Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 087 (Official Version)

There is no doubt that autism spectrum disorders have an enormous impact on affected families. As the parents of individuals with autism spectrum disorders have attested, the impact is often discouraging, both financially and emotionally.

As the member from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, I have been hearing from constituents on this issue for some time now. I have heard from many parents who are concerned for their children's future and who are concerned about accessing appropriate treatment and therapy.

The primary concern many parents in B.C. have is the level of funding they receive for treatment. Currently, the Province of British Columbia pays up to $20,000 annually for treatment for children up to age six. It pays $6,000 annually for treatment of children six years of age and older.

However, depending on the amount of treatment an autistic child needs, some parents find themselves paying much more than the $20,000 maximum the province currently covers. These parents look around and see some provinces, such as Alberta, covering the full cost of treatment. Other provinces address autism as a component of their public education systems, again, without imposing a financial burden on parents.

As such, many parents in my province have lobbied the B.C. government for additional funding. They have also gone to court to try to obtain more provincial funding.

Late in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed this issue in its unanimous ruling in the Auton decision. The chief justice, writing for the court, determined:

--the legislature is under no obligation to create a particular benefit. It is free to target the social programs it wishes to fund as a matter of public policy, provided the benefit itself is not conferred in a discriminatory manner.

The Supreme Court also found that funding for ABA or IBI treatment was not required under the provisions of the Canada Health Act. As such, the provinces are exclusively responsible for deciding on the level of funding they will provide for autism treatment.

Of course, parents with autistic children are not so much concerned with questions of legal obligation on the part of the provincial governments as they are with the question of whether their children are getting the held they need.

Motion No. 172 is important because it gives federal representatives an opportunity to consider and debate the contribution we can make to help families affected by autism. In doing so, our new Conservative government will continue to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces to make health care funding decisions. We will also continue to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.

However, it is clear that even though the primary responsibility for funding treatment is an exclusive provincial responsibility, there are ways that our new Conservative government can, and already does, help.

First, our government provides general funding to the provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer for the provision of health services. This year we are providing nearly $20.1 billion exclusively for health care, $1.1 billion more than last year. Our budget commits to increasing that amount by 6% per year. Next year the provinces can count on $21.3 billion and, the year following, $22.6 billion.

Also, our new government gives families affected by autism direct financial support through the tax system. In budget 2006, our new government included a number of measures that either were proposed by the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities or that even go beyond its recommendations.

Among these measures were: increasing the maximum annual child disability benefit, effective July 2006; extending eligibility for the child disability benefit to middle and higher income families caring for a child who meets the disability criteria, effective July 2006; and, boosting the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement.

While direct assistance for families is important, the federal government also plays a key role in medical research.

The search for a deeper knowledge into the causes of autism and for better treatments is an area where our new Conservative government believes it can make a meaningful contribution. For instance, the Public Health Agency of Canada funds Centres of Excellence for Children's Well-Being, two of which are doing important work on autism spectrum disorders.

We realize we can do more, which is why last Tuesday the Minister of Health announced some very important initiatives. These initiatives include: first, funding for a new research chair into the causes and treatment of autism; second, consultations leading to a national autism surveillance program; third, a stakeholder symposium to be held in 2007; fourth, a new Health Canada website focused on autism related information; and fifth, leadership by Health Canada in coordinating our government's response to autism related issues.

Families in my community and across Canada have been waiting a long time for a comprehensive federal response to the challenges posed by autism. I believe the leadership our government has shown in the past week will make a significant difference in the effort to better understand and treat autism.

Therefore, I would like to present an amendment to my hon. colleague's Motion No. 172. This amendment would further reinforce our government's commitment to build a strong, national strategy for autism spectrum disorders.

I move:

That, Motion No. 172 be amended by deleting all the words after the word “include”, and substituting the following:

(a) the development, in cooperation with provincial-territorial governments, of evidence based standards for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder;

(b) the development, in cooperation with provincial governments, of innovative funding methods for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder;

(c) consulting with provincial-territorial governments and other stakeholders on the requirements of implementing a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder;

(d) the provision of additional federal funding for health research into autism spectrum disorder.

(1110)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3) no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Fredericton if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):

I do, Mr. Speaker.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

There is consent.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, what just happened in the House is extremely significant. It extends to the whole House an opportunity to embrace a subject matter that is substantively to adopt a national strategy to address autism.

The member for Fredericton has been a champion on this file for a long period of time. I have known him since 1993 and I and many of his peers and many Canadians have come to know that when he champions an issue we can be assured that he will give it due diligence and his full attention. I know he has worked very hard with Autism Canada as well as with other NGOs who have been working so hard to get recognition here.

I take what has happened as a sign that the House will strongly support this resolution in principle to adopt or develop a national strategy to address autism. The member should be very proud of having brought this to the attention of the House and to have earned the respect and the support of the House in terms of taking this one step further.

I was here to speak on behalf of the resolution but the resolution has changed somewhat. However, the spirit of the resolution is still there.

What I thought I might do in lieu of that is to remind all hon. members, and those who happen to be watching the proceedings or who may read them in Hansard later on, a little about autism. As public education is a very important part of resolving social problems, I will briefly outline the characteristics of autism spectrum disorder.

Autism spectrum disorder is a complex biomedical condition that can affect the normal function of the gastrointestinal, immune, hepatic, endocrine and nervous systems. It impacts normal brain development, leaving most individuals with communication problems, difficulty with typical social interactions, prone to repeat specific patterns of behaviour and a markedly restricted repertoire of activity and interests.

Individuals on the autism spectrum tend to have varying degrees or a combination of symptoms and therefore the treatments will be as varied as the individuals. It shows that there is a difference in terms of maybe some of the other challenges that we face in terms of childhood diseases and issues such as autism. In fact, the research is actually trying to deal with a multiplicity of targets and it is very difficult.

In the early signs of autism, which become prevalent between the ages of 12 months and 24 months, a child may demonstrate only a few of the following symptoms.The child starts to develop language and then loses it or does not acquire language at all. The child may appear to be deaf or may respond unevenly or not to all sounds. It is sometimes difficult consoling the child during transitions, resulting in tantrums, which are a big challenge for parents. The child has difficulty sleeping or frequently awakens at night. The child does not point or look. The child fails to bond, reacts to vaccines, is on a self-restricted or selected diet, has limited imaginative play, has no interest in playing with other children, has chronic gastrointestinal problems and has repeated infections.

When we look at the list of the possibilities that a child may experience, one or several at any one point in time, it shows the enormous challenge that this presents to parents who are trying to provide that loving care to a child in desperate need of some help.

Individuals with autism do exhibit some strengths. Although some areas of development in a child are delayed, children with ASD often exhibit skills beyond their years in other areas.

(1115)

These intellectual strengths may overshadow the developmental problem experienced by the young child. These strengths may include one or more of the following. Their non-verbal reasoning skills may be better. Their reading skills may be very good. Their perceptual motor skills may also be positive, as may their drawing skills and computer interests and skills. They may have exceptional memory, visual and spatial abilities, and music skills. These are important. These children have various pockets of skill sets in areas in which they can perform, but like most children with childhood diseases, they have many challenges as well.

Although there are these exceptional skills, there also may be significant delays in other areas. I will give just a brief summary. There is going to be an impairment in social relationships. Children need to interact and they need to play. They need to learn from others' experience and to have interpersonal relationships, but these children often demonstrate a lack of awareness and a lack of normal seeking of comfort when they are stressed, as well as abnormal toy play and an inability to form friendships. These are some of the things that may be observed in terms of social relationships.

There are deficits in communication and language and a lack of perseverance on interests and activities. They are not able to keep up that interest. When I see some of these, I also see some of the evidence of the symptoms of other childhood diseases. For instance, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder also has some very similar symptoms. There also may be a dependence on routine as well as abnormal responses to sensory stimulation, behavioural problems, variability in intellectual functioning, uneven developmental profiles, difficulties with sleeping, toileting and eating, immune regularities, nutritional deficiencies, and, of course, gastrointestinal problems.

These are the kinds of things that people should keep in mind. Many of us have received many communications from constituents all across the country who have asked parliamentarians to take a special interest in this autism spectrum of disorder. It is one that tugs at the heartstrings, but we should do things not because they tug at our heartstrings, but because they are right to do.

I believe that the good faith shown by all hon. members in the House in terms of making a concerted effort to ask the government to pursue a national strategy to address autism is an enormous step that we are taking. I again want to thank the member for Fredericton for his initiative and the leadership role he took to make sure that this will become a reality in this Parliament.

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fredericton.

There are a few points that I would like to make. Sometimes people do not think of these points unless they know families involved in this issue.

One of the things that was just said concerned the failure to bond. Any parent knows the great joy of coming into a room, having their child smile at them and put up his or her arms, wanting to be picked up and hugged. Parents recognize the fact that the child has bonded with them. I am thrilled and pleased to say that my 11 year old grandson still does that. It is very difficult and hurtful for a family if a child is not able to do that easily. Sometimes these children can do so with their parents, but often not with other people in their lives.

We need a national autism strategy. We are in the process of getting a national strategy for cancer, although one could say it is a health issue so therefore it is a provincial issue. We now have leadership on a national cancer strategy and we could have a national autism strategy, and part of this debate has been about whose responsibility this really is.

We know about early intervention leading to success no matter what challenge a child may have. The earlier we can identify that a child needs support and the earlier that appropriate support can be provided, at the right time and in the right way for that particular child, it is a thousandfold more likely that the child will be far more successful than he or she otherwise would have been. Because they have had early intervention, we see children who are now in the regular school system and we see children graduating from high school.

As with any other challenge a child faces, autism has a variety of effects. Some children, with early intervention, will do very well. In particular, children with Asperger's will go to school and participate with their classmates. They may have a challenge when it is a bit unstructured, but they will do very well.

Some children will always need ongoing support in a significant way. If we do not do that, if we do not pay for the cost of a national strategy, the costs that we will pay down the road in health care, in the education system, in foster care and in group home support are going to grow at a rate that I cannot even imagine. This is why I am a bit worried about the amendment. It does not talk about those nice parts, about what the strategy should do.

We do pay for treatment for people in Canada, and while I will admit that the numbers are not large, these people are on drugs that cost the taxpayer $90,000 to $100,000 a year. Without those drugs, those people would not be able to function. We spend that much money on these other people to enable them to be the best they can be during their growth. Therefore, I think the economic argument fails. If people have no moral support for this, then the economic argument should move them. I hope both would.

We are seeing increased numbers in regard to autism now. I am not sure that we know all the reasons for the increase. They are increasing dramatically, more in some places than in others. Sometimes we see more than one child in a family being affected. We have not figured out all of the pieces, which is certainly why research is so important, but the research may not be available to us for five or ten years. I do not know. I have no idea how long it will take.

(1125)

However, I do know that today there are parents at home who cannot leave their home because they cannot find someone to care for their child. If someone says to them that there is a great movie on and they should go to see it, they cannot, because they cannot get a babysitter who is able to meet the needs of their child. Their world becomes quite insular, although they do amazing things. They were on the steps of the legislature and they were out advocating to every MP, MLA and municipal councillor, every place they could, and they have been doing so for some time.

They manage to do that, but they do it against such odds that I do not know if all of us would be able to do it. If we can support the needs of children with autism, not just with our good feelings or a strategy, but also with financial resources, then we help not only the child with autism, although that is the first and most important thing, we also help their brothers and sisters, because their brothers and sisters may then have a little more time with mom and dad.

Moms and dads have to spend a lot of time with their children who have autism, particularly if they are children who may not yet be able to go to the bathroom independently or feed themselves independently or even tolerate the feeling of most foods in their mouth because of their tactile defensiveness. So this support is not just for the child; it is for their moms, their dads, their grandparents and their siblings. They will all benefit from our ability to support families not just with a national strategy, which I do support, but also with financing.

There is another thing I would say about a national strategy. When we talk about children with autism, because we have been talking about it for 10 years, 12 years or 15 years at the most, we talk about children, and that is where we focus, but we need a national strategy that looks beyond when they are 12 months old, 2 years or 5 years of age, or in elementary school or high school. How do we get past that early age and successfully into the teenage years, which are even more difficult for any child with a challenge, and then into adulthood? These are children who will be adults in our communities and they need support. We need to look at that strategy about the kind of support or kinds of resources that will be needed, not just for them as children but lifelong.

As somebody who has worked with people with disabilities for 40 years now, I can say that if we do not do this for children with autism, if we do not do something now and those children and adults are not in our community, we lose too, because they bring something to us. It is not just about us giving. They bring their special gifts and talents into our community, so we lose if we do not provide support.

There are many families looking at us to see what will happen with this motion. I hope that every member of the House will be able to support this strategy but I hope too that members understand when they support it that it is not only a strategy; it is a strategy with the pieces that were in the original motion, which I have to say I liked better.

If the member who proposed it agrees, then so be it, but the fact is that it will take funding for related services. It will be in cooperation with provincial governments that will have a surveillance program and that right now are probably desperate because we are seeing such increasing numbers of children with autism. The numbers are increasing in ways that I cannot imagine with any other kind of health or disability issue. Without proper surveillance and research, we will have no idea of how to stop this increase in numbers or about what it is in our environment that is causing this and then causing us to see it in a second child in the family.

I would hope that supporting the national autism strategy will also mean that people understand that what goes with that support is the costing for treatment, education, professional training and support for the parents.

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I dedicate this speech to someone who has more impact on people than most of us could ever dream. As amazing as it may sound, he is an individual who does not have a mean bone in his body. He is incapable of hate. He is incredibly intelligent and never says anything he later regrets. He has taught me more about myself than I ever imagined there was to know, and he is only 11 years old. He is my son, Jaden, and he has autism.

Today I am not going to give the definition of autism. Members can look that up along with enough stats to make their heads spin. Instead, I want to share the story of our family's initial experiences and in my last few minutes relate them to the motion before us.

Before I do that, however, I want to commend the member for Fredericton for introducing a motion that goes beyond the political games we often see when we talk about autism in the House. His motion is actually designed to accomplish something for families and individuals affected by autism. I am thankful that we have been able to work together to come up with amended wording that we can all support.

To that end, I also want to thank the health minister and the parliamentary secretary for health for putting aside partisanship and finding common ground on which we can agree. I was particularly pleased to see the health minister begin to take action in the spirit behind this motion with his announcements last week.

Eleven years ago today I was 26 years old. I had been married for two and a half years and had a three week old baby boy. We named him Jaden, which means God has heard, something we did not know at the time, but which has tremendous meaning to us now. Jaden is almost completely non-verbal. He uses a special computer and sometimes a pen and paper to communicate.

However, going back to my three and a half week old son, like many new Canadian dads I had a clear vision for his future. It was certain that Jaden was destined for the NHL. I had it all planned out. I would not be a pushy father like Walter Gretzky. I would build a rink in my backyard upon which I would invent the most ingenious and fun drills that Jaden would enjoy for hours upon hours every day. When Jaden was not playing hockey, he would be studying hard to maintain his A-plus average.

As time went on during Jaden's first year or so, my wife Debi and I saw nothing to indicate that my carefully crafted plans were anything but on track. He was a very good baby and around the time he was one he seemed to be developing some typical first words, “dada, momma, bye-bye”.

Between 18 months and 2 years old Jaden started doing some pretty amazing things. Like just about every kid his age, he had one of those foam alphabets that fit inside a foam frame. One day on a whim Debi took the frame away and left him with just a jumbled pile of letters. Jaden proceeded to put the letters in order just as fast as we would do it the very first time.

