Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 047 (Official Version)

It is my duty to inform this House that a vacancy has occurred in the House of Commons for the electoral district of Repentigny, in the province of Quebec, by reason of the death of our hon. colleague, Mr. Benoît Sauvageau.

[English]

Pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act I have addressed on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.

* * *

[Translation]

Message from the Senate

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following public bill to which the concurrence of this House is desired:

[English]

Bill S-202, an act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent.

It being 11:05 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

* * *

[English]

Food and Drugs Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)

moved that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, since 1989, I have been working to provide consumers with information from which they can make more informed food choices. Today I will go to bat again for Canadian consumers by proposing modest but sorely needed measures to ensure they have important health-related information about many of the processed and restaurant foods we eat every day in this country.

Diet-related disease is steadily straining our health care services and, if unchecked, will create staggering demands on our future capacity to fund public health care and become an unnecessary drag on our economic growth which also limits our capacity to finance health care.

The need to better address preventable chronic, non-communicable diseases has been acknowledged in three consecutive Liberal speeches from the throne. The Liberal, Conservative and NDP provincial governments all agreed with the federal government on the need to tackle diet-related and other chronic diseases in the communiqué of the September 2004 first ministers conference on health care and four recent communiqués of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of health.

Diet-related disease is an urgent public health problem in this country. Heart disease, stroke, certain forms of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis and dental health all have links to diet that are well recognized by scientists. For instance, the diet-related cases of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain forms of cancer costs the Canadian economy $6.6 billion annually due to health care costs and lost productivity.

Diet-related risk factors for disease shorten the average Canadian's healthy life expectancy by nearly five years and prematurely ends the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians every year, to say nothing of the pain and suffering these preventable diseases inflict upon victims and their families.

These days, precious few Canadians grow, prepare or even cook their own food any more. It is unthinkable that we should be eating food without knowing its contents. When the Liberal Party formed government we promulgated mandatory nutrition labelling regulations for most prepackaged foods, which the media dubbed the gold standard, globally. However when it comes to ingredient information on processed food and nutrition information on labels of fresh cut meat and restaurant menus, Canadian law and industry practices are little better than any other country and much worse than many.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada estimates that those new labels that were passed will reap $5 billion in benefits to the economy as a whole from reduced health care costs and increased productivity over the next two decades. These benefits are 20 times the cost to the industry of modifying food labels. Canadians should not pass up an opportunity to save the health care system more than $2 billion over the next two decades.

Bill C-238 can be implemented even less expensively than the new nutrition labelling regulations because it only requires nutrition information for a small number of national chain restaurants that typically have standardized menus. Many chains have already done the analysis. Plus, my bill permits meat packers to use common, government-approved nutrition databases and it only requires readily available ingredient composition data on processed food labels.

Nearly 30 groups, collectively representing over two million Canadians, support the measures in the bill. In the past two years, support for one or more of the three components of Bill C-283 has been articulated in expert reports published by the Canadian population health initiative of the Canadian Institute for Health Information; two reports of the U.S. Institute of Medicine, an expert body upon which Health Canada often relies for scientific advice; the chief medical officer of health for Ontario; a call for action by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; an editorial in the Canadian Journal of Public Health of the Canadian Public Health Association; an advocacy statement of the British Columbia Healthy Living Alliance; and a report commissioned by the British Columbia Cancer Agency and the Canadian Cancer Society of British Columbia and Yukon.

(1110)

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency initiated consultations on a proposal to establish a watered down form of my proposal requiring percentage ingredient disclosures on products that, for instance, promote blueberry pancakes which, in fact, contain little or no blueberries. The fact that the CFIA abruptly discontinued consultations on even that modest proposal illustrates the need for Parliament to step in.

By introducing Bill C-283 I am seeking to achieve three objectives: first, to close a loophole in the new nutrition labelling regulations for packers of fresh meat, poultry and seafood; second, to extend a simplified nutrition disclosure requirement to large chain restaurant menus and menu boards; and third, add a requirement that multi-ingredient processed foods disclose the amount of key ingredients, especially for ingredients that are the subject of marketing claims or for ingredients that are known by the scientific community to have protective or causative effects on major disease risks. In short, it facilitates informed purchasing decisions, not uninformed or increasingly ill-informed food purchases.

Statistics Canada says that Canadians spend about 30% of their food budgets on restaurant meals. McDonald's restaurants alone claim to serve an average of three million Canadians every day. Plainly, it is no longer an occasional treat to eat at restaurants but rather a central feature of daily life in Canada and yet we rarely see any nutrition information on restaurant menus or menu boards.

It became clear to me and some of my colleagues that the costs of even chemical analysis would be less than a penny on the price of enough food to feed a family of four in a typical faster food restaurants and cheaper by half to calculate such information from existing databases.

Some industry efforts, though encouraging, are not really effective, whether by accident or design. For instance, McDonald's restaurants now provide nutrition information on the back or the underside of tray liners. Imagine, on the back or the underside, for heaven's sake, instead of on the menu boards where the information could actually be used by consumers before they make their purchases, or even on the front of the liner so they could read about what they are eating to help them make more informed choices for their next meal.

Some restaurant owners made the outlandish argument that menus would have to be modified to accommodate every conceivable special order that a consumer could make, such as extra sauce, pickles on the side, with or without cheese, shared orders, et cetera. However, menus at Subway, White Spot and Extreme Pizza, companies that emphasize made to order foods, found a way to report at least some useful nutritional information to consumers, despite the alleged difficulties. Without such information, even trained nutritionists consistently err in estimating calorie counts from physical appearance only.

My bill also proposes to mandate that manufacturers of processed foods show on labels the percentage by weight of key ingredients. This information will help consumers choose more nutritious products, say, products with more fruits or less added sugars. Requiring this information will also help protect consumers against deceptive ingredient claims by unscrupulous manufacturers that tout the presence of appealing ingredients, like vegetables or whole grains, but actually put very little of those ingredients in the product.

Percentage ingredient labelling rules are in effect in Thailand, the European Union, New Zealand and Australia. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency acknowledged the need to establish percentage ingredient labelling requirements. However the CFIA's now dormant proposal leaves open many avenues for consumer deception about ingredient composition and fails to require disclosures that would effectively aid consumers in selecting more nutritious products. My bill does not suffer from the same defects.

(1115)

Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have already done a thorough job of demonstrating the need for nutrition labelling on prepackaged foods, in the regulatory impact analysis that accompanied the amendments to the food and drug regulations promulgated in January 2003. An exemption for fresh meat, poultry and seafood appears to have been granted in response to claims by several industry associations in 2000 that it would take four to five years to generate nationally representative nutrition data tables for various cuts of meat and species of seafood.

For years, Health Canada and various Canadian industry associations have published such data. Six years have passed. Bill C-283 would provide all parties yet another two years to refine their data in any ways necessary. Without such nutrition information, how many Canadians would know that a three ounce serving of trimmed, broiled top round beef steak has only about one gram of saturated fat while a three ounce serving of trimmed, broiled shoulder blade pork steak has four grams of saturated fat, a full four ounce difference in saturated fat content between two cuts of meat the same size, a difference that is not evident from visual inspection or even taste?

The House may recall that in a previous Parliament, a Conservative member who is now a minister of the Crown, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, spoke very favourably about an earlier version of this bill. He said:

What the member is attempting to do would be very difficult to argue against...We are concerned with the health of Canadians. They have a right to know what they are eating. It would serve the purposes of a lot of people in Canada if we could find a way to adopt this legislation. Details have to be fleshed out in committee. We support moving Bill C-398 on to the next logical step.

I hope all members of the Conservative government will demonstrate the same good sense as that hon. member. I hope members will not prevent Canadians from getting the vital nutrition information they sorely need to make healthy food choices for their families and themselves.

The scientific basis for requiring that this information be provided to consumers is tried and true. The scientific consensus is that Canadians should consume more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and beans, and less sodium, added sugar, saturated and trans fat and, for most of us, fewer calories.

By now, I think and hope, the food industry has seen the writing on the wall. I urge my friends on both sides of the House to ensure that this writing ends up where it should be and where it can do the most good: on the food labels and the menu boards. I urge them to support this bill by sending it to the health committee for in depth study with a view to improving the bill for the benefit of all Canadians.

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could explain how a bill of this nature could be enforced. There are jurisdictional issues and inspection issues and there is a very large cost associated with that type of enforcement. I wonder if the member could comment on this aspect of the bill.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Wappel:

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the health of Canadians. There are many ways in which the health of Canadians is monitored and services are delivered to Canadians. Many of them of course involve regulations that need to be enforced. There are already labels for prepackaged foods and there are serious penalties for breaching these labels. However, clearly what occurs many times is that consumers themselves will notify the appropriate government agency if they happen to notice that something is not properly labelled or if information is missing. Inspectors will then take a look at that. As with the Income Tax Act, where we do not have enough people to examine everybody's income tax return, there are spot checks, spot audits and spot examinations. This is how it works.

As for the claim that this would be terribly, terribly expensive, that is simply not true. Already we have menu boards, so instead of a large picture of a “big mac” there could be a smaller picture of a big mac, and right beside the price we could put “700 calories as shown”. That is all that needs to be done. This does not involve a lot of costs, particularly for chain restaurants that do not have a lot of changeover in their menus. There is some nuance in the bill to allow for those restaurants that do have some changeover.

Any of these problems can also be examined in depth in committee by bringing expert witnesses before committee to answer these questions.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for raising this issue that is near and dear to my heart as well.

There are some elements of the right to know, to make informed decisions. There is the obligation to inform. There is also the obligation to be correct in that disclosure, which apparently is not the case.

Could the member advise the House if he is aware of exactly who is against this legislation and why?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Wappel:

Mr. Speaker, there are two ways of looking at it. It is almost impossible to be against giving consumers more information. That is like being against motherhood. I guess the objection would be to the method by which I am attempting to deliver that information. As I said in my speech, the objection from the restaurant industry is that restaurants cannot possibly think of all the permutations and combinations that a customer might order on a pizza, for example, or on a Harvey's hamburger, as it is touted that we can have our hamburger the way we like it.

The answer is that the idea is not to make it difficult for people to sell food to consumers or difficult for consumers to eat it. We would simply say that a standard hamburger is 400 calories and add-ons are extra. Then it should be obvious to consumers that if they buy a hamburger with a bun it is 400 calories, and if the consumer wants to put a slice of cheese on it, there are going to be more calories. At least the consumer would have some idea. For supersized fries, it would be 700 or 800 calories, with three or four grams of fat or whatever the case may be.

This would be just enough to give consumers the information they need. The two main arguments are that it is impossible to do, which is nonsense, and second, that it is too costly. All of the studies have shown that it is not too costly. Clearly, the prepackaged nutritional labelling regulations that came into force in 2003 are in effect and have not bankrupted the industry or led to skyrocketing food costs.

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a private member's bill, Bill C-283. Bill C-283 proposes amendments to the Food and Drugs Act that would make nutrition labelling mandatory on raw single ingredient meat, meat byproducts, poultry meat, poultry meat byproducts, and marine and freshwater animal products. Products would be exempted if the sales are below a certain amount, provided the label contains no nutrition or health claims. For simplicity, let me refer to these products as raw single ingredient animal products.

Bill C-283 would also require that for foods sold for immediate consumption, information on calories, the amounts of sodium and the sum of saturated and trans fats per serving be provided on the printed menu. If the menu options are set out only on a menu board, only the number of calories would have to be indicated on the board, and the sodium and fat nutrition information would have to be provided to customers upon request. When food is sold in two or more flavours or in bulk or buffet formats, the nutrition information would be required to appear beside the name of the food on the receptacle from which the product is sold in bulk or buffet format, beside the name of each flavour or beside the general name of the food as appropriate.

I note that Bill C-283 proposes to require the same nutrition information for raw single ingredient animal products that is required for prepackaged foods under the regulations published by Health Canada in January 2003, which came into effect in December of 2005. These regulations exempt raw single ingredient unground meats, meat byproducts, poultry meats, poultry meat byproducts, and marine and freshwater animal products from carrying a nutrition facts table unless nutrition or health claims are made for them.

These exemptions were included because of the lack of representative data on the nutrition composition for these products that takes into account the sources of variability, such as season, species, feed or trim level. Lack of such data presents a risk of mandating the provision of inaccurate information to consumers.

Since nutrition labelling is mandated on comparable products that are prepared in processing plants, such as raw seasoned meats, it is expected that major cuts of raw single ingredient meat and poultry meat that are packaged in plants will be voluntarily labelled if satisfactory data is available.

In regard to the proposal in Bill C-283 to require certain nutrition information on printed menus, menu boards and adjacent to food for immediate consumption sold in bulk or buffet formats, I note that the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association recently developed voluntary guidelines for providing nutrition information to consumers. This voluntary program will provide consumers with nutrient values that are consistent with the core nutritional label information required for packaged foods and will include calories, fats, such as saturated and trans fats and so on, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, including fibres and sugars, and protein content of standard menu items.

Since the February 2005 launch of the nutrition information program, more than 25 of the major restaurant chains, representing about 40% of all chain establishments, have committed to implementing these guidelines. Many of these chains have already completed this process and are already providing nutritional information to their customers. The guidelines state that nutrition information be made readily available to restaurant consumers through in-store brochures or pamphlets and that the availability of the nutrition brochure will be predominantly displayed on menus, menu boards and such vehicles as takeout and home delivery packages.

(1130)

In general, the chains that are making progress in implementing the voluntary guidelines are the larger firms who have some access to the expertise required to do so and these appear to be the target of Bill C-283.

The voluntary program has the potential to provide consumers with the important nutritional information without the need for new legislation which would be expensive and burdensome to implement. The voluntary guidelines may provide consumers with information that goes beyond the requirements of Bill C-283 while avoiding the need for complex and costly governmental regulatory and enforcement programs. It would therefore seem prudent to allow the voluntary program time to work and to assess its effectiveness.

Bill C-283 proposes to exempt persons whose establishments or vending machine business has a total revenue of less than $10 million from the sale of food including income from all subsidiaries and franchises. The intention may be that the bill would only apply to those chains with standardized menus and highly controlled production facilities, since these are the minimal conditions for providing reliable nutritional information. However, the bill would also apply to hotel chains, many of which have independent restaurants with their own menus and with more variable conditions of production.

A further concern is the fact that at present restaurants and food service establishments typically fall under provincial jurisdiction and inspection is the responsibility of the provinces. Consequently, there would be a need for consultation with the provinces and territories. Bill C-283 would create heavy additional inspection requirements either for the provinces, if they agree to undertake the work, or for the federal inspectors and laboratories if they do not. No federal inspection system currently exists at the restaurant level which represents thousands of establishments across Canada.

Finally, Bill C-283 contains exemptions based on the dollar volume of sales. It proposes exempting from its requirements for raw single ingredient meat, poultry, or marine and freshwater animal products, persons with gross annual revenue of less than $500,000 from the sale of the same food, provided no nutrition or health claims are made for the product. It also proposes to exempt from its requirements food sold for immediate consumption by persons whose establishment or vending machine business has a total annual revenue of less than $10 million from the sale of food including income from all subsidiaries and franchises. This introduces an economic aspect totally absent from the Food and Drugs Act which would need to be assessed.

The government recognizes the importance of nutritional labelling in assisting Canadians to make healthy and informed choices about the foods they eat. This is why Health Canada introduced improved nutritional labelling regulations which became mandatory on most prepackaged foods in December 2005.

Health Canada is also currently working with industry and other stakeholders to find practical ways to develop reliable nutritional information for consumers about specific meat cuts and to determine the best means to assist consumers in making informed choices when eating away from home.

The government remains committed to helping Canadians continue to maintain and improve their health. I commend the intent of Bill C-283 in this regard; however, a number of initiatives are already underway which address the intent of Bill C-283 as I have already described. These initiatives should be allowed to bear fruit without the need of potentially costly and burdensome legislated requirements. Those are my remarks and I look forward to continue this very interesting debate.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Bloc Québécois health critic to address this important issue .

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest is introducing Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling). The health of Canadians is important to him. He has been working on this for 10 years now. His efforts have been fruitful since Health Canada announced the recommendations on nutritional labelling in 2000. A number of these recommendations were based on his studies and bills he introduced in this House.

Since December 12, 2005, we have been able to read nutritional information to make more informed decisions about the food we eat. There are now tables that list 13 nutrients. This informs the consumer on the amount of calories, fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, fibre, sugar, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron in their food. This additional information can now be found on every product we buy. Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating, gives us supplemental information on the best nutritional value available.

This bill raises a number of questions. We support the principle behind it, which is to better inform consumers about what they are eating and to go beyond that.

