2010-05-14

The Speaker: The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Mississauga South. I will hear the hon. member now.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise on a question of privilege arising out of statements made in the chamber yesterday which were, in my view, a personal attack on my person, on my integrity, on my honesty, on my character and on my honour as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 13, I gave notice to you on a matter arising out of the statement by the member for Selkirk—Interlake just after question period.
The reasons and the basis for making this statement, I think, are sustained by all of the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, had to issue a letter on February 26, 2009, to the House leaders of the House of Commons concerning members' statement made pursuant to Standing Order 31 in which you state:
 In recent days a number of Members' Statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31 have caused me some concern. 
 House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 363 and 364, sets out guidelines governing the content of such statements. In particular, it states that “personal attacks are not permitted”. I intend to halt at an early stage any trend in this direction. As such, I am writing to advise you that I will vigorously enforce the authority given to me by Standing Order 31 to cut off Members if, in my opinion, improper statements are made. 
 I am seeking your assistance in informing Members in your party of my approach in this regard. 
It was carbon copied to the whips of the House of Commons, as well as to the two independent members of Parliament at the time.
I will begin by referencing the specific statement, because I believe that anyone who is following this would like to know what actually was said.
On page 2787 of the House of Commons Debates of yesterday, the member for Selkirk—Interlake rose and stated:
 Mr. Speaker, by long-standing constitutional convention, any MP may attend and participate in any committee meeting. Standing Order 119 says: 
 Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum. 
He goes on to state:
 Today, defying the Standing Order— 
My emphasis is on “defying the Standing Order”.
 —the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics— 
Who is myself.
 —forbade the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development from participating in its proceedings. This ruling was contrary to law and turned the committee into a kangaroo court. 
 Further, by denying the minister her legal right to participate, the chair was undermining the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability, a key principle of our Constitution. It is outrageous that the chair of the ethics committee, the member for Mississauga South, would reject the principle of ministerial accountability, all in an attempt to score cheap political points. He should be ashamed and he should resign. 
Those are not just casual statements. This is an indictment of a member of Parliament. It is contrary to the spirit and the intent of your letter of February 26, 2009, to the House leaders.
It went further than that. During question period, a question was posed by the member for Peace River in which he asked:
 Mr. Speaker, today is perhaps a precedent-setting day in the history of a Westminster system of parliament. 
 This morning a minister of the Crown appeared at committee as an individual. According to our system of government, she is ultimately accountable for her ministry and yet the opposition, led by the chair of that committee, [myself] dismissed our system of ministerial accountability and would not let her answer for her department or for herself. 
 Having been silenced this morning, I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources will now be permitted to speak and to share with this House her reaction to this seemingly unprecedented event. 
The minister in response answered:
 Mr. Speaker, today I voluntarily appeared before the ethics committee to answer questions about the department for which I am ultimately responsible. Shockingly, opposition members refused to allow me to speak. 
 This may be the first time in parliamentary history that a ministerial responsibility has been denied. Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of our parliamentary system. 
 This is proof that the opposition members are not in it for accountability or truth. They are just in it for themselves. 
I think those statements from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, from the assertions of the member for Peace River and from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. are very clear.
Mr. Speaker, I need to rise on a question of privilege because I have no other recourse but to rise in the House to defend myself.
Mr. Richard Harris:  You had a recourse yesterday.
Paul Szabo:  Mr. Speaker, I had no recourse.
 I want to address the points and the allegations made within Standing Order 31 to demonstrate this. I appreciate that this is in reference to matters that occurred before a committee. The proceedings are on the public website of the Parliament of Canada.
I would simply like to indicate, with regard to the allegation from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, that I have contravened Standing Order 119, which states: 
 Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special, or legislative committee, may,-- 
And here is the operative part:
 --unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum. 
The terms of reference and the order of the day before the committee was with regard to a special study, a study of the allegations of deliberate interference in the release of information by the human resources department. The order said that the motion by the member for Malpeque also called specifically for witnesses. The first witness was the Minister of Human Resources Development and following, and it says specifically, at subsequent meetings other members listed. In fact, the witness that we had at committee yesterday was one such member.
The motion adopted by the committee specifically indicated that the minister would appear first and subsequently the other witnesses. That was an order of the committee. In fact, we had the minister before us on May 4. We invited her to appear, pursuant to the order of the committee, and she appeared, but she agreed only to appear for one hour, even though we requested a full meeting of two hours. However, we gave her the opportunity to address these allegations.
Yesterday at committee, we asked Mr. Ryan Sparrow, who was named in the motion, to appear and answer questions by the committee. Mr. Sparrow appeared but he also appeared with the minister who sat beside him at the witness table. 
Before I commenced the meeting, I went to speak to the minister and Mr. Sparrow and I asked why the minister was here. She told me, “I'm here to answer questions for my departmental employee, my political adviser on communications”. I told her that that was not possible because we had called a specific witness, Mr. Ryan Sparrow, of whom members were prepared to ask questions. The minister had already appeared.
Section 119 is not applicable here because the committee specifically ordered that Mr. Sparrow would be the witness. We already had the minister and therefore it is the committee's ruling that the member is not permitted. It did not say she could. It said that we were here to see Mr. Ryan Sparrow on the matter before the committee. 
Therefore, the whole premise of the S. O. 31 by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, based on section 119, has been complied with. The committee ordered what took place there and I told them but the minister would not accept the ruling of the chair.
I hate to say this, but when we started the questions at committee, the member for Guelph asked, “Why did you not say that in your email, that you were unable to give accurate figures?”. The witness responded, “'ll refer that question to the Minister”. The member for Guelph said, “Well I would rather you answer the question. You're the witness”. 
The minister started to speak, notwithstanding, and she said: “Mr. Chair, may I intervene?”. I said, “No, I'm sorry, Minister. I've made a ruling”. She came back and said, “Mr. Chair, with all due respect, Mr. Sparrow operates under my delegated authority. Anything he does is under my authority, authority that I carry as Minister. Therefore, I have that authority. I respectfully request that I be allowed to exercise that authority myself”. 
She was arguing with the chair of a committee, which is improper. I responded to her, “Yes, well, Madam Minister, the committee has already addressed this issue. In fact, it is the reason why in the motion we have specifically indicated that it wanted to have yourself and other witnesses at separate meetings so that this wouldn't happen. That is the motion adopted by the committee”. I went on to say, “I've made my ruling”.
The minister argued yet again with the chair of the committee saying, “Mr. Chair, I would actually refer you...”, and then she carried on. I said “order” to get order back in the committee but she carried on yet again even after I called for order, and said, “to the experts on the subject of ministerial accountability, O'Brien and Bosc, and Marleau and Montpetit, Guide for Ministers and that...”. I called for order yet a third time.
The minister refused to listen. She went on again to say, “The Minister is accountable and that is why I am here today because it is my authority...”. I will not read the whole transcript.
I advised the minister again, “Madam Minister, Parliament has the right to call for persons, papers or records--all persons. Members of Parliament are exempt from that. They can refuse to appear”. 
“We have called Mr. Sparrow as an individual related to this matter before us to respond to our questions. The ministerial relationship of their staff is not going to supercede this committee's right to ask this person, whom we have duly called, to respond to questions. I will not entertain further debate on whether or not you can answer for Mr. Sparrow. My decision, based on a motion passed by the committee, is that Mr. Sparrow is going to answer the questions directed at him”.
All of that transpired before question period and yet, with the full knowledge that the minister was not invited, as she said in the answer in question period and that she came voluntarily, well of course, she came voluntarily without telling the committee she was coming and she voluntarily sat herself beside our witness and voluntarily declared that she would answer questions. I do not understand what we could do when the Conservatives argue that this is the first time in the history of Westminster parliamentary system that a minister has been denied the right.
Let us flip it on its head. I believe this is the first time in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system that a minister has tried to impose herself as a witness before a committee. Ministers do not have to appear and they cannot be compelled to appear before a committee. If we follow what the minister believes, which is that she is accountable and speaks on behalf of her employees, that would mean that any of those employees called before a committee would have the minister with them when it suits the minister's purpose and at her choice. That is improper because, if it were not in her best interest to appear, she would not. We cannot have a double standard here. 
Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, with my privilege and the references that I must give to you from the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2009. I will be referring to O'Brien and Bosc.
First, I make reference to Standing Order 18 regarding the use of offensive words against either House or against a member thereof, in which the House is well familiar. I also refer to page 618, O'Brien and Bosc, where it states:
 The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order. 
I will go on and cite footnote 176, as it relates to Standing Order 18:
 This includes any allegation that a Member has lied or misled the House. 
This is a very important aspect. Certain allegations in the statement of the member for Selkirk—Interlake he knew were incorrect and yet he proceeded to make a statement in the House just one hour after the meeting.
Continuing with the quote at page 618, it states that:
 Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by a substantive motion for which notice is required. 
It should be noted that the chair made a ruling, referred to the ruling several times and not once did any member in that committee challenge the ruling of the chair. They had that opportunity to make argument at that time, not to bring it to the chamber and to disregard and disrespect your letter of February 29, 2009 in which you expressed your sincere concern about the deterioration of matters related to Standing Order 31.
I should indicate that I gave notice yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but I had to wait for the blue. That is why I am rising today.
In Speaker Michener's ruling of June 19, 1959, on page 98 of O'Brien Bosc, it states, “Such a privilege confers gave responsibilities on those who are protected”. This refers to the immunity privileges that we have here that nothing we say in here can be used against us outside the chamber. The same goes for things that are said in committee. For instance, it goes on to say, “By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences”, and Mr. Speaker, this is very serious, he states:
 Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. 
I believe that is the case. He goes on:
 Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse. 
I thought that is what you attempted to do, Mr. Speaker, in your February 29, 2009 letter.
Speaker Parent emphasized the need for members to use great care in exercising the right to speak freely in the House. In the footnote on the debate of September 30, 1994, page 6371, he states:
 —paramount to our political and parliamentary systems is the principle of freedom of speech, a member's right to stand in this House unhindered to speak his or her mind. However when debate in the House centres on sensitive issues, as it often does, I would expect that members would always bear in mind the possible effects of their statements and hence be prudent in their tone and choice of words. 
He goes on to say in footnote 170 on page 98 in the Debates of May 5, 1987:
 Specifically, during a debate as well as during Question Period and other House proceedings, Members are bound by the Standing Orders and practices of the House with respect to the content of speeches and remarks. For example, Standing Order 18— 
That is what I referred to, and it also:
 —prohibits the use of disrespectful or offensive language in debate. Moreover, personal attacks, insults, obscene language or words that question a Member's integrity, honesty or character are not permitted. It is unparliamentary to state that a Member has deliberately misled the House. 
As you yourself, Mr. Speaker, observed in 2002:
 If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperiled. 
This is very powerful. These are the fundamentals of Parliament. These are the fundamental issues which we must respect and defend.
I want to move on specifically with regard to statements in Standing Order 31. I refer to Marleau and Montpetit, page 525, with regard to unparliamentary language. It states:
 The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect and integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required. 
I believe that is what is happening.
On November 18 I rose in the House on a similar point, and O'Brien and Bosc would have been helpful. In fact, that was the day it was tabled in the House. On page 614 of O'Brien and Bosc, there are some relevant references. It states:
 Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty and character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another. 
It gives you, Mr. Speaker, the authority to order the withdrawal of statements which are inappropriate in this place. I think that was the thrust of your letter of February 29, 2009.
There is another reference that says that making allegations or insults or otherwise questioning the character, honesty or integrity of another member of Parliament are absolutely out of order. There are more references, but I believe I have provided sufficient argument at this time with regard to the content of these statements and the fact that the assertions are wrong technically or are incorrect or untruthful.
The minister cannot say that she voluntarily came to committee and she was denied her right to speak. She was not the witness. Maybe she entered the room voluntarily, but she is trying to aggrandize herself somehow that she did something and we did not let her do it. She was not called as a witness. 
The statement that she made in this place during question period yesterday implying that she was there, ready to be accountable and the committee did not allow her to be accountable is nonsense. It is not true. Yet she said that it is true with a straight face, without a flinch, not saying the truth and looking like it is okay. I cannot believe it.
Being a chartered accountant, I am subject to rules of ethical conduct. I have been a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants for over 35 years. However, this matter of privilege, the allegations against me, the attacks on my person, personal integrity, ethics and ability are serious. 
It happened previously when I rose on a question of privilege on May 10 because the member for Peace River also attacked under Standing Order 31. This is the third time Standing Order 31 has been used to attack a member, which is chock full of statements which are simply not true.
I take this very seriously and I have taken the time to open up to the House on this matter. I believe the Speaker shares my concern, which he expressed in his letter. Speaker Parent once said that once it is on the record, it is hard to retract it. It is almost impossible. It is like telling a jury to disregard the comment.
At any point in time, there could be five million people watching the proceedings of this place. If we allow the chamber to be used to attack other members of Parliament without recourse or response at the point of time, those statements, on their own, will stand. 
Could there be other potential consequences to a member after the fact? Could it be possible that these statements by themselves, in Hansard of yesterday, attacks and assertions about the character and integrity of another member of Parliament, would appear in somebody's election literature to show that this member is not worthy of being a member of Parliament? It is going to happen.
With due respect, this is a form of intimidation. It is a chill factor that every time a member of this place, whether it be in committee or here, challenges the government on any matter, it retaliates with bullying tactics to try to intimidate other members of Parliament so they will not move in that direction and not challenge the government. Our job is to hold the government accountable, to respect the rules of the Standing Orders of the House, the rules of the House of Commons, the practices and procedures of this place.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of privilege, of my privileges and of my rights, without intimidation, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been a painful few moments listening to the member for Mississauga South, but I only have a couple of points to make.
First, by the member for Mississauga South's own statement, before polling the committee to see whether the minister would be allowed to speak, he personally said to the minister that it was not possible for her to speak before the committee. That was his decision. He indicated in his presentation that it was the decision of the committee, but it was his decision before he even asked the committee if it would allow her to speak. He made that decision.
The second point is this. The member for Mississauga South has said that it is your decision, Mr. Speaker, to rule on the inappropriateness of the actions of members. I agree with that; it is. However, I would also like to suggest that as chair of the so-called ethics committee, it is the responsibility of the member for Mississauga South to allow or disallow statements that have been made by members of that committee, in particular, to use his words, any statements that may be deemed inappropriate, disrespectful, abusive, offensive, provocative, threatening, or in other words, unworthy of members to say.
I would insist and request that if you are to make a ruling on what the member has claimed, Mr. Speaker, that you go back through every word of Hansard from the committee he chairs and take careful note of every statement that he has allowed members of that committee to make to witnesses who appeared before him.
If you do that, Mr. Speaker, I know you will find that, by comparison to what he has claimed about the member for Selkirk—Interlake, I would suggest that would be considered milquetoast compared to what that member, as chair of the ethics committee, allowed members of the opposition to make toward witnesses who appeared before his committee. Even a few days ago, he did not question the member for Winnipeg Centre when the member accused the witness of “lying his ass off”. The member for Mississauga South, did not even attempt to reproach that member. He thought that was okay.
If you are to rule on what the member for Mississauga South has just presented and asked you to rule on, Mr. Speaker, you must go back through every word and statement in Hansard and see what he, as chair, has allowed. Upon comparing that to what he is saying today, then you must make your decision.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the deputy government whip to indicate that the government will reserve its response to this question of privilege.
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have had experience being on committee with the member opposite. In fact, I recall I spoke with the member, as chair of the ethics committee, on the issue that we would discuss which witnesses would come to committee. He agreed we would do that and then unilaterally disallowed all witnesses by the Conservative Party.
The chair, in another case, walked out and spoke to the media. That is probably allowed, but one would question the ethical nature of such a thing.
There was another case, and when you review Hansard of the committee proceedings, and I encourage you to do that, Mr. Speaker, you will also see that the chair denied speaking to witnesses before they got to committee. Then on questioning the witness, the witness did tell us that was not true, that the witness actually did speak to the chair. The chair did admit later that was the case. He apologized because he forgot it. Apparently he was sitting on a deck somewhere and had received this phone call and forgot. I do not know whether that is privilege or incompetence.
However, on the matter of privilege, if anybody has harmed the member's privilege, it is the member himself. The member has behaved in a way that has caused attention to his conduct, and by the member's own admission, not once, not twice, but three times at the very least. I believe if the member has any issues with privilege, he made them himself.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most of us realize how impossible it is for the Speaker to sit in any kind of adjudication on what happens at the numerous committees that meet from time to time on the Hill. You have said in the past that it is not possible. The slimy Conservative slandering innuendo I hear is distorting debate. Let me get back to my remarks.
