House of Commons Hansard #204 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was flag.

Topics

Pest Control Products ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is it agreed?

Pest Control Products ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Pest Control Products ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I was mentioning, although the Canadian Alliance supports the general intent of Bill C-53 the amendments should have reflected changes within the industry.

For a short time I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly when it has reviewed pest control products. The environment committee passed amendments requiring the act to be reviewed after seven years, but the government defeated the amendment that would have restricted review to Commons committees.

The Canadian Alliance amendment on harmonization passed through at committee stage. This means that under the bill applicants who apply to register pest control products or amend pest control product registrations would be able to submit information from reviews or evaluations conducted in other OECD countries if the product were to be used in Canada under conditions similar to those of the foreign countries where the evaluation was conducted.

The efficiency of the PMRA's registration operations has a direct impact on Canada's ability to remain competitive internationally. As I emphasized in my last speech, this could avoid costly duplication of pesticides for pesticide makers and hasten the process of getting newer and safer products onto the market.

We in the official opposition believe proven and sound science, domestically and internationally, should continue to be the cornerstone for debate. We also believe a clear understanding of environmental regulations and research responsibilities between federal and provincial governments and the private sector must be achieved. The precautionary principle is in the right place in the bill. We appreciate the government for that.

Bill C-53 would not impose a ban on the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. That is a concern because it would allow municipalities to maintain control over such decisions.

While the official opposition is supportive of developing and using proven alternatives in urban environments, we do not believe a moratorium on pest control products should be put in place before there is a substantial body of conclusive scientific evidence that unequivocally links such products to human disease or ill health. I have been in the pest control business for many years. My first degree was in agriculture. I know that without conclusive scientific research or evidence such a moratorium would not only not be useful. It would be counterproductive.

There are still many shortcomings in the bill which were not addressed at committee stage despite our best efforts. The preamble to the act needs to recognize: the use of pest control products that are beneficial to human health; the need for timely access to safe and effective pesticides; and the use of safe and effective pest control products which are essential to the competitiveness of agriculture, forestry and so on.

Bill C-53 contains no provisions for minor use pesticides. Economies do not support full registration of pest control products. It is important for Canadian competitiveness. Though the government recognizes the importance of minor use, concerns about access to minor use products featured prominently in the agricultural committee's recent “Report on the Registration of Pesticides and the Competitiveness of Canadian Farmers”. The report stated:

--Canadian farmers do not have access to the same safe and effective pest management tools as their competitors, particularly American producers.

Our American neighbours can use certain chemicals Canadian farmers cannot. When produce from the United States is brought into Canada for consumption it is therefore not only a health hazard. It puts Canadian farmers at a disadvantage.

The committee also called for the appointment of an adviser on matters pertaining to minor use pest control products to intervene in decisions and policies to facilitate activities relating to minor use products. The adviser's mandate should include a special focus on the harmonization issues with the United States, such as the equivalency of similar zone maps and the consideration of data that already exist in the OECD countries. The adviser should report to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Also, Canada's risk management practices should be aligned with those of our trading partners and through Canada's membership in organizations such as the OECD.

Bill C-53 makes no provision for getting new, safer or reduced risk products into the marketplace. There is a need to expedite reviews of such products. The United States has a reduced risk category and timeliness. Last year the timeline to get these products registered was approximately 35% less than conventional pesticides. That is where the efficiency is. Bill C-53 still lacks any mention of timeliness for registration, re-evaluation or even special reviews of pest control products.

A number of witnesses appeared before the health committee and testified that registrations are taking too long in comparison to the United States, our major agriculture trading competitor. The Canadian Alliance demanded the drawing up of timeliness in registration to within one year.

The health committee also heard concerns about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency from several witnesses. Administrative and management practices were repeatedly called into question.

We know these are the reasons our farmers' impatience and frustration persist.

Accordingly, independent ombudsmen can assist farmers as well as other stakeholders. The Auditor General of Canada can conduct value for money or performance auditing that will help the industry. It is vitally important that problems within the PMRA be resolved if worthy goals within Bill C-53 are to be realized.

Bill C-53 is only as good as the PMRA's ability to administer it. Unfortunately those concerns are not adequately addressed in the bill. Regrettably the government lacks balance and does little to promote partnership and understanding between stakeholders. It fails to recognize the tremendous efforts and success achieved by manufacturers and users of pesticides or pest control products to make the products as safe to human health and the environment as they are effective in controlling pests and protecting crops.

All stakeholders recognize there is room for improving transparency, efficiency and accountability in our pesticide management system. Therefore the official opposition advocates promoting a balanced approach toward dealing with issues relating to the management and regulation of pest control products and offers recommendations on how the Pest Management Regulatory Agency could improve on fulfilling its mandate to protect human health and the environment.

Pest Control Products ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address some of the concerns the Canadian Alliance has with regard to Bill C-53, the pest control management legislation.

This is a very important bill and one which the committee worked on for a long time. It is important to many Canadians from different perspectives. The legislation has three main intentions. The Canadian Alliance generally supports those intentions to strengthen health and environmental protection; to make the registration system more transparent, which is very important; and to strengthen the post-registration control of pesticides. We agree with these.

The Canadian Alliance agrees that safety and environmental issues are very important to Canadians. Health and environmental concerns must be at the forefront of Canada's pesticide registration regime.

Bill C-53 looks at the ten times safety factor and the thousand times safety factor. Whatever the factors are and whatever decision making goes into the bill, we have to ensure they are based on science and not based on emotion, half truths or misinformation. We must have the facts before we make a decision. Once we have the facts it becomes easier to make a proper decision.

We welcome the formal commitment to protect the health of infants, children and pregnant women. This is a given in the bill.

One of the disappointments of Bill C-53 is the way it was brought into the House and how it went through committee. At the initial stages of discussion on how it should be brought into parliament it was felt there should be a joint committee of agriculture, perhaps international trade and health. We are dealing with an issue that goes across more boundaries than just health. It has significant implications for international trade and for the agricultural community. We had hoped that would have taken place at the beginning but because it did not, we see some flaws in the bill which need to be addressed.

This legislation has not been worked on since 1969, some 33 years ago. It is high time it was modernized and brought up to speed. It is very important to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts and entrench the current practices into law. It is important to account for the new developments in pesticide regulations around the world and to reflect the growing concern for the health of children and others.

