House of Commons Hansard #179 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was microbreweries.

Topics

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate measures to stop the infestation of British Columbia forests by the Mountain Pine Beetle by: (a) initiating eradication measures on all affected lands over which the government has control or influence; and (b) cooperating fully with the Government of British Columbia to ensure that it has the ability to control the Mountain Pine Beetle in all areas under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton Centre-East for seconding the motion.

I rise on behalf of the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin and everyone in my province of British Columbia who will be affected by the infestation of the mountain pine beetle that is currently destroying and threatening further widespread destruction of the forests in our province.

Motion No. 435 is very simple. I am asking the House to support having the federal government join the province of B.C. in the fight against the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

This infestation may be the largest epidemic of its kind in Canadian history. It is certainly the largest in B.C.'s history. The pine beetle has infested 5.7 million hectares of working forest, which is about twice the size of Vancouver Island.

This year industry will spend more than $79 million on this fight. The provincial ministry of forestry will spend a further $17.5 million. Another $2.1 million for efforts in parks and protected areas will be spent by the provincial government. Forest Resources BC will spend another $6 million. This is the effort already been undertaken to prevent losses and to slow the progress of this epidemic.

Licensees on the frontlines are redirecting up to 100% of annual allowable cut to beetle management. Thirty four hundred workers are battling the beetle. Eight million cubic metres of harvesting have been redirected to stands already beetle infested. Fourteen million hectares of forest is being mapped and monitored by air. A hundred and thirty thousand hectares of forest are being monitored by ground assessment. Single tree treatment has reached 62,000 trees. Five hundred and fifty-six kilometres of additional roads are being built and twenty-two hundred and seventy kilometres of access road are being maintained to battle the beetle.

The British Columbia government needs about $60 million a year over 10 years to fight this enormous problem of the pine beetle infestation. That is how big this problem is. Already it has created a state of emergency in working forests in west central British Columbia.

The beetle attacks the lodgepole pine which accounts for more than 50% of growing stock in B.C.'s interior. The lodgepole pine is the predominant species of commercial wood. Conservative estimates say that 40 million to 70 million cubic metres of timber are infested. This amounts to at least $3.4 billion in wood value. This is more than two years worth of allowable annual cut for the nine forest districts. The total value of timber currently at risk in the Cariboo, Prince George and Prince Rupert forest regions is $12.5 billion.

By now I have heard every argument in the book from the Liberal government denying its responsibility in the fight against the bugs that are eating away B.C.'s forests.

I have been working on this issue of bug infested trees for many years. Over the years I have been told that there are special agreements in place that relieve the federal government of its responsibility. The government has said that it is working on that. These are just forestalling efforts and being put off by the government.

There was a real lack of effort by the federal government years ago when the fir bark beetle was pouring out of the west Chilcotin military reserve at Riske Creek. Pine beetles now continue to spill out from the same military reserve into the surrounding forests.

In December 2001 the Minister of Natural Resources told me during question period that the department was waiting for a formal request from the B.C. government. This is balderdash. I raised this issue only after discussing it with the former minister responsible for forests in British Columbia and I did it at his request. Has the federal government position changed since December?

The new senior minister for B.C. has called this problem a serious threat. He says that he is looking for ways to help. I want to take him seriously and trust that he will see to it that the federal government delivers on its responsibility for federal lands that are infested under the serious threat of devastation by the beetle. However it is very difficult to have faith in the government in view of its track record and its legacy of not protecting or even caring about the forests that are being infested.

The federal government's lack of effort is both causing and adding to the seriousness of the infestation of B.C.'s forests. The cause is the stressing of the trees by previous military activities on these military lands. The federal government is adding to the problem by not allowing the removal of infected trees from these same lands. What the B.C. government wants is co-operation from the federal government to fight the mountain pine beetle epidemic by dealing with the problem on its own land and assisting the province in dealing with this weather related problem throughout the northern part of the province of British Columbia.

This is a non-partisan issue. The science has been agreed upon. There is a plan in place but the government of British Columbia needs the co-operation of the federal government to win the war being waged against the pine beetle, a war which in part the federal government is responsible for causing.

The federal government owns crown lands with forests on them that are infected by the beetle. The federal government has a constitutional responsibility for the land it owns in British Columbia. The beetle infects some of that land and the federal government will be confronted with this beetle epidemic and forced to deal with it at some point in the future regardless of what it does now. It is only rational and logical that the federal government work with the province in this battle now.

This is similar to a forest fire. The longer it is left, the faster it grows, increasing the rate of destruction and loss. That is what I am asking for in this motion. Will the federal government please co-operate with the province of British Columbia in dealing with the problem that is costing enormous cash loss, to say nothing of the environmental devastation? People who have seen a devastated forest, have seen fallen, windblown trees crossing over each other. It is a desolation that no creature can use.

I am only asking the House to commit the federal government to work with the provincial government in the fight against the mountain pine beetle. The federal government is the only other major landowner in my province. Later in the debate I will request that the House give unanimous consent to call a vote on this motion. I will do it because during this debate I hope to convince all hon. members to vote in support of our federal government working with the province of British Columbia to control this epidemic that is threatening our forests.

Confidence is high for our success in winning the war against these beetles when all parties are committed to taking part. Our success will come at an even swifter pace if we can co-operate in the effort to control the spread of these beetles.

The biggest opportunity for success that we have is our ability to attack this problem before it gets completely out of hand. There was no warning when the ice storm hit central Canada. There was no warning when the floods hit Quebec. There was no warning when Manitoba was unexpectedly flooded beyond previous levels a few years ago. We have all the warning we need about the devastating impact of the mountain pine beetle but we can do something about this weather related problem. It is weather related because the warm winters that we have had in past years have not been sufficiently cold to keep this insect under control.