In trying to deliberate on what happens at committees, Mr. Speaker, you are indeed handicapped. What you really need to have is a report from the committee before you are in a position to take notice of what has happened. 
In my view what really is at issue is the use of Standing Order 31, members' statements, and question period to slander or attack another member, when in neither of those procedures, neither in the statements nor in the question period, does any member, including a chair of a committee of the House, have an opportunity to respond or deal directly with the issue.
As you look at this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to include a reference to the distortion or misuse of either members' statements or question period for attacks on matters that are not urgent. It is hard to understand how this could be seen as a matter of urgency, as set out in the Standing Orders dealing with oral question period.
If this is a matter of privilege, and I think the member has raised a serious issue, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take notice of that procedural perspective. We are really in danger of losing a couple of our most important procedural vehicles, the members' statement and question period, as they are taken over by initiatives to distort, attack and undermine those procedures.
The Speaker: As Indicated, I think I have heard enough on this now. The government is coming back on the matter. There will be an opportunity for the hon. member for Mississauga South to respond after the government has responded. As we have had a request for reservation on that point, it would be better if we left the matter now until we hear more. There will be further submissions at some future time and we will leave it until then.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think the member may want to consider withdrawing a remark. He referred to the member for Winnipeg Centre making a statement in my committee about lying his ass off. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The member for Winnipeg Centre is a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
I am not a member of that committee. I may have been a room at the time, but I was certainly not the chair. He may want to withdraw the allegation that I did nothing to correct the statement of the member for Winnipeg Centre.
The Speaker: This dispute is to facts. I am sure hon. members can sort that out by looking at the record and making the appropriate adjustments in their comments.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we note that the Conservative Party is applauding for us. The Bloc Québécois, a party that represents the interests of Quebec, has been applauded.
I have the pleasure of debating Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, which aims to establish a liability regime applicable in the event of a nuclear incident.
Since I represent a region located near a nuclear plant, I am very familiar with the issues related to nuclear energy, and I am aware of the questions that have been raised in my region after Hydro-Québec decided to refurbish the Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant.
The Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant, which has been in use since 1983, is part of the regional landscape in Mauricie and Centre-du-Québec. It is located on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in the Gentilly sector of the city of Bécancour. A number of citizens have shared their concerns about Hydro-Québec's decision. They are wondering how this will affect the health of the people who live in the surrounding area and the health of the environment. A number of people have raised questions about the permanent management of high-level radioactive waste.
Therefore, I am very familiar with the issues surrounding this subject, and I understand the importance of reviewing the current legislation, because it simply does not meet the international requirements for liability in the event of a nuclear incident.
Given that the government has taken a keen interest in nuclear power, and that Ontario and Alberta are about to embark on this new and difficult venture with the help of the federal government, updating the current legislation, which is over 30 years old, is crucial. 
The current act is out of touch with new developments in the nuclear power sector in Quebec and across Canada. Contrary to what the Conservative government says, nuclear energy is not clean energy.
Both the Conservative government and the Liberals express unflagging optimism about nuclear energy, especially in connection with Alberta oil sands exploitation. We believe that the government should exercise extreme caution with respect to this source of energy, which is very controversial and comes with serious risks.
Let us not forget that radioactive waste is still a major problem and very expensive to manage. Let us not forget that the experts have yet to find a miracle solution for dealing with highly radioactive waste accumulated over years. That waste is so toxic that it has to be stored in sealed reservoirs for thousands of years so as not to compromise the health of future generations. That is a major problem that remains to be solved.
That is why, when it comes to nuclear power, the Bloc Québécois believes that strict and effective oversight at all stages—extraction, transportation, heat and electricity production—is critical. Who could forget the disasters that happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine, and Three Mile Island in the United States? We must not compromise on nuclear safety. These tragedies should forever stand as reminders of the serious consequences of nuclear incidents and the importance of doing everything in our power to prevent them. Public health should be our top priority.
That is why the Bloc Québécois supports the principle underlying this bill to hold operators responsible for nuclear incidents. We have to do as much as we can to prevent such incidents, but when they do happen, we have to compensate everyone who is affected, bearing in mind that no sum of money can replace a human life.
 Although Bill C-15 is far-reaching and complex, its main purpose, which is to set up a liability regime in the event of a nuclear incident, relies on three basic principles. First, it defines the liability of facility operators. Second, it defines the financial terms and limits of that liability. Third, it creates a process or administrative tribunal to hear claims in case of a major incident, which no one wants to have happen.
This bill is flawed, but it does improve the existing act, which, as I said, is more than 30 years old and is not suited to the new reality. It improves the existing act by updating the financial responsibilities of nuclear plant operators. The operators have financial and social responsibilities pertaining to public health.
The bill that has been introduced redefines nuclear damage. The new definition is clearer and more complete, and it is closer to the international standard, but still does not quite reach it. The international standard is $1.4 billion. This bill would increase compensation from $75 million to $650 million in the event of a nuclear incident, so it is an improvement. The amount of $75 million is obsolete; it put very little responsibility on the companies.
Bill C-15 clarifies the liability of nuclear facility operators. It clearly defines what kind of damage is compensable and what kind is not; it lists all of the compensable damages, such as bodily injury or damage to property. A nuclear accident can have catastrophic consequences. The companies that run these nuclear businesses must accept significant responsibilities towards the economy and community. 
 In short, this means that if there is a nuclear incident, regardless of the cause, with the exception of an act of war, civil war or insurrection, the facility operator is responsible and must compensate those affected.
In addition to updating the responsibilities of nuclear plant operators, the bill also significantly increases the financial limit on this responsibility, from $75 million to $650 million. I would remind the House that the federal government has not reviewed that limit since 1976. That is unbelievable. We know that this Parliament can be very slow to react to new situations that come up in Quebec and the rest of Canada and this is a perfect example.
It was definitely time to increase the liability of these companies. This is a significant jump, which is an excellent reminder that it is precisely because of the federal government's mismanagement and failure to periodically adjust the amount that such a drastic adjustment is needed at this time. The amount should be adjusted regularly—more often than every 30 years.
If the federal government had fulfilled its responsibilities in this matter since the bill was first enacted, the amount of insurance would have been raised gradually to allow for suitable compensation, instead of increasing it so drastically because it has become apparent that the amount is ridiculously low.
Lastly, Bill C-15 also establishes a special tribunal to hear claims when the Governor in Council believes that it is in the best interest of the public. 
The debate we are having on this bill today serves as a powerful reminder that the government has very little credibility when it comes to nuclear energy. I know that my colleague across the floor will not appreciate that statement, but it is an important and fundamental observation. I must also warn the government on this.
We wonder why the government is so enthusiastic about this energy source. It is always saying that nuclear energy is clean, yet it has not solved the problem of how to manage the nuclear waste that has accumulated over many years. It has not yet found a good way to manage this waste. If it had, it would not have to go to such lengths to regulate and define nuclear plant operators' legal and financial liability. We believe that nuclear energy is dirty energy, which is why this bill provides for a very elaborate liability regime in the event of a nuclear incident.
As I said in my speech, nuclear incidents have catastrophic economic, social and human costs. The people of Mauricie are concerned about the development and management of the Gentilly-2 nuclear plant, and they need information. They have been living with this plant for a number of years now, but naturally they have concerns. The people need reassurance, and they need more information about nuclear plant management, nuclear safety and the health impact of nuclear power.
The Conservative government, which continues to be optimistic about nuclear energy and especially its potential use in extracting oil from the oil sands, should exercise caution, because this energy source is far from universally accepted and carries risks that are far from benign. Without being alarmist, we have to realize that nuclear energy should not be this government's first choice.
At a time of climate change and sustainable development, going the nuclear route is not a sustainable solution, particularly because there is a lack of expertise in managing nuclear waste. By making bad choices, the government will end up shifting the environmental burden the nuclear industry leaves behind onto the shoulders of the next generation.
Although nuclear energy produces only a small amount of greenhouse gas, it does produce radioactive waste that is difficult and expensive to manage.
We often hear it said that nuclear energy is not expensive. However, the investment required to build a plant and the cost of managing nuclear waste are astronomical. We should spend more on green energy such as wind, geothermal or other forms of energy that are much cleaner.
In our opinion, the government should concentrate on these new emerging and alternative forms of energy instead of putting all its eggs in the nuclear basket. 
Unlike nuclear energy, really clean energy such as solar energy and hydroelectricity are not a threat to people's health and safety. The government should adopt a long-term energy policy based on the implementation of an energy conservation program and significant bolstering of funding to develop renewable sources of energy.
The Bloc Québécois will carefully examine Bill C-15 in committee to ensure that it has no loopholes enabling operators to shirk their responsibilities under the bill.
The bill increases the liability of businesses from $75 million to $650 million, which is a significant improvement. However, we know that the international average is $1.4 billion. American and European governments require even higher amounts from nuclear operators. Therefore, we still have work to do. However, this bill is a step forward and for that reason we are supporting it. 
Taxpayers should not share the risk and the cost of compensation. In recent years, the trend has been to give the profits to the private sector and to give the losses to the public sector. This must not happen with the management of nuclear energy.
Finally, the amount of insurance coverage should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is in compliance with international standards and that it represents the real cost of the damage that may result from a nuclear accident.
I will close by stating that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill because it increases the liability of operators substantially, from $75 million to $650 million. Nuclear safety should always be questioned because people often worry about nuclear malfunctions or accidents that could happen and seriously affect their lives, as we have seen with nuclear accidents in recent years.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. When debate resumes, he will have 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Statements By Members
Lifetime Achievement AwardMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker in 1961, a young man of modest means started a small retail shop in the Byward Market, moments from where we now stand.
Now almost five decades later, Giant Tiger employs 6,000 people, has over $1 billion in sales and gives roughly $2 million annually to small charities across the land.
 That is why I am pleased to honour company founder Gordon Reid who is this year's winner of the Retail Council of Canada's lifetime achievement award. He had his first retail job at age 16, and now at age 76 he still works six days a week. His business success is based on meticulous attention to his customers. His personal trademark is a gentle humility.
That is why, to all who know him, Gordon Reid is a true Canadian giant.
Walk Good—Walking for a Brighter FutureHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians are not often given the chance to be involved in historic events, but on May 2, I took part in something that was both historic and inspiring.
The Jamaican Canadian Association and six other community groups hosted an annual walkathon in Toronto. The walk was organized under the theme, “Walk good—Walking for a Brighter Future”, and it was launched with the goal of raising funds to support locally based initiatives.
I am pleased to say that the event was a great success, and I quote the words of walk chair, Sandra Whiting, “I am over the moon at what this means for our future as a community. It shows we can work together for the good of all”. 
I would like to thank the organizations involved, including the Black Business and Professional Association, the Alliance of Jamaican Alumni Associations, Tropicana Community Services, Spelling Bee of Canada, PACE, the Ontario Black History Society and the Jamaican Canadian Association.
I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the organizers and volunteers who helped to make this event such a great success.
Daniel L'HeureuxMr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to acknowledge the retirement of veteran reporter Daniel L'Heureux. 
He has been on Parliament Hill for 26 years and has 45 years of journalism experience in total, including 10 years at La Presse and 30 years at Radio Canada. He says journalism was something he just stumbled into at La Voix de l'Est when he was looking for work as a student.
Mr. L'Heureux, who says he loves the art of reporting news as it happens and the spontaneity that live television has to offer, was part of our journalistic landscape on the Hill.
This television reporter is quick to decry the public's cynicism about politics and, as he bows out, emphasizes the importance of getting out and voting.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I pay tribute to Mr. L'Heureux's important contribution as a newscaster to public debate. We wish him many happy moments with his family in the years to come.
The EnvironmentMr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been over two years now since Parliament held an emergency debate on the threat to Manitoba's health and environment from water dumped into the Red River system from Devils Lake, North Dakota.
Members instructed the government at that time to move as quickly as possibly to stop the flow until an advanced filtration system was in place. This has not happened. 
North Dakota may actually increase the flow, with parts of a community in North Dakota pushing for even a second drainage outlet and allowing greater contamination into the Red River system. Some are even pushing for increasing the allowance of biota into the system.
This issue is not going to go away. Manitobans are concerned not only with the existing situation, but that the state of North Dakota is refusing to bring this issue to the International Joint Commission to deal with it.
Manitobans want to know what the Canadian government is going to do to protect their interests.
Gary McPhersonMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last weekend I was saddened to hear of the loss of Gary McPherson. We mourn the passing but celebrate the many accomplishments of this small giant.
Gary was a fighter. When he contracted polio as a child, they said he did not have much time, but he proved his doctors wrong. For 55 years he carried on his life, got married to his wife, Val, had two beautiful children, Keiko and Jamie, and was an advocate for disabled people in Alberta.
Through his actions he influenced public policy and made Alberta a better place to live for all those who suffer from a disability. He was a true champion and amassed an impressive record of getting results.
Gary's list of honours included Member of the Order of Canada, Alberta Order of Excellence, president of the Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association, chair of the Premier's Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and more.
I was one of countless people who called Gary a friend, and we will all have fond memories to cherish.
We will remember his strength and determination, and we will never forget his quest for a better tomorrow for the disabled people of Alberta and Canada.
Canadian Air and Space Museum Pioneer AwardHon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker on April 13, 1970, an explosion on Apollo 13 halted its moon landing mission, placing the lives of its astronauts in danger and forcing astronaut Jack Swigert to send one of the most famous messages in space history, his actual words being slightly different from the movie version, “Houston, we've had a problem here”.
What most people do not know is that a team of engineers from the University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace Studies had a solution in helping Apollo 13 get back to earth, determining the precise pressure necessary to provide an explosive charge that would spring the spacecraft into its re-entry.
The institute in my riding has also assisted in the design of Canadarm2. 
Recently the institute and the members of its engineering team, Dr. Ben Etkin, Dr. Barry French, Dr. Phil Sullivan, the late Dr. Irvine Glass, Professor Peter Hughes and Dr. Rod Tennyson were awarded the Canadian Air and Space Museum's Pioneer Award for its involvement in the Apollo 13 return. Congratulations to all of them. 
New Horizons for SeniorsMr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, seniors groups in the constituency of Wetaskiwin and all across this country are reaping the benefits of Canada's economic action plan. 
The popular new horizons for seniors program received a two-year $10 million boost in budget 2010.
Our government recognizes that seniors are valuable members of society and contribute a diversity of skills, knowledge and experience to their communities. 
This year alone, the Wetaskiwin Senior Citizens Society received a $10,200 grant enabling it to continue to provide recreational activities for local residents.
The Lone Ridge Community Hall Association will be using its $9,200 grant to make improvements to its facility that has become the social hub for seniors from the surrounding area.
In the hamlet of Mirror, the Jolly Seniors Social Club received $21,000 to renovate the popular hall that hosts so many family and community functions. 
Over in Thorsby, $9,000 from the new horizons program will enable talented seniors to teach traditional cooking methods to young people.
The new horizons program gives seniors an opportunity to continue to make a difference in the lives of others. The Government of Canada is proud to support seniors in strengthening our communities and building our great country.
Employment InsuranceGuy André: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the Conservative government's decision not to grant a royal recommendation to the Bloc's Bill C-241, regarding the removal of the waiting period for employment insurance. This legislative measure would have directly helped people who lose their jobs, and would have helped a large number of communities whose economies have been affected by companies shutting down.
By blocking this bill, the government is turning its back on workers who are losing their jobs. Furthermore, it is ignoring the democratic will of the majority of parliamentarians and is completely disregarding a unanimous decision of the Quebec National Assembly. Furthermore, this goes against the wishes of thousands of citizens who signed a petition calling for the waiting period to be abolished.
In spite of this unfortunate decision, I would like to once again thank the 4,000 people who offered their support by signing the petition I circulated in Berthier—Maskinongé.
Daniel L'HeureuxMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we often jokingly say that six months in active politics can feel like an eternity. For more than 25 years, Ottawa parliamentary correspondent Daniel L'Heureux has enriched democratic debate with his analysis of federal politics. 
After eight election campaigns, Mr. L'Heureux is honouring us with his presence as a parliamentary correspondent one last time. Soon the lights will dim and the curtain will drop on Mr. L'Heureux's emotion-filled and eventful 40-year career.
Yesterday the Prime Minister invited Mr. L'Heureux to his office and wished him well in his new endeavours.
Both personally and on behalf and the Conservative government, I would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. L'Heureux for his contribution to the public debate. Once again, we thank Mr. L'Heureux and his family.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, although some will not be sorry to see him go, we were saddened to hear that Daniel L'Heureux has retired.
An experienced reporter, Daniel L'Heureux covered Parliament's activities live for RDI. It seems that he fell into political journalism much like Obélix fell into the magic potion. He was recruited by La Voix de l'Est for a summer job as a newspaper reporter, then he joined La Presse in 1970 before moving on to the crown corporation in 1979.
