Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 025 (Official Version)

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour to attend a very special graduation ceremony in my riding, a ceremony that does not occur anywhere else in the province of Ontario.

The Sarnia Construction Association and the Sarnia Building Trades Council worked together to honour 88 graduates of the apprenticeship program. There were graduate electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, millwrights, boilermakers, bricklayers, sheet metal workers, carpenters, labourers, and operating engineers.

As well as honouring these graduates, the two groups have worked diligently to have training provided at our local community college. As a result, those seeking training as steamfitters, carpenters and electricians can now access that training locally, thus keeping our local youth in the community.

This is a huge success story in my riding. I am proud to pay tribute on a job well done to the graduating apprentices, the Sarnia Construction Association and the Sarnia Building Trades Council.

* * *

Canadian Forces

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, Master Warrant Officer James Tolmie, who has served this country for the past 33 years as a member of the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Tolmie has expressed his sadness and disappointment in the government's decision not to fly the flags at half-mast for the fallen soldiers in Afghanistan. He feels as though our government owes this gesture of respect to all the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty while serving our country. I would agree.

I would like to recognize all the members of the Canadian Forces who have served and who are presently serving our country and to let them know that this House honours their commitment and respects the great contributions that they have made at home and abroad.

We are grateful and we are indebted to them.

* * *

[Translation]

Sister Annette Bellavance

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Sister Annette Bellavance of the Congregation of Notre-Dame, who was principal of Collège Regina Assumpta for 35 years. This educational institution is located in the heart of my riding, Ahuntsic.

As the members may recall, in March 2005, Sister Annette received an eloquent tribute during a ceremony organized by the Ahuntsic Cartierville Business People's Association, which also gave her an award for her community involvement.

On May 21, she will participate in the closing ceremonies of Collège Regina Assumpta's 50th anniversary celebration during a reunion of the college's alumni, teachers and staff members.

I would like to wish Sister Annette a happy reunion and to thank her for her devotion.

* * *

[English]

Pay Equity

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate our sisters and brothers in the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada on their historic pay equity settlement with Bell Canada. These 4,700 telephone operators, dining service and house service workers, almost all women, bravely and patiently brought pay equity to the forefront of the struggle for equality for women workers in Canada.

CEP took on this fight in 1992, when women earned 30% less than their male counterparts. This victory, a $104 million pay equity settlement, is a victory for all women in this country, but let us not forget that two years ago the former Liberal government released a pay equity report recommending new legislation to protect equal pay for work of equal value. Yet nothing has been done.

The NDP joins in solidarity with our sisters in CEP and the women across Canada to call on this government to immediately implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force. Justice delayed is justice denied.

* * *

(1405)

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today Parliament will debate and vote on extending our mission in Afghanistan. With that in mind, I am pleased to congratulate a Calgary constituent on the release of his heroic documentary highlighting the value of Canada's efforts in Afghanistan and the progress that is being made every day. After nearly three decades of reporting on Afghanistan, journalist Arthur Kent has returned to document Canada's military mission in the war-ravaged country.

Recently I was fortunate to attend a screening of his new film, Afghanistan: Peacemaking In Progress. The documentary, independently financed and produced by this Emmy award winning filmmaker, takes audiences on patrol with Canadian General David Fraser and his troops. Kent also reunites with Afghans he filmed during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, including two inspiring individuals now serving in President Hamid Karzai's cabinet.

The film serves as a testament to Canadians deployed in Afghanistan and a tribute and inspiration to the people of Afghanistan and those brave Canadians who serve to restore their freedom.

* * *

Poverty

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, a recent Statistics Canada report contains some very good news for Canadians. That news was contained in some typically technical statistics that measure poverty and for the most part seems to have gone unnoticed by this House and the public. I should give some credit to the Globe and Mail for shining some light on this in an editorial.

First, the number of children living in poor families declined between 1996 and 2004 from 1.3 million to 865,000, a huge reduction of 33%.

Second, the proportion of families living below the poverty line has declined from 12.1% to 8.5% over the same period.

These huge improvements are the result of a strong economy, more jobs and increased transfer payments from governments. There is still poverty and there is still much more work to do, but this is still real progress that all Canadians, all parties in this House and anti-poverty advocates can celebrate.

This shows that government can make a big difference in improving the lives of Canadians, just as this House was seeking when it passed its resolution on the subject in 1990.

* * *

Conservative Government

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it has been roughly 100 days since the Prime Minister and this Conservative government took office. We came into office promising to clean up government, to do things differently in Ottawa, respect Canadians and deliver real results for them.

In 100 days we have cut the GST by 1% and delivered a budget with tax relief for all Canadians. We have given parents the choice in child care through a universal benefit for all families. We introduced legislation that will finally get tough on criminals. We introduced the federal accountability act, a landmark document that will give Canadians a clean government. We are the first government to take a hard line on Hamas. We have given Quebec a greater voice within our Confederation. We have settled the softwood lumber dispute and negotiated a new long term agreement.

We have accomplished more in 100 short days than the previous government did in 13 long years, and we will continue to deliver for all Canadians.

* * *

[Translation]

Seal Hunt

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had the opportunity to participate in a meeting in Paris of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the seal hunt was on the agenda.

Several of the European MPs were against it, and I found that their opinions were based on false information. The Conservative government must rectify this situation before it is too late.

That said, in light of the importance of this industry for communities of the Magdalen Islands, the North Shore and Newfoundland and Labrador, why did the federal government not send a representative to this significant meeting? Despite the fact that this industry could lead to a boycott by European countries, the federal government did not send a delegate. This is unacceptable.

If the Conservative government supports Quebec and Canada's seal industry, it should send a representative to the next meeting of the committee on June 9 in Paris.

* * *

(1410)

[English]

Honda Canada

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up today on behalf of Canada's new government to help celebrate Honda Canada's announcement of investing $154 million for a new engine plant in Alliston located in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. The investment will create 340 new jobs, as well as many additional spinoff jobs and other economic benefits. This is tremendous news not only for Alliston and New Tecumseth, but for Canada and the entire Canadian automotive industry and its dedicated workers.

Honda has been a tremendous corporate citizen, enjoying a worldwide reputation for tremendous quality and continuous innovation. 2006 marks the 20th anniversary of Honda vehicle production in Canada. I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the anniversary than for Honda to announce a new engine plant, new investment and new jobs in Alliston.

Today's great news is a strong sign of competence in Canada and in Canadian workers. With the recent budget delivered by Canada's new government, we are showing that Canada is open for business and ready to compete on the global market.

* * *

MusicFest Canada

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to our nation's capital both the Regina High School Jazz Band and the Herdman Collegiate Stage Band. These young men and women from Corner Brook, Newfoundland are participating in the 34th annual MusicFest Canada program here in Ottawa.

The Regina High School Stage Band earned this special honour by its performance at the Atlantic Band Festival in Halifax, and having already performed here in Ottawa, has been awarded a gold standard performance by MusicFest Canada organizers.

The Herdman Collegiate Jazz Band attended the provincial competition in St. John's some time ago and was awarded a gold placement as well, which qualified the band to participate in MusicFest 2006. It too is up to the challenge of a gold standard performance here in Ottawa.

Congratulations to music directors Mr. Floyd Thomas and Mr. Darren White and to both of these very talented bands that they direct. I am very proud of their accomplishments.

* * *

Government Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we witnessed the sad spectacle of the opposition parties turning a parliamentary committee into a kangaroo court to shamefully slur the reputation of Canada's most respected business leader. Gwyn Morgan recently retired as head of EnCana, one of Canada's largest and most successful companies, where he capped off a sterling 35 year professional record by being voted Canada's top CEO by his peers.

Universally lauded for his integrity and community service, Mr. Morgan had agreed to serve as the founding chairman of the Public Appointments Commission for $1 a year to help depoliticize the government appointment process. But the opposition did not want Canada's top CEO offering his services for $1 a year and the Liberals certainly did not like the idea of a transparent professional appointment process, so they organized a sordid lynching of Mr. Morgan's reputation, outrageously contorting two lines from one speech in a 40 year career to imply that Mr. Morgan was a “racist”.

This odious drive-by smear was used to justify the opposition's predetermined outcome. It says a lot more about the opposition than it does about Gwyn Morgan.

* * *

Child Care

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Victoria hundreds of people gathered in front of the legislature. On a weekday afternoon, parents, child care workers and dedicated citizens took time from their work and busy lives to show their frustration and disappointment with the Conservative government.

Their message was plain: The Conservative plan for child care is empty and unrealistic. Their signs said it all: “Mr. Harper, I have $100. Will you care for my child?”

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. The hon. member knows that she cannot refer to hon. members by name. I am sure that the hon. member was referring to the Prime Minister, I would judge from the sound of the name.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

“Mr. Prime Minister, I have $100. Will you care for my child?” “Find me safe child care for 70¢ an hour”. “Quality child care builds quality citizens”. “One hundred dollars buys a month of child care--in 1986”.

My constituents are--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

* * *

The Budget

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my statement on the budget, I wish to welcome residents from my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham who are in Ottawa celebrating Asian Heritage Month.

Tax measures in the Conservative budget do very little to truly help my constituents.

First, the lowest tax rate for Canadians will increase to 15.5% and the basic exemption will decrease by $200. While raising the taxes we pay, the Conservatives are implementing a GST cut that only benefits the wealthy who spend more money on luxury goods.

Also, the transit tax credit of 15.5% does very little, if I may say, to benefit the transportation needs of my riding. Commuters in my riding benefit when money is pooled and goes toward such projects as light rail, subway extension and improved bus services. These are what encourage people to use the transit system, not the paltry tax cut for those that already use it.

* * *

(1415)

[Translation]

National Day Against Homophobia

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, today is the national day against homophobia and this year's focus is a homophobia-free workplace. Recognizing this national day was a Quebec initiative, proposed by Fondation Émergence. Legal equality for homosexuals was achieved in 2005 with the right to same-sex marriage. However, further work is needed to achieve social equality for homosexual and transgender individuals.

May 17 was the date chosen to mark this event because it was on May 17, 1990 that the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. This year, more than 30 countries will organize activities to denounce homophobia all around the world, from Canada to Russia, from Turkey to Sri Lanka, and even in China.

I ask you to support this international day to fight against homophobia and to encourage our governments to implement measures to prevent this discrimination, which is similar to racism, sexism or anti-Semitism.

* * *

National Day Against Homophobia

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past four years, May 17 has been recognized by Fondation Émergence as a national day against homophobia.