However, the bill before us contains measures that raise some questions. It seeks to subject meats, poultry and raw seafood to current labelling standards. It requires restaurants and food services to post selected nutritional information. It also makes it mandatory to list the percentage of each ingredient in a food, particularly any fruits, vegetables or grains emphasized on the packaging. We know that food consumption habits change: people are eating in restaurants and buying variety packs more often.

This bill is not new; this is the third time it has been introduced. In March 2004, it was referred to committee, and my colleague from Hochelaga—who was then the health critic—led the adoption of a motion to hold a round table on the bill so that industry and health experts could discuss it and offer some recommendations. However, the 2004 election prevented the consultation from taking place, so we got no recommendations and no report. This is why we support the bill. It would enable us to get a lot more information to help clarify the elements targeted by this bill.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois has always demanded greater transparency in food labelling. On the basis of the principle that consumers have the right to know what they are buying, I cannot oppose a bill that would enable them to better manage their food choices.

I would like to point out, however, that certain questions remain regarding some of the details and provisions of this bill. This remains an important issue, nonetheless, which is why I hope this bill will pass the second reading stage and be referred to the Standing Committee on Health. That committee will then be in a position to examine the provisions of the bill more carefully and recommend the appropriate amendments.

Given the federal government's constitutional responsibilities, the committee must give this bill priority, in order to ensure that we have all the necessary information about the issues in question.

The committee also looks at the whole issue of obesity and therefore nutrition. Accordingly, this bill could play a role in this desire to provide the public with better nourishment and more information about the quality of the food we eat.

(1135)

I will now review each of the provisions contained in this bill and express some reservations about them. These issues could, of course, be examined more closely in committee.

First, as for the general intent of the bill, I would remind the House how important it is to fight against unhealthy eating. Food labeling cannot change everything and the fight against unhealthy eating must be part of a more comprehensive approach focussing on education. As we all know, however, nutrition education is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Giving consumers more information certainly could not hurt, but it is difficult to gauge the exact impact of such a measure. Furthermore, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada believes firmly in the effectiveness of such a measure, as demonstrated by its "Health Check" campaign, through which foods that meet certain criteria are identified with a special symbol.

Questions remain regarding the application of proposed regulations on meat, poultry and raw seafood. I wonder whether it is possible to measure the nutritional value of each piece. Many factors are at play, such as how the animal is fed, the cut, and fat content, among others.

Yes, it would be hard to ask every butcher to calculate the nutritional value of every cut of meat being prepared. However, the statistics already exist and certainly it would be possible to find a happy medium without requiring the butcher to conduct in-depth analyses.

The purpose of all this is to give the consumer more information and I am convinced that is possible. This will certainly be discussed in committee.

The provision in this bill requiring that the percentage of ingredients used in food products be indicated does not seem an insurmountable problem. However, at the round table meeting, industry representatives said they are worried that such a measure will only open the door to violating intellectual property. Further consideration must be given to see what provisions could be implemented to respond to their concerns. Other countries have already passed such legislation, namely Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand and the nations of the European Union. We could look at their legislation and see how it could apply here and how their industry sectors have dealt with the new legislation in effect there.

Finally, perhaps the most controversial measure in this bill is requiring restaurants and food services to post nutritional information on their menus.

In this regard, I would like to point out that voluntary disclosure measures have never worked very well. The case of tobacco shows us that industry is always capable of adapting to such measures even if they opposed them at the outset.

However, we must also question whether or not certain restaurants will be able to comply with such regulations. Can the corner snack bar or the trendy restaurant that changes its menu every day implement these measures?

In this regard, we must not ignore the interests of restaurant owners. Once again, I am anxious to find out how our committee can make some improvements.

We know that poor nutrition is a far-reaching problem that exerts tremendous pressure on the Quebec and Canadian health care systems. Thus, it is important to determine how more comprehensive labelling rules could help fight the problem of poor nutrition.

Before closing, and given the member's knowledge of nutritional labelling, I would also like to point out that it would have been important for this member to take one more issue into account in this bill.That is the issue of mandatory labelling for GMOs, a policy not yet adopted by Canada. The committee should also study what could be done about GMO labelling.

Along the same lines, consumers are not always able to identify products containing real milk products. The committee should examine this aspect as well.

(1140)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-283 passing at second reading and moving to committee, and I have five points that I would like to make about it.

First, in today's environment many people are more concerned about what they put into their bodies. In many ways it is a more educated consumer group, although not in large numbers perhaps. However, a growing consumer group is concerned about the food it eats. More important, this group is concerned about what its children and families eat. For that reason we have to move in this direction. Although there has been some progress, the public is asking for more.

My second point is about health. As a result of the uncontrolled environment in which we live, we see more illnesses, some of which are triggered by food. In this case I think it truly can be a matter of life and death. We have seen the kinds of allergies that have developed. Everybody knows about peanuts. Does everybody think to ask whether foods are cooked in peanut oil? We are seeing food allergies that we would not have seen 10 years ago because our environment is changing.

As others have said, we spend about 30% of our food dollars on meals outside of our homes. We do not know what is in that food, but we need to have that opportunity. We need to be very conscious of it, as we are with the foods we bring into our homes. The bill may raise awareness about that.

For instance, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has spoken very articulately about the effect of trans fats on health. We see a little more voluntary disclosure of trans fats on packages. However, when people eat out, they want to know if there are trans fats in the food. For health reasons, for personal reasons or for preventative reasons, they may choose not to eat that particular food.

It is the same thing with sodium. I will not repeat all the diseases that my colleague from Scarborough Southwest raised. With the increasing number of young people with high blood pressure, they need to know the amount of sodium in the products they eat both at home and outside it.

The third point is we have a right to know what food we are putting in our bodies and what we are feeding our families. It is not a privilege; it is a right. While there may be parts of the bill we need to debate and while there may be things that need to be changed, I am more than happy to move it to committee in order to help us have an exchange of ideas. Those diseases, particularly diabetes and high blood pressure of which we see more and more in younger people, reflect the need to be very conscious of what we eat when we are out. We know that children and teenagers are eating out a lot. Just the other day a physician told me that a 12-year-old had been diagnosed a type 2 diabetes. We know the effect of some of those foods.

The fourth point is education. We need more consumer education about this. We need to find clear, easy ways to do that, bearing in mind that not everybody has the same literacy rate. We need to have good consumer education.

My last point is poverty. The legislation will not affect many people because they cannot afford to make the healthy choices of fruits and grains, choices that other people can make. These people will continue to go to fast food restaurants because the food is less expensive. These foods are high in carbohydrates and other ingredients, but that is all they can afford. This will not address that in the same way.

(1145)

In review, the issues are the current environment, health, rights, education and poverty. I am happy to pass this on to the health committee. We can review the legislation from other countries and look at how it has been implemented. I agree that voluntary agreement on almost any issue does not always have a success rate as high as we might like it to be. All these concerns can be addressed by the panel.

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I again want to congratulate the hon. member for yet again raising the bill. He has championed the bill for number of years. He has done it in a way in which he presents to the House an important national priority, a health priority.

I would like to quote the member from his speech. He says, “Diet-related disease is an urgent public health problem in this country. Heart disease, stroke, certain forms of cancer, diabetes, osteoperosis and dental health all have links to diet that are well recognized by scientists. For instance, the diet-related cases of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain forms of cancer cost the Canadian economy $6.6 billion annually, due to health care costs and lost productivity. Diet-related risk factors for disease shorten the average Canadian's healthy life expectancy by nearly five years, and prematurely ends of the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians every year—to say nothing of the pain, and suffering these preventable diseases inflict on victims and their families”.

This is an important health issue and I believe it is a national priority.

I want to quote from the American Journal of Public Health, September 2006. The article is entitled “Attacking the obesity epidemic”. The first paragraph states:

Sixty-four percent of American adults are either overweight or obese, and the obesity epidemic shows few signs of weakening. Although the precise number of deaths attributable to obesity is difficult to estimate, obesity is clearly a major cause of preventable death. Not surprisingly, improving the healthfulness of American diet has become a national health priority.

It is a national priority in the United States. Apparently it is not a national priority in Canada.

I listened intently to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. He spent most of his time reading to us some of the elements of the bill. I was hoping there would be some cognitive words about the health value.

I have often thought that the measure of success of a country is not an economic measure. It is a measure of the health and the well-being of its people.

How is it that we do not recognize this as a national priority? We have ample evidence that producers of the products, which would require such labelling, have not been fully truthful with consumers or have not provided any information, have not recognized their obligation to fully inform.

Canadians have a right to know what they are consuming. I believe it should relate to all products which are consumed. As a matter of fact, right now I think beverage alcohol is the only consumer product that can harm one if misused, but does not warn one of that fact. I hope we will have an opportunity to debate that bill later on in this Parliament.

However, this is along the same lines. I know what the producers will say, that it is too expensive to do this or that they cannot do it because a pizza could have two servings of pepperoni and how would they calculate these things.

I thought the member was very cogent to suggest that even if we deal with something as basic as a hamburger, we know what the base product is. It is a hamburger and here are the number of calories in it.

Today Canadians are becoming more cognitive about their nutrition. However, when we look at the figures, it is very clear that Canadians do not know how much they can hurt themselves even if they are generally aware. There has to be a caution. We are talking about the health and the well-being of Canadians.

Let me go back to the report in the American Journal of Public Health on attacking the obesity epidemic. I thought the conclusions that were reached were very relevant to this debate as well.

(1155)

It says:

As a response to the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity, which has been linked with the greater consumption of foods prepared outside the home, legislation has been proposed at both federal and state levels that would require the provision of nutritional information for restaurant food items.

The study shows that for a number of items consumers vastly underestimated the calorie levels, fat, saturated fat and sodium levels. On average, less helpful items were underestimated by more than 600 calories. With just one restaurant meal per week, an extra 30,000 calories a year would be added to a person's diet. These unaccounted calories could cause weight gain of approximately nine pounds annually. Holding all other factors constant, over several years the degree of underestimation could cause significant weight gain. Given substantial differences between expected and objective values, these findings indicate that inclusion of nutritional information on menus offers information that would be beneficial to consumers.

In this research study just this month the United States has clearly shown that this is a health issue. It is a health issue which does touch on the health and well-being of Canadians, on their personal health, our health care costs and Canadians' productivity, as the member laid out so eloquently in this speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, for some odd reason, seems to think that we have a voluntary program and that it is working. It is not working. This issue has been on the table before Parliament for years. Why is it that the parliamentary secretary has to talk on a partisan basis as to how we keep items off the agenda which are not our own items when he should be representing the wisdom of Health Canada? What is Health Canada saying about this? I did not hear references to how Health Canada responded to the suggestion that there should be nutritional labelling.

If it is not a matter of protecting and promoting the health and well-being of Canadians, then the bill should not be here, but that is clearly not the case. It is about time that Parliament looked objectively at the facts with regard to issues like this which affect the health and well-being of Canadians. Now is the time for action. This bill should pass at second reading. I hope it will go to committee in order that informed witnesses can make their arguments on all sides. It is important.

It is not just enough that the parliamentary secretary should thank us for bringing it up and that he will keep it in mind. The parliamentary secretary should have said, “Let us have a look at this. There is some good evidence here. There is also some good argument on the other side. We are prepared to send it to committee, to debate it and to hear from witnesses so that Parliament can make informed decisions on the health and well-being of Canadians”.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to the bill from my colleague from Scarborough Southwest, the member who has brought the bill before the House. He has actually had the bill in committee before and it has been discussed many times. I do not think anyone in the chamber would argue with the intent of the bill, that individuals in Canada should be able to have the information they need.

Before I get into my deliberations, I must take exception to my hon. colleague who just spoke. The member said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health made partisan comments in his speech. I do not believe the parliamentary secretary's comments were partisan at all. I would suggest that if my hon. colleague really intended to do something about this issue, he was in a majority government for 13 years and could have actually dealt with the issue of labelling far sooner than by way of a private member's bill. I find it rich that we got those comments from my hon. colleague across the way.

Let us talk about the actual private member's bill that is before us as it flows into what the health committee is doing at the present time. The committee is involved in a study on childhood obesity. We understand from StatsCanada that 26% of the children across this country are obese or overweight. This is reflected not only in our children but also in our adults. We have a very serious problem in this country. It is an epidemic that we have to address.

The argument is not with the intent of the bill. The argument might be whether this is the right vehicle. Is the problem in society that Canadians do not know what they are eating, or is the problem that they are choosing to eat the wrong things? Canadians know that they should move away from their computers and television sets and be more physically active and eat healthier diets. Is the issue a matter of knowledge or a matter of choice and making the wrong choices?

I like the idea of this private member's bill for the aspect that it certainly allows members the opportunity to raise awareness of the issue. That is a very positive thing. We are going to continue that in the health committee as we address childhood obesity. The committee will be hearing witnesses from across the country and discerning some of the blocks that can be moved with respect to what we can do at the federal level to address the obesity problem.

Many of us in the chamber are very concerned about the health care system. The baby boomers are getting into their older years and they are starting to consume a tremendous number of health care dollars. We realize the pressure they will put on our health care system will be significant over the next 30 years. The pressure really has not started yet. It will start within the next decade and will intensify toward 2040-41. Then the pressure will not be relieved, but only will slow down.

If obese children start having heart and stroke disease, cancer and diabetic problems they will be hitting the health care system at the same time. Even from a demographic perspective we have to address obesity in our country as aggressively as we possibly can. We need to raise awareness and let the population understand the battle that we are in so that Canadians can discern for themselves and as a nation what can be done collectively to address our health care problems.

Many lives can be saved by addressing the problem. Canadians can live healthier lives. The health care system can be saved a tremendous amount of money as the population takes responsibility.

We are arguing whether this bill is the right way to proceed. Do we have to legislate every part of our society so that people understand that they are eating the right foods? One of the problems I have with this bill is the labelling aspect. If a label is not accurate, then it is a misleading label.

This comes from my agricultural side. A food item has a certain molecular composition of fats. For example, if a french fry is fried in palm oil, it is 50% saturated fat. If a french fry is fried in soybean oil, it is 20% saturated fat. If it is fried in canola oil, it is 7% saturated fat. These are the kinds of things that change the molecular composition of the fat content of a french fry.

The genetics of an animal will also change the amount of fat that is in a certain ingredient. A good example would be certain cuts of beef. The amount of feed or the type of feed that the animal was fed and the age of the animal impact on the amount of calories in the product that an individual consumes.

(1200)

We have to give accurate information. If we do not give accurate information, then we would be providing misleading information. I suggest that many things in this bill would lead to misleading and clumsy information. If the bill goes to committee, we will address it as aggressively as possible. At the present time, I believe that legislating this sort of thing is not the direction in which we need to go. We need to inform the population about how to address obesity. This is the direction I applaud and I will push for this as aggressively as I possibly can. I do not believe this is the vehicle we should be using at the present time.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

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.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

(1205)

[English]

Canada Elections Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC)

moved that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, fixed date elections. I am also pleased to be standing here in my capacity as Minister for Democratic Reform. It is something that very much interests me and I am delighted to hold this particular portfolio.

I am absolutely convinced, since going back to my days at Queen's University where I studied the parliamentary system and the different legislatures around the world, that the British parliamentary system as adapted by Canada is the best system in the world. It has a tradition that goes back centuries. Some legislatures can point to a history of years and in some cases even decades. We can go back centuries of the British parliamentary system having provided effective, secure and stable government for people around the world. I believe we are very lucky to have it. However we have adapted it to ourselves and that is what is important. It is important to realize that no system, not even the best system in the world, is static; it must change.

In Britain alone, from the times of the Magna Carta, there were huge changes over the years to the system, all adapting and making the system a better one. The Constitution of 1688 is a good example of a break from the past but nonetheless an important change.

We too in Canada have made huge improvements to the parliamentary system in our short history. I think back to the 1800s when various Canadian provinces developed the concept of responsible government. Responsible government meant that the governor was taking his direction from the legislature. This was a huge step forward. Everyone recognizes that made government fairer, more democratic and improved the system that we had. Some of the changes are large and some are incremental but they are all moving in the right direction. We only have to look back to the last century to some of the changes that were made in Canada, such as the extension of the voting franchise.

If we were to go back a little over 100 years ago we would see that voting in our system of government was confined. It used to be confined just to property owners. It was extended to adult males and into the 20th century that changed. I remember this point being brought home to me during the election of 1984. I visited a senior citizens home operated by the region of Niagara where I met an elderly woman. I, like all new candidates, shook hands and said hello to everyone. This woman stopped me and said that she wanted me to know that she had voted Conservative in every single election since the Conservatives gave her the right to vote. It took me aback. I said to her that it must give her a good feeling to know that she has always been right, as indeed she has been.

