Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 115 (Official Version)

That, given the importance of the fisheries in Ontario and the introduction of Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which addresses the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, and pursuant to Standing Order 124 and subsection 19.1(5) of the Statutory Instruments Act, the resolution of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations providing that subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989, be revoked, presented to the House on February 7, 2007, in its Fourth Report (Report No. 78 — Disallowance), not be adopted and that the matter be referred back to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations for further review.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion reads that Bill C-45 in fact addresses the concerns of the standing joint committee.

I would like to advise the House that today the Fisheries and Oceans department officials have confirmed that in fact Bill C-45 does not satisfy the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, and accordingly, if the motion is not factually correct, the motion should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, should you rule that this is simply a matter of debate, I would then ask the government to immediately contact and confirm with Fisheries and Oceans officials that in fact Bill C-45 does not address the concerns raised by the scrutiny and regulations committee, that the motion be withdrawn, and that the government undertake to come forward with an appropriate bill to deal with this matter with the existing Fisheries Act.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I do not think it is a matter for the Chair to decide whether Bill C-45 addresses the concerns of the standing joint committee. That is a matter for the House to decide. The minister has moved a motion saying so. The Chair does not decide on the truth or otherwise of motions, and I do not think I am going to get into that, despite the argument presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

I do think it is a matter for debate, and as he knows, this debate is a special one held under specific provisions with respect to the report from the committee. The committee is always free to submit another report if the hon. member does not like the result that is obtained in the House as a result of the decision on the motion, and of course the motion can be accepted or rejected. It is a matter for the House to decide and I will leave it to the House to do so after a debate on the matter, which we will proceed with now.

Debate on the motion, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

(1305)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the report tabled by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

First, let me thank the committee for its diligence on behalf of Canadians in overseeing the regulations that govern this country. I have served on that committee. I know that although the work can be tedious at times, it is very important.

Earlier this month the standing joint committee tabled a report that included a resolution to disallow subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations under the Fisheries Act. The subsection in question states that:

No holder of a commercial fishing licence shall violate any of the terms or conditions of the licence.

The committee's view is that the Fisheries Act does not provide the authority to set out in a regulation the requirement to comply with licence conditions. The government is of the view that it does.

This has been a long standing issue between the government and the standing joint committee. Governments, long before ours, have always maintained that subsection 36(2) falls within the regulation making authority under section 43 of the Fisheries Act, that it is legally sound and that it is supported by court decisions.

Section 43 of the Fisheries Act is broad enough to include the requirement to comply with licence conditions. Among other things, section 43 provides the authority to make regulations: “for the proper management and control of the sea-coast and inland fisheries”.

It also provides authority to make regulations:

(b) respecting the conservation and protection of fish;

(f) respecting the issue, suspension and cancellation of licences and leases;

(g) respecting the terms and conditions under which a licence and lease may be issued;

The Ontario fishery regulations provide clear guidance as to the conditions that could be attached to a commercial fishing licence in that province. Similar regulations exist for other fisheries. These conditions include the species, size and quantity of fish that may be taken, where and when fishing can occur, and the type of gear that may be used.

Fishing licences, their attached conditions and the requirement to comply with them, are fundamental to the proper management and control of the fishery. They are crucial to protecting and conserving our fishery resources.

In fact, in a fairly recent development, one of which the committee may not have been aware, Ontario is using licence conditions to address a significant threat to its $2.3 billion recreational fishery. The province has placed certain restrictions on the movement of bait fish to control the spread of viral hemorrhagic septicemia. VHS has been implicated in killing a large number of sport fish in the province.

Clearly, compliance with these conditions as required by subsection 36(2) is critical for the sake of Ontario's sport fishing industry.

Let me add that individuals who participate in the commercial fishery know they must comply with licence conditions or face consequences. The government has always argued that in addition to the authority to suspend or cancel licences, Parliament did make it an offence to contravene the Fisheries Act or regulations under it in section 78 of the act.

The courts have agreed with the government's position. They have ruled that regulations made under the Fisheries Act that require compliance with licence conditions fall within the scope of the act's regulation-making authority, and they found that contravening this requirement is an offence under section 78 of the act.

So, from a legal perspective, in my opinion, subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations is on firm footing.

However, I would be the first to say that we are not asking for the status quo. We believe that in most cases the potential for jail time is not an appropriate penalty for such contraventions. Fortunately, the courts have imposed fines in cases involving contravention of subsection 36(2) rather than imprisonment, but I do agree that greater clarity could be provided for the requirement to comply with licence conditions.

We are doing something about that. It comes to us in Bill C-45, which the minister tabled in December. The bill resolves the standing joint committee's regulatory concern with subsection 36(2) and does much more.

Revoking subsection 36(2) is not the right course of action, given that a bill has been tabled that addresses the committee's concern. That is why the minister filed the motion before us today to oppose the committee's resolution for disallowance.

Disallowing subsection 36(2) would create a serious legal gap in Ontario's ability to enforce licence conditions on some 500 commercial fishing licences and about 1,400 commercial bait fish licences.

(1310)

Furthermore, the standing joint committee has indicated that if its resolution to disallow is supported, the committee would expect similar provisions in other fisheries regulations to be revoked. This would create an enforcement vacuum that would threaten these natural resources in virtually all of Canada's fisheries. During this vacuum, all that would be left to punish lack of compliance with license conditions would be suspension or cancellation of licenses, and the courts have made that process very difficult indeed.

Disallowing this regulation would then compel our government to draw up a quick fix bill to plug this regulatory gap and then get it passed through both Houses. This is something that has not worked on no less than three occasions in the past, Bill C-33 in 2003; Bill C-43 in 2004, which died on the order paper; as did Bill C-52 in 2005.

In fact, I did not support Bill C-52 as a solution when I sat on the other side of the House because I believed then, as I do now, that we have much more to offer Canada's fishers.

As tempting as it may be to try to pass a simpler minor amendment to deal with the committee's issue, we owe Canadians that and much more. We owe them a renewed Fisheries Act, one that would resolve this regulatory issue and provide for more collaborative, accountable and transparent fisheries management, which is exactly what Bill C-45 does. It resolves the standing joint committee's concern with subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations by clarifying that compliance with fishing license conditions is a requirement of the act.

As I mentioned, the new Fisheries Act does much more. It puts forth a new licensing framework and an administrative sanctioning regime for most breaches of license conditions instead of relying on the courts. It introduces an arm's-length fisheries tribunal to handle violations of the act or its regulations.

The standing joint committee has also expressed concern that because license conditions are administrative decisions, non-compliance with them should not carry potential jail time for violators. Bill C-45 address this concern.

In the sanctions regime, as mandated in the new act, penalties for contravening the requirement to comply with license conditions would no longer include the possibility of jail time. The bill also responds to issues the committee has raised in the past with variation orders, and I will not get into that at this time.

The new Fisheries Act also includes measures for shared stewardship of our fisheries. It allows those with a stake in the fishery to have a say and take a hand in how the resource is managed.

Bill C-45 would also put in place a clearer and more accountable framework for stable access to the fishery and allocation of fish shares.

The new act also clearly spells out the considerations that the minister must take into account when making licensing and allocation decisions, and those which he or she may choose to consider. In other words, all the cards are now on the table.

Protecting fish habitat and preventing pollution are inextricably linked to sound stewardship of our fishery resources. Bill C-45 would compel everyone who administers the act to consider principles of sustainable development, and take an ecosystems-based and precautionary approach to conserving and protecting fish and habitat.

Speaking of principles, passage of Bill C-45 would, for the first time, set out management principles for fisheries and fish habitat right in the act.

In short, Bill C-45 would remedy the standing joint committee's immediate concern with subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations and it does so much more on behalf of Canadians who depend on the fishery.

We have an opportunity here to make a lasting difference in better managing our fisheries and oceans by providing Canadians with a modern and more effective Fisheries Act, an act that would help deliver the ultimate sustainable value to the public from Canada's fish and ocean resources for generations to come.

I believe that concentrating the House's efforts on passing Bill C-45 is the right approach. I oppose disallowance of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations and will be voting to return the report to the committee so it can ensure that its concerns are addressed in Bill C-45. I encourage all members to do likewise.

I again thank the committee for its thorough scrutiny of this country's regulations. I think its work in respect to subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations highlights the importance of passing Bill C-45 through Parliament as quickly as possible. I hope members of the House will agree that the time for change in the fishery has come.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising as the Commons co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. The committee has representation from all political parties. It has eminent members on it who have more than 10 years of experience. They have been there from the beginning. Since 1989 some of the Commons and Senate members have watched this file and have provided the committee with guidance.

The member should also know that the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations also has a team of legal counsel to guide us, to do the research and to provide us with the assistance that we need to do an appropriate review as authorized by Parliament.

I want to remind the House that the role of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is to ensure that the regulations to any act of Parliament are enabled in the legislation. In other words, if the legislation does not permit it, a regulation cannot take the place. It cannot legislate. If there is a regulation that is not enabled by the act itself, that regulation is illegal and inoperative and will not stand up in the courts.

That is the problem. The intent is to do indirectly what cannot be done directly, namely to impose criminal liability for the breach of a term or condition of a licence which is not legislation.

In adopting the fourth report, the standing committee has concluded that the provision not only lacks legal authority, but also trespasses unduly on rights and liberties, represents an unusual and an unexpected use of the enabling authority and makes the rights and liberties of a person unduly dependent upon administrative discretion.

Regulations imposing sanctions or creating offences must be authorized by Parliament expressly or by necessary implication. No where in the Fisheries Act is the making of regulations creating offences expressly authorized.

There is a fundamental distinction in law between the exercise of legislative power and the exercise of administrative power. Under our system of law and government it is generally accepted that criminal sanctions attach only to the contraventions of the requirement that is established by legislation. A licence, however, is an administrative document. It is not legislation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. There is a lot of conversation in the House that does get in the way of things. If people want to have meetings, please have them outside. That is why we have lobbies.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerald Keddy:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we speaking to the bill, to the gist, to the thrust of Bill C-45, or are we speaking on debate about the ability of the bill to come to the House? My understanding is we are speaking to the bill.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member is free to debate whether he thinks the bill should be before the House. That is quite in order.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the motion tabled by the government.

In short, the exercise of an administrative discretion by individual officials is enforced as if it were law.

The government has agreed to amend the Fisheries Act, and indeed tabled Bill C-45. However, as I mentioned in my point of order at the beginning of debate, fisheries officials have confirmed that Bill C-45 does not address the problem, the illegality of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fisheries regulations, because it empowers federal officials. It does not impact provincial officials.

The problem raised by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations is that we are talking about provincial officials. The motion is factually incorrect. I believe it is out of order.

However, if the members want to argue—

(1320)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Loyola Hearn:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot let this stand on the record because the member is not being factual. The department of fisheries officials have been clear. They are out in the lobby, if he wants to talk to them. It is quite clear the new act will address this. It is clear in the act, if he would read it. It is clear for anybody who wants to pursue it.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I am sure the minister of fisheries and the member for Mississauga South can continue this debate as they each take their turn, but it is in fact a matter of debate and not a point of order.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what has been said by federal and provincial authorities, while the disallowance of subsection 36(2) may change the manner of enforcing complaints with terms and conditions of licences, it would not affect the ability to impose them.

The authority to issue licences and impose terms and conditions in the licence would remain, as would the ability to enforce them through licence suspensions or cancellations. The imposition of a fine or jail term for breach of a licence condition, as opposed to suspending or cancelling the same licence, has nothing to do with the sustainability of the fishery resource or conservation.

It is not unusual for licensing schemes to be established by federal legislation under which suspension or cancellation is the sole means of enforcing licences. While the enactment of new fisheries legislation may resolve this concern, given the substantive nature of the objection as well as the similar section of other regulations, the committee considers a resolution of this issue should not be delayed any further. It has been going on since 1989.

It is not acceptable that the requirements a citizen must obey upon pain of criminal prosecution be determined by a single official who decides what will or will not include the terms and conditions of a licence. That is the issue.

If I can put on my other hat as a member of Parliament and someone who has deep respect for this place, I believe there is time. This matter is very straightforward. The government could bring forward another piece of legislation to put the enabling clause in the existing Fisheries Act. It could come to the House and I am sure it would get unanimous consent to pass all stages at one sitting. The government has the tools to do it.

Bill C-45, even if it is amended to take into account provincial licensing officials, will not happen for a long period of time. In fact, parties are already clamouring for Bill C-45 to be referred to committee before second reading because they have so many problems with it.