Looking at the legislation from a farming or forestry perspective, agricultural practices have changed considerably in the last two decades. Agriculture is an industry that is evolving probably faster than many others. We are seeing a greater reduction in the use of pesticides in agriculture and for very good reasons. I have yet to meet a farmer who likes to use pesticides. Farmers use them as a tool to solve a problem they may have and they need to be competitive with our neighbours to the south and others around the world. It is very important to understand that fact as we look at Bill C-53.

Two amendments were put forward at committee with respect to the renewal period for this legislation. It was to be reviewed not in 33 years as was mistakenly done in the prior legislation, but in five years as stated in one amendment or 10 years as stated in another. The committee settled for seven years. That is okay. At least it is not 33 years. We know that in seven years there will be another review of the legislation.

What disturbed me and others on the committee is who would do the review. An amendment came out of committee stating that the legislation should go back to a House of Commons committee and not be sent on to the Senate. That was overturned by the minister. This legislation could be reviewed in seven years by an unelected, unaccountable arm of the Prime Minister and not by a committee of the House of Commons. We have great concerns with this. Is that a true review of a piece of legislation? The committee amendment was overturned by the minister and we have serious concerns about that.

We were pleased to get some amendments through at committee. One was the harmonization of pesticides and the review of pesticides from the OECD nations and other countries. Harmonization is very important in order to be competitive with some of our trading partners. This could avoid many of the costly duplications when pesticides are registered. Newer and safer products would get into our marketplace more quickly than in the past. Some products have been held up for as many as 20 years.

The inefficiencies in the PMRA absolutely need to be addressed.

There are many shortcomings in the bill. The preamble completely ignores the value of pesticides to Canadians

It is not that we put pesticides out for our health or because we are trying to do anything other than good for Canada. There is a lot of good that comes out of the use of pesticides. Unfortunately that is not recognized in the bill. It helps us to be competitive, although we do have to recognize that health and safety come first and on that we agree.

One issue we want to talk about is the minor use products. The bill makes no provisions for minor use products. It is something that we tried to get through. A minor use of a pesticide is defined as “a necessary use of a pesticide for which the anticipatedsales volume is not sufficient to persuade a manufacturer to register and sell the product inCanada”.

It is a product for which very few acres are involved. It is not really economical to go through the regime that we have right now. Yet it is very important that we see some of these products on the market because they are much safer and much better.

It impacts the horticultural sector, the producers of fruits, vegetables, herbs and floral crops. These are small in comparison with many other crops in the country but it is a $4.2 billion sector. It is one of our fastest growing agricultural sectors. It is also very important to the pulse crops sector, which grows peas, beans, lentils and chickpeas. These are small acreage crops but it is very important that they be competitive particularly with our American counterparts.

What actually is happening with our American counterparts is something we should consider so that we are on the same footing. It will give us an idea as to how slow we are in bringing forward different products.

In 2000-01 the total number of minor use products that were registered in Canada was 22. Eighteen were for food use and four were for non-food use. During that same period of time in the United States, 1,200 different products were approved, 500 plus of which were approved for food use.

The government does recognize the importance of minor use but it is not in the bill. That is one of the problems we have with this legislation. The PMRA doubled its resources recently in being able to evaluate minor use. We are hoping that something can be done perhaps in regulations, however it should be in the legislation that is before us. It is very important.

Given the evidence that we have, why did the government not recognize that? The government recognizes it as being valuable but not valuable enough to put in the bill. That is something which disturbs us.

We can also talk about the reduced risk products. The bill makes no provisions for getting newer, safer reduced risk products into the marketplace. We need to expedite the review of these products. My colleague mentioned that the United States has had reduced risk categories and timelines for the last year. The timeline to get these products registered was approximately 35% less than conventional pesticides.

It does not matter what one's perspective is on this legislation, whether one believes we should ban all pesticides, and there were people who said that at committee, or not, the idea of timeliness for approving newer and safer products in Canada is very important. It does not matter which side one is on. We put forward amendments suggesting that the minister at least come up with a timeline, perhaps within a year after the bill is enacted, so that the industry would know how long it would take to approve some of these products.

It is certainly something that would hold the PMRA accountable to Canadians and to what it is mandated to do. We heard from many witnesses about the PMRA. There is one thing that was consistent. Nobody said anything good about the quality of performance of the PMRA. It is something the bill should recognize and try to address as one of the concerns.

The agriculture committee looked at the efficiencies of the PMRA. It called for an independent ombudsman and for the auditor general to review that agency with a view to making it more efficient. We are pleased that cosmetic pesticides are left in the hands of local municipalities because Canada has many diverse problems in different areas. The problems in the Northwest Territories are different than those in southern Ontario. It is important that the responsibility be left with the municipalities.

It is important that we have the bill before us now. It is 30 years late, but it is here. It will ensure that farmers have access to newer and safer products. It will also ensure that Canadians have access to safe and reliable food at a competitive price.

Pest Control Products ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I wish to inform him that he still has nine minutes left in his speech when Bill C-53 resumes.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

moved:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

Mr. Speaker, I take a lot of pride in rising to speak to the motion which is about the Canadian flag. It has a lot to do with the patriotism that most Canadians feel toward our flag. I would like to read the motion again for the record and then talk a bit about why I put the motion forth in such general terms. Motion No. 216 states:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

It is a general motion and there are good reasons for that.

We have had motions brought forth to the House before on the desecration of the flag. These were motions that presented positions against Canadians wilfully desecrating our flag. When I was putting my motion together I was careful not to put anything in the motion that would give anyone a reason not to support it.

Some members in previous debates on the flag, and there have been a couple I know about, have said they could not support it because the penalties laid out were not appropriate. The penalties were either too tough or too weak. For that reason I put no specific penalties in my motion on the desecration of the flag. I did that so that there would be no reason for anyone in the House not to support the motion. That should be left to the committee.

If the motion is passed on to a committee members from all political parties in the House and a majority of members from the governing party, with input from Canadians, would have an opportunity to determine what penalties would be appropriate in the event that a Canadian or anyone else wilfully desecrated the Canadian flag. That is why I have left this so general and so open. It makes it really inappropriate for anyone not to support the motion.

In the past other members have tabled similar motions. The member for Souris--Moose Mountain, from the Canadian Alliance, has tabled a motion. It has not yet been selected. The member's name has not been drawn but it is there waiting.