[English]

The theme of this year's campaign is fighting homophobia in the workplace and in the world of sports. All too often, gays and lesbians are victims of harassment based on their sexual orientation.

I encourage all Canadians to speak out against homophobia and to work for a better and more tolerant Canada.

[Translation]

I would also like to take advantage of this national day against homophobia to encourage the members of this House who still oppose civil marriage between same-sex partners to reflect carefully on the negative consequences of their belief.

[English]

I ask everyone to join me in support of this day.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, for months the opposition parties have called for a vote on our role in Afghanistan. Our Prime Minister has agreed to that vote. Opposition members are now playing politics with our mission in Afghanistan.

Liberal and NDP members just weeks ago supported this mission. The member for Halifax said, “It's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes, we should, we need to be, we need to be in for the long haul”. The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said, “We have got to be a party that stands for human rights everywhere, that does the tough lifting when it has to be done”. And finally, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, “The courageous Canadians who are in this dangerous theatre must have our unequivocal and steely support. They must know that we fully support them and that their mission is critically important to Canada, Canadians and the world”.

This government could not agree more. We hope that the opposition parties will keep their word, do the right thing tonight and support our men and women in uniform and their continued efforts in Afghanistan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Canadian Forces

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that members of the House will have learned that today a Canadian soldier died in Afghanistan. I would like on behalf of our party and I believe all members of the House to express our deepest sympathies to her family and friends.

[Translation]

Of course, we regret this tragic loss of life.

I would ask the Prime Minister if he would like to comment on this.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He is correct. Today we suffered a combat casualty in Afghanistan. I have the name of a female officer who was killed in combat action against Taliban forces. I am not at liberty to release the name. The next of kin, a husband, is being notified.

These are always terrible tragedies. I do not know if this is a first female combat death. It is certainly not a first that we ever want to celebrate, but it does underscore the tremendous courage that our young men and women show in our theatre. I believe they have the right at all times to know that those of us who send them into combat stand behind their mission.

* * *

(1420)

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House clearly expressed its wishes with regard to Canada's environmental policy. A sizeable majority of elected representatives of the Canadian people asked the Prime Minister to ensure that Canada meet the objectives established by the Kyoto protocol.

When the current Prime Minister was the opposition leader, he continually asked the government to respect the wishes of Parliament. Will he do so in this case, also?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's position has been clear for quite some time: we intend to respect our election promises.

It is unfortunate that the former government accepted targets but refused to take action to meet them. It is easy for the opposition parties to vote for sentiments. However, a government must have plans and take action. And we intend to take real action.

* * *

[English]

Government Accountability

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, you and all members of the House will recall that during the previous election, the current Prime Minister assured Canadians who were concerned by the extreme views of his caucus that he be held in check by a minority Parliament. The Prime Minister wanted to work with all parties in this minority Parliament, he claimed. But the Prime Minister has no intention of respecting yesterday's vote on the environment. His commitment to accountability was jettisoned when his choice to head the appointments commission was rejected because he was one of his bagmen.

How does that give the members of the House any confidence about the consequence of tonight's vote on Afghanistan?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, actions do have consequences. The vote yesterday to reject Canada's most outstanding CEO who was willing to provide his services to the Government of Canada for $1 a year is an action that has consequences.

I can understand why the party opposite would not want to clean up the appointments process given the kind of scandals it ran when it was in office.

This party will go ahead and do the job itself.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I remind all hon. members that cellphones are not to be used in the Chamber. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville has the floor.

* * *

National Defence

[Table of Contents]

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

It was not a cellphone, Mr. Speaker.

Just two short months ago, the Prime Minister was adamant that he would not support a parliamentary vote on extending Canada's mission to Afghanistan. He said, “We are not going to have votes on commitments already made”.

[Translation]

A week ago, in response to a question by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the Prime Minister said, “—we committed ourselves to holding votes on new commitments. We are already in Afghanistan”.

Why this sudden about face by the Prime Minister?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I have long expressed the desire to hold a vote on military commitments. It is unfortunate that such a vote was not held long ago. All the parties in this House were in agreement yesterday with the vote and the procedure. Now they are starting to complain. There is no leadership over there.

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, we would ask the Prime Minister to be worthy of his office. This is an extremely serious issue. He decided all of a sudden to have a vote in this House without debate on a matter as serious in a respectable timeframe for this House. So, either he has already decided and is determined to prolong the mission however the House votes—and so the vote means nothing—or he has not decided and so the House can debate for weeks on end this very important issue.

Has he or has he not decided?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party sent our troops to Afghanistan over four years ago. It kept them there. They are there and are there for the long term. That was their decision. The Liberal Party does not need any time to decide on its position. It is the duty of the Liberal Party to support our troops in this military campaign.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons passed a Bloc Québécois motion that calls on the government to publish, by October 15, 2006, a plan for complying with the Kyoto protocol. As leader of a minority government elected with only 36% of the vote, the Prime Minister has a duty to implement the will of the House.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that he has a duty to respect the decisions of the House?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, it is easy for an opposition party that will never be in power to say that it is easy to vote for very complex matters without a plan.

This government intends to develop a plan and take concrete action.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, my mandate is just as legitimate as his.

I was referring to the comments the Prime Minister made on May 11, 2005, when he said, “The government is duty bound to respect the decisions made by the House of Commons”.

Am I to understand that it was easy for him to say whatever he wanted when he was on this side of the House, to say whatever he wanted during the election campaign and to do the opposite today?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, polls indicate that the Kyoto protocol is popular. I notice today that the Bloc Québécois is indicating—just today—after four years, a change in position. It is opposed to our action in Afghanistan because polls indicate that our presence there is not popular.

Independent nations need leaders, not pollsters.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is rejecting Kyoto, and his future plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could very well be a carbon copy of the Bush plan, an approach that is very attractive to the oil companies because it imposes no restrictions and relies on voluntary action.

Will the Prime Minister see reason, listen to what Canadians are telling him and, in no uncertain terms, reaffirm Canada's support for the Kyoto protocol targets?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the critic for the environment should be embarrassed about the motion that he put before the House last week because it means for Quebec massive job losses and impacts the Quebec economy. He did nothing to explain to Quebeckers what his motion would actually entail and the consequences of exactly what he put forward.

(1430)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the motion voted on yesterday enjoys broad support in Quebec.

From 1980 to 1990, Canada fought against acid rain using a territorial approach, which enabled the country to surpass its international targets.

In the wake of yesterday's vote on the Kyoto protocol, what is preventing the government from taking the same approach? Can the government promise to give money to Quebec so that it can implement the Kyoto protocol in its own territory?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this is not about money. This is about the environment. We have seen the Liberal record of billions of dollars in wasted money and we are 35% above our Kyoto targets.

If the member actually cared about the environment and the future of Quebeckers, he would be working with us for a sensible approach instead of putting forward a motion that means shutting down the Quebec economy and doing nothing for the environment.

* * *

Government Appointments

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Canadians and members in the House welcomed the idea of having an appointments commission that would take a look at the whole process of how appointments are made. What we did not realize was that the Prime Minister thought that there was only one man out of the 32 million Canadians who was qualified to take this position. What we did not realize was that--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has the floor to put his question.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton:

Mr. Speaker, in the face of this Canadians are rather shocked. Given that the House of Commons was not prepared to appoint the one man, someone who made quite a controversial speech to the Fraser Institute, the Prime Minister's favourite think tank, the question is, why would the Prime Minister decide to cancel a good idea just because his guy did not get the job?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, Gwyn Morgan was voted the top CEO in the country. He brought forward with him a team of highly qualified executives, people from different partisan backgrounds, all of whom were willing to work to clean up the appointments process in this country for nothing, absolutely free to the taxpayers of Canada.

Mr. Morgan, instead of having an examination of his credentials, was treated to a buffoonish show of partisan behaviour at the committee. No quality person is going to go before that committee again for such an appointment and this Prime Minister is not going to ask anyone to do it.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand it now. Votes for the best CEO by whomever casts those votes is respected by the Prime Minister, but a vote in the House of Commons to respect international engagements on the environment is not respected by the Prime Minister. A vote in this place that would reject his personal choice for the appointments commission would not be respect by him.

This afternoon and this evening, when there is a vote in the House on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan, is he going to respect that vote or is he just going to say, “It's my way or the highway and just get used to it”?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am clear the vote has consequences. We are not proceeding with Mr. Morgan and his team on the public appointments commission.

In terms of Afghanistan, on Sunday the foreign affairs critic of the NDP said, “It's not a question of should we be in Afghanistan. Yes, we should; we need to be - we need to be in [for] the long haul...”. And yet today members of the NDP say they will vote against it, so maybe I will just wait a few days and we will get a different position from the NDP.

* * *

International Aid

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is demanding that Parliament make an important decision on sending our troops into harms way for another two years without an opportunity to get briefings from foreign affairs, CIDA and defence, so we can make a decision based on the facts. This is utterly irresponsible. Aid is critically important for the success of the superb job our troops are doing in Afghanistan.

Will the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House how much money CIDA is going to invest in Kandahar over the next two years?

(1435)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, for the year 2006-07, the government has committed $100 million to help the people of Afghanistan, and address the issues of development and poverty in that country. In the next two years, an additional $100 million will be allocated.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the budget for Afghanistan. It is not the budget for Kandahar where the bulk of our troops are, where the bulk of our troops are paying the price, and where their lives are on the line. This issue is critically important to the success of our troops on the ground in Kandahar and the minister knows this.

Will the minister tell the House specifically, how much money will CIDA invest in Kandahar over the next two years with the extension of this proposed mission? Can she specifically tell us how much now?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that the Afghan people need help, in Kandahar and throughout the country. There are not two Afghanistans, there is but one.

$100 million in aid will be given to the Afghan people every year until 2011.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canadians fully understand the nature of our mission in Afghanistan. The Conservatives are pressing us to take a position in this evening’s vote, even though we have access to only part of the information on the extension of the mission. What is more, what we know comes to us not from the government, but from the media.

Can the Prime Minister assure Canadians that this House and the Standing Committee on National Defence will be regularly informed of the military and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear: our government is asking for an extension of the commitments of the former Liberal government for another two years, and an extension of assistance for humanitarian development for another four years. One addition is being made to the military mission: Canada is requesting general command of the International Security Assistance Force, which requires the deployment of a high-ranking general and subordinates for one year, probably in February 2008. This is the only addition to our military mission.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, this answer is totally unacceptable. It is time the government started answering the questions that we ask. The Prime Minister wants to commit our soldiers for two more years, until 2009, but he allows us only six hours of debate on the issue.