After all this time and delay, it is clear the tools are available to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to address this item, which has been illegal under the laws of Canada because the regulation is not enabled in the legislation. That is the legal opinion of the lawyers from the Parliament of Canada who have been assigned to our committee.

The committee's fourth report, which calls for this disallowance, was unanimously approved. This matter must be dealt with because the regulation is illegal. That is our role.

I believe the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has done its job. It has shown good faith and given the department every opportunity to correct this error, this illegality. The government now shows that it wants more time. We will have another bill which will totally rewrite the Fisheries Act. It will take many months if not years before the bill ever gets through all the stages of the legislative process. We will be back again asking for the same disallowance.

Now is the time. I ask particularly the Bloc Québécois to consider the concerns that have been raised with regard to whether Bill C-45 addresses this matter. It is the opinion of our officials and of the officials of fisheries that Bill C-45 does not address what the committee has brought to the House. I am pleased the committee has taken this important step again.

It is the sixth time this matter has come before Parliament to be resolved. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not shown good faith over all this period of time. It is time for the House of Commons to vote on this matter to ensure that if it does not take the time to fix it now, the regulation be disallowed.

(1325)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this matter. I should perhaps summarize the ideas expressed to this point since we are going in different directions. We are presently debating the delegated legislation and discussing Bill C-45 and fisheries management in general.

In its 4th report, the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations asked that a part of the Ontario Fishery Regulations be revoked. Although I do not disagree entirely, the committee's conclusions state that the regulation adopted exceeds the authority set out in the act. That is true; however, we must look at the overall picture. A legal void is unacceptable. Consequently, we will support the government's motion to deal with this situation.

A remedy has been presented. However, I feel that the remedy threatens to give rise to more problems than the solution presently provided. At some point we will find ourselves in a legal vacuum.

Although I am not familiar with the Great Lakes fisheries, I do know that they are an immense expanse of water with commercial fishing activities and, primarily, recreational or sport fishing.

I do not feel it would be responsible to say no and just cause problems for the current government on the pretext that there is a problem. There is a legal problem. We have a duty to act responsibly.

That is what the Bloc Québécois has always done and will continue to do. The Bloc will therefore support the motion we are debating.

Given what has been said by the parliamentary secretary, the minister and my Liberal colleague, I do not believe that Bill C-45 has solutions to all the problems with fisheries management.

In my opinion, here again, we have to act responsibly and describe what is really going on. I do not believe that, in its current form, Bill C-45 is really the answer. That is why we are asking to amend the bill and hold public consultations. By meeting with people, stakeholders, fishers from across Canada and Quebec, we will have a more complete picture of the problems with fisheries management.

I would therefore invite the minister to agree to have the committee look at Bill C-45, not to completely change it, but to improve it in order to address the various crises.

The fishing season is about to begin in Quebec and other parts of Atlantic Canada. There are questions that need answers. I believe that, once amended or improved, Bill C-45 will provide some answers. At most, we are talking about next year. We are not talking about this year.

This year, the minister has responsibilities with regard to the season that will be starting for shrimp, crab, lobster and groundfish fishers. He currently has a responsibility regarding other species.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the government is taking too much time to act. I hope that, in the next few hours, the minister will be able to make announcements that will give shrimp fishers, for example, a good idea of what to expect. Shrimpers from New Brunswick and Quebec were here yesterday. I believe that they will be meeting with the minister today. The message is simple.

(1330)

Last year, I delivered the very same message about how important it is to be able to take serious, meaningful action to help relieve the burden on shrimp boat operators everywhere, and especially in Quebec. This is basically a matter of survival for fishers, for fish plant workers and for coastal communities.

This all leads up to our position. This is about being as responsible and rigorous as always. We realize that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs came to a certain conclusion. We might agree with that conclusion, but in the end, we do not believe it is the best way to solve the problem. We do not expect to find an ideal solution, but this is not the kind of solution we are looking for.

I would go so far as to say that the proposed cure could be worse than the disease. We would end up in a legal void. Fishers would automatically find themselves in situations where they might commit offences. I do not think they would make that kind of mistake, but offences may occur.

Nevertheless, we would end up in a legal void. That means that the responsible thing to do would be to support the motion before us.

Today, the government has put forward an extraordinary measure that we support. That said, we must not make a bad habit of this over the years.

It seems to me that the new Fisheries Act, which is to be passed shortly, should improve the situation. Nevertheless I would once again urge the minister—I am told he is listening—to accept the invitation of the opposition—the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party—to send it all to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans immediately, not to drag it out, but to act responsibly and broaden the scope.

I believe this situation calls for everyone's cooperation. If we all row together, we will reach our destination and produce good results. I would urge the minister to give it serious consideration.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. I will begin my comments with some understanding of our role on this committee.

I am new to this place and therefore new to this committee but the committee is extremely important. It deals with all the legislation that has been passed in this place and through the Senate and ensures there is fair measure in terms of how the legislation is being implemented, that there are no problems in terms of the law that exists and the legislation that would be brought in. In other words, we need to ensure things are congruent and fair and, hopefully, to do no harm.

When we look at legislation it is important that we look at its purpose. Legislation normally exists to solve a problem and not to create problems. This committee, which is made up of members of Parliament, as well as members from the other place, scrutinizes, as is in the name of the committee, all legislation so there are no bumps along the road.

As with any legislation that is done by human endeavour, there are problems from time to time. Our role, hopefully, is not to get into a heated debate on a bill that will be coming to this place. What we have today is a motion questioning, in many ways, the work of the joint committee, and I say that without prejudice. I say that as an observation because the motion asks that the recommendation of the committee be sent back to the committee because the government believes it will be able to deal with it in its proposed legislation to deal with the Fisheries Act. In a nutshell, that is what is occurring here. No argument there.

For the record, I would like to bring forward some comments that were made by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he came to committee recently on this very issue. He said:

I want you to know that my department and this government value your insight and views, and we thank you for them. That is why I was eager to appear here before you, because I am committed to resolving this long-standing issue.

He was talking about the longstanding issue that we are dealing with in terms of the disallowance of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations. He acknowledged the concern and he wants to work to solve this problem.

He goes on to say:

You have told me and my predecessors that it is your view that the Fisheries Act does not provide legislative authority to enforce licensing conditions. The committee believes this subsection of the Ontario Fishery Regulations trespasses unduly on rights and liberties and makes an unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by Parliament. It allows officials to determine licence conditions, which are administrative decisions that, if breached, can land someone in jail.

He was simply paraphrasing our point of view. I will skip down to later in his commentary where he says:

In my previous role as fisheries critic, I stood in the House to debate against Bill C-52 a little more than a year ago. The bill would have amended the Fisheries Act to address the issue of concern to the committee, but would not have addressed outstanding issues of significance for our fisheries and Canada's fishing communities. You may recall that, during the debate in the House, I, too, questioned the value of a federal minister and his officials to throw people in jail. I believed then, as I do now, that there are other ways to enforce the rules that provide for orderly fisheries.

I mention that commentary because it is the minister acknowledging the problem that we are trying to grapple with and have grappled with at the joint committee. He acknowledges that this is something that needs to be dealt with. The debate perhaps here is how that should be done and when it should be done.

I believe those of us on the committee, as was mentioned by my colleague, the chair of the committee, would like this to be done quickly. Our concern and the debate in committee was that to wait for the overhaul of the Fisheries Act, which, as the minister said, is something that has not been done since Confederation, is no small task. In fact, it is something that requires diligence and will require a lot of scrutiny and debate.

(1335)

As committee members, we needed to deal with due diligence. I felt strongly, as I do today, that we need to deal with this now because we can. To put it off again would not be doing due diligence. We would be throwing up our hands and abdicating our responsibility as members of Parliament to ensure we have the proper scrutiny of regulations and where there are problems we propose solutions. I am sure members in the other place would say the same thing.

When a committee proposes solutions it often needs to send correspondence to the relevant ministries and ministers stating that there was a problem with x, y or z. This has been going on, as has already been mentioned, since 1989 when I was a student at the University of Winnipeg.

We are asking the government to remedy this situation. If the government sends it back to committee it would be predictable. It would be a boomerang effect. We will debate this in committee again and say that it is still disallowed and make no changes and then we will be waiting for Godot.

What we need to do is be responsible. This is not, in my opinion, something that should be charged around the whole issue of the overhaul of the Fisheries Act. It should be taken as a separate piece to say that there is a remedy required and it has been going on since 1989.

When the minister was in opposition and certainly when I read his comments from the committee, he suggested there was a problem. Officials suggest there is a problem. The legal team that we are well served by on the committee knows there is a problem and is essentially saying that we need to remedy it now.

With all due respect to the government, I say without prejudice as a member of the committee on scrutiny and regulations that we cannot support the motion. What we need to do is provide a remedy that will not take long and will get through the House quickly to ensure we are doing our job as parliamentarians and that we are acting on the recommendations of a joint committee, recommendations that were unanimously agreed to by all parties, that the government and this place remedy the situation that has existed since 1989.

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 126(1)(c), any division or divisions demanded in relation to this motion shall be deferred to the end of government orders.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The House has heard the request of the hon. member. Is there consent that the vote be so deferred?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the occasion to rise in the House today to respond to the disallowance resolution tabled by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I thank the committee for its consideration and its considerable effort in reviewing hundreds of regulations each year and for specifically looking at subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations.

Canada's new government values the insight provided by the committee. However, I must join the minister and the Minister of Natural Resources for the Government of Ontario, the Hon. David Ramsay, in not supporting the committee's resolution to revoke subsection 36(2). Our new government has continuously maintained that the regulation as it stands is legally sound, within the authority of the Fisheries Act, and supported by case law.

This position, I add, is fundamentally the same position that was presented by the previous government. It is with a certain degree of consistency that our new government is supporting a position which is more procedural than it is political, but we do agree that bringing further clarity to compliance with licence terms and conditions as a requirement of the Fisheries Act would be important and useful in managing our fisheries.

We are doing that and more through Bill C-45, which the minister tabled recently, but until such time as Bill C-45 is passed into law and the new fisheries act comes into force, we must keep the regulation in place.

Far be it from me to suggest that politics is playing a role in the actions of the opposition members of the committee in pushing for disallowance. However, I believe it is important to step back and view this matter in context.

I understand the concerns expressed by the committee. However, members of the opposition, when they sat on this side of the House, took the same position as our new government. The apparent flip-flop is what makes average Canadians cynical about the political process.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to be accountable for our actions. This includes ensuring that Ontario can continue to conserve and protect its fish stocks and manage its fisheries in an effective manner.

Subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations is crucial to doing so. It makes compliance with licence conditions, which are a part of the rules that protect the fishery, a requirement.

As the minister mentioned, we are talking about 500 commercial licences and some 1,400 commercial bait fishery licences in the province. The landed valued of Ontario's commercial fishery is somewhere around $50 million a year, contributing between $250 million and $400 million to Ontario's and Canada's economies.

Fishing is important in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. As a gateway to beautiful Algonquin Park, its residents are concerned about what effect disallowance will have on conservation efforts in Algonquin Park and all parks. They fail to see where unrestricted fishing in our parks will benefit anyone, which could be a result of a vote of disallowance.

I am pleased to confirm that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is in total support of our new government and the Government of Ontario in the need to maintain conservation measures to protect the resource.

Our fisheries are valuable and valued resources. Fishing licences, with the terms and conditions they carry, are fundamental to protecting and managing them. They set the rules for and limits on fishing activities to preserve these resources for the future so everyone can have a chance to enjoy and benefit from them.

The provisions of the Fisheries Act and its regulations give the minister the authority not only to issue fishing licences but also to place conditions on them. Fishing licences establish everything from the type and quantity of fish that can be taken to the start and close of particular fisheries, where fishing can take place, and the type of fishing gear that may be used.

Requiring licence holders to comply with the terms and conditions of their licence is one of the most fundamental parts of an enforceable fisheries management regime. Revoking subsection 36(2) would leave Ontario in a state of limbo in enforcing these licence conditions. This could result in potentially dire economic and environmental consequences for Ontario's fishing industry and thousands of Canadians who rely upon it.

Let me share part of a recent letter that was copied to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is from the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources to the standing joint committee joint chairs. It reads:

This subsection currently provides Ontario with a suite of adaptable enforcement tools, resulting in an effective deterrent system to ensure the conservation of the resource and proper conduct of the fishery. It also assures us that the deterrent system will be certain, effective, timely and proportional to the severity of the offence.