The Liberal member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant presented a motion that was debated just a couple of months ago. His motion did actually present and recommend specific fines that should be put in place. In that motion the member recommended that for a first offence there be a fine of $500 and for a second offence or any subsequent offence there be a fine of a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $15,000. I heard some people in debating the member's motion complain that the fines were not appropriate. For that reason I have left this open.

The member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, in his presentation of Bill C-330, made it clear that his bill was not aimed at those people who destroyed a flag when it became tattered or when it came to the end of its life, whether it was badly faded, tattered or somehow damaged. He made it clear that his motion would in no way impact on people who destroyed the flag under those circumstances. That of course is a completely acceptable thing to do. It is a recommended course for people to take under those circumstances where a flag can no longer be flown because of the condition it is in. There is no intent to aim the motion at anyone who would destroy a flag simply because it is inappropriate to fly because of the condition it is in.

Why did I choose this motion? When my name was drawn I could have chosen from several motions and bills that I had in the pot. They were there for my choosing when my name was drawn. From all those motions and bills I decided to debate this one. Why was that? The reason is that the flag is an important symbol of our country.

Most Canadian olympic teams for some time have had a stylized version of the Canadian flag on their uniforms. It is something that Canadians take instant pride in. They take ownership of those athletes as being Canadian athletes when they see the stylized version of the flag on their uniforms.

When athletes march in or out of the arena during the start and end of the Olympics, Canadians take great pride when they see our flag. When any of our athletes are on the podium after winning a medal and our flag flies and our national anthem plays, all Canadians feel great pride under those circumstances. It is because of this type of pride that we should have in Canada some law with appropriate penalties to deal with people who would wilfully desecrate our flag. We saw Team Canada, our hockey teams and other teams playing teams from around the world and we know the pride we feel.

Even as elected representatives, how many of us in the House, on our business cards, letterheads or on other information we put out before the public, have a symbol of the Canadian flag on those pieces of information? The member for Red Deer is showing me his business card proudly. He has a picture of our Canadian flag on his card, as do so many of us. We take that kind of pride in our card. When we pass our card to people we want them to know that we are proud and loyal Canadians. That is why we do that.

When we respond to an important issue from constituents, we want them to know that we are proud and loyal Canadians, proud to be serving them. We do that because of how we feel about our flag and because it is truly the most important and best recognized symbol of our country. For that reason I brought this motion forward.

We take pride in members of our Canadian civil service serving in the various departments, serving us and our country so well in most cases. We take a lot of pride in that. Their letterhead and even the buildings they work in have our Canadian flag on them and that is important because they are serving our country and are proud to do so. The symbols are there to show that they are proud to do that.

Almost all products made in Canada proudly present the Canadian flag to show that the product was made in Canada. Business people, companies and corporations from across the country are proud of that because it is a symbol of Canadian made excellence. Our flag is presented on almost all products made in our country. All of these products and the different items I have mentioned have the Canadian flag on them for good reason, because it is the most outstanding and best recognized symbol of the pride we have in our country.

In particular since September 11 Canadians have felt a renewed pride in our country. Most Canadians have recognized since September 11 the importance of the Canadian military.

Of course I, as the official opposition critic for defence, know as well as anyone the pride Canadians take in the service provided by the Canadian military. The Canadian armed forces serve under the Canadian flag and fight under the Canadian flag. We take great pride in that as Canadians.

A large part of the reason I brought this motion forward is because I have had citizens from across the country who formerly served in the Canadian forces. Many are currently serving in the Canadian forces. Many are members of the Canadian legion. They either have formerly served or they take a particular interest in the Canadian military.

Those people in particular are recognized in conjunction with the Canadian flag. Many have died serving under the Canadian flag. Their comrades who live on, who have put pressure on me, and rightly so, to bring this motion forward, have said they want to have in place a law which will punish those who would desecrate that same flag or even the former flag under which their comrades served. They want that special recognition that they felt could come only from having such a law in place.

Before I get into the closing of my presentation, I want to read a couple of poems. I have taken them from another Canadian Alliance member who spoke on this issue before in the House of Commons. They are excellent poems about the pride that Canadians take in the flag. I will read parts of two poems presented by the Canadian Alliance member for Souris--Moose Mountain. I know that he is a proud Canadian and that he feels it is extremely important that we protect the Canadian flag as a symbol of our country.

The first verse that I will read is part of a poem, or an old patriotic song as he has presented it, read:

At Queenston Heights in Lundy's Lane, Our brave fathers side by side For freedom's home and loved ones dear, Firmly stood and nobly died. And those dear rights which they maintained, We swear to yield them never. Our watchword ever more shall be, The Maple Leaf forever.

Of course, the maple leaf is our Canadian flag. The last verse that he read and that I want to read today is a short part of a poem on our emblem of liberty, and it reads:

It's only an old piece of bunting It's only an old coloured rag But there are thousands who died for its honor And fell in defence of our flag.

I think these two verses from songs and poems from our past really present the pride that Canadians take in the flag, particularly our men and women who serve this country in our armed forces and military.

I would encourage everyone in the House to support this motion. It is presented in a way that allows the committee to do what it wants with it.

I would now like to ask for unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent to make this item votable?

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue, one that involves freedom of expression and dignity. It is one of our important national symbols. In other words, it is a debate over values.

The motion proposes that a legislative committee of the House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

This issue has been addressed in this Chamber recently. As the government has previously indicated on those occasions and as my fellow parliamentarians would agree, this issue deeply touches all Canadians. Our Canadian flag symbolizes democracy, freedom, liberty and Canadian unity. The Canadian flag and all it represents must remain as it always has, the pride of all Canadians.

While debating the issue before us, it is imperative that we consider the principles that should guide the elaboration of criminal law. In policy terms we must remember that criminal law in a free and democratic society such as Canada must be reserved for wrongful acts that seriously threaten the fundamental values of our society.

Let us ask ourselves what values do we wish to protect? It is well understood that the actions that the committee would look into prohibiting would amount to the expression of a political opinion by act or gesture. As troubling as these acts may be to some and perhaps to most of us as Canadians, there are other fundamental values that need to be protected which indeed our flag also represents.

Canadians are proud to be a tolerant and civilized people. We value our diversity of culture, religion and belief. We have accordingly incorporated into our constitution the fundamental principles of this wonderful country. These are some of the values that our flag represents.