The federal government became immediately involved in the ice storm and rightly so. The federal government swooped in and hit the ground running during the Quebec floods. In Manitoba the Prime Minister himself helped build sandbags to fight that flood. That is what happens when there is a weather related emergency in Canada. Our federal government co-operates with the provinces and regions to help them deal with the tragedy. The weather related problem of the pine beetle tragedy is different only because it is not stopped by seasonal change. It has to be stopped by cutting the wood that it infects.

The federal government has lands and forests in British Columbia that are infected. On these federal lands the British Columbia government cannot deal with the problem. Until now, the federal government will not deal with it.

I am concerned that the federal government will not support the fight against the devastation in B.C. forests that is, at least in part, its own fight.

Motion No. 435 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate measures to stop the infestation of British Columbia forests by the Mountain Pine Beetle by: (a) initiating eradication measures on all affected lands over which the government has control or influence; and (b) cooperating fully with the Government of British Columbia to ensure that is has the ability to control the Mountain Pine Beetle in all areas under its jurisdiction.

I do not want to think that this delay or foot dragging in committing the federal government to help B.C. deal with the infestation smacks of a double standard being applied when we compare this weather related epidemic to the swift aid Quebec received after floods and the aid central Canada received after the 1998 ice storm.

Last month the government's senior B.C. minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, announced in a speech to business representatives of my province that among other things he would meet again with B.C. officials and with Premier Gordon Campbell to discuss ways to deal with the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The minister called the problem a serious threat. I congratulate him for recognizing this.

We would think the minister would want to debate this issue and tell the House about how much his government will do about the pine beetle epidemic, and I would like to hear from him today.

I also want to include some comments of support from the Canadian Alliance member for Skeena. He says that, with the mountain pine beetle epidemic moving into the eastern areas of Skeena riding, some 70 million cubic metres of timber are already infected. This is equivalent to almost the total annual allowable cut for the entire province of British Columbia. This catastrophic event must be recognized as such by the federal government.

This requires recognition from the federal government in the form of a commitment to the province as well as continuing research programs at the Victoria based research centre. Accelerated logging programs in affected areas, possible underwater storage and working very closely with affected companies and timber licence holders are some of the potential solutions. The very future of some of north central British Columbia communities depends upon an effective approach to this huge problem.

Last week the Prime Minister bought two jets for about $100 million. For the price of those jets, the government could have financed the battle against the pine beetle for two years. With the revenues generated by the timber salvage from the jaws of these beetles, the Prime Minister could have bought a lot more jets.

This week the federal government contributed $76 million to the Toronto Transit Commission. If these funds had instead been directed to the battle against the mountain pine beetle the salvaged timber could have financed this assistance and even more to the Toronto bus and subway system.

The mountain pine beetle is a threat that can only be effectively controlled in partnership with the federal government. In addition, the federal government is a major beneficiary of B.C. forests through the tax revenues it collects from the harvesting of this wood.

It is in the interest of all Canadians that there be full co-operation by the federal government to deal with this problem.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Cariboo--Chilcotin.

I want to thank the member for bringing forward the motion. I know he will be putting forward a motion to make it votable. It is a very important issue.

I represent an urban riding in British Columbia. I have driven through some of the infected areas in my travels through B.C. I can certainly attest to the fact that the mountain pine beetle is having a devastating impact on local communities and on the economy.

I congratulate the member for bringing forward the motion to have a debate to call on the government to take action to co-operate with British Columbia and local communities to deal with the issue.

The mountain pine beetle is an epidemic. At its widest point it is 700 kilometres long and 400 kilometres wide. It is hard to visualize that. The hon. member said that it was twice the size of Vancouver Island. The information I read from the emergency task force said that it was four times the size of Vancouver Island. However, whichever is correct, we are talking about a massive physical area of British Columbia that is affected.

In looking at the information that was presented by the emergency task force, it stated that what we were dealing with was not some sort of alien infestation.

The task force further stated:

Mountain pine beetle is a natural part of the forest ecosystems and is beneficial at endemic levels.

It goes on to state:

Currently populations are at epidemic levels as a result of mild winters and an abundance of large stands of mature pine.

I want to put forward a point of view on the measures that need to be taken to deal with this epidemic. From the material I have read, I want to express concern about some of the conclusions that have been drawn by the B.C. government, that is, that increased logging is the main solution to effectively control the mountain pine beetle populations.

There is evidence to show that increased clear cutting or salvage logging for the mountain pine beetle infested areas actually could pose a risk to ecological diversity. What we have to deal with in the long term is that less diversity of the forest decreases the ability of the forest to resist future outbreaks. This is very much a catch-22 situation. We are being told that massive cutting and salvage logging are the only choices but evidence shows that solution will put the longer term diversity of our forests at risk and will assist in future outbreaks.

I have read some material from the David Suzuki Foundation. It states:

For ecological and long-term economic reasons, it is essential that any management for the MPB, other bark beetles, and forests in general, be rooted in a sound ecosystem-based approach.

It goes on to state:

An ecosystem-based approach seeks to decrease the amount of area infected and the duration of outbreaks, both presently and in the future, while not compromising biodiversity conservation and ecosystem integrity.

I think that is a very important point. The foundation has also put forward some recommendations to the B.C. government for a management plan which I think would be pertinent to the debate today. It suggests that the following should be incorporated.

First, we should recognize that an outbreak of this scale is impossible to control. This means that a management strategy for the mountain pine beetle must be based on prevention of future outbreaks largely by manipulation of present and future beetle habitat with meaningful consideration of those manipulations for all forest values.

Second, we should recognize that there is no silver bullet solution that exists for this very complex issue. It requires forest managers to embrace a variety of treatments, including thinning and partial cutting strategies.