Daniel L'Heureux has watched many a politician come and go, and he admitted to feeling some nostalgia for those of yesteryear, people like Trudeau, Drapeau, Bouchard and Bourassa. He also had opportunities to cover seminal moments in the history of Quebec and Canada, including the 1980 referendum and the failure of the Meech Lake accord.
As a consummate news professional, Daniel L'Heureux always maintained a human and respectful attitude toward people in politics.
On behalf of my Liberal colleagues and the entire Liberal family, I would like to thank him and wish him a happy and exciting retirement.
Firearms RegistryDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has said that he will whip his caucus to vote to keep the Liberal long gun registry. Canadians and especially constituents in the Yukon know there are only two options. Either one votes to keep the Liberal boondoggle or one votes to scrap it.
Yesterday at committee, the environment minister from the Yukon said, and I quote, “I also heard the Liberal leader in Ottawa say that his members will have to vote to save the gun registry. If this is the case, then not only the first nations will lose their voice but also the majority of Yukon citizens will”.
Yukoners deserve to have a member of Parliament who listens to their concerns. We call on the member for Yukon to stand with his constituents and vote to scrap the useless boondoggle Liberal gun registry.
Daniel L'HeureuxMr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to have this opportunity, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to wish our friend Daniel all the best for a wonderful retirement.
Daniel L'Heureux worked as a professional—and I do mean “professional”—journalist for some 40 years. He always managed to remain extremely objective in his work, as anyone who worked with him here on the Hill can attest to. He got right to the heart of the matter when asking a question, like the good lawyer he could have been had he continued along that path. He already knew the answer, and anyone who told him anything but the truth had to think twice.
With his Master's degree in sociology and journalism studies in Paris, the only thing I can fault him for is not completing his law degree. Daniel L'Heureux brought a smile, considerable intelligence and keen insight to every issue he covered, along with the desire to inform the public with every interview he conducted. 
o Daniel, his wife and children, I wish him all the best in his retirement.
Leader of the Liberal PartyMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Russian online newspaper Pravda had an interesting story yesterday about the leader of the Liberal Party entitled, “Russian Duke Craves Power in Canada”. Many Canadians probably do not know that the Liberal leader admitted on a Canadian television program to being flattered when addressed using the aristocratic and hereditary term “count”.
They also probably do not know that the Liberal leader admitted that his aristocratic and hereditary title was useful for social advancement in the United Kingdom. We do know that the Liberal leader is a self-identified cosmopolitan who admits to being “horribly arrogant”. It is no wonder the Liberal leader wants to raise taxes that will hurt Canadian families by killing jobs. Clearly, in his mind—
The Speaker: We will move on to the next statement. I think that is out of order.
International Day Against HomophobiaMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 17 is International Day Against Homophobia. In honour of this day, famous playwright and novelist Michel Tremblay will receive the 2010 Fight Against Homophobia Award.
We must take this opportunity to consider how far the gay and lesbian community has come, but also how much further it has to go. Although gays and lesbians have more rights than ever, it may all be for naught with this Reform-style Conservative government. 
By removing any reference to homosexual rights from the immigrants' handbook and by reducing or eliminating funding for gay pride festivals in Montreal and Toronto, this Conservative government has made it clear it want to hide and silence homosexuals.
The Bloc Québécois would like to take this opportunity to say that we want to live in a society free of prejudice that welcomes everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Margaret RideoutHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the late Margaret Rideout, who died Wednesday at 87 years old. In 1964, Mrs. Rideout was the first woman from New Brunswick ever elected to the House of Commons. Four years later, she became a Citizenship Court judge and served as chief judge of the Court of Canadian Citizenship.
Mrs. Rideout was highly respected for her dedication to the people of Moncton and her commitment to public service and Canada's immigration system. Her son, Mr. Justice George Rideout, was a colleague and is a friend to many of us, as he too served in the House from 1988 to 1997. 
I know all members join me in the mourning of the loss of this outstanding Canadian and expressing our deepest sympathies to the Rideout family at this difficult time.
Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw a typical Liberal hypocrisy being practised by the chair of the ethics committee, who only wants to follow the rules when they suit him.
Under the concept of ministerial accountability, the Minister of Human Resources voluntarily and willingly appeared at the ethics committee to answer questions related to her department. Shockingly, and perhaps a first for a Westminster Parliament, the chair refused to allow the minister to be accountable and--
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member knows that there was a point of order raised on this matter concerning a statement of a similar nature yesterday, and I think he might usefully make his submissions on a point of order rather than as a Standing Order 31 statement.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker:  Several eloquent statements by members paid tribute to a great Canadian who is with us today. 
 I remind the House that television is a visual medium and that it is the Chair who should draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Daniel L'Heureux, a journalist who has been the voice and face of Radio-Canada for 30 years. He is retiring today after a long and distinguished career. He will be sorely missed. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!

Oral Questions
The EconomyHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a new Certified General Accountants Association of Canada report shows that Canadian families are the most indebted of the OECD. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are growing our public debt by borrowing billions to finance corporate tax cuts.
On the one hand, Canadians are struggling to pay down their personal debts. On the other, the government is taking on new public debt to lower corporate taxes that are already among the lowest of our competitors.
Why does the government want to impose more debt on Canadian families in order to give additional tax breaks to the largest and wealthiest of corporations?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our number one goal, our number one objective as a government here in Canada is to create jobs, to create more hope, to create more opportunity.
 Just 15 months ago we came forward with Canada's economic action plan. One of the centrepieces of that is tax reductions, to make Canada a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity. Just last month we got some good news that 108,000 jobs were created in this great country. There is no doubt that corporate tax cuts on the job creation sector was a major part of that.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the government is all about short-term messaging for long-term pain, and that is the fact.
We balanced the books and lowered Canada's deficit. The Conservative government is increasing debt by borrowing against our grandchildren's future. It reminds me of the Mulroney government that drove this country to the brink of bankruptcy.
Why is the government borrowing from our grandchildren to cut corporate taxes beyond what is fiscally prudent?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is funny. The Liberal Party had a conference in Montreal, a policy conference, a thinkers' conference, but it did not allow Liberal MPs to speak. The Liberal leader would not allow his Liberal MPs to speak. 
Had he done that, he would have heard some great quotes from the Liberal critic for finance, the member for Markham—Unionville, who has said in the past that corporate tax cuts create jobs, that cutting taxes on new investment is the best way to get the economy going. He was right then and he is right now.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, it is all about choices, and the Liberal Party looks at choices.
The government chooses to borrow more money to pay for tax cuts for the largest and wealthiest of corporations. It chooses to slash payments for services to ordinary Canadians. Does the government not realize that poor fiscal choices today lead to economic tragedy tomorrow?
Why does the government play a game of economic jeopardy with our grandchildren's future?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the member opposite of a great quote from a great thinker on tax cuts. He said:
 Our leader has stressed...the importance of deeper corporate tax cuts as a primary means of achieving the investment, the rising living standards and the jobs, jobs, jobs that we all want for ourselves and our children. 
Who said that? The official spokesman for the Liberal Party on taxes, the member for Markham—Unionville.
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian families have been going through tough times as of late. At the same time, the Conservatives' deficit is estimated at over $50 billion. What is the government doing? It is insisting on another round of tax cuts for large corporations, when we already have one of the most competitive tax regimes in the world. We will lose $6 billion a year as a result of these tax cuts. This money could go to Canadian families to help them with much more pressing needs. 
When will this government show some good judgment and work on this country's real priorities?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the real priority is to create jobs so that families can provide for themselves and increase their standard of living. Liberals know this only too well.
 Let me read another quote, “Corporate tax cuts are one of the best strategies to attract investment and help manufacturers battered by the high Canadian dollar”. Who said that? It was the official spokesman for the Liberal Party on taxes, the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville. He was right then. This is one of the reasons that Liberal MPs should have been allowed to speak at their policy conference.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' incompetence is costing Canadians dearly. Not only have they driven up our debt, but they have made all kinds of promises they do not keep. How many photo ops did we see the with the Prime Minister and the Canadian navy? How many ships did they promise to build? They are good at self-promotion. How do they explain that the navy now needs to cut its patrol fleet in half? Are the Conservatives so short-sighted on purpose, or are they just incompetent?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, before I go on, let me offer the condolences of our government and everybody in the House to the family and comrades of Private Kevin McKay, 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Edmonton, who gave his life for Canada and for Afghanistan yesterday.
It is a bit rich for the party of the decade of darkness over there to talk about funding for the Canadian Forces. 
This government will not tie up ships. In fact, this government has given $200 million more to the navy this year than last year. Last year we gave more to it than the year before. We are getting the job done for the navy because the navy deserves it and Canada deserves it.
SecuritiesMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's finance minister, Raymond Bachand, is still angry with the Conservatives who, as he said, are using rhetoric to sell the idea of a single securities commission in Canada. He said that it is irresponsible to make people believe that a federal commission would have protected unfortunate victims from fraudster Earl Jones.
Will the government admit that its sole motivation for moving ahead with this project is to deprive Quebec of its financial sector for the benefit of Toronto?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that Canada is the only major industrialized nation that does not have a national securities regulator.
As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has said on a number of occasions, Quebec can choose whether or not it wants to participate. That is up to Quebeckers and their government. They will make that decision.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, Minister Bachand does not buy the argument that provincial participation is voluntary. No one in Quebec is being fooled. The Conservative strategy is simply to isolate Quebec in order to eventually force it to join this Canada-wide securities commission.
Why are the Conservative members, especially those from Quebec, bent on destroying Quebec's financial autonomy to the benefit of Toronto? 
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that countless articles have explained that this type of organization would essentially provide better protection for Quebec investors, reduce useless expenditures and attract new investors and investment from abroad.
Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's finance minister condemns the Conservatives' disinformation about the costs of the current regulatory system. Many analyses show that the costs of raising capital in Canada are comparable to those in the United States. And that is not including the job losses in Quebec and the $300 million the federal government is investing to duplicate a system that works well.
When will this government admit that there is only one reason for its commission: to strip Quebec of its financial autonomy for Toronto's benefit?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my Bloc Québécois colleague is ignoring the facts. I would like to share with him something we heard recently from Joey Davis, a victim of Earl Jones who speaks for the victims' group. He said that he had more confidence in the federal government and that he hoped Mr. Bachand and Premier Charest would work with and not against Ottawa on this issue. 
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, by trying to create a Canada-wide securities commission in Toronto, the Conservative government is disregarding Quebec's constitutional responsibilities. A broad business coalition condemns the arrogance of the government, which is trying to strip the Quebec nation of an important tool for economic and financial development.
How can the Conservative members from Quebec support a proposal that would do away with Quebec's decision-making authority and influence?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my Bloc Québécois colleague is trying to paint a miserable picture of Quebec, but let me quote a study by Columbia University that showed that the system—
The Speaker: Order, please. There is too much noise. If hon. members want to talk, they can do so outside the House. They do not have to talk here. We are here now for question period. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor, and we have to be able to hear him.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that a study by Columbia University showed that Canada's fragmented securities regulator cost it nearly $10 billion a year in economic benefits and 65,000 jobs. We on this side of the House believe in job creation, in Canada's wealth and in the wealth—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Outremont.
National DefenceThomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have given a big present to the Canadian navy on its 100th anniversary. They are cutting back half its fleet operations.
Half the Kingston class maritime coastal defence vessels are grounded. HMCS Montreal, HMCS St. John's and HMCS Vancouver will have their operations cut.
These are the same Conservatives who said that when they came to power they were going to buy aircraft carriers. They cannot even keep patrol vessels off the coast.
What happened?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, that is really rich coming from the party that does not hold any respect for the equipment of the Canadian Forces and votes against every measure we bring in to equip the Canadian Forces.
First of all, let me reiterate, we will not be tying up ships. That is simply false.
Historically, this government never said we were going to buy aircraft carriers. I know the member likes to make up things that sound good to him, but he should handle the truth in this House a little bit better.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, it would be our great pleasure to share with the member some quotes about aircraft carriers.
This is nonsense. What is the use of purchasing new ships if they are only going to be kept in port? It is all well and good for them to puff out their chests and say they support the troops, but they need to keep their promises.
Our three frigates are practically defenceless. HMCS Toronto, HMCS Ottawa and HMCS Athabaskan might as well be fishing boats. Our Protecteur class ships will not even have a missile defence system.
How can they protect anything? Why are the Conservatives putting the lives of our brave sailors at risk?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely absurd. The first priority for any member of the Canadian Forces, for any leader of the Canadian Forces, is the protection of the safety of our men and women in uniform. We equip them to do that. 
What the member is saying about the navy is simply not true. It is simply false. We are not tying up any ships. No ships are going into dry dock. 
The navy has been given $200 million more this year than last. We have, through the Canada first defence strategy, a 30 year program investing about $40 billion in the building of 50 new ships primarily for the security of Canada, for the navy. 
We are getting the job done for the Canadian Forces. That member should hardly talk about equipping the Canadian Forces.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, it takes a certain temerity for the parliamentary secretary to talk about respecting the military, because not the opposition parties but Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden himself, who is the commander of the Canadian navy, has sent out the orders and they are being implemented.
Canadian sailors are indeed the best in the world, and all they got from the current government on their centennial was a new curl on their uniforms.
The commander of the navy has said, and I quote, “The budget cutbacks led to the grounding of half the fleet”. 
Has the quagmire in Afghanistan consumed so many resources that now the Conservatives have to cut back the navy to shove more money into the Kandahar money pit?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the only thing we get from that member normally is the curl of his lip. 
Let me reiterate for the third time that the navy is not tying up any ships. The navy is going to manage the resources expertly as it always does. Half the fleet is not being tied up. That is simply false. The member should simply try to stick to the truth. I know that is difficult at times, especially from a party that opposes any military spending at all. That is very rich and completely off base.
Government ProgramsMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, we watched this week as the Conservatives gratuitously attacked Radio-Canada and the FrancoFolies, two respected institutions that are a source of pride for Canadians and a vital part of Quebec culture.
A few weeks ago, they appointed a racist to head Rights &amp; Democracy after slaughtering its board of directors. Women's groups and the gay parades have also been attacked.
Is there any cure for the Prime Minister's authoritarian inclinations?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting culture, our Conservative government has done more than any other government in the history of Canada. We are supporting culture more than ever before.
Do members want some examples? I have a couple.
I think the Liberals are acquainted with FrancoFolies in Westmount—Ville-Marie. That was $175,000 for each of two years. The POP Montreal Music Festival received $7,300 in Laurier—Sainte-Marie. FestiVoix received $36,000 in Trois Rivières. I could go on all day. I hope I get more questions. 
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, it would have been interesting if he had given us a list of all the cuts.
The Prime Minister is attacking any form of dissidence, diversity and difference. He wants to see a country made up of yes-men, a Canada like his Quebec caucus. Quebeckers did not go through the Quiet Revolution in Quebec so that the federal government could turn back the clock 50 years in terms of social gains. But the Prime Minister appears indifferent to the future of Quebec.
How much longer will his demolition derby last?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I indicated I have all kinds of examples. I could read them, but it is apparent the member is not really listening to the examples I am giving.
However, one thing I can say is that when it comes to this party's Conservative Quebec caucus, it stands four-square behind its province and behind its country. They are outstanding members of Parliament.
National DefenceHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite the defence minister's claims, Vice-Admiral McFadden says that the Conservatives are slashing our navy. The fleet of Kingston class coastal vessels will be cut in half. Mission times for frigates will also be cut.
Experts are saying that these cuts will leave the navy with “limited capacity” for many years to come.
At a time when we are asking our navy to do more, why are the Conservatives giving our navy less?
Why are the Conservatives not supporting our troops?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the feigned outrage is getting richer and richer coming from that side of the House.
The fact is we will not be tying up any ships. Please understand that.
The fact is the navy is getting $200 million more this year than last year, and it got more last year than the year before. We are embarking on a shipbuilding program that is going to last 30 years, that is going to take $40 billion, and that is going to produce 50 ships.
We do have a great navy. We will continue to promote the navy. We will continue to make the navy stronger, in terms of equipment, in terms of personnel. It would be nice if we got some co-operation from across the floor.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should read his own Treasury Board report that says the Conservatives will be investing less in the Canadian navy next year than they did last year. The Conservatives are cutting our navy. And when it comes to the navy, Canadians can trust Vice-Admiral McFadden more than they can trust these Conservatives.
What the Vice-Admiral said is clear. The navy's reserve capacities are being slashed in half. Combat systems are being limited. Even the missile defences on supply ships will be cut off.