Let us recall the words spoken by the hon. Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate, in February 1965 during the ceremony inaugurating the new flag, which was held on Parliament Hill before parliamentarians and thousands of Canadians.

Before the charter, before the issue of desecration of a flag was ever considered and on knowing of the issue that would one day arise before us, he rightly stated:

The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion.

The acts contemplated by this motion simply do not amount to actions that require a criminal sanction. We must keep in mind that expressions, judged distasteful by the majority, are not in and of themselves a basis for restricting free expression in a free and democratic society.

In short, criminalizing these acts would go against the fundamental values for which our nation flag stands. That is, representing Canadians without distinction as to belief or opinion.

I propose that what really upsets us the most is the message conveyed by that act. The reality is that the message transmitted, usually disagreement with government policy, is disturbing. We must understand that however disturbing this message may be, putting limits on the expression of political opinion is nothing to take lightly. We cannot justify criminalizing an act because we do not like the message it conveys. That is not the Canadian way.

It is noteworthy that other countries have also refrained from criminalizing the desecration of their flag, countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although the United States has attempted in the past to do so, the legislation was judged to be unconstitutional. In Canada it would be very likely that such legislation would not survive a charter challenge.

Freedom of expression is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and flag burning is recognized as a form of political expression.

I share the views of a vast majority Canadians that desecrating our national flag is truly an offensive behaviour. Those who commit such acts do nothing to forward their cause. However, while it is objectionable behaviour, because it is a form of political expression, it is protected by the charter and cannot be criminalized.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this issue. It is unfortunate that members opposite would not agree to make it a votable item because it would be extremely interesting to see how most of the members feel about this topic. Arguments can be made on either side.

Our flag is one of our most prized possessions. It is a symbol of our country which we see most often. It is one that we revere. It is one of which we are very proud. It is one that leads to an awful lot of concern and anger by people who watch such desecrations, as we have seen occasionally in the past.

Whether it is the flag of our country or someone else's country, that flag symbolizes a country. Whether we agree with the policies of that country, or the government of that country, or the issues put forth by that country or how they treat us on the world scene, does not make a difference. It is their flag of which undoubtedly all of them are as proud as we are. When flags are desecrated, it shows a complete lack of respect for governance in the countries concerned and a complete lack of respect for civilized people throughout the world.

However, should we make it a criminal offence? That is why I say it is unfortunate it was not a votable motion because we would have got a much better idea of how people felt generally rather than just the three or four of us who speak to the issue.

This is a question to be asked? What is desecration? A number of people would be very concerned if a person decided to burn an old flag because that person thought it was getting old and dilapidated and a neighbour seeing that accused the individual of desecrating it. That is stretching it but if the legislation is not properly presented that individual could be in trouble. However I am sure that is certainly not the intent of the legislation. Again, legislation can be written to ensure that only those who are guilty of an offence are punished.

The flag, especially our Canadian flag, the red maple leaf which flies across our country, is one for which all Canadians have great respect. I remember when it was brought in. I was interviewed on television the day the flag was first flown. I think that was the first time I was ever on television, although I have made it a couple of times since. I was asked what I thought of it. I still remember my response which was “It's worth waiting for”. Until then, we were under the Union Jack. Many older Canadians in particular have a tremendous amount of pride in that flag, as we all do, because most of them fought under it during the wars. It exemplified our country as part of the Commonwealth of nations and it tied us very closely to Great Britain, much more so than expressing a clear identity of our own.

The day the first new Canadian flag was shown, with the red stripes and the red maple leaf, younger Canadians thought that this was our identity because the maple leaf represented Canada more than anything else.

In the earlier days of my teaching profession, I was responsible for looking after different concerts and fundraisers in our area. I remember having one such concert on November 11, which is Remembrance Day. It had a war theme. We played many of the songs about the early war days and common war songs.

One of the songs sung that night was by a young woman with a great voice. She sang a Canadian song entitled, I Wouldn't Trade a Million Dollars For A Single Maple Leaf . Listening to her sing it in practice, some of us got the idea that perhaps as she sang we should have a Canadian flag in the background so we tried it the following night. Somebody else had the idea that if we turned on a fan the flag could blow in the wind. This was back in the days when we did not have a lot of technology. As we got into our final night's practice we put an individual spotlight on the singer. As she finished singing the song the light shifted to the Canadian flag. The song itself talked about values and how one would not trade a million dollars for a single maple leaf and then the spotlight shifted from the singer, who had done a tremendous job, to the flag blowing in the wind.

Of all the things in my life that made an impact on me, I do not think anything hit me more in a patriotic sense than watching that flag that particular night where we were paying tribute to the war dead, the people who were still living and who had been involved in the wars, and all those who fought to give us the freedom and to give us the type of country that lies under this great flag. To see the flag just blowing in the wind we realized that this was our country and this was the flag we were proud of. It certainly gave me the type of feeling I had never had before.

A flag can do that for any of us. It is the flag we see carried by our athletes and our Olympic champions. How proud were we when the Canadian hockey teams held up the flag? It just goes on and on. It is something that we should not desecrate nor let people desecrate without some retribution.

It is unfortunate that this is not a votable item but I am quite sure we would be willing to support legislation to that degree provided that it would be directed at those who are committing what we would call an unpardonable offence rather than some accidental happening that might be termed desecration.

It is disappointing that it was not up for a vote so we could get a true impression of how Canadian representatives in the House feel about it. However that is how the government can keep people from expressing their true feeling, it makes sure we do not get the opportunity, and it has been doing a good job of it.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to participate in the debate today. I want to say at the outset that I was quite shocked at the speech given by the parliamentary secretary from the government side. I have never seen such a wimpy attitude toward defending something that is worth defending.

We keep on saying that we do not want to offend anyone, that we want to make sure people can do or say anything they want and therefore we do not dare lift a finger and in any way suggest that desecrating our flag might be wrong. People would probably say that it is a right that is protected under our charter. We certainly have it wrong if that is what we are saying. It is almost beyond comprehension to me.

I am not particularly a flag waver. This may come as a surprise to some people since it is known that historically I was involved in what came to be known as the flag flap a couple of years ago. However that was quite unplanned. It was a reaction which I made at a time when I was challenging something that I believed should be defended.