Another Conservative prime minister, John George Diefenbaker, continued to extend that franchise to Canadians when he extended the voting rights to aboriginal Canadians. I think everyone at that time and since has realized that these are the steps we must take to make our system more democratic and more fair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about another change in our electoral system, one that I think will improve it, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which would provide fixed date elections.

I will begin with a description of the current process for calling elections and discuss some of the difficulties associated with it. This will be followed by a discussion of the many advantages that we will have when we adopt this legislation, as I hope this House does.

(1210)

Currently it is the prerogative of the prime minister, whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons, to determine what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government's mandate. It could be three years into a majority government, which is what we saw in the year 2000 when the government felt it was to its advantage to call a snap election to get another mandate. I also could go back to the early nineties when another government, with which I am very familiar, decided not to go in 1992 but waited until 1993. That particular Parliament lasted almost five years. There is quite a bit of leeway.

When the prime minister, under the current system, requests the dissolution of the House, the governor general, unless there are unusual circumstances, agrees and the country finds itself in an election. What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to choose the date of the election, not based necessarily on the best interests of the country but on the best interests of his or her political party. I believe Bill C-16 would address those concerns.

Before going into the details of the bill I would like to discuss the key advantages of a fixed date election. Fixed date elections would provide for greater fairness in election campaigns, greater transparency and predictability.

An hon. member: Greater fairness, yes.

Hon. Rob Nicholson: Transparency and accountability. The President of the Treasury Board knows all about that and how important that is. This is what we want.

There would be improved governance, I believe higher voter turnout rates and it would assist in attracting qualified candidates to public life.

Let me discuss the issue of fairness. Fixed date elections would help to level the playing field for general elections. The timing of the general election would be known to everyone. Since the date of the next election would be known to all political parties, they would have equal opportunities to make preparations for the upcoming election campaign. Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election will take place and being the single party that may know for up to several months when it will occur, all parties would be on an equal footing.

That has to be of particular interest to opposition parties that have not had the opportunity to call an election. Every party would know when the election will take place and would be able to make the appropriate plans.

Another key advantage of fixed date elections is that this measure would provide transparency as to when general elections would be held. Rather than decisions about general elections being made behind closed doors, general elections would be public knowledge. Instead of the prime minister and a small group of advisers being the only ones who know when the country will move into the next general election, once this bill is passed, all Canadians will have that knowledge, which makes it fair.

I said that it would improve governance and I think it would. For example, fixed date elections would provide for improved administration of the electoral machinery by Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer, in a majority situation, would know with certainty when the next election would occur and would be able to plan accordingly. This would certainly give greater efficiency to the work of Elections Canada and, quite frankly, would save money. All of us know the situation where Elections Canada is trying to make a reasonable guess as to when the election will be called, scrambling to rent space and come up with locations for voting. All these things cost money. It seems to me that this would save money if we knew with certainty when the election would be called.

Another good reason for this bill is that I believe we would have higher voter turnouts. We are suggesting that the elections be held on the third Monday in October, except when the government loses the confidence of the House. That is a time when the weather in most parts of the country is generally the most favourable. Indeed, in my riding of Niagara Falls it is pretty well still summer. I appreciate that it is at the southern end of the country and it is not quite the same for others, but nonetheless the weather is still pretty reasonable in October.

Canadians would be able to plan in advance. Those who are thinking of taking a vacation or who might be outside of their constituencies can make plans to get their votes in when they know with some certainty. That is not the case if they are out of the country or visiting somewhere and the election gets called. Those things pose some difficulty. For those individuals who know well in advance when the election is coming, this is a step in the right direction.

(1215)

This is not just important to the people who are voting. How about candidates? All of us know people who want to or are prepared to get into public life but who want to know when the election is. Right now we do not have a particularly good idea. It could be three years, as it was in the year 2000, or it could be five years, as it was in 1993. This can be very difficult for candidates. People have other lives and they want to know with some certainty when they will be called upon to put their name forward. It would help to attract candidates to the next election.

Let me give some of the details of the bill. Legislation providing for fixed date elections has to be structured to meet certain constitutional realities of responsible government. They include the requirement that the government have the confidence of the House of Commons and we respect the Queen and the Governor General's constitutional power to dissolve Parliament. The bill before us was drafted carefully to ensure that these constitutional requirements continue to be respected. The bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Moreover, all the conventions regarding the loss of confidence remain intact.

In particular, the prime minister's prerogative to advise the Governor General on the dissolution of Parliament is retained to allow him or her to advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence. Moreover, the bill states explicitly that the powers of the Governor General remain unchanged, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

We looked at other legislation across Canada when we were putting this together and the bill is very similar to legislation that is in British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be noted that the legislation in those provinces is working.

Hon. John Baird: Passed very quickly too.

Hon. Rob Nicholson: That's right. The President of the Treasury Board knows all about this having served, with distinction I might add, in the Ontario legislature. It works.

For those who think this is too much or have some problems with this, all they have to do is look at the experience. For instance, British Columbia had its first fixed day election on May 17, 2005, and it went well. The election in Ontario will be on October 4, 2007 and in Newfoundland and Labrador it will be on October 9, 2007. In British Columbia there was no suggestion that it had a lame duck government, as that expression is sometimes used. It worked well and people were able to plan with certainty.

I will now talk about the mechanics of the bill. The bill provides that the date for the next general election would be on Monday, October 19, 2009. Of course this would be the date only if the government is able to retain the confidence of the House of Commons until that time. For example, if on tomorrow's ways and means motion on softwood lumber the government were to be defeated, a general election would be held according to normal practice. However a subsequent election would be scheduled for the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the next election. It moves depending on when the election takes place and that is the normal model that would be established by the bill.

General elections would occur on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. However, in brief, we chose that date because it was the date that was most likely to maximize voter turnout and to be the least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays or with elections in other jurisdictions. We looked at it very carefully to ensure this was a date that could work.

This raises an additional feature of the bill that I want to bring to the House's attention which provides for an alternate election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance or an election in another jurisdiction. In the current system the date of the general election is chosen by the government so it is rare that a polling date comes into conflict with either a cultural or religious holiday.

(1220)

However, with the introduction of this, there is some possibility in the future that the stipulated election date will occasionally be the same day as a day of cultural or religious significance or of an election in another jurisdiction. The Ontario act, that we had a look at along with the others, allows some variation and some slight movement to accommodate that.

We are proposing the same thing. The bill would empower the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate polling day to the governor in council should he or she find that a polling day is not suitable for that purpose. The alternate day would be either the Tuesday or the Monday following the Monday that would otherwise be the polling day. Allowing alternate polling days to be held on the following Tuesday or Monday is consistent with the current practice of course of holding elections on a Monday or a Tuesday.

Some opposition members have indicated that this bill is illusory in that the Prime Minister can call an election at any point up until the fixed date for the election, but that is not how our system of responsible government actually works. The Prime Minister has to retain his prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. That has to be there. This is a fundamental principle of our system of responsible government.

Moreover, if the bill were to indicate that the Prime Minister could only advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence, it would have to then define confidence and the dissolution of the House of Commons would then be justiciable in the courts, something that we do not want. We do not want the courts to decide what is a confidence measure and what is not.

In conclusion, this bill providing for fixed election dates is an idea whose time has come. I remember recently, I believe in June, there was a poll taken and 78% of Canadians supported this particular idea. It is good to note that the third week in October is already citizenship week in Canada. It is a time when we celebrate what it means to be a Canadian. That is another reason for putting it at that particular time. Of course, fundamental to being a Canadian citizen is our civic responsibility and duty to vote.

This legislation provides greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability, improved policy planning, increased voter turnout, and will help to attract the best qualified Canadians to public life. I hope that my colleagues will join with us in the House to pass this important piece of legislation.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the government House leader in regard to this bill. I was a little disappointed that he did not address some of the arguments that would tend to indicate that this is not all win-win. There are some risk elements. For instance, there is simply the aspect that, as is the case in the United States with its fixed election dates, the year before the election is spent electioneering and in fact governance does not occur during that last year. It is very likely that the Government of Canada would not be productive and, therefore, responsible government would not be present during a very long period of time. I am not sure that Canadians are ready for this.

The member indicated that a poll had been taken of Canadians. I am not sure that Canadians were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision and I think that is also important.

My question to the government House leader really has to do with the fundamentals. He referred to the Prime Minister being able to go to the Governor General and recommend an election. He gave some examples from the 1990s. The government House leader should, and I hope he will, confirm to the House and to Canadians that in fact that royal prerogative for the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General to dissolve Parliament without the condition of having lost confidence of the House will still exist under this legislation.

Therefore, a fixed election date is only providing a recommended date in the absence of a loss of confidence in the House or at the discretion of the Prime Minister to go to the Governor General, as has been the tradition in the past, to recommend the dissolution of Parliament. I think that has occurred in all of history except in one case where someone else was asked to form a government and an election in fact was called.

To be open and transparent with Canadians, will the government House leader clearly state that the royal prerogative, which entails the Prime Minister going to the Governor General to call an election even if a confidence vote is not lost, will stay in place and there will still be an election when the Prime Minister chooses it?

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member covered a number of different areas and one of them I believe was disadvantages. I hope this means he is not going to oppose this bill. It is fair enough to have some questions, but I really hope this bill will receive his support.

He said there would be electioneering in the last year before the election and nothing would get done. It seems to me it would be the contrary. If a committee were trying to make a report and plan its time, those members would know exactly when that report would need to be done. It is very challenging with our present system because an election could be held after three years, four years or five years. A committee could be doing good work, but its members do not know whether to undertake a new study or whether they should make plans for the fall because they are in the dark. They do not know when an election will be called. It seems to me this would be a huge improvement in terms of organizing time.

I looked at what happened in British Columbia. My colleague the chief government whip is nodding his head. Things unfolded as they should have. There was a normal campaign as we might expect. We are in public life. We are always ready for elections. We are always keeping an eye on that sort of thing. It seems to me that knowing an election will be held in four years would allow more things to get done.

My colleague asked about the polling. The poll was taken in June. The hon. member could probably take this up with Ipsos-Reid because this was their poll. This is a well-known national polling organization, and I have every reason to believe this was a fair poll. I have no evidence to the contrary. The hon. member might want to take this up with them. They found over three-quarters of Canadians liked the idea of taking some discretion away.

The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister. I do not know who he is talking about. I can tell him about this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister will live by the law and spirt of this particular piece of legislation. He and this government are driving this democratic reform.

This legislation does not involve just fixed dates for elections. The Senate tenure bill is an important piece of legislation. These are all steps in the right direction, but again, they do not remove the royal prerogative. I was asked this question by one of the members of the opposition quite some time ago. I assured him that the royal prerogative with respect to dissolution remains. This bill is an expression of how the House intends to conduct itself.

I hope the hon. member will do the right thing and give his support, and help move this legislation to committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted to acknowledge the fact that my friend is a graduate of the law school that I went to. However, I am not sure it really helped him a lot in his political career in terms of where he has ended up.

The NDP are in support of this bill and I think he is aware of that. We do have reservations around the minority government situation and the ongoing reservation of the royal prerogative in those circumstances. In particular, our concern is that a prime minister or a cabinet of the day could manipulate, if I can put it that way, the political agenda by way of designating any number of votes as being confidence votes, knowing that at some point they will provoke the combined opposition to vote against a bill.

I wonder if my colleague's government has given any thought to limiting that government power to specified areas, that is, only certain types of bills. I would suggest, because of historical precedence, that these should be money bills and that only money bills should be designated as confidence motions. All others would simply be regular votes and therefore would not provoke or justify the calling of an election if the vote failed against the government.

(1230)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I pointed out the problem. If we started defining what constitutes confidence in our parliamentary system, we would be open to this then being challenged in the courts. I presume that all hon. members do not want to have the courts determining something like the confidence measure that is a part of our parliamentary system. It has been around for hundreds of years. It has changed slightly over the years, but everyone understands it to be one of those things that are important for a government to do its job.

The hon. member says it might be just limited to money bills. I could not disagree with him more. If this country put before Parliament measures to confirm that Canada will be at war, would that not be an awful lot more important than some spending in a particular government department? To my mind it would be, and of course that would be a confidence measure.

We should look at the softwood lumber agreement. It is an agreement between two countries involving the three largest provinces in Canada. It is vital to the lumber industry. When it first came to a vote in Parliament, I said that it was not an agreement; it was a miracle what the minister was able to put together. Nonetheless, it is extremely important and yes, that is a confidence measure.

The member should not always think that what is important is in terms of dollars and cents. It goes far beyond that. That is why we worded the bill the way we have.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be back in the House of Commons after the summer recess and to see you, Sir, looking so well.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill today. As the official opposition House leader mentioned when the bill was first tabled in the House, the official opposition supports the bill in general but we do have some concerns in regard to ensuring that the objectives of the bill are properly met within the proper constitutional framework of the House of Commons and our relationship with the Crown, and also in regard to taking full advantage of some of the opportunities that the government House leader has mentioned to ensure that the efficiency, the cost containment, the decline in cynicism, and the representativeness of candidates and such, which are potentially the promise of this bill, are actually fulfilled.

Let us start with the first section of the bill, which would amend section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act. It states, as has been noted:

(1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

We have had a question from a colleague of mine and an answer from the government House leader with respect to what defines a vote of confidence and therefore a lack of confidence, a vote of non-confidence, and he has responded very broadly that it is not just money, that it might be war or some other thing that the government thinks is very important. That is the very type of looseness that can create uncertainty and can, I think, create instability in the House, uncertainty in the public mind and a frustration of the objective of the legislation, which is otherwise quite appropriate. We are not voting against the bill, but we will be looking in committee to get some constitutional definition around what we are talking about.

People looked at the election in Germany in 2005. Many people reported at the time that it was their opinion that then Chancellor Schroeder manipulated the defeat of his own government to cause an election at a time that he thought was advantageous, so I think we are going to want to look at what role the courts may well have on this, what role the Governor General has, how much discretion is actually there, and what has happened to that royal prerogative over time, through disuse or whatever. It is an important thing for our constitutional democracy. In committee we will have to get a firm grip on it and in a way which I think does the basic work that has not yet been done to interpret the impact of the bill.

Looking more generally at the bill, I think the government House leader is correct in saying that we have a building practice in this country, an experience, of fixed election dates. Not only has my province of British Columbia had fixed date legislation, but it has had an election with a fixed date. I must agree that this has worked out as well or better than anyone who had some misgivings about it could have thought. It did bring predictability.

It has actually demonstrated to many other provincial jurisdictions in the country that this is something that should be part of their democratic reform package. We have heard that Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec are looking at this as a way to go. It may well be that this is just a trend, that as with medicare in Saskatchewan, it has been tested in the provinces and its time has come federally, but of course we must always look to those examples for their experience and what we might do better with this legislation as it goes forward.

In December 2005, the Institute for Research on Public Policy did an exhaustive study of parliamentary democracies and democracies similar to Canada's and what sort of election timing legislation and rules they followed. It found that only 11 out of the 40 democracies similar to Canada's have unfixed dates such as Canada does.

(1235)

Globally, the trend is certainly toward that. I think we should be taking it very seriously. Certainly, therefore, we should not put up any blinders to suggest that we have always done it a certain way and therefore we simply cannot change it. Others have changed it and it is working well. There are lessons we can learn from that. That will be very much a part of this debate and the committee work.

Certainly the efficiency argument has some real merit if this is really used responsibly. In the planning of committee work, public policy development, legislative approval and bureaucratic implementation, if we take advantage of this certainty, not to simply become lame ducks during the last year but to in fact plan efficiently right up to the date the election campaign starts, then there is real potential for efficiency to be achieved from that predictability.

We know that certainly in law and legal principles, and in criminal law in particular, certainty is absolutely critical as a basic tenet of the criminal law of Canada. We know that in business certainty and predictability are often even more important than the particular taxation rule or regulatory rule. Business has to know what is coming to properly prepare. I think the work of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada can benefit from that as well if it is properly planned.

The fairness issue is a good one. The government House leader raised it. In our discussions of how we develop public policy, we must always, in the House and, frankly, in government, look to the fairness, not just from our own subjective point of view but also from the view of the public. I think we have had experiences in Canadian parliamentary democracy, if not federally then provincially, in which the public has decided that the early calling of an election is unfair and inappropriate. We saw that in Ontario some 15 years ago, when the government that called for an early race paid for it through the public's feeling that it was unfair.