Why are the Conservatives gutting our navy resources? Why are they putting lives at risk?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, we are not gutting the navy. What is being gutted across the floor is common sense.
We are supporting the navy with more money this year than we did last year, and more than the year before that. We have a long-term program to re-equip the navy. The hon. member knows that. It is going to be huge for the navy. It is going to be huge for jobs for Canadians. We would never jeopardize the lives of our servicemen and servicewomen. We have proven that over the years. 
We are going to continue to do a good job for the Canadian Forces and the Canadian people.
Status of WomenMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government claims it does not want to reopen the debate on abortion, but at every turn there is a Conservative MP raising the issue again and promising to introduce bills to call women's right to abortion into question. On Thursday, the hon. member for Peterborough promised to bring this issue before the Standing Committee on Health.
Are these Conservative MPs not reveallng the government's real intention, which is to take small steps toward the ultimate goal of recriminalizing abortion? 
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to World Vision, 24,000 children under the age of 5 die every day in the developing world. Experts tell us that every year, 9 million women around the world watch their children die in pain from preventable diseases that often cost just a few cents, not dollars, to treat.
We have a responsibility to take action to protect and save these children's lives. It is the right thing to do and we encourage the opposition to support this commendable initiative.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the right of women in Canada, not women abroad, to have access to abortion. That was my question.
Now we know what Senator Ruth meant when she told pro-choice women's groups to shut up. 
I guess the Conservative government's approach to the abortion issue is this: those who are for abortion, “shut your mouths”, and those who are against it, “keep up the good work”.
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, our government wants to focus on issues that unite us, not divide us, issues that we can all get behind, issues like violence against women. I do not know if the member knows this, but women are 10 times more likely to suffer from a sexual assault than men are. That is why we are focused on ending violence against women, and time after time we are introducing new laws to protect women and children from violent rapists and offenders. 
We are trying to introduce laws to make sure that we protect children from sexual predators and that we protect women from sexual slavery. That is the kind of initiative all of us can support, and we ask members to support us on it.
Foreign AffairsMr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the Saudi interior minister. They discussed the case of Nathalie Morin, a young Quebecker and her children being held abroad by an abusive spouse.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs refuses to say if he demanded that she be repatriated and would only confirm that it is a “family conflict” that should be resolved according to Saudi laws.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if he at least asked for the repatriation of Nathalie Morin and her children?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to his question, my colleague indicated that it is a very complex family matter. I did broach the subject with him as I did with the Saudi foreign affairs minister when I travelled to Saudi Arabia last October.
Like many other people, we are following this case very closely. As we have done in many cases, we will offer all possible consular services to this woman who is presently in Saudi Arabia.
Jean-Yves Laforest: Mr. Speaker, experts remind us that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadian nationals abroad because Canadian authorities are required to ensure that these rights are respected. Julius Grey stated that in this case, “the Canadian government has failed to carry out its fundamental duty to assist its citizens abroad.” 
When will this government understand that it must abide by Canadian laws and that it is time to bring Nathalie Morin and her children home?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, of course we abide by Canadian laws and fully respect them. I would remind members that the case of Ms. Morin is a complex family matter. Furthermore, we must respect Saudi laws as well as the Hague Convention, which deals with young children. In this context, we are providing all consular services possible in the circumstances. 
EthicsHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister bounced the member for Simcoe—Grey from caucus and cabinet because he said he had serious and credible allegations of her misconduct.
The member for Calgary Northeast is being investigated by the Calgary police and the RCMP and is named in the largest mortgage fraud in Canadian history.
Is it only the Prime Minister who believes these allegations against that member are neither serious nor credible?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time in my answer to correct all of the factual inaccuracies in the member's question.
I will simply point out that this matter has nothing to do with government business and it is before the courts.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, possibly the Prime Minister is waiting for Derrick Snowdy's advice.
Certainly the Bank of Montreal regards this multi-million dollar fraud as serious and credible. The RCMP and the Calgary police regard it as serious and credible. The Law Society of Alberta regards it as serious and credible.
The only person who seems to think that this is not serious and credible is the Prime Minister. When will the member for Calgary Northeast be removed from the Conservative caucus?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that member's question is neither serious nor credible.
This matter is before the courts. It has nothing to do with government business.
Offshore DrillingMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have seen the massive and immediate response to the gulf oil spill from the American government.
The chair of Canada's safety regulator admitted yesterday that an accident could happen here, but there is no plan in place if a similar catastrophe were to occur in Canada, neither for the east coast, nor for the west coast, nor for the north.
An oil spill on any Canadian coast would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, destroy fragile ecosystems, and cost livelihoods.
Why does the government not have a plan to deal with a catastrophic oil spill, or do the members opposite not believe this is important?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is totally false. They are just fearmongering. Canada has strict, responsible regulations. In the Beaufort Sea in particular, there is unlimited liability. Had my colleague taken the time to review the agreement, she would know that it includes unlimited and absolute liability.
Moreover, there is a tanker exclusion zone in British Columbia. No oil tankers are allowed in the inside passage. That is the way it is, and it will not change.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister's grasp of the issue is better than his grasp of Latin was yesterday.
Since the gulf oil spill, we have not been able to get a straight answer out of the Conservative government. Canadians just do not know whether or not the government will respect the 1972 Liberal oil tanker moratorium on B.C.'s Pacific north coast inland waters.
One day ministers say no; the next day they say yes. Is the minister confused, or just trying to confuse Canadians? I have a very simple question: will the government explicitly respect the 1972—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, instead of scrutinizing the way I speak English, should check the state of the law enforced here in Canada.
 We have a very severe regime. We have unlimited liability everywhere in the country. Moreover, there are absolute liabilities. There will be no drilling until the government is convinced that the security of the workers is ensured, and also that there is protection of the environment.
She should check the law that the government enforces.
Firearms RegistryMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee, the Yukon environment minister lamented that his MP's local voice was being stifled by the leader of the Liberal Party.
He also asked whatever happened to democracy. Here, in this House, we are all elected to represent our constituents, the people who voted to send us here.
Will the member for Yukon listen to his constituents, or will he allow his voice to be dictated by the Liberal leader?
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety update the House on this important issue?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yes, I can. I also want to thank the member for his strong support on this very important issue.
The member forYukon is on the record as stating:
 I may not have a choice, but I'm certainly going to continue to try and see what my options are up to the day of the vote. 
I would remind the member for Yukon that he answers to his constituents and for them the choice is either vote to keep the wasteful long gun registry or vote to scrap it. It is as simple as that. There is no shifting and no sliding. 
EthicsMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if a poor kid in Winnipeg steals our hubcaps, the Conservatives want to lock him up and throw away the key, but when a member of their own caucus is implicated in a criminal investigation in a massive real estate fraud, there is not a peep from the PMO.
Could someone explain to me why the member for Simcoe—Grey was banished from the party, from the caucus and from the cabinet over bad optics, while Conservative men under criminal investigation or who leave secret documents on a bedside table get the full protection from the Conservative good old boy's club? Where are the bad optics associated with that, I would like to know.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the matter has nothing to do with government business and it is before the courts.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us sum up this week in politics. A Conservative MP is directly implicated in a massive real estate fraud. A Liberal MP is advertising that he will sell his loyalty to foreign interests, and well-connected lobbyists are holding so-called fundraisers for the very ministers that they are lobbying. This is not exactly the same as handing over a bag full of cash but it is pretty close.
Why does the Prime Minister not call in Derrick Snowdy to make the world safe for democracy again? We know he takes swift action on the flimsiest of allegations from Magnum B.S. Why does he not call in Mr. Snowdy?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, our friend from Winnipeg Centre has certainly demonstrated why this week in Parliament in The Hill Times newspaper he was named the most quotable member of Parliament. I am very pleased on behalf of all members of the government caucus to congratulate the member opposite.
Pharmaceutical IndustryMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, drug manufacturer sanofi-aventis announced that it was laying off 70 workers. The company lamented the fact that the federal government provides inadequate support for innovative companies' research activities. It also noted that, unlike generic drug companies, innovative companies have no meaningful right of appeal when their intellectual property is challenged.
When will the minister provide the kind of balanced intellectual property protection that is critical to Quebec's economic development?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government continues to remain committed to supporting the provinces and territories in the delivery of health care, which is why we continue to increase the budget transfers by 6% and each jurisdiction will allocate those funding resources accordingly.
Luc Malo: Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister a second chance. I would ask her to listen carefully to my question. The Government of Quebec is trying to attract biotech investment and make the sector a stronger component of our industrial development, but the Canadian government is discouraging that kind of investment.
When will federal ministers implement a plan to support Quebec's biotech industry?
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out for the member opposite that this government has supported Quebec industry second to none in the history of this country. In fact, the NRC IRAP provided $61 million alone to Quebec businesses and other groups. Quebec Drug-Discovery Consortium in Montreal received $8 million. It goes on and on.
The point is that if the Bloc members had their way, none of this funding would go into their province of Quebec because they voted against it. Every time there is a vote concerning businesses, students and investment, they vote no.
Government ProgramsJudy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, in light of the government's decision to change Canada's long-standing policy on maternal health, yesterday's words from a Conservative member speak volumes. 
The member for Winnipeg South spoke of “small steps in scaling back the rights of Canadian women”. This helps to explain the so-called small steps like killing the court challenges program, attacking pay equity, cutting funding for 22 women's groups this year alone. 
What other small steps do the Conservatives intend to do to Canadians next?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments but we are listening to what World Vision is telling us on maternal health. It is telling us that 24,000 children under the age of five will die today in the developing world.
Our government has a responsibility to act. We have made a decision to bring our G8 partners to the table to address this issue with the goal of saving the lives of millions of women and children. Development leaders are supporting this. They are telling us that every year, nine million women around the world watch as their children die from painful, preventable illnesses that cost dimes, not dollars, to treat. 
We have a responsibility to act and I ask the member to support us.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, what about Planned Parenthood? Funding for groups throughout Canada only goes to the ones that share the very narrow ideology of the Conservative government. Women's rights groups have been cut, along with literacy advocates, cultural events and, as I said earlier, Planned Parenthood.
There is no hiding it. A few words from the Conservative member for Winnipeg South explain the government's true bias and its real agenda. 
Which Canadians will be next to get trampled on by the government's so-called small steps?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that our government has increased the funding for women's groups to the highest level ever in the history of this country. However, we are also listening to the presidents and CEOs of World Vision, UNICEF, Results Canada, CARE Canada, Plan Canada and Save the Children. They have all told us:
 It's time to focus on the hope and opportunity that this G8 Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health presents and end the suffering of millions of families around the world. 
In fact, Sharon Marshall from World Vision Canada said that World Vision was outraged that this debate was being raised.
Child and Maternal HealthMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last year, the international community contributed $5.3 billion to a multinational fund to help tackle child and maternal health in developing nations. However, not a single dollar of that $5.3 billion was Canadian. 
We have heard a lot from the Conservatives about their intent to tackle the issue of child and maternal health. We have heard a lot but we have not seen the fundamentals.
I have a very simple question for the government. How much money will it contribute to fight for child and maternal health? What is the dollar figure?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, what the member does know is that the leadership of the Prime Minister is evident. He has invited the G8 leaders from around the world to come here to deal with a pressing issue, which the developing world has been asking to be dealt with for years, and that is the issue of child and maternal health.
We have a huge opportunity this June at the G8 to make a difference in the lives of women and children. This initiative will save millions of children under the age of five. Obviously, when the G8 leaders get together we will see those plans. In the meantime, however, I am sure we have the member's support.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I think I was very straightforward. I just asked about how much money. We have seen $5.3 billion contributed by other partners. We donated zero last year. Looking at it, we need to do more. The Global Fund's initiative is a good place to start. It saves the lives of over five million people.
The fund's representatives were here in Ottawa at the foreign affairs committee and they asked for Canada to contribute more. We would like to see the government stand with those who want to make a difference on child and maternal health and put aside all the rhetoric we have heard from it. 
Will the government help and will it double the funding to the Global Fund?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear from the member opposite that he wants to end the rhetoric and that he wants to help because that is exactly what we have been asking all of the opposition parties to do with us. We have a historic opportunity in June with our partners from the G8 who are all coming to the table with the same goal of saving the lives of women and children.
I am very pleased to hear that the NDP is now supporting this initiative. It is a laudable initiative, an honourable initiative and it is the right thing to do. This is a historic opportunity.
TaxationBlaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, all week the Liberals have been bragging about their sad, sorry and pathetic record of the 1990s. Their confusion about this dark era must be because their leader was far, far away from Canada at the time. 
Would the Minister of Transport remind the House just what the Liberal record from the 1990s is and why, perhaps, the Liberals should not be quite so boastful?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, like the member for Wetaskiwin, I was shocked to hear the Liberals bragging about their sorry record. Let us look at their record with raising taxes. Between 1993 and 2000, Liberal governments increased taxes 63 times. Personal income taxes were increased 27 times. Business taxes were increased 23 times. CPP premiums were increased seven times.
After witnessing all of this from overseas, no wonder the self-described tax and spend Liberal leader wanted to come to Canada and raise taxes further. When he wanted to search for a team that could raise taxes—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Guelph.
Automotive IndustryMr. Francis Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers loaned $10.5 billion to General Motors last year and yet GM closed approximately 250 Canadian dealerships that add little to the cost of GM operations.
Robinson Pontiac Buick, a GM dealership in Guelph, is one of those across the country that together provide thousands of jobs at the dealerships and with their suppliers and contractors. 
Congress pressed GM to re-open more than half of the closed American dealerships and GM complied. Why is the Conservative government idly standing by while thousands of Canadians lose their livelihood?
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I know the member is not always in the House but I wonder if he knows that we created 108,000 jobs last month alone.
We put $145 million over five years into the automotive partnership fund, $200 million into the automotive innovation fund, $700 million into accounts receivable, insurance and the list goes on.
One thing is absolutely sure. Under the guidance of the Conservative government, the automotive sector in Ontario has fully rebounded and we are very proud of that record. Why would the opposition not support that?
Firearms RegistryMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the presidents of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal and the Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec have reiterated their support for the firearms registry. For them, it is all about safety. They say that the $4 million cost associated with the long gun registry pales in comparison to the costs associated with firearm-related injuries and deaths. 
Why do the Conservatives reject the opinion of police officers, who say that the firearms registry is an important tool in the fight against crime?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we would dismantle the long gun registry, and not the entire firearms registry. The long gun registry has been very costly and ineffective, and it criminalizes honest citizens, hunters and farmers.
The member should ask his colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, who wants to criminalize his own constituents. Now that is what makes no sense.
Victoria HarbourMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have approved a mega-yacht marina for Victoria's inner harbour against the wishes of the majority of people who live there. One of the proponents of this plan is the 2006 Conservative campaign co-chair. He is also on the fundraising committee for the minister who represents Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Why is the government too busy meeting with its lobbyist friends to listen to the families who actually live there?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, if the member from Vancouver Island had talked to her colleague, the New Democratic member for Victoria, she would know that I have worked with her very closely on this issue. 
In fact, it is not the Government of Canada that makes this determination. It is both the city and the province. The one narrow area where the federal government is involved is with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and it is a very limited approval.
Public SafetyMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians were outraged when they learned that sex offender, Graham James, received a pardon, and they are understandably concerned that other notorious criminals may also get rubber-stamped if Parliament does not act quickly.
Yet, the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering will not commit to moving this important piece of legislation forward in a timely manner.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety inform the House why speedy passage is needed for this very important legislation?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank that member for his hard work on this very important file.
On Tuesday, the Minister of Public Safety announced legislation to ensure that sexual offenders against children do not receive pardons. Canadians and victims advocates have been overwhelming in their support for this urgently needed legislation.
We call upon the Liberals, and in particular the member for Ajax—Pickering, to stop playing games and start listening to victims. We ask that they support the passage of Bill C-23 at all stages quickly.
Points of OrderHon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will remember in your ruling of April 27, which was your decision on a question of privilege, that you were confident that members of Parliament of all parties could come to an agreement. I just want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that that confidence was not misplaced because I am very pleased to tell the House today that an agreement has been reached with all the political parties.
It is an agreement that complies with Canadian law, it does not compromise national security and it does not jeopardize the lives of the men and women who serve in uniform, which of course was the concern of the government in recognizing your ruling. Again, this was put together with the agreement of all political parties and I am very pleased and honoured at this time to inform the House of the details of that agreement.
The agreement in principle is the creation of an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians composed of one member of Parliament and an alternate from each political party. Each member of the ad hoc committee will be required to take an oath of confidentiality and sign a confidentiality agreement and will be required to obtain the appropriate security clearances. Access to documents will take place in a secure location. Appropriate security procedures will apply. Committee members will have access to all documents in both redacted and unredacted form. Committee members will have access to government officials from appropriate departments to provide briefings and contextual information and reasons for protecting information. 