It was at a time when one of the members of the separatist Bloc Party insisted that we not display a flag in the House. I felt that I could not allow a member of a party that wanted to break up our country to tell me that I had to put away my flag. It was a plain defence reaction. When challenged in that way I knew I had to stand up for that symbol of our wonderful country.

Unfortunately, it did not go the way I intended. The Bloc member appealed to the Speaker at that time calling it a prop. We know that props are not permitted in the House. Even in this debate I cannot hold up but an imaginary flag or bring any props into the House. The Speaker ruled that in fact I could not display this prop and I was dissuaded from doing so.

I made the mistake of defying the Speaker at that time. I said that if we had to take the flag away in here then it was all worth less. It then became a controversy which I later regretted and apologized most sincerely for having defied the Speaker but certainly not for having defended the Canadian flag.

Our flag represents very hard won freedoms. The flag we are talking about today is the flag that represents for many of our immigrants the hope for freedom and opportunity which they were denied in their own countries.

I just confirmed that on July 1 I will be participating in a celebration of inviting new citizens into our country and giving them their citizenships, as many MPs do on July 1. I remember a number of years ago at one of those ceremonies there was a relatively young lady, of course at my age everyone is relatively young. She was living in this country and was about to receive her citizenship. She had tears running down her cheeks and just kept saying “thank you, thank you, thank you” with a broken voice.

I could relate to that because my grandmother always said that, too, having escaped from a country in which the family was under threat of death. My dad was just a youngster at the time when my grandparents brought their family to Canada. My grandmother so often said that Canada was a wonderful country and how thankful she was to be in a country of freedom and opportunity.

Since 1965, if I remember right, we have had a new Canadian flag. This was not the same flag when I was a youngster in school. This may come as a surprise to the pages, but by the time the current flag came into being I had already graduated from university. It is ancient history to them but it is pretty contemporary history to me that this flag came to be.

I remember the debate that was held at that time about the Canadian flag. There were of course various defenders and detractors of the flag. However, having adopted it, it is now the symbol of our country and it is recognized around the world as the flag of a country of freedom and opportunity, probably unequaled in the world. People are literally risking their lives in order to come to this country.

My colleague has come forward with a motion, which I was most pleased to second, that is the most gentle of motions. There can be no member in the House who could come up with any rational reason to be against it. All the motion says is that we want to refer the issue to a committee that will work through the details of coming up with acceptable legislation so that the wilful desecration of our flag as an act of disrespect will be subject to penalties.

The definition of desecration and the penalties would be decided by a multi-party committee so there can be no serious objection to the motion today. Members who vote against the motion today would be saying that they do not want to even talk about it. They are ready to give up. They are ready to put their hands in the air, raise an imaginary white flag, the flag of surrender, and give up. They are not prepared to stand up for what is right in the country. They do not want to even talk about it. They do not want it to go to a committee and they do not want to discuss it any further.

I believe that members who stop to think about what the motion says have no defensible reason to vote against it.

I want to quickly address the issue of freedom of expression. We do not yield that as a universal unassailable right. We have laws in the country, and rightly so, that there are some words that we cannot use. A classic example is that a person cannot in a crowded theatre in an evening yell “fire, fire”. It would put people's lives at risk. If a person did that and people were hurt, he or she would be subject to criminal charges even though the person may only have been expressing his or her freedom of speech.

We have laws that do not permit us to counsel other people to commit murder or to commit suicide, although I think the one to counsel people to commit suicide has now been pulled from the books. However, when I was a youngster it was against the rules to counsel people to take their own lives.

I could say that I have the freedom of speech to say to some young person or older person that he or she would be better off to end it all. However I do not have that freedom of speech because that is against the law.

I do not have the freedom of speech to speak against an identifiable group of people and promote hatred toward them. That right is taken away, and quite rightly so. Even within the confines of our charter we may not do that.

There are some exceptions of course. In the last election campaign we had the case where the then minister of immigration thought it was quite acceptable to take an identifiable group of people and say all sorts of horrible things about them that were untrue and which would then subsequently produce a great aversion and a hatred toward the group. It happened to be the Canadian Alliance. We had to live with that and accept it. I guess that is part of the political process. Personally I think it would have been quite legitimate for us to have launched a legal action in that case but we chose not to do that.

We have accurately and justifiably put limitations on the expression of our speech. Therefore I do not think there is any reason not to say, yes, we can speak in opposition to the government but that we must do it respectfully and that our debates should be logical, rational and persuasive. I do not believe in the kind of debate that involves violence and overturning cars. That is not debate.

I once was asked to speak at a meeting and there was a small group there who started chanting and basically drowned me out. They deprived me of my free speech. I did not want to deprive them of theirs so I just walked away and let them do that.

We must have the right to protect our flag in this country. I urge all members to support the bill because it is a proper limitation on our total and absolute freedom of expression, which is well justified.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak today in defence of our national symbol. I am disturbed to think that we cannot find it within ourselves to make laws giving us authority to protect our national symbol.

We have many different symbols. We promote them. We have religious symbols that we understand. We know what they mean. There is an identity that comes with those religious symbols. They have a meaning behind them. There are very important messages contained within those symbols.

Not only do we have symbols of religion, we also have symbols of reward and achievement. Those symbols, those badges and medals, are worn proudly by our military men and women. There are even certain rules and conditions under which they may wear those medals and under which others may not. We recognize their importance. They are not important because they are valuable, not in their right by themselves. They are important because of the achievement or merit that earned an individual that medal.

There are other symbols that are very precious to some of us. Every day I wear on the finger of my left hand a symbol of my commitment to my wife in marriage. It is an important symbol to me. My wife would not like it if I took it off, desecrated it, cut it in half, threw it away and those kinds of things. She would be offended by that. She would want to defend that symbol in some way. Yet we simply allow people to do what they want with our national symbol. We allow them to stomp it in the dirt, rub it in the ground, burn it, wrap their garbage in it, do whatever they want with it. That is not an honourable way to treat our symbol.

Members opposite will recall an incident that happened in the House a few weeks ago. A member of ours picked up the golden symbol sitting on that table. What a fuss that caused. What a fuss there was just because he touched that sacred symbol of the Mace and lifted it over his head in protest of the lack of democracy in this place. We defended that symbol by disciplining that member. He was put outside the bar. He was made to stand at the bar and apologize to the House for his inconsideration in regard to that symbol.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the symbol on your right, the red and white one, is much more important and much more valuable than this symbol over here. That symbol represents the whole nation. It represents our national sovereignty. Only nations should be able to fly a flag which indicates that they stand as independent nations on their own, making their own decisions, making their own laws and providing for their own citizens. The flag is a symbol of that. It is a symbol of our freedom, that which we are able to enjoy as citizens in this country.