Why does the Prime Minister not understand that the lives of our brave Canadian soldiers deserve more thorough reflection than can be had in a six-hour debate?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, if any member of the Liberal Party wishes to vote against an extension or the completion of their mission, that is deplorable. There is no excuse for it.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on National Defence passed a resolution which asks to study the various aspects of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, including the status of the troops and equipment and Canada’s capacity to meet its other international obligations, so that the House can make an informed decision.

Why would the government not wait for the recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Defence before making a final decision on extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan?

(1440)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as is its right, any committee of Parliament can decide to study anything it wants. We are having a vote tonight on Afghanistan, as agreed by all House leaders of all parties.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said: “The Liberal Party cannot ignore the democratic will of elected Members of Parliament whenever it fits their political agenda”.

Are we to understand from the Prime Minister’s attitude that, just four months after his election, he has already forgotten the noble commitments which supposedly set him apart from the Liberals?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in French what I just said in English. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois was in agreement with procedures for the debate and the vote. Today it has a different position.

Possibly if I wait a few days the Bloc Québécois will have again changed its position on Afghanistan.

* * *

Firearms Registry

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety just announced that he is changing the gun registry and that hunting rifles will no longer be included.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard:

Mr. Speaker, his counterpart in Quebec has asked that he reverse his decision and leave the registry in place.

Will the minister respond favourably to this request from the Government of Quebec?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, my office and I were pleased to receive a call from the minister for the beautiful Province of Quebec.

I can tell him that we are going to consult the provinces. I can also assure the minister that we will continue to require safe storage of firearms, safety training, a police check and registration of handguns. I will be consulting with the minister.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is also announcing that the RCMP will be responsible for managing the registry from now on.

Does the government intend to propose to the Government of Quebec that the Sûreté du Québec take on this responsibility in Quebec, with an appropriate budget transfer, especially since the Sûreté du Québec believes in the need for the national firearms program and reports to a minister who also believes in the program?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what will happen. I will consult with the minister on this, because the Sûreté du Québec has ideas, of course, and I will consult its representatives. I am in favour—we are all in favour—of effective gun control.

* * *

[English]

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, two major Canadian lumber industry groups have filed lawsuits against both the Government of Canada and the government of the United States. They state that the two governments are preventing Canadian private industry from finalizing the decision of the NAFTA panel that has found that Canadian softwood is not subsidized. That decision should be final and recognized. All duties which have been collected must be returned.

Why will the Prime Minister not stand up for Canadian companies and why did he give away what they had already won under NAFTA?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be prepared to go to his community, where the softwood lumber industry has been on its back for the last five years, and say that he wants more years of litigation and that he wants to cast aside a negotiated settlement that will bring stability, job growth, investment and a sense of a future for the softwood lumber industry across Canada and in northern Ontario.

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, who does he think asked me to ask the question?

It is absolutely shameful that a Canadian company needs to sue its own government to protect our legal rights. The United States has not yet abandoned any of its litigation. Our industries are still paying $40 million a month in duties. Many are totally tapped out of capital financing and on the brink of bankruptcy. It is another stab in the back.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. the Minister of International Trade.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the lawyers were probably the ones who got him to ask the question.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have spent on legal fees in this action. This negotiated settlement was very much in the interests of the Ontario forest industry and the forest industry across the country.

We have not given up our legal rights. We have merely suspended the extraordinary challenge. It can be continued, if this negotiation is not completed.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a NAFTA panel was preparing to confirm that Canadian softwood lumber is not subsidized just before the government capitulated to the Americans. Now, our industry must sue its own government in order to ensure compliance with NAFTA.

Rather than making the Canadian industry the priority by giving it a legal footing within NAFTA, the Prime Minister and his Minister of International Trade approved everything and abandoned everything. Why?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the previous question, we have not given up our legal rights. We have negotiated a settlement. We have protected Canadian forest policy. We have, if anything, protected Canadian sovereignty.

We have an agreement from the United States not to launch further aggressive trade actions. Those hon. members, with their cheap partisan politics, are inviting us to go back into a trade war, to go back into litigation, to go back into uncertainty, to go back into unemployment and to go back to destroying the softwood lumber industry.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it was established some time ago that the minister knows nothing about partisan politics.

Despite veiled threats to the provinces and industry, Ontario softwood producers have been cut loose in their fight to see free trade respected. It seems that the government is more interested in playing the role of butler to the U.S. industry than protecting Canadian jobs and ensuring our industry can compete in the future.

Why did the government gut NAFTA and give $500 million to American companies to continue to harass Canadian softwood producers?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I may not know much about partisan politics, but I think know a thing or two about softwood lumber.

The government is dead set on protecting and improving NAFTA, not on destroying it. We have not given up our legal position. We are building on NAFTA. We are re-energizing NAFTA. We are re-energizing the softwood lumber industry in our country.

* * *

Firearms Registry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the Auditor General's condemnation of the Liberal waste and mismanagement in the long gun registry. The government is committed to addressing the issue of the registry. Today we delivered.

Could the Minister for Public Safety tell the House his plans for the long gun registry?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, for his diligence on this file for years, keeping it before the public and showing us the importance of it.

We want to do a number of things. We want to ensure that Canadians have effective gun control. That is why we are maintaining the handgun registry. That is why we are maintaining the list of prohibited and restricted weapons. That is why we still need to have a licence to acquire a firearm. That is why we are still requiring safety checks and that firearms be stored safety.

When it comes to the long gun registry, which has cost close to $1 billion and has not been effective, we say it is time to put an end to that and get effective gun control for Canadians.

* * *

(1450)

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has once again embarrassed Canada on the international stage. In Bonn I witnessed the minister stand up and tell the world that Canada was going to cut and run on its commitments to do something about climate change.

After 13 years of Liberal neglect, Canadians could be forgiven for thinking our reputation could not get any worse. Sadly, they were wrong. The International Climate Action Network has called on the minister to step up and recommit to Canada's targets or to step aside as chair of this UN convention.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the only people who have anything to be embarrassed about on this are the Liberals. After 13 years of no action on the environment, we are now at 35% above our Kyoto targets. The international community is well aware of that.

What the member cannot handle is that I am actually telling the truth. When it comes to the Liberal record on the environment, the emperor has no clothes.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the truth is the minister is running away from Canada's commitments when it comes to climate change. Every other country went to Bonn with a plan and a commitment to meet their targets, except Canada. India and China showed up with plans that were better than ours.

The UN has offered its assistance for some counselling for the government, some help and assistance in finding out that it can actually meet its targets.

Will the government simply just state the obvious, take the help it needs and receive the counselling that it so desperately wants?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we used taxpayer dollars and hosted the member to come all the way to Bonn, and he comes back with this rhetoric. What happened in Bonn is that Norway--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. Minister of the Environment has the floor to answer a question that was asked of her and we have to be able to hear the answer.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose:

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member did not use his time over there to be constructive. Instead, he meddled in things he should not have. If he actually got to the truth of what happened over there, he would know that--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. Minister of the Environment has the floor to answer the question. We will have some order, please.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were truthful about what happened in Bonn, he would know that Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Canada have all taken the exact same position, and that is there needs to be an assessment of the Kyoto protocol over the next two years before any further commitments are made.

* * *

[Translation]

Firearms Registry

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety should take into account that the majority of Canadians, and a good number of editorial boards, support the gun registry. For example, La Presse believes that the government would be making a terrible mistake by eliminating the registry. Le Devoir states that the shortcomings that remain to be fixed have nothing to do with the relevance of the registry, which has been confirmed by its users, the police.

Does the government intend to listen to the Canadian people?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, any poll that would be done of Canadians asking if they want effective gun control and if they are tired of money being wasted on gun control that does not work, I think they would agree with that.

Quoting editorialists is one thing. How about quoting some of the chiefs of police? The Calgary Police Association said today:

Wiping the slate clean and not making responsible gun owners into criminals is a good start.

The chief of police from Toronto said today:

--we know the gun problem in Toronto is overwhelmingly a problem of illegal handguns.

Gangsters who carry guns in the city of Toronto do not register those guns so any changes in the gun registry are not going to have a significant impact on our efforts to control the operation...

Let us quote the police officers who are doing the work.

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting exactly what was said by the chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement authorities.

However, whatever the merits of the gun registry and the government's intention to kill it, the announcement of an amnesty and non-prosecution, while the existing law is still in place, is an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of due process.

If the government wants to kill the registry, why not come before Parliament and seek to change the law? Why does the government act by fiat rather than parliamentary vote? Why does it presuppose that Parliament will in fact repeal the law? Why is there this affront to Parliament to due process--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. the Minister of Public Safety.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, talking about coming before Parliament, the Auditor General has tabled her report and it was an incredible indictment of that former government hiding the results and hiding the money.

If he wants to quote people and police chiefs, let me quote the former police chief in Ottawa, who was also the former chairman of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. He said this about the Liberals:

I was assured by government -- it's on budget. They were lying. It bothers me.

Those are the words of the former chief of police, not my words.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am sure the hon. minister was not suggesting that any member of this House was not telling the truth. He knows he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly, otherwise we would all have dozens of quotes that would be quite unparliamentary and that is not permitted.

The hon. member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour.

* * *

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, recently, ACOA advertised the position of vice-president for the province of P.E.I.

It has become common knowledge that a political operative and employee of the Conservative premier may be handed the $135,000 job. In fact, it would appear the job description was tailored to ensure he gets it, including making the position only English essential, not bilingual, even though other positions reporting to the VP require bilingualism.

This is not supposed to be a political appointment. It is a public service position.

Will the Prime Minister ensure his part time ACOA minister will not interfere with the hiring process?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as for being a part time ACOA minister, it just proves once again that a Conservative can do in part time what it takes Liberals not even to be able to accomplish.

As far as patronage appointments, this minister and this government will not take lessons from a party of pork that took it to new levels every day when it was in government.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that is the party that pledged to keep politics out of ACOA and to do a value for money audit. One does not keep politics out of ACOA by throwing Conservatives into it, especially the friends of the minister and friends of the political premiers in Atlantic Canada.

The government says one thing and it does another.

Why would the Prime Minister allow the part time Minister of ACOA to interfere with the hiring process?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let me answer my ineffective critic across the way. If the member is so concerned about the way this department is operating, I would like to know why he comes cap in hand begging for ACOA projects for his riding.