Then to our amazement, a friend of ours mixed up the letters in a pile and put out the letter Z. Jaden, without missing a beat, put the letters in reverse order Z, Y, X, W, V and so on just as fast as he had done forward.

As amazing as things like this were, during his second year we started to notice some other things that caused us some concern regarding Jaden's development. He was extremely content playing on his own with little or no interest in playing with other kids or interacting with adults. His speech was not really developing beyond the first initial few sounds and he was very focused on patterns, often spending an inordinate amount of time lining up his videos or stacking cups in perfect order. He paid little attention when we tried to talk to him or play with him. We would have thought he had a hearing impairment except for the fact that if he heard a video he liked start up in another room at very low volume, he would instantly stop what he was doing and go to watch it.

Debi brought up our concerns to Jaden's pediatrician at his 18 month check-up, a very well regarded pediatrician. She did not see overly concerned and suggested that some children, especially boys, simply developed their speech later than others. Debi filled out speech assessment forms with public health and she and I started attending classes to learn how to help him work on his speech.

During the summer of 1997, when Jaden was about 21 months old, we were at a family wedding when one of my cousins mentioned autism as a possibility. Debi and I had both heard the term autism, but we knew very little as to what it meant. We assumed that if this was what he had, surely his doctor would have recognized it.

Three months later at Jaden's two year old check-up, his pediatrician finally brought up autism as a possibility and put us on a six month waiting list to see a specialist in Edmonton. Shortly afterwards, we came across a book that changed our lives forever. Let Me Hear Your Voice by Catherine Maurice. My mom received it from a friend. After reading just a few chapters, she called us to tell us we had to read it.

It is the story of a mother whose two children have autism and undergo a form of therapy that helped them to overcome it. We now know the therapy as applied behavioural analysis or ABA. Sometimes it is referred to as intense behavioural intervention, IBI, but they are the same thing. As we read her description of her own son as a toddler she could have been describing Jaden word for word.

By the end of one evening with that book, we knew, with absolute certainty, that our son had autism. We had a pretty good idea what we needed to do about it. We just did not know yet how complicated and frustrating the steps were in between.

(1135)

Beginning the next day, Debi started making phone calls throughout North America to find out more about ABA and what we needed to do to get started. We learned that the therapy was going to be expensive. Even then, we were looking at between $50,000 and $60,000 a year. At that time, I was making probably between $35,000 and $40,000, so the numbers did not add up.

We learned we needed to start as soon as possible, as the research showed the treatment had more effect the earlier it was started. We also learned there was a significant battle going on between parents of children with autism and provincial governments across the country over the funding of ABA therapy.

In 1997-98, in Alberta, the financial picture was not as rosy as it is today. As in other provinces, a dedicated group of parents had recently taken the Government of Alberta to court and won the right to have ABA funded. However, unlike other provinces, the Alberta government made a choice not to appeal the court decision, I believe, due to the conviction and leadership of a few key ministers. This must have been a difficult decision, given the dollars involved at the time, the questions surrounding ABA and the mystery of autism in general.

Despite these considerations, the province decided that autism and the families affected by it were a priority, and it has shown leadership in this area ever since.

Returning to Jaden, from November to April 1998 was a very frustrating time for us. We knew Jaden had autism, but we had to wait six months for an appointment to get the diagnosis, which we needed to access funding.

As for the funding, the practice of the government in those early months was to automatically reject everyone and then make them go through a rather stressful appeal process. Since we were not certain we would receive funding, we did what many parents across the country still do in the same situation today. We had no choice. We started making arrangements for the program and then lined up a loan to cover the costs.

Fortunately, at the same time that we were getting organized, the group of parents that had taken the government to court in the first place kept the pressure on. Shortly before our ABA program was set to start, we got word from Handicapped Children’s Services, in Alberta, that we would not have to go through our appeal and that we would be funded 95% of the cost of our approximately $60,000 program for the first year.

Time does not allow me to go into all the intricacies of Jaden's program. It has evolved over the years as the government in Alberta has fine-tuned the process. Parents no longer have to pay for a percentage of the program. Jaden's situation is now monitored by a multidisciplinary team on an annual basis to determine what his needs are and this helps to determine what the budget for his specific program will be. Since he is in school full time, his ABA time has been cut down significantly, to 10 hours to week from the 40 in the beginning. However, he receives some additional funding for things like occupational therapy and speech because of the multidisciplinary team approach.

Most important, there is no question in our minds that Jaden's life is better now because the province of Alberta made some courageous decisions almost a decade ago. The fact remains that where Alberta showed leadership and made autism treatment a priority, other provinces have not. That is why this motion is so important.

In my view, the preamble to the amended motion, which talks about a national strategy for ASD, is the most important part. It is obvious, for whatever reason, that the provinces are not taking appropriate action on this issue. To understand this, in part, one only needs to look at what has happened in Alberta over recent years. Because we have the programs in place, families have been moving there in droves to avoid taking out massive lines of credit or remortgaging their homes.

If, for example, P.E.I. were to decide to properly fund ABA without other maritime provinces doing the same, it would probably overwhelmed by the influx of families moving there from surrounding provinces to get the treatment. The same rationale could be applied across the country.

For this, and many other reasons, we need to approach the issue at the national level, with the federal government playing a key role in coordination and facilitation. Everything else that follows in the amended motion is placed in the context of that national strategy. The wording throughout the motion rightly refers to cooperation and consultation with the provincial and territorial governments, which is where the responsibility for the delivery of treatment, the main area of contention in recent years, lies.

The first clause refers to the development of evidence based standards for diagnosis and treatment. The diagnosis part of this hits home with me. In retrospect, I think Jaden could have been diagnosed as early as 18 months of age, almost 14 months before his program started.

As for evidence based treatment standards, I believe we are beyond the point where there is any debate that ABA works for most kids with ASD. However, we need to learn more about the long term effectiveness of the treatment, how and when to withdraw it when a child has reached the stage where he is “indistinguishable from his peers”, and whether there are better alternatives for some individuals, for example, adults with ASD.

In regard to the development of innovative funding methods for care, we have talked a lot about children and ABA. I want to point out that thousands of adults in Canada require some form of treatment as well. Any discussion of care and treatment must not forget them.

(1140)

In terms of surveillance, there is some question as to whether autism is becoming more prevalent. We need to find out if this is the case or if we have become better at recognizing it. We also need to look at the question of whether autism is more prevalent in certain areas of the country and if so, why.

Finally, on the research end, Canada is doing some amazing things with genetic research in connection with autism. While parents rightfully demand more than just research, this area is crucial to a national strategy as we try to ensure that both levels of government get maximum value for money on an ongoing basis.

I wish to reiterate my obvious support for this motion, as amended, and to give my thanks to all members who will be supporting it. What happened here today and what will happen when we vote on this is extremely important for my family and for all Canadian families who deal with autism every day of their lives.

I look forward to working with our health minister and members from all parties in the House to make Canada's national autism strategy a reality.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of Motion No. 172 as the House has accepted the amendments just moved by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

I would like to say how moving the words were from my colleague who just spoke. Talking about his son, and the joy and happiness his son has given him, his family and the people who know Jaden speaks to why we have all worked together in the House to bring forward this amended motion.

Motion No. 172 will pave a path to a better understanding of autism spectrum disorder or ASD. I want to begin by saying to all Canadians with ASD, their families and so many tireless activists, that this motion is far from marking an end point. I say this because initiatives in this motion call for a will to bolster Canadian research capabilities and, therefore, our overall knowledge of ASD.

For far too long Canadians with ASD and their families have been trapped in the dark. Today there is still so much we do not know. With knowledge, however, comes light. With greater knowledge, the more informed and effective future actions will be from the government, provinces, territories and stakeholders. In turn, more help will be provided to Canadians with ASD and their families.

I have worked in cooperation with the members for Fredericton and Sackville—Eastern Shore. We have taken action that crosses party lines for the good of thousands of Canadians and I am asking my fellow members to support this motion for the same reason.

Above all, this amended motion, if accepted, calls on the federal government to do what it can within its jurisdiction to lay the foundation of hope for all Canadians affected by ASD. It commits the federal government to launch a consultation on implementing a national surveillance program and calls on the government to provide additional support for research and to develop evidence based standards for diagnosing ASD. Finally, it recommends that the government work with the provinces to develop innovative funding methods to help Canadians care for their loved ones who have ASD.

This motion is consistent with the action and leadership that the health minister announced just last week. It includes a research chair that will focus on effective treatment and intervention for autism, a national symposium on autism that will be held in the spring of 2007, and a program on ASD that will be conducted by the appropriate branch of government.

A web page on autism has now been added to the Health Canada website. This web page will facilitate access to public information related to ASD. Finally, the minister also indicated that the health policy branch of Health Canada will be responsible in the future for the coordination of policy and program activities at the health portfolio level.

It is safe to say that I am not alone in hearing about the challenges posed by ASD from individuals and their families in my riding. The challenges range all the way from financial to emotional and the collective toll is enormous.

Canadians with ASD and their families deserve action. The motion before the House gives members the chance to take action. In supporting this motion, members can raise their voices in favour of laying the foundation we need for informed, effective future action. By supporting this motion members can further fuel our research down a path which may lead to finding the causes of ASD.

(1145)

In conclusion, I want to add that this motion derives directly from parliamentarians successfully setting aside partisanship to help those in greatest need.

It is issues like this which attracted me to politics in the first place. I never planned to be a politician. I wanted to be an engineer like my father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and I actually became one. I worked in gold mines, but after my accident, a collision with a moose, I realized that my career as an engineer would be impossible. I had to make different choices.

It was after my accident that I realized that in our society we have a contradiction. We can and do invest enormously in treating illnesses, injuries and conditions like ASD, but then we do not invest enough in pursuing the actual causes or trying to ensure that these same individuals can live meaningful and dignified lives.

Canadians expect that everyone should have the opportunity to live the Canadian dream. This is a point related to public health and public policy that I have raised whenever I can, and in fact, it is this contradiction that has brought me to public life in the first place.

On a day like today, when this House has an opportunity to increase support for research to learn more about the causes of ASD, where we can all put up our hands to lay the foundation for helping individuals and families in need, and when partisan politics are bowed to spur public policy with principle and purpose, it makes me proud to be a parliamentarian, and I think we are all proud today to be here.

This is the right decision. I would like to urge my fellow colleagues to support this motion before the House.

I understand there is an objection from one party because of the word “national” in the motion. This House should always put Canadians first, regardless of the province they may come from because we are here together. As Canadians, it is our role to work together for the common good. This motion is an example of how Canada works well, and I am proud to be a Canadian.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Fabian Manning (Avalon, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join colleagues on all sides of the House and speak in support of Motion No. 172.

The issue of autism spectrum disorder is indeed an urgent problem that we all have to face. In the past six years the number of children with ASD has grown by more than 150%. While I stand here today in Ottawa in the House of Commons my mind goes back to my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed my own riding, where a few years ago I had the opportunity to meet a young boy by the name of Craig Walsh in a community called North Harbour in St. Mary's Bay in my riding.

Craig suffers from autism and he certainly opened my eyes to the challenges that he faces as a young person in society. He also opened my eyes to the challenges that his parents face and the community as a whole.

The reason we are here today and have the motion before us encompasses all those aspects of autism. Motion No. 172 addresses the concerns of the children themselves and hopefully the health care that is needed will be provided. It raises the concerns of the parents. As speakers before me have touched on here this morning, it raises how important it is that we as parliamentarians support the efforts of the parents of autistic children.

We stand here shoulder to shoulder giving the parents the tools and the research that they will need and indeed anything that we can do to make their life somewhat easier. We must also realize that their children too are an important part of our society. Their children need whatever we as parliamentarians can put forward. That is what we look forward to doing here today.

The fact that we are discussing this important topic in the House also gives us an opportunity to put autism on the front burner in the minds of Canadians from coast to coast. We have to address the concerns that Canadians have and also let the communities understand the importance of providing the proper assistance, funding and mechanisms that these children need and that these families need to address this very important concern.

It is estimated that anywhere from one out of 165 to one out of 200 children are now affected by autism and the numbers are growing. Autism spectrum disorders affect people in different ways and cause serious developmental disabilities in affected individuals and can affect all aspects of development. Each person with ASD will have different abilities, with symptoms ranging from mild to severe. Severe symptoms, such as compulsive behaviour and speech disorders can lead to isolation from friends, family and the community.

I congratulate the member for Fredericton for putting this motion forward. I have followed his work over the past couple of years. As previous members have said, this is not about politics. This is about children and their families. I congratulate the member for putting forward this motion and for giving us an opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder in support of this very important aspect of life in Canada today.

I mentioned the isolation from friends, family and community. As we go through our daily lives, healthy and secure, we are always concerned about isolation ourselves from time to time. When I arrived in Ottawa less than a year ago to a much larger political atmosphere than I was used to in Newfoundland and Labrador, I was concerned about isolation. We have all the ingredients here to learn from each other and become educated.

(1150)

Then we look at the children who are afflicted with autism and we wonder about the isolation they suffer. We wonder about the isolation that their parents experience. We can assist today and begin down the road to making sure that these children and their families become inclusive in our communities, our schools and indeed, society as a whole.

Canadian families with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders face serious challenges. They face the challenges of their child's development, behavioural issues and getting a clear diagnosis. I mentioned the young boy from Newfoundland, Craig Walsh. I have talked to his mom, Sherry, on several occasions about the diagnosis of children and the access to professional assistance. I certainly heard from that mother about her concern not only for her own child, but indeed, all children with autism. Professional assistance is what they ask for. I hope through Motion No. 172 that professional assistance will be on the way.

The cost of therapy and other services is an important issue, especially to parents of children with autism. I have heard the concern raised by parents back home about the fairness of making sure that these professional services, therapy and any other services are available to each and every child and that each and every child has the opportunity to avail himself or herself of those services.

The amended motion recognizes the challenges that many families face and suggests a comprehensive approach to addressing their needs. Once again, I am delighted that the member for Fredericton has accepted the amendments to the motion.

On November 21 the hon. Minister of Health announced a package of initiatives to improve knowledge and research on ASDs and to help children and families. In addition to the measures already undertaken, the federal government intends to sponsor an ASD stakeholders' symposium in 2007 to further the development of ASD knowledge and dissemination of information among health care professionals, researchers, community groups, teachers, individuals and family members.

The federal government intends to begin exploring the establishment of a research chair focusing on effective treatment and intervention for ASD. The federal government intends to launch a consultation process on the feasibility of studying and developing an ASD surveillance program through the Public Health Agency of Canada to help shape appropriate ASD programming and research.

We also intend to create a dedicated page on the Health Canada website to guide the public to ASD information. We also plan, with the help of the policy branch of Health Canada, to coordinate all actions related to ASD taken by the health portfolio in the future.

It is important that Canadians be educated about autism. It is important that we understand the concerns of parents, caregivers and health care professionals themselves. Just a few moments ago teachers were mentioned. I realize the challenges in the schools system. Hopefully, by our actions here today through Motion No. 172 we can begin to address some of these concerns.

There is no doubt that we all feel concerns for--

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has come for the hon. member for Fredericton to provide his five minute summation of the debate.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the government for moving the amendment which allows the government to support the motion. I would like to thank the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for moving the amendment. I would like to thank the Minister of Health, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, and the House leader as well.

I want to particularly mention the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont and say hi to Jaden who I am sure is watching. The intervention by the member as a parent was a very appropriate way to focus on this issue and it is much appreciated.