People come to Canada and live under the symbol of the maple leaf and know that they are in a country that stands for freedom. Freedom is not bought cheaply. It comes with a high price. I do not believe that we need to let the symbol of our freedom be tromped upon cheaply. There needs to be a price. We need to protect the symbol of our sovereignty and our freedom. It is a symbol of our national identity. We are proud of who we are. We are proud of this nation. We are proud that we are different from other nations in the world. We pride ourselves on being different from the United States. That is our identity.

That maple leaf is a symbol, perhaps, of beauty. I remember my first trip to the Gatineau hills last fall. As I drove on the west side of the hills and the sun was shining at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, those maple trees lit up and were aglow in a fluorescent red that was as beautiful as the red on our flag. The flag reminds us of the beauty of our land, the fruitfulness of the sweet syrup that comes from the maple tree, the sweetness of our land. It is a symbol of that. It goes beyond the maple tree and beyond the maple syrup and speaks of the sweetness of the land that we need to protect, and we need to protect that symbol as well.

National pride: Do we not have any national pride? We are so upset when someone else suggests that we do something, when someone else suggests that we guard our borders in a certain way or suggests that we might pass certain laws. We are so wounded in our pride to think they are pushing us in some way, yet we do not have the spine to stand up when someone desecrates our national symbol and say that it is against the law and therefore something will be done about it.

I cannot understand why we cannot have enough pride to protect our national symbol. I would have been proud to vote for the bill should it have been votable. It is a shame for us to be denied the opportunity to vote for this great symbol of our land and to see it revered with the respect with which it should be.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Lunney Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join my colleagues and others who have entered the debate tonight on Motion No. 216 brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland. I will repeat it in case someone has tuned in late on this debate. It states:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

That is the subject of our discussion this afternoon and we are very pleased to enter into this debate because it is an opportunity to talk about the country that we live in, this country that has been recognized around the world. I know that the Prime Minister is very proud to say that Canada is the best country in the world and has been voted that year after year. Unfortunately this year I think we slid just a bit, however, it has been voted number one for many years and just this year was voted number two. That is quite an honour considering all of the nations around this great world, which is becoming smaller for us because of our ability to travel.

Many people have had the opportunity to visit many parts of the world. I have had the opportunity to do a lot of international travelling and I can always say that I am glad and proud to come back to my country. Having travelled and having seen some of the most beautiful and interesting sights and places around the world, in Europe, the Middle East and even in Russia, I am always very proud and pleased to come back to this country and recognize how much we have to be thankful for here. We have so much in this country that people in other nations find desirable. Immigrants from around the world want to come here. In spite of the fact that it does create problems for us, and our new immigration policies try to deal with that, it does reflect the value that other people around the world place on this country and what a desirable place it is to live.

I have lived in several parts of the country. I was born in Winnipeg, in central Canada, grew up there and then lived for 19 years in Ontario. I remember that as a young boy I was impressed with the beauty of the prairies. I saw those prairie thunderstorms roll across, the beauty of the wind blowing across the prairie fields and the sun set and rise so far away. When I moved to Ontario I was so impressed with the beauty of its rolling hills and the fact that I could not see for 27 miles, or 127 on the prairies, and that around every corner and bend was a new vista. We have so much beauty in this country. Then in about 1990 my wife and I moved out to British Columbia and I had a whole new experience of beauty. Of course we were drawn there because of mountains, oceans, trees and the beauty of the area.

Wherever we go we find these Canadian institutions. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to travel more in this country since I have been a member of parliament. I have travelled in the eastern provinces and in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In Charlottetown, on Prince Edward Island, I was impressed to see how many homes had the Canadian flag flying. Frankly, I am quite determined to see more Canadian flags flying in my own neighbourhood on Vancouver Island. Through my office we are making an effort to make some available to our community.

The flag is a symbol of our identity. It is a symbol of our nation. It is recognized around the world and it is something that we ought to be proud of. We have so many privileges as Canadians, such as the freedom to stand in the House and debate. Although we may get a little hot around here and sometimes a little steamed up, we do have the freedom to enter into debate. We have so many other freedoms, such as the freedom of speech. As my hon. colleague mentioned, there are limits on freedom of speech that are recognized by the House and by our society. There are limits on the freedoms we have in this country. There are limits on statements that incite hatred or disrespect. Disrespect for the flag is frankly an insult to all of us.

The Canadian flag means something to me. Morning after morning, in the years when I was a member of a rotary club, we would stand and face the flag and sing “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee”. Frankly, I remember many times feeling pierced a little, because I felt that as Canadians we were not standing on guard for the principle that the country was founded on.

That is precisely why we are here as members of parliament: to protect the freedoms our forefathers fought for. We are here to protect the vision for this great country from coast to coast which the Fathers of Confederation laid a foundation for and which we have inherited.

I will tell hon. members a story about something that happened recently. I relate to people. There are people who have a vision for the country. Many people have prayed for the future of Canada and believe it has a future and a destiny among nations. I was with a group of such people on the west coast on Canada Day, 1995. There was a gathering of people in Whistler to pray for the nation. I am sure hon. members would agree there are a number of issues on which we need the wisdom of the Almighty.

During the course of the gathering an aboriginal woman shared an interesting experience with us. She had been praying by a river in British Columbia. As she was praying she saw in her mind a vision of a great flag flying over the river. The leaf dropped off the flag, floated down and landed in the river. As it hit the river the waters were cleansed. As the waters of the Skeena River flowed down into the Thompson and from the Thompson into the Fraser, people ran to the waters and were cleansed. As the waters flowed down the Fraser to the coast people ran to the waters and were cleansed, and as the waters washed up on the shore the land began to be cleansed.

It was a very interesting vision because in the good book the Book of Revelation says the leaves from the tree of life would be for the healing of the nations. There are people who believe Canada may have a role in the healing of the nations. We like to think our country has a role as a peacemaker among the nations. We like to think we have an impact on our fellow nations during conflicts. We have a lot of discussions in the House about how we might accomplish that.

