed.
I do not understand how the minister can say that the bill on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will not affect human rights.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in this agreement we have a parallel accord on the environment, which helps protect the conditions of people in the areas where economic activity will be taking place. We also have a parallel agreement in labour, which includes, among other things, entrenching and protecting the rights to free association, to be a part of a union, to advocate one's case. That creates yet another point of control, of oversight, of respect for those rights. 
Colombia has to take them into account because of the fact it has something at stake, and that is its trading relationship with Canada and its agreement with Canada. It is an example of how we are improving the conditions for Colombians should we move ahead with this agreement.
I reject the notion that investments that create jobs for people in Colombia will hurt them. We actually think jobs for people here in Canada are good for Canadians. We think jobs in Colombia for Colombians are good for Colombians.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, clearly the government has embarked on a process of closure here. 
It was the current government that prorogued the House and set back all of this legislation. The government set back not only this bill, but dozens of other bills that we worked very hard on to get them to the stages where they were. Just with the stroke of a pen, the Conservative government shut down the House and put everything back to square one. Now the government expects things to be put back together, as if it did not create the situation in the first place.
In a provincial legislature like Manitoba's, members can make amendments and debate those amendments. The government brought in a resolution a few weeks ago to limit the amendments. It put a chain around us and told us we could not amend the bill. The government let us go through our speakers' list and now it is trying to restrict us even more by shutting down the debate. That is what this is all about. 
The government has waited until a Friday afternoon to do this when it knows some members have gone back to their ridings. This is all part of the Conservatives' parliamentary warfare that they are conducting against the opposition in this House.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary warfare is the unprecedented delay and obstruction filibuster that Bill C-2 has been receiving at the hands of the New Democratic Party in particular.
Our rules contemplate that each member can speak once. As a result of there being two separate sessions of this Parliament, this bill has been spoken to by 38 members of the New Democratic Party, yet that party only has 37 members in the House. That is the most interesting definition of denying them an opportunity to speak that I have ever heard. 
The New Democratic Party has embarked on a process of delay and obstruction at every stage of this bill. Those members do not want to see the bill advance. If they wanted to see the bill advance, if they wanted to make amendments to it, they would have an opportunity to do that at committee. 
Let us get this bill through second reading. Let us get it to committee where members can have a opportunity to speak to it and participate and make amendments, as the Liberal Party has indicated it wishes to do. We have indicated an openness to the Liberal Party in doing so. Let us get on with doing some real work and delivering some results for Canadians.
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing yet again that the Conservatives do not care for parliamentary debate. The government prorogued the House and now we are debating the agreement between Canada and Colombia, which is critical to the people of Colombia, Quebec and Canada.
We are against this agreement, as are many social groups, unions and women's groups because in Colombia, human rights and environmental standards are not being respected.
I took part in a parliamentary mission to Colombia as part of my work with the Standing Committee on International Trade. We met with numerous groups who are opposed to this agreement, which would worsen the human rights situation in Colombia.
Did the minister read the report from the Standing Committee on International Trade before he introduced this bill? I do not think that he did because the agreement was signed before we even returned from the mission in Colombia. The government spent a large amount of money sending a parliamentary committee to Colombia to look at the issue, but then it did not even read the committee's report.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I have paid great attention, with interest, to the work of the committee. Even though this bill has not yet arrived at the committee, the committee has already studied this bill twice. They have already studied the subject matter of this bill twice, so that tells me something.
I have looked at what some of the witnesses there have said in appearing at the committee. This is so long ago, last year, that I was not even minister back then. I read this from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives' executive vice-president, David Stewart-Patterson:
 In this environment, I think it's vital for Canadian companies to continue to do everything possible to diversify their export markets. Passing Bill C-23 would reinforce these efforts. Conversely, further delays in passage of this bill would undermine the goal of improving Canada's global trade performance and slow our return to strong economic growth. 
Further, he said:
 Colombia's tariffs on Canadian goods currently range from 15% to 108%, which obviously represents a huge disadvantage right now for Canadian exporters. Passage of Bill C-23 would erase that disadvantage and help Canadian workers, farmers, and businesses stay ahead of our global competitors. 
That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to create jobs and opportunity for Canadians, success for Canadian businesses and farmers. We are working hard to make it happen and those parties are doing everything they can to delay and obstruct the success of our work.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, my area of expertise and particular interest is the environment.
Since Brian Mulroney's government, the Conservatives have put forward a number of free trade proposals, some of which have been implemented, that are a race to the bottom in many areas but especially on the environment. Dozens of environmental groups have castigated Colombia's almost total lack of environmental protection in one of the most sensitive and biodiverse regions on the planet. Not one has endorsed it.