I want to reassure the member for Surrey North that the amendment in fact captures the spirit of the original motion, specifically that there be a national strategy and that the strategy involve evidence based standards, funding, surveillance and research. All of those elements are there. They are not nearly as prescriptive as they were in the original motion and that was what was necessary to give the government the latitude to do it in a way that it sees fit. All of the elements of the original motion are there. We will hold the government's feet to the fire to make sure it is done in the spirit in which it was intended.

The ultimate objective is that Canadian families with autism have access to the appropriate intervention regardless of their means and it means something covered under a public health insurance program and is usually referred to as covered under medicare. We understand that the jurisdictional issue is difficult, but we cannot allow the difficulty of that jurisdictional issue to stop us from doing what we know is right. It is appropriate for the federal government to show leadership, but it cannot be for the federal government to do alone.

I want to thank the families, parents, kids and adults who have written, called and emailed their support and the organizations across the country which have done the same. I want to thank a teacher at Leo Hayes High School in Fredericton, Greg Peters. He suggested to me last spring when I advised them that we were doing this that he wanted his class to participate in this exercise. It was remarkable to see students in a grade 12 class in a Fredericton high school give their spring to this issue. They were involved in workshopping it, bringing in people who work for the province of New Brunswick as drafters, parents, scientists and so on.

At Leo Hayes High School, Greg Peters and his two classes worked all last spring on this motion. After they graduated, in September when the kids returned to school the previous class instructed the new class on how to carry the ball. I am sure all members of Parliament have heard from Leo Hayes. As a Frederictonian I am very proud of them.

I also want to make another point. Some of the interventions we have all received speak to the challenge of finding a balance between identifying the value in the family members so that when we talk about intervention it takes nothing away from the human beings that we love just as they are, special, remarkable people. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with people having the most options possible in their lives. It is a collective responsibility to provide that.

I would like to thank all colleagues who have worked diligently on this issue. The member of Parliament for Sackville—Eastern Shore participated in the negotiations with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, with the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale in this exercise. This has been a non-partisan, parliamentary initiative to do the right thing by a large number of Canadians.

(1200)

It is a challenging file. There are jurisdictional issues which perhaps would get in the way of anybody taking responsibility to do the right thing. I do not think it would become us as parliamentarians to let those jurisdictional challenges stop us from doing what we know is right. We cannot let those difficulties get in our way. By doing what is right, Canada will be better for it, our consciences will be better for it, and a lot of Canadians will be better for it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

It being 12:03 p.m., the time provided for this debate has now expired.

[English]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made on Friday, November 24 the vote stands deferred until Tuesday, December 5 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[S. O. 57 ]

* * *

(1205)

[English]

The Québécois

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of the motion under government orders, government business No. 11, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

[Translation]

I invite the hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise, thereby giving the Speaker an idea of how many members wish to participate in this question period.

The first question will be asked by the hon. member for Davenport.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the government would like to move on this motion. All of us would like to have a debate and be able to speak to the motion. Given that this issue is very important for all members and given that many members wish to express their views in support or against it, I think it would be wise if the government did not bring closure so that we could have a full debate.

That is all I am going to say at this time. I would certainly like to hear what other members in the House have to say.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, there certainly will be a full debate on this particular topic and it is an important one, and that debate will take place at the end of this question and answer session.

With respect to the comments made by the hon. member, it seems to me that the Bloc motion, which will also be voted on tonight, in effect does get closure. On the opposition day the Bloc had about the same amount of debate as the government is proposing today and at the end of that period of time there is a vote. In a sense the Bloc has had closure on its motion in the sense that it is guaranteed a vote after a certain period of time and the Bloc has had that period of time. It is appropriate for the government and all those who believe in the federalist cause, who believe in this country, to be able to participate in the debate. That is certainly what we will have at the conclusion of the question and answer session.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion would limit the rights of Parliament and parliamentarians. Typically, such motions are used only when absolutely necessary.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if, before tabling this motion, he conducted the usual consultations to find out how many members wished to speak and whether it was necessary to limit their time, to limit the members' right to speak, as well as whether there was good reason to believe that the debate would not be concluded within the usual time.

I would really like to know because the government did not consult me, and no member of the Bloc will be speaking to this motion, although I have not had the opportunity to say this to the leader.

Did one party decide to filibuster on this motion? If so, which one? If not, we are voting on this motion for no reason.

(1210)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, we take a very different view from the House leader of the Bloc Québécois with respect to this debate. We think it is very important that members of Parliament be given the opportunity to speak to this motion. At the same time, we are not trying to prolong the debate and, quite frankly, there has been no suggestion that we might be.

In as much as the Bloc had its motion, which I believe had about six and a half hours of debate, it seems reasonable to me that the government motion should have approximately the same amount of time.

All we are suggesting is that we give members of Parliament an opportunity to pronounce themselves on this important issue and hence the reason for getting this before Parliament. The hon. member will know that we do not have much time in this session before we break for Christmas. Although we have a heavy agenda and important issues to discuss, this issue is certainly one of them and I look forward to the debate this afternoon.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. We cannot even get the Conservatives to say that they are sorry or that maybe things they said in the past should not have been said. They could at least blush or show some sense of humility.

In the early 1980s and late 1990s under Mulroney, the Tories invoked closure many times and the Liberals went absolutely ballistic asking how the Conservatives dared to shut down democracy. When the Liberals formed power, they did the same thing 50 or 60 times and every time they invoked closure the Conservatives went absolutely ballistic. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that it was an outrage. He had utter disdain for the way the government treated Canadians.

Now we have the same Conservatives invoking closure. If they can reverse themselves on floor crossing, on appointed Senates and on income trusts, they should at least have the courage to say that they are sorry.

Since the Conservatives are completely reversing themselves on the closure aspect, I want to give the government House leader the opportunity to tell Canadians that he is sorry. That would be suffice for us.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to ask a question of the hon. member. If I did do as he suggests, does that mean they would support this motion? I am not so sure about that.

The hon. member described how the Conservatives acted when they were in power and the reaction of the Liberals. He went on to say what the Liberals did when they were in power and the reaction of the Conservatives.

I think there is one thing we can all agree upon and that is that we will never find out what the NDP will do in power because that will not happen. We will always be left with the mystery of how the NDP would manage the House business.

However, just as a point of interest, do members remember what the NDP members did back in May 2005 when the same sex marriage bill came forward? They were jumping up and down to shut down the debate on that one. They were just delighted. They wanted to get that one over. It was a national crisis. They did not want to have a lot of debate going on that one. There was certainly unanimity among the other three political parties in the House of Commons to get that one clamped down.

I guess it depends on the issue as to what people view as important. We believe this is very important and I think most Canadians would agree that this debate should take place this afternoon.

[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, I would like to hear the minister's comments on a situation that has developed over the past number of days with respect to this motion.

It seems that we have unanimity within this House and that all parties will be voting in favour of this motion put forward by the government. I find that to be somewhat of a juxtaposition in respect to the Bloc's position because it seems to me that the Bloc has had three distinct and entirely different positions on the whole question about the Québécois forming a nation within a united Canada.

Since we seem to have unanimity and members of all parties will be voting in favour of an excellent motion presented by the government, is it not reasonable to expect that we should get to this question as quickly as possible, and hence the reason for this closure motion?

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for all the work he does to facilitate the agenda in the House of Commons on behalf of the government. He has my thanks and I think the thanks of all Canadians.

The hon. member pointed out that there is now consensus. This is what we strive for. It is a great thing when consensus is arrived at in the House of Commons. Regardless of how many positions some parties had prior to arriving at that consensus, it is wonderful that we have all come together. Quite frankly, that is what this country is all about. When people from different backgrounds and from different parts of the country come together and work together, the House of Commons works well and Canada works well.

From my point of view and on behalf of this government, we could not be happier that this consensus has developed. I appreciate that.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I will just respond to the House leader's question about what the NDP would do. We already know what the NDP would do because the Department of Finance has actually done a study on the NDP in power compared to the Conservatives and the Liberals. We know that in terms of financial management, the NDP comes out on top. The Conservatives and the Liberals have to admit that.

We are not perfect by any means but we do a far better job of managing the fiscal and financial house for Canadians than the Conservatives and the Liberals do. Most of the time we are in surplus when we run government. Most of the time, with Conservatives and Liberals, we see deficits. We already know that the NDP does a better job. Certainly in terms of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary respect, we know that right here in this corner of the House we have the most experience in the House of Commons. We would be respecting Parliament.

Given that track record, given the fact that we have a greater foundation of knowledge here in terms of parliamentary procedure, we know that closure is not something that can be just thrown out arbitrarily. We certainly saw that with the softwood sellout. At the committee stage, the Conservatives and Liberals worked together to impose closure. We now have a badly flawed bill coming before this House that will cause and wreak more havoc in the softwood lumber industry which saw 4,000 jobs lost in the last few weeks and yet the Conservatives and Liberals are not responding to it.

Here we have a question of responsibility. Closure is not something that we take lightly. Closure is a huge sledgehammer used to avoid any type of profound debate. Why do the Conservatives take closure so lightly? Why are they betraying all the commitments they made in January of this year when they went to the Canadian people and said that they would have a more transparent and responsible government? Why are they throwing all that out and betraying yet another election promise?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a very interesting comment about what it would be like to live under an NDP government.

I have only lived in the province of Ontario and we did have one NDP government. The five years of the Rae administration are actually still very vivid in my memory. While the memories of some administrations have faded, we remember very clearly what it was like under an NDP government. It seems to me that the first thing I always remember was despite good advice that it received from the then federal Conservative government, it immediately went into debt by $10 billion in its very first budget. Unfortunately, it dug a hole that it was never able to get out of.

As the hon. Bob Rae has said on occasion, at one point one of his advisers was telling him that he should declare the province of Ontario bankrupt. This great province of Ontario, which has huge natural resources and had a record, spanning most of the 20th century, of good government by the Conservative Party, and we had those five years of socialist rule.

In any event, I am sure we will have the opportunity in the coming months to discuss that administration in more detail. I certainly do not have to do it today.

With respect to the NDP members' support for shutting off debate back in May 2005, that is a question only they can answer. I guess, from their point of view, they pick and choose when they want to shut down debate.

This afternoon there will be a healthy debate and I think there will be an opportunity for all members of the House to express themselves, which is as it should be.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that must be coming to the attention of every member of the House as we approach the Christmas break is the large number of important items on the government's agenda and, indeed, on the agenda of all Canadians that need to get through the House of Commons in order that the nation's business can be carried on.

The primary reason that I am supportive of this motion is that it allows us to move on to these important items and not see the nation's business held up. I am hoping the House leader can explain to us some of the items that need to be dealt with prior to the time that the House rises for Christmas.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased and proud I am to serve in the House with a dedicated public servant like the deputy House leader. When we talk about a consensus, I am sure there is a consensus on how valuable he has been to this Chamber and what an outstanding job he has done on behalf of the people of this country and his constituency. Again, a consensus develops on these things and that is what is very important.

The hon. member makes a very good point. We are adjourning a couple of days early. Wednesday will be our last day of business. Tomorrow is an opposition day so we really do not have much time to discuss other aspects of the nation's business. There are a number of bills that we would like to see passed, one of them being Bill S-5 on tax conventions with Mexico, South Korea and Finland. I think there is a certain urgency in that particular piece of legislation that I think all hon. members would want to see passed by the end of the year.

I would like to see the clean air act get sent to a legislative committee. This is important. This is part of the government's agenda. The softwood lumber agreement is another one that we would like to see concluded.

The government, in maintaining its campaign commitments and acting on the promises that we talked to Canadians about in the last election, provides a full agenda and to the extent that we can build consensus and get the cooperation from hon. members in the House, it is most appreciated.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, naturally, I am a little surprised by the type of answer given by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and here is why. First of all, it is the first time in living memory that a closure motion has been moved regarding a motion that is supposed to have the unanimous support of the House. Also, it is the first time that a closure motion has been moved regarding a motion without the government House leader having consulted the House leaders of the other parties to verify whether they were hoping to extend the debate or to find out how many members still wanted to address the House. This is rather surprising.

Furthermore, it is the first time that a closure motion has been moved under the pretext that the recess for the holiday season is approaching, even though it is not even December and we have not yet used the days for extended sitting. Moreover, there is no indication that there will be a problem in the legislation, except that this Leader of the Government cannot seem to plan his work properly.

I hope this will be entered into the record and that, in the future, people who study parliamentary conduct will talk about the surprising case of November 2006, when the government moved a closure motion regarding a motion that had the unanimous support of the House, without consulting anyone, under the pretext that the holiday season was approaching, although it was not even December. I hope this will be carefully recorded.

(1225)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, to be fair with respect to the various positions, it is difficult to guess sometimes where these things are going to land. In the case of the hon. member's party, the motion that was tabled for an opposition day was perhaps a surprise to some and that party was certainly entitled to do that.

In terms of the various positions, the hon. member will agree with me that there have been a number of positions by the Bloc Québécois. It supported the original motion that it tabled and was against the motion that the government tabled the next day. The Bloc amended its own motion, supporting that one but disagreeing with the government, and then toward the end of last week it switched and now supports the government motion. It seems to me that there are a number of different positions.

I understand that Bloc members are entitled to do that and they are not consulting with me or any other member of the government. They have to make up their minds on their own. There is no attempt to surprise anyone. We want to have a full debate on this. In the case of his own political party, how many changes have we seen over the last three days?

It seems to us reasonable that we would want to have some parameters on the debate and that is all we are trying to do. Let us have the debate today. It is an important debate. We want members of Parliament who represent Canadians across this country to have that opportunity. That is all we are trying to do. Certainly, I am looking forward to it and welcome the debate this afternoon.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, far be it for a member from this side to throw some support behind the comments of a member on the other side, but I am drawn to the member's Cape Breton roots as a matter of fact.

I find it far too cute. I am sort of blown away with the sanctimony coming from the NDP corner today. My experience in the House is not as vast as some of the members in that corner, but I recall going through the Kyoto ratification and each day in the House the then leader of the NDP, the member for Halifax, stood and pounded the table asking when the Liberals were going to get on with ratifying Kyoto, when were they going to do something about Kyoto. Everyday NDP members pounded the table.

The opposition at the time filibustered and the debate went on. Everyday the NDP pounded the table and so the government called for closure. What did NDP members do? Half of them did not show up for the vote and the other half voted against closure. They love to talk and they love to rail, but do they want to do anything? I do not think so.

Does the leader of the government agree that this is just another opportunity for the NDP to stall and do nothing?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there were two parts to that question. The hon. member asked me about the sanctimony of the NDP and whether the NDP is going to stall this, or any other issue.

I am sure there are better experts on the sanctimony of the NDP than myself, though I have been a witness to it in my public life. However, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments and his offer of support.

He alluded to my Cape Breton roots. I can tell him that I think perhaps most of the people in his constituency are probably related to me in one way or the other. So, when he returns there, I would ask that he please say hello to them on my behalf if he gets to them before I do.

In any case, I think this is an important debate for Canadians. Any time we talk about this country, it is worth taking time. I think that is a healthy exercise.

Most of us would agree that this is the greatest country in the world. I tell people again and again that we created it ourselves. We took the British system of government in the 19th century and we adapted it with federalism. We adapted it to our unique circumstances. What we have today is, in my opinion, the finest form of government and the best country in the world.

In my other capacity, I am the Minister for Democratic Reform. I make the point whenever we introduce legislation in this area that we are not condemning the system that we have. We are saying that we can continue to make improvements, however, keeping in mind that we have created a wonderful country.

I am very honoured and very pleased, and privileged to be in the House of Commons, as are other members of Parliament. I welcome the support and the comments of the hon. member.