With respect to every unredacted document examined by the committee, the committee will determine whether the information in the document is relevant to matters of importance to members of Parliament, particularly as it relates to the ongoing study on the transfer of Afghan detainees currently under way at the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, and whether the use of such information is necessary for the purpose of holding the government to account. The decisions of the committee related to the relevance shall be final and unreviewable. 
Where the committee determines that such information is relevant and necessary, or upon the request of any member of the committee, it will refer the document to a panel of arbiters who will determine how that relevant and necessary information will be made available to members of Parliament and the public without compromising national security, either by redaction or the writing of summaries or such techniques as the panel finds appropriate, bearing in mind the base objectives of maximizing disclosure and transparency.
The panel of arbiters should regularly consult with the members of the committee to better understand what information the MPs believe to be relevant and the reason why. The decision of the panel of arbiters with respect to disclosure shall be final and unreviewable. The panel of arbiters will be composed of three eminent jurists. The composition of the panel must be agreed upon by the government and the opposition.
All parties agree that the details of this proposal will be further outlined in a memorandum of understanding signed by all party leaders.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table that, in both official languages, and indicate to you that it is the agreement between the members that the memorandum of understanding would be in place by May 31, 2010.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good day for parliamentarians. It is a good day for all those who have respect for the rule of law in this country. Again, I commend all members and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the ruling and the opportunity that you have given us to bring together this agreement. Again, your confidence was not misplaced.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement that he has made and the document that he has just tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking you for the landmark ruling that you made on April 27 about the rights of Parliament and the rights of Canadians to transparency, and specifically the right to all of the documents pertaining to detainees in Afghanistan. The parties have been hard at work, and I believe at work in good faith, over the last two and a half weeks to fulfill your expectations. We have been and will continue to be vigilant to ensure that the spirit and intent of your ruling is properly fulfilled.
In your ruling you said that Parliament has an absolute right to see the documents and that the government must comply. Why? So that members of Parliament are equipped with the information necessary to hold the government to account. 
Mr. Speaker, you also said strongly and properly that national security is of vital importance to all of us, government and opposition alike, and that we need to find the appropriate means to distinguish between information which is relevant and should be disclosed and national security which must not be compromised. We believe that we have found the way in the document that the minister just tabled.
There remains, of course, work to be done to translate today's agreement in principle into a formal and comprehensive memorandum of understanding among all parties in the House. We expect that detailed work will be done accurately and faithfully, respecting the spirit and intent of your ruling and the gist of the work that has gone on over the course of the last two and a half weeks.
Let me make one key point in that regard. The participants in the process that we are setting up, the MPs and the others who are involved, must be, and must be seen to be, of the highest calibre integrity and intent. They are being assigned a profoundly serious responsibility on behalf of 308 members of this House and, more importantly, on behalf of millions of Canadians. They must be selected carefully and they must not fail.
On behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Beauséjour, and the opposition whip, who participated with me in the discussions that have gone on, I close by thanking all of the participants in the talks over the last two and a half weeks who have all tried, I believe, to get it right on this most important topic. We still have important work to do, but so far so good. I think we have tried to fulfill the expectations that you have placed on us.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you once again for your ruling, which included a number of elements that enabled the political parties to reach this agreement. I would also like to emphasize that, overall, the discussions were carried out candidly and in good faith. I believe that this process should serve as a model for the future.
This agreement respects your ruling because parliamentarians will have access to the documents in unredacted form, and will be able to provide the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan with the information it needs to carry out its inquiry into allegations of torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities. 
This agreement also includes a mechanism to protect national security. I believe that this is a victory for democracy. I hope that the government has learned one thing from this exercise: Parliament takes precedence over the executive branch and must ensure that the government is accountable to parliamentarians. I hope that this agreement will lead to a much-needed restoration of the balance between the legislative and executive branches.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice for rising on a point of order and bringing forward this agreement into the House so that all members can be aware. It is very important that we report this back to the House.
On behalf of the NDP, I would like to say that we believe this is a very important step forward that has been taken. It was five years ago that the NDP first started raising the issue of what was happening to Afghan detainees in terms of what happened with the previous Liberal government and now the current Conservative government. 
The important issue here has always been, and remains, to tell Canadians the truth about the handling of Afghan detainees. We believe that this agreement is a critical step in holding the government to account, following the historic ruling that you made, Mr. Speaker.
 I would note that part of the agreement in our discussions is for the committee that has been outlined today by the Minister of Justice to periodically report to the House. That is a very important element of keeping this within Parliament and making sure that all members of the House are advised. 
We in the NDP will work very diligently on this issue to ensure that relevant information is released while respecting security concerns. We see today as an important victory for parliamentary democracy and for upholding the public interest.
 I would like to thank the members of our negotiating team, the member for St. John's East, the member for Windsor--Tecumseh and the member for Acadie--Bathurst for their very hard work in helping negotiate this agreement.
I would like to reference one small error, as details are important. With respect to the fifth bullet on page one, we did agree that committee members will have access to all documents. I think that is something that we put in. We got down to the wire, so in the written form that needs to be reflected.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We look forward to working in good faith with other members of the House who are on the committee in making sure that this job is done and that the public has the information that is required.
The Speaker: I congratulate all of the hon. members who participated in the negotiations.
I hope the accord that members have reached is reflected in the results that will happen over the next period of time. I congratulate all for your work. Thank you very much.
The hon. member for Saint Boniface is rising on a point of order.
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, I am very proud of the many members here in this House who have gone to great lengths to try to learn our two official languages.
Today I would like to offer them some encouragement. I know that many of the Conservative members on this side of the House are doing their part to provide encouragement, promote both official languages, learn them and use them.
Today during question period, I was absolutely horrified to hear a Liberal member actually make fun of a member from this side who was trying to do his best to speak another language. I would encourage the Speaker to speak with the member.
 The member for Vancouver Quadra, in her question, did make fun of one of our minister's attempts to use a different language. I think that is deplorable behaviour. We are actively encouraging all of our children across this country to learn both official languages. We know very well that knowing other languages opens doors to a world that is inconceivable.
I would encourage the Speaker to speak with the member for Vancouver Quadra and ask her to apologize, because it was just unacceptable, given that we are an officially bilingual country.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that those of us on this side of the House, the Liberal Party members, support and often congratulate francophones who speak English and anglophones who speak French, regardless of which political party they belong to. As the main witness, Mr. Speaker, you know that many people are making a valiant effort, and there has been great progress over the years.
In this case, my colleague used an expression in suggesting that perhaps the member had misunderstood a Latin term. She certainly did not mean to criticize the way the Minister of Natural Resources expresses himself in English, just as she would never criticize an anglophone minister speaking French. I think that her remark, though made in the heat of the moment, was completely innocent. I do not think we should interpret her comment as criticism. 
Once again, I congratulate all members who work hard to master our country's other official language.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I will refer to the Hansard and get back to the House, if necessary.
I remember hearing the word “Latin”, but I was not sure what it was referring to. I will look at the matter and come back to the House if necessary.

Routine Proceedings
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of New Zealand on Air TransportLawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House and pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of New Zealand on air transport” signed in Singapore on July 21, 2009.
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Air TransportLawrence Cannon:  Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House and pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on air transport” signed in Montreal on September 28, 2004.
 Mr. Speaker, I also table, in both official languages, the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, done in Ottawa today in Ottawa, May 14, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama, done in Ottawa on May 13, and the agreement on labour co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Panama done in Ottawa, done in Ottawa on May 13.
National Child BenefitMr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, I welcome this opportunity to table, in both official languages, the Federal, Provincial and Territorial National Child Benefit Progress Report for 2007.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Canadian Wheat Board Payments and Election Reform ActLawrence Cannon:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to study the order for the second reading of two Senator public bills: Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament)and Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings) and recommends that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) this report is deemed concurred in.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act. The committee examined the bill and has agreed to report it without amendment.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motions. I move:
 That, in relation to its study of violence against Aboriginal women, six members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Resolute Bay and Iqaluit, Nunavut; Labrador City, Newfoundland and Labrador; La Tuque, Quebec, and Fredericton, New Brunswick, in the spring-summer of 2010, that the committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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.
Harold Albrecht: (Motion agreed to)
Harold Albrecht:  Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of violence against aboriginal women, six members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Brantford, Ontario, and Quebec City and Montreal, Quebec, in the spring-summer of 2010, that the committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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.
Harold Albrecht: (Motion agreed to)
Harold Albrecht:  Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of violence against aboriginal women, six members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Maniwaki, Quebec, in the spring-summer of 2010 and that necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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.
Harold Albrecht: (Motion agreed to)
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, eight members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Percé, Grande-Rivière, Sainte-Thérèse-de Gaspé, Quebec; Deer Lake and Benoit's Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador; Sydney and Louisbourg, Nova Scotia and Moncton, New Brunswick, in the Spring of 2010, and the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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.
Harold Albrecht: (Motion Agreed to)
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to its study of immigration as a development tool in official language minority communities, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel Ottawa, Ontario, in June of 2010, that the Committee be authorized to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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.
Harold Albrecht: (Motion agreed to)
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all parties have agreed to the following. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the motion to concur in the First Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Monday, April 19, 2010, is called for debate, a member from each recognized party may speak for not more than 10 minutes, following each speech, a period not exceeding five minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comments briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto, after each recognized party has spoken, or when no members rise to speak, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion shall be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  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.
Gordon O'Connor: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions today.
The first petition is signed by dozens of Manitobans. It calls for the equal employment insurance benefits for adoptive parents. Canadians believe that adoption is important in a compassionate and just society. Under the current EI program, adoptive parents receive 35 weeks of paid leave and another 15 weeks of unpaid leave. A biological mother is given both the first 35 weeks and the latter 15 weeks as paid leave.
We all know that adoptions are expensive, lengthy and stressful to the adoptive parents and their families. Recent studies have shown that an additional 15 weeks of paid leave would help parents to support their adopted children and would help them through a difficult period.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-413, tabled by my colleague, the MP for Burnaby—New Westminster, which would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an adoptive parent is entitled to the same number of weeks of paid leave as the biological mother of a newborn child.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, also signed by dozens of Manitobans, calls on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the Chilean earthquake. Members are aware that on February 27 an 8.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in southern Chile. In fact, the Speaker will be in Chile, I believe next week, with a group of parliamentarians. I would hope they would be able to see some of the devastation there.
The Chilean Canadian community is mobilized. It has held fundraising events in Winnipeg and across the country over the last few months. In fact, I believe there is another one coming very shortly.
The question that everyone is asking is this. When will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the Chilean earthquake victims as he did for the victims of the Haitian earthquake and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the Chilean earthquake?
Questions on the Order PaperRick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When the bill was last before the House, we were in questions and comments.
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I know he is very knowledgeable about Bill C-15. The bill has come before us now probably five years. Many of us spoke to this bill last year.
Fundamentally, the NDP disagree with any limitation of liability for the nuclear industry. We would prefer to follow the A tier of companies, the European countries, Belgium, Germany, Slovenia, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Norway and the United Kingdom, which have unlimited liability, rather than the second tier of countries, Chile, Romania, Uruguay, Mexico and Poland, which have far less liability. Because the OECD countries have picked a much higher limit for countries such as England and France and since we are in that league, we should follow the unlimited liability provisions.
Does the member agree with that assessment? If that is the case, then we have to do some work on the bill in committee.
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As I mentioned in my speech on nuclear safety, nuclear plant operators must assume the liability
We believe that increasing compensation from $75 million to $650 million for damages or nuclear disasters caused by a defect or malfunction is a step forward. This bill can be improved even more if that is the will of Parliament. However, we think it is a step in the right direction, and that this increase, which is still significant, more appropriately responds to the new reality of operating a nuclear plant.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, members will more than likely know, and certainly in my lifetime, since 1952, there have been 81 nuclear accidents. During that time, we have been unable to determine that one accident in hydroelectric power. That brings me to a fundamental point, which is whether and when the government will get online and support an east-west power grid.
The Minister of State for Democratic Reform, a fellow member of Parliament from Winnipeg, has advocated it in his caucus to no avail so far. Manitoba has enormous hydroelectric power. Quebec has hydroelectric power. It is about time we took over Sir John A. Macdonald's dream of uniting the country with a national railway and build an east-west power grid so we could send clean, renewable hydroelectric power from Manitoba's north into Ontario. That would help it to stop the use of coal-fired plants and it would not have to develop nuclear power.
It is very clear that nuclear power is still an uphill battle. Literally no one wants a nuclear plant built in his or her jurisdiction. We will find residents up in arms over any initiative to do this. This is not to mention the fact that it will take many years to put this together. We need power in a much shorter term than what it would take to develop this nuclear facility.
Could the member comment on that?
[Interjection]
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I do not support nuclear energy and, personally, I do not think of it as clean energy. I think the government should invest more in renewable energy and much cleaner energy, such as hydroelectricity, as well as geothermal energy, solar power and wind energy. However, as we saw in its most recent budget, the Conservative government has not made the choice to step up development of these renewable energy sources.
If we continue on the same path, in a few years—not many years—Canada will lag behind in developing new forms of energy. Research is being done all over Europe. Even the Americans have invested huge amounts of money in renewable energy. Here in Canada, we are stuck with a dinosaur of a government, as we would say in Quebec. We are already lagging behind when it comes to investments in renewable energy sources.
With nuclear energy always comes the problem of nuclear waste. What do we do with the waste? That is always the big question. 
There is a nuclear power plant in my riding, which creates a great deal of uncertainty among the people. They need to be reassured and safety needs to maximized to ensure that this energy is regulated and monitored as much as possible. The government also needs to ensure the utmost human, social, and economic security, as well as public health.
In that regard, I agree with my NDP colleague.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow up with another question.
The member may or may not be aware, but a German politician by the name of Scheer has been single-handedly responsible for moving Germany in the area of renewable energy sources. As a matter of fact, I believe he may have been responsible for taking a Canadian company. I believe Mr. MacLellan from southern Ontario, who has the best solar panels in the world, could not get a hearing from the Ontario government or the federal government. In fact, the German government poached him and his plant and it has built a plant now in East Germany where it is producing a huge percentage of the solar panels used in the world. The panels are being manufactured in Germany and Germany is moving miles ahead in terms of wind power and solar power.
Does the member not agree that that is what we should be doing in Canada, especially since we have a Canadian who developed the solar panels?
[Interjection]
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
In Canada, we are going to bat for a matter of vital importance, that is, the development of green energy. Quebec has reached an important turning point, which has even been noted abroad. If Quebec were a sovereign nation, I believe that it would be admired for its green energy initiatives. We have invested extraordinary amounts in Hydro-Québec—which develops clean energy—and in wind energy. We are also looking at solar energy. The people want good air and water quality, a good quality of life overall. That is not presently the case with the Conservative government, which seems to want to exploit the oil sands, and perhaps even go with nuclear power because it believes it will reduce pollution. That is not true.
Therefore, the rest of Canada has a lot of work to do to develop green energy. The economic stimulus package with its infrastructure programs could have been a good opportunity to develop green energy initiatives, but it did not happen. The government said absolutely nothing about this.
The Conservative government will have to wake up and realize that it is 2010, that we are no longer in the 1950s, and that turning to renewable and green energy represents the future of our children.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-15. As I indicated before, this bill has been reintroduced after the Prime Minister prorogued the House. We dealt with the bill last year and it has been in the pipeline now for something like five years. Hopefully we will get something done with this bill and many other bills if the government quits proroguing the House whenever it feels threatened. It is an enormous cost to legislative time and effort to reintroduce and begin the process all over again on these bills.
I want to follow up on what the previous speaker dealt with in questions and answers. I think it is very fair to say at the outset that Canada is strewn with missed opportunities. For example, in the wind power environment, as early as 1991, wind power was being developed in Pincher Creek, Alberta. In those days, there were small wind turbines and it was the beginning of wind power development in Canada.
The Conservative government in Manitoba could have moved at that time and developed wind power but it did not. It sat and watched the world go by for another 10 years. It finally got into the wind power business only five or six years ago under an NDP government. The first wind farm in Manitoba was set up and it had 99 megawatts of power.
 Saskatchewan has a wind farm set up in Gull Lake that is an operating farm in the intervening period. The reality is that we have developed wind power in a very sporadic way in this country, unlike Europe which has a much more comprehensive approach to the whole area of wind power development and, I might add, solar power development.