I would like to read from the proposed Canada-Colombia free trade agreement:
 Each Party shall ensure that it maintains appropriate procedures for assessing the environmental impacts in accordance with national law... 
The problem is that Colombia has virtually no environmental regulations. It has virtually no environmental laws. It has no willingness to protect either human rights or the environment. 
For the hon. member of the Conservative Party to say that there are parallel agreements in the environment is to avoid the facts. Could he respond to this please?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have a free trade agreement but we also have aside it two parallel agreements, one on labour and one on the environment. These create obligations on both parties. That means obligations on the Colombian government. One of those agreements is entirely focused on the environment and the protection of the environment.
If this bill does not pass, if this agreement does not come into effect, those obligations of Colombia with regard to the environment do not come into force. That is why I am bewildered at the efforts here by the opposition parties to claim that they want to protect the environment and the rights of workers in Colombia, but then do not give them the benefit of the protections that this agreement proposes to give to them.
This is an opportunity to see benefits, improvements and conditions in Colombia and in Canada, but particularly on the environment side and the labour side in Colombia. These are things that all parties, if they believe in the things they say they do, will support, but instead they do not support it. They take every opportunity they can to speak, and in the case of the member's party, the NDP, we had 38 speeches from 37 members. We have heard a lot. It is time now to move to the next stage.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is currently doing nothing to force Canadian companies to be socially responsible when they invest abroad.
The Bloc Québécois has always subscribed to the principle that international trade must allow for the mutual enrichment and development of the parties. The new rules in the 2010 budget create loopholes that benefit extractive and mining companies. 
I am opposed to this fast tracking procedure, which would prevent parliamentarians from fully examining all important aspects affecting the Colombian population.
There are new facts and elements that must be studied further. I feel we should exercise due diligence with a request to fast track the adoption of an international agreement between Canada and Colombia.
How can the department attempt to impose this agreement when Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the other government departments involved do not follow up on requests for access to information on the matter?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we believe that if there are new interesting questions for members opposite to address, we might have heard them doing that during the debate so far, but the debate has, once it started getting into the thirties, been a little bit repetitious. We have been hearing the same themes and we are hearing them in the question and answer period. 
The fact is, the opposition parties, with 89 speeches so far on this, have had a full opportunity to debate the issue. The bill still needs to go to committee where it will have a full and ample debate and clause-by-clause study. After that, it will come back here for report stage and third reading debate and then over to the Senate for all those stages all over again.
It is quite clear from the other parties that there is no point at which those two opposition parties will be satisfied. Their agenda is clear and simple. They are taking every step possible to obstruct and delay this debate and prevent the bill's passage. That is why, unfortunately, after 89 speeches at second reading stage, we need to use this measure to allow it to get to the next stage of work.
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I know the government has agreed to support an amendment to this legislation at committee but as I look at it I just have a sense that those types of amendments just might be beyond the scope of the bill at committee. We might run into things like challenges to the chair and it might not be a straight line.
I am wondering if the government has actually scoped out how it intends to facilitate the amendment of this nature to the bill and whether it has considered a possible motion of instruction to the committee that would follow adoption of the bill at second reading, just to ensure that those amendments can happen.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: As I say, Mr. Speaker, we are a little bit into the speculative realm because the amendment has not actually been put. We have a clear indication of roughly what it would be from the opposition Liberals and we have indicated our willingness to support it. We are certainly happy to discuss the best way to get those mechanics to happen, but before we can even get there we need to pass the motion before the House today.
Jean Dorion: Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times during the debate, but it is worth repeating, that the real purpose of this agreement is not to increase trade between Colombia and Canada but to implement the provisions on Canadian investments in Colombia.
The fact is that this bill will result in Colombia relinquishing its authority to legislate in a number of areas. Canadian companies that invest in Colombia will in future be able to sue the Colombian government if new measures are adopted in all sorts of areas—particularly the environment, labour legislation, and so forth—which would reduce their profits.
First, we believe that it is always wrong for countries to essentially abandon their right to legislate, and that it is especially tragic in the case of a developing country such as Colombia. 
For that reason, we must oppose this bill. A number of Colombian as well as Quebec and Canadian organizations share the Bloc's view on this matter.
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the nature of every international agreement any country enters into involves the surrendering of a little bit of sovereignty and the agreement to accept certain norms and standards. When we sign on to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights we are, for example, doing that. Every country is. 
We in Canada believe that the more we can move countries to accept these kinds of norms and enter into these kinds of agreements, and we have seen this over the course of history, is that the living of conditions have improved and human rights have improved. That is the nature of international agreements, that is what happens from greater trading relations between countries and that is what this agreement would help to further advance.