(1230)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, sanctimony is one thing, but as a member of the New Democratic Party on this particular issue, I have a resolution from our last convention that drives our support for it. We have taken that debate back to our constituents and they have heard it, at a convention, in a public place.

Judging by the emails that I have received and the correspondence that has come on this issue, Canadians want to know what we are talking about here. They want to know what the parties in this Parliament are talking about when they speak about nationhood, when they speak about Québécois as a nation. They want to know that. So, what better way than through active debate in this House?

The Prime Minister has brought forward this motion in a rather quick and, some people feel, unseemly fashion. But, really, we all want to speak to it because we all agree it is important.

So, let us have the debate, let us discuss it, and let us get everyone's position out on the floor in a good fashion where we can work with that discussion to assure Canadians that we are all thinking of the better interests of this country in the long term and not just simply short term political gain.

Does the hon. member not agree that debate will bring Canadians onside on this motion and will help this motion become part of the beautiful lexicon of Canadian politics as it develops?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the hon. member in part that he wants to have a healthy and extended debate on this. Certainly, we have had that. This whole question was debated on Thursday during an opposition day and it became government orders on Friday. We debated it all day Friday, and I am proposing that we debate it again all day today. So, I think there will be a healthy debate.

The member indicated that the Prime Minister tabled a motion very quickly last week. That is called leadership. That is what we have in this country.

The Prime Minister stepped forward and indicated immediately where this government stood and what he believed was in the best interests of this country. I think the hon. member will find that people who believe in federalism in this country will support that kind of leadership. He will not get me apologizing for having strong, decisive leadership in this country because this is exactly what this country needs and this is exactly what the Prime Minister demonstrates on every occasion. I am very proud to be associated with him and with this government.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Ind.):

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to have a town hall meeting in my riding on Thursday evening. The meeting was packed with people and we did discuss the Québécois nation motion at length during this town hall meeting.

At the end of that we actually had a vote. I tried to explain as best I could why the government had brought in this motion. I tried to explain as best I could what it meant, what the concept of nation meant in this particular context. We had a vote at the end of the meeting and the vote was 33 to 1 urging me to vote against the motion.

Then I decided that I would launch an online poll, which I did on Sunday morning, asking Canadians across Canada if they would actually come online and vote yes or no as to whether I as an individual member of Parliament should be supporting this particular motion or not.

So far there have been quite a number of people come online. The number of people who want me to vote against the motion is roughly 68% as opposed to 32%. I have also been deluged with emails, as I am sure many members in the House.

There are a few questions I would like to pose to the minister opposite, particularly in his capacity as Minister for Democratic Reform. These are questions I have been asked since I went home on Thursday night and had that meeting and it has not stopped since. People in my riding really want to know what is a nation. I think there is a fundamental element of debate here, a fundamental question that has not yet been answered.

When I opened the newspaper this morning and read that the Premier of British Columbia thinks that aboriginal people ought to be considered a nation, it made me think. It made me think about the uniqueness of many places in this country.

I have no problem with the particular notion of “les Québécois” constituting a distinct society, a distinct community or a “nation,” but there is the question as to what exactly the definition of that is. I have not heard it yet and I am looking forward to that because my constituents have asked me that. Second,--

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am afraid the time for the member's question has expired. I indicated there would be two minutes for questions during this period. Would the government House leader respond?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson:

Mr. Speaker, certainly, this is what this debate is all about. This is why we are having the debate and that is why we had it. I bet that if the hon. member asked his constituents how they liked the original motion from the Bloc Québécois the result may be 34 to nothing.

A motion whose intent was to try and drive a wedge into this country, or was not for the purpose of uniting this country, I am quite sure that in his constituency and my constituency would be unanimously rejected. People want this country to pull together. They want it to work together. They believe in this country.

The hon. member says he has questions and he wants to be able to explain. I certainly invite him to participate and ask questions, and listen to the debate that will be taking place this afternoon. This is why we are doing it.

The hon. House leader for the Bloc Québécois said we have a busy agenda. He is absolutely correct. Nonetheless, we are taking the time on this important issue to have this discussed. I am pleased that we are doing that.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

An hon. member: On division.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

[Translation]

The Québécois

[Government Orders]

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

[English]

It is rare, indeed, that parliamentarians have an opportunity to speak about the fundamental character of their country. Today is one of those opportunities. Canada is indeed a great nation. It is our great nation, a nation with a long history of vibrant constitutional debates. Sometimes in our past, we have approached these debates with fear and fatigue, but we have always looked back with certainty that these open and honest debates are one of the central pillars upon which our nation is built.

Many Canadians are well versed in the terminology of the constitutional debates and can point to the milestones on the long road of Canada's constitutional history. Simply by mentioning the words such as the amending formula, Meech Lake and Charlottetown, one can revive both the focus and passion of previous constitutional discussions.

The constitutional history of Canada as we know it begins with the Treaty of Paris in 1763 in which France ceded to Britain almost all of its North American territories. A century later, the British North American Act of 1867, followed by the 1931 Statute of Westminster, cemented the concept of and the right to self-government by Canadians. Then in 1982, more than 200 years after the Treaty of Paris had first defined Canada as its own territory, the Constitution Act brought our constitution home to Canada.

Who can forget the day when the visionary Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau joined with Queen Elizabeth II at the signing ceremony just outside this very building? It was obvious to all that this event was a huge step forward. Today we are discussing what many of my hon. colleagues argue may be the next logical step forward in the evolution of this wonderful country. But is it?

I spent much of my last week consulting with eminent constitutional and international scholars on the nature of today's debate. One thing is clear: no precise or globally accepted definition of the word “nation” exists. Indeed, in January of this year 35 member states of the Council of Europe concluded that it was impossible to define the word “nation” at all in constitutional terms.

Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier, who worked tirelessly to strengthen our country through immigration, understood the word “nation” simply to mean Canada. In 1889 he stated:

We form here, or wish to form, a nation composed of the most heterogeneous elements...In each one of these opposing elements, however, there is a common point of patriotism, and the only veritable politics is that which dominates this common patriotism, and brings these elements toward a unified goal and common aspirations.

Laurier further stated that his countrymen included:

--no matter what their race or language—whom the fortunes of war, the twists and turns of fate, or their own choice, have brought among us.

Canada, for that great statesman, was a broad, great and single country.

By identifying les Québécois as a nation or as a sociological nation within a united Canada, we as members of Parliament, representing all 10 provinces and 3 territories of this great country, would extend to the people of Quebec the recognition of their unique identity within the Canadian federation and, indeed, within the North American continent itself.

Many other nations assign within their borders the concept of nationhood to people with unique cultures and traditions, which are reflected in their history, ethnicity, custom and language. The United Kingdom, upon which our parliamentary system is based, embraces the so-called constituent nations of Wales, Scotland and England.

Any casual traveller will have seen that the people of Wales consider themselves very much a nation, as do the Scottish people. In recent years they have seen powers devolved to them from the central government at Westminster. Many of their political and governmental responsibilities, while arguable different in scale, are not unlike those of our Canadian federation.

The example of Wales is relevant for us as it is a nation within the United Kingdom that has its own official language, a parliament with specific powers and rights, including input with respect to laws passed elsewhere that concern it.

As we objectively review our own constitutional history, we must conclude the sociological concept of les Québécois nation within a united Canada is something we neither fear nor resist. In fact, that very sociological nation has always existed in spirit. The concept of a les Québécois nation within Canada will not diminish or threaten the country with which Quebec is confederated and in which the people of Quebec are citizens, free, proud and loyal. They remain a vibrant part of Canada in spirit and in reality.

(1240)

We have a clear and present opportunity to move our constitutional history forward and to, moreover, acknowledge the historic significance and culture contribution of the people of Quebec.

By 1000 AD, what is now the province of Quebec was the first destination of the Viking longboats, bringing the first Europeans to the Arctic shores of Ungava Peninsula. Some 500 years later, Jacques Cartier was the first French explorer to erect a cross in this new world. In 1603, Samuel de Champlain came to found the first permanent colonies in Canada, including the establishment of Quebec City itself in 1608.

Thus began the great French presence in the North American continent, with its rich tradition borne of exploration, enriched with deep culture and rapid social development.

In 1774 the Quebec Act was passed in London to ensure the continued growth and development of the French presence in North American manifest in the resilient Quebec people.

It was in 1880, during the St. Jean Baptiste Day ceremony, that our national anthem, O Canada, was penned in Quebec by the composer, Calixa Lavallee, who clearly had a love of this land.

Through the ensuing years, the people of Quebec, who proudly and rightly called themselves les canadiennes, continued to build the country and express their unique social experience in Canada, culminating with the quiet revolution of the 1960s. This was a period of profound social change in Quebec, and a significant leap forward in terms of their identity as a people.

It is crucial to acknowledge and affirm that all this rich history, vibrant culture and enthusiastic political expression flourished as a unique Quebec identity securely cradled within the Confederation of Canada.

We Canadians are an example to the world of the tolerance and understanding of the differences that make us unique, and our open, confident and forward thinking has helped to craft one of the world's truly great countries. We welcome newcomers with open hearts, recognizing that in our shared individuality we find our united strength.

My family came here 30 years ago from the misty islands in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean called the Azores, precisely because they believed that Canada was a nation of unequalled opportunity. My personal experience of the unbounded welcome and shared vision of Canadians has made it easy for me to love and celebrate our country, both here in Parliament and among my constituents of Davenport, most of whom are immigrants, working for their daily bread, and who give thanks every day for the country they now call home.

Many nations other than ours have sadly concluded that it was arms and armed conflict that bought them their freedom. We, on the other hand, are blessed to live in a country where we deal with our differences not by the sword, but by the word. In Canada our respect for one another has given us our freedom, and it is our laws that have given us liberty and justice.

We are a nation that does not fear differences, but rather encourages diversity. From our first nations, diverse in themselves, to the exploring peoples of Europe and Asia and other parts of the world, together we hail from ancestors who recognized the enormous strength to be found in our shared histories.

Through the motion we discuss today, Canadians outside of the province of Quebec will be able to openly recognize the unique nature of the people of Quebec within our broader confederation. As we have heard, some members of the House oppose this measure as being too much or too little, but neither of these polar positions appropriately reflect the reality of our history. Quebec is part of Canada and Canada is part of Quebec. History and geography have made us one. We are the new global standard of nationhood.

Ours is a country characterized by opportunity, understanding, compassion and service, both to its citizens and to the people of the world. Our nation is much more than a beautiful idea. It is a standard of perfection existing in the hearts and minds of our citizens. It is a profound reflection of the consciousness of time, beauty and the art of our collective humanity. So powerful is the essence of our nation that it is greater even than our imperfect definitions of ethnicity, language and creed. It is not our provinces, territories or fragments that make us great; it is our oneness that makes Canada the greatest nation on earth.

(1245)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the motion that the Prime Minister has put before us reads as follows:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

Before voting on a text that some of our fellow citizens believe will be of great significance, we have a duty to tell them clearly what that text means.

In French, according to Le Petit Robert, “nation” has at least three meanings.

First, there is the ethnic sense of the word:

Group of men presumed to have a common origin.

Second, there is the state sense of the word:

Group of people constituting a political unit, established in a defined territory..., and personified by a sovereign authority.

Third, there is the sociological sense of the word:

Group of people, generally large, characterized by awareness of its unity and a desire to live together.

[English]

The sociological sense of the word “nation” is also found in Webster's Dictionary.

[Translation]

In the first sense, the ethnic sense, Quebec and Canada are not nations, but French-Canadians are a nation, one that is concentrated primarily in Quebec but is present everywhere in Canada.

There are several other groups of people in our country that can also be considered to be nations in ethnic terms. I would therefore vote in favour of a motion that said: In Canada, including in the province of Quebec, there are several nations in the ethnic sense of the word.

In the second sense of the word “nation”, the state sense, the only sense that confers legal existence in international law, Canada and Canada alone is a nation. I would therefore vote for a motion that said: Canada forms a single nation which holds a seat at the United Nations.

In the third sense of the word “nation”, the sociological sense, we, the Québécois, are a nation, because we form a large group within Canada—nearly a quarter of the population—and we have an awareness of our unity and a desire to live together. In that sense, it is correct to say that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. I will therefore vote for the motion that is before us.

(1250)

[English]

However, I add that the entire Canadian population is also a nation in the sociological sense of the term. As Canadians, we have the sense of our unity and the will to live together, and there is nothing that prevents the same individual to be part of different nations in the sociological sense of the term.

[Translation]

So I say, in this House, that I am a proud member of the Quebec nation and a proud member of the Canadian nation. I say that these identities are cumulative and indivisible, and that I will fight with every resource that democracy gives me against anyone who wants to make me choose between these two wonderful identities: Québécois and Canadian.

I know all too well the game that the independentist leaders want to play. They want to persuade us that we cannot be part of the Canadian nation because we, the Québécois, form a nation. In other words, they want to shift from the sociological to the state sense of the word “nation”: from the “community” sense to the “country” sense. As usual, they want to conflate the meaning of words in order to sow confusion in people’s minds.

Well, as usual, my country and my 33 million fellow citizens can count on me to counter confusion with clarity. I know all too well that in the politics pursued by some people, there is little regard for dictionary definitions.

[English]

Facing this motion, two quotations come to mind.

The first one is from the great Lebanese poet, Kahlil Gibran, who said, “Pity the nation divided into fragment, each fragment deeming itself a nation”. This is why members of the Bloc will vote for the motion. They hope it will help them to fragment Canada.

However, there is another interpretation of the motion, which is not only in accordance with the definition of the dictionary but also noble and generous. It comes from José Carreras, who said, “Cuanto más catalán me dejan ser, más espanol me siento”.

In other words, in proclaiming my identity as a proud Quebecker today, I am proclaiming my identity as a proud Canadian. Let us work together to ensure that this noble and generous interpretation of the motion that we will vote on today will prevail.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given us thoughtful input into this very important question. Very often as people have spoken, they have looked to definitions. It is clear that when we look at definitions we can find a definition to suit our purpose. We are not surprised at that, but the motion before the House is a qualified definition. It states “nation within a united Canada”. That, to me, does not seem to have too many alternatives other than to say a nation in not a unified Canada. That would be the only difference.

I want to ask the member about how he feels since the Bloc leader has decided to support the resolution before the House with a view to using it to his advantage. Could the member please explain how the statement “a nation within a unified Canada” precludes a reasoned debate on the basis that the Bloc leader has suggested?

(1255)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that it does not preclude anything. This motion will not solve the problem of unity, and we need to make sure that it will not see the unity of Canada deteriorate. That is why I am saying that I will be in this debate to put clarity into the debate. Because what the Bloc, the PQ and Mr. Landry want to say is that since we Quebeckers are a nation, we cannot be the province of another nation. They want to switch from the community meaning to a statehood meaning. We will need to fight that.

But I urge everyone who is committed to Canada not to give so much importance to this kind of motion. I do not think it is the best way to promote our country. It is not what I want to do, but since this motion is facing me today, I am telling members that I will do my best to make sure that it will be the José Carreras interpretation that will prevail, that because we Quebeckers are Canadian, we are more Quebecker, that this Canadian identity is part of us. If we remove this Canadian identity from us, we will not be such strong Quebeckers as we are today.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member. I know that he is very experienced in these matters. I have a question for him. Today it is reported that a very high profile member of his party, given the chance, would vote against this motion today. He is a federalist. I am wondering if the member could explain to the House what rationale people might have for voting against this motion when they say they are strong federalists themselves.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will accept that we should not hammer each other when we have a disagreement on this, because we all agree on what is basic in this, which is, for those who are Quebeckers, that we are proud to be Quebeckers and Canadians, and that other Canadians are proud to have Quebec as part of their country.