As for the appointment of an individual, who has served in the cabinet of Prince Edward Island, being somehow not effective or not up to the job of representing the people of Prince Edward Island, I think he should take it up with the citizens of that province.

* * *

[Translation]

Correctional Officers

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, it will be exactly four years that 6,000 correctional officers have been working without a contract. However, this government promised in writing during the election to negotiate specific working conditions.

What is this government waiting for to keep the promises it made in writing in January and give the correctional officers a fair pension fund that takes into account the great risks and high level of stress related to their work?

(1500)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say directly to my colleague from Quebec that this government is currently working very hard with these public servants. They worked for four years on getting a contract with the previous government. I have already met with their union representatives twice and spoke to them on the phone twice. My assistant deputy minister is working very hard with this group. I hope we will have a solution as soon as possible.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the correctional officers have been working without a contract for four years.

Does the President of the Treasury Board not think it is time for this government to show its good faith, not just talk on the telephone, and fulfill its commitments and sign an agreement with the correctional officers?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I said that this problem with the previous government went on for four years. In my first 100 days in office, I have met with this union and spoken to its representatives four times in all. My assistant deputy minister is working with this group to get a real solution, a solution that the public servants can support and the government will support. As soon as possible, I will announce in this House the positive results achieved for the public servants and taxpayers alike.

* * *

[English]

Pay Equity

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, women who work full time in Canada earn only 71% of what men earn. The previous Liberal government committed to table new pay equity legislation by the end of 2006.

By contrast, in 1998 the current Prime Minister said that pay equity was “a rip-off” for taxpayers and that the federal government should “scrap its ridiculous pay equity law”. Is this still the view of the Prime Minister and, if not, will he table new pay equity legislation before the end of this year?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the equality of men and women is something that this government gives great importance to. The equality of public servants is something that is required for the good functioning of government and we strongly believe that we must treat every public servant fairly.

This was another example of where the previous government said, after 13 long years, that it was just about ready to get on with it. We do not need any lectures from the member opposite. The member opposite who sat in the government throughout all those years did absolutely nothing in this regard.

* * *

Agriculture

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the agriculture committee, the CEO of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition said that if the government had given its fleet of hopper cars over to the FRCC it would have had to charge a lease fee to farmers. He then said that with the FRCC plan there “will be some increased cost to farmers”.

Could the transport minister tell the House if the government's decision to keep the hopper cars means any increased cost to farmers?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, while farmers have had a hard time making ends meet over the last 13 years, this government respects farmers and is committed to taking action. This is why this government, in Bill C-11, is bringing in an amendment to lower the revenue cap. The amendment will pass on savings to the farmers of Canada, who, everybody knows, need it. They will be getting $50 million.

* * *

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said yesterday that no federal organization has taken responsibility for assessing the extent of the insidious mould problem on reserves and no one is developing a comprehensive strategy to address it. This is a serious health and safety issue for first nations.

Which of those ministers will take responsibility for this disaster and ensure the resources are available to deal with this problem?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has expressed a tale of mismanagement that has a direct impact on the health and safety of aboriginal Canadians. We do not have to make any excuses but we will be part of the solution rather than the members opposite who have been part of the problem for the last 13 years.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, without last year's NDP budget the Conservatives would have only committed $450 million to aboriginal peoples over two years, not the $1.15 billion that the minister is fond of bragging about.

The Auditor General's report shows that Conservative promises are not nearly enough to reduce the gaps in the standard of living for first nations, Inuit and Métis. Will the minister commit to implementing every single recommendation in the Auditor General's report for first nations programs immediately?

(1505)

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that we intend to fulfill our promises that were based on budget 2006, promises to aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast to coast, which the hon. member and her caucus voted against.

* * *

Presence in Gallery

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Joan Burke, Minister of Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; and Dr. David Dolphin, winner of the 2005 Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

* * *

Business of the House

[Business of the House]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

It being Wednesday, I believe the opposition House leader would now like to ask the Thursday question.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, because of the unusual events of tomorrow, the Thursday question becomes the Wednesday question.

I wonder if the government House leader would indicate what his work program is through the rest of this week and the full week after the Victoria Day break?

I also wonder, while he is on his feet, if he could advise us if the Prime Minister will be tabling in the House the document, clearly a cabinet document, that he was reading from and quoting from directly at 2:38 p.m. this afternoon?

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider a motion by the Prime Minister of Canada supporting the extension of Canada's contribution to international efforts at reducing poverty, enhancing human rights and gender equality for all Afghan men, women and children.

Tomorrow, but no later than Friday, we would like to conclude debate at second reading on Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill, in order to ensure, among other important objectives, that parents will receive their much anticipated and needed child care benefit cheques by July 1.

I would like to use this opportunity as well to remind members that tomorrow the House opens at 9 a.m., with statements by members at 11 a.m., followed by question period at 11:15 a.m. At noon, the House will adjourn in order to allow arrangements to be made for the Prime Minister of Australia to address both Houses of Parliament at 3 p.m.

After Bill C-13 is sent to committee, it is our intention to call two important justice bills: Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill; and Bill C-10, the mandatory minimum penalties bill.

We will continue to debate those bills. In addition, I would indicate, pending progress on Bill C-13, that Tuesday, May 30 and Thursday, June 1 would be allotted days.

I am sure that answers all the hon. member's questions.

* * *

[Translation]

Point of Order

Oral Questions

[Point of Order]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding oral question period.

Allow me to quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit at page 372:

Any document quoted by a Minister in debate, or in response to a question, must be tabled.

The Prime Minister quoted a document in response to a question asked earlier. Does the Prime Minister intend to table this document?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement and get back to the House.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. government House leader has indicated he will look into the matter.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: The Chair is entitled to hear argument from the hon. member on the point of order. There is a provision that documents quoted are to be tabled but there is also a provision that briefing notes prepared for ministers are not. We have to determine what it was.

The government House leader has undertaken to check this out and we will hear back from him. The Chair will then make a decision on whether the document has to be tabled or not. I think I have to hear both sides of the story before I make a decision.

(1510)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Mauril Bélanger:

Mr. Speaker, in making your determination, will you also review the video of question period because it was quite obvious that the Prime Minister was quoting a cabinet document and not a briefing for question period.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene with regard to the same point of order. I saw with my own eyes that it was a cabinet document. We insist it be tabled immediately. We have no need to wait for consultations. It was clear to the naked eye. I saw it myself.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I am sure the hon. Leader of the Government in the House is very grateful for the help of the hon. members for Outremont and Ottawa—Vanier on this point. It will help him considerably in his consultations and in preparing his response to the point of order raised.

[English]

We will deal with that one when we hear back from the government House leader, which we look forward to with great enthusiasm.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order on what happened in the course of question period today. The Minister of the Environment made some suggestion that in my accompaniment of her, which, under the agreements within the parties allows the minister to travel abroad, that I took this agreement and accompanied the minister to Bonn, Germany. In that accompaniment, I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you might request that the minister withdraw the comment, and also as the Speaker, direct her to offer an apology, because in her statement she imbued all sorts of comments about my participation, not only on the environment file, which she may address to some of her colleagues who have sat with me on committee over the years, but also my participation in Bonn, Germany and the diligence with which I took up my directives.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what I was referring to was a number of comments that the critic from the NDP made in a presser yesterday. In particular, he referred to how he spent most of his time in Bonn arguing with Environment Canada employees. I took offence to that, because Environment Canada employees and our department, I would say, are the people who care most about the department in this country. I did not appreciate him coming to Bonn to argue with the Canadian delegation, who went out of their way to make him feel comfortable, to take him to all of the meetings--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. It seems to me that this is not a point of order at all.

An hon. member: It is a question of privilege.

The Speaker: It may be a question of privilege. There are various solutions open to the members, but it sounds to me like a debate as to what happened in Bonn, which is not the subject of a question of privilege in this House. There are opportunities for late shows and there are opportunities for opposition day motions on subjects like this, but when questions are asked it is not for the Speaker to control the answers.

* * *

Decorum

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 16(2) states:

When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.

Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, while the member for the NDP was addressing the Chair, moved from this seat and walked directly across the chamber without respecting the standing order.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. I think it is time we moved on with routine proceedings. I appreciate the fact that the House seems in a mood for technicalities today, but I am afraid that members pass between the person who has the floor and the Speaker with monotonous regularity in the House. I regret that the standing order is breached in this way and I am glad that the hon. member for Mississauga South has pointed this out for all hon. members.

I am sure they will remember that when they turn to go to their seats they must go around the back way, or that way, if they are going to avoid breaking the rule which prevents passage between the person who has the floor and the Speaker. I thank the hon. member for pointing that out. I am sure the Minister of the Environment and all hon. members will follow this rule very carefully in the future.

Is this another point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay?

* * *

(1515)

Oral Questions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

I believe it is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of the Environment stands up in the House and accuses a member who is doing his job on behalf of Canadians and constituents of going on the taxpayers' dollar. That is what she said: to use the taxpayers' money. It is not his job to carry her ideological luggage when she goes to Europe. I--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. Arguments about what members do when they are not in the House may be a subject of debate, but in the Chair's view they are not a question of privilege, because a member's privileges have not been infringed by the events that I have heard described so far.

I do not think it is necessary to keep going into it. I have suggested various remedies.

If the hon. member thinks he has a question of privilege, he can send a written notice to the Chair, as the rules require, and then present an argument on a question of privilege. He rose on a point of order and was recognized on a point of order. I do not think there was a point of order and I do not think the minister's response indicated there was a point of order. It indicated a debate, so we will move on.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have some news that I am sure will be of interest to the House with respect to a previous point of order. I heard the comments from the former minister of transport, who believed that the Prime Minister was reading from a document.

I have had the opportunity to consult with the present Minister of Transport and he indicates to me that this was not the case. I am going to go with the advice of the present Minister of Transport. I hope this satisfies the House on that point of order.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

That sounds like a transport of delight.

The hon. member for Outremont is rising. I trust we are not getting into a debate. I hope it is a new point of order.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I might suggest to the new Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that he consider wearing glasses.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

[English]

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House reports from the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association concerning its trip to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom with respect to the Good Friday peace process last year.

* * *

Committees of the House

Government Operations and Estimates

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The committee has studied the certificate of nomination of Mr. Gwyn Morgan to the position of chairperson of the public appointments commission and has agreed to report it.

* * *

Public Accounts

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, three reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the first report, “Public Accounts of Canada 2005”; the second report, “Passport Office--Passport Services”; and the third report on the main estimates, vote 20, under finance.