 I am very surprised to hear a member of the Bloc Québécois opposing that kind of international engagement because it is certainly not what I have seen from that party in the past.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
 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: 
 Call in the members. 
[Stage Direction]
 And the bells having rung: 
The Deputy Speaker: The question is as follows. May I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker: [Chair read text of motion to House]
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #26
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings of the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m., plus whatever time was consumed so we can get on to private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
AGRICULTURE[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has seven minutes left to conclude his remarks. I will give the floor to him.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 460, which states:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 
At first blush, this seems like a reasonable proposal. However, once one listens to the speeches of the various presenters on this bill, one soon gets a different impression of what this resolution is about. In fact, if the government were so intent on taking action in the area, one would think it would have opted to bring in a government-sponsored bill. We see this with the government in a lot of different areas. It has backbench members bring in initiatives under the umbrella of private members' bills. The government is just sitting back and not taking the initiative.
This is one such example. Clearly, we are involving a number of areas here. I will get to the specifics later, but a proper bill that would be brought in would include changes to several current acts in the Parliament. The basis upon which the motion is framed makes perfect sense. We should not be duplicating research. However, there are obviously other issues involved.
My colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, did speak to this bill in the first hour. He expressed the view that it is no secret that Canadian farmers often experience frustration in not being able to access the latest technology the way their competitors do, because American companies will go to the markets with the greatest population. It just makes sense. 
If companies are going to develop a product, before they consider developing it for a country with 30 million people, like Canada, they will look at introducing and developing that product for the market that has the larger population, which in the case of the United States is around 300 million people. If they are going to invest a tremendous amount of money in research and development to develop a product, they are going to put those resources and dollars toward developing the product to the American standards, which in fact may be lower.
The conundrum we have is that we do not want to disadvantage our farmers. At the end of the day, if an American product such as, say, a fertilizer is approved in the United States and is not up to Canadian standards and therefore cannot be used by Canadian farmers, in fact that fertilizer will be used to produce crops that will be imported into Canada, be sold to consumers and be consumed by Canadians. Canadian consumers will still be eating the food that was grown under the conditions using, say, a pesticide that is maybe not acceptable in terms of Canadian standards.
This is a big problem and one that certainly has to be dealt with. The ramifications extend from there to the free trade deal as well. But I think the government has to show initiative and some leadership here and bring in a comprehensive bill amending all the pieces of legislation that I mentioned in an effort to solve the problem.
I am sure the member who submitted the motion had the best of intentions in mind. Having read in Hansard what members said, it is very clear to me that if he had discussed the matter in advance with the NDP critic, as well as the Bloc's, he would have found there would be a requirement from both critics to make certain that whatever we do adheres to Canadian standards. 
He indicated that it is on his website. The question is: Why did he not, why would he not and why could he not amend his resolution so it would reflect that request from the two parties? 
I am not certain that he could not have gotten broader support for this motion had he discussed it with the critics for the Bloc and NDP at an earlier point. Having read their submissions, I see the reality is that they are not very far off. They are in agreement. The Bloc and NDP critics both agree that this is a problem that needs a solution, but the suggestion is that somehow the motion does not cut it, partly because the motion does not indicate it would have to apply to Canadian standards. There are only three or four more words that would have had to be included in the motion. 
The member who is proposing the motion indicated that it is covered on his website. If it is covered on his website and he believes it is in there, then why not simply make the extra effort and simply put it into the resolution? 
Then we get back to the question of how relevant the motion is in the first place. If he will not do that, then clearly the motion will not succeed in the House, the problem will remain unsolved and the government will have to look at bringing in proper legislation.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about an important issue for farmers in Kitchener—Conestoga and for all Canadian farmers from sea to sea.
It is a real honour for me to speak in support of this positive initiative put forward by my friend and colleague, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
Farmers in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga have spoken to me about the issues covered in this motion, long before Motion No. 460 was tabled, so I know that this is a timely and crucial issue for them.
Not being allowed to use newer products that are more effective, less costly and safer for our environment puts them at a competitive disadvantage with producers in other countries who can use these new and improved production tools and still export their vegetables, fruit or meat here to Canada for our consumers.
Farmers in my riding and all Canadian farmers need timely access to these newer products in order to remain strong and competitive in our global markets. These production tools they refer to include a broad range of federally regulated agricultural products: fertilizers, seeds, feeds and veterinary biologics under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and pesticides and veterinary drugs under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada.