Therefore, it is not that cutting is not a strategy at all. What I would take issue with is that the B.C. government and the task force that has been put together seem to be relying primarily on that strategy. I think that is very problematic from a long term environmental point of view.

The other issue I want to briefly raise has to do with the reason this epidemic exists. We heard it from the member who presented the motion today. We also heard it from the task force that was put together. The epidemic exists as a result of mild winters. I do not think there is any escaping the reality that this infestation, this epidemic, is linked to mild winters which is linked to global warming. Until we can face that reality, we are really living under some sort of illusion that we will solve problems like this in the short term when in fact we are actually creating longer term problems.

Paul George, the founding director of the western Canada wilderness committee, which is a Vancouver based conservation group, says directly that the massive beetle infestation is a direct result of global warming.

He goes on to state:

Between the drought and global warming these are perfect conditions for the beetle to proliferate. We haven't had a minus 30 degrees cold snap in a long time. We've been having long, dry summers.The trees are stressed, and logging spreads the beetles. Every time they take a truck with logs that have bark on them, the beetle infested bark drops off, and the beetles spread.

I offer these viewpoints because I strongly concur with the member's feelings of frustration. This problem has not been dealt with and it has been allowed to escalate. The federal government has not shown the kind of leadership that it should.

However, we need to be extremely careful and balanced in the way we deal with this epidemic.

I agree with the member. The federal government must co-operate with the province of British Columbia, especially when dealing with its own lands. However, the member does not spell out in his motion what he means by eradicating measures. Based on the comments he made today in the House, I conclude that he basically means increased cutting and the removal of trees. This should be considered in a balanced way in terms of other ecologically based management measures that will protect the long term diversity of our forests.

I thank the member for bringing the motion forward. I support the need for the federal government to co-operate with British Columbia and with local communities but we need to do it in a way that will not ruin our forests in the future.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Peschisolido Liberal Richmond, BC

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Cariboo--Chilcotin.

Unfortunately I cannot support Motion No. 435 since its eradication thrust is inaccurate, as a native species cannot be eradicated. The motion's suggestion of the need for full co-operation of the federal government with the B.C. government is redundant as that co-operation already is taking place.

I will briefly recap the situation. When we last spoke on this issue in the House back in December, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources noted that the federal government was committed to working with the B.C. government and other landowners in addressing the mountain pine beetle. He also noted that at that point the federal government had not received a formal request for funding or for co-operative planning to solve the problem.

Today I am pleased to elaborate on what was said here earlier today and to tell the hon. member for Cariboo--Chilcotin and the House that the Minister of Natural Resources had two meetings in early March with the minister of forests for British Columbia. In those meetings the minister discussed the issue of collaboration in addressing the mountain pine beetle.

In fact the Minister of Natural Resources had the opportunity this weekend to fly over the affected area near Prince Rupert. He was able to witness firsthand the magnitude of this infestation.

In addition the minister has also met with and corresponded with the hon. Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia. In his letter the premier requested support for this problem “within existing federal programs”. The provincial request calls for federal support in the following areas: rehabilitation of dead forests; joint ventures with first nations; operationally focused research; marketing beetle lumber; and building affordable housing.

The Minister of Natural Resources has indicated to his provincial colleagues that his department, Natural Resources Canada, has been chairing an interdepartmental committee of senior officials from Environment Canada, Industry Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Western Economic Diversification Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, among others, to explore possible ways in which the Government of Canada can assist British Columbia in dealing with this epidemic. We all agree this is important.

The Government of Canada definitely is moving forward in a collaborative way on the issue. As we do so, we are fully collaborating with the Government of British Columbia.

I would also like to share some information about the mountain pine beetle. This is important and I think we would all agree that we have to act. The important question is how we act. I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague from Vancouver East.

We all agree that this is certainly a pernicious pest but it is also a part of the natural landscape of lodgepole pine forests. It is evident that these insects are highly damaging in mature forests in western Canada. In British Columbia, mature lodgepole pines, the beetles' preferred host, make up a significant percentage of the forest.

There is a certain irony. I do not say that to minimize the seriousness of the manifestation but we have to look at the science and look at all points of how to deal with what we all agree is a very serious problem. This problem stems partly from the advances we have made in terms of forest management. Fire suppression is a fine example of an area where we have been extremely successful.

By successfully fighting forest fires, by successfully managing our forests, we retain more trees that would otherwise die through natural phenomena. We now have more mature trees and more mature trees mean more prime beetle habitat.

We constantly hear how our mature or old growth forests are disappearing. British Columbia, according to its ministry of forests, has more old growth forests today than it did 50 years ago. Again it is largely the advances and successes in areas such as fire suppression that have allowed these trees to age.

We are in some ways contributors to our own current misfortune. That is where the expertise and innovation of researchers within the Canadian Forest Service are invaluable. Our people, working with the province and industry as well, are developing new approaches, including methods to increase the resistance of stands to outbreak. We are working hard to find viable alternatives as well as to identify the long term effect of various control programs.

As was said earlier, we are collaborating with the Government of British Columbia. We are sharing the results of our research and providing the tools that will help us make the right decisions together. This collaboration sets the stage for partnerships not only for today but also for tomorrow and for many tomorrows beyond, a strategic plan as was suggested by my colleague from Vancouver East. This approach will also provide a benchmark for dealing with future sustainability issues.

We all realize that nature provides a place for insects like the mountain pine beetle so that the number of mature trees is controlled as a natural recycling agent allowing for necessary new growth. Cold winters generally keep the number of beetles manageable. Unfortunately, Mother Nature has not kept up that side of the bargain recently. The mild winter weather British Columbia has experienced over the last few years has allowed these insects to thrive.