As for those of us who have a difficulty with this motion, except for my Bloquiste colleagues, all the others love Quebec. This is not the problem. The problem is with the word “nation”. I would say that technically speaking the motion is accurate and I will vote for it, but I would invite everyone not to have too much hope for the effectiveness of this kind of strategy to keep our unity together.

Symbolic politics is something that we Canadians need to handle better, but the necessity to keep our country together will come when we are able to say, all of us, without playing games between each other, that there is nothing that justifies separation in Canada. If we are able to say so, then let the separatist leaders show that we are wrong. Let them try to find the compelling reasons that may convince people to do something as sad and as radical as to change fellow citizens into foreigners.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and emotion that I speak today to acknowledge the historic motion that the Prime Minister tabled in this House last Wednesday.

November 22, 2006, is a day that will be indelibly marked in my memory and that of Quebeckers.

I am from the Beauce region of Quebec, and I was touched by the Prime Minister's comments. By acknowledging that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada, he has shown, once again, that he is a great Prime Minister, one of the greatest prime ministers Canada has ever known. Our party has always been at the centre of the great moments and great challenges that have marked the history of this country. Last week was no exception.

It took the members of the Bloc Québécois three long days to finally see the light and support our motion. What an about face! Last Wednesday, as hon. members know, the leader of the Bloc Québécois expressed outrage in this House and harshly criticized our motion recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. I listened to him very carefully and I had a hard time understanding his point of view. I do not think I was the only one in the House who felt that way at the time. I wondered: how can he be against the idea of the government recognizing something so obvious? How can he be against this recognition he has been calling for loud and clear for so many years? I was thinking that several of his colleagues must disagree with him, but no, I was wrong: all the members of the Bloc Québécois gave him a standing ovation at the end of his speech last week.

I was stunned, and even more so the next day when I heard the House leader of the Bloc Québécois talking about a black afternoon. According to the comments by the House leader of the Bloc, it seemed that this motion was the worst thing that could happen to Quebec. However, it seems that on Friday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois received some telephone calls, perhaps from André Boisclair and even Bernard Landry, and this made him change his mind since even in sovereignist circles, some had to admit this was a step in the right direction.

Now all Canadians can celebrate the Bloc's decision to support the Prime Minister's motion to recognize Quebec's historic role within Canada and strengthen Canadian unity. We can only hope that the Bloc, which changed its mind on this issue three times in three days, will continue to support it until the vote.

Our motion is important for all Canadians because it is a gesture of reconciliation. It is important to recognize that Quebeckers have succeeded in preserving their unique language and culture while remaining part of the Canadian federation.

Our government truly believes that Quebec society will have better opportunities for development, progress, prosperity and reaching its full potential as part of the Canadian federation than as the independent Quebec advocated by the Bloc Québécois, the hypothetical benefits of which are merely unfounded speculation.

Quebeckers know who they are. They know that they helped found Canada and helped build the great country it is today. They know that they have protected their language and culture while promoting their values and interests within Canada. They know that they can be both Canadians and Quebeckers, that they can be proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians, and that they do not have to choose between the two, as the Bloc would have them do.

Since becoming Canada's new government, we have advocated open federalism, and that has brought about concrete results for both Quebec and Canada. We have invited Quebec to participate actively in UNESCO debates and we respect provincial jurisdiction. We have also brought about many changes. We promised to fight corruption. We have done that by introducing the accountability act, which will restore the atmosphere of trust that is so vital between the people and their government.

(1300)

We promised to put in place a real national child care program, and we have done so. Parents are receiving a cheque for $100 a month for every child six years of age or younger. We promised to gradually reduce the GST, and we have kept that promise. We have reduced the tax burden on Canadians, and we will continue to do so. We promised to settle the softwood lumber dispute, and we have done so. That is what Quebeckers want. They want action, they want a government that respects the Constitution and honours its commitments.

This motion, which was proposed by our government, shows once again that it is the Conservatives who best defend Quebec's interests, not the Bloc Québécois. And we are achieving these results with just 10 members from Quebec. Just think of what we could do if we had far more.

The Bloc members have decided to support a motion that strengthens Canadian unity. The Bloc no longer has any purpose in Ottawa. I repeat, the Bloc has decided to support a motion that strengthens Canadian unity, and it therefore no longer has any purpose in Ottawa. My honourable colleagues opposite, who advocate Quebec's separation, should follow the example of their former colleagues, who decided to get jobs in the National Assembly. They are totally useless here, in Ottawa, in this House. It is the federalists who recognized that Quebeckers form a nation, and the Bloc members had to follow our lead.

In nearly a decade and a half in Ottawa, the Bloc has never achieved anything tangible for Quebeckers. The Bloc members are wasting their time in Ottawa. They are hampering the development of Quebec society.

For nearly 30 years, the Parti Québécois and its allies, the Bloc Québécois, have been trying to convince Quebeckers to become a nation separate from Canada. Quebeckers rejected this option during two referendums. Why? Because they are proud of their historic role in this country's development. The federalist forces, led by the Prime Minister, are taking action in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, is pulling back. It has not made any concrete decisions that would have any real consequences for Quebec. It will never be able to make any such decisions, since it will always been confined to the opposition benches.

During its last convention in Quebec City, the Bloc said that its mission was to introduce new ideas. That is not what Quebeckers want. Quebeckers want real results, concrete results. They want their federal representatives to take concrete action, not just spout rhetoric.

As the Prime Minister said in his famous speech in Quebec during the last election campaign, he wants to build a strong Quebec within a better Canada. The motion he moved in this House last week aims to do just that. It will help to strengthen Canadian unity and Quebec can only gain from this. The time for bickering is over. It is time to look forward and build a strong economy. It is time to overcome the challenges before us. Federalism has much to offer for Quebeckers.

Quebeckers, just like the citizens of the other provinces, reap considerable benefits from this type of government. By creating a unified market, federalism allows greater movement of goods and services, labour and capital. This market has allowed all regions of Canada, including Quebec, to specialize in areas in which they most excel and to do business in world markets. Federalism gives us a common currency, which facilitates trading and the circulation of capital. It helps ease economic shocks, thus ensuring greater economic stability for all Canadians thanks to risk sharing, regional transfers and the pooling of this country's riches. It gives less fortunate regions a higher quality of life, and better health care and education services than they could otherwise enjoy.

Our federalism improves our ability to negotiate with other countries. We are not alone against the rest of the world. Together, we form a strong, united Canada.

(1305)

The size of our market is such that we have considerable economic power and bargaining power on an international level. Canada is a member of the G-7, an influential member of the World Trade Organization and plays a key role within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD. Canada has an important place on the world stage. It is a member of the United Nations, the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, the Organization of American States and NATO. Geographically, Canada is open to three of the world's most significant economic markets, namely Europe, the Americas and Asia.

The advantages Quebec draws from Canadian federalism are also political in nature. Canadian federalism is a form of government that takes into account differences by fostering cooperation and compromise. Canadian federalism was not imposed on Quebeckers. They have been instrumental in its creation and development. Its key advantages are its flexibility, its vibrancy, its pluralism, its emphasis on diversity and its adaptability to modern challenges. Federalism is not rigid. It divides up the political jurisdictions in a way that responds to the common needs of the public, while taking individual situations into account.

Quebec controls a number of jurisdictions, including natural resources, education and so forth. It has its own Civil Code, which makes its legal system unique in North America. It has its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it collects its own taxes. Canadian federalism is constantly proving its effectiveness. As I was saying earlier, the primary reason is that Canadian federalism adapts to change and to the major issues affecting this world. Federalism allows countries like Canada to redefine intergovernmental relations as they develop. Canadian federalism has demonstrated that it can be innovative and respond to the legitimate interests of Quebec within our constitutional framework.

For example, since the 1960s, a series of agreements between the federal government and the Government of Quebec have allowed the province to extend its activities into jurisdictions traditionally held by the federal government. As hon. members know, in immigration, Quebec selects its immigrants and has its own integration programs. In foreign affairs, the federal government has developed a series of mechanisms in order to integrate the interests of Quebec and allow it to take part directly in international activities. The summit of la Francophonie and, more recently, the announcement of Quebec's new role within the Canadian delegation to UNESCO are good examples of this.

Quebec enters directly into agreements with France and Belgium, and is a member of several international Francophonie organizations, as I stated earlier. It opens offices abroad to promote its interests in various areas. In short, federalism is advantageous for Quebeckers and for the rest of Canadians.

In closing, I would like to thank all the members of the national caucus of our party, the Conservative Party, for unanimously supporting this motion and hence recognizing the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada. I know that it may be somewhat difficult for some of my colleagues to understand what this recognition means to Quebeckers. I would like to thank my colleagues opposite, the Liberal members, and all the federalists in this House who unanimously supported this motion, both my Liberal and my NDP colleagues. Last week, it was very moving to listen to the speeches of the interim leader of the Liberal Party as well as of the leader of the NDP. I was filled with emotion and pleased to see that this Chamber and this government have the support of my federalist colleagues in the House. That is why I said earlier that we made history in the House last week.

I know that it may be somewhat difficult for some of my colleagues to understand what this recognition means to Quebeckers. As I mentioned, I would like to reassure them. With this gesture, my colleagues who represent the other provinces of Canada have contributed to strengthening the ties that unite us and reinforcing Canadian unity. This is a stand that we should all salute and I am very proud to be a member in this House in order to vote in favour of this motion.

(1310)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister’s speech was interesting. There was a slight partisan side to it that I can forgive today but I noticed that he spoke of a motion that is really symbolic, that it is perhaps an opening gesture and probably an olive branch towards Quebeckers. However, his remarks did not go any farther.

I hope that the member and the minister do not take it for granted that with this motion the work is finished. Reconciliation with Quebeckers and Quebec’s acceptance of the Constitution will require a great deal more work. In my opinion, we are taking a small step today. It is nice, but it is symbolic.

The minister did not talk to us about spending power; for example. I would have liked to have heard him discuss that. Does his government intend to take some action in that area? The minister did not talk about the fiscal imbalance.

Those subjects belong at the top of the agenda because beyond the symbol, there is a reality. I know that our fellow citizens have expectations concerning these subjects. One day, I hope we can be here together to celebrate the final and total acceptance by Quebec of our constitutional laws.

I would be glad if the minister could give some details of his thoughts beyond today’s resolution.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks.

Yes, it is true. It is a small step; but it is small step in the right direction.

I want to make it clear that the clarification of spending power is a commitment of our government that the Prime Minister formally stated in Quebec City December 19, 2005. It is an important issue for Quebeckers and for Canadians. I can assure my colleague opposite that we are working with all the provinces to ensure that at last the Canadian Constitution can make progress, and in the direction that all the provinces want.

Concerning the fiscal imbalance; that is a very good question. That is another commitment we made in Quebec City on December 19, 2005, and we repeated that commitment to deal with the fiscal imbalance in the last budget.

I know that on December 15 my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, will meet with his provincial counterparts to discuss the correction of the fiscal imbalance. Like my hon. colleague, I hope that can be settled as quickly as possible. We are a government that respects its commitments and we will act accordingly.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with most of the minister's remarks; in fact, I find I can associate myself with them to a large degree. I would like to ask him, though, about one issue that has come to our attention in recent days.

Technical difficulties make it impossible to amend the motion. However, given that the first Europeans to come to North America made contact with what they reported to be nations of indigenous people, would he agree if it were possible to amend this motion that we could and should in the context of this debate and the vote also recognize first nations aboriginal people in the same vein as we recognize the Québécois form a nation in this country?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier:

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the first nations are in the Constitution.

What we are debating right now is only Quebeckers as a nation and not Quebec as a nation. There is a big difference. I hope my colleague is going to vote with us on that, considering that the first nations have their recognition in the Constitution.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is adjacent to the province of Quebec. They are separated only by the Ottawa River but very much are connected to one another.

The area of Allumette Island was largely settled by Irish immigrants and therefore its residents are mainly English speaking. Many of the residents work and attend school on the Ontario side of the river. Indeed, prior to the election of the current Minister of Transport, many attended my office for assistance on constituency matters. They are asking what this motion means to anglophones. How is it going to affect their day to day lives?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier:

Mr. Speaker, it will not change their day to day lives. It is a recognition that the Quebeckers form a nation, that Quebeckers are a nation within Canada.

I was in Calgary this weekend. I spoke with some of my colleagues from Calgary and Canadians from Alberta. They had that kind of concern. I can reassure people across the country and my colleagues across the floor that it will not change anything in their day to day lives.

What we are doing right now was not my first choice. My first choice is that Quebeckers know who they are and they do not need us to tell them who they are. But the Bloc Québécois brought this issue to the House and we had to respond. What we have brought forward is the right response. The most important thing in the motion is that Quebeckers are a nation within Canada. We will not give to Quebeckers more powers or other jurisdictions to the province of Quebec. We will respect our Constitution. That is why it is very simple for us as Quebeckers and for our colleagues to vote in favour of the motion.

(1320)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc motion was initially debated, the leader of the Bloc said that the motion being proposed by the Conservatives in adding the phrase “within a united Canada” was a partisan condition. My view is that the addition of “within a united Canada” reflects a fact, a reality. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on whether he considers that addition to be a partisan condition.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier:

Mr. Speaker, no it is not partisan. It is a reality. Quebeckers are proud to be Canadian and are proud to be Quebeckers also. It is only the reality.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have watched the Bloc take three different and contradictory positions. Bloc members first said they defend provincial jurisdictions, but at the same time, they gave Ottawa the power to define what Quebeckers are and to determine whether they form a nation. They gave this House that power. We therefore moved a motion to define Quebec as a nation, which upset the Bloc. It was against recognizing Quebec as a nation and was going to vote against this motion. However, the next day, it changed its tune again—for the third time—and said that it would vote in favour of defining Quebec as a nation and for a united Canada.

We now see that the Bloc has completely lost its raison d'être. It is completely pointless.

Can the minister tell us why Quebeckers should keep this party alive? Why should the Bloc Québécois exist?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, as time goes on, the Bloc Québécois is proving more and more that its presence in this House is completely pointless. Bloc members cannot achieve any real results for all Quebeckers. With some ten Conservative members, we have done so much for Quebec, which the Bloc Québécois will never be able to do because, as we all know, it is doomed to forever remain an opposition party.

I think my fellow Quebeckers realize all this and, during the next election, they will make up their minds.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join with my colleagues in support of the motion presented by the Conservative government. This is a historic occasion for our country. It is a time for all of us to reflect on who we are and to express our dreams for this country. In this context, the NDP supports the motion that recognizes the Québécois people as a nation within a united Canada.

For clarification purposes, I want to also indicate that the NDP will be opposing the original motion presented by the Bloc Québécois which very simply suggested that the Quebec people form a nation. Given all of the developments over the last few days, it is important to explain exactly why we feel this way and what is important about this occasion.

When this issue erupted on November 22, at first we felt considerable joy that there was this unity in the House over a longstanding matter that had to be resolved, that being the question of how to recognize Quebec within the federalist family within Canada. That soon turned into a heated debate between politicians, through the media, and among premiers and other leaders in this country.

I am not sure the debate filtered too far down into our community level, but it certainly took on a whole new dimension, especially when the Prime Minister, over the course of this weekend, chose to start muttering out loud about further developments on the constitutional front. He suggested that he was prepared to look at opening up the Constitution to address spending powers. Canadians suddenly started feeling a sense of déjà vu.