Canadian farmers compete with foreign growers, particularly those in the U.S., for market share both in Canada and abroad. It is vital that we provide our farmers with an environment that is conducive to business while we continue to protect human health and the environment.
A significant step forward would be to ensure that the regulatory frameworks that apply to production management tools are flexible enough to put our farmers on par with competitors while respecting our legislative requirements. That is why I support Motion No. 460, which reaffirms the Government of Canada's commitment to support the agricultural industry and our producers. This motion reflects the concerns of the agricultural sector regarding the lack of availability of production management tools, which in turn affects Canada's global competitive position.
The Government of Canada recognizes farmers' need for timely access to safe and high-quality agriculture production management tools in order to support our global competitiveness. In Canada agriculture remains an important element of the economy, and in the current climate of economic uncertainty this message of support must be loud and clear.
Over the past several years, we have made progress in ensuring that producers have the same access as their competitors to production management tools, but there is always room for improvement. That is the essence of Motion No. 460.
We can continue to strengthen this vital industry by reinforcing our commitment to provide Canadian farmers with better access to more diverse products. Supporting this motion will allow us to do just that. Whether they need fertilizers, seeds, pesticides or veterinary drugs, it is our responsibility to ensure that the federal regulatory system provides Canadian farmers with access to products similar to those used by competitors in foreign jurisdictions.
In order to achieve this, Motion No. 460 calls for increased consideration of equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada in making product registration decisions. By doing so, the Government of Canada would continue to improve regulations on food and product safety and corresponding legislative commitments to expedite and streamline the Canadian regulatory approvals process. 
Collaborating with other countries also ensures Canada maintains its high standards for the protection of the environment and human, animal and plant health.
However, before going further, I must make an important point regarding the use of foreign scientific data. Using foreign scientific data does not mean that any product that is registered in another country would automatically become registered in Canada. We have the sovereign right to make decisions that are based on some of the most stringent regulatory requirements in the world. All production management tools must meet Canadian regulatory requirements in order to be approved for use in Canada.
I mentioned earlier that there is always room for improvement, but I would like to spend some time talking about the work that is already being done by our government to address the concerns of the agricultural community.
The Government of Canada has been a global leader in establishing processes that allow simultaneous approvals in many countries at once. 
In the past, pesticide manufacturers often approached one market at a time. But with the new joint review process that Health Canada supports, they now routinely seek regulatory approval in several countries simultaneously, taking advantage of incentives offered through these new processes.
Joint reviews are now the preferred way of doing business when registering new chemicals as pesticides. Canada has been at the forefront of the joint review process due to early efforts made more than a decade ago with the U.S. to better align our regulatory systems. Thanks to this, in 2010 new pesticide submissions going to the U.S. will also come to Canada.
Canada is also taking a leading role in new global joint reviews that span many countries. However, more work needs to be done. Supporting this motion signals a clear step forward.
In order to improve Canadian farmers' access to new and effective products already available in other countries, our government is strengthening collaboration between all stakeholders, including foreign governments, producers and the agriculture industry. For example, Health Canada has information-sharing agreements with our trading partners, such as the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.
However, we are hearing from many farmers that there are still needs that we can address. Acting on this motion can foster more effective co-operation between these groups.
I mentioned earlier that we have one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world. Not only must products be registered, but specific uses for those products must also be approved. This ensures that extra level of protection for our environment and for the health of our people. However, this has also resulted in a new challenge.
Although more and more products are being registered simultaneously in Canada and in the U.S., our next challenge, one that this motion addresses very well, is that new uses for products are often expanded faster in other countries than in Canada, into what we call minor crop uses.
In order to bridge this gap, Canada is successfully working with the United States environmental protection agency to review, evaluate and make decisions on regulatory packages for minor use pesticides.
In 2008 and 2009 Health Canada and the EPA completed many joint reviews of applications that were submitted jointly by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the U.S. department of agriculture. This joint effort shows our commitment to providing Canada's agriculture industry with access to similar tools as other foreign countries.
The Government of Canada considers foreign data packages and risk assessments in our regulatory decisions. Health Canada continually seeks out new and innovative pesticide products and uses for growers, including reduced risk products, such as bio-pesticides. Continued foreign co-operation such as this can lead to more production management tools being available to our country's growers.
Another way that we are addressing the concerns of the agriculture community is by helping to provide farmers with improved access to pest management tools under the action plan for the agriculture sector.
This action plan advocates the use of other countries' scientific assessments to help make regulatory decisions for new chemicals. In order to achieve this, our government has provided $22 million to Health Canada as part of this initiative. Foreign assessments can also help in the re-evaluation of pesticides that are already registered in Canada.
Funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada initiatives has helped the government to respond to growers' needs, while allowing us to streamline the regulatory process and increase international co-operation.
Health Canada has been acknowledged by stakeholders for its regulatory progress. The Government of Canada will continue to improve its regulatory procedures and help farmers access the tools they need, while continuing to protect human health and the environment.
Our government is committed to improving the lives of all Canadians and to making this country's population among the healthiest in the world.
Supporting this motion is a show of support for Canadian agriculture. But, more important, we will be doing so in a responsible way. The Government of Canada will continue to require that new products meet regulatory standards and every decision, while based on science, will always respect Canadian law and the environment.
This motion is a driver toward meaningful change that will result in more production management tools becoming available to Canadian farmers, tools that are currently available only to competitors in major markets, particularly in the U.S. and the EU
The Government of Canada stands behind our farmers and our agriculture industry. We are continually making improvements to reduce the regulatory burden on the industry while maintaining a rigorous science-based approach to regulatory assessments.
I urge all members of this House to support Motion No. 460 and, in turn, continue to support our producers and our Canadian agriculture industry.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking today to the motion presented by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. The motion reads:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 
I support the motion in the hope that its adoption by the House will encourage the government to diligently and meaningfully take substantive action to move toward greater equivalency of scientific research and agricultural regulatory approvals, particularly in relation to the United States.
Having spent the last year engaged in investigating the competitiveness of the Canadian agricultural industry, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which includes the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, has heard repeated and compelling expressions of concern from farmers, processors, food marketers, farm input retailers and other key Canadian agricultural stakeholders, that very often the disparity between accepted research in many foreign countries as compared to Canada, and the disparity between the regulatory approval process times between Canada and many foreign countries, are some of the most debilitating factors injurious to the competitiveness of our agricultural industry.
This becomes a particularly egregious situation when one recognizes that many farmers in other foreign countries, that are Canada's trading partners, are often able to use commercial agricultural products, like feed and fertilizers for example, that are not available or allowed for use in Canada due to regulatory restrictions, and are allowed to export their eventual production into Canada to be sold in the Canadian market on our grocery store shelves; thereby, creating an unfair competitive advantage against our own Canadian farmers who do not have available to them the same use of these inputs.
The evidence and testimony from Canadian agricultural stakeholders is compelling, and if we are to assist our food and agricultural industry at every level, their calls must evoke a favourable response on the part of the government to address this issue.
It is the government's responsibility to ensure that our Canadian agricultural industry meets its international competition on equal footing in the marketplace. This motion is a very clear call for the Canadian government to meet that responsibility on this pressing issue.
It goes without saying that when considering such an effort toward greater regulatory harmonization, we know that it is imperative that it not in any way diminish or compromise the integrity of Canadian health and safety standards, standards that protect our health and our environment.
The key is that we work toward reducing the costly repetition and replication of scientific research and data developed in other countries in order for it to be made accessible here in Canada, and consequently move to hasten the licensing of production management tools, processes and inputs for Canadian farmers.
I believe that this motion strikes an appropriate balance in taking into account considerations of Canadian sovereignty, while advocating for a common sense approach to harmonization in scientific, research and agricultural regulatory approval processes that would allow Canadian producers to be more competitive.
It is essential that the government send a clear signal to Canadian farmers that this Parliament stands with them and that we want to take every reasonable and responsible measure, and opportunity within our power as parliamentarians to enable them to compete on more equal footing in the global market.
I would like to commend the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for taking leadership on this issue from the backbenches of the government side of the House because admittedly, as has been said in this House by the Liberal critic for agriculture and agri-food, the member for Malpeque, the Minister of Agriculture has been missing in action on this critical issue for some time.
The primary goal of the motion, as has been detailed, is to permit Canadian authorities to more quickly approve products in Canada, that have already been approved for use in other countries, for use in Canada, should those countries' regulatory processes, and their science and research methods employed toward producing the data, be considered equivalent to those of the Canadian system.
As our shared experiences listening to the testimony on the standing at the committee for agriculture and agri-food have shown, this is an absolutely sensible, practical solution for the Canadian agricultural industry. I trust that the House will endorse this worthwhile goal.
The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has suggested at committee, and is urging the government though this motion, that the relevant Canadian agricultural regulatory institutions, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Health Canada accept or apply the equivalent scientific research and agriculture regulatory approval processes of other countries with whom we engage in reciprocal trade and whose processes themselves, as a condition, have recognized satisfactory and acceptable regulatory and research institutions worthy of our confidence. 