That transparency, that level playing field, that coming to a place like Ottawa to the House of Commons with a firm mandate and a majority government to work to a certain schedule and to fulfill that obligation to the public, all of that, I think, is something that should be emphasized.

That fairness will help erode cynicism. I think we in this House are all too painfully aware that the public is cynical. We are constantly under pressure, and an appropriate pressure, from the public, our constituents, to deal with the cynicism that perhaps the best interests of individual Canadians are not always looked after in the House. We have to do everything we can to break down that cynicism. If this is properly implemented, I think this can help do that.

Of course, if we increase fairness, transparency and planning and if we reduce cynicism, that should lead to greater voter turnout. That is one of the most important indicia of the health of a our democracy, which slipped a bit in 2004. It went up again in 2006, but we are still far below what I would see as a healthy voter participation in our democratic process. I think that is important.

Of course the date that has been suggested, that of the third Monday in October, helps with voter turnout with respect to the seasons. At that time we do not have a lot of perhaps retired and senior citizens holidaying in the southern United States to avoid the cold weather, and we do not have students out of university or people who are away during the summer and are not available to vote or take part in the whole civic engagement. That could all be very positive.

I understand and appreciate that voting in February or January in Vancouver is no problem at all. In fact, we had a very great time with the weather in the lower mainland during the last election, but I do appreciate that other parts of the country, including Niagara, that wonderful temperate area during certain months of the year, could benefit in voter turnout from not having to face harsh winter weather conditions.

(1240)

The early fall date I think is an interesting one. Ontario has picked something similar. B.C. went for a late spring date and there is some consideration in British Columbia of moving it to the fall. I think there is some real purpose behind that. For one thing, the lead-up, the period of the campaign, would be at the end of the summer. Rather than suspending the parliamentary session in mid-session, that is helpful. It is also helpful with the predictability of planning courses in high schools and universities around civics for seniors, community groups and new immigrants, courses around electoral responsibility and the democratic process. The predictability in putting those types of civil exercises into a predictable annual rotation is probably helpful with turnout as well.

The question of representativeness of candidates is an important one. We know that we struggle in this country, and certainly in the House, to have the appropriate representation of women, for instance, which is of course far below the pro rata size of the population. I believe it is 21% in the House and I know that all of our parties struggle with it. I think we have to struggle together as a House of Commons and look to the legislation to ensure that as it is finalized and implemented--and it may be amended--it takes advantage of whatever opportunity a fixed date can provide for forward planning, for organizing someone's professional or family life, for fundraising, and for the whole nomination process of candidates to ensure that this increases the representativeness of the House by gender and as well as to properly reflect the indigenous, the multicultural and the linguistic duality and the multiplicity of this country. That could be an important thing.

One of the problems that we all must be aware of and has been spoken of often is the further Americanization of the Canadian political situation. I think what we have to do is look to this legislation to ensure that this does not happen--the fixed date may actually help if we do it properly--and that there is a shorter campaign period.

The government House leader mentioned, and I think correctly, that electoral officials can plan better with a fixed date. A lot of the work they might have to do during an election could actually be done before the campaign starts, so the campaign could be shorter. With appropriate campaign and political financing laws, I think that could be very helpful. It is something we want to pay very careful attention to: ensuring that the campaign period is limited and that the political financing laws are aligned with that to stop the great expense and lame duck or never-ending practice of the American political process.

There is another issue that I think we should look at just briefly and then perhaps in more detail in debate in committee. We should look at how federal election fixed dates, if we are indeed going ahead in that direction, fit in with other levels of government and their electoral dates. There is a possibility there, if we can align through intergovernmental discussion. For instance, Ontario will have municipal elections this fall and then provincial elections in 2007. As well, Lord knows, we are going to have the American presidential election in the fall of 2008, and then, as set out in this legislation, a federal election in the fall of 2009.

Is there some way we can annualize our civics courses, our public education, so that we are both avoiding overlapping elections, which frankly can exhaust the public, and also taking advantage of every year having a swing through, a reminder, a refresher or mock elections and such in our schools, universities, colleges and communities to really heighten people's awareness of the issues and of the importance of their democratic participation?

(1245)

Finally, I would put the aspect of democratic reform in a broader context. We have political financing reform that was brought in by the former Liberal government. The accountability act takes further steps in political finance legislation. It has not been completed yet but it is certainly in play, and political financing is a big part of the electoral framework.

Another aspect is election timing, and we are addressing that today. Another aspect is the voting procedure and looking at different systems, or combined systems, than simply the first past the post system. We know that many democratic parliaments in the world operate on different voter systems. We know the Law Commission of Canada has come out with a very detailed report recommending a mixed proportional system.

British Columbia had a very engaged citizens' assembly process to look at a potential change. It got almost 68% of the vote on a plebiscite issue, but not the 60% needed. There are numerous jurisdictions across the country, I believe six in all, looking at different voter processes. That is another piece of it.

Finally is the public engagement part of representative democracy, and that is absolutely critical. Democracy is always on a spectrum between participation and direct representativeness. We have to get that balance right, but it is only healthy if our representative democracy is responsive to the participatory engagement of our population. As a fourth level of electoral reform, this is something that, as a House, I hope we will consider very carefully.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by my colleague for Vancouver Quadra on this important legislation.

Already in the debate this morning, there has been some discussion and questions from opposition in regard to the legislation. I thought the government House leader did an excellent job of explaining the rationale for the legislation and why we believe, in the Conservative Party of Canada, that all members of Parliament would want to support it as our Parliament and parliamentary institutions continue to evolve. It is an important step forward.

My question deals with the prime minister's prerogative to note that he and his government perhaps have lost confidence of the House, therefore precipitating an election. There were some questions about why we would still need that and what would constitute loss of confidence in this place. I believe the government House leader did a pretty good job of explaining why that is necessary.

We certainly do not want the courts to muck about and define what is or is not a confidence motion for our Parliament. However, I would suggest to my hon. colleague for Vancouver Quadra that if we get this legislation in place, there will be public pressure, both on the opposition in a minority situation and on the prime minister and the government, to very clearly explain to Canadians why an election would be necessary.

Once there is a fixed election date in front of Canadians and they are anticipating and planning for an election, in this particular case on Monday, October 19, 2009, if confidence is lost in this chamber and the Prime Minister is required, under our system of government, to go to the Governor General and have her call an election, I think there will be increased pressure to explain to Canadians why we could not wait until that fixed election date. That is a good thing, because it would provide, at least I hope, for much greater stability in Parliament and in the nation.

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stephen Owen:

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways of looking at this question. I quite agree that during a minority parliament if a vote were lost by the government in the House, there would be a very rigorous public and political debate over whether that constituted confidence or not. This would happen probably before the vote as well as after the vote, if the government lost.

It will be a political context. The Governor General will of course be thinking very carefully about this legislation, what the spirit of it is, what her constitutional responsibilities are, what historical practice has been and what the public debate and political debate has been. I do not have any doubt about that.

We have another situation and there is an uncertainty there. I think one of the useful things that the committee can do is to look at whether there are some defining points. Are there some, not rigid formula that the courts will interpret and must be followed, objective criteria that can give some direction to the political and public debate and the Governor General's consideration?

An additional problem is not where there is a minority government, but where there is a majority government, as was the case in Germany last year. Despite there being no issue of confidence and the government having a majority, the prime minister still has the prerogative. The Governor General, under this legislation, would still have the prerogative to dissolve parliament and call an election. That is another challenge for members to think through to ensure we get it right so we do not hobble or cement an advantage now, which many people see as being an unfairness.

Let us make sure that the objective that is before us is properly met in the most effective way.

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Quadra raised the issue in his answer about the prime minister still having the prerogative under a majority situation to call an election before the fixed election date, if the bill becomes law and were to be in place.

Yes, under the legislation the prime minister of the day would still have that freedom to go to the Governor General and ask her to dissolve parliament and call an election. I suggest it would be very difficult for any prime minister to sell that to Canadians if they were expecting, especially under a majority situation, that parliament was going to last for a period of time. I cannot imagine why a particular prime minister would feel that he or she could not continue to govern, despite the fact of having a majority and having an election date some time into the future. I believe it would have to be an extraordinary situation for a prime minister to do that. If a prime minister went against the spirit of this legislation and purely called an election because he or she felt the opportunity was ripe, that the situation for his or her particular political party was very advantageous to go to the polls, I suspect that person would quite likely be punished by the Canadian people in the subsequent election campaign.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stephen Owen:

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip is probably right that there would be tremendous political pressure against a crass move that was not in emergency circumstances or in some very important circumstance. However, we have an obligation in the House, to the fullest extent that we can, to simply not rely on political dynamics to ensure that something untoward does not happen. I invite government members on the committee and all members in further debate to think very carefully about this prerogative because it leaves an uncertainty.

Let me mention a type of situation which could occur. There could be a change in leadership of the government party by reason of death or incapacity, or whatever, shortly after an election. There has been a practice in our parliamentary democracy, it is not inviolate but it is quite frequent, that a new leader seeks to get his or her own mandate at a fairly early date. Maybe we can look at this opportunity to break that expectation or trend. To me it has always seemed a bit like putting a presidential aura around a prime minister who is not directly elected, but is only the leader of a party with the most elected members. If a new prime minister used that reason for asking for a dissolution, I would like to see that rejected. Maybe the legislation could make that clear in some way.

All I am suggesting is that we tighten this up to the full extent possible to ensure the certainty that we are seeking.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is certainly worthwhile. Everyone will benefit a great deal from having elections held on a fixed date in the Canadian parliamentary system.

I would like to tell the government that the Bloc Québécois members will definitely support this legislation because, in our view, it represents a step forward. People need to understand that we again have a minority government. In recent years, we have had several elections in a short space of time. Canadians need to know that since I became a member of Parliament in 1993, no majority government has completed its full mandate, which should run between four and five years. Choosing an election date has become a political plaything for a prime minister, who tries not to find the best way of accommodating voters, but to find a time when public opinion may give him popular support. It has become a guessing game, with absolutely disastrous consequences.

First, people get fed up with having hundreds of millions of dollars of their tax money spent to hold an election four, six or eight months before it is required. Holding elections on a fixed date is sound fiscal policy. It is wonderful. A normal mandate runs for four years. This gives the government time to do things, and no one has to deal with the stress of an unexpected election campaign.

There is a serious shortage of women in politics. But let us look at what is required of candidates who want to join us here in the House of Commons or serve in the provincial legislatures. We are talking about professionals, business people, people who have some responsibility in society. They are expected to announce six, seven or eight months in advance that they intend to run for office. Imagine a wife and mother or a career woman who also has family obligations. She has to tell her husband and children that she plans to run as a political candidate in the next election, with all that involves.

This is fine if the election is called a month later: people announce their intention to run, then they start campaigning. We know how it works on the ground: we campaign daily, selling memberships leading up to a convention and convincing the organizers. That is how we work. However, the election might not happen until seven months later because the Prime Minister decided to put it off since the polls were not looking very good. Then people find themselves in a pseudo-campaign situation for six or seven months while they prepare and wait for the big day. Obviously, they have to keep working at it because everyone knows they intend to run.

This kind of cat-and-mouse game is detrimental to recruiting candidates. If we know that the election is to take place on such and such a Monday in October of such and such a year, people can plan for it, at a time that suits them, and then announce their candidacy.

(1300)

I sincerely believe that one of the major advantages of this bill is that is would simplify life for people who want to enter public service, but who are not prepared to play around with their careers for five, six, seven months, or maybe even a year while they wait for a general election to be called. This is an extremely important part of planning the transition from private life to political life for people who decide to take the leap. This is an important element.

The second very important element is that democracy works best when everyone, even the men and women in politics, knows that there are fixed elections. Fixed elections enable us to take more coherent, organized action rather than playing the will-he-or-won't-he game with the Prime Minister.

I believe that there is nothing worse for democracy than letting the Prime Minister decide when to hold an election based on when public opinion tells him he is at his best, and then surprising everyone with the election announcement.

In my opinion, an election is not a game. An election must be taken seriously, approached honestly and not be a surprise. It must take place in its own time in order to allow citizens to express their opinions. This is another extremely important consideration.

Past prime ministers toyed a great deal with election dates. Oddly enough, this card has almost always been played in the month following the arrival of a new leader of the opposition. That indicates that the prime minister would take stock of the situation. If the Bloc Québécois was holding a leadership convention, the time was right to call an election two months later. How considerate. There is no time to organize as everyone is caught off guard.

A leadership race is currently underway in the Liberal party. It would be tempting for a prime minister, in these circumstances, to call an election perhaps two, three or four months after the new leader is chosen so as to not give this individual the time to organize.

I must say that the Prime Minister is being reasonable and sensible when he tells citizens that he is setting aside this prerogative, which is his to exercise, and doing so deliberately. He says that he will not play games with the opposition parties or public opinion. He will simply respect the mandate given. Obviously this bill does not and cannot change the constitutional powers of the Prime Minister and the Governor General, particularly those of the Governor General.

A responsible government assumes that the Prime Minister could, at any time, if defeated in the House, go to the Governor General and advise him or her that he no longer has the confidence of the House. That goes without saying.

The Constitution has not been amended. However, the Prime Minister, by putting forward this legislative measure, and even if he does retain the authority to act otherwise, places considerable political pressure on himself and on those who will follow .

People would not understand, for example, if the Prime Minister, after tabling this Bill providing for elections in October of 2009, should decide to call an election in 2008, with three months notice—because the polls were favourable or because of some other circumstances—perhaps because he was hoping to achieve a majority government. That would not be well received. The voters would say he was two-faced, saying one thing when talking about principles but acting in an entirely different way when it is time for action.

It is no secret that in tabling this bill, the Prime Minister is creating a framework that he will have to respect in all situations and that he must accept. In addition, what he is doing will have consequences for others. He is agreeing, for himself, to give up that prerogative of playing with election dates. As a result, it won’t be done any more.

Once he has taken this step, the path will be marked out for subsequent prime ministers, who will have to respect this legislation which is a very clear expression of the will of the House of Commons.

(1305)

Moreover, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has very complex work to do to prepare for an election. At present, the possibility that there might be an election at any time during the government’s mandate requires Elections Canada officials to be in a state of constant readiness. Some rather large expenditures are linked to that state of affairs. I am not just talking about the mandate of a minority government. It is true even in the context of a very strong majority government, as we have seen in the past.

It seems to me that with a fixed election date, in the context of a majority government, Elections Canada could better plan its work and its schedules and be better prepared, more adequately prepared, when the situation required it. That is also an absolutely remarkable benefit.

In addition, elected members have many other matters to be concerned with than the need to be re-elected, perhaps in a year-and-a-half, two years, or three-and-a-half years. They have a great deal of parliamentary work to do and lots of work in their ridings. Having a certain, predetermined room for manoeuvre will allow members, through agreement with all parties, to plan the work of parliamentary committees and the legislative agenda to be accomplished. The government and the opposition will be able to plan better and work more effectively. It avoids unpleasant surprises and enables parliamentary committees to schedule their work so that within one mandate a number of problems could be dealt with. Parliamentary committees will be able to plan their work and establish a schedule that respects dates known to everyone.

A clear democratic advantage ensues, for this leads to improved democracy. As for the practical organization of elections, this will also allow for a better electoral process. It also has the advantage of making it possible to better organize the work of Parliament. It also allows very worthy candidates to better plan the announcement of their candidacy, which is not currently the case. This could draw more women to political office, and certainly more senior level professionals who cannot risk putting their careers on hold for months at a time.

Furthermore, researchers looked at approximately 40 parliamentary democracies from around the world and found that only 12, including Canada, do not have fixed election dates, or at least an electoral period established within a couple of months. In short, only 12 out of 40 do not have elections on a certain day or during a certain period. This means that accepting fixed election dates would be a step towards progress. It would mean joining the 28 other parliamentary democracies that have established this rule. This also prevents overlapping with unsuitable periods for an election, such as during holidays or during periods that could interfere with elections being held in other areas of our public life. This allows us to simply declare late September and October, every four years,as the election period for the House of Commons, as we would all know that the election is held the third Monday in October. Everyone could then plan their schedules based on this information.

We therefore support this bill. It does not change our democratic habits in any drastic way; it merely specifies the importance of fulfilling four-year mandates.

(1310)

I have served several terms in this House since 1993, and I have never seen a government complete its mandate. When a minority government was elected, reporters asked me whether I was disappointed that we had another minority government, because that could mean an election in the relatively near future. I told them that whether we have a minority or a majority government, it never completes its mandate. The legislation before us will allow governments to complete their mandates. That is what we hope and want. For a minority government to complete its mandate, it needs to do one very simple thing: respect the members of this House.