When we examine the size and seriousness of the infestation in the west, the hon. member's motion for eradication may initially seem appealing. There is a gut reaction to say yes, of course. However, and this is the key, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of exploring all possible options before embarking on--and I have to agree with my colleague from Vancouver East--a drastic control program that cannot succeed and indeed one that could cause irreversible harm.

We must remember that although the mountain pine beetle has established itself as a destructive pest, it has also evolved as part of the pine forest ecosystem. As stewards of our country's forests and their ecosystems, we have a fundamental obligation to understand the long term ramifications of an intensive mountain pine beetle control program before undertaking such a course of action.

British Columbia has survived previous mountain pine beetle infestations. We know that the epidemics and their economic repercussions are serious, but we also know that they do not destroy the forests. New growth begins very quickly in areas hit by infestation. It is our responsibility to make sure that we explore all possible avenues and make the decision that will not only solve the immediate problem but will also look to the future.

The mission of the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada is to promote the sustainable development of Canada's forests and the competitiveness of the Canadian forest sector for the well-being of present and future generations of Canadians. With that in mind we will of course offer all of the assistance possible within jurisdictional frameworks and existing programs to our friends in the British Columbia government as we have been doing for the past little while. As we do this we will be looking at a solution that meets the long term needs and goals as well, and not simply a quick fix, something which is appealing at the beginning.

We have also learned through all the research that in order to tackle the problem and effect the most positive outcome, the approach must be at the landscape level and not in particular or isolated locations within the infestation zone. That is what we will be exploring with the provincial government.

In closing, I would like to stress that we are taking immediate steps to ascertain the extent of support the federal government can provide and will provide to the Government of British Columbia. It is something we all agree is a very serious matter.

Natural Resources Canada has long been actively involved in seeking solutions that will combat this and any other threat to Canada's forests. This commitment will continue.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Cariboo--Chilcotin for bringing forward this motion.

My experience and knowledge of the mountain pine beetle is somewhat limited. I am speaking on behalf of my colleague from the South Shore who certainly has much more knowledge of this infestation than I do. As a member of the natural resources committee, he has flown over the area. He recognizes the vast devastation and the concern that is demonstrated by the member who represents that area.

I congratulate the member. We will support his request for unanimous consent to put the motion to a vote in the House. I suspect members opposite would also agree with that. The motion certainly is not terribly onerous. It speaks very well of the co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government, which I commonly refer to as co-operative federalism. I suspect with that co-operative federalism members on the government side would be most supportive of the vote going forward.

When the member rose in defence of his motion he talked about the natural disaster aid that was brought forward in other natural disaster incidents that have happened over the past years and which will continue to happen over the years in the not too distant future. We have seen changes in weather patterns. The member referred to the floods in the Saguenay. He referred to the floods in the Red River Valley, of which I am much more knowledgeable than I am of the mountain pine beetle. He referred to ice storms. Although he did not, he should have referred to the excess moisture we received in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

The federal government unfortunately did not deal with each and everyone of those natural disasters equitably. In some cases it put forward ad hoc programs which dealt with one natural disaster differently than other natural disasters. I have always stood in the House and suggested that in order to have some consistency in a natural disaster plan we need a federal government that accepts the fact that there should be a natural disaster program for any type of natural disaster and that natural disasters should be dealt with equally from province to province and region to region.

This is a prime example of a natural disaster. It is not man-made. It is happening because of a natural predicament with respect to weather. It is not something that B.C. wished upon itself. In fact B.C. is trying to deal with it simply because of the natural disaster component. I would love to move all that timber to Manitoba if all that was needed was a temperature of minus 40 degrees. We could certainly make our minus 40 degrees days available to B.C. but it is not quite that simple. A natural disaster plan is something the government should look at so that there is consistency and equitability when dealing with a particular disaster.

The member who rose on behalf of the government perhaps does not see the same urgency as the member who represents the area sees. Livelihoods are being affected. Communities are being affected. This is a very serious circumstance and it has to be dealt with.

The only way the government can deal with it is to work together with the province. I do not see any co-operative federalism in any number of issues, particularly those of agriculture and natural disasters. I do not see this issue as being any different. Certainly there is no understanding of a workability between the province and the federal government.

What should happen? The federal government should help the industry try to harvest the infested trees to help eradicate the beetle. That is pretty simple. The federal government should help to harvest the trees.

We have just been told by the member opposite that there is no such thing as eradication so why should we even attempt to eradicate? He says it is impossible, that it is a normal occurrence and therefore we should not even try to fix the problem because for heaven's sake we know we cannot eradicate. However if the federal government really wanted to, we could try to help eradicate that beetle .

What else should happen? The federal government should find alternate markets. The U.S. is the primary market source. If we can harvest this and get rid of the beetles in certain areas, not eradicate them, because we know that cannot happen, heaven forbid, we can try to control it. Then when we have all this wood, we should try to market it, but we already know that the government has not done a real good job on the softwood lumber. Therefore why would it stand up now and take responsibility for trying to market another product that will come from the harvesting of this wood that is being infested by beetles? Why would it do that when it cannot do the job that it has been asked to do on behalf of British Columbians now with the lumber market?

What else should the government do? It should help to find short term solutions for the added volume of wood on the market from the forced harvest of infested woods, solutions in other marketplaces outside the U.S. It should be looking at others, but has it been doing that? No. It is easier to stand back and not do much of anything.

What are the problems encountered in trying to eradicate the mountain pine beetle? The member spoke very eloquently about some of those areas. I will try to repeat some of that. First, the federal government owns a portion of the forest resource lands in British Columbia. If it is not prepared to put in the mitigating circumstances, that will cause problems, because the beetle will infest those areas. If the government is not prepared to control it in its own areas, it will not be controlled.