The one proviso of course, as I described, is that the processes and products do not in any way compromise or diminish Canadian health standards, but we must recognize that the duplication of similar processes costs our agricultural industry hundreds of millions through inefficiencies and the government must address this through substantive action.
The motion, if approved, as has been said in the House previously, would be an expression that this House considers foreign science to be equivalent to Canadian science. Regulatory agencies and other departments engaged in the agriculture and agri-food industries of Canada would be encouraged to accept scientific research from foreign countries as part of their regulatory submissions, thereby expediting the approval process. 
Another consequence of this is that it would encourage the emergence of applications for approval in Canada by foreign agricultural suppliers for their products. The point here is, let us be clear, and I am quoting the Liberal agriculture critic who could not have said it more clearly:
 One of the problems that is not allowing our producers to be competitive is that the products that come in from all over the world do not meet the same requirements that Canadian producers must meet but it ends up on our grocery store shelves. 
As the member noted, it is incredibly ironic that Canadians are not aware that the food that they purchase on the shelves of Canadian grocery stores for their consumption has been treated with products, while outside of Canada, not licensed for use inside of Canada; thereby, depriving our own producers the ability to compete with such products.
There are many other areas as well in which we can enhance the competitiveness of the Canadian agriculture industry. I raised another example of the government's failure to address competitiveness issues in the Canadian agricultural industry just a few weeks ago during question period. 
I noted the example that American fertilizer and chemical supplier industries are supported by the American government in their implementation of comprehensive security measures to keep fertilizer and chemicals out of the hands of terrorists, narcotic producers and dealers, and other criminal elements.
The Canadian government, however, continues to decline the invitation by Canadian fertilizer and chemical supplier industry associations to introduce tax incentives similar to those of the U.S. for the application of similar comprehensive security measures here in Canada. This not only places the Canadian fertilizer and chemical industries at a severe and growing competitive disadvantage, but also places Canada at an increased risk of such dangerous materials being stolen and used for illicit or malicious purposes.
This motion is one step forward to correct this absurd and unfair predicament in which our Canadian farmers find themselves. It does not suggest that we are moving toward the lowest common denominator in terms of regulatory standards, but would rather encourage reasonable, collaborative efforts to be undertaken among participating trading countries to satisfy each other that the science, research and approval processes of one country are compatible with the standards of the next, while simultaneously ending the unfair burden that the differences place on Canadian agricultural producers.
I again reiterate my full support for the motion and hope that once passed by the House, it motivates the Government of Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak briefly to Motion 460, brought forward by the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
As a member from northern Ontario representing a diverse riding of small agricultural communities, such as Verner, Warren, St. Charles and Noelville as well as urban and suburban communities, issues with respect to agriculture and food security are of great interest to me.
I congratulate the member on the intended goal of the motion, but I must agree with my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, who spoke recently on the motion.
I agree with many who note that our Canadian farmers are experiencing frustration at not being able to have access to the latest technology the way their competitors do. We definitely need to level the playing field for our farmers. We should not lose sight of that, even when debate on the motion concludes.
My New Democrat colleagues noted that while the motivation behind the motion is a good one, the vagueness of Motion No. 460, as it is written, would result in something I could not support, and that would be Canada automatically approving any product approved in the United States, Mexico and other countries without ensuring that they meet Canadian standards. That would be a race to the bottom, to the lowest level of Mexico. Instead of bringing Mexico to our level, Mexico would bring us to its level.
The motion could potentially result in products being made available in Canada that do not meet our standards. It is really an issue of maintaining our autonomy in this area. Therefore, let us apply a precautionary principle here and revisit the motion in a more detailed and comprehensive way.
By way of context, we know that Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, already consider equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes, but the House has also heard about the challenges that exist.
For example, as noted previously, according to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, CFA, there currently exists a pesticide technology gap, which has a significant impact on the competitiveness of Canadian producers. This is due in good measure to one key factor, pesticide companies often do not see the economic value in registering products in the smaller Canadian market.
However, the CFA says that there are ways of addressing this problem. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, must continue working toward harmonizing its practices with other countries and encouraging pesticide companies to enter into joint or multinational review processes.
The PMRA must also continue to modernize the review process so it can increase the reliance of acceptable foreign reviews to make the pesticide registration process as efficient and fast as possible, while maintaining high Canadian standards for health and safety. This wording does not appear in Motion No. 460. I agree that maximum residue limits need to be harmonized at a faster rate so required pesticide products can be registered, and some trade irritants eliminated.
The CFA also emphasizes that in addition to the availability of products, the other irritant for Canadian farmers is the price of these pesticide products. The fact remains that Canadian producers continue to pay up to 60% more than their American competitors for pesticide products. Surely we can correct this problem. Canadian producers need to have a level playing field.