The first and second reports are being re-tabled from the previous government and the committee is requesting a government response within the allotted time.

* * *

Canadian Heritage

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The committee has adopted a report on the review of the mandate of CBC-SRC and has agreed to report it to the House.

* * *

(1520)

Fisheries and Oceans

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The committee has adopted as a report in this session the fourth report of the first session of the 38th Parliament, entitled “Northern Cod: A Failure of Canadian Fisheries Management”, which is appended.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

* * *

[Translation]

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

He said: Mr. Speaker, as you said, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canada meets its climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

This bill creates an obligation on the minister to establish annually a climate change plan and make regulations. It also creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations and submit a report to Parliament.

I hope that my colleagues from all parties will support this bill, which is vital to our future and to that of our children.

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

* * *

[English]

Indian Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables).

He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to establish a matrimonial real property regime on those Indian reserves across Canada where such rules do not currently apply. This proposal states that on reserve residents would be protected by the matrimonial property rules of the province in which the majority of reserve lands are located.

I would emphasize that this bill is interim legislation only and would only apply until first nations assert their own law-making authority. Both the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development have called for immediate action on this issue.

When the matrimonial property rights of aboriginal Canadians, most frequently women and children, are denied, their fundamental human rights are also denied. This bill would end that injustice. I ask for members' support.

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

* * *

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Northern Ontario).

She said: Mr. Speaker, between the years of 1997 and 2003, northern Ontario lost two ridings. This bill would enact an amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to ensure that northern Ontario maintains a minimum of 10 ridings.

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

* * *

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a child before or during its birth while committing an offence).

He said: Mr. Speaker, current laws protect women who are victims of violence, or at least they are meant to do that. However, if a woman makes a choice to keep her child, there is no protection under current law for that unborn child.

Olivia Talbot, a young woman from Edmonton with her whole life ahead of her, had chosen to keep her child and raise a family. An ex-boyfriend brutally shot and killed her and then shot and killed her unborn child.

This bill would make it a separate offence to kill or injure an unborn child while committing a violent crime against its mother. I look forward to support from all parties for this bill.

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

* * *

(1525)

[Translation]

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has signed a historic agreement with the provinces, territories and leaders of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to close the gap between the quality of life of aboriginals and that of non-aboriginals.

[English]

The Government of Canada entered into a historic agreement with the provinces, the territories and the leadership of Canada's aboriginal people to close and ultimately eliminate the gaps between our aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians in the areas of health care, education, housing, access to clean water and economic opportunity.

I believe and we believe it is vital that the Government of Canada honour its commitment. That is the purpose of this bill.

[Translation]

The government must keep its promises. That is the purpose of this initiative.

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

* * *

[English]

Development Assistance Accountability Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canadian development assistance abroad is provided with a central focus on poverty reduction in a manner consistent with Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy and international human rights standards.

The minister will be obliged to advise the House as to whether this contributes to poverty reduction, takes into account perspectives of the poor, and is consistent with Canada's international human rights obligation. This bill flows directly from the report of the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament.

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

* * *

Income Tax Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Prince Albert to introduce this bill entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)”.

With this legislation an allowance given to young amateur athletes of up to $350 per month by non-profit sports organizations for board and lodging will be exempt from taxation. The bill would allow non-profit amateur junior teams to once again operate without the fear of being taxed out of business. The bill would also protect the amateur status of athletes wishing to pursue athletic scholarships elsewhere.

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

* * *

Canada Labour Code

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce this bill that will make amendments to the Canada Labour Code. The bill will strengthen and protect workers' rights by prohibiting replacement workers from doing their jobs. Banning replacement workers, scabs, decreases the length of labour disputes and that is good for workers, business and the economy. These proposed changes are just one more example of how we are standing up for working families.

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

* * *

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this bill which was introduced in the last Parliament and which had broad support. It would provide peace officers and police the power to arrest without warrant a person who is in breach of a probation order or binding a person who has breached their condition of parole.

Many times the police notice people who are breaking the law, their probation and parole, but are unable to make an arrest. This would enable them to do so to better protect the public. The police have requested this for a long time and I am happy to table the bill.

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

* * *

(1530)

National Colorectal Cancer Month Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, An Act to designate the month of March as National Colorectal Cancer Month.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a private member's bill that calls on the government to recognize the month of March as National Colorectal Cancer Month. This year alone roughly 20,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer. An estimated 8,500 will die from this terrible disease. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and the third most common form of cancer among men and women.

I had the opportunity to attend a breakfast lecture hosted by the Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada. I would like to commend the organization for its hard work in promoting the cause and I would like to extend special congratulations to Alain Gourd, Barry Stein and Garry Sears for their timeless efforts. On their behalf and on behalf of thousands of Canadians, I would like to introduce this bill, an act to designate the month of March as National Colorectal Cancer Month.

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

* * *

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

She said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would require the Minister of the Environment to add perfluorooctane sulfonate to the virtual elimination list compiled under subsection 65(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act within nine months of the bill becoming law.

The bill would also require the minister to make regulations prescribing the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment, either alone or in combination with any other substance in order to achieve the virtual elimination of the substance.

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

* * *

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Competition Act (personal information obtained by fraud).

He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to address some of the serious challenges related to the theft of personal information. The bill would amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Competition Act in order to protect individuals against the acquisition of their own personal information through fraud and impersonation. I encourage all members to examine and support the bill.

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

* * *

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (direct sale of grain).

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise on behalf of all the farmers of western Canada under the Canadian Wheat Board block to present a private member's bill to do away with that arcane and punitive buyback provision in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

That buyback would not proceed on processed grain produced by the producer, directly taken to an association or a firm engaged in processing as long as that firm was majority held by producers themselves.

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

* * *

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol).

She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a private member's bill that is long overdue in Canada.

MADD Canada estimates that just under four Canadians are killed each day and just under 190 Canadians are injured each day due to crashes involving alcohol or drugs. Approximately 75,000 Canadians are impacted by impaired drivers annually, and there are an estimated 12.5 million trips of impaired driving each year in Canada.

As such, this private member's bill calls on the government to amend the Criminal Code to reduce the legal limit of alcohol permitted in the blood while operating a motor vehicle from 80 milligrams or 0.08% to 50 milligrams, or 0.05%.

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

* * *

(1535)

Pest Control Products Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Pest Control Products Act (prohibition of use of chemical pesticides for non-essential purposes).

She said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House debated a motion to place a moratorium on the non-essential, cosmetic use of pesticides until the safety of those chemicals is proven by scientific and medical experts. Members of the House cynically rejected the motion, refusing to protect the health of Canadians against the risks posed by entirely unnecessary chemical exposure and refusing to protect the environment.

I, and my NDP colleagues, believe that Canadians want pesticides to be proven safe before they are sprayed on their lawns and playgrounds. Today I am pleased to introduce an act to amend the Pest Control Products Act that would prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes until their safety is scientifically proven. I encourage all Canadians to remind their MPs and insist on greater medical precautions when it comes to the health of our children.

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

* * *

[Translation]

Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-303, An Act to establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quality, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care.

She said: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am proud to present to Parliament, on behalf of the NDP, our bill on early learning and child care.

[English]

We in the NDP believe this may be the most important piece of new legislation, not just in this Parliament but in every Parliament since the Canada Health Act was established. The legislation we are introducing today is based on the principles of quality, universality, accessibility, accountability and educational development.

With the challenges currently facing our society, child care should not be an afterthought or luxury. With this act we aim to enshrine national child care into legislation to protect and build child care for future generations.

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

* * *

National Strategy for the Treatment of Autism Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, An Act to provide for the development of a national strategy for the treatment of autism and to amend the Canada Health Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide much needed support for many Canadians and their families who are affected by autism spectrum disorder. This bill would see that two forms of very effective treatments, applied behavioural analysis and intensive behavioural intervention, be covered under the Canada Health Act.

It would also compel the federal Minister of Health to work with his provincial counterparts in developing a national strategy for the treatment of autism. The bill would require that a first ministers conference would be held this year before December 31, 2006, and that a national strategic plan be developed and tabled in the House before December 31, 2007.

I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in supporting this very important issue.

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

* * *

(1540)

Income Tax Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents).

He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to restore tax fairness to Canadians, especially Canadian seniors who worked in the U.S. but lived and invested in our communities across Canada. Ten years ago they received a 70% tax hike. This bill seeks to reverse that. This bill received broad support from members in the last Parliament and was sent to committee. I look forward to their support again to ensure our seniors receive their deserved tax fairness.

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

* * *

Canada Pension Plan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (early pension entitlement for police officers and firefighters).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill on behalf of our hard-working police and firefighters. Firefighting and policing are physically and emotionally demanding and, as we learned with the recent death of Senior Constable John Atkinson of the Windsor Police Service, it is very dangerous as well.

Early retirement has long been accepted as being in the best interests of officers, their families and the public they serve. Our Income Tax Act permits police and firefighters to retire early at age 55. The officers and firefighters who retire early do not currently have the ability to make CPP contributions from 55 to 60 years of age. This bill is intended to address that concern.

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

* * *

Phthalate Control Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-307, An Act to prohibit the use of benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in certain products and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to ban a collection of chemicals known as phthalates that end up in products, particularly products used by young children. This would be one of the first times in Canadian law that the onus of responsibility would be shifted on to the manufacturer to prove that a product was safe prior to its arrival in the marketplace. This is a bill that addresses the most vulnerable populations in our society, particularly children and pregnant women. There are similar bans in Europe and many of the United States.

Support from the environment groups and health groups across the country has been strong. I look forward to support from members across the aisle and around this House.

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

* * *

Petitions

Sudan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by many that calls on Parliament to take immediate action, with the help of Canada's allies, using all means necessary to increase intervention efforts regarding the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, so as to actively prevent the ongoing crisis there.

Today we learned that the Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to begin the process of establishing a UN chapter 7 peacekeeping force to end the slaughter of civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan. We, as parliamentarians and of course as government, have to act on this very immediate crisis that is taking place. Also we should send peacekeeping forces and in fact work with the International Criminal Court to arrest the 51 Sudanese individuals so far identified as being responsible for crimes against humanity and other gross human rights abuses.

* * *

[Translation]

Older Workers

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling in this House a petition signed by over 600 citizens from Drummond riding, informing the House: that the textile industry has been in decline in Quebec for a few years;

that several massive lay-offs have taken place during this time;

that the majority of individuals who have lost their jobs are over the age of 55.

Consequently, they ask Parliament:

to intervene so that the government reactivates the POWA program or any other equivalent program in order for these workers to continue to receive a decent income.