In the absence of subsection 36(2), we lose the ability to address licence violations, thus imposing unnecessary hardship to fishers for minor offences. In addition, we would also lose the ability to enforce terms and conditions on fishing licences, which would compromise the management of the commercial fishery and jeopardize conservation objectives.

(1345)

Clearly, the Ontario minister agrees that licence conditions are a key element of proper fisheries management and control in his province. In other words, they are indispensable to protecting and conserving fishery resources.

By applying for and accepting a licence, fishers agree to go about their business in accordance with attached terms and conditions. They know they will be held accountable if they do not. Fortunately, most fishers follow the rules, but let us make no mistake about it, violations do arise. Revocation of subsection 36(2) would be more than an exercise in legislative authority. It would carry very real impacts in terms of enforcement in the Ontario fishery.

Since the year 2000, more than 400 charges have been laid for failure to comply with this subsection, resulting in fines for the offenders, but I should point out, further to the standing joint committee's concerns, that no jail terms have been imposed.

Let me read for members part of another letter, again from the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, this time to the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans:

Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to the enforcement of the commercial fishery. It is entirely likely that the revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in the sector and threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources.

Now consider the same prospect were fisheries governed by eight similar regulations. The standing joint committee has indicated that it would expect these regulations to also be revoked, based on the precedent this House could be setting here today. This would impact the management and conservation of virtually all fisheries in Canada.

Our party and our government accept very seriously our responsibility to the environment. The conservation pledge of the OFAH sums up our position completely:

I give my pledge, as a Canadian, to save and faithfully defend from waste, the natural resources of my Country--its soils and minerals, its air, water, forests, and wildlife.

This pledge of the OFAH is something that members should consider if they feel as strongly as I do when it comes to protecting our environment. Let us make no mistake about it: supporting disallowance of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fisheries regulations will have an adverse effect on the environment.

As we proceed on this matter, I would like the members of this House to bear two things in mind.

First, by voting against disallowance of subsection 36(2) and returning the report to the standing joint committee, we would not be ignoring this regulatory concern. We would simply be taking a different approach and a more fruitful path for Canada's fisheries and the Canadians who benefit from them.

Second, the changes proposed to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-45 fully address the committee's concern with the regulation in question.

Bill C-45 clarifies that it is a requirement of the act to comply with fishing licence terms and conditions, but unlike a minor amendment bill, which the government would be forced to pursue to fill in the gap created by disallowance, Bill C-45 addresses the committee's issue and provides much more.

It will deliver greater predictability, stability and transparency in the sustainable management of Canada's fisheries. The new fisheries act will require ministers to manage the fishery, taking into account the principles of conservation, habitat protection and greater public input into decision making.

It will open the door to greater collaboration with the provinces, territories and resource users, who will work more closely with government in managing the fishery. It puts into place an effective administrative sanctioning system and brings greater stability and predictability to fishery access and sharing arrangements. It better protects fish habitat and provides a clear and more accountable licensing system.

The new licensing system will be more transparent. The minister will provide a context for all licensing decisions. That means licences will be issued according to the regulations made by the minister, but the minister will have no direct involvement in granting the licences to individuals.

Licensing officers will be the ones issuing licences according to these regulations and, under the new act, licensing officers will have the authority to refuse licences under specified circumstances. They can also attach conditions to the licence for the proper management or control of the fishery as well as the conservation or protection of fish and habitat.

However, under Bill C-45, the possibility of jail time as a penalty for contravening the requirement to comply with licence conditions has been removed.

(1350)

Stakeholder groups in the provinces and territories have shown strong support for comprehensive changes to the 139 year old Fisheries Act. I do not believe it to be in anyone's interest to delay the speedy debate and approval of Bill C-45. We must move forward on this agenda as expeditiously as possible.

I do not support the standing joint committee's resolution to revoke subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations. The better option is to concentrate our efforts on passing Bill C-45. That is why I am asking all members of the House to reject--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to engage in the last few minutes of debate on this issue. Really, this is a legal matter for the House. It should not be addressed as a partisan or a political matter. Matters involving the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations have, by convention, always been treated that way by the House. The House is appreciative of that. By convention, it is not a matter of confidence in the government. I presume we can handle it today in that fashion.

The standing joint committee decided to commence a disallowance, a revocation of this particular regulation, because it was the judgment of the committee, on more than one occasion, that this regulation unduly infringed on the rights and liberties of Canadians by allowing public officials to create quasi-criminal offences to which penalties were attached.

Our law and our Constitution say that only Parliament can create laws that penalize the citizen. As a result, the committee has been firm on this over a number of years. This is the second time it has come to the House.

There have been seven or eight disallowances accomplished by the committee and the House over the years. Only three of them have come to the House. This is the third time we have debated, I understand, since about 1982. On only two and a half occasions, if I can put it that way, has the government rejected the view of the committee.

I have served on that committee for some 17 years now and I should say that in the whole time of the committee it has never been wrong in law when it reached a decision. I say that very clearly and very firmly. The government should take note of that. There was only one time when a justice of the Federal Court, in an obiter, which was not part of the decision, almost crossed swords with the committee. In the end, it was only in an obiter remark and did not. That was Mr. Justice Marceau in the Camano exemption decision of 1992.

However, I point out that the committee and its heritage allow it to be very firm in its view of the law. In its recent report on the subject of the part II Broadcasting Act fees, the committee meant what it said. The committee reads very well: just recently the Supreme Court upheld the provision held by the parliamentarians that those fees were taxes. They were disallowed. Now the government is saying it does not have to return the illegally collected taxes.

I believe the committee will make its views known to the House and thereby to the government on that. I am giving advance notice that the government should give back the illegally taken taxes. Otherwise, the courts will catch up to us, and that will cost us $1 million or $2 million in legal costs and a whole lot of time.

In any event, in dealing with this procedure and these rules, the House does control this. It is not the committee that prevails. The proposal, the resolution of the committee to disallow, to trigger a revocation, does not govern unless the ministers do not challenge it or unless the House confirms it. In this case, the committee and the procedure are asking the House to confirm the view of the committee that these regulations should be revoked.

In my view, these regulations are illegal and unenforceable. In theory, a citizen will not actually have to pay any fine. In theory, officials will not be able to do any enforcement if their lawyers are aware of it. Sometimes people will pay a parking ticket just because they got the parking ticket, but in this case the regulations are at risk.

Hon. members should please heed that warning. It is a little bit like a town having an artificial sheriff, a fake sheriff, someone pretending to be the sheriff, a person who has no legal authority but who purports to act as the sheriff. Sometimes that brings about good results, but when push comes to shove, that sheriff, in our scenario, has no legal authority and the town is at risk.

(1355)

I will acknowledge, and it has already been pointed out, that the disallowance of these regulations will create a theoretical vacuum of enforcement, and that may be true. Just as a court of law will sometimes postpone the implementation of its decision pending a rectification of the law in some way to prevent a worse public ill occurring, so in this case it may be the judgment of the House that the disallowance should be postponed pending a rectification or remediation in statute by the government.

The government has told the House it is able to do this with the bill currently before the House for passage. If that is the rationale that sounds reasonable to most citizens, but with a major warning that this is the judgment of the committee and I point out that the committee has never been wrong in law, these provisions are illegal. They unduly infringe on the rights and liberties of citizens. This must be rectified at the earliest possible date, likely through a statutory enactment proposed by the government. I hope members on all sides of the House would support such legislation to repair this regulatory problem.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

It being 2 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

[English]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: I see five people rising. Therefore, pursuant to an order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until after government orders.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Women's Curling

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canada's women's curling championship, the Scotties Tournament of Hearts, is taking place this week at the Enmax Centre in Lethbridge Alberta.

Lethbridge hosted the Tournament of Hearts 20 years ago. It did a terrific job then, and from all accounts, it is doing it again this year.

Over 500 volunteers have come forward to help host the event. The host committee has rolled out the red carpet for curlers and fans alike. Enthusiastic crowds are cheering on provincial and territorial champions as they compete to become Team Canada, compete for the honour to proudly wear the maple leaf on the world stage.

Along with the great curling there are a lot of other events taking place during the week. On Sunday the Sandra Schmirler telethon hit a one day record by raising over $140,000 to help sick kids. This coming Friday has been designated a red Friday to show support for our troops. Every day and every night the HeartStop Lounge is rocking with great local talent.

I invite everyone to drop in, or tune in, to the great city of Lethbridge, Alberta for all the excitement at the Scotties Tournament of Hearts.

* * *

Steven Truscott

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, people across this country have expressed strong support for Steven Truscott in his efforts to clear his name. Those in his community of Guelph are no exception.

People like Alice Hebden, a resident of Guelph for 80 years, knew Steven when he was at the Ontario Training School for Boys. She described Steven as kind, good natured, and someone who would do anything for anyone. During their time together at the school, Alice grew to love Steven like a son.

Throughout her decades as cook for the school, Alice saw so many troubled youths, but Steven stood out as someone special. When she passed away two years ago at the age of 99, Alice still believed in Steven and in his innocence. To her dying day she stood with Steven in his fight.

Stories like these are not rare for people who know Steven.

I would like to thank those in my riding for their continued efforts and the support that they have shown throughout this struggle for justice.

* * *

[Translation]

Jean Lemire

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, for a number of months now, the name of Jean Lemire has been on everyone's lips. I want to pay tribute to this man from Drummondville who recently won two major awards.

He was named personality of the year in the human sciences, science and technology category at La Presse—Radio-Canada's Gala Excellence. Reader's Digest named him Hero of the Year for 2006 in the environment category.

The Jean Lemire team went on an important 430 day mission to the Antarctic peninsula on the sailboat the Sedna IV. This voyage allowed them to study the phenomenon of climate change.

The awareness raising and information gathering done by Jean Lemire and his team, as well as by thousands of experts, brings home to us how important this issue is.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I would like to congratulate and thank Jean Lemire and his team from the Sedna IV for their contribution to science.

* * *

[English]

Child Sexual Exploitation

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, an epidemic is unfolding in this country in which thousands of our children, mainly girls, are forced into the sex trade just to survive.

The news out of Winnipeg today should be an eye opener for all of us. It is called survivor sex. It is replicated across the country. It is a tragedy spawned in poverty and desperation that is thriving on the inaction of the current government and past federal governments.

The Conservatives loudly proclaim they want to end child sexual exploitation yet yesterday they voted, as did unbelievably the Bloc, against an NDP anti-poverty strategy that would help these girls and their families out of poverty and desperation. Canadians are outraged. What are those members thinking?

Instead of cutting back on women's programs, shelters and services to help children and youth out of this hell, the Conservatives need to make a major injection of funds directly to victim outreach, shelter and prevention services. Instead of burying their heads in ideology they have to provide support to low income Canadians that will keep this epidemic from spreading.

The death of a 14 year old in Winnipeg has shone a spotlight on this deplorable situation. We dare not turn away.

* * *

(1405)

Canadian Forces

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while today may not be red Friday, it is still a day to honour and remember our Canadian troops who risk their lives to defend and protect Canada.

My riding of Westlock—St. Paul is privileged to house Canada's top tactical fighter base, 4 Wing Cold Lake. it is known as the home of the fighter pilot and hosts Exercise Maple Flag, a six week international air combat exercise that takes place in May and attracts more than 5,000 participants globally.

As a vital component of the Canadian Forces, make no mistake that 4 Wing's success could not be achieved if it were not for the unsurpassed dedication of the brave men and women who lay their lives on the line defending Canadian airspace, flying search and rescue missions and providing aid during disasters such as floods and ice storms.

I thank those brave men and women for defending Canadian values at home and abroad. I thank them for creating a better and safer future for our children. I thank them for helping to restore peace around the globe. I thank them for risking their lives to save ours.

May we celebrate red Fridays today, tomorrow and every day.

* * *

International Mother Language Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to acknowledge and celebrate International Mother Language Day. This day was formally established by a unanimous vote at the 30th general conference of UNESCO in 1999 and celebrations have occurred on February 21 since then.

This is a day to acknowledge the contribution languages, including sign language, make to a diverse and multicultural society in Canada. Many of the 6,500 languages in the world are dying with the passing of the last generation who spoke them. We must work to preserve and celebrate our shared heritage. That is why I will be tabling a private member's bill today that calls on the government to establish a mother tongues day in Canada.