I am told that the PMRA is now in the process of finalizing regulations that will outline the process for registering generic pesticide products in Canada. I believe it is so important for Canadian farmers to gain access to these important pesticide products. 
The harmonization approach, at least in regard to pesticides, often fails to consider variations in environmental conditions across jurisdictions. Pesticides that are used to combat pests in Mexico, which is hot and dry, are not the same as those we need in Canada's much cooler climate. Streamlining this process is critical. It begs the question as to why there are 55 to 60 generic product applications still under review by the PMRA, some under review for several years. 
The 2010 growing season is almost upon us. Clearly, some farmers are anxious that some of these products be registered in time for them to use. My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior spoke about a program that was available to Canadian farmers.
 The current grower requested own use import program was developed to assist Canadian producers to access the same products as Canadian producers. Canadian farm organizations, such as the Canadian Horticultural Council, act as a nomination committee to propose pesticide products that should enter into this program. Farmers can purchase approved products in the U.S., apply a Canadian label to them and bring them into Canada. Unfortunately, this program has not been as successful as hoped for because the rules that restrict the eligibility of products have made it difficult to get useful and important pesticides on this list.
In short, Motion No. 460 is about recognizing as equivalent to our own, the scientific research and regulatory approval processes of Canada's principal trading partners, such as the United States, for products used in the agriculture sector. I understand the intent is to ensure Canadian farmers are competitive and have a level playing field by having access to commercial agricultural products similar to those used by producers in competing countries, subject to Canadian standards, but here is where the problem lies. The motion, as written, does not mention the last part, “subject to Canadian standards”. This is a major stumbling block for me.
At the end of the day, our system must ensure that appropriate Canadian authorities still maintain the right to ensure that all approved products meet Canadian standards. For this reason, I will not be supporting Motion No. 460.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the agricultural sector in Canada is one of the most important components of our economy. Our country produces a wide range of agricultural goods for domestic and international consumption. It is something of which we should all be proud.
However, no one has been spared from the global economic downturn, and agriculture is no exception. For this reason, more than ever, we must ensure that our farmers remain competitive on the world stage against competition from other OECD countries, in particular, the U.S.
Competitiveness of Canadian farming operations is of paramount importance to maintaining growth in food production and ensuring that our farmers have access to the newest, most innovative and safest products available.
Motion No. 460 reminds us that our agricultural sector is part of a global marketplace. It comes at a time when we must send a clear signal to our agricultural community that we are ready to support them in today's difficult economic climate.
Farmers across the country have told us that their competitiveness against foreign growers is an important issue for them. If they are not afforded access to the same production management tools as competitors in other countries, they will face stronger resistance from those markets.
In fact, this issue is so important that the first hour of debate on this motion became the first news item in the March 15, edition of The Canadian Cattlemen's Association Action News. The cattlemen praise our colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for this motion and conclude by asking farmers to get involved in this debate. They say:
 —let your MP know of any experiences you have with inputs like endectocide, herbicide or other regulated products costing you more than in the U.S. Also let them know when you cannot get a product that is available south of the border. Improving Canada’s regulatory processes should help to improve access to new products and to keep prices competitive with those in the U. S. 
The government wants Canadian farmers to know we have heard this message loud and clear and we are taking action.
When we are talking about production management tools, we are talking about farming products, such as seeds, feeds, fertilizers, veterinary biologics and drugs and pesticides. In Canada all of these tools are subject to comprehensive and rigorous scientific assessments that are on par with international regulatory partners and are carried out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Veterinary Drugs Directorate. This ensures that the products used on livestock and on crops can be used both safely and effectively.
We must acknowledge that in the global context there are markets that are larger than ours. In these markets, increased competition drives innovation in technology and often quicker adoption of new pesticide uses. For business, this is sometimes more attractive. This means that Canada is not always the first place that springs to mind for companies that want to sell their production management tools.
For this reason, we must create a climate conducive to bringing those products here, so our farmers can compete on equal footing with their competitors. Supporting this motion is a step forward in addressing that gap. That is why I am supporting Motion No. 460.
I would like to spend some time to talk about some of the work the government is doing to ensure that Canadian farmers have access to the same production management tools available in other countries. This important work is ongoing and efforts must be sustained in the future, but we must also acknowledge that more can be done and that, in certain, areas we can do better.