Any government that decides to respect the will of the House of Commons will easily be able to complete its four-year mandate. From now on, the Prime Minister and the cabinet—the executive—will have to agree to govern by consensus. The opposition has the power to allow the minority government to continue or to defeat it. Of course, our goal is to allow the government to govern. But the government has the responsibility to develop the tools it needs in order to govern. With a minority government, an election might be held in October 2009. This government would have to try to govern more openly to rally the forces of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the opposition as a whole or the Liberal opposition. This is possible. It has happened in the past, and it generally means more responsible governance.

Fixed election dates can benefit both majority and minority governments. We all try to the best of our ability to ensure that the government governs properly, over the course of a full mandate. Canadians do not like having too many elections and want us to act responsibly. The bill will make that possible.

Again, without eliminating the Governor General's prerogative to dissolve Parliament, the Prime Minister has set an extremely rigid set of parameters for himself, and he will have to abide by those parameters or else lose all credibility. When he has followed those parameters once, his successors will be morally obliged to do the same. This is a step forward. I salute this initiative. The Bloc will support it on its merits, as it approaches every piece of legislation tabled in this House.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a very fine speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean who is very eloquent and has a quiet, subtle way of advancing ideas that are real food for thought.

He mentioned one point that I would like him to explore further. That is the need of ordinary citizens for fixed election dates. Why? As he explained, they are a great help to the hon. members and the parties. However, for a community that is waiting for a bill, for example, what is the effect of fixed election dates?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this briefly, but for the benefit of my hon. colleague and everyone else, I will add the following. The parliamentarians in this House and the government could do a better job of preparing; they could draw up their schedule better and would have a better idea of how much parliamentary time they have to critique a bill and consult Canadians. If necessary, they could consult a little longer and do further research.

When we know the election date and how long we have for our work, the quality improves. We know where we are at.

I am the House leader. I have been in the House of Commons for 13 years and have been House leader for 12.

For all 12 years, at the end of every session ministers in the various governments come to see me, because I am the House leader, and beg me to allow their bill or legislation to pass. They tell me that a certain bill is absolutely essential and ask if I would be willing to consent to this legislation being speeded up so that it can pass.

I am saying this for the people listening to us and for the hon. members who have not yet had a chance to experience a few ends of session. I find this game at the end of parliamentary sessions unseemly and unfortunate. However, I can understand it.

A minister who has an important piece of legislation— on the environment or industry or in any given area—is very eager to see it pass. He has worked on it for seven, eight or ten months and sometimes more than a whole year, and there have been consultations and much effort. When the minister sees the end of the session looming, he definitely does not want to all this work to go down the drain. He does not want to have to start all over again a few months later, or even after an election, because there is nothing left that matters any more.

Fixed election dates would eliminate surprises. How many prime ministers have thrown their own ministers for a loop by calling early elections? It is amazing. I think that Canadians—whom we are supposed to be serving here by introducing and passing legislation—would be happy to know that the hon. members work in a planned, orderly fashion and that the results will arrive as expected.

This would therefore be a great improvement for everyone: for both the people and ministers. They voted for legislation and did well. It will be easier for them and easier as well for opposition members to work on legislation that they want to help along. That is another good reason to support this bill.

(1320)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Quebec for giving a good speech.

Obviously it is always the third party’s fault when a government that had a majority for close to 10 years did not have an opportunity to put its own bill to the vote. That is what happened with the previous government. I find these stories really funny.

I agree completely with the member from Roberval: this new bill would let us know ahead of time when the next election would take place. The ministers would have lots of possibilities and would know how many years, months and days they had left to work on their bills.

Something else that is very important is the way things operate, particularly a minority government. But it is exactly the same way of operating in a majority government: the ministers work with the opposition critics.

I had a very enjoyable experience working with the former Bloc Québécois critic, Benoît Sauvageau, who passed away. He was an extraordinary man, a very honest man, with great abilities and a lot of experience. It was a great pleasure for me work with him. All our thoughts go out to his family and his colleagues on both sides of the House.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the President of the Treasury Board liked what I had to say about the ministers. I can tell you that this is so for all ministers of all governments. It is natural and it is also to their credit.

I have always had respect for a minister who goes to the trouble of crossing the House, of coming to see me, going to see the leader of the official opposition or the leader of the NDP to try and get a bill passed. I have always found that it was a mark of trust and commitment on the part of such people.

So I sincerely feel that holding elections on set dates will get rid of this element of surprise. It will give rise to fewer surprises for these people, and more work will get done with better planning.

It has happened that, in wishing to support bills, we have agreed to go a little faster, and sometimes we have made mistakes from going too fast, because the legislative process requires us to act seriously. This is another reason in support of holding elections at set times. We will have more time to do our job properly, we will not need to fast-track, there will be less need for us to rush and there will be less risk of typos slipping into bills. So it is a good measure.

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Questions and comments. Two minutes remain for the question and answer.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has the floor

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-16 and to signal, as I did earlier this afternoon, that the NDP would be supporting this legislation. We are looking forward to getting it into committee for further discussion and perhaps amendments. In essence, the proposition being put before this House right now is one that we have supported for a good number of years. In the 2004-06 Parliament our former member, Ed Broadbent, was a strong proponent of this and encouraged the government of the day to press forward with it, to no avail. We are pleased to see that the government has in fact moved on the issue.

To a great extent this bill is about combating the cynicism that is in the electorate. We can say it makes sense for our electorate to know that there would be a fixed date for an election every four years and prepare for it knowing in advance when voting would take place. However, what is more important, and I do not want to downplay the significance of that certainty of a fixed date, is that if this bill passes it would be an opportunity for this House, for Parliament, to say to the citizens of Canada right across the country that we are no longer going to have their decision making process manipulated by the government in power. That has been very much the history of parliaments of all stripes in this House.

A parliament, a government of the day, will say this is to its advantage to go now even though it is nowhere near the generally accepted four, four and a half year mandate that we should stay and work and do what is our responsibility to the country. The government says, no, this is to our advantage right now, because of this issue, it is popular in the country, it is our issue and so we are going to go to the electorate.

We saw that, as we heard from some of the other speakers today, in the last number of years happening repeatedly, where we had elections at three and three and a half year intervals, and that suffers. If nothing else, if we want to look at it from a non-democratic standpoint and simply from a financial standpoint, it means we have more elections, and those cost money, in the range of $200 million, each time we go to the electorate. More importantly, the essential issue is that we say to the people of Canada that we are no longer going to manipulate the electoral date in order for it to be of advantage to the government in power of the day.

One of the side effects of that, because of the certainty of the date which would allow people to know in advance when the vote would be and to prepare for it, is that it would increase, I believe, the number of people who would vote because they would not feel this negative cynicism toward all parties and all politicians from this perspective. They would say that they knew this election was coming at this point, it is part of our law, they are ready for it, they are going to participate in it, they are prepared for it, and they have not been forced to go to the polls only because of an opportune time for the government in power. For that reason the bill is important. It is one that we should all be supporting. I think we have heard today from the various parties that they all intend to in fact support this approach.

I suppose the comment one has to make is that it is too late. We should have done this a long time ago, but in fact we are now finally now getting to it.

One of the concerns that we do have of this legislation is with regard to the situation in a minority government because of course this law would have no effect if the past practice continues. The past practice is, as often as not in a minority government situation, that the government comes down not so much because of a lack of confidence generally in the government but on a specific issue.

(1330)

We are proposing for consideration in this minority government situation, and we will be raising it at committee when it gets there, to constrain the ability of the government to intentionally bring itself down by creating a false issue, by setting up an issue that all three of the opposition parties with the majority of seats in the House would vote against. That has happened and there certainly has been speculation that the government may be planning on doing that some time in the spring of this session.

In order to avoid that kind of cynicism, there are alternatives. I put this to the government House leader today. He, of course, was dismissive of it in the sense that it would usurp the power of Parliament and cross over into conflict with our courts. What I suggested to him was that we limit the number of issues that can be confidence motions, so that a government cannot unilaterally, as it can now, say an item is a confidence motion and if we do not vote with it the government, it goes down and we have an election.

That again is a manipulative tool that governments in the past have used. From a democracy standpoint there is no reason to have that in our system. We could, I believe, with some discussions, debate and negotiations come to a conclusion and incorporate that into legislation as to what is a permissible motion of confidence and exclude all others.

One of the answers I received from the government House leader was that we cannot do it because we would end up being challenged in the courts. That is not necessarily the consequence. The decision as to whether a motion is one of confidence or not, once we have set the criteria, could be determined, first by your Chair, Mr. Speaker. That is one alternative, or it could be by a vote in the House. There are other alternatives.

Albeit, and I am not going to advocate it, another alternative is to allow the Governor General to make that decision. Being an unelected position and being a strong democrat, I am not prepared to turn the power over to that office, but I do believe it would fall within the perspective, control and authority, and jurisdiction of either the House or of the Speaker of the House at the time, and so there are alternatives.

Going back again to why we are supporting the bill, both from a democratic standpoint but more to deal with cynicism within the electorate, it would be another way of saying to the electorate, even in the minority government situation, that they would not be forced to go to the polls, that we would be able to continue the government and continue on the issues that are confronting the country without going to the electorate. We would not allow the government of the day to simply say something is a confidence motion, that if we do not vote with it we would have an election.

There are alternatives. It is an alternative that I believe would deal very much with the other part of the cynicism when elections are called in this country.

I want to say that there are clear reasons why this will be effective and I want to address one of the negatives at the same time as seeing it as a positive. I believe that by allowing for fixed election dates we actually would reduce the amount of partisan electioneering that goes on between elections. We would reduce it to that latter period of time, to the last six months.

What happens now, and I think we are being less than honest with the electorate when we stand in the House and say that we are going to be in a constant election mode with the implication being that we are not right now and we are not even in a majority government situation. I have been in both. Anybody who has been here knows whether one is in a majority government situation or a minority government situation, as it stands right now, electioneering goes on because we do not know, and I was very glad to hear my colleague from the Bloc making this point, when the plug will be pulled. Right now we are into that situation and in fact we do partisan electioneering on a constant basis.

(1335)

Having fixed dates, I believe and would argue strongly, would reduce the amount of partisanship that goes on between elections and restrict it to the latter period of time of, as I say, six months to a year before the campaign starts. The argument is that it is somehow going to increase the amount of politicking that goes on, being meant in a negative tone, the result of which will in fact be just the opposite.

With regard to the other positives here, again it is a situation where because one knows what one is confronted with in terms of a date, the recruitment of candidates by all parties and the recruitment of volunteers by all parties will be enhanced when we know the dates that we are working toward as far as the election date itself.

The bottom line is, and I will conclude with this, if we proceed with the legislation as proposed, it is definitely a step forward but it is not enough. I believe we should strongly look extensively at the issue of how we trigger elections in a minority government situation around confidence votes and amend this legislation to include criteria as to how the situation would be dealt with then. That would go to finalizing that cynicism that the electorate feels toward all politicians about the way we manipulate election dates in this country.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say. I am encouraged to hear that it sounds as though he is supporting election reform in this manner. I was, however, disturbed by some of the amendments that the member was proposing with respect to confidence motions in the House.

It seems to me that governments are elected on a mandate and are expected to deliver on the promises they have made. Certainly, this government is making a case for the fact that it will deliver on what it has promised. If bills are going to be constantly debated, and no one has to express confidence in a government, I do not think any government could really go to the people and express that it would deliver on its promises. I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should study some of the other governments. I am going to use England as the example. England's legislature has been going through an extensive reduction in the votes that are considered to be confidence motions. It does not in any way demean the democracy in that country. I believe it is just the opposite.

Governments there, both conservative and labour, have suffered defeats on issues they ran on and saw as part of their mandates in their elections. Their governments did not collapse. Democracy continued in that country. It can in fact work.

The other point that one would have to make, if one goes back and studies the history of successive governments in this country, is that all too often matters that were not part of the mandate are brought forward as confidence motions. They tend not to be the major issues of the day on which the political parties ran for government or ran for office, but more mundane ones that are oftentimes manufactured as causes for confidence motions knowing that the opposition parties collectively will vote against it and bring the government down.

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member raised a couple of interesting points. I think there is general support in the House for the legislation but subject to some discussion and maybe some witnesses at committee on a couple of points, many of them are around the issue of the concept of the royal prerogative.

As the member will know, Eugene Forsey has opined that to set fixed terms for government or fixed election dates would in fact require a constitutional amendment. He also indicated that a constitutional amendment would eliminate the royal prerogative because then the Governor General would not be in a position to go against the laws of the land. In fact, even if a prime minister were to go to the Governor General because he or she would like to refresh the mandate, the Governor General would probably have to say no simply because of the issue that the royal prerogative in fact would have been muted by the override of Parliament.

I am wondering if the member has done any reading in this area and whether there is any concern with regard to the need for a constitutional amendment in this regard.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin:

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at it to some degree. I certainly do not claim to be a constitutional law expert, which is what we are into here. I would not challenge Mr. Forsey's opinion but it is only one opinion. There are strong opinions on the other side within the constitutional law, both academics and practitioners, that this proposed amendment by the government to the elections act would withstand a constitutional challenge.

I would make one additional point and that is that our Constitution is not just a written one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that we can create constitutional conventions and that may very well occur here. It is certainly what I believe would occur if we moved along the lines I am arguing for which is a restriction on what a vote of confidence is. If over a period of years the Governor General were advised by the government of the day to have an election on a certain date and abided by that, over a period of several elections that would then become a convention within this country. The same would be true in a minority government situation along the lines that I previously mentioned.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, being a former municipal councillor I have always supported fixed election dates. It has never been an issue. People know when an election will be held. It is no big deal. B.C. has fixed election dates. I think it is about the only thing Gordon Campbell has done in B.C. that I agree with.

One group of voters that are ready and waiting for the next set election date are the voters of Vancouver Kingsway. They were denied the opportunity to send a message to their member of Parliament who betrayed them in the last election by switching parties. While I support set election dates, it is very unfortunate that the Conservative government has chosen to sweep under the carpet and ignore one of the most basic forms of voter accountability and democracy in our country and that is to ban floor crossing.

I would like to ask the member for Windsor—Tecumseh if he could comment on that. It seems to me that we cannot cherry-pick these issues. This is about democracy, accountability to voters and making our system work. The fact that the floor crossing bill never happened under the government is a crying shame and really betrays the voters of Vancouver Kingsway who have a right to say something about what took place there.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin:

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said that better myself.

What we are doing here with regard to fixed election dates is a very small part of the electoral reform this country needs. Floor crossing is one of the issues that badly needs to be addressed given how the electorate has been so abused by both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the last two Parliaments.

A number of other amendments and changes to our laws are needed. Some are extensive while others are fundamental. In the last Parliament, Mr. Broadbent led the way at committee by proposing a number of necessary amendments to our laws and to our system. I was just reading one of the reports from the committee before I came over here today. The Conservative government supported a number of those amendments and yet we have seen no sign of them. We see things like the push for an elected Senate being sidetracked to a significant degree by the appointment of unelected senators by the government and by simply moving to change the time they will be in office.

A number of things rapidly need to be done and the government is just sitting on its hands with regard to them. We really have to question its intent and its sincerity in this regard.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will just take this opportunity to briefly ask my colleague about the need to reform the elections act. In terms of election financing, one of the most glaring things facing us today that we believe could have been addressed by the government is the fact that the current Liberal leadership race is relying on massive election loans that are more like donations which would clearly be in violation of the election financing act were they viewed in their real context.

Perhaps my colleague from Windsor could comment on the lack of real election reform and the need for raising these other important issues in the same--

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is in the rules of this place that no one is to be accused of breaking any laws. Indeed, the laws are being followed in accordance totally with electoral laws. I think the premise of the member's question and the insinuation is an embarrassment to Parliament.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin:

Mr. Speaker, I did not get any implication from the member that he was accusing the Liberals of illegalities but more of moral bankruptcy, and he is right. The issue of those types of loans was raised in 2003 at committee by one of our members who is no longer in the House that this was a glaring loophole. We are seeing that loophole being exploited at this point.

What are they thinking Canadians will think about that? It clearly is a loophole and it is a wonder that the government did not plug it. Some more work for its members to do.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in case there is any confusion among those people who are viewing this debate, I want to say that we are not talking about fixing elections because that would be a bad thing. Bill C-16 is a very good thing. This is part of our overall democratic reform package. I think it will be well received within this place because it is one of the more positive steps in democratic reform that any government can bring forward.

We currently have a system where at the will of the government it can call an election. That obviously leads to many things along the lines of manipulating voters and manipulating dates to get the most beneficial time to the governing party to call an election. Obviously, as many speakers before me have indicated, this would bring an element of fairness to the whole equation.