As a diverse and multicultural country that promotes these values around the world, it is vital that Canada take the lead in supporting these worthy initiatives.

* * *

Canadian Forces

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on January 28 a fundraising event was held in my riding to kick off the support our troops campaign to send packages, cards and letters of support to Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan.

Books, Tim Hortons gift certificates and other items have been assembled into packages and are on their way to Kandahar. When I was in Afghanistan last month, I saw first-hand how much efforts such as these mean to our soldiers. Their rec centre is plastered with posters, banners and letters from Canadians. The kind of public support our troops see on the news and televised rallies through campaigns such as the support our troops initiative is appreciated more than we here in Canada realize.

I want to publicly recognize and commend Mr. Clifford Grant, the constituent who spearheaded this initiative and organizations such as the Rotary Club of White Rock, for their continued support of the Canadian Forces.

The pride we feel in our troops is no better expressed than through endeavours such as these.

* * *

[Translation]

Dairy Industry

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, in the past seven years, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has lost 194 dairy farms. The volume of dairy farms decreased by a third during this time. There are 398 farms left. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, agriculture—dairy farming in particular—is a significant sector of the economy. It constitutes 47% of total farming revenues and jobs in the agriculture sector.

In order to boost this economic sector and protect the social and economic fabric of rural communities, the federal government must take action quickly because according to the UPA: “Quebec loses two farms with every day that goes by”. This cannot continue.

The minister is trying to establish programs from coast to coast for the agriculture sector. By doing so, the minister is showing through his stubbornness that he is not very flexible, and he is putting at risk thousands of dairy farms in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and in Quebec.

* * *

[English]

Autism

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, today I need to address an issue of political gamesmanship taken too far.

My 11-year-old son, Jaden, has autism. Bill C-304 purports to help families struggling financially when a child is diagnosed with autism. However, this bill is simply a political manipulation.

The Liberal member knows full well that this is a bill he could never have supported when he was in government. If this bill were to pass, autism would be the one and only disease or disorder named in the Canada Health Act. Cancer is not named. Neither is diabetes nor cardiovascular disease.

The member knows that only the provinces can act on the provision of ABA treatment if we are to maintain the integrity of the Canada Health Act. Why in most cases are the provinces not taking urgent action? That is a question to which voters should demand an answer from their provincial governments.

What the member does not get is that this is not an appropriate wedge issue to exploit for political gain. These are real people with real challenges who are desperate for real solutions. Bill C-304 does nothing but give false hope to families who deserve more than to be treated as pawns in a political game.

* * *

(1410)

[Translation]

International Mother Language Day

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, today marks the sixth celebration of International Mother Language Day. More than 6,000 languages are spoken around the world. In addition to our two official languages, French and English, Canadians speak more than 100 languages altogether.

In my riding of Laval—Les Îles, 60% of the population speaks French as their mother language, for 10% it is English, and 30% speak another language.

To my constituents and to all citizens of this wonderful country, let us join together to celebrate our diversity and our culture. I hope, with globalization, that Canada will take full advantage of its diversity, which will enhance its ability to communicate and be more competitive in the global economy.

* * *

[English]

Child Sexual Exploitation

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, a provincial inquest this week in Manitoba was told that literally hundreds of vulnerable Winnipeg children as young as eight years old were selling their bodies to adult men for money, drugs and even food and shelter.

Detective Sergeant Coates of the Winnipeg Police Service was called to testify at the inquest of Tracia Owen, a 14 year old who started working the streets in the months before her suicide in August 2005. The teen hanged herself with a rope tied to the overhead door of a garage used by prostitutes.

Coates candidly admitted that most heinous sex offenders, adults who prey on young children, go largely unpunished because police lack the resources and ability to go after them. He also stated at the inquest that there needs to be a political will to go after these johns. Our government has that will.

I call on all opposition parties to support our government on the age of protection legislation and other justice legislation that will protect the innocent youth of our country. It is our obligation as Canadian parliamentarians to protect our children.

* * *

Northwest Territories

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canada's north has been called the last great bastion of colonial rule. While there have been some transfers of authority to the northerners, the north still lacks many of the essential powers that the provinces enjoy. In reality, the north is very much under Ottawa's thumb and that thumb belongs to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In 1996 I co-chaired the Northwest Territories constitutional development steering committee that was tasked with developing a replacement for the current constitution, the federal Northwest Territories Act. The final recommendation from us was that constitutional development and finalization of aboriginal land and self-government claims should proceed together.

This recommendation was based on the fact that the Canadian Constitution protects both the right to public government and aboriginal inherent right of self-government. Since we have made that recommendation, there has been little progress on the right to public government in the Northwest Territories.

Because of this lack of progress, this weekend aboriginal and community leaders and I will be joint hosting a public forum in Yellowknife on NWT constitutional development.

* * *

Peace Bridge Border Crossing

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority operates the second busiest passenger vehicle crossing in Canada, the Peace Bridge.

In 2004 the governments of Canada and the United States announced a land pre-clearance project at the bridge in order to ease congestion while at the same time maintaining high security standards. In good faith and with the financial assistance of the Liberal border infrastructure program, the Peace Bridge authority has continued with its plans for this pilot project by designing space to accommodate clearance facilities on the Canadian side of the plaza for both Canada customs and United States pre-clearance. The launch of this pilot project would be a breakthrough at local border crossings, very similar to the efficient and safe U.S. pre-clearance at our major airports.

All this progress, yet one stumbling block still remains. When will the federal governments of Canada and the United States agree to implement border pre-clearance which was announced in 2004? Should Canada be unable to resolve these difficult legal and operational issues with the United States by this spring, the Peace Bridge must revert to a traditional plaza design. This would be a tremendous regressive step and a huge setback to our trade with the United States.

* * *

[Translation]

International Mother Language Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, International Mother Language Day, created during UNESCO's General Conference, was celebrated for the first time on February 21, 2000.

This celebration reminds us that mother languages “—are not only an essential part of humanity's cultural heritage, but the irreducible expression of human creativity and of its great diversity”.

This day serves as a tool for the promotion of linguistic diversity as well as the preservation of cultural pluralism.

On this February 21, 2007, I would like to remind the House of the dishonour done to the French language by the Conservative government. By adopting the National Defence Official Languages Program Transformation Model, it made a mockery of the right of thousands of men and women to work in their mother language.

Quebec will remember those francophone ministers who, rather than defending their mother language, chose to bow to the will of their leader.

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Senator Jack Austin

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a delight to rise in this House and turn toward the other place, and bid a fond adieu to Senator Jack Austin, who retires next week.

Senator Austin raises the bar for all parliamentarians: informed, reasoned, seasoned, articulate, and positive about all our country represents and what it can aspire to be.

From his humble beginnings at Harvard Law School, Jack has excelled as deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, principal secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau, and then in Mr. Trudeau's cabinet as super minister for social policy involving 15 separate departments, and on to senior minister of British Columbia and government leader in the Senate in Prime Minister Martin's cabinet.

The key issues of Canadian policy have all benefited from Senator Austin's leadership: natural resources, aboriginal justice, our relationship to Asia, the Canada Health Act, and general good governance.

To all the hundreds of us who came to Ottawa bewildered by the majesty and confusion of it all, Jack is the mentor who stuck out as a class act.

* * *

[Translation]

Member for Drummond

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member for Drummond recently said that in her riding, a number of organizations had sent her letters that proved the usefulness and importance of the summer career placements program to the development of their young people and their region.

I suspect the member is suffering from a severe mental “bloc” because she cannot even remember her own party's election platform and her very own words.

In 2000, the Bloc claimed that the youth employment strategy, the forerunner of the summer career placements program, was counter-productive and nothing more than a federal exposure program.

The Bloc also said that these programs “are out of touch with the global reality of Quebec’s youth”.

That is not all. Not long ago, the member for Drummond said that the federal government's summer career placement program that she now seems to feel is so necessary was “not adapted to Quebec’s regions and directed youth towards big centres”.

Surely the members of the Bloc are confused. They should be ashamed of flip-flopping and defending a program that they have been criticizing for seven years.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Judicial Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a democratic country is in trouble when judges warn that the government is putting their independence in peril.

It is sad to say that the Canadian Judicial Council, led by the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, wrote that the government, “--puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge”.

Will the Prime Minister agree to stop his unprecedented and unacceptable manipulation of our judicial system?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, under our constitutional system the naming of judges is the responsibility of the elected executive arm of government.

The government has established an independent consultative process that includes, in fact, a broader representation of voices than ever before. We do not want the judicial appointments process to become a private club of judges and lawyers. That is why we included voices as diverse as victims and the police.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of police forces, which we all respect. This is a matter of judicial independence. Independence is not an individual right of judges.

The judicial council wrote: “Judicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians”.

Why is the Prime Minister jeopardizing this constitutional right that belongs to all Canadians?

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Liberal Party knows, under our constitutional system, it is up to the elected government to appoint judges.

We take our responsibilities very seriously. Which is why we created advisory committees that include more diverse representation than ever before, including police and victim representatives. The appointment process is not reserved for a private club of judges and lawyers.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I explained the problem further to the Prime Minister. He need only read what the council wrote: “—there are seven members who are ... entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice. Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body—”

Will the Prime Minister stop attacking the independence of Canadian judges?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party opposes the change we have made, which is to give the police a voice in this process.

I am not surprised, given what I am reading in The Vancouver Sun today, when I read this how the Liberal Party makes decisions: “The Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Brampton South--”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. We are wasting a lot of time. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, I am simply reading what The Vancouver Sun reported.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. We can go straight to the Bloc question if that is the preference. We are wasting time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Pembina Institute showed the federal government that a plan with absolute reduction targets would cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by major industrial emitters, which are mainly oil companies. These absolute reduction targets would enable Canada to reach the Kyoto protocol targets.

With time running out and the future of the planet at stake, will the Prime Minister finally introduce absolute reduction targets, which everyone is calling for?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is the first to promise to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants on a national level. That is why we introduced Canada's clean air act. We will be announcing our policy. I can assure all the members of this House that this government does not intend to take any measures that would threaten our economy.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, if he really intends to solve the problem, he should answer the question properly and clearly. Will there be absolute reduction targets?

He also mentioned the economy. He says he will not do anything to threaten the economy. I would like to remind him that it would cost the oil companies between 58¢ and $1.16 per barrel to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. They have more than enough money to do this, judging by the companies' annual surpluses.

Will he put the interests of Canadians or the interests of the oil companies first?

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it was this government that put an end to the preferential treatment of the oil industry, thanks to the changes to energy trusts.

The Bloc leader says that it is possible, Yet the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties voted for a bill that called on the government to define its program. We must propose measures, and we intend to introduce proposals in the House of Commons.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, multinational oil companies had record profits in 2006, pocketing $12.1 billion, an increase of 25% over 2005 and 70% over 2004.

In view of these astronomical profits, does the government not think that it would be quite justified to have oil companies contribute between $0.58 and $1.16 per barrel to the cost of reducing greenhouse gases?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have stated very clearly that oil companies, just like all other Canadian industries, will have to comply with industry regulations. That is very important. Industries that are not able to improve their processes will have to bear the costs to ensure that the best technologies are used and that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to take action. The effects of climate change are omnipresent. The money is available as we can see from oil company profits.

Rather than insisting on defending the “poor”oil companies, why does the government not set absolute reduction targets, thus making it possible for a carbon exchange to be established?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that this government will be the first in the history of Canada to regulate industry with regard to greenhouse gases as well as air quality. All Canadian industries will have to comply. That is very important. It will apply to Quebec industries and Alberta oil companies.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the all party committee dealing with climate change is moving at a glacial pace. In fact, glaciers are melting even faster than this committee is moving and it is time the Prime Minister told his MPs to get to work and start producing some results at that committee.

Yesterday, the Pembina Institute very conservatively estimated that it would cost about $1.50 per barrel of oil to clean up the greenhouse gas emissions from the oil patch. That is worth a cup of coffee for each barrel.

Is that too much to ask of the petroleum industry, with its enormous profits? I ask the Prime Minister, what does he think about this eminently sensible proposition from Pembina?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the basis on which that kind of argument was made. I can tell the hon. member that the proposal of the previous government was that the taxpayers of Canada would subsidize the purchase of credits by industry internationally.

We do not think that is a responsible environmental policy. We think the basis of regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollution should be the polluter pay principle, and this will be the basis of the plans we bring forward.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the holier-than-thou phraseology, but the government is subsidizing the big oil and gas companies, and is perfectly happy to do it, apparently.