For example, over the years, there has been a growing movement toward the use of generic products for use on crops and to control pests. Being based on proven brands and benefiting from low manufacturing costs often makes generic products highly attractive to many growers.However, strict data protection laws in Canada made it difficult for generic alternatives to be available to Canadian farmers. This meant that they only had access to more expensive brand name products. Ultimately, this did little to foster innovation on the part of the bigger manufacturers. That is why the government is updating its legislation with regard to pesticide data protection.
Both innovators and generic manufacturers provided input to the design of a mechanism that would benefit all stakeholders in order to achieve three broad objectives: first, encouraging the registration of new innovative pesticides, including for use on minor crops; second, facilitating timely registration of competitively priced generic pesticides; and third, to ultimately benefit pesticide users, particularly the agricultural sector.
Thanks to these efforts, we are one step closer to providing an environment where generic manufacturers can enter the Canadian market earlier, potentially providing thousands of dollars in savings for individual farmers and much more for the industry as a whole. It will encourage the registration of new innovative pesticides and uses on minor crops and the timely entry into the market of competitively priced generic pesticides for the agricultural sector.
While generic products are based on brand name chemicals, it does not mean that they are subject to less stringent standards. Generic products submitted to Health Canada for evaluation and potential registration will be subject to the same scientific rigour as any other product. As a result, Canadian farmers can be assured that should they choose to use generic products, not only will they be affordable but they will also safeguard their crops and boost their yields. In turn, these savings will help translate into better competitiveness and resilience in the global marketplace.
While this motion focuses specifically on products that are not yet available in Canada but available elsewhere, there is a related issue that affects the competitiveness of Canadian farmers that I would like to discuss.
 In many cases, there is a variety of pest control products that are available in both the U.S. and in Canada. However, due to the dynamic nature of the U.S. market, product labels are often expanded at a much faster rate than they are here.
What does this mean for our farmers? It means that they do not have as much flexibility in pesticide use as their southern counterparts. In order to address this challenge, the government is actively working with growers to regularly update a database that identifies and prioritizes products and uses available in the U.S. but not in Canada.
This was a major step forward and for the first time we were able to quantify the difference in availability between the U.S. and Canada. This database will continue to be a valuable tool as we address this gap and bring more value to Canadians. 
These initiatives are beginning to bear fruit and Motion No. 460's goal of achieving global competitive parity for Canadian farmers can be achieved. However, only with meaningful change in the way we act on improving competition in the agricultural sector will we achieve this goal.
The health and safety of Canadians is the government's priority and our path forward will continue to require that all products meet Canada's stringent regulatory requirements before being registered for use. Support for this motion signals the intent of the government to support Canadian farmers by making the necessary changes to ensure that more production management tools become available to them.
I would encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of Motion No. 460. Let us all put Canadian agriculture first today.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. There being no other members rising, I will return to the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for his five minute right of reply.
Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for the opportunity to wrap up the debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 460 which seeks to level the playing field for our Canadian agriculture producers with those they have to compete with around the world.
I am a farmer who represents a rural riding in southwestern Ontario. I can tell the House that the issue my motion addresses is an important one not just for producers in my riding but for all farmers and producers across Canada.
Motion No. 460 deals with a long-standing issue. It is one that is continually hurting the competitiveness of Canadian producers from the west coast to the east coast. Simply put, it can be broken down in three ways. First, it is about the long delays our producers encounter in getting products licensed after their competitors do. Second, it is about products licensed because our markets are just too small for the financial investment and therefore our producers never have access to these management tools. Third, our competitors will get a product licensed in their country but that same product may not get approved in Canada because of research reasons.
My motion proposes to help farmers by considering whenever and wherever possible parallelling a regulatory and licensing process with that of other jurisdictions. This would happen by utilizing equivalent scientific research, and everyone knows that scientific research does not change when it crosses a border, provided that a product not only meets or exceeds our Canadian standards and does not in any way compromise Canadian standards.
For example, a pork producer who has access to a medication in another country who failed to get a licence in Canada in my opinion should not be able to have his product come into Canada and sit on our grocery shelves in direct competition with Canadian pork. Canadians need to know that produce and commodities being imported into Canada for the consumption of Canadian families only have been treated with a licensed product that our producers can use, or quite honestly, they should not come into Canada. 
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Health as well as their departmental officials at CFIA and PMRA. I want to especially thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga, the member for Guelph and the member for Sarnia—Lambton for their positive and accurate presentations on this motion.
I also cannot forget the amazing amount of support that has come in from across the nation from farm organizations, commodity groups and also those consumers who have vocally supported this motion and have also written to my office on this important issue.
My motion reads as follows:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 
Consumers hope for it, producers need it and supporting it is just the right thing to do for all of our farmers. I would encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 460.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Deputy Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2:16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)