The forest industry lacks mill capacity to deal with the infested timber if it is harvested. It is not a government responsibility, but logically it could be one of the areas that the federal government looks at to try to help the situation as opposed to hindering it. The province lacks the capability to harvest the infested lumber. Just maybe the federal government could assist in that area as well. Maybe it could put some money into the situation instead of simply saying it is not the government's problem, that it will abdicate its responsibility and walk away from this because it is the problem of the province of British Columbia.

There are environmental concerns about the increased allowable cut. There is no question about that. That is an issue. We heard the member from the NDP speak to the environmental issues, not only the issue of the cutting of the lumber itself but also the climate issues that we are dealing with right now with Kyoto.

This is a very simple request from a province to a federal government: help us control the infestation. Heaven forbid, we cannot eradicate it, but help us control a very, very serious infestation. We have some experience. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had an infestation and they did put into place programs that controlled the infestation at that time, which was the spruce budworm. It was done locally in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and in my opinion it can be done in British Columbia, but what do the Liberals do? They say they are already working. Heaven forbid, they do not want us to bother them with votes. They say that they have only 1% of the forest lands in British Columbia and that this is really the responsibility of British Columbia.

The member for Cariboo--Chilcotin made a great analogy when he talked about the forest fires and how the circumstances are the same with the pine beetle. That is an interesting analogy, because it is my understanding that for forest fires the federal government does have a sliding scale compensation package with the provinces. I know that because we have forest fires in northern Manitoba and the federal government pays a certain share of the cost of fighting those forest fires, because forests are a natural national resource. The same should be set out right now in British Columbia for the cost of fighting the pine beetle. Why can the federal government not come up with a manageable contribution to its responsibility for this natural resource?

I hope beyond hope that the government will see that it cannot simply abdicate its responsibilities for all natural resources. It abdicated its responsibility in agriculture. It abdicated its responsibility in the fishery. Now it seems to want to abdicate its responsibility in forestry. Good for the government, but I think it is time it stood up and took responsibility. This is one very simple way to do that. We should have a vote on the motion and have the government be part of the solution instead of always being part of the problem.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening and lend my support to the important motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Cariboo--Chilcotin. I will say at the outset that although it is a pleasure for me to lend my colleague my support, I think he would agree that it is unfortunate that it takes a motion in private members' business to try to prompt the government into some type of action on this epidemic that British Columbia is facing, this natural disaster, as he has so eloquently explained to the government opposite.

It is an issue that is not new. It has not suddenly been sprung upon the government. It is something like the softwood lumber agreement. That had a five year expiry date and yet it seemed like the government did not want to address until it was past the expiry date. It did not want to recognize that the agreement would end at some point and we would be faced with unfair trade sanctions from the United States of America.

Likewise with the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, there is an unwillingness on the part of the federal government to step up to the line and shoulder its share of the responsibility in addressing this natural disaster facing our province. Unfortunately it is just a continuation of the “don't care, don't give a damn” attitude of the Liberal government toward the province of British Columbia. As a British Columbian, quite frankly I find it incredibly disappointing.

What does Motion No. 435 call for? It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate measures to stop the infestation of British Columbia forests by the Mountain Pine Beetle by: (a) initiating eradication measures on all affected lands over which the government has control or influence; and (b) cooperating fully with the Government of British Columbia to ensure that it has the ability to control the Mountain Pine Beetle in all areas under its jurisdiction.

As my hon. colleague said, he intends to ask for unanimous consent to put it to a vote. I strongly suspect that the Liberal members present will not allow that. They seem to have something against private members' business, as we saw last week. They seem to have something against having votes on private members' motions and business.

Quite frankly, I found the comments of the hon. member for Richmond just appalling for someone who professes to be a representative from British Columbia for goodness' sake. If I understood him correctly, he said he could not support the motion from the member for Cariboo--Chilcotin because beetles cannot be eradicated. He said that they will always be there.

Is this a time to nitpick about wordsmithing? I think everyone understands the intent of the motion, which is that the federal government shoulder its share of the responsibility, help out a province in need and address this very serious problem. I suggest it is second only to the softwood lumber agreement in its seriousness and in how it is affecting the economy, the welfare and lifestyles of British Columbian families.

It is an issue that I, as the representative for Prince George--Peace River, and my colleagues from Skeena, Prince George--Bulkley Valley and Cariboo--Chilcotin have raised repeatedly in the House over the last number of years through questions in question period, in members' statements and in speeches. Every time we have had the opportunity we have raised the issue. We have had lobby groups, lumber associations, forestry associations and the British Columbia government come to Ottawa to raise the issue with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Finance and the government. It has all been to no avail. It is just absolutely mind-boggling. People in British Columbia are getting fed up with the attitude of the government.

What are we asking for with the motion and lobbying of the government we have done? We are asking the government to put forward funding to address this, to take responsibility for federal lands. We are asking the government to participate in reforestation of the land once it is logged so that we have forests in the future to harvest and to enjoy.

When one sees the devastation created by the mountain pine beetle, one sees a sea of red. Quite frankly right now when I look across the House I see a sea of red, not because they are Liberals but because they refuse to accept their responsibility. They wonder and they do polling to try to figure out why they do not have any support in British Columbia and why they have only a few members of parliament there. This is the latest example of why.

I know there is not a lot of time left in this debate. I will defer to my hon. colleague from Skeena. I know how this is affecting his riding as well and how often he has raised this issue, as I have, as has our colleague from Prince George--Bulkley Valley and of course the sponsor of this motion, my colleague from Cariboo--Chilcotin. We, the four members of parliament who represent the interior and northern parts of British Columbia, have raised this issue time and time again. I know the hon. member for Skeena has a few comments, so I will sit down and listen attentively to what he has to say.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Prince George and Cariboo--Chilcotin.