We ought to remember that the leaf a powerful symbol. As far as I know Canada is the only nation with a leaf on its flag.

I would join with my hon. colleagues in calling on all members of the House to support the motion. It is right that we should respect this symbol. It is a symbol of our national identity and our pride in our heritage. We ought to treat it as such.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an awkward and difficult situation. I asked for my motion to be made votable so it could go to a committee where appropriate form could be put in place and it could be instituted into law. However unanimous consent was denied.

The motion is as innocuous as it could possibly be. It proposes:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), which would make it a criminal offence to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag.

In spite of this the only member of the governing party who spoke to the motion, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister and hon. member for Northumberland, stood and said the flag represents the fundamental values of our country but we should not do anything about it. It seems the government believes there is no place for values in law or in the House. Many of the laws presented by the government reflect that.

It is disappointing that resistance to the idea of allowing values to guide law in this place is leading members of the governing party to deny unanimous consent to my motion. I find myself in an awkward situation. I will ask for unanimous consent once again a little later. I hope the members of the governing party who denied unanimous consent the last time will reconsider.

I would remind the government of a time a month ago when one of its own members asked for unanimous consent to make a private members' bill votable that would have recognized Canadian forces day. It was not made votable by the private members' committee so he asked for it to be made votable in the House.

A member of the opposition denied unanimous consent. He said he would be happy to vote for the motion if the government provided unanimous consent for his own patriotic motion which would have had parliament recommend two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. Members of the government and another opposition party railed against the hon. opposition member for denying unanimous consent to an innocuous and important motion that would have recognized Canadian forces day. The important motion of the opposition member regarding two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day was also denied.

Today we are debating my motion. The government has spoken against it. It says it is important but it does not want to do anything about it. The only argument I heard was that it would somehow go against the charter of rights and freedoms. That is total and utter nonsense. It is an absolutely nonsensical argument.

I am therefore in an awkward situation because I am tempted to threaten any member who speaks out and denies unanimous consent. I am tempted to make that kind of threat because it seems unfair that government members would show so little respect for this place by denying my motion unanimous consent.

However I will not do that. I will instead ask all members in the House, particularly members opposite who do not support my motion, to at least recognize the importance of respecting democracy and allow the motion to be debated in the House and voted on. That way all members in the House could decide whether or not they wanted to support it.

I ask members to be reasonable and grant unanimous consent for the motion to be made votable.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent to make this item a votable item?

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian FlagPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

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.

Canadian FlagAdjournment Debate

6:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that perturbs me perhaps more so than having a motion rejected that deals with the Canadian flag as we just saw happen, is debating an issue which I raised in question period, receiving an answer I was not satisfied with, and wanting to debate the issue with the minister involved.

However, evening after evening, with few exceptions, the ministers involved send in the parliamentary secretary with a prepared statement. It does not matter what I say about the question I raised. It does not matter whether I emphasize that I was not satisfied with the answer, or whether I talk about the rain tomorrow and how it will affect fish. I will get the same answer. When I asked the minister the question his response did not satisfy me, not to the limit of how far he went but more so in what he did not say in contribution to my question.

I was talking about the Russian boat that was arrested and brought into St. John's. It was determined that the boat contained a tremendous amount of product that was undersize. We obtained a copy of the manifest from the boat long before the minister did. By carefully scrutinizing the manifest we could see that there were all kinds of possible infractions staring us in the face.

The minister and his department quite often look at the manifest. It is like individuals stopping at customs coming across the border, being asked what they have to declare and answering they have nothing to declare because it is all on the form. In the meantime their trunk and suitcase is full of contraband.

The boats come into port having caught fish perhaps 30 or 60 days before landing, having processed the product and stored it in a frozen state where it would be impossible to tell what we are dealing with anyway, and flashing the manifest. We thank them and say they have done everything in accordance with the law. We ask them to unload, send their product back home and sail again. That is not good enough because we have seen evidence now of blatant abuses.

The minister in responding said NAFO regulations were followed. If we accept the manifest then he is right. The problem is that the NAFO regulations are wrong when we let people catch species like redfish the size of one's thumb using illegal gear to do it, when catching species that are not supposed to be caught at all because they are under moratorium and when the manifest clearly shows that they caught a lot more than they were supposed to.

If the regulations are wrong, no one has a better chance to do something about it than the minister of fisheries, who today rejected a clear cut decision and direction given to him by the committee. I am not sure what the member will say in response but I look forward to it.

Canadian FlagAdjournment Debate

6:30 p.m.

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord Québec

Liberal

André Harvey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, for his interest in foreign overfishing.

I am aware that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are very concerned about this issue. Personally, even though I am not assigned to this department, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and also on behalf of his very available parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, both of whom are working very hard together on this issue.

I had the opportunity just this afternoon to read an article in Québec Science that referred to the drastic decline in fish stocks off our coasts. The cod stocks dropped from between 40,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year to 6,000 or 7,000 tonnes.

With respect to foreign fishers' lack of compliance with NAFO regulations, I am happy to have the opportunity to talk about this issue. I would like to ensure my colleague that this is an issue that is being taken very seriously by the government.

Indeed, there have been orders to close the ports to foreign fleets, including the Estonian fleet, because it did not respect NAFO conservation regulations and measures.

We also take into account the fact that the Russian authorities have decided to cancel for the rest of the year the licence allowing the Olga to fish in the NAFO regulated area. We will investigate further the activities of this vessel.

Canada will not tolerate intentional violations of NAFO quotas and regulations by these fleets. DFO officials will continue to monitor fishing activities in the NAFO regulated area to ensure compliance.

However, as far as Russian trawler Tynda is concerned, the situation is different. So far, no violation to Canadian or NAFO regulations have been observed. Moreover, the Tynda 's manifest, which was reproduced in the Telegram , contained absolutely no indication of any illegal activity.

At present, there is no restriction on the minimum size of redfish, which is the main species captured by the Tynda . Redfish in the southern part of the Grand Banks are 19 to 28 centimetres long and weight between 100 and 200 grams. This tallies with the Tynda 's manifest. The size of the fish found on this vessel is not unusual for this species.

In the case of many fisheries, the fish are small. The 30 redfish caught by all fishing fleets, including the Canadian one, both in Canadian waters and beyond, were usually very small. We always take into account the small size of species such as this one when we conduct a scientific assessment of the stocks. In the case of the Tynda , the fish landings fully complied with Canadian legislation and with NAFO's conservation measures.