I did mention a politician in Germany, known as Mr. Scheer, who is recognized as a leader in alternative energy and as being an advocate and a champion for the alternative energy sector. I believe he had something to do with a case where a man named Mr. MacLellan tried to build a solar panel plant in southern Ontario. He approached the Ontario government and the federal government and he did not get any type of agreement or any enthusiasm from them. I believe he was actually approached by the German government, which offered to help subsidize his plant. I think the German government paid for most of his plant and built it in East Germany. The reason this was done is that the Germans recognized that this Canadian had developed one of the best solar panels in the world and they wanted to capture this technology and develop it in Germany. 
This man now has a huge plant in East Germany that is running at full capacity. I believe there are plans for him to either expand the existing plant or build another plant in East Germany just to keep up with the demand for solar panels.
When we were looking at the wind farm business in Canada, and particularly in Manitoba, we were thinking about how we could develop some secondary industry here. The turbines are being bought from Vestus and General Electric. They are being manufactured offshore and are being brought to Canada. We thought that we could somehow get in on the ground floor and start manufacturing these wind turbines.
The fact is that there are all sorts of missed opportunities here. In the area of wind turbines and solar panels, it took the aggressive nature of the German government to see the opportunity, seize the opportunity and get the Canadian entrepreneur onside and over to East Germany producing these solar panels.
What does Germany have out of this? It has a great lead in developing solar panels and wind technologies. Those little wind turbines in Pincher Creek in 1991 were just tiny machines and they are still there. One can go out and see some of them still operating. They are very tiny compared to the new one megawatt and two megawatt wind turbines. Why did that happen? It happened because Vestus and established companies like it have now used their technology to build bigger products.
How does a jurisdiction like Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta for that matter, even get on the ground floor now? The train has already left the station and it is in Germany. As a matter of fact, there are examples of German farms. A television program outlined this whole situation recently. It interviewed people in Germany who have solar panels on their own barns. They are not only producing enough energy to power their entire farm operations, but they are selling the surplus on the grid.
Let us juxtapose that with what is happening in Canada. They interviewed a Canadian farmer. This poor Canadian farmer came here from Holland a number of years ago and he wants to develop wind capabilities on his farm. He was given the runaround by the Ontario Hydro facilities. Not only did he have to pay for the hookup to the power line himself, but he is still having problems hooking up, and this is to sell his excess power to the grid.
It really is comical, when one looks at it, to see how many missed opportunities this country has had. It is very sad. We see that Mr. Scheer in Europe and his Canadian partner in Arise Technologies, Mr. MacLellan, are now transforming the German economy. They are getting the German economy off non-renewables and getting the German economy on renewable fuels. We should be doing more that actually works. We can look at examples of best practices and we should be following Germany.
I want to deal once again with another issue. I know my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, is very keen on this issue as well. Even though he is not from my province, he knows a lot about my province. He accepts and understands that Winnipeg does have and has had the longest skating rink in the country for several years now. In any event, he is very understanding, as is the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, and I give him full credit.
I do not know what the Conservative MPs from Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing over there, but if I were part of that group, I would be joining the Minister of State for Democratic Reform and banging on the door of the government ministers, demanding that we develop an east-west power grid, in the tradition of John A. Macdonald who had the vision to tie this country together 100 years ago and build a railway across this country, which was absolutely astounding and visionary in his day. We could do the same thing with an east-west power grid.
When we look at a map of the country, what do we see with power lines, with oil pipelines and with gas pipelines? The member for Ottawa Centre said, “Going south”. That is exactly right. Every single one of the pipelines heads to the United States, heads south, when in fact we should be looking at trying to keep this country together and have the lines running east-west, particularly with regard to electricity.
We in Manitoba are selling our power into the United States, and we are happy to do it. We are developing more hydro plants currently and we will be selling more power into the United States, but it seems to me fairly obvious that what we should be doing is selling this power east-west.
Ontario has a long-identified problem. As a matter of fact, the Gary Filmon government and the Bob Rae government way back in 1991 were on the verge of signing an agreement to build an east-west power grid to bring Manitoba power to Ontario, to get rid of the coal-fired power plants in Ontario.
 Now the option is nuclear. That is some option. I can certainly agree with leaving coal-fired plants, but to think that somehow nuclear is the new development, the new frontier, is basically through the past darkly. We are going into the past. We are going with something we know does not work.
As I have indicated, in my lifetime there have been 81 nuclear accidents causing all kinds of damage, whereas we know of no hydroelectric damage that has ever caused loss of life and loss of property.
Our orientation in this country is all wrong when it comes to energy. It is not as if we are trying to reinvent the wheel here. We had the leader in solar panel development right in our backyard, a Canadian living here in Canada, who had to pull up stakes and move to Germany because we did not have the common sense, nor the good sense, to take him up on his offer and help him build a plant. Now of course we will be buying our solar panels from Germany and we will have to get in line, because there is a long waiting list for those panels.
This bill probably would have been good if it had been brought in 10 years ago. The limit of liability is currently $75 million. We are looking at going up to $600 million, but we are now moving into an environment where there is a group of countries with unlimited liability. That is what we should be looking at doing. We should be joining the likes of Belgium, Germany, Slovenia, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Norway and the United Kingdom. These countries have signed onto agreements which are going to increase their nuclear liability into the unlimited category.
As a matter of fact, all of the group A countries are signatories to the 2004 amending protocol to the Paris convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy which sets a minimum liability for nuclear power operators at about $1 billion Canadian. There is compensation from state funds as well.
I want to also point out that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an issue that is driving the agenda at the moment. I listened to committee hearings yesterday where the president of BP Canada was not really even familiar with the rules and the penalties. When representatives were asked by our critic, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, whether the chair of the natural resources committee would endeavour to get in touch with the Americans to find out what the rules are because they did not know what the rules are, he said he thinks the Americans are pretty busy right now with the oil spill.
Fortunately, there are members of the House whom I was lucky enough to be with last weekend for the Canada-U.S. meetings in New Orleans. On Sunday morning we were given a briefing on the oil spill. Without getting into a lot of specifics, the congressman who is well known to many people in this House and has been around for over 30 years was very pessimistic in his report to our group after the authorities gave their presentation.
We are seriously looking at very difficult circumstances where this drilling rig is operating.
 I asked a question about the total liability of the spill and what the penalties would be. I believe we were told that there is a fund to which companies contribute, but the limit of liability is in the $100 million range. If British Petroleum is judged to be negligent, it becomes an unlimited liability. Just a few weeks ago BP had very happy shareholders because one of the oil companies made about $15 billion in profit in the last couple of years, so it has a rosy future because government is reducing the corporate taxes. Even so, BP shareholders who just a few weeks ago were having a very happy existence may find their shares being worth very little if the company ends up going out of business as a result of what potentially could be an almost unlimited liability in the case of this oil spill. 
Fundamentally we have to hold these companies accountable. If that is what happens to BP, then that is what should happen because the public should not be shoring up private industry. If private industry wants to insist upon drilling at ridiculously deep levels without having proper relief wells in place and without having all the backups, then they have to assume full liability.
Our approach here is that we have to nurture the industry, give them all kinds of incentives and limit their liability. If we do that, the taxpayers are the ones who will end up with all the residual costs at the end of the process when there is an accident and meanwhile, the shareholders will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on his speech. He is quite involved in a number of different bills. However, I missed part of his presentation.
Since we are talking about Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, I would like to ask him whether he touched on Bill C-9, on budget implementation. If not, I would like him to say a few words about it.
Since that is an omnibus bill, the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited assets also just happens to be included in it. Tendering has begun on the sale of AECL's reactor business. I wonder whether the hon. member has studied this issue within the bill we are currently studying, in terms of liability. Are we sure that liability for the reactors will be transferred to the potential buyer? What are his thoughts on this?
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I do not really think we have changed our view on that over the last year because we feel at the end of the day that the government will be planning perhaps to divest itself of the assets, that asset and many other assets. If the purchaser happens to be an American company, for example, or a company from anywhere else, the company would be very pleased to find itself in a situation where it would have extremely limited liability which would save on its insurance costs.
I want to make a comment about the whole issue of insurance. For some reason the suggestion is that the nuclear consortium can somehow access certain levels of insurance. I have some experience in that area over a large number of years, and I can say that insurance premiums go up and down a lot. It all depends on the reinsurance treaties which are signed every year in London, England on January 1. That is what tells us what we are going to pay for insurance on various items that we are ensuring.
A big catastrophe like 9/11 cost Warren Buffett, who owns one of the reinsurance companies, $3 billion. That money is going to be recouped through increased car insurance, house insurance and all sorts of other insurance rates in the years following.
Insurance markets are highly unpredictable particularly in the area of liability.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding this piece of legislation, which the government tried to pass before, linking it to what many see as a subsidy for an industry that has always required a subsidy.
I remember being in Washington and being briefed on the whole issue of nuclear disarmament. Someone who saw himself as a conservative said unequivocally that there has not been one example where nuclear power has not had massive subsidies and in fact it was the most subsidized industry. He said that anyone could try to bring forward an example and he would show unequivocally that it was subsidized massively.
Is this not just another subsidy to industry by way of a liability piece? If so, should we not be focusing on that for the real cost because this legislation covers industry?
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. When a limit is put on the liability, it is telling the business what its ultimate, top-end cost is going to be. Businesses like that. They like to know what their costs are going to be. 
What it is also telling the public is that all the excess costs are going to be borne by the taxpayer. We are not talking about a little bit of money here; we are talking about a tremendous amount of money.
The insurance consortium tells us today that it will be able to get limits of whatever amount, $1 billion or whatever it tells us, but because events in the insurance markets are outside of its control, it will come to us in another year or two from now and say, “Sorry, but our insurers withdrew the terms” or the insurance company put some restrictions, or the insurance company doubled or tripled the premiums.
A number of years ago, in 1986 in Manitoba, liability insurance rates went up so drastically and so fast that playground equipment manufacturers could not get liability. When they could not get liability, they could not produce the product and they could not sell it to the City of Winnipeg. And that is just playground equipment.
When it comes to liability, insurance runs the entire economy.
Guy André: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague. In his speech, he talked about nuclear energy. The Conservative government currently wants to develop nuclear energy more fully to extract oil from the oil sands. Its argument is that this will reduce some of the pollution created from the oil sands operations. I do not think nuclear energy is the answer because it generates radioactive and nuclear waste that no one knows what to do with.
I would like the hon. member to say a few words about the Conservative government's desire to develop the oil sands.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question by expanding on reasons why we should not be going the nuclear route.
We have to look at the total cost of the nuclear option. One of the costs of the nuclear option is the storage of waste. There was talk of storing nuclear waste in Pinawa, Manitoba. Even though it is a fairly sparsely populated area, people were outraged. They were organized. They were going to stop this.
Where are they going to put the waste? No matter where they try to put it in this country, people are going to be protesting and trying to stop it. That is a huge cost here.
The waste has to be stored for a long time. We cannot do what the Russians were doing a number of years ago, simply dumping the waste into the oceans. We cannot do something like that.
Why would they want to embark on an avenue where the costs are huge and where they cannot get public buy-in on the area of waste? Where are they going to get buy-in today, in 2010, to situate a nuclear plant? No matter where they try to do it in this country, people are going to try to stop it. Now they are looking at a decade, maybe, before they can get these plants on stream.
If they were to spend that time on wind or solar or developing the east-west power grid, we could have much safer renewable energy on stream in half the time and not have to worry about storage or damage.
I have indicated we have had 81 nuclear accidents in my lifetime. We have had zero hydroelectric power accidents. That is a very compelling argument for going the route of traditional hydroelectric development or wind and solar versus nuclear, which is just riddled with problems.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the bill the government has put forward. I suppose it is actually not a surprise to many, because this bill was in front of the House before prorogation and it has come back again. Sadly, we cannot seem to shake it. The bill's problems are many and my colleagues have outlined some of them.
I would like to situate the beginning of my comments on where we are with regard to the whole nuclear question globally. Talks are taking place right now in the NPT review, the review of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and many are looking to Canada to see if it is going to put its words into action with regard to non-proliferation.
There is a consensus that if we are going to deal with what is a very dangerous situation with nuclear proliferation, we have to look at all sources and the transfer of technologies and materials and we have to make sure the materials are locked down and secure, so they do not get into the hands of those who would proliferate nuclear weapons. 
I say that because we know the history of Canada's involvement in selling nuclear materials and technologies abroad. It continues to be a concern for many. I am of course speaking of the sale of technologies in the past to India, which were used to help proliferate nuclear weapons.
We have to look at what the real costs are of nuclear power. They are not just the costs involved in terms of materials used in nuclear technology but also the real costs embedded in this kind of technology. As has been mentioned by many speakers, the notion that we can look at nuclear power in isolation is naive at best, but truly just ignorant. 
Looking at what happens to waste materials, we have to find some place for them to be situated forever and we still have not figured that out. When we look at the technologies, there are still risks. Some would say there have been improvements in terms of safety and oversight, but nothing is 100%. 
I would note that those who were looking to do offshore drilling recently said that the chances of having the kind of situation we see now in the gulf were near to impossible. The same kinds arguments have been made when it comes to nuclear power. I do not have to state the number of times the notion that nuclear power is 100% safe has been proven wrong, and the costs for cleanup and health care are massive.
Here in Ottawa there is a wonderful initiative by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. It is working with children who suffered from the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl. The immediate effects of Chernobyl were known, but they languished. CHEO partnered with people who were not able to get the health care they needed. 
We know what happened to the former Soviet Union as it fragmented into different countries. It did not have the capacity to deal with the kinds of latent illnesses that happened because of Chernobyl. It was a proud moment certainly for me in this community but also as a Canadian to see people help those who were affected.
I say that because some people believe, and we hear it time and time again from industry, that was the past and everything is fine now. One does not have to go very far or look too far back in history to see that concerns still exist. If people go the Ottawa River, they will see that, when there are concerns with Chalk River and worries about leaks, the way they are dealt with is rather interesting. The system is flushed and guess what happens to the water?
Unlike Pickering, where they contain the heavy water, the water that is just outside the doors of Parliament is flushed. That water goes into the system. It is not isolated or put aside. That is right here in the nation's capital, just upstream.
I say that because we still have not figured out Chalk River and the reactor there. That has been around since before I was born. It is something that we still have not figured out how to deal with. Many are rightly concerned about the nuclear materials and the effects of nuclear power that are going into the river here.
Where is the consensus? I think the consensus is that we have not been able to figure out a safe way of using nuclear power. We have people who will say we mitigate. We have people who say that we have changed the manner in which we deal with the waste materials and that we have made technology improvements around the operations in general. However, no one can say they are 100% secure.
When we put it together, if we are looking at non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the lockdown and security of nuclear materials, every piece of the rubric that is nuclear power and nuclear weapons have to do with safety and the 100% assurance of the ability of all regulators and all countries to track and ensure that there are not going to be leaks or inappropriate transfers of technologies and materials. We have not reached that point.
I have heard the government say many times that it is the polluter-pay principle. We have a bill that says we are going to put a liability cap of $650 million. Where is the evidence for that? Why is it that threshold? Look at all of our partners in this business. They are pretty clear that this does not match that risk assessment I was mentioning before. In other words, when one looks at the amount of money that is being suggested in this bill versus what the real costs would be in case of potential accidents, this does not work.
Some go as far as to say that we should not have a cap at all. It is a strong argument, in fact. That would put the real costs on those who are involved in the industry. I think it is a fair comment, but we should at least fall in line with the group of countries that has been mentioned before. The international standards list has been read before, but I will read it again. We should at least align ourselves with Belgium, Germany, Slovenia, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Norway and the United Kingdom.
Many would say that we share company with these countries in the OECD. The OECD countries that I just mentioned all get it. They understand that coefficient between liability or risk and what is an appropriate cost. They find it laughable that Canada would be so naive as to think that $650 million is going to do it.
If we look at who we associate ourselves with, we get into countries with which I normally would not situate Canada: Moldova, Cameroon, former Yugoslavian countries and Uruguay. It is nothing against them. They have a capacity challenge. That is who we are associating ourselves with. I would ask the government if that is the best we can do. Why is there this limitation? That is what Canadians need to know. We need to know that we are doing the best we can when it comes to nuclear power.
Look at the real costs. It is not just a liability question. It is also the materials and the development, the front-end load costs of nuclear power. We saw the disaster here in Ontario in the 1970s and 1980s. The costs are runaway costs to this day.
It makes the Olympic stadium look like a tea party, and an affordable one at that, when we look at the real costs we continue pay in this province for a technology that really has nothing but question marks around it. This is, by way of legislation, giving the signals to industry and to those who engage in nuclear power to not worry about the liability piece because we will take care of it. 