A VP at Suncor said yesterday, “We don't predict job losses or impact on the economy [because] of meeting Kyoto”.

Shell has committed to a 50% reduction in its first oil sands project as long as it can be done voluntarily.

This industry has no reason to be fighting regulation and rules with the pollution that it is putting forward.

How can the Prime Minister continue to refuse to act on this situation when even the industry admits that it will not hurt the economy? When is he going to get going? Or on a day when Al Gore is here, calling on us to act as Canadians, will he continue to deny?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, we will take our own decisions as Canadians.

The leader of the New Democratic Party knows that the government has committed to bringing forward, for the first time, a compulsory program of regulation of industry for the control and reduction of greenhouse gases and air pollution.

I am not sure that those oil industry executives were quoted in context, but if they were, I look forward to their support when the government announces its plan.

* * *

(1430)

Judicial Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made an absolutely uncalled for attack on the integrity of a member of the House, and in so doing has shown no respect for this institution.

Similarly, the Minister of Justice appears to show no respect for the institution of the Canadian judiciary. The issue is whether the Conservatives are prepared to listen to what the justices and chief justices of this country are saying.

Stop this foolish policy and reverse course.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, since the opposition apparently will not let me read into the record what The Vancouver Sun reported, let me say this. It is very clear from the Air-India families, and I think from the police community and the wider Canadian community, that we expect the Air-India investigation to go forward.

It is an important police investigation and nothing in the Liberal Party should interfere with that. It was the Liberal Party that passed these anti-terrorism measures in the first place. Rather than playing partisan games in politics, it should pass it again and allow the police to do their job.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the insinuation of the Prime Minister that this side of the House would put the public interests of our country—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: His insinuations do not deserve a reply.

I repeat my question. Will the Minister of Justice listen to the chief justices of our country, or will he get up in the House and say that they are wrong?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the country knows, including many in the media who do not normally support this party, that the Liberal Party supported these anti-terrorism measures. Everyone knows that the entire frontbench of the Liberal Party supported those measures until two weeks ago when the leader of the Liberal Party started playing caucus games with the safety and security of Canadians. He should be ashamed of himself.

* * *

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's allegations are simply beneath contempt. The Prime Minister has attempted in the House to impugn the character and the reputation of an hon. member of Parliament. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Does he know if the newspaper story was correct or incorrect? Has he followed due process in making the allegations that he was proposing to make? Will he simply withdraw that character slur against a member of the House and live up to the basic decent standard of a prime minister?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

We will have some order, please. We are wasting a great deal of time today. We will have a little control in here.

The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor to answer the question asked by the member for Wascana.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in question can take up the facts of the story with The Vancouver Sun if he likes. However, everybody knows that the Liberal Party has done a complete flip-flop on an issue that is of vital concern to the safety and security of Canadians without explanation. It is inexcusable. It should reverse its position and get back to doing the right thing.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just confirmed that, to him, partisan advantage is everything. The truth does not matter; it is the allegation that counts. Never mind what the facts are in the final analysis. He just proved his devious and deceitful behaviour and he does not pay any attention to the consequences to any Canadian.

Will the Prime Minister withdraw those allegations and apologize to this House?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. I would remind hon. members that this is question period. It is not for allegations particularly. We are supposed to be asking questions and getting answers, and we are getting them on both sides, it would seem to me.

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party can choose to ignore, if it wants, what is in the newspaper. The Liberals can choose to ignore what they want from this party. What they should not be ignoring is the fact that even the Air-India families are saying that the position they are now taking will jeopardize the police investigation into the Air-India terrorism act.

The Liberal Party has no excuse for that position. It is an irresponsible position and it should change that position.

* * *

[Translation]

Biosafety

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the biosafety protocol has been ratified by 139 countries. Its purpose is to develop a legal framework for determining to what extent multinationals and local growers are responsible when seed or non-GMO species are contaminated with GMOs. Neither Canada nor the United States has ratified the protocol, and neither country is willing to pay for damage caused by GMOs.

How can Canada, which is one of the world's four largest GMO producers, justify its opposition to developing a legal framework unless it is because the government refuses to recognize the polluter-pay principle?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada signed the biosafety protocol in April 2001. To signal our support for that objective, we have actively participated in the three meetings of the parties to the protocol as well as a number of technical task forces. We continue to work with that group to address the legal and technical questions that the protocol has raised.

We have not ratified this protocol yet due to the concerns regarding this lack of clarity. As these working groups put this clarity together and answer those technical questions, we look forward to continuing to support that protocol in the days ahead.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government refused to apply the polluter-pay principle to big oil companies, and now it wants to shelter GMO-producing multinationals from exposure to legal action.

Is the government's refusal to ratify the biosafety protocol further proof that when it comes to GMOs, it intends to put the interests of multinationals ahead of those of farmers and consumers?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, Canada is one of the largest users of GMO products and those are not used by multinationals. Those are used by our farmers from coast to coast.

We want to ensure that the regulatory regime that comes forward from this biosafety protocol addresses the technical issues, the safety issues and the regulatory issues so when we sign on to this protocol, we will be able to do so with confidence, and our Prairie farmers and Quebec farmers will be able to say that they can continue to do business after we sign on.

* * *

[Translation]

National Defence

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government committed to ensuring that Afghan prisoners would not be tortured and that they would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention until their transfer to Afghan authorities. Amnesty International deplores the lack of compliance with that convention.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us why Canada refuses to follow the example of the Netherlands, which obtained the right to follow up on prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities, in order to ensure that they are treated humanely, that they are not tortured and that their rights are respected?

(1440)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the current arrangement for detainees was made by the previous government. In that agreement, the International Committee of the Red Cross is mandated to visit and monitor detainees to ensure that they are treated in accordance with the standards of the Geneva Convention. The arrangement also recognizes the role of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission with respect to human rights and detainees.

Last fall the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross said that Canada was scrupulous in notifying the Red Cross when it took prisoners and handed them over. We are satisfied with the current arrangements.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to Amnesty International, Louise Arbour, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that cases of extortion, torture, prolonged imprisonment without trial, and the systematic violation of the rule of law are frequent. The U.S. Department of State has reached the same conclusions.

Given these worrisome findings, what is the Minister of National Defence waiting for to put an end to his wilful blindness and immediately emulate the approach taken by the Netherlands with respect to the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in Afghanistan in support of the Afghan government. When lawbreakers come into our hands, we hand them over to the proper authorities. As I previously explained, they are handed over with all the protections of international laws on prisoners.

* * *

[Translation]

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have been part of this Parliament for 11 years. I have never seen anything as low as what the Prime Minister tried to do against a member of this House.

It is unbefitting a prime minister. I am asking the Prime Minister to apologize and retract his comments.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to follow through on anti-terrorism measures adopted by a Liberal government and supported by the Liberal Party until a few weeks ago, a few days ago in fact. Because of the actions of the Liberal Party, police investigations are in danger. It is the Liberal Party that should apologize and offer an explanation to Canadians for its irresponsible positions.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, at that time, some members of the Conservative Party voted against these two dispositions. They voted for the sunset as well.

That is not the point. The point is the Prime Minister tried to tarnish the reputation of a member of the House. It was so low. Many of us have never seen it in 11 years in Parliament. The Prime Minister must withdraw and he must apologize.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that some members of the Conservative Party voted against something about four or five years ago.

It seems to me that those members have a lot of explaining to do when they told the Canadian public, in the last election, that they wanted to get tough on crime and they wanted to increase mandatory minimum sentences. What have they done? They have fought our attempts to get rid of house arrest for serious crimes. They have fought our attempts to increase mandatory minimum sentences. They want to weaken terrorism laws. The only thing they have been consistent about is they have been complaining about police officers every day for the last three weeks.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, a prime minister is supposed to represent all citizens in this country, all Canadians. We expect a prime minister to behave like a head of state. Today, the Prime Minister uttered words unbefitting a prime minister.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Fortunately we were here to prevent him from saying even more, Mr. Minister of Transport.

Will the Prime Minister apologize for what he dared to do in this House?

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has not had the opportunity to say anything because of the actions of the Liberal Party. I simply want to say that because of the actions of the Liberal Party caucus, we have put police investigations in danger with respect to the Air India case, the largest act of terrorism in Canadian history. Because of an irresponsible and inexplicable policy, where the Liberal Party decided in caucus to vote against its own—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, all those who are watching this question period and those who will read the transcripts of this question period will know what the Prime Minister's intention was. It is very clear. This is unparliamentary.

Today he is trying to completely change the story. We even asked him, at first, how he could put his ideology ahead of judicial independence.

Then he made allegations about an hon. member of this House, who was democratically elected, and he is not even able to apologize—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Liberal Party has no intention of fulfilling the obligations it made to Canadians in the last election. It promised to get tough on crime and to support us on that but it has done absolutely nothing.

With respect to the Prime Minister, his job is to protect and defend Canadians and that is exactly what he is doing with this legislation.

* * *

Fisheries Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed to hear that opposition parties are threatening to play political games to undermine the new fisheries bill, even though they have agreed that we need to modernize this 139 year old act or risk jeopardizing 21st century fisheries.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure the House that he remains committed to accountability, transparency and protecting Canadian fisheries and fish habitats?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have never been more committed to dealing with this act, which would replace the one that is 139 years old. The provinces want it, the industry wants it, the fishermen want it and their unions want it.

I hope, with the help of my colleagues, we will refine the act to make it the kind of act that everybody wants. We can do it in second reading and in committee. I am willing to work with them. If they do not want to do that, they can answer to their constituents.

* * *

Airline Security

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's aviation inspectors understand air safety better than anyone and they are telling the minister that his so-called SMS, self-serve safety, is a literal disaster waiting to happen.

These inspectors know what they are talking about. We need only look at what happened to railway safety and marine safety when oversight was handed over to the industries' CEOs. Accident rates rose and safety plummetted.

Will the minister listen to those who know best and stop his attempt to turn Canadian airline passengers into cannon fodder? Will he stop playing games with the safety of Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the facts are the following. We are putting in place a security management system that basically calls upon everybody who is involved in the industry to add on an additional layer in terms of security and safety to those who take our airlines.

In that sense, we are continuing to be the safest airways, not only in Canada but throughout the world. I call upon my colleague to support these actions. They are good actions for Canadians.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the minister is promoting the reckless endangerment of Canadians.

Eighty per cent of Canada's inspectors say that the minister's self-serve safety will prevent them from correcting safety problems before they happen. Three-quarters of Canada's inspectors believe that a major accident will occur soon and that the public would lose confidence in aviation safety if they knew what reckless, feckless plans the minister has.

The minister is putting Canadian lives at risk. Why will he not listen to those who know aviation safety best?

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, surely it is not my hon. colleague who knows aviation safety the best.

We have been working extensively on this file. We are putting in new layers of protection. We are ensuring that our inspectors are doing the job.

Incidentally, we have just appointed a review panel to look at railway safety in the country. We are acting and that party is not doing anything.

* * *

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made two allegations in this House. The first one was against the character and integrity of a member and his family. The second one was the political insinuation that this side of the House would make its decisions on a matter of public policy in order to protect that member.

I would ask him to withdraw both of those allegations.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what is very disappointing is the Liberal position with respect to the Anti-terrorism Act. This was put in by a Liberal government five years ago. The police supported it, members of the Liberal party supported it and the Conservative Party and its antecedents supported it.

To make a change at this time, when police are counting on these weapons to fight terrorism in this country, I do not buy the Liberals' story that somehow the problem has gone away. We need it more today than we ever needed it and they should get behind it and support it.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a clear question was asked in this House about unsubstantiated allegations. The House deserves the respect of a clear answer to a question that relates to the integrity of a member.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The government House leader has risen to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and we will hear the answer.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are getting into the realm of points of order here. I think the member may wish to raise those at the appropriate time.

I was in the House and I did not hear any allegation made. I know there was an effort to read an article. I often hear that being done by members on the other side.

However, the real question is why the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, with all the things he has said about the dangers of terrorism in this world and all the positions he has taken, which are far more aggressive than the Anti-terrorism Act, has now joined his leader in flip-flopping on this issue and wanting to oppose the Anti-terrorism Act protections that Canadians need to rely on.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable difficulty, given the decorum in the House today, but I believe it would be obvious to you and to all members what caused it.