We have had Meech; we have had Charlottetown. We have had numerous other federal-provincial meetings and discussions, and heated debates. And here we go again with another attempt to open the door, so that this country could actually start to lose its unity of purpose because the hidden agenda is one of ceding federal powers to the provinces. This debate has taken on a whole new set of values and a heck of a lot of interest on the part of Canadians because they truly are wondering what this means in real terms.

I want to start by saying what it means to New Democrats and what it does not mean to New Democrats. I want to ensure that the House knows how we address the questions of our aboriginal people in the context of this motion and how we celebrate the ethnocultural diversity of this land given this motion.

The unease and concern of Canadians has to do with definition. For me and for some folks who have worked and talked, and thought about the issue of the unique status and the distinct nature of Quebec society, it might be clear. We therefore have little trouble putting down on paper that we see the Québécois people as a nation within Canada. For us it is a description that defines a people. It reflects a history. It is imbued with all kinds of meanings and values. It is important.

It is important for people like me to stand and say it is long overdue that we resolve this historical impasse and that we come to some resolution that will not open the door further to any thought of devolving federal powers or opening the door to the Québécois people to separate. That is what we must be absolutely sure about today.

(1325)

We in the NDP support this motion on the basis of recognizing the role, the culture, and the people of Quebec throughout our history. We have done this since our party began. Whether we are talking about Stanley Knowles, who was a member of Parliament from my area for many years, or David Orlikow, who also was part of this place for 25 years, or going back to David Lewis and Tommy Douglas. Our leaders, our politicians, and our representatives have always tried to recognize that which is unique about Quebec and to stand proud in describing our country in those terms.

More recently, we have grappled with this notion in the context of federalism and how we define federalism while recognizing that status of Quebec. We as a country have debated that and we have come to recognize that asymmetrical federalism is probably a doable approach, that it can in fact lead to that which we all desire, which is a united Canada that recognizes the uniqueness of Quebec.

Under no circumstances have we, at any point, intended that to mean the debate is wide open for further diminishment of our federal government in the nation state, or for further encouragement to the Québécois people to consider separation or sovereignty. No, our debates have been on how to ensure a united Canada, how we can accommodate the demands and the place of history in this country without putting us on a path of losing something which is absolutely important. We come today to say that we support this notion that Quebec people constitute a nation within this country.

(1330)

[Translation]

The NDP has long supported appropriate recognition of Quebec's national character. We know, and it is important to say so with respect to the Bloc motion, that the Bloc is playing political games. In our opinion, that is the case. The New Democratic Party will not play these games.

[English]

Since this discussion evolved on Wednesday, we have seen and heard statements from both the leader of the Bloc and the leader of the PQ suggesting that this was just the beginning. They began to put a spin on the debate that this was the wedge, the lever by which the forces for sovereignty and separatism would be able to gain further support and make inroads in this direction.

It became pretty clear in the course of the last couple of days that in fact we were part of this bidding war. There was an attempt on the part of forces to actually distort the concept that was part of the resolution, when we talk about Quebeckers being a nation within a united Canada, or just dealing with it on its own, Quebeckers forming a nation.

[Translation]

The members of the Bloc and the leader of the Parti Québécois are only interested in the sovereignty agenda. We have decided to reconsider our position on their motion.

[English]

We support the present motion because we are recognizing the historical fact that Quebeckers form a nation and we have done so for decades.

We are a proud federalist party. We have worked over the decades to find a solution to this fundamental question: what constitutes a united Canada and how do we recognize the unique nature of Quebec?

We do not for one second consider the nation state as divisible or an entity that can be weakened gradually over a period of time by changing the powers and looking at the question of the role of the federal government. Nor for a second do we accept any wording, any notion, any rhetoric, any policies, or any programs that will take us down the path to a separate Quebec, to a Quebec as a sovereign nation, because we consider ourselves as part of a great nation. We will fight to the end to ensure that Quebec never has reason to leave this country.

That does not mean we disregard the notion of self-determination and the right of the Quebec people to have a say in their future. Obviously, that is all tied up in this debate, but we have a role as federalists, we have a role as parliamentarians to ensure we have addressed all those questions and concerns. We have a role to ensure that we have taken away the debate, the arguments, the excuses, and the raison d'être to even consider a separate nation for Quebeckers. It seems to us that is what is fundamental here, why we support this debate and this motion, and why we cannot now support what the Bloc is proposing.

[Translation]

The objective of the Bloc and the Parti Québécois is clear: they want to see Quebec leave the great Canadian family. We will oppose this option.

We believe that ordinary Quebeckers will be better off staying in Canada. That is why we believe that despite our differences as federalists, we have to work together to create winning conditions for Canada and Quebec.

(1335)

[English]

That explains why we support the motion, but we also understand what this debate is not even tapping into and that is our identity as a country. We are talking a lot about the identity of Québécois and Québécoises, but what does that leave in terms of this country? Part of this task rests in terms of identifying the original peoples.

Today we actually should have been amending this motion to reflect what first nations want, but we could not. We could not because the Liberals brought forward a deleterious motion and cut off all further amendments. We should be doing what the Assembly of First Nations has requested, which is to amend this motion with respect to ensuring that it in no way derogates from, diminishes or modifies “the unique status and rights of First Nations and their unique place in the past, present and future of this land”.

That would clarify, would it not? That would ensure that through this process we were not leaving any impression that we were diminishing the significance of the people who were originally here, notwithstanding the fact of the founding nations later on who came to develop this country, the French and the English, and not to even touch on the waves and waves of immigrants who came to this country to build this country and to create a great future.

Let us be clear, I say, that when we support this motion we in no way apologize for the ethnocultural diversity of this great land. Instead, we celebrate it. Let us be clear that when we look at this whole complex issue we stand in the context of our recognition for Quebec saying that we celebrate Canada as a diverse nation, as a model to the world.

How many people have actually described this country as the window on the world? Others have said that we are the world in one nation. Those are beautiful sentiments reflecting a beautiful notion about this country, sentiments that we have to celebrate and stand up and say on a day like today.

The biggest worry the NDP has about this whole debate is that in fact it might be used as a way for the federal government to open the door wider, to devolve powers from the federal government, to review the spending powers under the Constitution and in fact weaken our nation-state.

It is certainly a legitimate concern after listening to what the Prime Minister had to say over the weekend when he talked about limiting federal spending powers in exclusive areas of provincial jurisdiction and when he talked opening up the Constitution, which requires two-thirds of the provinces and territories and half the population. There is every reason to be concerned.

So while we stand today in support of this motion, we do not for one second give any legitimacy, credence, credibility or validity to an agenda that the Conservatives may have to use this as an opening to slip in changes to the Constitution that would weaken our nation-state and change the very nature of federalism.

We only have to look to last week, when the Minister of Finance gave us his economic update. In his document entitled “Advantage Canada”, he states:

To this end, the Government is committed to:

--Limiting the use of the federal spending power.

It is a fairly upfront, open agenda. We only have to look back to the federal budget address of May 2, 2006, when in fact the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance reflected on the issue of federal spending power.

The 2006 budget stated that initiatives may “have expanded the use of the federal spending power” and were “launched in areas of provincial responsibility” and:

Concerns have been raised that these initiatives have often imposed new conditions and cost pressures on provincial and territorial governments.

It is interesting to note that the government then used that as a legitimate argument for not advancing a national child care or early childhood development plan. It used that to argue why the federal government should not be involved in housing and homelessness issues. It used that, in fact, to explain why it should not be doing anything about literacy in this nation.

(1340)

There are ominous signs on the horizon about which we must be very vigilant. We will not let the government take advantage in any way of unanimity and harmony in the House today around finally coming up with some wording that will address a longstanding historical unanswered issue.

Today we need to reflect on where we have come from and where we are going. I want to wrap up and say that we accept, as we have done throughout history, the notion of Quebec as a distinct society, and that, we believe, is reflected in this motion. We also recognize that there are many important influences in this country that have to be also acknowledged, whether they be aboriginal peoples or the many waves of immigrant populations who have come to develop this country.

We also recognize that hidden in this motion there in fact may be a power grab, as some have commented in the media, and that there may be a tendency on the part of the government to set the stage through this motion to open the door to a dismantling of this country.

We are left today with wanting to ensure that all members agree on the need to establish very clearly the unique identity of Canada, one that recognizes the uniqueness of Quebec as a nation within this country on a united basis but that also understands what has built this country and has contributed to our greatness: that is, those values of cooperation and compassion, the desire among Canadians to care about one another and to share wealth and resources, those values that actually led to the creation of medicare, the best health care program in the world, one that defines who we are as a nation, and those values that led to numerous programs that bind us together and ensure that no matter where we come from, whatever region we are from, whatever ethnic group we are part of, whatever language we speak, we are part of this nation, and we are one people, strong and united.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in their discussions today, I noticed that a number of hon. members have been very careful to emphasize what they believe this motion is not about. I think that is a good thing to do when we deal with a motion that is as laconic in its language as this one is. It is necessary to make sure that no one understands us as having supported something for reasons that were in fact invalid and therefore imputes meanings to this motion that are not actually there.

I thought, therefore, that it was good and very valuable to hear the hon. member just a moment ago speaking about the things that she does not want to be understood as supporting when she votes for this motion. She is concerned about the government having an agenda to do a number of things to roll back the federal government's role in Canadian life.

I want to assure the hon. member that such is not the case. I think that is to some degree self-evident from the nature of the way in which this motion came forward after the Bloc Québécois had proposed another motion. This motion was introduced after that time.

I also want to be clear in indicating that my own support for this motion is based upon understanding it to have limited implications, on understanding it to be a reflection of a sociological fact and not to be understood as, for example, indicating that we are or I am supportive of some form of asymmetrical federalism, or for greater powers for one part of the country over another, or for having the kinds of implications that the distinct society clause had when it was introduced.

Some people here supported the distinct society clause back in the early 1990s. Others of us did not and campaigned against it. The distinct society clause had the implication that, among other things, the charter of rights would be interpreted in light of the fact that Quebec is a distinct society.

This motion, as I understand it, has no such meaning. The charter of rights and the Constitution apply equally. The equal status of the Canadian provinces is not changed. That is my understanding. My question for the hon. member is this: is this narrow reading of the motion also her understanding?

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we clarify what this motion is about. I want the motion to be about, and I believe it is, addressing a longstanding gap in our history's policy development process, which is a way to recognize the contribution and the qualities of the Quebec people and a way to meet their longstanding grievances in terms of being a part of this country.

The motion does not explicitly suggest anything more than that. Why I worry is that the ink was barely dry on this motion when the Prime Minister of our country came out publicly talking about opening up the Constitution and dealing with spending powers.

We know from past discussions that the Conservatives are very anxious to put limits on federal spending powers so that they do not have responsibility in many other important areas, which in my view does a complete disservice to what this nation is all about. We have a national health care act. We have medicare. We have the Canada Health Act because we got over this jurisdictional haggling and wrangling and said, “This is a shared responsibility that involves both leadership from the federal government and spending powers from the federal government in an area that is largely a provincial jurisdiction”.

We need to make sure that we continue this part of our history. We need to do it in areas of education like never before, because in fact the federal share of education has dropped to less than 10% and we are struggling to find a way to make sure that all students have access to education. We need to do it in areas of child care and early childhood education. In fact, if we do not work together on the needs of children at a very young age, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I know what the Conservative agenda generally is. I know what the Prime Minister said coming out of the discussion about national unity last Wednesday. I am worried. I want it to be clear that while we support this motion we in no way give any legitimacy or validity to a Conservative notion of decentralization or dismantling this country and eroding our nation-state.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, during her speech the hon. member referred specifically to the motion and the full wording, including the reference to the phrase “within a united Canada”.

She also talked about some of the historical positions of her party from way back when. She said twice, or in two different ways, that, first, we support the national character of Quebec, and that, second, we have long supported that Quebeckers form a nation.

I am curious as to whether the member could advise the House whether in coming to those policy positions on behalf of her party there was the presumption that Canada was a united country. The way it was stated by the member in her statement would seem to be supportive of the initial Bloc motion.

As we know, and as I believe all hon. members who are federalist members here understand it, this is simply a question of the fact that there are those in this place who support a strong and united Canada and there are those who want to break up this country. I wonder if the member would like to clarify her statements.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my statement. In the course of a debate that is 20 minutes in length, one tries not to keep repeating oneself in terms of all the descriptions and adjectives.

A t the outset, I said we were supporting the motion that says, “the Québécois are a nation within a united Canada”, and that we rejected the Bloc motion which stopped short of saying “within a united Canada”. I want to elaborate for a moment. As part of our history, we have always fought for that recognition within a united Canada.

I want to refer very quickly to the statements we have made over the years. Back in 1999, we said that Quebec was a vibrant, distinct society. It is a result of many historical developments and it is one that we respect and reflect in our policies in the context of a dynamic, varied, multicultural society which recognizes the first nations as our founding peoples.

Again, in our statement at our last convention in Montreal, in what has now been described as the Sherbrooke declaration, we very clearly described the need for recognition of Quebec's unique status or definition as a nation within a united Canada, as long as we were fully cognizant of the fact that federalism itself was something that must be nurtured, developed and worked on time and time again or we would be in danger of losing the very essence of who we were as a nation.

I hope that has clarified for the member what we feel, and to be absolutely clear that we only look at this question within the context of a united Canada.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for raising the issue of the first nations, brought to us over the weekend.

In the context of the debate, there has to be some kind of non-derogation recognition that what we do today will not derogate from or diminish in any way the status of first nations within the context of the Constitution or the debate.

Could the hon. member reinforce for us today how the first nations are recognized with this status within Canada and we, in this party at least, will not have anything to do with anything that derogates from that?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely believe the motion should have included that qualifier, but the Liberals prevented us from doing so.

I commend the work of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who brought to the House the words of Phil Fontaine—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Outremont.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York Centre.

I am pleased to take part in this debate, although we Quebeckers in the House find ourselves in a very strange situation. The House is being asked to define our identity. It is as if we had come here searching for it, and all that just because the Bloc Québécois wanted to play petty politics on the backs of Quebeckers. That is too bad, but while the Bloc claims to be their servant and the trustee of their interests, it actually wanted the House to say no to Quebeckers, to say that they do not constitute a nation.

Confounding their tactics, the hon. members of this House—the federalist members—decided to say that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. Now that the federalist members have decided to join forces, we see the Bloc members going through contortions that could earn them a job with the Cirque du Soleil. They do not know which way to squirm and wriggle any more.

In light of this situation, I think that Quebeckers are being recognized here. I met a lot of people over the weekend who said it was nice, and that this helped them feel comfortable with their dual identity. It helped them say they are both proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians.

That is what this motion gives us today. I would not want people to nurse any illusions about the meaning or huge import—other than symbolic—of this motion. In addition, the issue of Quebec signing on to the Canadian constitution has not been resolved. In my view, that is on a future agenda. I know that the C-word, Constitution, is banned for now, but some day we will obviously want to find a way to bring Quebec back into the bosom of the Canadian family—if that vocabulary is not too antiquated—with honour and enthusiasm.

I think, therefore, that our colleagues realize today that they have to recognize the Quebec nation. I know that some are making an effort to do this because it is hard for them, and I can understand that. Ultimately, though, this is an olive branch extended from an outstretched hand.

Some day we will have to remember this. I may have too much personal experience in the House, but I remember the Meech Lake era very well. Looking back at the five elements we had at that time, ultimately we can say that things are quietly progressing. At the time, we spoke about a distinct society. Then, all of a sudden, the House passed a motion recognizing this wording. The vocabulary has evolved now: distinct society, people, nation. Who knows how our children will want to define themselves in 10 or 15 years?