When we look at the costs embedded and what is going to be on the tab for taxpayers, it makes little sense. Take a look at what the comparison of international liability regimes says. I know my colleagues have talked about this. The Paris conventions on nuclear compensation were amended just a couple of years ago, because essentially the protocols were out of date. That is a common thing to do for international conventions. The amendments allow for an extension of the indemnity limit from 10 to 30 years. Many would say that we should be going beyond that, and I would be one of those.
They also eliminate the previous maximum limit of €75 million, which was in the old conventions, and instead impose a minimum liability of at least €700 million. That amounts to $1 billion Canadian. So we have the Paris convention, one that is recognized as the standard for liability regimes, and it is indicating a price point much higher than what the government is offering here.
Further to the convention, it says that the amendments raise the total financial security provided to €1,500 million for operator liability. The breakdown is €700 million for operator liability and €500 million of public funds. The countries that have signed on to this agreement are included but not limited to Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K. Sadly, what is glaringly omitted from that list is Canada. I could also put the blame here on the previous government. That could have been something that was signed off in 2004, but it wasn't.
We have to look at where Canada is on the issue. We are involved and implicated not only in the industry, but also in how we are seen in terms of the specific issue of liability. That matters, because if we are looking to be seen as a player on the international stage when it comes to energy security, we have to look at what the supports are and what the conditions are for the energy that we are using.
We know that there have been plans to use this technology in the development of the tar sands. We know that there has been talk of expansion in other provinces. The opportunity cost is vast when we decide to go nuclear and we have to consider the cost to the taxpayer if it goes wrong. There is a lack of money available for investment in things such as the east-west grid, but I cannot encourage the government more. I know that the member for Winnipeg, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, understands and I hope that the Minister of the Environment supports the idea that we must get behind the east-west grid.
Before we get into shovelling money over to the nuclear industry, we should be investing in conservation. We should be looking at investing heavily in the east-west grid. If we are going to kick the carbon habit as much as we should, then clearly we need to look at an east-west grid. We are leaking green energy right now. It is going south. It is going to the United States. Look at Quebec. Look at Manitoba. Where are those grid lines going with the surplus hydroelectric energy? They are going south.
Sir John A. Macdonald would be flipping in his grave right now if he saw what has happened. He built the spine of this country. He was a great man, a Progressive Conservative, a good guy, a member of the grand old party. Now look at what has happened. Now he would see this government and the others not looking west or east, but looking south and saying, “There, take our green energy”.
Imagine if Sir John A. himself, instead of building a railway from coast to coast in this country, had said, “We can make a buck off the Grand Trunk and send it south. We won't bother with that”.
That is what is happening right now. It is not because provinces do not want it. In fact, Manitoba, and I am sure Quebec, want to see us invest in an east-west grid so that we do not have to rely on expensive and dodgy energy sources like nukes. Not one single nuclear project in this country has been revenue neutral. There has not been one. They have all had massive subsidies.
I have to say when members, who I hear from time to time putting on the vestments of being very prudent with the dollar, get behind a proposition like this and get behind nukes, I am sorry, but their credibility is shot.
I challenge anyone on the other side or my friends in the Liberal Party who support the bill to show me a nuclear project that actually did not cost taxpayers a bundle.
We cannot just dress it up under liability laws and think that people will not get it. The day we have a problem is the day taxpayers will have to pay the largest portion of it.
When we consider the bill, we must consider in the opportunity-cost argument here the fact that we are not investing appropriately in wind, in solar, in creating that infrastructure that I mentioned, the east-west grid across this country. Right down the street here, there is a new housing development. It is doing geothermal. It is not getting the subsidies that it should, but it is getting some. 
However, if it were in Sweden, for example, it would actually be getting subsidies at the front end to pay off and be revenue neutral and would actually put energy on the grid in the future, instead of putting taxpayers at risk and putting us in a situation that this bill certainly will as it exposes citizens to the risk of this technology.
If this technology is so safe and so great, then why do we not just take the cap off it and let it be unlimited?
Through the bill, the government has clearly acknowledged that there is a problem with this technology, that this technology is not stable, that it is vulnerable, and so we are going to be exposed. That will happen in legislation, and that cap of $650 million, that pittance that puts us outside of the club A of all those countries that see the equation between risk and benefit and exposure, will put Canada beyond that risk.
I urge members to take another look at this. I think the government has drunk the heavy water on this. When we look at it, the question is this. Are we going to align ourselves with those in Latvia, Moldova, Cameroon, and Belarus who have capacity problems? I am not blaming them. Or are we going to align ourselves with Belgium, Denmark, the U.K., the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and France? Whose side are we going to choose? Will it be the one that is the club for those who are basically saying let it rip and let taxpayers pay the price, or are we going to go with the responsible, sensible legislation through which we will not put taxpayers at risk, we will acknowledge the real cost of nuclear energy, and make sure that Canadians get a stable investment in energy and look at things like the east-west grid? Or are we just going to throw this up as a fig leaf over a reactor and say that all is fine and we will be okay?
We will rue the day, as will the government, when there is an accident, because it will come back to haunt them, and it will be this piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When the House returns to this matter, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre will have questions and comments at that time.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Points of OrderHon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document with the House. The Minister of Justice earlier tabled a document with reference to the all-party understanding, and I have the French translation. There was a difficulty in the translation, and I have been asked to table that here this afternoon.

Private Members' Business
Criminal Records Act ReviewMs. Dona Cadman (Surrey North, CPC):  moved:
 That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public’s safety first in all its decisions. 
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House and introduce this motion. All of us have heard over the past few weeks about the high profile cases, which have served to highlight potential shortcomings with the current pardon system in Canada. This is a very timely motion and I am proud of its introduction. 
Earlier this week our government tabled legislation to amend the Criminal Records Act and eliminate pardons for serious crimes. Our government believes the system should not put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens.
The current pardon system implies that whatever the offender did is somehow okay, or is forgiven, or that the harm done has somehow disappeared. I disagree.
Under the current system, pardons are granted almost automatically, but the new system would change that. Let me talk about the six points. 
First, the legislation would eliminate pardons and replace it with more restrictive and narrowly worded such as “record suspension”. As an editorial from one of our Saskatchewan newspapers recently noted with regard to the Graham James pardon:
 There is just something that seems inherently wrong about using the word “pardon” in reference to a man who violated the most sacred trust in sports--the trust between a coach and his players--and has yet to apologize for it, or show any remorse for it. 
Second, those convicted of sexual offences against minors will be permanently ineligible for a record suspension.
Third, those convicted of more than three indictable offences will also be permanently ineligible for a record suspension.
Fourth, in all other cases, the legislation will increase the period of ineligibility for a record suspension, which is the waiting time to apply, to five years for summary conviction offences and to 10 years for indictable offences.
Fifth, the onus will be on the applicant to show that a record suspension would help sustain his or her rehabilitation as a law-abiding member of society.
Finally, the proposed legislation sets out conditions that must be met to ensure a record suspension would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. To make this determination, the Parole Board would examine factors such as the nature, gravity and the duration of the offence, as well as circumstances and the applicant's criminal history. Under the present system, the only distinction that can be made between each applicant is whether he or she was convicted of a summary or an indictable offence.
For summary convictions, the same rules apply to everyone. Offenders need to wait three years after completing their sentence and remain conviction free in order to receive a pardon. The same is true for indictable offences. In those cases, each and every offender needs to wait five years and then demonstrate to the board that he or she is of good conduct before they become eligible to receive a pardon.
Essentially under the current system pardons are granted almost automatically. This is definitely wrong. The rights of criminals should never, and I repeat, should never come before compassion for victims.
As Sheldon Kennedy said, “It was a lot of hard work to be able to move out of being a victim, to be able to move into a role of finding a solution. And I think that there is no accountability at all on anybody and having them show that they've changed. It's just about waiting out your time”.
He goes on to say:
 I think we underestimate as a country the damage that abuse has on youth. 
 I think it just holds people accountable for what they've done.... 
Our government has always put the safety of law-abiding Canadians first and we have always believed that every victim matters, which is why we are undertaking reforms to the justice system and why we are determined to push ahead with further changes. 
Over the last four years, Canadians have been telling us that we are on the right track. They have said that our tough on crime policies and our initiatives to help victims are what they want to see from the government.
 I therefore look forward to working with all hon. members of the House to ensure that measures to improve the pardon system in this country are passed as quickly as possible. 
Mr. Andrew Kania (Brampton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of my friend's speech, she essentially focused on Bill C-23 but we are here today with respect to her Motion No. 514. I also will speak to Bill C-23 but I will read her motion first. It reads:
 That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions. 
There is one thing I do not think my friend mentioned, but I actually did speak with her beforehand and she was agreeable that the three months should be three months of sitting days. I just wanted to clarify that that is what we are discussing, not just any three months.
In terms of the motion, I support it. 
I am on the public safety and national security committee, and the reason I wanted to clarify that it should be three months of sitting days is because there is just no way we could do it otherwise. Right now we are involved with a discussion of Bill C-391 on the gun registry, and we have far too many witnesses that we are going through, various victims' rights groups, police officers and mental health persons, all of whom want to come and testify to try to keep the gun registry. So there is just no way that we could do that in the short period of time that we have.
The motion is a good motion but it needs to be compared and contrasted to the reaction of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety once the Graham James story came out. When this story came out, there was an immediate reactive decision to overhaul the Criminal Records Act because of the story. My problem with the immediate reaction that they had was that there was no thorough and thoughtful suggestion or review of the pardon system whatsoever. It was just an immediate reaction to this news story.
I actually compliment my friend for putting something forward that is more thoughtful and thorough in terms of what she would like to see accomplished. I compliment her for standing up to what has occurred in her own party, because by her motion, she is actually recognizing that we need a full and proper discussion, not simply an immediate statute because of a news story.
In terms of the Bill C-23, it is important to remember that this issue was raised first in 2006 by the Conservative government because there was another news story with respect to convicted sex offender, Clark Noble. At that time, the public safety minister indicated that the government would review the need for possible changes to the pardon system because of the 2006 news story. Why were the changes that it is currently proposing not made or introduced back in 2006 in response to the first news story? If the changes had been made at that time properly, we would not be facing this exact situation with the new news story with respect to Graham James. 
When my friend speaks of the law and order agenda and how the Conservatives are trying to solve a problem, to be honest about this, there must be recognition that this problem was already recognized in 2006 and ignored by the Conservative government. I applaud my friend for trying to fix the problem now that was ignored back in 2006.
In terms of Bill C-23, any pardon system must operate in the best interests of public safety, 100%, but that also means we have to figure out what that is, and that means having a proper study. I personally welcome the opportunity at the public safety committee to do that.
My friend went through what Bill C-23 seeks to accomplish in terms of changes. I will not repeat it but I will reiterate that based on all of these suggested changes, if they were so urgent and so important, why did we not hear about any of these in 2006 when this first review took place after the other news story? It was ignored. Who is at fault for this? 
I want to point out some things in an article by Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen.
What happened in 2006 was that the minister of public safety at the time studied the process, the policy and the facts and concluded that changes were warranted. For example, two Parole Board members, not one, would be involved in applications and, rather than relying on local police to bring forward information related to the applicant's conduct, the Parole Board would be required to get information the local police may have.
However, on the fundamental question, which is key for the Graham James news story that has now come out: Should sex offenders continue to be eligible for pardons?, the then minister of public safety considered the question and gave an affirmative answer. Why?
The current proposal in Bill C-23 suggests that sex offenders who have harmed children would not be eligible. I am in favour of that. I have actually spoken out many times against the Conservatives' law and order agenda saying that it was not tough enough. A lot of it is window dressing, in my respectful view. When the bill says that it would exclude sex offenders who have harmed children, I wonder why it is only children. What about all the other victims who have been hurt by sex offenders? Why is the government again ignoring all of those other victims?
When the Conservatives talk about a law and order agenda and about protecting victims, how are they doing it? They did not fix it in 2006 when they did study it and made some changes. Now all they are proposing deals with a sex offender who has harmed a child. What about all the other victims?
In order to come to a logical, reasoned analysis of what the best overall system is, because I do not want to prejudge it, there should be a proper study. That means experts, various persons interested in coming forward and victims groups appearing before the committee. I welcome that. The motion is good for that very reason. We need to have a thoughtful analysis so the Conservatives do not make another mistake like they made in 2006 when they made some changes but ignored some of the things that really mattered.
In terms of the 2006 story, there is an October 21, 2006 article by Timothy Appleby and Peter Cheney, called “[The Minister of Public Safety] calls for review after sex offender obtains pardon”, and it goes through this. The Conservatives did this the first time in 2006 but they did not get it right.
What happened because they did not get it right in 2006? I will describe exactly what happened because Canadians need to know. An article in the Globe and Mail by Daniel Leblanc dealing with criminal records states: 
 Nearly all the sex offenders who apply for pardons in Canada successfully wipe out their criminal records from public view, despite the Conservative government’s promise four years ago to make the system tougher. 
 Over the last two years, 1,554 sex offenders applied for a pardon with the National Parole Board; only 41 of them were rejected, leaving 1,513 without a trace of a criminal record, unless they apply to work with children or vulnerable individuals. 
Because the government ignored this in 2006, 1,513 convicted sex offenders since that time have received these pardons. That was an intentional decision by the government.
I want to be fair. I want to quote somebody with respect to victims. Victims essentially say that Bill C-23 was a knee-jerk reaction. I would rather not see a knee-jerk reaction but rather a considered, thoughtful debate and evidence given before the public safety and national security committee. I intend to be strong on this but I also want to be reasoned and thoughtful with proper submissions. 
I thank my friend across the way for having the courage to recognize that a problem has existed since 2006 when it was not fixed and for trying to fix it now.
Robert Carrier: Mr. Speaker, to begin, I will read the motion by the member for Surrey North that is before us:
 That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public’s safety first in all its decisions. 
The pardon system has been criticized recently, and the Bloc Québécois has said it is open to studying this issue. We feel that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is a very good forum for examining this issue.
The Bloc Québécois feels that public safety should be the top priority of the justice system. We feel that the best way to protect public safety and put victims first is to reduce the number of crimes and victims as much as possible. The way to do that is with prison sentences, of course, but also by rehabilitating offenders who can be rehabilitated.
In closing, I wonder what my colleague is trying to achieve by proposing that the Criminal Records Act be studied when her government this week introduced Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
This bill would amend the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. It would also extend the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension. It would make certain offences ineligible for a record suspension and enable the National Parole Board to consider additional factors when deciding whether to order a record suspension. 
Given that the government has clearly already decided how it wants to amend the Criminal Records Act, I cannot understand how the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security could conduct a review of the act—even though that is a worthwhile thing to do—without duplicating a debate that has already taken place. Because of the three-month timeframe proposed in the motion, there is a good chance the House will have completed its own review of Bill C-23 and sent it to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for study.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion, put forward by the hon. member for Surrey North.
At the outset, I have watched her career and that of her late husband for a number of years. I have always been very sympathetic to his concerns and goals in getting justice for victims in Canada.
The motion states:
 That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions. 
Quite honestly, that is the way we should proceed. We support her motion. We were a bit surprised the government jumped the gun and came forward will Bill C-23 on this issue and did not let the process properly take its course, which is debate on what is a very good motion on her part. I think her motion may, in fact, get unanimous support in the House.
If that were to happen, then what are we supposed to do with the bill? We have a bill on the agenda. Now we will pass a motion saying what we should have done in the first place. Clearly, the government does not really know what it is doing with its legislative agenda. It has come forward with a bill that essentially undercuts its own member.
I know she did not draft this motion in one day and throw it in. She spent a lot of effort on the motion, as we all do as private members. When we go through the process for a private member's bill or a private member's motion, we spend a considerable amount of time talking to our legal sources and other members in the House to come up with the exact wording of that bill or motion.
I do not think it is fair to her to be undercut by her own government. The proper way to do it would be to debate her motion today, which is what we are doing, to pass that motion and to proceed with the study for which she has asked. Out of that process, if the government wants to introduce a bill, then that is the right way to show proper respect to her and the House as well.
The member from the Liberal Party pointed out, and I am aware of it as well, that a review of the pardon system was asked for in 2006 by the government in response to the Clark Noble case. The minister at the time, who is still a minister in the government, immediately said that it would review the pardon system. That was four years ago.
Four years go by and nothing has happened. All of a sudden, as a result of a news story, the government is now jumping to the bill stage. Once again, the government is consistent with its approach on all these crimes bills. It does not have a concerted plan. It jumps around from day to day in a totally confused manner. It does not follow best practices. Therefore, its whole tough on crime agenda is somewhat discredited by the public at this stage. The public wants to see something happen. The proper way to deal with the issue is the way the member is proceeding.