* * *

(1545)

[English]

Child Care

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me hundreds of signatures of citizens from Windsor, LaSalle, Tecumseh, London, Duncan, Wallaceburg, Kingsville and Leamington pleading with the House of Commons to have a high quality and accessible universal child care program. They urge the House to enshrine the child care act in legislation and that it be a cornerstone of Canada, as is the Canada Health Act.

* * *

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.

The 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.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC)

moved:

That,

(1) whereas the House on April 10, 2006 debated a motion in support of Canada’s significant commitment in Afghanistan;

(2) whereas Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan is an important contribution, with that of more than 30 other countries, to international efforts under the auspices of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO);

(3) whereas these international efforts are reducing poverty, enhancing human rights and gender equality, strengthening civil society and helping to build a free, secure and self-sustaining democratic state for all Afghan men, women and children; and

(4) whereas Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan is consistent with Canada’s support of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights around the world;

the House support the government’s two year extension of Canada’s deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension.

He said: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, we made a pledge during the last election campaign to put international treaties and military engagements to a vote in this chamber.

[Translation]

If we made this promise, it was because before we send diplomats, relief workers and soldiers on dangerous missions abroad, it is important to be able to tell them that Canada’s parliamentarians believe in their objectives and support what they are doing.

[English]

This is an opportune time for such a debate and such a vote. Last week the Minister of Foreign Affairs visited Afghanistan. During his visit to Afghanistan, President Karzai requested that Canada extend its peace and security operation in his country beyond our existing commitment which expires in February 2007. This operation of our national defence personnel is fundamentally linked with our other diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. President Karzai and the Afghan people are waiting for our response.

[Translation]

This evening we will vote for a renewed commitment.

[English]

It is a vote that is long overdue. It is a vote that all parties in the House have asked for and have agreed to. As members know, our diplomats, aid workers and soldiers have been deployed in Afghanistan for almost five years.

Despite the fact that members of three of four parties in the House have consistently voiced support for a mission in Afghanistan, Canadians on the ground in Kabul, Kandahar and in the PRT have never received a clear mandate from this Parliament. That is not fair to the brave men and women who wear the maple leaf. They need to know that their Parliament is behind them.

President Karzai's request provides us with an opportune time to explain our next moves forward and to renew our commitment. Today we will debate and tonight we will vote.

President Karzai is not the only person waiting for Canada to decide. Our international and NATO allies will also be watching. They, too, want a renewed commitment. As members know, both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, our two primary partners in southern Afghanistan, have recently renewed their commitments, two year and three year commitments respectively. The Dutch and the British have made their commitments.

Our rationale for being in Afghanistan is clear. It is in the interests of this country.

(1550)

[Translation]

We are there as well at the invitation of the Afghan government. We are taking part in a multinational operation sanctioned by the United Nations.

[English]

Our mission there is not some sort of throwaway option among competing alternatives. It is not a manufactured make-work project to keep soldiers and diplomats busy. It certainly is not a unilateral effort on Canada's part.

The events of September 11, 2001 were a wake-up call not just to Americans but to people in all free and democratic nations. Two dozen Canadians were killed as a result of the attacks on the twin towers. They were our ordinary fellow citizens, people with stories, families and dreams. The attacks in New York and Washington have been followed by others in Madrid, Bali, London, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere.

[Translation]

We should be clear. Canada is not safe from such attacks. We will never be safe so long as we are a society that defends freedom, democracy and human rights.

[English]

We have known as a nation since the beginning that as long as we defend the values of freedom, democracy and human rights, we will not be safe from attack from those who oppose them. Not surprisingly, al-Qaeda has singled out Canada along with a number of other nations for attack. It is the same al-Qaeda that together with the Taliban took an undemocratic, failed Afghanistan and made it a safe haven from which to plan terrorist attacks worldwide.

We just cannot sit back and let the Taliban backed by al-Qaeda or similar extremist elements return to power in Afghanistan. It cannot be allowed to happen. The continued existence of Taliban pockets following defeat of the regime means our efforts in Afghanistan have never been peacekeeping in the traditional sense.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not interested in peace. They target civilians. They target women and children in a quest to impose once again their will and their dark and backward vision of life on the Afghan people. They promise their followers heaven in the afterlife. What they deliver is hell on earth.

[Translation]

The previous government recognized this.

[English]

In fact, the leader of the official opposition never shied away from voicing his support for fellow Canadians in Afghanistan. In the debate just last month on our mission to Afghanistan, he stated, “I want to start by echoing the minister's words.... We are very proud of them”. On numerous times he corrected misinformation about our role in Afghanistan. I quote:

We are in Afghanistan because the Afghans want us in Afghanistan. This is not an invasion or occupation. This is going to help people.

Support for the mission was echoed last month in the House by the member for Vancouver South, who stated:

Our government agreed to this deployment. We believed then and we believe now that destroying root and branch the agents and infrastructure of supply and training that made Afghanistan into a safe haven for international terrorism is in Canada's vital national interest.

Support for our troops has also been expressed consistently by the Bloc Québécois and even some members of the New Democratic Party. I could quote the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on this.

[Translation]

It is an opinion shared by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who stated: “Why should we be in Afghanistan? Because it is a question of international solidarity that can make Quebeckers feel obliged to be there”.

I can tell you from direct experience that our men and women in Afghanistan are grateful to the many members from such diverse parties who supported what they are doing.

(1555)

[English]

Together, diplomats, workers and soldiers from 35 countries are working with the government of Afghanistan to rebuild that country. We are providing knowledge, financial assistance, security; security that allows the Afghan people to build a justice system, develop and grow their economy, construct schools, hospitals and irrigation systems, and yes, ensure that the rights of the Afghan people are protected.

[Translation]

I am thinking of the right of women to be treated like human beings, of the right to see, read and say whatever one wants, of the right to choose one’s leaders through the electoral process.

[English]

There are real risks involved in helping the Afghan people achieve these gains. There are risks for Afghans, risks for our allies, and as we all know, risks for Canadians. We know this because we had again today a combat fatality. These risks, as tragic as they are, and these losses, as tragic as they are, are not unique to this time and this place. There were risks when Canada went to the Balkans, to Cyprus, or during the Suez crisis, and of course, in Korea and in two world wars.

Canadians accept risks when those risks are in the service of a greater good. We honour those who take risks and make the ultimate sacrifice by staying the course and supporting their mission.

[Translation]

In the government’s view, the emergence of a stable, safe, self-sufficient, democratic Afghanistan that will never again be a haven for terrorists or traffickers is well worth the effort.

[English]

Canadians, particularly young Canadians, often ask me what I saw in Afghanistan. They want to know what work we are doing there. I tell them the work is both serious and complex.

[Translation]

We are working together with our partners from Afghanistan, the UN, NATO and NGOs in an integrated international effort to support the recovery of this country.

[English]

Key to this are the 27,000 troops from dozens of countries, including Canadian Forces personnel, who are helping to stabilize Afghanistan so that vital humanitarian and development work can be undertaken.

The challenges are enormous. There are no quick fixes and success cannot be assured by military means alone.

In fact, Canada and her allies all agree that we need to promote simultaneous support for Afghan governance and economic development to bring about a lasting recovery. This is why we opened a mission in Kabul, in great danger in 2003, and recently doubled our presence there.

[Translation]

Canadians from our embassy are working directly every day with Afghans, the UN, the World Bank, NATO and our other partners to ensure that the reconstruction of this country is a success. This pre-supposes that the resources intended for development are there and distributed equitably among the Afghan people.

[English]

Our work is paying off. In little more than three short years, 12 million Afghans, both men and women, have registered to vote in two historic elections. Close to five million children have been enrolled in school, one-third of them young girls. Almost four million refugees have returned and more than half of all Afghan villages have received grants to allow them to begin to rebuild.

[Translation]

All that has happened in a country where, just a few years ago, there were no elections, there was virtually no public education, women had no rights, and the future looked very bleak.

[English]

I saw this progress first-hand, and it made me proud to know that Canada was there making it happen.

Working with our allies and the Afghan people, Canada has achieved great things, but there is much more to do.

(1600)

[Translation]

Afghanistan is still the fifth poorest country in the world. The Taliban are trying to return to power and too many people have to fall back on drug trafficking to meet the needs of their families.

[English]

We need to extend our mission so we can work to finish the job the previous government started. We need to improve the security situation in southern Afghanistan to bring it in line with the north and the west of the country. We need to ensure that children in southern Afghanistan will be able to go to school without fear of attack. We need to ensure that the people there can get the things we take for granted, things like clean water, roads without mines and reliable sources of energy.

Stability in southern Afghanistan will also help the Afghan national government focus on improving the country's emerging democratic infrastructure.

[Translation]

That is to say, an independent human rights commission, a new central bank, and a professional police force.

[English]

Our mission in Afghanistan is one more example of the Canadian leadership tradition in world affairs, a tradition that crosses party lines, a tradition of which we are all proud, a tradition that favours actions over words, results over process, principle over politics.

The allied governments that have sent missions to Afghanistan are a diverse lot: conservative, liberal, social democrats; people in parties who would normally and naturally disagree on so many other day to day political issues, as we do in this chamber, but who share a common resolve to strengthen democracy, ensure equality rights for women, reduce poverty and make the free world safe from the threat of terrorism.

To achieve these objectives, our allies agree that we must eliminate the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and train Afghan security forces so they are capable of sustaining security in their own country.

Therefore, this government is seeking Parliament's clear support to renew Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Our men and women need to know that we share their goals and support their efforts and are willing, regardless of polls that sometimes go up or down, to back them for the next few years so they can finish the work they were sent there to do.

[Translation]

We are asking Parliament to make a commitment in three areas: diplomacy, development and defence.

[English]

All three are inextricably linked. In a moment I want to go through what we are asking Parliament specifically to support over the next couple of years.

I think I also need to be clear, given the events over the last 24 hours or so, of what the consequences would be if there were a No vote. Let me be clear on this. This would be a surprise to this government. In debates in this chamber up until last month and in private meetings until very recently, we had every reason to believe that three of four parties, which have consistently supported this action, would continue to do so.

Should that turn out not to be the case, this government is not in a position to simply walk away or to run away. What the government will do, if we do not get a clear mandate, the clear will of Parliament to extend for two years and beyond, is proceed cautiously with a one year extension. We cannot walk away quickly. We will proceed with another year and if we need further efforts or a further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will go so alone and we will go to the Canadian people to get that mandate.