The private member's motion that the member for Cariboo--Chilcotin has brought forward, Motion No. 435, is a pretty simple, easily done with a will to do it, motion. All he is asking for is the federal government to accept responsibility for a huge issue in north central British Columbia. It is something that started out relatively small about 10 or 12 years ago and has grown now to an absolute epidemic that is devastating communities and people in the areas.

I want to say that the mountain pine beetle epidemic is literally spreading its wings. That is what it does. It flies. It is moving into the eastern areas of my riding of Skeena from the other two ridings in north central British Columbia.

The devastation caused by this relentless pest must truly be seen for anyone to understand the scope of the scourge. It has devastated a huge area. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of four times the size of Vancouver Island and bigger than most European countries. It is absolutely unbelievable. It has to be seen.

Some 70 million cubic metres of timber was infected as of last fall. After this mild winter that we have had, when the beetles fly again this spring and summer there would probably be something like 100 million to 130 million cubic metres infested. The total annual allowable cut of the province of British Columbia is in the neighbourhood of 75 million to 80 million cubic metres. It is more than the whole year's allowable cut of timber for the province that is infected. This cannot be allowed to go on.

I want to give a little background on this pest. The pine beetle is a natural part of the environment. In our zeal over the last 60, 70 or 80 years to fight forest fires we have thrown the whole ecological balance out of whack. We have effectively fought forest fires, allowed the pine forests to grow older and allowed the beetles to move in whereas before fires would burn those beetles and naturally control the epidemic. That is out of whack now. The beetles have moved in and they have taken over the older trees.

Like people, trees get old, sick and vulnerable. Then the beetles move in. When they have eaten up a lot of the old trees they move on to the middle aged trees and the younger trees. That is what is happening because of the lack of forest fires to control these pests. We can blame it on global warming but I do not buy that. It is more a matter of our systems that have changed. When we get things a little out of balance like that we must control them in another way. We have controlled fires but we also have to control beetles. We have not done that.

This beetle epidemic started out very small in Tweedsmuir Provincial Park and it has grown now. It started out in a small area about 12 years ago. It now covers an area 700 kilometres long and 400 kilometres wide. It is four times the size of Vancouver Island. The economic value of that is something like $6 billion in potential lumber value and huge losses to the province of British Columbia and the economy of Canada.

There is a responsibility for the federal government. The member over there listed a number of things it can do: rehabilitation; a joint venture with native bands; research, and the federal government has the research station on Vancouver Island which does a fair bit of work on this thing; and marketing. That is great. Let us do it. When will we start?

That is part of the solution but we also need to go far beyond that. We need innovative solutions and the federal government to help us with this. This is a catastrophic event. Communities in my riding and in other ridings are suffering. It is not acceptable to say that we might do something or that we are trying. That is not good enough. We must get the federal government involved in a firmer and much stronger way with the province.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

An hon. member

An action plan.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC

Yes, an action plan. We need an action plan. I urge support for the member's motion.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank all members for speaking on the motion, particularly those who have offered support and those who have brought comments that I chose not to include because of time constraints.

The member for Vancouver East mentioned that this was not the way that the NDP government would have done this and criticized the Liberal government. The hon. Dave Zirnhelt, who was the NDP minister of forests in British Columbia, spoke to me and he wanted to do exactly what we are proposing today, and that is to provide the means for cutting. The reason that we need to cut is that the wood is infected and the bugs are spreading from that wood. We can either let it rot and fall down or we can cut it and gain the value that is available to us from that wood. The wood is going to be taken out of the forest one way or the other.

I want to comment on some of the things the member for Richmond said. He noted inaccurate information. He said that B.C. had not sought funding. This was a line that was given to me in a question I asked. After that question was asked and the answer given I went to the B.C. minister of forests and said that I asked a question and was told that assistance was not applied for. He looked at me with a strange look on his face and said that was absolute nonsense. I want that myth knocked on the head right now. British Columbia has done all that it can to receive the support that it deserves and that it has a right to expect from the government but has not received. The myths that are being perpetuated by the member for Richmond are not acceptable.

He talks about the minister flying over the Prince Rupert area. I wish he had flown over the area of the military reserve in Chilcotin at Risky Creek. That is another area where this grand infestation began. It is pouring out of federal military lands into provincial forests. This is the second time this has happened since I have been elected. The first time was with the fir bark beetle.

The federal government assured me that it would treat it as it was its responsibility. However not a thing was done, not one single thing. It threw up its hands because it did not get around to doing this. This is exactly what is happening again. I find it deplorable that the Liberal government would offer flawed excuses such as this.

I appreciate that it is a serious problem as the member has said. I too was at the briefing that the Canada forest service offers. I heard it say that this is a natural phenomenon which occurs every 80 years, but the difficulty is that now there are no fires. We have an extended period without the cold weather to control this insect.

Unless the federal government assists the provincial government, there will be a loss to the national treasury as well as the provincial treasury. It is not the government that suffers but the people who suffer.

I wish the member would take a walk and a ride through my constituency and watch the economic decline that my people are suffering, and I use the word suffering with full intention, because of the economic fallback from the softwood disagreement, the loss of jobs, and the loss of business.

It must be looked at. I implore the government and the House to recognize the seriousness of the arguments that I bring. Because it is so serious I respectfully request unanimous consent of the House to have Motion No. 435 made votable.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is there agreement?

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Mountain Pine BeetlePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and take another shot at the Liberals on their spending priorities.

This stems from a question that I asked on April 17. I asked the public works minister about an untendered contract, if I can use those terms, for Health Canada telecommunications training.

The contract was signed on March 31 which is the end of the fiscal year. To get that $300,000 contract in place the government had to really rush it through. The quirky part is that the training was stipulated to be delivered on that same day. That was physically impossible.