Insofar as what we wanted in the area of immigration is concerned, it has been achieved and Quebec has power over the selection of immigrants. Some other provinces have taken on the same power because they think it is important.

Our discussion about spending power is still hypothetical, but this is an important element, nevertheless.

Perhaps the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities remembers former premier Robert Bourassa and the many speeches he made about spending authority. He repeated them so often we know almost all of them by heart.

With respect to the Supreme Court justices, that is a fact.

On the subject of veto rights, even this House passed a law saying that every region has a veto. As such, Quebec has a de facto veto right.

If we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, we realize that things evolve. Little by little, certainly, but this gives us confidence in the future.

When history judges the past few days we have experienced together, it may be said that on this momentous occasion, Canadian federalists were united as never before thanks to the Bloc Québécois.

(1355)

I honestly did not think that such unity would happen during this session with a minority government and a very strong opposition, not to mention a party in the throes of a leadership race. In the end, it took a major catalyst to make this happen.

That being the case, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois because it gave us the will to fight. It convinced us that we can have two identities—Quebecker and Canadian—and that those two identities can co-exist and help us grow.

I think that even though nobody wanted it to happen, this debate has strengthened Canada and will enable us to exchange ideas about our deep roots and the very nature of Quebec as it is today.

I know it is very hard for the Bloc to say it—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Order please. I must unfortunately interrupt the member. When debate resumes, he will have four minutes remaining to finish his speech.

We will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Wild Rose.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Sundre Pioneer Village Museum

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to an outstanding central Alberta sportsman, Chester Mjolsness.

Chester has spent the past many decades hunting big game around the entire world. He decided to share his massive collection of wildlife mounts and it is now proudly displayed at the Sundre Pioneer Village Museum.

The collection is made up of more than 150 animals from all the continents in the world. Planning for the museum began about 12 years ago and, through a little grant money, local donations and countless volunteer hours, this is a display not to be missed.

Special recognition must be paid to Lorraine Hughes who painted the background scenes and Povl Munksgaard who prepared the mounts for display.

I was honoured to be part of the official opening of the Chester Mjolsness World of Wildlife Museum in my hometown of Sundre. I would like to invite every Canadian to take a trip to visit this world-class facility. That is Sundre, Alberta, my hometown.

* * *

The Québécois

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the government's motion to recognize the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada is ill-defined, divisive and sets up an acrimonious debate that is not in the best interest of our country.

Why must we declare the Québécois a nation so precipitously? Can we not listen to Canadian and Quebec voices before we rush recklessly into this new departure from our Canadian path?

What of our first nations? Have we not learned the lessons of Meech Lake?

I will not support this resolution because first, the House of Commons has not had adequate time to debate what it means; second, its most vigorous proponents are uncertain of its meaning; and third, this fundamental change to the definition of what Canada means is thrust upon Canadians who have had no chance to respond to this fundamental change in the way Canada defines itself.

* * *

[Translation]

Laval University's Rouge et Or

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on November 18, Laval University's Rouge et Or earned its third trip in four years to the Vanier Cup by routing the Acadia University Axemen 57 to 10 in the Uteck Bowl.

This win put the Rouge et Or in line for the challenge they had been waiting for all year, defeating the Huskies, their tough and tenacious rivals, at Griffiths Stadium in Saskatoon.

On Saturday, the dream came true in a brilliant 13 to 8 victory, the result of sustained effort, hard work and admirable and indomitable team spirit.

With this win, the Rouge et Or have contributed greatly to the national pride of Quebeckers and thrilled their ardent fans not only in the greater Quebec City area but throughout Quebec as well.

Congratulations to all who contributed to this great moment in university sports.

* * *

[English]

Canada Elections Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, nobody should be able to buy an election in this country or a politician for that matter. Our election finance laws were designed to get big money out of politics. Well, big money is still buying influence in Canadian politics through the loophole that allows huge so-called loans to politicians and their organizations.

When is a loan not a loan? Well, if it never has to be paid back it is not a loan, it is a donation. Even if it is paid back, it is still “who you know” politics. If one candidate can borrow millions and the other candidate can only borrow peanuts, it is easy to see the one with the rich sponsors will have an unfair advantage.

These massive Liberal leadership loans are tantamount to donations. They undermine the principles of equal opportunity and our election laws and they should not be allowed. If the Conservative government were sincere about getting big money out of politics, it would plug this last remaining loophole so that nobody could buy an election in this country ever again.

* * *

[Translation]

Laval University's Rouge et Or

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I mention today the Laval University's Rouge et Or football team victory on Saturday.

I would like to congratulate all the players and the coaching staff led by Glen Constantin, who contributed to their victory, and especially the players who will not be returning next year.

These players include pass receiver Nicolas Bisaillon, who is completing his degree in psychology, and defensive halfback Alexandre Vendette, who is completing his masters' in administration.

Laval University played the Saskatchewan Huskies in the prestigious Vanier Cup. Eastern and western Canada both have excellent university football programs.

The Vanier Cup is the Canadian university football championship and this is the fourth title for the Rouge et Or since 1999. Such success would not be possible without the exceptional support of Mr. Jacques Tanguay.

This victory is a great source of pride for all residents of Louis-Hébert and the greater Quebec City area.

We sympathize with our friends from Saskatchewan.

* * *

(1405)

[English]

University of Prince Edward Island

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last week the University of Prince Edward Island's president delivered an address on the state of his institution. It is my pleasure to highlight some of the achievements that UPEI has seen over the past few years.

In terms of attracting high quality talent from all around the world, UPEI is beating the odds. Today more than 4,000 students from 50 countries and every region in this country attend the university. This represents a 35% increase in enrolment since 1999. These world-class students are attracted by the recent growth of facilities and cutting edge research. A flourish of construction has covered the campus over the last several years, including a new National Research Council facility, a $32 million expansion of the prestigious Atlantic Veterinary College and a new school of business.

In 2000, UPEI sat in 18th place on the Macleans ranking of primarily undergraduate universities. Today, as a result of these and many more achievements, UPEI now sits among the top five undergraduate universities in this country.

I ask all members to please join me in congratulating President Wade MacLaughlan and all students, faculty and staff of this great little university.

* * *

Terry Fox Hall of Fame

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news to share with the House today.

The Terry Fox Hall of Fame is sponsored by the Canadian Foundation for Physically Disabled Persons to recognize the outstanding achievements of Canadians with disabilities. It therefore gives me great pleasure to congratulate the newest member of the Terry Fox Hall of Fame.

This individual made history when he became the first quadriplegic member of Parliament. As a member of Parliament, his efforts for hepatitis C victims helped win them long overdue financial compensation. This man's advocacy also led to a commitment to fully fund the Canadian strategy for cancer control. This individual is widely respected for his determination, passion and integrity. He has refused to let his disability define him.

For those reasons and more, I congratulate a very special person on the honour of being welcomed into the Terry Fox Hall of Fame. I ask all members to please join me in a salute to a great Canadian and our colleague, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

* * *

[Translation]

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec announced last week that it would provide temporary assistance for producers in Saint-Amable affected by the golden nematode. Meanwhile, even though he has been advised by a group of experts that the solution for Saint-Amable is to destroy all the potato stocks, the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food keeps saying that producers who are destroying crops are doing so on a voluntary basis, without adequate financial compensation. The existing federal program cannot provide the necessary assistance, contrary to what the minister is claiming.

The producers in Saint-Amable are in an extremely precarious situation that is getting worse every day. If things do not change, they are doomed to bankruptcy because of the quarantine of their lands. The distress messages sent to my office leave no doubt as to the depth of producers' despair.

For four months, this government has done nothing, preferring to take a wait and see attitude.The Bloc Québécois demands that the government do its job and introduce a specific measure to address this critical situation.

* * *

[English]

HIV-AIDS

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today, as we kick off AIDS Awareness Week, we stand in solidarity with those facing HIV-AIDS and remember its many victims.

It is a week where we can shed light on the true nature of this disease and dispel the many stigmas and false perceptions that stop us from taking meaningful action. Many of us, including my constituents, can speak personally of the destructive nature of HIV-AIDS. That is why the residents of Kelowna--Lake Country are committed to the cause, raising thousands of dollars for local HIV-AIDS services and supporting our local Rotary Clubs in their international efforts in Africa.

We cannot be complacent. In Canada, rising infection rates among youth and females show that we are not doing enough. Only 50% of grade nine students know that HIV-AIDS has no cure. We need to do better. We must educate our children and our peers to stop the growth of this epidemic.

This week let the red ribbon symbolize our perseverance. We can and we must continue to fight against HIV-AIDS in Canada and around the world.

* * *

(1410)

Status of Women

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the national Liberal women's caucus has long served as an active and passionate voice for Canadian women. This morning we were proud to launch volume one of The Pink Book: A Framework for Canada's Future.

The policy recommendations contained in the pink book are a comprehensive strategy to repair the damage done by the Conservatives, including the reinstatement of the child care and early learning program, reversing budget cuts to social programs and the launch of a proposed national caretaker program.

A shocking 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns and yet the Conservatives recently announced the removal of seven million long guns from the national firearms registry.

As November 25 marked the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I ask all Canadians to pause and reflect on the Conservatives' deliberate attack on the rights of Canadian women and question why the Conservative Party wants to turn back the clock on 40 years of social progress.

* * *

Organ and Tissue Donations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, George Marcello received a liver transplant in 1995. Soon after he received this precious gift, he devoted his life to helping improve the rate of organ and tissue donations in Canada by walking to raise awareness of the urgent need for donors.

After nine years, 15,000 kilometres, 500 communities, 4,000 events, many media stories and even a second liver transplant, George has been relentless in helping raise Canada's poor rate of organ and tissue donations.

His ultimate goal is to see Canada save everyone; over 4,000 Canadians who need these live-saving gifts. Recently he completed a 500 kilometre walk from Toronto to Ottawa and now he is prepared to once again walk across Canada for organ and tissue donation awareness.

On March 26, from St. John's, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia, George Marcello will undertake his campaign called “S.O.S. 4 000--One more time, with a little help from my friends”.

Let us all wish George luck and success in his quest to bring this perennially important issue to the attention of all Canadians.

* * *

HIV-AIDS

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians will don red ribbons to remind us all of the continuing fight against HIV-AIDS in our communities and around the world. December 1 is Global HIV-AIDS Awareness Day.

As we look at fighting the HIV-AIDS pandemic, we must not ignore the need to protect the human rights of people living with HIV. To respond effectively to the HIV epidemic, we must respect and protect the rights of those who are most affected and most at risk.

The Canadian government must find a way to more effectively ensure drug treatments are flowing from Canada to the developing world. This includes fixing the fundamentally flawed legislation allowing the export of generic drugs and meeting our dollar commitments to the global fund in the fight against HIV-AIDS.

Fellow Canadian Stephen Lewis is approaching the end of his term as United Nations special envoy on HIV-AIDS. I would ask all members of this House to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his incredible efforts to increase awareness of the HIV-AIDS issues here at home and abroad.

* * *

[Translation]

Youth Internship Program

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the YMCA is an integral part of community life in Canada, serving people of all ages.

For nine years, in partnership with the Government of Canada, the YMCA has administered the federal public sector youth internship program.

[English]

Since 1997, over 9,000 young people have benefited from this program, including almost 300 in Nova Scotia, people like Chantel, a single mom who acquired new skills that helped her build a better life.

It was a shock to learn that future funding for the federal public sector youth internship program is now uncertain.

I strongly urge the minority Conservative government to commit to long term funding for this program today so the YMCA can help thousands more young people become prouder, more productive Canadians.

* * *

[Translation]

Longueuil Municipal Retirees

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Longueuil municipal retirees association is celebrating its 20th anniversary this week.

The association's more than 260 members work to ensure retirees' well-being by offering help and organizing various activities to improve their quality of life.

Those of us living in large cities too often forget that there are many people devoted to improving their communities and promoting their municipalities. Without their invaluable contribution, our society would be significantly poorer.

Today I would like to pay tribute to all of the people who have watched Longueuil grow, who have contributed to its success and who have served its population for many years.

I would like to thank them for their commitment over the years and say how proud I am to represent them in the House of Commons.

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Henry Murphy

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Moncton lost an exceptional citizen when Henry Murphy, 85, died. A member of Parliament under Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and a long-serving provincial court judge, he will be greatly missed.

Proud of his Irish heritage and rural roots in Melrose, New Brunswick, as a young man he joined the merchant marines, was a miner in northern Ontario and served in the army during World War II before settling on law.

He met his “Irish rose”, Joan Barry of Saint John, and had four children, including Michael Barry Murphy, the current provincial health minister in New Brunswick.

As a judge for over 35 years, he was harsh when needed, and compassionate when it was best for the community. Respected by prosecutors, judges and defence lawyers, he was the ilk of judge the current government should learn to respect.

“He was a fair man”, said crown prosecutor Anthony Allman. “He always looked out for the average person and he was a champion of the little man”, said defence lawyer Wendell Maxwell.

May the rain fall soft upon Henry's fields and may the wind be always at his back.

May he rest in peace.

* * *

Liberal Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, recently Liberal Tom Axworthy, the man charged with leading Liberal Party renewal, revealed that the Liberals have been hiding a dirty little secret--get this everyone--that Liberals could not keep their promises to Canadians. That is like a flasher admitting to his victims that he is not wearing any briefs. No shock here.

Canadians figured out the Liberals back on January 23. It only took Mr. Axworthy 10 months and an impending Liberal convention to finally admit that Liberals are promise breakers. What does he propose the Liberal Party do? Make more promises of course.

Before they get caught up in their self-congratulatory lovefest and collective amnesia at their convention, let us remember what the Liberals will try desperately to forget this week. The Liberals promised to fix health care for a generation, and then did not. The Liberals promised to scrap the GST, and then did not. The Liberals promised to tear up NAFTA, and then did not. The Liberals promised a new era of ethics, Gomery. Then Canadians told them they did not.

It is no secret why Canadians kicked the Liberals to the opposition curb.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is getting a reputation for being economical with the truth. The Prime Minister claims internationally that he supports Kyoto while he winks at home to his friends as he kills programs to stop climate change.

This weekend the head of the UN environment program stated that Canada's step back from Kyoto was deeply regrettable and even dangerous. Having already killed 15 climate change programs this spring, why is the government now putting the boot to five key climate change programs for agriculture and then cynically demanding that public servants take the fall for the ending of the programs?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition represents a government that had a record of putting Canada 35% above Kyoto targets and rising. The report of the environment commissioner suggested that it would even worsen over the next few years.

Our government has moved quickly to try to reverse that trend and to make sure that the money we spend on environmental programs, and we are spending a great deal, is spent effectively in the future.

* * *

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is actually acting to plunge us deeper into the hole, not take us out of it. That is crazy.

While the Prime Minister has Canadians wondering about their environmental future, the finance minister is engaged in an exercise of bafflegab about the economy never before seen in our country.

The minister has made up something he now calls the national net debt, but there is no financial voice in the country that takes this malarkey seriously. The problem is that his deliberate confusion is not helpful for our citizens and it is not helpful for our capital markets.

Why will the government not be honest on the most basic facts about the economy? When will we get the truth from the finance minister, flim-flam Flaherty?

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The Leader of the Opposition surely does not need lessons from the Speaker on using members' names in the House. He knows that he has got to refer to them by title. The rest of the stuff we have to do without. The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I can tell him as an economist that the definition of net debt is gross debt minus financial assets. That is what net debt is.

There is an OECD standard for that. The Minister of Finance has indicated that according to that OECD standard this government's target will be to have total government net debt disappear by the year 2021.

* * *

(1420)

Government Policies

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate I was not naming a member; I was referring to a state of mind over there.