We are asking for a two year mandate that extends the elements of the current deployment.

[Translation]

The first part of our commitment entails the construction of a permanent, secure Canadian embassy in Kabul, which will serve Canada’s interests and meet Afghanistan’s needs for at least 15 years.

The second is the approval of an additional $310 million expenditure for development assistance from next year until 2010-11, which will raise Canada’s total contribution to nearly $1 billion over 10 years.

(1605)

[English]

Third and finally, we are seeking to extend the mission of both the Canadian Forces in Kandahar as well as the efforts of Canadian military diplomats, development workers and police in the PRT, the provincial reconstruction team, for 24 more months. This mission extension, if the motion is passed, will cover the period from February 2007 to 2009 when we expect a transition of power in Afghanistan itself.

Extending the mission of the Canadian Forces has operational consequences. We will take on once again a second leadership rotation from November 2007 to May 2008, and this is new. As I said earlier today, we will be prepared to assume overall leadership of the ISAF for one year starting in February 2008.

Near the end of each calendar year, 2006, 2007, 2008, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence will evaluate the results of our involvement, in concert with our allies, according to the criteria set out at the London conference, and we will share this evaluation with parliamentarians of all parties.

There we have it, the reaffirmation of Canada's intent expressed through a clear and renewed commitment, a commitment that builds on past achievements, a commitment in line with Canadian values, a commitment that allows us to finish the job.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. Prime Minister for elaborating on further details, which probably should be included in the motion to be voted on tonight. Maybe he would agree to an amendment.

My question has to do with process. The Prime Minister will be aware that members are concerned about the swiftness of the requirement for this debate and vote. He indicated in his speech that both the Dutch and the British had already made their commitment to extend their missions for a further two years, but we only found out about this on Monday.

Could the Prime Minister advise the House when he found out about the extension request of two years from either NATO or Mr. Karzai? When was the first time he advised Parliament?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, first, I will say a couple of things to that.

In the first place, all the engagements that we are asking Parliament to back, with the one exception of command of ISAF as I mentioned, are all engagements as undertaken at the present time. These are extensions to Canada's current involvement, not changes.

He knows the government, of which he was previously a member, made these commitments. I would assume, as a member of the previous government, he is well aware of the time lines that are involved in terms of expectations of new engagements. We are coming up on an international conference. The fact that our NATO allies have extended their commitments is not a secret fact. This is a publicly known fact.

All I can say in terms of the process is the House was consulted in a take note debate in April. The view of his party at that time was clear, as it had been for the previous few years. His leader was consulted in the lead-up to this, and his party agreed to the process we proposed, which made this debate possible today.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime Minister.

First, is he suggesting that if the House were to oppose the motion before us, that his government would proceed in any event with a further deployment on a mission in Afghanistan after 2007, despite the vote in the House?

Second, is he suggesting that the commitment would terminate ultimately in February 2009 because of a change of administration of some sort in Afghanistan. In his view, if the change, to which he has referred and which is rather vague, does not happen, what would Canada's plan be for the longer term?

(1610)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I want to respond to in the questions.

First, as I said earlier, the government would quite frankly be surprised if we did not have the support of the same three or four parties that supported this mission from the outset and up to at least last weekend. If it were the case that we were surprised by the result of tonight's vote, I do not think it is feasible for Canada to simply walk away in the next few months. The government has to take its responsibilities and the safety of its soldiers and its diplomats seriously.

What we would do is proceed cautiously for a year, as I said. If we believe we need to go further beyond that, we will seek a mandate from the Canadian people.

What we are asking for here is to extend the mandate in this motion for a clear two years. That would bring us to the end of President Karzai's term, and that is where the allies, which have been with us from the beginning, are by and large at today.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former defence minister who has visited Afghanistan three times, I have nothing but huge admiration and support for our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces, and I have nothing but total support for the mission.

However, so suddenly has this debate been brought on, so little information has been provided in advance on such an important issue and so much time is remaining until decisions really have to be made, I find this whole process insulting, not only to members of Parliament but to members of the Canadian military.

Why does the Prime Minister so taint the process that people like myself, such natural supporters of the military, are required in our own minds to vote against the motion tonight?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, members across various parties in the House have requested a vote. Members of all parties, in particular the hon. member and his party, are more than aware of the details of our engagement in Afghanistan, which we are seeking to extend.

Let us be serious. The government believes there should be a vote. The government offered a vote and that vote was accepted. The process was accepted unanimously by the House, including by his party. If he does not like that, he should take that up with the leadership of his party.

However, we have men and women over there who are doing great work, who are prepared to take bullets for our country. If the hon. member and his party are not prepared to stand up and simply endorse the mission, then they are, frankly, not supporting the people on the ground they claim to support, and that is what they should do.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is not entitled to twist the meaning of his own motion?

It is not a motion to discover whether the House supports the mission. That is not the question.

The question asked is whether the House supports extending the mission by two years, without the House having any access to the information it needs?

Is the Prime Minister aware that the debate in the Netherlands took months and that the date of the vote was known well in advance.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if his repugnant motion is rejected by this House, we will have all the time needed to debate the matter and have the support of the House to extend the mission, once it has the information it needs?

(1615)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, the House, especially the party opposite understands the mission in Afghanistan. I hope that, before sending our troops, our young men and women, into a military campaign, it understood the mission in Afghanistan.

This government wants strong support for our troops in Afghanistan. This is why we responded to calls from the parties to have a vote.

We know the NDP may vote against the motion. However, indications are that the other parties support the motion. It will be a good message for our troops.

I would just add that, in my own opinion, the comments by the parties have been clear up to this week. Our troops and the public have a hard time understanding why the parties suddenly change their mind when there is a vote.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asserted that the Dutch and the British have made their commitment, the implication being: What is wrong with Canada that it is not prepared to enter a new mission at this point beyond February 2007 when it ends? I do not think the Prime Minister intends to deceive this Parliament or the Canadian people.

Therefore, I wonder if he could please confirm his understanding that in fact the Dutch, who were to have been fully deployed long before now, have not yet done so, it has been delayed further until September and that may or may not happen. Second, the British deployment has been delayed as well, in both instances because they had serious concerns about whether operating under Operation Enduring Freedom was the way to go with an aggressive combat, search and kill mission, and they were concerned about the continuing uprising of the insurgence instead of the opposite.

Could he please confirm his understanding on those points?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, I was in Afghanistan. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others are in contact with our allies. The Dutch and the British are proceeding. I can tell the House that the Dutch, in large measure, are proceeding because they know Canada is behind this mission and they have never forgotten the Canadian role in the liberation of the Netherlands during World War II.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak for all members of the House in saying that this is certainly one of the most important and profound debates that we have had in this chamber. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that it is being held in conditions that have made it so difficult to get to the results I believe we all want, which is the good of our country, the good of our troops and, ultimately, the good of the world.

As the Prime Minister said, in recent debates in the House I and other members of the Liberal caucus strongly supported our mission in Afghanistan. We were at the origins of it. We were proud of our decision and we still are. This mission is consistent with our foreign policy review and our defence review which foresaw difficult missions in failing states such as Afghanistan where the military is not there exclusively on military missions. In fact, we foresaw in our foreign policy review precisely the nature that this mission would need to take to be successful. It needed to have what we called a 3D approach: diplomacy, defence and development. We needed the military there to set conditions for success.

While we have this debate tonight let no one misinterpret what we are doing in all parts of the House when we do our parliamentary duty to understand the nature of the mission and the chances for success. I have been in Afghanistan, as have members of our caucus.

(1620)

[Translation]

I have seen the extraordinary feats our soldiers perform daily in difficult situations, in an inhospitable setting and in the face of serious danger.

[English]

I believe our soldiers know they are there to set conditions for success and to support our PRT, our provincial reconstruction team. We also have an aid component. One of our diplomats, the brave Glyn Berry, gave his life for his country, not as a military person but as a diplomat participating in an overall mission that was designed, not only with a military focus, but with a view to reconstructing Afghanistan so it may become a peaceful member of the family of nations once again.

I have heard from Afghans. I have heard from women and children. I, too, like the Prime Minister and others, have heard from President Karzai. We know why they support our mission and our troops. They want success across the board in building their country.

That of course was the question that we had in the last debate in this House. The question we have today is: Why we are prolonging this mission for two additional years at this time given the amount of information available to members of the House and given the present situation?

What we are looking for from the Prime Minister is not a description of the mission as one that is dealing with the insurgency or the threat to Canada. We have debated that. All members of this House participated in that debate and agreed that was the nature of the mission and the reason we went there in the first place.

I will repeat the words of the member from Markham. What I need and what those of us who have been so supportive of these missions need to hear tonight are the other conditions. What is the government's commitment to aid? There is no point in sending our military for an additional two years if this House does not hear from the government that it will be committing the amount of aid necessary to rebuild Afghanistan and recreate Afghanistan.

I hope I will hear from the foreign affairs minister or the defence minister about how we are rebuilding governance structures, how we are dealing with corruption and how we are dealing with other issues.

If we do approve the mission for two years, I would like to know from the government what role the House will play as we go forward. Is the government saying that it wants a blank cheque?

The defence committee tried to pass a resolution the other day to be involved in matters and we were told that this would not be dealt with through the defence committee. If this goes ahead, I thought I heard the Prime Minister say earlier, in answer to a question, that there would be regular updates to the House but I did not hear that tonight.

We have not been told about other things. What are the necessary benchmarks? We have been told, for example, that 2009 was chosen because that is the end of Mr. Karzai's term. What about the problems of corruption, the Pakistan source of insurgents? What about the difficult issue of other missions? I hope the defence minister will help us this evening by telling us that the government recognizes that Afghanistan cannot be the only focus of our military activities.

If there is a crisis in Haiti or a crisis in Darfur where we can make a contribution, will the government give us its assurance that it will be possible for us to respond as Canada must respond? That is why we always had short missions before and why we insisted that we have flexibility to go in and help.

Before I can make a decision tonight I need to hear a response, and I beg the defence minister to give us the facts, on whether we will be able to respond to those missions as a responsible country. Those are the issues we need to deal with.

Let me comment on the process, as the member from Markham did. We had a debate on this before. We know there is no constitutional need for this debate. Is this debate and this particular vote, held in these circumstances, one for political gain or is it to support our troops on missions?

(1625)

[Translation]

For example, if I understood correctly, yesterday our Bloc Québécois colleagues supported the mission. But today they no longer support it because their motion was defeated in committee.