The public works minister said in his reply that this was not an outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money. That was my assertion. He said the government followed closely the rules in contracting and processing the payment and so on. However, the auditor general, in looking over that same program, said that the contracting process was not open, it did not qualify for any exceptions that would close the process as the minister was claiming.

Health Canada misidentified the requirement as R and D which it was not and thereby threw off any other bidders. Health Canada had no idea if it was going after any kind of value at all in that by delivering it in one day.

As a contracting authority public works was cited by the auditor general for indulging in split contracts on some other things, that it lowered contracts to the $25,000 no tender required system and slammed a bunch of those through.

In answer to my second question the public works minister stated that there was no overpayment and so on. That is not what we were citing. We were citing an abuse of taxpayers' money, $300,000. March madness spending during the last day of the fiscal year by ramming through a contract that had to be delivered that same day. As I said, it was physically impossible.

The public works minister said no overpayment was made in regard to that contract for $300,000, but then he failed to mention in that same report that in $6.5 million of contracts that his own department audited, $800,000 in overpayments was found out of $6.5 million.

Then we started to get concerned about that extra $300,000 that was not part of that particular go around. It made us scratch our heads as to where taxpayers' money was being spent with these guys.

In the second question, I asked the minister if there was a quote that the program did not address the requirement to properly control and manage government assets. The auditor general agreed with that in her response.

The minister in replying to that part of the question said that policies were followed very closely. The auditor general said no. He said his department followed the approved policy using the advanced contract award notice. The auditor general again said no, the 15 days were not posted.

In addition, and perhaps most important, there was no overpayment in this regard. We did not specify overpayment. The overpayment came out of the other $6.5 million in public works where there were overpayments of $800,000. It did not address the $300,000 at all.

The auditor general said that the advance contract award notice was not used, the 15 days did not happen, and Treasury Board guidelines were not followed. The auditor general called this another example of non-compliance with government regulations.

Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going and why the Liberal government thinks it can get away with that type of expenditure at the eleventh hour of the last day of the budget year, and then not have any requirement that those goods were ever delivered.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government to the hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster in regard to the audit note by the auditor general on the government contracting rules and regulations related to the development of the Canadian Health Network.

As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services indicated in the House on April 17, the department followed very closely the rules in regard to the Canadian Health Network contract. Furthermore, I can assure the member that the department respected the departmental policy with respect to advanced contract award notices or ACANs as they are called.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services is known in government as a common service provider. Its role is to provide essential goods and services needed by more than 140 government departments and agencies to fulfill their mandates to Canadians. It aims to provide the best value for government, taking into account public policy of the day and of course with due regard to probity, prudence and transparency.

For each procurement the department undertakes, it will make every reasonable effort to satisfy the operational needs of its clients while obtaining best value in the procurement process.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services is accountable for the integrity of the procurement process including ensuring that actions taken are in compliance with accepted government policies or legislation. These contracting objectives and principles clearly support the government's commitment to ensure best value for taxpayer dollars through a procurement process that is open, fair and accessible.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services managed more than $10.5 billion in government-wide procurement opportunities in 2001, resulting in more than 58,000 contracts for suppliers. This is an enormous volume of contracting work, yet only 75 complaints have been filed against the department with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. What is even more revealing is that only six of those complaints have been declared valid.

Here is another impressive measure of the integrity of the department's contracting activities. In the year 2000, on a dollar value basis, 92% of Government of Canada contracts were awarded competitively; 70% through tender and 22% through the ACANs process. Only 8% of contracts were non-competitive.

In the audit note, the auditor general made a number of observations regarding, among other things, contracting matters related to the management of the Canadian Health Network, which led to the creation of a large health information tool based on Internet technology.

We disagree with the auditor general's report in a number of areas, namely the suggestion that the department has improperly used ACANs. The department followed the approved policy, issuing ACANs where only one company was capable of performing the work.

Another issue raised in the auditor general's report is the reference to the $300,000 for the development, installation and testing of a pilot telecommunications system to be completed by March 31, 1998. On this matter I would like to specify that the department did question Health Canada on how the work could be delivered in time and did receive a satisfactory answer. The department was informed that the bulk of the requirement was a capital equipment purchase to be delivered by the end of that month.

This was a competitive contract. An ACAN was posted on March 13, 1998, closing on March 20, 1998, and there was no challenge. This was documented on file but somehow was overlooked by the office of the auditor general.

The auditor general also raised the fact that PWGSC audits of contracts indicated significant overclaims. On that issue, the department did monitor the claims submitted by all contractors as part of its contract management responsibilities.

In conclusion, PWGSC is committed to a fair, open and transparent procurement process. It continually strives for excellence in its procurement practices and indeed in all its activities.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, taxpayers sending in their cheques tonight so they will be on time, must be shuddering when they hear that this department, which sole sources contracts and which is in charge of $10.5 billion, cannot keep track of its day to day operations. They probably can hear the toilet flush as they send in their cheques.

The auditor general also made comments on the over $7 billion that slid into the wrong pigeon hole. I guess pigeon is not a good word to use around here right now. The department is not accountable to parliament or to the auditor general. She cannot get in there to do an audit.

The member made reference to the $550 million to set up the Canada Health Infoway a year ago. It has a fancy board of Liberal directors who have been drawing salaries for this past year, but nothing has been done with that $550 million. Canadian taxpayers are concerned about the condition of their water, sewers, highways and the high cost of health care and education. They must be concerned when they hear that $550 million has been squirreled away into an area that is unaccountable to parliament, unaccountable to the auditor general and unaccountable to taxpayers.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Madam Speaker, Public Works and Government Services Canada accepts criticism where it is due. The department realizes there is always room for improvement and it continues to develop innovative approaches that serve the needs of its clients while protecting the interests of taxpayers. That is the key. It is committed to a fair, open and transparent procurement process.