I would add my voice to those who would ask our Prime Minister to speak with the voice of Canada, to speak with the decency of politics, to speak with the consideration that members of this House have always shown for one another and apologize and withdraw what clearly was going to be a drive-by smear against a young, hon. member of this House who is seeking to represent his constituents and his country.

Will he do the decent thing and speak up?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I respect what the hon. member said about decorum. It would be nice to have a little in the House so we could deal with these issues.

However, it is a very odd situation. We are being asked to apologize for something that was about to happen. I think the Liberals should apologize for what they are about to do in terms of the Anti-terrorism Act.

The problem that is facing Canadians is a very serious one and it is not a question of games in the House of Commons. It is not a question of who is calling each other names or that kind of thing. It is a question of the security of Canadians. It is a very serious and profound question. The Liberals may be trying to dodge and divert, but the fundamental issue remains.

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that answer, unfortunately, seeks to move the question away.

What I am asking is that the Prime Minister restore civility in the House and restore the sense of dignity of politics in our country and to speak for all Canadians and for what Canada is about, which is decency and respect for one another as we seek to resolve essential issues of the day.

What we want is a Prime Minister for Canada, not for partisanship, every day in the House.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there can be no less partisan issue in the House than the question of the extension of the Anti-terrorism Act provisions. Hundreds of Canadians have lost their lives in terrorist acts. All Canadians are at risk should these provisions not be extended.

The question is not the issue that the Liberals are trying to divert us to today. The question is why the Liberals will not look at reversing themselves on this. Why have they flip-flopped on it? Why are they willing to give up those protections? Canadians need that explained to them.

* * *

[Translation]

Equalization

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, when he tabled his budget yesterday, Quebec's minister of finance made it abundantly clear that correcting the fiscal imbalance would involve changing the equalization formula, which must include all 10 provinces and all their revenue sources.

In his budget, will the Minister of Finance respond positively to this request, which reflects a unanimous consensus of all the parties in the National Assembly?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite is aware, I will not talk about what might or might not be in the budget.

We have had extensive consultations over the course of the past more than one year now with respect to that issue and other issues. We have reviewed all the studies. Certainly the finance ministers and the first ministers have had discussions. My colleague across the floor will have to wait until the budget, which will be March 19.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the minister to divulge what is in his budget. The minister said that the solution he would propose to correct the fiscal imbalance would be based on clear principles.

What I am asking is whether these principles will include the 10-province rule and 100% of those provinces' revenues, including both renewable and non-renewable natural resources? That is what I am asking. It is a question of fairness.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the principles upon which predictable, long term funding will be based to resolve the fiscal imbalance and create fiscal balance will be in the budget.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, HIV-AIDS affects people from all walks of life in all parts of the world. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of Industry, along with Mr. Bill Gates, announced funding for research into the development of an HIV vaccine.

Would the Minister of International Cooperation share with the House the importance of this initiative in regard to HIV-AIDS research?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yesterday, the Government of Canada, along with Bill Gates, announced that it was investing $111 million in the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative. This major investment shows that Canada is an international leader in HIV-AIDS research and prevention. Of course, we have also contributed $250 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and, last December, we announced $120 million in funding for nearly 20 projects.

* * *

[English]

The Prime Minister

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the last time the Conservatives accused us of being soft on terror, they were slurring Maher Arar.

Earlier in the House, the Prime Minister said that if I doubted a particular story in The Vancouver Sun I could check with the newspaper.

Did he not check himself before proposing to use that news story in the House of Commons? Does he subscribe to the view that any old smear will do? Why will the government simply not do the honourable thing today and withdraw that allegation?

(1500)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again the member is talking about something that he is supposing we were about to say. Had it been said, I suppose opposition members could explain the article themselves. They had an opportunity to do that on the public record. They still have the opportunity to explain it and I do not wish to deny that to them.

The real issue is that this is a diversion. The real issue is that the big question of the day is the serious question of the Anti-terrorism Act and the risk that Canadians are being put at because the Liberals are pulling their support for those important public security measures.

* * *

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, last March Clearwater of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia locked out around 100 workers. In June 2006 it decided not to reopen the fish plant. The federal government rejected the workers' claims for employment insurance, since there are no benefits during a strike or lockout and the dispute was not over. However, the EI ruling gave the workers full benefits, including retroactive payments, but the federal government decided to appeal the ruling.

Could the minister please explain to these workers why he is letting them down?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is a tragedy whenever anyone loses their job. In situations like this, there are a range of benefits that are available for people if they meet the standards, and 83% of people who lose their jobs through closures like this ultimately are able to get benefits

In some cases, there is a dispute. Those disputes are sent to an objective body, to an arm's-length body, a panel of referees, and ultimately, it is appealed again to an umpire. That process is now underway.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this situation is unacceptable. These workers have not received any money for a year or more. They will have to wait at least six months because the government has appealed. The message being given to the workers is very clear: not only are we going to abandon you, but we will do everything possible to avoid helping you. These workers and their families deserve much more.

Will the minister withdraw the appeal filed by this government, which is unfair to its workers?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this member is really way out of line here. The government has moved to help workers on many occasions, including the targeted initiative for older workers. We have extended unemployment benefits in areas of high unemployment.

In this case, I can guarantee the member that this is a fair process and that people will be treated fairly. As I pointed out earlier, workers are able to get benefits. I would urge the member to let the process take its course.

* * *

Presence in Gallery

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of The Right Honourable The Baroness Scotland of Ashtal, Minister of State, Home Office of the United Kingdom.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Royal Assent

[Royal Assent]

* * *

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 21, 2007

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 21st day of February, 2007, at 11:05 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, and Bill S-1001, An Act respecting Scouts Canada.

* * *

(1505)

Privilege

Alleged Remarks by Prime Minister during Oral Questions

[Privilege]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to the deeply disturbing events that took place during question period today. The issue that seized question period is a terribly serious issue and it cannot be treated with the frivolous disregard that we saw from the government over the course of the last hour or so.

There can be no doubt about the Prime Minister's intention. He can try to hide behind the excuse that he did not get an opportunity to read his insult into the record, but there is no doubt about what that insult was intended to be.

This is a matter that has impugned the character and the reputation of an hon. member of this House. The Prime Minister was asked on no less than 12 occasions to withdraw those remarks and to apologize to this House. That opportunity, that invitation, was ignored by the Prime Minister.

He has avoided the opportunity of doing the right thing, the honourable thing, and that kind of conduct in this House by the Prime Minister or anyone else simply cannot be condoned. To move on to the ordinary flow of business without first raising this issue is absolutely untoward.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to review the record of what happened here very carefully. As soon as people have had an opportunity to read the transcript in Hansard from question period and as soon as members have informed themselves of the Hansard record, I invite you to hear arguments in this House about how the reputation of this member of Parliament, an hon. member, has been impugned by the Prime Minister and by the government, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I heard the opposition House leader actually raising a question of privilege that did not relate to himself, and I understand that is not the way in which questions of privilege are to be raised in this House. Second, it is a very unusual question of privilege relating to something that was not said and that is particularly unusual.

I however would like to raise a question of privilege about something that was in fact said by the member for Wascana and therefore is very much in order, and that is his comments today where he accused the Prime Minister in fact of being deceitful.

As the Speaker well knows and all member of this House know, that is unparliamentary. On February 23, 1970 at page 3953 of Hansard and on May 19, 1970 at page 7087 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will find that it was ruled unparliamentary to accuse another member of being deceitful.

All of us who were here heard those words actually spoken by the member for Wascana, and therefore he should withdraw those words and apologize to the House.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Speaker, if the House leader is in fact offended by that reference, of course I withdraw it. However, it does not undermine the basic point today, that the behaviour of the government is unacceptable and that behaviour must be corrected on the record of the House of Commons.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to raise a question of privilege with respect to the comments that were made in the House today. I had the opportunity to listen to the Prime Minister attack my integrity, the integrity of my family, and I would personally ask that the Prime Minister apologize.

(1510)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, I will simply restate the point that I made. I did not hear any words spoken in this House. I did hear an article referenced. If the hon. member has a difficulty with what was actually in that article, words which were never spoken by any member of this House, then his remedy lies within the courts with that newspaper.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.

The House leader said that he heard nothing spoken. I would refer him to the written Hansard of today where the Prime Minister is quoted as saying: “The Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Brampton South--”.

That clearly identifies the article. There is absolutely no doubt about what was intended here and the government cannot hide behind a fiction.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it was very difficult to actually hear the comments that were made during question period because of the complete bedlam that took place.

We would like the opportunity, if you are not making a ruling immediately, Mr. Speaker, to actually review what the Hansard said because the response that was given is something we would like to look at. We would like to reserve the right to make a comment after we look at the Hansard when it comes up and we actually see the comments that were made.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

That is exactly what the Speaker will do when we have finished the mini debate that is taking place on this item now. I suggest that we leave the matter here, so that all hon. members will have the opportunity to review the Hansard, and so that we are not arguing on the basis of what might have been said during the excessive noise that occurred during question period today.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

[English]

Committees of the House

Justice and Human Rights

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, June 13, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, and has agreed on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, to report it with amendments.

* * *

Procedure and House Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, the committee examined the qualifications and the competence of the nominee, and agreed that the nomination of Mr. Marc Mayrand as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada be concurred in.

* * *

[Translation]

Finance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages, the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, with amendments.

[English]

I would like to thank all the members for handling the bill expeditiously and allowing me to chair the committee once again.

* * *

Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities regarding Bill C-257.

* * *

International Mother Language Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-407, An Act respecting an International Mother Language Day.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to table my first private member's bill, an act to declare February 21 international mother language day.

Many thanks should be given to the mother language lovers of the world for their tireless efforts in advocating this cause. As one of the diverse and multicultural countries that promotes these values around the world, it is vital that Canada take the lead in supporting these worthy initiatives.

I hope that all members will see the importance of supporting the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

(1515)

Chief Electoral Officer

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, by prior agreement of all the House leaders and as was done the last time the House appointed a Chief Electoral Officer, I would seek the consent of the House to move a motion, which is seconded by the member for Wascana, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, and the member for Vancouver East. I move:

That, in accordance with section 13 of the Canada Elections Act, Chapter 9 of the Statutes of Canada, 2000, this House appoint Marc Mayrand as Chief Electoral Officer.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is there consent to proceed with three seconders as indicated by the government House leader?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

[English]

Petitions

Daylight Saving Time

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Yukoners who no longer want to change the time on their clocks as is done in a number of parts of Canada. There are some parts of Canada where this does not occur. The petitioners feel that changing the time on clocks upsets people's rhythms. There is daylight all day long in the Yukon in the summer, so why would we change the time on the clocks?

The petitioners call on Parliament to stop time change practices in the Yukon.

* * *

Marriage

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to table a petition signed by 32 residents from across British Columbia.

The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as that of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others.

* * *

Consumer Price Index

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition which builds on the questions that I have been raising in the House about fairness for ordinary Canadians who were shortchanged by their government as a result of an error in calculating the rate of inflation.

The petitioners call on Parliament to take full responsibility for this error and take the required steps to repay every Canadian who was shortchanged by a government program because of the miscalculation of the CPI.

This petition is signed by hard-working people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain who are simply seeking some fairness from their government to help them make ends meet.

* * *

Mail Delivery

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by constituents of Bramalea--Gore--Malton.

The petitioners call upon the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to review Canada Post's recent decision to locate community mailboxes along formerly designated rural routes and restore home to home mail delivery and thus avoid threats to personal safety.

* * *

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

In the first petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure generally that users are recognized as interested parties and are meaningfully consulted about proposed changes to the Copyright Act and to ensure in particular that any changes at least preserve all existing user's rights, including the right to use copyrighted material under fair dealing and the right to make private copies of audio recordings.

The petitioners call upon Parliament further not to extend the term of copyright and to recognize the rights of citizens to personally control their own communication devices.

* * *

(1520)

Child Pornography

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with child pornography.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

* * *

Electoral Reform

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions regarding electoral fairness. There are over 400 signatures.

People from my riding signed these petitions in support of a consultation process, an open process to consult with Canadians on the values and principles that they want to see in their electoral system and also to report those findings back to Parliament.

I thank these residents of my riding for their continued support for electoral reform.

* * *

Genetic Use Restriction Technologies

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise here today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents from my riding.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation a permanent ban on genetic use restriction technologies to ensure that these are never planted, field tested, patented or commercialized in Canada.

* * *

Immigration

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of over 100 hard-working Canadians I am very happy to introduce a petition in support of my once in a lifetime bill.