I should also say at the outset that I am very pleased to hear the majority of my colleagues in this place stating unequivocally that they plan to support this important legislation. I say the majority but I cannot say all because as usual my colleagues on the official opposition side of the House, the Liberal Party of Canada, seems to be all over the map in terms of whether they want to support this or not. I heard today my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra state that he wishes to support this legislation, although he offered a few pieces of advice that we perhaps could tweak the legislation and make it stronger.

I have also heard in previous interviews the member for York South—Weston state without reservation that he will support the legislation but I also hear my colleague from Wascana say without reservation that he will oppose the legislation. I suppose it is not unusual to hear my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House once again failing to come to any unanimity on a very important issue. In fact, I find it distressing and troubling that members of the Liberal Party of Canada would oppose, in any way, shape or form, a sense of accountability that would bring transparency and fairness to this place.

Let me once again try to point out some of the elements of this legislation and why it makes sense to me and to most Canadians. In fact, I should say that a recent polling has observed that over 77% of Canadians polled think that fixed election dates would be a good thing and a necessary change. I agree with that for all of the right reasons.

First, of course, it would ensure fairness. It would ensure that no party, regardless of political affiliation, while in power would be able to manipulate a date for a federal election to its particular advantage. I must say that this has happened time and time again over the last 100 years and not only by Liberal governments. It has happened with Progressive Conservative governments in the past. In fact, my research indicates that since 1867 with majority governments, the vast majority of governments ignored the four year traditional and conventional timeframe for federal elections.

Not once over the course of 12 years did the previous Liberal government adhere to the four year convention. Former Prime Minister Chrétien was in the habit of calling elections every three to three and a half years. That allows the governing party to have a political advantage over its opponents. Only the governing party knows the dates of the next election. If the polls happen to be favourable and it looks like the governing party might be returned in either a majority government or at least a strong minority, the governing party can call an election at its whim.

Conversely, if it appears that the polls indicate that the governing party may not win an election at that four year cycle, it can delay that election up to five years and beyond. Quite frankly, that should not be allowed to happen.

This legislation would take care of that. It would make it incumbent upon the present government and governments in the future to adhere to a fixed date for federal elections. The manipulations of governments trying to buy voters with their own money would come to an end. This is a very important step in our package of democratic reform.

(1350)

It is more than simply fairness. It is the transparency that I think most Canadians are looking for in their elected officials. Canadians do not want to think that the timing of a federal election will be held behind closed doors where a bunch of party hacks and pollsters get together and say that this would be their best chance to win the next election and that they should call the next election on a particular date. That should have no bearing on the timing of a federal election.

The bill, if adopted by this place and the upper chamber, will prevent that type of action from happening again. All Canadians will have the luxury of knowing that their governments, now and in the future, will have to adhere to a certain timeframe, the third Monday in October every four years. If that is not enough, it will also improve the ability of each successive government to provide the type of legislation and governance that Canadians expect and, frankly, deserve.

Too often we find a sense of gridlock within the public service because public servants are unaware of when the next election might be called. They are somewhat fearful of bringing forward initiatives or improvements within their particular government department or agency for fear that legislation or that initiative will be quashed by the government with the call of a federal election. Without question, if all parliamentarians and public servants knew that there were specific and fixed dates for elections, governance would vastly improve.

One of the more important elements of the legislation, of which very few people have spoken today, is that with fixed election dates I believe voter turnout would probably increase. Right now we all know and I think admit that there is a high level of voter cynicism for a number of reasons. One of them is that elections can be called at the whim of the government in a majority situation. I believe if the general public knew when the election would be held, they would have more confidence in coming forward to vote on election day, notwithstanding that if we had fixed elections dates, over time there would come a sense of knowledge and reality within the electorate that every four years, the third Monday in October, there would be a federal election. It would become almost routine and more and more voters would come out to the polls because they would know and expect an election on that appointed date.

One of the real tragedies we have is the fact that over the last 10 years or so we have seen a steady decline in voter turnout to the point now where slightly over 60% of Canadians exercise their franchise on election day. That is a tragedy. Decades ago we had 75% and in some provinces at least 80% voter turnout. People took pride in the fact that their vote counted. They had an opportunity to change the course of the country or at least elect a government that seemed to agree with their particular point of view.

Now, particularly among young people, we find a situation where people just do not feel they have an opportunity to truly influence democratic institutions. This is one small step in rectifying that.

Finally, I encourage all members in the House, particularly my friends opposite, to vote in favour of the legislation. Without their support, without the support of all opposition parties, the legislation will fail. That would be to the detriment of all Canadian people.

The government is convinced and committed to ongoing democratic reform. This is the first step and we will take other initiatives as we come through this fall session. With the support and help of all my hon. colleagues, we can all engage in true democratic reform for the benefit of all Canadians.

(1355)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member referred to party hacks and other backroom people setting election dates.

Would he care to comment on the story in today's press from the Conservative Party hacks and backroom boys that the next election is next spring, right after the budget comes down?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has again got it completely wrong. It is idle media speculation.

Let me just assure my colleague that the longer we have a chance to stay in power, with the legislation that is being so overwhelmingly approved and appreciated by Canadians, the better we will be. We do not want an election after the next budget. We want an election after four successive budgets. That would ensure that we stay in power for an awfully long time.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

When we resume discussion on the legislation, there will be four minutes left for questions and comments.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Fort McMurray

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you on trip to northern Alberta, to Canada's future, to the year 2016 and to a community where the local population has more than doubled to over 160,000.

Seventy-five billion dollars has been invested in the local economy. Three million barrels of oil are produced every day from this community, resulting in 6% of Canada's gross domestic product and 50% of Canada's oil production.

Today, unfortunately, the average home price is over $438,000. The rental price for a two bedroom apartment is $2,000, if one can be found. The municipality has a $1.2 billion infrastructure deficit and the lowest doctor to patient ratio in the country: 2.1 doctors to every 6,500 people.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to take one of the over 400,000 new jobs that will be created in Alberta over the next 10 years, come on up to Fort McMurray. Just ensure you have a place to sleep first because you will not find a bed once you get there.

* * *

Anthony Boneca

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on February 13, 1985, Shirley Boneca gave birth to a boy, whom his parents called Anthony.

Anthony, or T-Bone as he was known, lived all his life in Thunder Bay. He attended St. Ignatius High School. He was a good student and an outstanding athlete. He was a fine young man and he was honoured by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario in 2003.

After high school, Anthony joined the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment as a reservist. His first tour of duty was in Afghanistan and he returned to Thunder Bay safely. He then volunteered for another tour and arrived back in Afghanistan in February of 2006. Anthony never saw Thunder Bay or his parents again. He was killed in action on July 9, 2006.

Our sincere sympathy to his parents, who have honoured us with their presence today. Anthony was their only child. All Canadians should feel proud of this fine young man from Thunder Bay who made the supreme sacrifice for his country.

* * *

[Translation]

Anastasia De Sousa

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker a family in the Ste-Rose neighbourhood of my riding has been struck by tragedy.

A mad gunman killed the oldest daughter with nine bullets.

He did it because she was beautiful and she seemed happy and he detested happiness and beauty.

Like millions of people, my eyes fill with tears and my heart breaks at the sight of the lovely graduation picture of this young woman and upon reading and hearing the testimonials of her friends and teachers.

It is at times like these that the true meaning of the word “sympathy” is apparent. The term comes from the Greek and means to suffer with. It is very little, too little, but it is the best we can do to help one another bear the unbearable.

Thus, I wish to express my heartfelt and most sincere condolences for the loss of the beautiful and, above all, the beloved Anastasia.

* * *

[English]

Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today as a member of Parliament representing the most patriotic riding in this great country called Canada.

On Canada's 139th birthday, celebrated this past July 1, the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry had 15,084 homes displaying the Canadian flag. More than one in every three homes located in my riding very proudly displayed our most treasured national emblem on Canada Day. Virtually every one of these 15,084 flags was hand-delivered by over 300 volunteers during our “Proud to be Canadian” campaign.

That is why I declare to the House and to every member of Parliament that the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry is the most patriotic riding in Canada, and I challenge all 307 of my colleagues to surpass our achievement in their respective ridings.

* * *

(1405)

2015 World Expo

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for Toronto's bid to host the 2015 World Expo.

Hosting the world fair will mean large scale infrastructure investment, cultural legacies and growth in tourism, tax revenues and jobs for Toronto. The World Expo is also a tremendous opportunity to accelerate the revitalization of the waterfront and expand transit.

Toronto city council, Mayor David Miller and the people of Toronto are overwhelmingly behind this bid. So what is missing? Canada's federal government.

As a national endeavour, only the federal government can officially bid on the fair on behalf of Toronto. November 3 is the deadline and time is running out.

I call on the Prime Minister to formally back Toronto's Expo bid. The world fair will showcase our incredible diversity as a city and as a country. With the support of the federal government, we can make a 2015 World Expo bid a reality.

* * *

Myanmar

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents, particularly an Amnesty International group in my riding, are concerned about the human rights situation in Myanmar, previously Burma.

Human rights abuses, violence against women, the holding of political prisoners and military rule are only a few of the main concerns.

Just this spring, the opposition leader's house arrest was extended by a year. The military regime is so desperate to hang on to power that it is even now cracking down on stand-up comics who poke fun at it.

I know Parliament has expressed its concern in the past. I call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to keep Canada active on this file.

I have added my name to a letter from the Canadian Friends of Burma to Kofi Annan calling on him to seek a resolution to the crisis. We must do what we can to promote the establishment of an open and transparent democracy that respects and enshrines human rights.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that should concern all of us: the growing acts of violence that take place in communities and neighbourhoods across the country.

On the morning of July 22, 2006 a vicious unprovoked attack took place in my constituency. A young man was brutally stabbed while walking from his home to a convenience store because he refused to buy drugs from a group of thugs trying to intimidate him. As a result, Tarek Williams quickly became another victim of the increasing gang problem.

Tarek was determined to attend the Canada Bible College, but the assault left him unable to work and save for his tuition. Almost immediately the community and its volunteers came forward and set a goal to raise the required funds to pay for his tuition in hopes that this young man would not have to put his academic ambitions on hold because of this terrible offence. I am pleased to say that thanks to great volunteers and the staff of my Calgary office we are only $440 away from reaching our goal.

On behalf of Tarek and his family, I thank Calgary for its generosity.

* * *

[Translation]

Benoît Sauvageau

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we cannot start off this session of Parliament without paying tribute to our colleague Benoît Sauvageau. Benôit left us so suddenly that we are still in shock. This brave man made a huge contribution to parliamentary life here in Ottawa and to his riding of Repentigny.

Benoît was elected for the first time in 1993. He was critic for sport, international trade, Treasury Board, infrastructure and public accounts as well as the Francophonie and Official Languages. His extensive parliamentary experience together with his integrity, work ethic and jovial nature made him popular among all his Bloc Québécois colleagues as well as with all those who worked with him on the Hill.

Benoît was also a great friend. His sunny disposition and his laughter were contagious. We must now say goodbye to our dear friend, Benoît.

* * *

(1410)

[English]

Terry Fox Run

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend thousands of Canadians from coast to coast participated in Terry Fox runs to raise funds for cancer research.

In the 26 years since Terry ended his run on September 1, 1980, $400 million has been raised to fight cancer through Terry Fox runs. His Marathon of Hope captured the hearts of Canadians when a young man with an artificial leg ran with a double step and a hop for 42 kilometres a day for several months.

Terry may have never reached the Pacific but his Marathon of Hope continues on. Across the street from Parliament Hill is a statue of Terry running westward. It reminds people of the difference that just one Canadian can make in this world.

On behalf of all British Columbians I proudly call Terry Fox a British Columbian and a Canadian hero.

* * *

Robin Cameron and Marc Bourdages

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Merasty (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in July a terrible tragedy occurred when RCMP Constables Robin Cameron and Marc Bourdages were killed in the line of duty in their service to Canada.

Robin and Marc were truly inspirational people and touched the lives of many. Robin was a dedicated officer and in doing so became a leader of her first nations community, a hero to her family including her daughter Shayne. Marc was a proud father and husband who reached out to the communities he served, including my hometown of Pelican Narrows.

It was with great sadness that we said goodbye to these brave officers but we can still find inspiration despite this tragedy. We can find it in the resolve of the Cameron and Bourdages families who touched Canadians with their heartfelt tributes. We can find it in Spiritwood, a town that overcame fear and joined together in an emotional and spiritual healing ceremony. We can find it in the RCMP whose officers selflessly and courageously serve and protect Canadians every day.

I ask everyone to join me in applauding the families, the community of Spiritwood, and the RCMP for their strength and resolve.

* * *

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Liberal opposition MPs from Atlantic Canada are playing politics with the softwood lumber agreement by refusing to support the deal.

The agreement reached by our government will result in the return of almost $5 billion to the lumber industry and will finally bring an end to this ongoing dispute.

By far, most of the lumber industry supports the agreement. The Maritime Lumber Bureau surely strongly supports the softwood deal. New Brunswick Liberal leader Shawn Graham supports it and even the Liberal member for Beauséjour has recently praised the deal by stating, “so as an Atlantic Canadian, I'm certainly pleased that this agreement protects the rights we have fought hard to ensure are protected”.

Canada's new government has supported Atlantic Canada 100% and has ensured that our interests are protected. Why are the Liberals choosing to ignore the industry, the provinces, and even their own MPs when they call for support for the deal? How can the Liberals not support an agreement that is obviously in the best interests of Atlantic Canada?

* * *

Sokol Polish Folk Ensemble

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, who among us has not come back to this place steeped in the diverse heritage of our country, more aware than ever of our rich multicultural mosaic, and perhaps a few pounds heavier from a summer of folklorama, pavilions and ethnocultural feasts?

Just this weekend we celebrated something extraordinary. We celebrated the 100th anniversary of Sokol Winnipeg, a cornerstone of the Polish community in Manitoba and Canada since 1906. Its origins date back to 1862 when it was set up to promote fitness, protect the language, and preserve the culture of Polish youth.

I wish to congratulate the past and present members of the Polish Gymnastic Association and the Polish Folk Ensemble and in particular, the work of Marian Jaworski under whose leadership this centennial celebration took place and who epitomizes the courage, commitment and compassion of Polish pioneers.

Above all, I want to salute the important contribution of Polish Canadians everywhere, the hundreds of thousands of Polish immigrants and their descendants whose numbers are now fast approaching a million.

I thank them. Congratulations and Sto Lat.

* * *

Iran

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to turn the attention of the House to Iran's refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in connection with its nuclear program.

On July 31, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1696 that:

Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA.

It gave it one month to do so or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions. Instead of allaying fears that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons, Tehran responded with sabre-rattling and on August 19 launched extensive military exercises to intimidate the international community.

On September 14, IAEA issued a report stating that Iran had not suspended its enrichment related activities. In accordance with Security Council resolution 1696, the time has come to consider serious economic sanctions to show Tehran that the world will not be intimidated by its intransigence.

* * *

(1415)

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois deplores the deaths of four soldiers killed this morning in a suicide bombing that hit a NATO patrol in Kandahar province.

This tragedy reminds us yet again of the danger and the difficult conditions to which soldiers and diplomats working to establish peace, social justice and democracy in Afghanistan are exposed. I hope that their sacrifices will not have been in vain.

On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I wish to offer my condolences to their families, friends and colleagues in the Armed Forces.

* * *

Dawson College

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, we were all saddened by the tragedy that hit Dawson College in my riding,Westmount—Ville-Marie.

On behalf of the Liberal Party caucus, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of the young woman who was killed. I also hope for a speedy recovery for all of the people who were hospitalized because of this unjustifiable and incomprehensible act.

[English]

I would also like to pay tribute to all involved in saving lives and helping those affected. The police officers, ambulance technicians on the scene, hospital staff, faculty, students, the student union of Dawson College, and the people of Concordia University lent a hand to the people of Dawson College in their time of need.

[Translation]

We hope and pray that those affected by the tragedy, as well as the Dawson community, will be able to find peace and harmony in the wake of this difficult event.

* * *

[English]

Conservative Government

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while it seems the opposition was sleeping over the summer, Canada's new government was hard at work getting things done and delivering on promises.

Canada's new government delivered on child care. Starting in July parents have been receiving a monthly universal child care cheque of $100 per child under six.

Canada's new government delivers on hepatitis C victims. Our government recently announced a $1 billion settlement fund to provide compensation to all hepatitis C victims.

Canada's new government delivers on border security. The public safety minister announced that the government is keeping its promise to strengthen Canada's borders by hiring more border officers and arming them with side arms.