As for the other species caught by the Tynda , including the cod south of the Grand Banks or the 3N0 cod, for which a moratorium is currently in effect, a 5% bycatch is authorized, in compliance with NAFO's conservation measures.

The bycatch caught by this ship was well below this limit. Again, this ship did not do anything illegal. It was not involved in any illegal fishing activity.

Canadians put their trust the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when it comes to managing the resource on their behalf, and to manage it in a responsible way, while keeping in mind the needs of future generations.

In the meantime, I can assure hon. members that officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will continue to closely monitor and evaluate the fishing activities of all the fleets and, if necessary, they will take appropriate measures. They will continue to use the means available to them to put an end to overfishing beyond Canada's 200 mile limit.

Canadian FlagAdjournment Debate

6:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Maybe he should go talk to the Newfoundland fishermen.

If he came to Newfoundland and talked with the fishermen or with anyone involved, they would tell him. I am reminded of the words of the old Johnny Horton song:

It's the same old tale that the crow told me Way down yonder by the sycamore tree

This is the same story that we hear over and over, that there is nothing wrong. No wonder our resources are being raped over and over when the government says there is nothing wrong. The circumstantial evidence surrounding that manifest was enough to take all the Russian boats out of there and send them home for good. All we look at is a manifest without analyzing and say that yes, everything is okay and off we go.

It is unfortunate. The minister has a great opportunity to make a name for himself, do what is right for Canada, and he has blown it.

Canadian FlagAdjournment Debate

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

André Harvey Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that I had the opportunity to visit Newfoundland and I saw some absolutely magnificent and unique regions of that province. I remember Port-aux-Basques and the capital, St.John's, which is an extraordinary place.

I want to tell my colleague that the department is very closely monitoring the whole issue of fish stocks, and especially the question of fishing by foreign vessels. We already have serious problems along our shores. Therefore, we are perfectly aware of the problem. I am sure the minister and his parliamentary secretary, who is very concerned about the situation, will handle this with utmost care.

I thank my colleague for having raised the question here tonight.

Canadian FlagAdjournment Debate

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that I will be addressing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services this evening.

I would simply remind him that on June 5, I asked his hon. minister a question about the now famous CD-ROM-Dessins animés. From what I can see, this is a small company which applied for grants in two separate years. In one year, it asked for $450,000; it received $550,000. God is therefore good, particularly when one has friends like Groupaction or Groupe Everest. The following year, however, it asked for $125,000 and that is what it got.

But in addition to this amount, an amount of $319,495 was also paid for professional services, an amount which I could not figure out. I naturally asked the minister about it. In fact, $675,000 in grants were received by this small company, CD-ROM-Dessins animés, but a total of $1,296,000 was paid out. And yes, the middleman was indeed Groupaction and it took its 12% cut.

I am a bit disappointed. The minister replied that there was no problem, that I could ask to have the question put on the order paper, which is what we are doing this evening, and that the information would be provided.

I see that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is here, however. Not that I do not like him, or that he is not a good assistant; on the contrary he is an excellent one. He will do here what he has done in committees since January, in sessions of the standing committees on transport, and on government operations and estimates.

I asked him to call before the committee John Grant, former minister Alfonso Gagliano, Mr. Desgens, Mr. Brault and Ms. Donnelly of Groupaction. The hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord and he totally lost it. To put a lid on it, they took advantage of their government majority in committee to prohibit any of these people from appearing.

I also wanted to have Michèle Tremblay come. This is a person who received astronomical benefits. According to the former minister, he who has sought refuge in Denmark, she alone received $10 million in fees in the past few years. This he said in a statement on television to a reporter, Mr. Bureau.

I am somewhat disappointed to see that this parliamentary secretary is the one with the job of putting the lid back on, hushing everything up, providing no explanations. Unfortunately, that is what we are going to have to deal with. I am speaking before him, and I know we will learn nothing from him.

I would like to hear from him who got the $319,495 in professional fees here? Who got this stupendous amount? An amount of $125,000 was asked for, and $544,000 received.

I will break it down for hon. members: $15,000 or 12% of $125,000 to Groupaction; $3,750 to Media IDA Vision just to write a cheque for $125,000, not a bad deal that; a subcontract of $80,237, although Mr. St-Pierre says he never did any subcontracting, and $319,495 in fees. Finally, there is a $80 travel claim. Scandalous. I would like an answer on this.

Canadian FlagAdjournment Debate

6:40 p.m.

Mississauga South Ontario

Liberal

Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member will take the opportunity in his final minute to correct the record. We did not turn down the request in committee to see people but in fact the committee voted unanimously to table that until the auditor general's report was complete and the member agreed. I hope the member will take the opportunity to correct this information.

The hon. member being in opposition has the liberty to make whatever statements he feels are important. However, when one is in government one has to be accountable, show prudence and good judgment with regard to matters. The government is not at liberty to discuss this matter because it has been referred to the RCMP. It would not be appropriate to make further comment on those items while consideration of an investigation is underway, simply not to jeopardize it.

I can comment on the broader issues. Here are the facts. Contrary to the allegations this is not a recent issue. We are dealing with contracts and files between 1997 and the year 2000. The difficulties that we are finding now in those files were identified in an internal audit which was started or commissioned by the department itself. Corrective action was taken.

The auditor general said, with regard to the quality of the report, that the internal audit section of public works was excellent and courageous. A subsequent internal audit was commissioned to ensure that those corrective measures that were specified were implemented and indeed they have been.

Let there be no question, mistakes have been made. Our job is to correct the situation so that we do not have these problems occurring ever again. If we find administrative problems they will be corrected. If there is any evidence of overpayment, we will recover the moneys. If there are legal questions they will and have been, where necessary, referred to the appropriate authorities such as the RCMP.

Today we have public works doing its own review of the 700 files between 1997-2000. The auditor general is doing her own independent review of those same files. The public accounts committee has commenced its own investigation on related matters. Treasury Board is looking at the management framework and the governance system.

To go forward we do need a better system. Many members have said, including the BQ members, that they like the sponsorship program but they are a little concerned about the method of delivery of support. We agree that the delivery system of using outside firms may not be the best way to do it. We are looking to change it. This is what we will correct in the future.