The petitioners understand that family reunification should be a key component of a fair immigration policy and that the current family class rules are too restrictive and mean that many close relatives are not eligible. They want the Parliament of Canada to ensure that Canadian citizens and landed immigrants are given a chance once in a lifetime to sponsor a family member from outside the current family class as currently defined in the Immigration and Refugee Act. I thank them for submitting this petition.

* * *

Rights of the Unborn

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Kitchener—Conestoga and the surrounding area.

The signatories of this petition recognize that the Supreme Court, on January 28, 1988, stated that it is for Parliament to enact the appropriate defences of its legitimate interest in the lives of all subjects, including those yet in the womb.

In light of that, the petitioners are requesting that Parliament consider restoring to the Criminal Code the prudence it held prior to 1968 by removing the words “after becoming a human being” from subsection 223(2).

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which has to do with the Kyoto protocol. The petitioners note that the world's climate scientists are agreed that the impacts of climate change will become catastrophic unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately. The petitioners call on Parliament to honour the legal commitment to the Kyoto treaty.

* * *

Genetic Use Restriction Technologies

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this petition concerns the terminator seed technology. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation a permanent national ban on terminator technologies to ensure that they are never planted, field tested, patented or commercialized in Canada.

* * *

Housing

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by many people in Vancouver and elsewhere in British Columbia. They point out that more than two million Canadians are in desperate need of affordable housing. They also point out that assistance should be provided to the 10,000 co-ops that lost their subsidies and that 200,000 units of affordable and co-op housing be built based on a national housing strategy. They call on Parliament to make sure that this becomes a priority.

* * *

Questions on the Order Paper

[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 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Motions for Papers

[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 ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canadian Human Rights Act

The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

* * *

(1525)

Canada Transportation Act

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence had six minutes left when we last visited this piece of legislation.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, yes, we were talking about Bill C-11, a transportation bill that was born out of much policy development by the former Liberal government. I complimented the current government for having had the wisdom to adopt the bill that preceded this one and was divided into three parts in order to secure speedier passage in the House. We have done that already with one bill. This is the second one. There is a third one coming up.

I know that my colleagues on the transport committee are busy in committee right now. I am not suggesting that they are not here and therefore that it is bad; I am saying that they are involved in the business of the House in another place and it is left to me to carry the load, as it were.

The last time we spoke to this bill, we addressed one aspect of the importance of Bill C-11. What we were looking at really was establishing a mechanism for resolving disputes between public passenger service providers and railway companies. In other words, we were looking for access to rail lines for those commuter companies, especially in main centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, so that they could have an opportunity to develop commuter services on lines that were already existing. They wanted to have access and this legislation provides for their getting that access.

They also wanted to have an appropriate mechanism for arriving at an acceptable market driven and public policy driven price for that access. They were looking for mediation. This legislation provides it, as did its predecessor.

Finally, when rail companies are in the process of divesting themselves of the assets, they would be offered up to the commuter companies on a predetermined basis.

The last time we were discussing this in the House we talked about the importance of this as public policy. It is integrated into the legislation and for that purpose the legislation demands our support. In fact, it should have our support.

There is a series of other important issues here. My colleagues know that if we can pass this legislation expeditiously, we will have seen the fruit of the labour of at least two governments.

The Liberal government, in which I was proud and privileged to serve as a cabinet member, had come forward with transportation policy that reflected the real needs of the day some 24 months ago. There has been a different government for well nigh on 13 or 14 months, and here we are, still here with that same piece of legislation that would have authorized the government to put in place the kinds of things that consumers, the industry and the Canadian public as a whole demanded and which the economy needed to have in order to ensure there would be an efficient, safe transportation network around the country. Whether it involved rail or air was immaterial. The issues were those that required the opportunity for government to intervene to ensure that the efficiency, security and safety of those mechanisms be always there.

Safety is defined of course as all Canadians always define it, that the security and safety of the person always be first and foremost, but it includes as well the security and safety of the movement of goods and services. I know that my colleague from Montreal agrees with me, being a former justice minister who at the time was a consultant on the language of the legislation. I am sure he is pleased to see the realization of the sum of his thoughts.

It is true that we have finally as parliamentarians come forward with something that addresses, as I said, the economy and the consumer.

(1530)

For members of the House to think about anything other than passing this piece of legislation would be a disservice to the entire Canadian commonweal.

Some members are making suggestions about a series of amendments that ought to take place. We have accepted a good number of those amendments. I say that we have accepted them not because we are presenting the legislation. We originated the legislation, but we are not the ones who have proposed it to the House. We did propose it, and the opposition parties of the day turned it down, especially those on the extreme left of the spectrum. They are on the extreme left of this House too and they have almost disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will not be offended by that because you are one of the few who has been here longer than I have, and whose hair is greyer than mine, and you are always interested in transportation issues. Those transportation issues are absolutely crucial to the proper functioning and the economy of this country. The infrastructure cannot move along without a good infrastructure in law and that is what this bill is supposed to represent.

We support it. It is not ours, but it comes very close to what we wanted to do. We always want to look out for the interests, safety and security of Canadians and the proper, efficient functioning of an economic infrastructure that would allow us to profit by our own enterprise.

I will take 10 seconds to note that the rail strike by CN has gone on for far too long without government attention. I deplore the fact that the Minister of Transport has not addressed this issue. It cries for government attention, but the government is being inattentive and inactive.

I leave on those very careful words. We hope that the government will become active on and attentive to an issue that is crucial to everybody. I know the hon. member will agree with me when I say that all members on this side of the House, the good guys, want immediate action.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's presentation about how much he wants Bill C-11 to be adopted.

I would like to review the history of this bill because it is a nearly word-for-word copy of part of Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Liberals in the previous Parliament.

One of the reasons Bill C-44 never went through, that is, was not adopted before, is that the Liberal Party itself decided to block its own bill. Bill C-44 had a whole section devoted to developing VIA Rail. It wanted to change VIA Rail from a Crown corporation to an independent corporation to enable it to grow. Among other things, the bill promoted VIA Rail's growth and development. VIAFast would have made it possible to build a high-speed train from Quebec City to Montreal and from Montreal to Windsor.

My question is simple: Why is the Liberal Party in such a hurry today? Why was it not in a hurry when it was in power during the previous Parliament?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. The member need only look in a mirror. The answer can be found in the power of the member who asked the question.

If his party had had the opportunity or wisdom to say that it was a very good bill and that they would support it, we would already have this legislation and the legislation on VIAFast.

However, the Bloc Québécois, their NDP friends and the Conservatives wanted an election rather than legislation that would have given Canadians everything they now want for the citizens of Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada.

(1535)

[English]

It is a very simple answer. Had those members accepted what we presented some 15 months ago, we would not be talking about this legislation because we would have already had it implemented. They wanted an election instead. They had it and now this is what we have. They wanted change and they deplore it now.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise:

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague. As he very well knows, the Liberals were divided and the Chrétien team definitely wanted VIAFast and the bill concerning VIA Rail to be passed, while supporters of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard wanted simply to abandon that part of the bill.

Once again, my hon. colleague's memory fails him. As he very well knows, the Liberal Party itself did not want the VIAFast project to proceed. However, the Bloc Québécois always supported the VIA Rail option and Bill C-44.

I hope my colleague will be able to make the distinction, now that he is transport critic. He need only read past editions of House of Commons Debates to see that it was not the Bloc Québécois that prevented the VIA Rail project from proceeding, rather it was his own party.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe:

Mr. Speaker, that is far from the truth. As you know, 18 years ago, I was one of the first members in this House to want a VIAFast system, as it is known today. At the time, the costs were estimated at $2 billion. Just imagine.

He speaks of the Chrétien team project. It was the Liberal team. A feasibility and viability study with a price tag of almost $12 billion was being considered. We were discussing the feasibility of such a cost for a project. The Liberal team had already accepted, in principle, the project establishing a VIAFast system between Quebec City and Windsor.

We are not altering history. I am living it. It is the present. We want Canadians to have access to high speed rail. I am here today to support a good project. It is not the best project, because the best project was the one proposed by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government 16 months ago. Unfortunately, today we must accept the second best, but we have to do it.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As hon. members could see by the exchange I had with my Liberal colleague earlier, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of Bill C-44, which preceded Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, Bill C-44 did not make it through the legislative process because of the infighting within the Liberal family, namely whether VIA Fast would see the light of day or not. The leadership of the Liberal Party changed and VIA Fast did not see the light of day. In the meantime, an entire section of Bill C-44 was devoted to making VIA Rail an independent corporation that would be able to ensure its own development. Today, once again, the railway sector is stagnating.

However, Bill C-44 was divided into a number of bills, including Bill C-11, which is now before us. Since the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has been very interested in the development of this bill for the simple reason that it includes several sections—I am not saying they are big sections, just that they are very important—on the problems that some of the population might experience, the noise problem in the rail road sector, among others.

The purpose of Bill C-11 is to help all citizens, all Quebeckers, who are experiencing problems with noise. There are some major problems with noise, such as the noise generated by the big railroad yards, the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, the Joffre yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, formerly Charny, the Farnham yard in Brome—Missisquoi and the Pointe-Saint-Charles yard in Jeanne-Le Ber in Montreal's east end.

With the new technology, jobs have been lost. Employees have simply been replaced by remote controlled technology. This causes an infernal noise when the cars are being connected to the locomotives or to other cars.

With the arrival of this technology, in the 1990s, jobs were cut to save money. What was once done by hand, more intelligently and less noisily, was replaced by technology, and no one has yet found a solution to the problem of remote linking. It takes a lot of momentum to join cars together. People living near marshalling yards have to put up with a terrific amount of noise, not to mention locomotives running practically day and night, even during cold weather.

All this causes problems for the people living near marshalling yards, in addition to all the other noise and vibration problems.

I would like to read clause 95.1 of the bill:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and vibration as possible—

Previously, the bill mentioned noise only, and the Bloc Québécois worked very hard to have the word “vibration” included. Now, the bill requires that companies cause as little noise and vibration as possible. We hope that the bill will be adopted.

I will continue to read from clause 95.1:

—taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

(b) its operational requirements;

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

The bill amends the act by adding provisions that state that companies operating a railway must cause as little noise and vibration as possible and must take into account the impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

For the first time, the Transportation Act is being amended to enable the agency, under clause 95.2, to issue and publish guidelines and receive complaints. This was not allowed previously. Courts ruled that even though the Transportation Agency had wanted to get involved in the complaint process, it did not have the authority to do so. In one case in Ontario, the courts told the agency that it did not have the authority to intervene and that even though it issued recommendations and acted as a mediator, it could not force the company to comply with those recommendations.

(1540)

That is where the law stood. Obviously this prompted a lot of people who objected to join together and organize to express their opposition. When they became aware of the judgment of the Ontario court, they decided that there was no point and they were spending their money for nothing.

All of these communities got together and wanted to challenge this, and tried to get the railway companies to change, in particular, as I said earlier, the Moreau switching yard, the Joffre yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, the Farnham yard in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi and the Pointe-Saint-Charles yard in the riding of Jeanne-Le Ber.

The people who live near those yards decided to step back and try to reach an amicable agreement. All the Transportation Agency did was arrange a meeting. They met with representatives of the railway companies. The citizens' groups tried to explain their problems to the companies, and in some cases, some of the companies adopted some solutions.

However, when it came to noise, when the noise was a problem for people, the companies came up with all sorts of reasons. When it cost the company a bit too much, they did nothing. And if they were presented with good recommendations, they did not apply them or did not follow them, even though, in some cases, agreements had been made between the company and the citizens' groups.

I myself have met with members of the public, with citizens' groups, and even with representatives of the company, in particular in Hochelaga, the riding next to the Moreau yard. Even though we showed good faith, when we took part in that meeting—my colleague from Hochelaga was there—nothing came of it.

In any event, before the railway company representatives left the meeting, they said that the complaints merited consideration, but they never adopted any solution after that.

This is what people want and what this bill provides that is new: that from now on, the Transportation Agency can receive complaints and make and publish recommendations, and compel the companies to abide by them.

Obviously, it must be understood that we would have wanted more from this bill. It refers only to noise and vibration; it says nothing at all about environmental damage or the other requests that a number of my colleagues had made to me. Even though the railway companies make huge profits, they are not always inclined to comply with environmental standards, to pick up their garbage or what have you. As well, when they lay new tracks, they often leave all the wood lying there all along the rail line. They are in no hurry to clean up.