Finally, last week Canada's new government delivered on softwood lumber. The trade minister signed an agreement which will see the return of almost $5 billion to Canada's lumber industry.

These are just a few examples of how Canada's new government is delivering on its promises and getting things done for Canadians.

* * *

Dawson College

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand that there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence for the victims of the tragic events at Dawson College in Montreal last week.

[Translation]

I ask all hon. members to rise to observe a moment of silence.

[A moment of silence observed]

* * *

(1420)

[English]

Sergeant-at-Arms

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I wish to invite all hon. members to join me in welcoming our new Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Kevin Vickers, who is with us in the chamber today for the first time.

[Translation]

I know that all hon. members wish him much success in his new role.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Speaker: We will now move on to oral question period. The hon. leader of the official opposition.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[Translation]

Firearms Registry

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Official Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the moment of silence we have just observed illustrates that today is a day of mourning for us all.

As the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie said, our thoughts go out to the families and victims of the tragedy at Dawson College. Sadly, this tragedy has shown us that our country cannot tolerate complacency toward firearms in Canada.

The Prime Minister is getting ready to abolish our gun control system, but he says now is not the time to talk about it. Today the Prime Minister must talk about it. He must explain to us how his proposal to weaken our gun laws will better protect Canadians.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my condolences and those of the government to the victims and families of the event that occurred in Montreal. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who are still in hospital. Our thoughts go out to all the victims and the entire student body shaken by these events.

This government is determined to have more effective legislation that will prevent such a tragedy and such an act from occurring in the future. I call on the opposition to support our bill in order to implement mandatory sentences for crimes committed with firearms.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to talk about having more effective laws, but 5,000 times every day law enforcement officers in Canada use the very system that the Conservatives want to destroy. The police themselves tell us they need that system to protect lives and increase public safety.

Does the tragedy of Dawson College not prove to the Prime Minister and his colleagues the need to strengthen and improve our gun laws rather than abolish them in the name of a false efficiency?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the events at Dawson College tell us precisely that, that today's laws did not protect us. We take no pleasure on this side of the House from having warned the previous government repeatedly over the past decade that the gun registry would not prevent this kind of occurrence.

I spoke to the acting commissioner and the deputy commissioner of the RCMP today. I asked them to accumulate all the facts and to bring them to the Minister of Public Safety, so that the government can strengthen its future actions to ensure that we reduce all possibility of obviously unstable individuals such as this getting a hold of firearms.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are all in favour of strengthening that what we can do to control arms, but we need to be using every last tool available to save lives. We should be strengthening rules. We should not be tossing some of them out.

The Prime Minister's right to bear arms constituency is blinding him to a very important tool that protects our kids from being shot.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to Premier Charest and the millions of other Canadians who want him to revise his position on gun control, bring in other laws if he wishes, but keep an important tool that has been proven by the police that it works and can help the public safety of Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition feels the necessity of justifying a decade of wrong approaches and wasted effort in terms of a gun control policy that does not work.

The government will not repeat those mistakes. We will pursue new policies that will reduce the possibility of crime and these types of actions.

(1425)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers, through their premier, Jean Charest, the Fédération des policiers municipaux du Québec and women's groups such as the Fédération des femmes du Québec are calling for the gun registry to be maintained intact.

Why is this Prime Minister, who heads a minority government, turning a deaf ear to Quebeckers' legitimate requests?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, and everyone who is concerned by this situation that we are going to maintain the registry system. A police officer will be able to check whether a person owns a gun. As well, this information will remain available in the information system, for use by police. People who want to keep and buy guns will still have to register them. We are going to keep the system's strengths.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we all know that it is very difficult to predict an act of insanity and that the gun registry is not a cure-all that will prevent violence in our society. But the public health association, the suicide prevention centre and the police all recognize that there has been a marked reduction in thefts, suicides and homicides involving firearms.

Why does the minority government not recognize that this registry is valuable, even if it saves just one life?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said that there was a great deal of waste in the system: nearly a billion dollars. We will have a more efficient system. We will have more officers on the street in our communities, across the country. And we will have programs that can prevent tragedies such as these.

* * *

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has decided to address the United Nations General Assembly instead of the House of Commons to present his vision for Canadian foreign policy. And yet, he heavily criticized his predecessor, who also announced his decisions outside the House of Commons.

Does the Prime Minister not have a duty to present his foreign policy to the House of Commons and the public first, including his view on the Afghanistan mission, the Darfur crisis, the WTO negotiations, UN reform and multilateralism?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the leader of the Bloc Québécois was when I addressed a number of these issues in the spring. This week is the annual week at the UN when government leaders arrive to talk about their concerns on matters of foreign policy. I plan to be there to defend the values of this government and of Canadians, including such values as democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we have time to hold an emergency debate on this issue before Thursday.

The Prime Minister presented an overview of his foreign policy for the first time, not here but in London, England, on July 14, and those aspects of Canadian foreign policy for the most part fall into line with the foreign policies of the United States, Australia and Great Britain.

Is the Prime Minister not just moving away from the United Nations multilateral framework and into an alliance of countries that have broken from this framework, in particular on Iraq?

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc should wait for my speech at the United Nations on Thursday to hear what I have to say.

Nonetheless, this summer I heard the leader of the Bloc say that our foreign policy is my policy and that of George Bush. But now that we have a very important foreign policy agreement on softwood lumber: it is mine, that of George Bush and of Gilles Duceppe.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am sure the Prime Minister meant to say the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois or the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I believe that was the very name.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government recently announced that it will deploy another 200 soldiers to join the troops already in Afghanistan.

Since the government has already authorized extending the mission in Afghanistan without giving us any information, we would like to know, today, if this new contingent is a one-time addition or if it is the first of what may turn out to be many.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to offer my condolences to the military families and their friends relating to the four casualties we had last night. It is a very sad event for the military.

In response to the question, the military made an assessment that it needed additional infantry and armour and engineers to fulfill its requirements in the area to provide better security for both our reconstruction effort and for our security forces. We have provided the military with what it needed.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, over the past two weeks, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that Canada was doing more than its share in Afghanistan. Now, all of a sudden, the government has decided to increase its commitment.

Can the Prime Minister explain why he is sending 200 more soldiers when the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have said that Canada is already doing its part? What changed for this to happen so suddenly?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, these are two separate issues. One is that our troops on the ground said that they needed some improvements to improve their security, and we have done that. Quite separately, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are approaching NATO to encourage NATO countries to provide more resources to Afghanistan.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear to Canadians that the government simply does not know what it is doing in Afghanistan.

First we were told that it would be a two year commitment, maximum; now we are being told it is a five year commitment, minimum. First we were told we had sent enough troops; now we are sending hundreds more. First we were told no tanks would be needed; now we are sending tanks. We were told that there would be no discussion with the combatants and now we learn that senior military officials were in discussions with the Taliban already.

Do our troops not deserve better than to have policy made up on the fly, copycat of U.S. foreign policy?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that today in Afghanistan four Canadian servicemen were killed. Obviously, whenever we lose one of the fine men and women of our Canadian Forces, members on all sides of the House feel a great deal of sadness and also respect and honour for the sacrifice that the forces are willing to make for their country and for their fellow human beings. The circumstances of today's deaths, where our servicemen were in the process of distributing some candy to some children in a village and were killed by a suicide bomber when doing this, nothing more than this incident illustrates the evil that they are fighting and the goodwill and the nobleness of the cause that they are taking to the Afghan people.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the greatest respect that we can show for our soldiers serving abroad, and they are brave and they are courageous because they are doing what our country asked them to do, is to consider very carefully what we are asking them to do. Let me draw the House's attention to what Captain Leo Docherty, former aide-de-camp to the commander of British forces in Helmand province said on Monday. He said that the NATO-led mission is “a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency....We've been grotesquely clumsy...and sucked into a problem unsolvable by military means”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of National Defence when he said that this mission cannot be won by military means?

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it has been clear from the beginning that the United Nations effort in Afghanistan requires a multifaceted approach, not just security operations to end the remnants of the Taliban regime and its presence in the country, but also development work and diplomatic work, a whole range of skills of governance building to ensure that country moves forward as a peaceful and democratic society that does not ever again present a threat of terror either to the world or even to its own citizens.

What the men and women in uniform require is a Parliament of all parties that believes in what they are doing and sticks behind their actions.

* * *

[Translation]

Firearms Registry

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the incident at Dawson College is a tragic reminder that we must exercise constant vigilance to prevent violent acts committed with firearms. Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, are keenly aware of this.

[English]

Will the Prime Minister tell this House why he is listening to the gun lobbyists who backed him, lock, stock and barrel, instead of listening to Canadian moms and dads who just want strong gun laws?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, among the people whom we have listened to is the Auditor General. The Auditor General pointed to a great waste of dollars in terms of a failed plan by the former regime to try to have a system that worked when it came to a firearms registry. We are listening to her.

We listened to her comments when she said that when police officers drive up to a house, for instance, the data they have available to them is not reliable. We want reliable data for police officers. We want more officers on the street from coast to coast. We want programs directed to youth at risk. We will accomplish that, I hope with the help of the opposition.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is clearly ideologically incapable of maintaining effective control over firearms in Canada. It is not in his nature.

[English]

Who is the Prime Minister listening to on this issue? Not the chiefs of police. They want Canada's gun laws kept intact.

[Translation]

Nor is he listening to average Canadians: they want much stricter control of firearms.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to millions across the country who want effective gun control. We are also listening with interest and appreciation to leadership candidates in the Liberal Party who say that it was a wrong idea to embrace the plan of the former Liberals, to see a $1 billion wasted. We listened to the police chief out of Toronto, who said that the approach the Liberals were taking does not reduce the possibility that a young person is going to get a firearm into his or her hands.

We want programs that will work. We are committed to seeing gun crime reduced, safety rise and our communities safer than they have ever been.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, if we follow their logic, we would have to remove the Criminal Code clause that makes it illegal to drive under the influence.

Elections Canada just told us that during the 2006 election, the gun lobby spent more than $133,000 to support the Conservative campaign aimed at reducing firearms control. Does the Prime Minister intend to reduce firearms control because he owes it to the gun lobby?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we do not know if the figures given by the hon. member are accurate. I believe they are, since she quoted them. The fact remains that Canadian taxpayers have spent more than a billion dollars, yet we still do not have an effective system. But that is exactly what we want: an effective system that will work for all Canadians.

(1440)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the Conservative government not to tell everything. The Auditor General actually said that the for last two years the gun registry has been working very well.

There has been no shift in the attitudes of Canadians toward Canadian gun control. If anything, the resolve of Canadians is stronger than ever. The majority of Canadians and the majority of members of Parliament in this House want strong gun control.

The Prime Minister has no mandate to weaken our gun control laws, yet he is intent on pushing ahead. Is he aware that he does not answer to the gun lobby? He answers to Canadians, and Canadians will--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians responded last January 23. One of the areas in which they responded was our commitment to see increased safety on the streets of our communities. That is why we acknowledge that the Auditor General said that certain administrative systems have improved and we are keeping those.

Besides that, we have made a commitment to see over 1,000 more RCMP officers on our streets and in our communities. We are about to embark on a project with provinces and municipalities on a cost-sharing formula to see 2,500 more officers at the municipal level.

Also, anybody in the country who acquires or possesses a firearm for any purpose is still required to be registered. That person will be registered. Anybody wanting a firearm is going to have to follow all the usual laws that are in place.

* * *

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian mission in Afghanistan should not be just a military mission, but also a humanitarian mission that allows for the establishment of a more democratic system. But from the information we get it seems that international aid is not reliably getting to those who need it, that poppy crops are flourishing, and the Taliban are getting increased support from the people.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs clarify what is happening with regard to the humanitarian and democratic aspect of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member for the Bloc Québécois that CIDA has been praised by a senior official of the World Bank for the efficiency of its aid and its follow-up procedures for ensuring that the money actually gets to the people.

Alond with CIDA, we have put measures in place. We also increased our budget last spring so that alternatives can be offered to Afghan farmers, so that children can go to school, so that clinics and other infrastructure can be built in order to help the Afghan people take charge of themselves.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence mentioned the possibility of Canadian soldiers being stationed in Pakistan. In addition, we have learned that the USA was pursuing members of al Qaeda as far as Pakistan and that Canada would like to have a similar agreement with that country.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether the Canadian government is getting ready to alter the nature of the mission in Afghanistan so that soldiers can go as far as Pakistan, as a NATO source suggests? Is this something the government is considering?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the report that came out in the press which said that we said we were sending troops to Pakistan is totally false. What we were discussing was exchanging one liaison officer with the Pakistan army. We have no intention of changing the tasks or the activity within Afghanistan.

* * *

[Translation]

Firearms Registry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, like the Premier of Quebec, most Quebeckers want to keep the gun registry, but the federal government has already announced its intention to abolish it.

In light of the last week's tragic events in Montreal, will the government listen to reason and adopt the common-sense approach by keeping the gun registry?

In the fight against crime, prevention is at least as important as severe penalties—penalties that would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy we all deplore today.

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: we will keep the firearms registry for people who want to own firearms. We will also maintain a registry for people who want to own prohibited firearms, and we will maintain all laws pertaining to firearms security.

It must also be said that we want a more efficient system.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, registering firearms owners is not enough.

According to the Prime Minister, from now on, hunting rifles will no longer be registered, and psychologically unstable individuals will be able to acquire them.

Does the Prime Minister realize that if he allows hunting rifles to circulate unrestricted, there is no guarantee that unstable individuals will not get their hands on them and use them to repeat what happened at Dawson College?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to get a long gun. It is also important to note what others have said about this recently.

[English]

There was a recent statement by the Liberal member for Ottawa South that “it is important for all of us just to remember that no long gun registry system, no weapon registry system, can stop unfortunate acts like the one that happened in Montreal last week, so let's just get that on the record”.

We want to get on the record a safer, more secure system and that is what we intend to do.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence said that it is impossible to defeat the Taliban “militarily”. The chief of the defence staff confirmed this by saying that the winning strategy will be based on reconstruction, but the government has dropped the ball on the development package.

My question for the Minister of International Cooperation is very simple. How many CIDA personnel does she have on the ground working in Afghanistan generally and in Kandahar specifically?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, each reconstruction team is made up of 40 to 200 people, including civilian and military personnel. In Kandahar specifically, the number varies from 90 to 113 people. There are three people from CIDA specifically.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, most of those are members of our honourable and brave defence forces. They are the ones who are putting their backs into this. The reality is that the government has failed on its development package. It has failed on telling the Canadian public how it is training Afghan security forces. It has failed in dealing with the insurgency coming from Pakistan.

Again my question is simple. Since we are in charge of the reconstruction teams in Kandahar, how many clinics and how many schools have our PRT personnel built in Afghanistan specifically and in Kandahar also?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that Kandahar is a fragile province where progress is very gradual. We are able to achieve results there by working collaboratively and because the Department of National Defence ensures the safety of our humanitarian workers.

I would like to know when the member opposite last met with soldiers who served there and listened to their success stories.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence recently stated that we cannot defeat the Taliban. This is a shocking statement, considering that last May, this same minister stated that the Taliban were losing the battle. The government previously said that it was focussing on the military aspect of the mission, at the expense of diplomacy and development assistance.

Was the Minister of National Defence misleading the House last May by concealing the fact that he felt victory was impossible, or has the situation in the field altered so drastically since May that he has changed his mind?

(1450)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

No, Mr. Speaker, the minister was not wrong. The minister was explaining the concept that we have to tackle the Taliban from the point of view of military security, improving governance and development. The Taliban can only be defeated when all three operations are in synchronization, and that is what we are doing.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, according to the Prime Minister's office, the problem is that the Minister of National Defence forgot his text that day.

The real problem is that the government has to completely rewrite its text. The government promised that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of International Cooperation would report regularly to this House. Where are these updates? We are waiting. If we do not have these reports, is it because the ministers in question do not know what is happening or is it because the Prime Minister is afraid his ministers will contradict each other?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

No, Mr. Speaker, this minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are not making a mistake and we are not conflicting with each other. As was promised in the earlier debate on Afghanistan, at an appropriate time we will return to the House and give an update on Afghanistan.

* * *

Agriculture

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as all Canadians know, the government is fully committed to the success of our farmers and those in the agricultural industry.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food inform the House of his efforts over the summer and the accomplishments he has made for our producers?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, just last week I met with the American Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns. We discussed and made good progress on things like nematodes, BSE and border issues.

I appointed a new Canadian Wheat Board director. We have made good progress on marketing choice for prairie farmers.

We invested $10 million to get farmers started in biofuels. That is a good start.

The money is starting to flow from our cover crop programs.