We disagree with the auditor general's report in a number of areas. There was a suggestion that the department issued ACANs which did not meet treasury board policy and contracting rules. The department followed the approved policy of issuing ACANs where only one company is capable of performing the work.

There was a suggestion that the department engaged in contract splitting by awarding contracts to the same company for similar requirements. Contracts were awarded to meet the rapidly evolving needs of Health Canada. The department's own review shows only two contracts went to the same company for similar requirements. Both were under $25,000.

There was a suggestion that Public Works and Government Services Canada audits indicated significant over-claims. As part of effective contract management responsibilities--

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The hon. member for Brampton Centre.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take this time to thank all hon. members of parliament. Since I have been here they have expressed their support and appreciation of the Canadian Armenian community when it has spoken of the genocide of the Armenians in 1915.

On January 19 this year in Toronto and on April 10 in Montreal I had meetings with many representatives of the Canadian Armenian community. They endorsed unanimously the position taken by me and some members of the House that the government must recognize the events of 1915 as a genocide and not as a tragedy.

On that score I express my appreciation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for answering my question on April 18 and mentioning that the House designated April 20 to 27, 1996 and every year thereafter as the week of crimes against humanity or people's suffering. In 1999 the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed very strongly the position taken by the government.

I am an optimist by nature. I think at this stage the cup is three-quarters full. I say that because before I arrived here three years ago governments used to characterize the events of 1915 as a tragedy. A few years later we took courage and said it was a calamity.

As I mentioned, in 1999 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that what happened in 1915 was done out of pure intent to destroy a national minority. Pure intent to destroy a national minority is the same definition used in the crimes against humanity bill passed by the House. It is the same phrase used by the UN to describe events in Rwanda, Yugoslavia or anywhere in the world that constitute genocide.

The exception is when it comes to the case of Armenia. People in the world have come up with different phrases but they all avoid the word genocide. People have told me they have grave concerns about using the word. However France used it a couple of years ago and nothing happened. France is still there. Turkey is still there. They still do trade. They still have commerce. They still have relationships between them. Why can it not be the same for Canada?

I will make another point clear. The Turks have been claiming for the last few years that Armenians were murderers who massacred a whole bunch of Turks. I have articles from number of newspapers including the New York Times , The Times of London, the Evening Telegram , the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail . A New York Times headline dated Sunday, December 12, 1915 reads “Woman Describes Armenian Killings: German missionary says Turks proclaimed extermination as their aim”. This came from a German person. As we know, the Germans and Turks were allies during World War I. Another New York Times headline dated Wednesday, December 15, 1915 reads “Million Armenians Killed Or In Exile”. This again came from a German source.

Armenians did not kill Turks. I am sure these newspapers have a whole bunch of articles and there will not be one that says the Armenians killed some Turks. I would like to see the proof because the proof is not there. People want us to go further to look forward to this event--

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford Ontario

Liberal

Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question concerning the position of the Government of Canada regarding the tragic events that so greatly affected the Armenian community in 1915.

As he has mentioned, on many occasions our government has expressed with great compassion its heartfelt sympathy for the sufferings of the Armenian people at that time. As he may recall, we have done so frequently in the House, and in other messages and on other occasions.

I would especially like to mention the personal message from the Prime Minister of Canada to the Canadian Armenian community on the occasion of the anniversary of the Armenian tragedy of 1915.

The hon. member mentioned that on April 18 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs referred specifically to two points that, in my view, constitute a sincere, appropriate and pertinent response to the member's question concerning the government's position on this tragedy. I will elaborate quickly on two points.

First, the House adopted a motion in 1996 on the Armenian tragedy recognizing the week of April 20 to April 27 each year as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.

Second, following extensive consultation, the position of the Government of Canada on these events was stated by the hon. member for Halton on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time in a statement to the House in which he said:

We remember the calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was committed with theintent to destroy a national group in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities whichincluded massive deportations and massacres. May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as well as to reconciliation of present day nations and communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work together toward world peace.

As the member can see, we share the remembrance of the sufferings of this painful period and we attach great importance to ensuring that this human tragedy remains part of our collective memory and is not forgotten by future generations.

In closing, the tragic events of 1915 remind us more than ever that we need to continue to strive to promote tolerance and reconciliation among peoples so that the horrors of the past, like the tragedy suffered by the Armenian people, are never repeated.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to make two points in the one minute I have left.

First, I want to make sure that everyone watching tonight knows they can come to my office to look at this documentation which proves the point of what exactly happened. This is not a document of Armenian sources. It is from a respected international newspaper.

Second, if Armenians in Canada, around the world or in Armenia are asked to move forward then we must have the courage to address the past because without addressing the wounds of the past, Armenians cannot go forward. That is a must.

If relations between Turkey and Armenia are to go forward this issue must be addressed once and for all so these two nations can live in peace and harmony, with trade, with government diplomatic relations and with normal relations between two nations because they have both survived and are both here to live in peace and harmony.

I thank everybody for their support and encouragement on this issue. I look forward to the co-operation of everybody in the House to fill the one-quarter left in the cup so we can have the word genocide used.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Aileen Carroll Liberal Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the member and I have attempted to convey the position of the Canadian government as articulated in June 1999 and more recently in the House for the minister. It has been acknowledged as a horrendous event in history but I do not believe, as has been conveyed by the member, that the only way to move forward is to go down the road that he has proposed.

I believe that Canada is pursuing the development of positive and productive bilateral relations with all countries in that region, including Armenia and Turkey. A stable and prosperous region characterized by peaceful and strong bilateral relations will undoubtedly be beneficial for all of them, including Canada. In my view that is the way we will accomplish stability and reconciliation rather than the use of certain verbiage.

Mountain Pine BeetleAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)