Everyone is trying to take part, but if roadblocks are thrown up at every turn, it is hard.

We have very little time. We hear that the Dutch parliament had 10 weeks; we have just six hours.

[English]

So much of what we heard today from the Prime Minister was for the first time.

We heard of Mr. Karzai's request.

We heard from the Prime Minister that a one year mandate is a possible consideration by the government. I think if the government had put to us a one year mandate, I honestly believe it would have got more support from members of the House. It would have been more understandable than a blank cheque for two years. Why now spring one year on us in the middle of the debate?

We hear for the first time about the leadership of ISAF from Jane Taber in the Globe and Mail.

[Translation]

Our caucus had only a few hours to discuss the motion that this government has put before the House this evening. We had a good discussion. A number of different opinions were expressed, and some common points were made. The Liberal caucus firmly supports our troops. We firmly believe in the current mission and the global goals. We also firmly believe that the government's process will not allow many parliamentarians to make an informed decision about this crucial issue. It is unfair to place parliamentarians in this position.

That said, I can speak on behalf of my caucus. We are here, and we have an opportunity to vote for or against this motion this evening, depending on what the government says. We will take part in this debate. We will listen to the government's arguments, and each of our members will vote according to the information we receive from the government.

[English]

All our members will exercise their parliamentary responsibility. Our duties to our constituents and to this august House demand no less.

I have listened to the Prime Minister. I will listen to the defence minister. I will listen to other members of the House. I will vote in favour of this mission if they satisfy me on those issues I referred to, because I believe I can only in conscience vote if in fact we are getting that right assurance, and I will vote for the mission.

But let there be no doubt. The responsibility for this process lies squarely with the government. We could have had a committee. We could have had more time. We had to negotiate the amount of time we got. Surely members opposite, in good faith, would want more time to discuss this.

Certainly no vote in the House in these circumstances could ever be interpreted as a lack of support for our troops. Let us not descend into jingoism. Let us try to find out what is best for our country and, sincerely, what is best for our troops.

I end as I began. We have seldom participated in a debate so important for our troops and for our country. I know that our members on our side will vote their conscience when we have heard the government case.

For myself, like the member for Markham, I hope the government will make that case, because we believe in this mission, but I know each and every member of the House will be seeking guidance from whatever individual divine inspiration they choose to seek.

I know also that they will vote in a way that is true to our country, to our troops in this mission, in a way in which we, who happen to live in one of the most fortunate countries in the world, can help those less fortunate than ourselves, who may be half a world away, but who are also part of our human family.

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. His party and his former government made that commitment to the Afghani people, and they made it for the right reasons. That is the fascinating thing about this. They made it for the right reasons and we have been there for several years.

The hon. member says we could have had a committee on this. I want to point out to him that he did not have a committee to look at it when his party committed Canadian troops to the area to help rebuild that country. His party did not commit to having a vote on it. His party did not commit to having any of those things.

This debate and vote is a step forward in engaging the Parliament of Canada. I want to point out that this process we have here today had the unanimous consent of everybody. All 308 members of the House of Commons unanimously agreed yesterday that this was a good process, that this was something they wanted Parliament to debate.

For them now to say that in 26 hours they have changed their minds is a bit much, and let me tell the House that it sends out exactly the wrong message to the men and women who are fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan and to the Afghani people.

Now those members do not know why we are there. They do not have enough information. Good heavens, that party has supported this mission for years. What information did they have then? I can quote the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He said that it is a dangerous mission, one that is crucial to our efforts to help bring peace and security to the people of Afghanistan.

That was in March, so I want to know, what has changed in the last 26 hours?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1630)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that whatever the right message is, our troops will not feel honoured or supported by the notion that we spent all afternoon yelling at each other.

I recognize the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes us back to the commitment that we made when we were in government, the commitment that I personally have defended on many occasions, but I have to tell the member that the defence of course was based on those conditions and on that year's commitment.

What I am seeking to hear from the government today is not these sorts of political accusations going back and forth. What I and other members of the House are honestly and sincerely seeking from the government is answers to our questions, which we have only been given six hours to get, and those questions relate to, for example, what is the relationship to the aid project? Are we making progress on the governance issues? Will the House, if we extend the mission for two years, continually be kept abreast of matters through the committee?

These are legitimate questions. These are not irresponsible positions to be taking. These are legitimate questions, and if I get satisfactory answers, let me make it very clear that I will be voting for this mission. But I think the government has to take some responsibility and say to the members of the House, “We will give the answers that are needed in order for members to do their job and tell their constituents and the troops for whom they are responsible that we are making sure the conditions in which they are being sent to war are appropriate”.

That is all we ask. That is what our democracy demands. I beg of the government to give it to us.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will agree, as would everyone in the House, that Canada has pulled its weight in Afghanistan. We have carried a major load in rebuilding that country.

The concern the New Democrats have had is whether a mission should be initiated where we continue to fly under Operation Enduring Freedom. I think the U.S. styled counter-insurgency methods of this operation are fundamentally different from where the Canadian army has gone and where many of the Canadian people are comfortable going.

I would like to bring to the member's attention the fact that right now the Canadian government has publicity ads in the Washington subways with what I think is a fairly cheap slogan, “Boots on the Ground”, ads for a Canadian website, CanadianAlly.com, where we have all kinds of nice facts about trade with the U.S.

So there is a question I have to ask the member. How comfortable is he knowing that our troops are in harm's way while the government is promoting trade by the fact that our troops are on the ground fighting a U.S. style counter-insurgency?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham:

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member, but as for his information, and perhaps the defence minister will elucidate for the House, my understanding is that one of the reasons our troops are doing this mission and why we agreed to the first year is precisely because we can move from Operation Enduring Freedom into NATO. That in fact was one of the attractive assets of the mission.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: We haven't done it yet.

Hon. Bill Graham: The member for Halifax disagrees with that, but I have always understood this to be the case. This is not a problem that I have with this mission. In fact, if we had gone for a one year extension, I might well have very quickly been able to say yes. It clearly is related to that.

The problem is around the two years and the uncertainty around those other issues that other members here on our side of the House have to get an understanding for. If the government chooses to use our participation in Afghanistan to promote relations with the United States, it is obviously up to the government as to whether it feels that it is appropriate. I do not think that is an issue for debate tonight.

What I need to know so that we can have an informed vote tonight in a matter of a few hours is whether we can get assurances from the government so that we will be satisfied on our key issues about aid, governance and reports to the House, which will enable us to have a coherent policy in Afghanistan and a coherent parliamentary participation as that policy goes forward.

(1635)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I certainly endorse your comments about keeping the debate at a high level tonight because, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, our troops in Afghanistan listen to every word that gets said in this House of Commons in reference to their mission. Hopefully everybody in this House will remember that as they go through this evening's debate.

The member opposite is asking for the commitments. I think the Prime Minister has indicated another $310 million, for a total of $1 billion, to help with the reconstruction. He has talked about the refugees coming back into the country. He has talked about children going to school. He has talked about women's rights being restored, about education, about clean water. The very basics of life are being provided, plus there is an opportunity for a future.

Surely even the NDP could vote to support such action. This is what our men and women in uniform are doing in that country. I think it is just amazing that people can stand up here and discuss and argue about the details of how the debate was structured or the timing of it. That is ridiculous.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Casson: It is ridiculous. We ought to stand in this House and support our troops, because if we do not, they are listening to every word.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. He was the minister responsible, the minister of defence, when this country went into Afghanistan. There is a commitment until the year 2010 that he is very well aware of, the Afghanistan Compact, a commitment for everybody to be involved, for 51 nations to get involved to bring stability back to that country. How can we do it one year at a time?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that our troops watch these debates. I agree that everybody in today's world watches the debates and anybody will on the Internet. This is certainly one reason why I believe that our language, as the hon. member and others have suggested, must be very careful. We must be very careful that we do not say things which in any way would give anyone in Afghanistan the thought that we are not committed to helping the Afghan people. That certainly has always been our position.

On the hon. member's comment to us now about the amount of aid, it is illustrative of one of the problems we are having in the debate. This number he has just given to me of $310 million and $1 billion over a period of time--I am not sure what period of time--is not a number that I picked up from the Prime Minister's speech. I was listening carefully to it. Others say not. I myself will verify that during the course of the debate. That goes a long way to making sure that we have the right type of information.

That is exactly the type of thing which I hope we will be getting from this debate, an informed debate, an honest, intellectual struggle on the part of all of us to find out what is the best thing we can do for our troops and what is the best thing we can use them for in a way that would further Afghanistan.

I thank the hon. member for his comment. I will certainly research that amount for the aid program. That certainly is helpful.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my most sincere sympathies to the family of Nichola Goddard, who died today in Afghanistan.

This tragic end of a woman who worked to build a better world should remind us that the debate we are undertaking today deals with a serious question. The question is actually to decide whether we should extend the presence of men and women who are risking their lives in Afghanistan. The real question deals with the renewal for two years of Canada’s military commitment in Afghanistan. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the extension of this mission.

Sending men and women to risk their lives is a decision laden with very heavy consequences, which cannot, and which should not, be taken lightly. This decision should be made in full knowledge of the facts. We should therefore be able to answer certain questions.

Is such an intervention justified, necessary and realistic? Do the people who will risk their lives have the necessary means to carry out the mission that we wish to assign them? What exactly is the nature of the Canadian military commitment? Is there a specific schedule and a withdrawal plan should the situation become uncontrollable?

In connection with Canada’s current commitment in Afghanistan, we did not get answers to all our questions. But we have enough knowledge and certainty to support it. That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing.

The intervention is justified, if for no other reason than to ensure the security of Afghans, those who have lived in insecurity for such a long time, and to rebuild this ravaged country and rebuild its government. The intervention is realistic since, to our knowledge, it has received the support of the Afghan people and government. The soldiers have the necessary means and there are enough troops to fulfill this mandate until February 2007. We know the nature of Canada’s commitment, and there is a specific deadline, that is, February 2007. All this enables us to support the current mission.

Do we have enough answers to support an additional two-year extension? Definitely not. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has asked the Standing Committee on National Defence to study all these questions. Do we have an idea of the real duration of the mission in Afghanistan? Will it be 10 years, as the Chief of Staff has implied, or 20 years, as a former major-general affirms. Likewise, can we have an estimate of the cost of the mission? There is talk of $2 billion. Is this realistic? Does this figure include all the costs: premiums paid to the soldiers, the increased maintenance of equipment or the purchase of new equipment? What are the criteria used to measure the success of the mission?

Beyond the show of visits by t