We have extended compensation to the farmers affected by anthrax.

We accelerated the grains and oilseeds payment of $755 million and, more importantly, $2 billion will come into farmers' hands between now and the end of the year.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canadian women and men are being sent to Afghanistan to wage a war with no foreseeable end. Tanks and heavy armour have been ordered up even though the commander of the army said they would not be sent. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said we will be there until the Taliban is destroyed, yet the Minister of National Defence admitted there was no military solution to the insurgency.

When will the government refocus the mission and make strides toward peace and diplomacy, not war?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I find that really strange coming from the NDP, who want us out of Afghanistan. Only they and the Taliban want us out of Afghanistan. We will stay the course. We are committed in Afghanistan till the end of February 2009 and we will stay the course.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, international pressure is mounting around the world to end this unwinnable war. The minister is only going to be able to ignore our questions for a very short time.

The government should start listening to people like Captain Leo Docherty, a former aide-de-camp to the British, who said that “we've lost the hearts and minds before we've even begun” or to Greg Mills, a former adviser to ISAF, who argued last week that no amount of firepower will defeat the Taliban and their allies. It is time to support our troops by bringing them home. The only question is, when?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the absolute worst thing we could do is pull our troops, bring them back home and leave the Taliban to have Afghanistan. It is only a little while since the Taliban were there and they were carrying out a murderous regime of punishments on women, with no children going to school.

I find it hypocritical for the NDP to be asking us to pull our military out and replace them with the Taliban.

* * *

(1455)

Lobbyists

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there are reports that former Conservative insiders are now profiting from their political connections as private sector lobbyists: at least 30 well-connected Conservatives, at least 327 contracts to influence public policy, the Prime Minister's director of communications, his director of strategic communications, his senior policy adviser and more.

The Conservatives promised to prohibit former staffers from using their previous positions as stepping stones to private lobbying. Why has that promise been broken?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in fact, not a single former assistant to the Prime Minister or any minister has accepted a job with respect to being a lobbyist. That is specifically something that is banned in the federal accountability act. We are raising the bar.

Let us look at an internal Liberal Party report that said, “Many estimate that, on just about every issue, the Liberal Party has absolutely no credibility in the eyes of the public”. Will the member for Wascana stand in his place and call on the Liberal Senate to finally pass the federal accountability act and clean up the mess?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can do without the smokescreen and all that false bravado. This is not about any previous government. This is all about that Conservative government. It all happened in the last six or seven months. The Prime Minister's former public affairs officer, his director of internal communications, his spokesperson on economic issues, and the list goes on: private profit from Conservative connections. Specifically what sections in the accountability act will henceforth prohibit that practice and will that be retroactive to January?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Wascana has a specific example of any law that has been broken or under our new federal accountability that would have been broken, I would encourage him to go the committee in the Senate and ask for an amendment. If the member opposite would like to show his true bravado, he should stand up and say that no Liberal ministerial staffer will be allowed to lobby, let the Senate make that amendment, let it be retroactive and then we will find out if he puts his money where his mouth is.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today we have further evidence that the Conservatives boost the oil companies at the expense of the Kyoto protocol. We have now learned that Kristin Anderson, Geoff Norquay, and Ken Boessenkool, all former employees of the Prime Minister, have received 65 contracts as lobbyists to persuade the government to give preference to oil producers at the expense of the environment.

Was the Prime Minister’s statement that “positions of public trust cannot be used as stepping stones to private lobbying” nothing more than window dressing?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I stated very clearly that no person who worked for this government is working as a lobbyist. There is a new administration in Ottawa. If you work in a minister’s office or the office of the Prime Minister, you must follow the new rules.

[English]

If the member opposite would like to raise the bar and ban former Liberal staffers, dozens, if not hundreds, who are peddling as lobbyists today, then he should get his friends in the Senate to make an amendment and send it back here to vote on it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister repeatedly told us that the objectives of the Kyoto protocol were unattainable. Now we understand better. It was his friends who were telling him what to say.

How can the prime minister explain that his former director of public affairs, his former director of communications, as well as his former senior policy advisor have all obtained lobbying contracts in the private sector, despite his pious words in the last election campaign? Once again, here is the proof that the Prime Minister says one thing and does exactly the opposite.

(1500)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that all of these people worked for persons who were not in the government but in the opposition. If hon. members think of all the people who work for members of the official opposition, it may be necessary to ask for changes to the bill. This has been going on since January 23.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government fought the last election campaign on a promise to change the way contracts were awarded. Now, we learn that 30 Conservative lobbyists, including former advisers to the Prime Minister, have obtained 327 contracts in just seven months of Conservative government.

How can the Prime Minister explain these revelations when he promised to clean things up?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will say very clearly that not a single person who worked for any member of this government is operating as a lobbyist. We made the laws very clear and very specific. We are raising the ethical bar because of the gross ethical abuses perpetrated by the previous Liberal government.

What we need the Bloc Québécois to do is join the Conservatives and the New Democrats and encourage the Liberal Senate to finally pass the federal accountability act so we can clean up this mess once and for all.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Liberals or Conservatives, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

How can the Prime Minister explain this situation when he is playing the virtue card with his bill on accountability while at the same time he tolerates behaviour by his former advisers that is contrary to that very legislation?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the federal accountability act seeks to raise the ethical standards of the government. No people who have access to cabinet documents, cabinet confidence and the type of information that pervades government should work for a lobbyist for five years, which is why we are challenging the Liberal Senate.

This House of Commons passed the federal accountability act in 71 days. The Liberal Senate has had that bill for more than 85 days. It should get to work and pass the federal accountability act. We could finally bring real accountability to an accountability regime that was sorely absent in the previous regime.

* * *

Government Contracts

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, so much for the Prime Minister's promise that politics will no longer be a stepping stone to a lucrative career in lobbying government. Thirty friends and former key advisers of the Prime Minister have cashed in on 327 contracts with big name oil companies in order to get the government to kill the Kyoto protocol.

My question is very simple. Will the Prime Minister side with the large oil companies or will the Prime Minister side with Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the practice of this government is to raise the ethical bar that was sorely lacking in the Liberal regime.

Let us look at what a report of the Liberal Party said about this. An internal Liberal Party report made public on September 10 stated, “on just about every issue the Liberal Party has absolutely no credibility in the eyes of the public”.

Let us get the Liberal Senate to pass the federal accountability act now.

* * *

Sponsorship Program

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal sponsorship scandal was a disgraceful period in our history where millions of taxpayer dollars were stolen and diverted to the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How many dollars have been recovered to date from the Liberal Party over the sponsorship scandal?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the easy answer to the question from the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park is not enough of the money. Not all of the money that was stolen by the Liberal Party has been returned to the coffers. Justice Gomery in his report talks about the envelopes of cash that were funnelled to ridings in the western and eastern townships and to ridings in western Quebec.

The Canadian taxpayer expects the Liberal Party to refund all of the money that was stolen from hard-working taxpayers and they also expect the Liberal Senate to pass the federal accountability act immediately.

* * *

(1505)

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Incredibly, Mr. Speaker, the government is now intervening in court to stop Canadians from winning once and for all on softwood lumber. Winning means that the illegal tariffs come off and every penny has to be repaid. There are no more appeals. We are months away from winning.

This means that the minister botched the discussions. It means that the $1 billion proceeds of trade crime did not have to be thrown away and it means that we did not need to give up four years of legal victories.

Why is the government blocking Canada's two final victories? Is it because Canadians will see how badly it screwed up?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is spreading more of his intellectual dishonesty on the softwood lumber agreement. He knows the softwood lumber agreement has massive support from the industry. Over 90% of the softwood lumber companies support this softwood lumber agreement.

It is dishonest to spread the notion that there would be no more legal cases and no more appeals. There would be nothing but economic calamity if we did not have this softwood lumber agreement.

* * *

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Following discussions with the representatives of all parties of the House, I invite the honourable members to rise and observe a moment of silence to commemorate the Canadian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and the four soldiers who lost their lives yesterday.

[A moment of silence observed]

* * *

Benoît Sauvageau

[Tributes]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

We will now proceed to statements about the death of our dear colleague, Benoît Sauvageau.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I am speaking to you and to all members and friends of Benoît Sauvageau's family who are here with us today.

I would like to mention the sadness, but also the great pride, I feel in paying tribute to a man who was one of our own. I refer to Benoît Sauvageau as one of our own; however, first and foremost he was a husband, father, son and friend.

I would like once again to express my condolences to them and tell them how proud they can be. They can be proud of him as the elected representative of the people of Repentigny. They can be proud of him for his work in the House of Commons, in the committees, in the Bloc Québécois caucus and in all the activities that are part of the daily life of a member of Parliament.

As such, he served on three standing committees, and some pretty important ones at that. Until very recently, he was on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts where, through his conscientious work, he defended the bond of trust between Canadians and their institutions. He was also on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, a crucial area if ever there was one, because it deals with our relations with the world. He was also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a key issue for the nation of Quebec as well as Canadian francophones and Acadians.

He worked tirelessly on all these committees, with great fervour and conviction but always with the natural elegance for which he was known. He carried the ball on a host of files for the Bloc Québécois, ranging from international trade to public accounts and Treasury Board, not to forget amateur sport and the Francophonie. He was also the deputy whip on our team. In all these duties, he earned the respect of everyone here.

He did all this and I am grateful to him for it, I thank him, but he did much more than his job as a member of Parliament. He embodied in his discreet, cheerful way all the humanity we need in our line of work.

The debates we hold in this place are often very intense. Benoît had the ability to engage in vigorous debate while always being scrupulously respectful of others. He was known less for his brilliant achievements or cutting rejoinders than for his great humanity. The numerous tributes we have heard from all the other parties are proof of that.

I had the feeling that these tributes were very sincere. We in the Bloc were deeply moved by them and I thank everyone.

Disagreements with political foes are normal and even desirable in a democracy. Despite these differences, though, Benoît managed the great feat of making himself respected and even loved by all the political foes who got to know him well without ever compromising his convictions and principles.

Like all of us, Benoît was not perfect. For example, his eldest daughter revealed just a little while ago that he never did master the agreement of past participles in French. He was not perfect, but he had remarkable humanity, and it is this memory of Benoît, a man of great humanity, that will remain etched in our memories. We will all miss him very much. We already do.

(1510)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this seems to be a time of tragedy.

On August 28, 2006, we were very saddened to learn that the hon. member for Repentigny, Benoît Sauvageau, was the victim of a traffic accident. This tragic accident cost him his life, leaving his wife, Jacinthe, and four daughters, Laurence, Catherine, Élisabeth and Alice, to mourn their loss, along with the rest of his family and his many friends. At this time, I would like to again offer our sincere condolences.

I had the privilege of working with Benoît on many occasions, when we both sat on the opposition benches over 10 years ago when we were both still very young members. He was the type of man whose honour and integrity were matched only by his generosity and sparkling wit.

Even though we did not share the same vision regarding the relationship that should exist between Quebec and the rest of Canada, he was always gracious when defending his principles and ideals.

I was very impressed by his many qualities: his willingness to always give his all in the service of his constituents; his passion for his work as an MP; his genuine love for the French language and culture; his profound faith in democratic institutions; and, above all, his tremendous respect for others.

Whether on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Official Languages, on other committees, or here in this House, Benoît always demonstrated the utmost respect towards those with whom he engaged in lively debate.

There is no doubt that his death came far too early, but it should be of some consolation that his short life was characterized by tremendous dignity and rare fervour.

The Bloc Québécois caucus lost a colleague in the prime of his life who had so much to offer. I am certain that we will all miss Benoît's enlightened and significant contribution.

(1515)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, like all the members here today in the House, I was terribly saddened to learn about the tragic death of our colleague and friend, the member for Repentigny. This news left no one untouched. Benoît Sauvageau was a good man loved by all. I hope that the great compassion expressed for him by Canadians has helped all those affected by his premature death to get through this difficult time.

On behalf of all the members of the official opposition and the Liberal Party of Canada, I wish first of all to offer our most sincere condolences to his wife and four daughters, as well as to his entire family and each of his loved ones. To all those who knew Benoît well, to the people of Quebec and everyone from Repentigny and the North Shore, we humbly extend our most sincere condolences and all our sympathy in these most difficult circumstances.

I also wish to say to all our colleagues of the Bloc Québécois that we are thinking of them and that we know how hard today and the coming weeks will be without the presence of someone so well respected and loved. May they accept our expression of solidarity in these circumstances so difficult for them and their party.

All the members understand that beyond our partisan differences we all feel the mutual respect due to all those who are committed to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the sound exercise of our parliamentary democracy.

Each of my colleagues in the official opposition and I felt this respect for Benoît, who always earned it fully in each of his interventions in this House, in committee and in each of his parliamentary initiatives.

He was a good member. The people of Repentigny have lost a hard-working, intelligent representative who knew how to convey the points of view of his riding effectively in this House.

Unanimously, the members who have spoken about Benoît have underscored the honesty with which he performed his duties as a parliamentarian. Many have spoken of the fact that, while his interventions were sometimes blunt, Benoît never indulged in empty rhetoric. He had deep respect for his colleagues.

I myself had the opportunity to work closely with the member for Repentigny, when he was on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I always appreciated his interventions; they were always thoughtful and appropriate. As the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said, he made an important contribution—I had the privilege to be a member of the committee—with great talent, sincerity and the will to work with everyone for the wellbeing of his province, of his fellow citizens and our country.

[English]

For these reasons, Benoît rightly earned the respect of his colleagues in the House. As I said earlier, for those who had the opportunity of working closely with him in committee, there was a universal admiration and friendship that is difficult to achieve in the inevitably adversarial nature of our operations.

(1520)

[Translation]

Let me conclude by reiterating once again, on my behalf and on behalf of the whole Liberal family, that we share the sadness of Benoît’s family and loved ones and that they hold a very special place in our thoughts.

Let me also recall the memory of Benoît Sauvageau. I hope that his memory will remain in the history of our country as that of a man of integrity, a devoted man worthy of the respect of each and every one of his fellow citizens.

Finally let me express the wish, on behalf of all my colleagues and myself, that Benoît’s soul will rest in peace for eternity. We will all miss him.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I was very sad to learn of the sudden death of my parliamentary colleague, Bloc Québécois member Benoît Sauvageau, especially since I was out of the country and unable to attend his funeral.

It is therefore my privilege today to pay tribute to him, even though I do so with a heavy heart.

I worked with Mr. Sauvageau in the course of my parliamentary duties. In 2002 I was assigned to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, of which Mr. Sauvageau was a member. I got to know the member for Repentigny, but also the man.

It was always a pleasure to sit with him. Courteous, smiling and friendly, he always greeted me with, “Salut Yvon”. All the members of the committee will agree that he greeted everyone in a simple and familiar fashion.

He was always well prepared for every session and had a thorough grasp of files and issues. He took a special interest in Air Canada. I am certain that Air Canada senior management trembled with fear at the mention of Benoît Sauvageau's name. Even worse, when Air Canada representatives had to testify before the committee, they knew they were in for a rough ride, because Benoît was waiting for them. I would not have wanted to be in their shoes. I preferred to have him sitting next to me rather than across the table. We have Benoît to thank for the little card for official languages complaints that Air Canada places in seat pockets on its aircraft.

I would like to tell a short anecdote. Air Canada said that the complaint cards cost too much, so Benoît had one made. He told them exactly how much it had cost, which was not much.

To Benoît, every issue was important. He understood his role as a parliamentarian, but also as a member of the committee. He was a good ambassador not only for francophones in Quebec, but also for the francophone communities in Canada and Acadia. His efforts to promote the French language and culture were recognized when the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie made him a Chevalier de l'Ordre de la Pléiade, Ordre de la Francophonie et du dialogue des cultures.

Unfortunately, he was assigned to other committees, and I never had the chance to work with him again. Nevertheless, I am sure he worked just as enthusiastically on his new files.

He was a good member of Parliament who worked tirelessly for his community and the people in it. His five terms as a member of Parliament are a testament to his integrity and his devotion to his community.

Over the past few weeks, I have heard his Bloc colleagues, others who worked with him, and people everywhere say good things about him. Everything they said about him was true.

It almost seemed like people had sent the word around, but that was not the case. Benoît was always true to himself; he was a good man and true. He was a real gentleman and an example to us all.

Many people would have liked to pay tribute to him today. I hope that I have adequately expressed what we all feel.

Today, he leaves behind not only his grieving family, but also his family here in Parliament. There is no doubt he will be missed.

On behalf of the NDP and its leader, I would like to express our sincere condolences to his wife, children and family.

My dear Benoît, you left without giving us a chance to say goodbye, so I would like to t