[Translation]

Canadians cannot trust this government when it comes to the environment and climate change. Now it has no credibility on the debt issue and every time it talks about taxes and priorities, it is trying to manipulate Canadians.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he could not care less about the environment or about the very foundations of our economy? Or is this just one more thing we have to accept in this government's cruel new world?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, this government has reduced taxes for all taxpayers in this country. This government has invested in major social programs and is paying off the country's debt. The only reason the Leader of the Opposition is asking these ridiculous questions is that he has nothing better to criticize.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, criticism of the Conservative government is mounting. Today, the executive director of the United Nations environment program stated that the international community was disappointed by Canada in Nairobi, that the international community regrets that Canada has reneged on its commitments. Because of the Conservatives, our country is unfortunately lumped with the United States and Australia in terms of environmental policy.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to the voices speaking out against his environmental approach so lacking in credibility?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, actually the environment minister had very good meetings with her international counterparts and they were establishing a workshop that will be held within weeks. The EU, U.K. and United States will all be participating in discussions on carbon trading.

This government takes climate change seriously. The party that has zero credibility on environmental issues is the Liberal Party. For 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing and were a total embarrassment in Kenya.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the UNEP executive director also stated that Canada's lack of a clear program with regard to the Kyoto protocol hampers the most disadvantaged countries by cutting $5 million allocated to fight global warming. It also eliminates business opportunities for Canadian companies that could have benefited from this mechanism. Too bad for the made in Canada plan.

Why is the minister, with her smoke-and-mirrors plan, not doing anything to help developing countries, Canadian entrepreneurs and the health of our planet?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is hopelessly wrong.

The environment minister stayed in Kenya for an extra couple of days and a MOU on conservation was signed with the Kenya government.

This government has a great reputation on the international stage. It is the Liberal Party that shamed Canada on the environmental issues because for 13 years it did absolutely nothing. We now have a report that it wants to increase the emissions by 47%.

This government is taking action on environmental issues.

* * *

[Translation]

Government Programs

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister tabled a motion in the House of Commons recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. He also stated that he wished to limit federal government spending power in areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces.

Accordingly, will the Prime Minister give Quebec its fair share of the $260 million that he announced for his Canadian strategy for cancer control, a program in the field of health care, which is a Quebec jurisdiction?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as the Canadian strategy for cancer control is concerned, this government obviously intends to collaborate fully with the provinces.

That is the first question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois following his about-turn on the resolution. This is important, because after 40 years of the sovereignist movement, 16 years of the Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons and two referendums, the people of Quebec have forced him to recognize that the Canadian identity is part of the Quebec identity.

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, that will be part of the debate. The Prime Minister will go down in history as the Prime Minister of the first country to have recognized that Quebeckers form a nation. There will be others in the future.

That being said, the Prime Minister has recognized the Quebec nation and he has promised to respect Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction, but he is incapable of taking concrete, consistent action.

Is the Prime Minister going to take action so that the federal government withdraws from Quebec’s areas of jurisdictions and compensates Quebec financially, as Quebec has asked, for example, for the cancer control program, and to do so unconditionally?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, we will have got this motion adopted in the House of Commons. I hope that this evening the House will adopt this government motion, because Quebeckers want recognition, respect and reconciliation. This is all that this government delivered and this is what Quebeckers want; they do not want another referendum.

* * *

Securities Industry

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recognizes the nation of Quebec and, in the same breath, says that he does not want to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. But the federal government's intentions with respect to securities are clear: it wants to take over that sector.

Given that Quebec's Liberal finance minister does not want to transfer his responsibilities for the securities sector to the federal government, will the Prime Minister promise to respect Quebec's wishes?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as part of our discussions with respect to fiscal balance and the state of the economic union in Canada, the finance ministers have discussed issues relating to mobility between the provinces in Canada of goods, services and people. We have also discussed the reality that we have 13 securities regulators in the country which impedes the movement of capital. There is a plan among the provinces relating to the passport system that has some merit and with respect to which there has been some activity. I look forward to having further discussions concerning the efficacy of a common securities regulator with the finance ministers in December.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to cloud the issue.

How can it boast about wanting to respect Quebec's jurisdictions at all costs and, at the same time, authorize the Minister of Finance to set up a common securities regulator, when securities regulation has always been Quebec's responsibility?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to understand clearly that what has been discussed and what has been put forward in some of the reports, including the report by Purdy Crawford which had representations from across the country, is not a federal securities regulator. It is a common securities regulator for our country, with representatives, equal representation from the provincial governments and from the Government of Canada.

* * *

Homelessness

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the homelessness crisis is growing right across the country. In the Prime Minister's own hometown of Calgary the officials are telling us that the number of people sleeping in the streets is up by 238%. There have been three homeless deaths in that community. The crisis is spreading everywhere, even as far as places like Fort McMurray.

Every Canadian has the right to affordable shelter, but the Prime Minister, like the previous one, does not seem to care.

Why does he come up with billions of dollars for tax cuts for profitable corporations, but nothing for the homeless who need a roof over their heads?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the homelessness situation in our country is a terrible one. That is why one of our earliest moves was to extend the national homelessness initiative. To that, we added $37 million that had gone unspent by the previous government.

This is a very unfortunate situation as cities grow. We want to work with those communities and the provinces to try to not only alleviate homelessness, but to eliminate it entirely by helping those people achieve what they need to achieve to keep them safe and sound and off the street.

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years of what we saw from the Liberals, the people helping the homeless are stretching absolutely every penny to try to prevent the tidal waves of deaths that happen when we have these cold snaps.

Contrary to what the minister has just said, where she claims that she has somehow extended the funding for programs for the homeless, the fact is there has been no extension. Those programs are closing right now in communities all over the country, right as the coldest weather is hitting. The latest one we heard about is in London, for heaven's sake.

Why will the Prime Minister not stand in his place now and say that there will be funding for the homeless and affordable housing in our country?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his facts wrong. All of our national homelessness initiative programs have been continued through March 2007. Those organizations have received their funding, just as they have for the last several years. In fact, there is $37 million more available to them this year.

We are working hard to ensure that this money makes a difference on the streets where it is really needed.

* * *

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last week in a piece of Enron accounting, the finance minister figured that instead of shooting for a real goal, he would simply move the goalposts. He decided to offset the government's debt with all the money in the Canada pension plan. This is the second time in a few short months that the minister has tried to monkey around with the CPP.

Does he still not understand that it is the people of Canada, not the government, who are the owners of the Canada pension plan?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I believe what the member is referring to is the idea of net debt, that is assets and liabilities being even. That is where we want to go. We want to accomplish the elimination of the net debt in Canada by 2021. That will mean we have to reduce taxes each year. We will do that with the savings we get by reducing debt each year.

That is a tax back guarantee for Canadians, as has been done in Sweden, as has been done in Australia, as has been done in New Zealand, accomplishing the elimination of net debt.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute does not agree with that Enron accounting when it says that the CPP money is for pensions, not for government.

The National Post put it best when it said that the government is playing a dangerous game with the pension system.

Did the minister not learn last spring that Canadians get anxious when he messes around with their pension money? When will he stop putting his sticky fingers in the pensions of Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the member for Markham—Unionville quote the National Post.

The concept of net debt is not foreign to the party opposite. In the fiscal update last year, on page 67, there is a table comparing Canada's total government net debt to other G-7 countries. The member's own government used those figures a year ago. It is a worthy goal for our country to eliminate net debt by 2021.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in the past, private sector firms established the federal government's financial projections.

This year, in order to conceal the truth from Canadians, the department is predicting higher surpluses than the private-sector experts.

The Minister of Finance will not balance his budget using Norbourg's accounting formula.

Why is the minister so determined to put the country back into a deficit?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. We are determined to eliminate the net debt and to guarantee tax reductions each and every year for Canadians.

What was new in the update was the Department of Finance offered its own government view, which had not been done before. This was in addition to the projections by the private sector forecasters. That is a new step in transparency, openness and accountability to the people of Canada.

(1435)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be worried to see a government and a finance minister play with figures so skilfully.

The minister knows the recipe for a deficit by heart. In fact, he can whip up a deficit with his eyes closed.

The Minister of Finance should know that there is a very fine line between a surplus and a deficit.

Why did the Minister of Finance not learn his lesson when he was minister of finance of Ontario? Putting one province into the red was not enough; now, he wants to put the whole country into a deficit. Why?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his facts wrong. When I was finance minister provincially, we had a surplus and we ensured that we had a surplus, just as we do federally.

I do say to the member opposite--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. I am sure the Minister of Finance appreciates all the help with his answer, but he seems to be managing and we have to be able to hear him.

The Minister of Finance has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty:

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should look at the document we produced on Thursday and see that it is better to have more information for the people of Canada than less. We published the four private sector forecasters and we set out clearly what they said. In addition, for the first time, we gave the view of the Government of Canada. That is more information, not less.

* * *

[Translation]

Natural Resources

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources must once again prepare for additional cuts to climate change programs, while emails from the Privy Council and Department of Natural Resources are calling on public servants to withdraw all references to the Kyoto protocol and to dismantle the climate change website.

Will the government finally admit that, contrary to what the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment are saying about respecting the Kyoto protocol, those decisions speak for themselves and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government completely rejects Kyoto?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is just utter nonsense. I cannot believe Bloc members are getting down to which websites are referring to what.

If they would go to climatechange.gc.ca, they would see it states, “We appreciate your interest in the important issue of climate change”, and it redirects them to an Environment Canada website or a Natural Resources Canada website.

This is getting beyond pathetic.

After 13 years of inaction by the previous government, when greenhouse gases skyrocketed to 35%, this government is looking to make changes. It will bring in real reductions, help Canadians and make a meaningful difference.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Environment Program chairman stated that the Canadian government's sudden about-face regarding the Kyoto protocol could prevent Quebec and Canadian companies from accessing a carbon credit trading market that is expected to total $100 billion dollars within 10 years.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that his stubborn insistence on pulling back from the Kyoto protocol could seriously harm the Quebec and Canadian economies, as well as marginalize us on the world stage when it comes to the environment?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong. The government is totally committed to the Kyoto protocol.

The problem is, after 13 years of Liberal inaction, we had a target that would have taken us 47% above the Kyoto target and sent $20 billion out of Canada.

Why would the members of the Bloc support that philosophy? It makes absolutely no sense. Either they do not know what they are talking about or they really do not support environmental issues.

* * *

[Translation]

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, grain producers from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean met this morning with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in order to show him that the farm income support program is not suitable for Quebec, which the minister acknowledged. Despite the existence of a subsidy program, the money is not getting to the producers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Will the minister admit that he has to implement a specific and more flexible program that is better suited to Quebec's producers, in order to allow them to also benefit from the federal subsidies?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that grain prices seem to be on the rebound. This is good news for farmers from coast to coast.

However, federal and provincial ministers, at their last federal-provincial meeting in Calgary two weeks ago, acknowledged that there were gaps in the current BRM funding. We are working with the province of Quebec and the rest of our provincial counterparts to ensure we fill those gaps.

We are meeting with farmers in 25 open meetings this January to ensure that we get it right.

(1440)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's determination to implement a program coast to coast heavily penalizes grain producers in Quebec. Their situation has nothing to do with that of western Canada. The minister has a duty to also help the grain producers in Quebec.

Does he intend to do so by attending the next UPA conference, which will be held in Quebec City in early December, and making an announcement there?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my dear colleague that the Bloc Québécois will never create a program to help producers in Quebec. Currently, over $280 million has been put into Quebec's coffers and, by the end of the year, there will be over $400 million in total.

* * *

[English]

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, experts are using words like “flim-flam” and “skulduggery” to describe last week's economic statement.

By using total government net debt as their primary measurement, the Conservatives lump all governments together, federal, provincial, municipal, to obscure $481 billion in accumulated federal deficits, and they are counting the assets of the CPP as if they could be liquidated to pay down those deficits.

Will the minister confirm that federal debt, a generation from now, will still total $436 billion?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the net debt will be eliminated by 2021. That is exactly the same measure the member for Wascana used last year in his fiscal update. He should be careful about calling himself names.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told a barefaced falsehood. The measure used last year was federal debt.

Last year we also announced $25 billion in personal income tax reductions. In the minister's document, he claims $5.6 billion in personal tax reductions over the next five years. He takes away $25 billion and gives back $5.6 billion. That is 400% worse. Why?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member, I am sure, has forgotten, and that must be why. He should look at page 67 of his fiscal update last year to see how he used net debt at that time.

On tax reduction, we will guarantee tax reductions each and every year going forward. About his purported tax reductions, I do not know if that was budget number one, or the budget that was done in the hotel room in Toronto with the NDP, or the wish list of last November.

The member should relax. He is going to hurt himself.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we know how this government has already spoiled our relations with China. In the past few days, the Minister of Finance has put out feelers about wanting to use harsh measures against certain foreign investment.

What legislative measures does he intend to introduce in this House to control certain foreign investment, and what type of investment?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are a trading nation. We are one of the great trading nations of the world and we intend to continue that practice. There are foreign investment reviews as the member opposite knows. There is concern from time to time, were it to happen, that a state controlled enterprise would be interested in acquiring assets in Canada. That is something that we would review in the normal course.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot act on impulse and decide on foreign investment to suit his mood.

Will he ask the House for certain specific power? He does not at this time have the power to use this type of control. Will he ask this House for such power?

(1445)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite knows, the Minister of Industry has that power under the Foreign Investment Review Act to ensure the best interests of Canada and the net interests of Canada. It is important that we protect Canada and we protect Canada's assets in certain circumstances where foreign state controlled interests might be involved.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health made a major announcement on Friday in regard to the fight against cancer in Canada. Pat Kelly, the national program director of the Campaign to Control Cancer, praised this announcement saying that the creation of the Canadian partnership against cancer was a good thing because the federal government had been missing in action in the war on cancer.

Could the Minister of Health share some details on why it was important to take action?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Prime Minister indicated that there would be $260 million over the next five years to help coordinate the efforts of the cancer community to fight this terrible disease and save hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives over the next 30 years.

Here is what others have said about this particular proposal. Dr. Barbara Whylie, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society, said, “Canada is taking action against cancer and we're excited”. The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada, along with more than 55 other leading cancer organizations, applaud the federal government announcement. We are delivering and we are proud of it.

* * *

Broadcasting Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC is currently reviewing a proposal by Canadian private broadcasters to create a new viewer tax on television. This is unacceptable. This can slap an additional $7 to every cable bill in this country. Canadians will not get better service, will not get better choice, and will not get better Canadian content. They will just have an extra bill at the end of the day. In fact, they are going to get nothing, zilch.

Will the minister kill this crazy TV tax right now?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the CRTC's deliberations are independent of the government. This minister will be monitoring those proceedings and we will act accordingly.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, when it is a bad idea, it does not have to be monitored, it can be stopped. This TV tax is another Conservative cash grab from ordinary Canadians.

Speaking of letting working people down, when will the government announce a new CRTC chair? We know that it has met and interviewed candidates and I know one of those candidates, Mr. Perrin Beatty, seems like the perfect partisan match. This is the same Perrin Beatty who opposes the federal accountability act and the same Perrin Beatty who did nothing for our public broadcasters as Liberals removed millions from their coffers.

Will the minister admit that Mr. Beatty is going to be the new czar of the Conservative TV tax?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government believes in accountability and transparency. That is why we will allow the CRTC to do its job. That is why we wanted a proper appointments process, which the opposition parties did not support. We will, in an accountable manner, appoint a qualified CRTC chair as well as monitor the CRTC.

* * *