We were very aware of that and we wanted to propose some amendments. Yet the government went ahead and tabled its noise bill. Since we are on the subject today, we have to be very careful when we propose amendments: amendments that change the spirit of the bill are not allowed. As such, our amendments were automatically dismissed by the legislator or counsel representing legislative services here in Parliament.

Our colleagues submitted good changes and good amendments that they would have liked to have seen reflected in the act, but their amendments were found to be unacceptable by counsel for the legislators here in Parliament.

It is not that we did not try; it is that the law did not let us. Clearly, the government only wanted to address noise. Consequently, we could not move on other problem areas. We managed to include vibrations because they can be considered a noise problem.

As to the other interesting and intelligent amendments proposed by members of the Bloc Québécois and others, we could not move them through; the legislator found them to be unacceptable because they would have altered the spirit of the bill.

This bill includes other provisions concerning air travel complaints. There is to be a complaints commissioner who will address these issues directly.

As I am sure hon. members are all too aware, there have been a lot of complaints about Air Canada. So the complaints commissioner's office will also include a section to address complaints from citizens who were not served in their official language when using Air Canada services or who have experienced other problems related to airlines.

This will make it easier to file a complaint, and, once again, the office of the commissioner will have the power to intervene. We hope that this bill will be adopted swiftly.

(1545)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and do not disagree with many of the remarks he made. I know that he was an active participant in the construct of this bill.

I also agree with him when he says that our rail system is stagnating. I know he is aware that we in the NDP have been aggressively trying to champion the state of our national rail system. Many of us believe that we should be making a conscious effort to get the freight off trucks and back on the rails where it belongs.

In fact, I have heard you, Mr. Speaker, make that very point in this chamber many times over the years.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster put forward some amendments to this bill, which I think were seconded by my colleague from Western Arctic. I am hoping that the Bloc can see fit to support these amendments when it comes time to vote. Specifically, they are Motions Nos. 2 and 5 and Motions Nos. 3 and 11. We are optimistic that we can count on the Bloc's support.

On the issue of noise, let me simply say that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is bordered by a significant rail yard where the hostlers are constantly putting trains together. I am well aware of how residents feel about the noise in the night as the hostlers couple the trains. Sometimes prairie trains are 200 and 300 cars long. A significant amount of that goes on.

However, that inconvenience is offset by the enthusiastic support that we as Winnipeggers feel for our national rail system. We lament and in fact we terribly regret and even criticize how the rail system in Canada has been dismantled systematically by years of neglect. It has been dismantled by successive federal governments that are not in favour of a national rail system and prefer to put the freight on the road, much to the expense of the environment, jobs and everything else that goes with it.

Having said that, I hope we can count on my colleague's support for the motions that the NDP did succeed in putting forward to amend Bill C-11. Perhaps he can give us that assurance today.

(1550)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise:

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the first part of his question.

With regard to rail transportation, I hope that my colleague realizes that there is another staunch supporter of the railway system, the Bloc Québécois. I agree with him insofar as the rest of Canada is concerned, but in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois defends the railway system.

From the very beginning, when Minister Collenette tabled the bill—a bill pertaining to VIAFast and a high-speed train between Quebec City and Montreal and Montreal and Windsor—the Bloc Québécois has been in favour of the project. That is why we are supporting this bill today.

The New Democratic Party has tabled motions to amend or remove, among other things, clause 3 of the bill, which states that the Transportation Agency shall have five members. There were seven and that number has been reduced to five. The witnesses heard by the committee clearly showed that it was possible.

First, the agency has been working with five members for two years for various reasons, including the fact that other members were not replaced and budget constraints. We feel that it has been proven that the Transportation Agency can deal with the number of files it has with five members.

I regret that I must say that we cannot support them in that regard. We can understand the government's budget constraints. We can work with the government as long as the budget constraints are reasonable. In this case, we thought that reducing the number of members of the Transportation Agency from seven to five was reasonable. Obviously we will be voting against the NDP amendments.

I am also aware of the last part of the question posed by my hon. colleague, concerning problems facing the railway sector. Yes, there are some safety problems. Yes, trains are now too long. This bill probably should have had some provisions in that regard. Trains are now so long that, in certain areas of the country—including Quebec—it is difficult for firefighters and paramedics to ensure the safety of citizens because roadways are so obstructed that emergency service vehicles cannot get through. This could not be included in this bill because the government had not listed it and thus it would have changed the nature of the bill.

This issue was covered in the amendments proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Yes, we would have liked to ensure that emergency services were able to travel more freely. We would have also liked to be able to limit the length of trains. We must force the government to introduce another piece of legislation or introduce private members' bills, which we could try to have adopted here in the House. Nonetheless, the amendments we proposed would have changed the nature of the bill and therefore were ruled out of order. Thus, it was not for lack of trying.

I understand my hon. colleague's problems. Things are going so well in the rail sector. As I said earlier, they are making plenty of money. We do not understand why they have not resolved the noise problem. Nevertheless, we will have to address the issue of long trains some day, because they are creating problems in certain areas of Quebec.

(1555)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

(Motion No. 3 negatived)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 4 agreed to)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 6 agreed to)

(1600)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 7 agreed to)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 8 agreed to)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 9 agreed to)

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: Motion carried on division.

(Motion No. 10 agreed to)

[English]

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion 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 nays have it.

Seeing no members rising, I declare the motion lost.

(Motion No. 11 negatived)

The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 12 agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The Deputy Speaker: The vote on the motions stands deferred until today after government orders.

* * *

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (for the Minister of Finance)

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to introduce Bill C-33 at second reading.

The bill proposes measures regarding the taxation of non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities, as well as implementing certain technical amendments to the Income Tax Act.

The bill before the House today is indeed complex. Rather than focusing on its technicalities, I will illustrate for hon. members just how Bill C-33 fits into the commitment of how Canada's new government is working to improve our tax system and make it more competitive.

First , how can we have a competitive tax system when Canadians have been paying more taxes than is necessary? This new government believes that Canadians have been overtaxed for too long and we need to move that burden of excess taxation so we can encourage the qualities that are at the very core of what drives and enriches Canadian lives. That is what makes Canada competitive, especially in the global marketplace.

Why should Canadians keep handing over so much of their hard-earned money to government? Canadians need to keep more of their money. They need it to invest in their own families, in their own priorities and in their own futures. They also need it to invest in our economy and help businesses thrive. That helps all of us as Canadians.

The time is now to take less from Canadians in terms of taxes. That is what Canada's new government started doing in budget 2006 and will continue to do.

Members need only look at our record. We delivered almost $20 billion in tax relief to individual Canadians and families over two years. That is more tax relief in one budget than the previous government's last four budgets combined.

As members know, we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% effective July 1, 2006, and there is more to come. We made a further commitment with respect to another percentage point reduction. Cutting the GST cuts taxes for everybody, including those who do not earn enough to pay income tax. Is that not fair?

We did more for individual Canadians by providing personal income tax relief. We increased the basic personal amount and reduced the lowest personal income tax rate. These two measures will provide personal income tax relief of $4.6 billion in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Last fall, the Minister of Finance announced the new tax fairness plan for Canadians. The plan will restore the balance and fairness to our tax system and create a level playing field between income trusts and corporations. This plan will also deliver over $1 billion of new tax relief annually to Canadians.

The measures in this plan are significant steps forward in the strengthening of our social security system for pensioners and seniors.

Canada's new government also recognizes the importance of Canadian businesses to a strong economy and we want to create a supportive economic environment that helps businesses compete and grow, and that rewards success.

In budget 2006, we started by eliminating the federal capital tax as of January 2006. We will be eliminating the corporate surtax in 2008 and we will be reducing the general corporate income tax rate to 19% from 21% by 2010.

These cuts will allow Canada to regain the solid statutory tax rate advantage that we had prior to the 2004 tax changes in the United States. We also helped small businesses.

An important way that Canada's federal income tax system supports the growth of small businesses is through a lower tax rate on the first $300,000 of qualifying income earned by a Canadian controlled private corporation. This measure helps these small businesses to retain more of their earnings for reinvestment and expansion, thereby helping to create jobs and promote economic growth in Canada.

To further encourage small business growth in Canada, in last year's budget we increased the amount of small business income eligible for the reduced federal tax rate to $400,000 from the current limit of $300,000 as of January 1, 2007. We also reduced the current 12% income tax rate applying to qualifying small businesses to 11.5% in 2008 and 11% in 2009.

I have spoken thus far about how Canada's new government has reduced taxes, both on a personal level as well as a corporate level. This reflects how this new government is dealing with the excessive taxation that Canadians have endured for far too long.

(1605)

Canada's new government is committed to cutting taxes. In his speech for the recent economic and fiscal update, the Minister of Finance introduced advantage Canada, an economic plan designed to make Canada a world leader for today and future generations. It will help build a strong Canadian economy and make our quality of life second to none through competitive economic advantages.

One of the key advantages in this plan is a commitment to reduce taxes for all Canadians and establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7. The tax back guarantee announced in the plan will ensure that Canadians benefit directly from debt reduction by dedicating interest savings from debt reduction each year to permanent personal income tax reductions. Any unanticipated surpluses will be used to accelerate that reduction and, hence, tax reduction.

Lower debt means less interest, which means lower taxes for Canadians. In short, this plan will create the right conditions and opportunities for families and businesses to succeed. As to the taxation of non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities, part of the equation in keeping taxes low is that everyone needs to keep their fair share and that is where the measures in Bill C-33 come in.

Bill C-33 moves forward in this government's goal in promoting fairness and equity in our tax system. Specifically, the bill amends provisions of the Income Tax Act to prevent tax deferral and avoidance though the use of foreign investment funds and trusts. In other words, if someone tries to avoid taxes by using these investment vehicles, any income earned on that investment will be taxed as if it were earned in Canada.

It is important to point out that most of these changes concerning non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities proposed in this bill are the result of extensive consultations with taxpayers, professional tax advisors and the taxation authorities.

It is also important to emphasize that the measure in the bill to prevent tax deferral and avoidance through the use of foreign investment funds and trusts is intended to protect the tax base as opposed to raising additional revenues. In fact, activity of this nature has moderated substantially in years. Bill C-33 would ensure that if that activity does occur, the income earned will be taxed as if earned in Canada.

Canada generally imposes income tax on the income of taxpayers resident in Canada from all sources. On the other hand, Canada generally taxes just the Canadian source of income of taxpayers that are not resident in Canada. An income tax incentive therefore exists for Canadian residents to earn investment income using non-resident trusts and foreign investment entitles based in a country other than Canada that imposes no tax or a low tax.

What this means is that without effective countermeasures, such as those proposed in Bill C-33, residents of Canada who use non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities to earn investment income would inappropriately avoid or defer the payment of Canadian taxes. That creates unfairness.

Avoiding taxes in that manner not only erodes the Canadian tax base, it creates inequities which, in turn, undermine the integrity of our tax system. The effect of these rules is that investment income earned by non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities on behalf of Canadian residents will be taxed in Canada. That income would have been taxed in Canada if the income were earned by resident trusts and resident investment entities on behalf of those Canadians. Therefore, the tax advantages of using non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities will be eliminated.

Not only that, the measures in Bill C-33 would have the effect of eliminating erosion of the tax base, promoting the integrity of Canada's tax system and levelling the playing field for all investment vehicles, whether Canadian or foreign based. These are important considerations.

The measures I just outlined constitute the major portion of Bill C-33. However, the bill also includes a number of technical amendments to the Income Tax Act that would accomplish a number of housekeeping objectives.

The amendments are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that the proposed amendments correct or clarify the application of existing income tax provisions or provide legislative authority for measures that have already been announced. Moreover, the bill proposes measures to deal with other income tax situations that require a legislative response.

(1610)

In conclusion, when considering the bill today, I remind hon. members of the two important objectives of the proposed legislation.

First, Bill C-33 promotes fairness in our tax system. The measures proposed in the bill will help reduce inappropriate tax avoidance by ensuring that income from foreign investments is properly reported. The second objective, which goes hand in hand with the first, is to protect the integrity of Canada's tax system and deter the erosion of the tax base. Bill C-33 would address both of these objectives in such a way that will improve our tax system for the benefit all Canadians.

Since its election, Canada's new government has taken important steps in building a more successful Canada. Bill C-33 would help us continue down that road of prosperity by transforming the tax system into a competitive edge, not an impediment.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned Canada's new government. I