As background, the Criminal Records Act sets out the conditions which must be met in order for an individual to qualify for a pardon. An individual convicted of a summary offence must wait three years after the full completion of his or her sentence, including parole and other supervised or conditional releases, before applying for a pardon. An individual convicted of an indictable offence must wait five years after the full completion of his or her sentence, including parole and other supervised or conditional releases, before applying for a pardon.
Upon application for a pardon, the National Parole Board must be satisfied that the individual has, under the period of those three or five years, been of good conduct and not convicted of any further offence.
A very high percentage of pardon applications received by the board are in fact granted. If the individual meets the criteria of good conduct and has not reoffended, the board has a limited degree of discretion in evaluating the application.
Once a pardon is granted, the individual criminal record is sealed. It is not subject to a criminal record search and it is not required to be disclosed on applications for employment. 
Individuals convicted of an offence that is on a prescribed list of sex offences are eligible for pardon under the same process as other offenders. However, if they seek paid or voluntary employment in a position that involves working with children or vulnerable persons, they can be asked to consent to a search of police records that would reveal a pardoned conviction for an offence on this prescribed list.
 The board may revoke a pardon if an individual is subsequently convicted of a summary offence, if it finds out that the individual is of no longer of good conduct or if it finds out that the individual made knowingly false statements or concealed information in his or her pardon application. A pardon is automatically revoked if an individual is subsequently convicted of an indictable offence or the board finds out that the individual was not eligible for a pardon at the time it was granted.
The pardon system, as I have indicated, was reviewed in 2006 by the National Parole Board, on the instructions of then public safety minister and in response to media coverage of the pardon of a former sex offender. There were some minor changes to the process but, substantially, it has remained the same for the last four years.
As I had indicated, we will support the motion. We want to see a review of the pardon system. As the Liberal member pointed out, by doing a review, we will have a more calm and sober environment in which to explore these issues and the government will have the ability to hear from experts in the area. That is one very important point to the legislative process. 
We, unlike any other group in this society, are in a privileged position. When we make laws that affect other people and have long-term downstream effects, we have the ability to get expert legal advice. We have the ability to listen to experts in the area. We do not want to make mistakes that potentially will have negative consequences and stop us from doing what we really want to do, what we really want to accomplish by the initiative.
The last thing we want to do is embark on an initiative that ends up producing some result that we were not trying to get in the first place. We want a system that is fair to victims. We support a review of the pardon system. We support the possibility of lengthening the time period for certain crimes. The goal should strike a balance between protecting the public. That is what we are really interested in doing here. We want to protect the public and we want to look out for the rights of victims, unlike what the government did. The government hired a victims' rights advocate and then fired the same person three years later because it did not like what he had to say.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of the motion by the hon. member for Surrey North who, for many years, has been a strong advocate for victims' rights and has been deeply committed to strengthening the justice system while helping young people who are at risk of becoming involved with gangs or the criminal justice system to lead better lives. I am confident that her motion will receive the support it so richly deserves.
The motion asks the House to take a long, hard look at the Criminal Records Act with an eye to strengthening it in order to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all of its decisions.
None of us need to be reminded as to why this is so important. Putting public safety first, of course, is something that our government has committed to do ever since we were first elected in 2006. We have done it in a number of ways. We have given police and law enforcement officials the tools and resources they need to do their jobs. We have done it by getting tough on crime and offenders. We have passed legislation to stiffen sentences for people convicted of drive-by shootings and murders connected to organized crime. We have passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act to better protect 14 to 16 year olds for the first time from sexual predators. We have recently introduced measures to further protect our children and to help victims by strengthening the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank.
We will also be pressing onward over the coming months with other important initiatives, including ending house arrest for serious crimes, and repealing the faint hope clause to spare victims from having to relive their terrible experiences time and time again.
We have also introduced legislation to keep violent and repeat young offenders off the streets while they are awaiting trial and ensure the courts consider appropriate sentences for youth convicted of the most serious and violent crimes.
All of those measures are designed to do one thing: to ensure that Canadians are safe in their own homes and in their own communities. 
As our recent Speech from the Throne notes:
 For many Canadians, there can be no greater accomplishment than to provide for their children, to contribute to the local community, and to live in a safe and secure country. 
Our government shares and supports these aspirations, which is one reason that this motion is before us today. 
The way the pardon system currently works means that the majority of applicants are granted one after a certain period of time provided they are not convicted of another crime, and, in the case of indictable offences, can demonstrate to the National Parole Board that they are of good conduct.
The idea behind the waiting period and the need for an offender to remain conviction-free or show they are of good conduct is sound enough. We want to ensure that each offender who applies for a pardon has committed to living in a society as a law-abiding citizen. This is one safeguard in the present system that plays a role in protecting public safety. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether that is enough.
Hon. members will know that another key safeguard within the present system originated with the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon when he was a member of the then Reform Party. Back in 1997, he introduced a private member's bill stipulating that the records of sexual offenders should be flagged in the justice system so that an organization working with children, seniors or other vulnerable members of our society would be able to tell if an individual who applied for a job with them had a sex offender background.
It took a lot to get that measure passed, including the co-operation of the government of the day, which saw the value in my colleague's bill and introduced its own legislation to implement this important safeguard. The measure came into force in August 2000, thanks, in large part, to the commitment of the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon to enhance public safety.
In 2006, our government implemented a review of the pardon system and put in place further safeguards with regard to sex offenders based on what was known at the time. 
In particular, the National Parole Board enacted new measures calling on two board members instead of one to approve or reject applications from sex offenders. In addition, measures were put in place to ensure that the board undertook more rigorous consultations with police in the cases of sex offenders in order to determine if there were any recent and relevant information available on the offender.
Our government has always been committed to putting public safety considerations at the centre of the pardon system in this country but we can and will do more based on what we know today.
This is not simply a case of responding to sensational headlines. It is a case of looking at the present system and asking ourselves whether it responds to the needs of Canadians given that a serial sex offender can apparently receive a pardon under the same legislative rules and as readily as someone who has committed a less serious offence.
All of us need to ask ourselves what more we can do to ensure that public safety considerations are front and centre in decisions made by the National Parole Board. That is how it should be for all aspects of our criminal justice system.
The way the current system is set up means that we can and do differentiate in a limited way. Offenders convicted of a life or intermediate sentence, for example, cannot apply for a pardon, while other offenders who are serving shorter sentences can.
What we perhaps also need to look at in the interest of public safety is whether we should also differentiate between offenders who commit certain crimes over an extended period of time and those who may have committed an offence only once. This is one thing we need to look at. We need to ask whether the National Parole Board needs more discretion to look at the pattern of conduct or to look at the offences themselves, if there were more than one, as well as the potential and impact on victims. We need to ask whether these and other safeguards are sufficient. All these are important issues to address over the coming weeks.
 I therefore look forward to working with all hon. members to strengthen the system of pardons in this country. I urge all hon. members to support the motion before us today.
Daryl Kramp: Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today in support of the motion from the hon. member for Surrey North who, for many years, has been a strong advocate for victims' rights and has been deeply committed to strengthening the justice system while helping young people who are at risk of becoming involved with gangs or the criminal justice system to lead better lives. I am confident that her motion will receive the support it so richly deserves.
The motion asks the House to take a long, hard look at the Criminal Records Act with an eye to strengthening it in order to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions. 
None of us need to be reminded as to why this is so important in today's world. Putting safety first, of course, is something that our government has committed to do ever since we were first elected in 2006. We have done it in a number of ways. We have given police and law enforcement officials the tools and resources they need to do their job. We have done it by getting tough on crime and offenders. We have passed legislation to stiffen sentences for people convicted of drive-by shootings and murders connected to organized crime. We have passed the Tacking Violent Crime Act to better protect 14 to 16 year olds for the first time from sexual predators. We have recently introduced measures to further protect our children and help victims by strengthening the national sex offender registry and the national DNA data bank.
We will also be pressing onward over the coming months with other important initiatives, including ending house arrest for serious crimes, and repealing the faint hope clause to spare victims from having to relive their terrible experiences. 
We have also introduced legislation to keep violent and repeat young offenders off the streets while they are awaiting trial and ensure the courts consider appropriate sentences for youth convicted of the most serious and violent crimes.
 All of those measures are designed to do one thing: to ensure that Canadians are safe in their own homes and in their own communities. 
As our recent Speech from the Throne notes:
 For many Canadians, there can be no greater accomplishment than to provide for their children, to contribute to the local community, and to live in a safe and secure country. 
Our government shares and supports these aspirations, which is one reason that this motion is before us today and, as parliamentarians, it should be for all of our attention.
The way the pardon system currently works means that the majority of applicants are granted one after a certain waiting period provided they are not convicted of another crime, and, in the case of indictable offences or serious offences, can demonstrate to the National Parole Board that they are of good conduct.
The idea behind the waiting period and the need for an offender to remain conviction-free or show they are of good conduct is sound enough. However, we want to ensure that each offender who applies for a pardon has committed to living in society as a law-abiding citizen. That is one safeguard in the present system that plays a role in protecting public safety. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether that is enough.
 Hon. members will know that another key safeguard within the present system originated with the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. Back in 1997, he introduced a private member's bill stipulating that the records of sexual offenders should be flagged in the justice system so that an organization working with children, seniors or other vulnerable members of our society would be able to tell if an individual who might have applied for a job with them had a sex offender background.
It took a lot to get this measure passed, including the co-operation of the government of the day, which saw the value in my colleague's bill and introduced its own legislation to implement this important safeguard. This measure came into force in August 2000, thanks, in large part, to the commitment of the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon to enhance public safety.
In 2006, our government implemented a review of the pardon system and put in place further safeguards with regard to sex offenders based on what was known at that time. 
In particular, the National Parole Board enacted new measures calling on two board members instead of one to approve or reject applications from sex offenders. In addition, measures were put in place to ensure that the board undertook more rigorous consultations with police in the cases of sex offenders in order to determine if there were any recent and relevant information available on the offender.
Our government has therefore always been committed to putting public safety considerations at the centre of the pardon system in the country, but we can and will do more based on what we know today. This is not a case of simply responding to sensational headlines. It is a case of looking at the present system, evaluating it and asking ourselves whether it responds to the needs of Canadians, given that a serial sex offender can apparently receive a pardon under the same legislative rules and as readily as anyone who has committed a less serious offence.
Is that right? Obviously, we believe not. All of us need to ask ourselves what more we can do to ensure that public safety considerations are front and centre in decisions made by the National Parole Board, as they should be for all aspects of our criminal justice system. The way the current system is set up means that we can and do differentiate in a limited way. Offenders convicted for life or an indeterminate sentence, for example, cannot apply for a pardon, while other offenders serving shorter sentences can.
What we perhaps also need to look at is whether, in the interest of public safety, we should also differentiate between offenders who commit certain crimes over an extended period of time and those who may have committed an offence only once. There is quite a difference. That is one thing we need to look at.
We need to ask whether the National Parole Board needs more discretion to look at the pattern of conduct or to look at the offences themselves, if there were more than one, as well as the potential impact on victims. We need to ask whether these and many other safeguards are sufficient. Are these all important issues to address over the coming weeks? I would certainly hope so.
I therefore look forward to working with all hon. members and especially the mover of this bill to strengthen the system of pardons in this country. I urge all members to support the motion put before us today by the hon. member, who has demonstrated quite clearly that this is a motion that is not only true to the heart and soul but also true to the essence of fairness and safety in this country.
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Surrey North.
Like all Canadians, I am proud to live in the safest country in the world. I am also proud to be part of a government that has done so much to ensure that Canada remains the safest country in the world. It is a country where we can walk down the streets in our communities without fear, a country where parents can feel comfortable sending their kids off to school in the knowledge that they will make it back home safe, a country whose public parks and playgrounds echo with the sounds of joy and laughter from children and families enjoying time together worry free.
We know that all members in this House think these are important features for our country to have. They are at the heart of our freedom, of what defines Canada and makes us the envy of the rest of the world. 
We also know that to ensure this freedom, we must remain ever vigilant. As soon as we take our freedom for granted, it becomes jeopardized. That is why public safety is, and will always be, this government's top priority. The public expects nothing less of us.
And therein lies the importance of this motion. It is all a question of vigilance. We should be constantly seeking ways to enhance public safety and protect the rights of all citizens—the accused, the convicted, the victims and, of course, the public.
Our justice system must ensure this protection and it must be seen to be doing so. Citizens must be confident that our justice system is able to keep them and their families safe and that it is fair and properly balanced.
All of the members know that the public's confidence has been shaken by recent events. The public is questioning the system's fairness and balance.
The pardon granted to Graham James, a convicted sex offender, prompted many legitimate questions from Canadians across the country. The responses that they received did nothing to appease them. Quite the opposite.
We are all aware of the value of pardons. We live in a civilized country and, as citizens of this country, we believe in giving someone a second chance.
I am sure we all agree that someone who commits a serious crime, recognizes that what he did was wrong, pays his debt to society, is sorry for what he did and proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that he will never commit such a crime again deserves a second chance.
These are the criteria the current system is based on. But people are still wondering today whether they are enough.
That is the very legitimate and very important question raised by the motion moved by the hon. member for Surrey North: can we do more to ensure that the National Parole Board considers public safety in its decisions?
Today, someone found guilty of a summary conviction offence can apply for a pardon after serving only three years of his sentence. The pardon is granted if the person has not been convicted of another offence during that time. This is the only factor taken into consideration. The National Parole Board has no discretionary authority.
Someone who is convicted of a crime, regardless of the seriousness of that crime, can apply for a pardon after a five-year waiting period. Once again, the National Parole Board has very limited discretionary authority. If the person is not convicted of another offence during the five-year waiting period and is of “good conduct”, as stated in the Criminal Records Act, he is considered to be rehabilitated.
The pardon granted to Mr. James has raised some very reasonable questions among Canadians. Is the legislation too lenient? The people in my riding of Saint Boniface are definitely asking that question. Is it appropriate to grant pardons almost automatically in all cases? When it comes to the National Parole Board's decision-making powers, do we have the assurance that it is putting the safety of the public first when making its decisions? Is anyone taking into account the repercussions of the crimes on the victims? That is very important to our government.
Should a person with a lengthy criminal record for serious offences have the same right to a pardon as someone convicted only one time for smashing a car window and stealing an iPod?
For the public, for our government, and I am sure for all the members of this House, the answer to that question is very clear. That is why the hon. Minister of Public Safety has introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Records Act.
The first amendment involves changing the name of the process. “Criminal record suspension” is a much more accurate and appropriate term. It sends a clear message to offenders, and especially to victims, that the offences committed and the harm they caused are not being forgotten.
Another change is that the waiting period before an offender can apply for a record suspension would be extended to five years for summary conviction offences and 10 years for indictable offences. This change would allow offenders to truly prove to us that they deserve a second chance and would provide us with the assurance that our justice system takes the seriousness of the offence into account.
These changes will give the National Parole Board more investigative powers, which will allow the board to make truly informed decisions, specifically when it has to rule on cases of serious offences. With regard to the most serious offences, crimes that society as a whole finds absolutely heinous, in other words, sexual offences against our children, the changes propose extending the waiting period and even eliminating the right to a record suspension. 
I have to say with regard to that modification that I spent four and a half years investigating child abuse, including sexual abuse against children, and it is high time Parliament considered this kind of a modification because those children suffer for a lifetime. What is forgotten is the suffering of the parents as well, because no parent can ever forget the consequences of sexual abuse of their children. 
I am very proud today to support what our minister and the hon. member for Surrey North have put forward, because I have seen this and lived this and it has gone unchecked far too long. I am very pleased to stand here and speak on behalf of this fine member.
Thanks to the proposed changes, the justice system will continue to be something Canadians can be proud of. They can have confidence in this fair and balanced system that makes public safety the top priority and reflects our country's respect for victims' rights.
Those are the objectives of the motion moved by the hon. member for Surrey North. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting this motion.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor today.
Like my colleagues, I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey North on having moved this important motion. It truly deserves the support of every member of the House.
The motion is straightforward:
 That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public’s safety first in all its decisions. 
This does not seem at all controversial to me. It is an important and timely motion. 
I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that millions of Canadians were shocked to learn that, a few weeks ago, the National Parole Board granted a convicted sex offender a full pardon. We are not talking about just any offender, but a notorious sex offender who never showed a hint of remorse or apologized to his victims.
People across Canada have kept asking the same question: how could that have happened?
Obviously, the answer is “very easily”. Under the Criminal Records Act, the National Parole Board had no other choice but to pardon the unrepentant sex offender, who had abused a number of adolescents. It was not the response hoped for by Canadians and they let the authorities know that it is not the response they wish to see in future.
Consequently, I believe that the motion introduced by the member for Surrey North is the appropriate response. His motion deserves to be supported by all members of this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 25, 2010, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1) and 28(2).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)