House of Commons Hansard #129 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, my charming colleague from Champlain is referring to the War Measures Act, which, unfortunately, we lived through in Quebec in October 1970. I would add that I too spent a weekend in the cafeteria and gymnasium of Collège de Saint-Laurent. Today it is a CEGEP, but at the time it was a college.

We were taken away by the army, for reasons I never understood, without any warrant or anything. A group of us were leaving a restaurant in Ville-Saint-Laurent. All of sudden we were in an army truck and spending the weekend at the college. On the Monday, they appeared and told us to go home. There was no way to shower, shave or do anything the whole weekend.

I would not want anyone to go through that same experience today. It was unfortunate, because some tragic events occurred in Quebec.

What annoys us about Bill C-17 is that there are no controls on the actions of the RCMP, CSIS, the army or any other police force. This is about the information they can gather. What are they going to do with this information and how are they going to obtain it? Will it be through the airlines? What will they do with it?

In one of his articles, the Privacy Commissioner says that the bill makes Canadians out to be a bunch of dummies, or morons or something. He says it very well. I am trying to find the exact word. He said “it insults the intelligence of Canadians.”

I am sure that most Canadians and Quebeckers have the same concerns I do. Nothing in this bill ensures that there will not be a repeat of October 1970, absolutely nothing.

We must learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes all over again.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to Bill C-17. It can be said that a certain number of bills have been introduced in reaction to the September 11 attacks, and especially in reaction to the activities of some very high-level American lobbyists who have come to Ottawa a number of times. A pair of U.S. secretaries, Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft, came to Ottawa in the months following the attacks. They said our border was too easy to cross, that our laws were not tough enough or restrictive enough, and asked us to reinforce controls through legislation.

We are finally falling into the trap we did not want to fall into. In fact, I remember that when the House of Commons resumed a week or two after the September 11 attacks, we were still traumatized by what had happened in New York. People said that life would never be the same again.

Nevertheless, one fundamental lesson was there for Canadians and Quebeckers: we had to pay attention to protecting our rights and freedoms. We did not want terrorists to succeed in restricting the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers. People said we needed legislation, that some things had to be reviewed, but they also said we certainly should not fall into the trap the terrorists had set for us, that of restricting our rights and freedoms.

The terrorists' goals included not only killing 3,000 people, but striking a violent blow at the great western democracies. They attacked a symbol of that democracy, the towers of the World Trade Center.

Reaction was swift. I do not mean the legitimate act of self-defence that led the Americans to go after Al Qaeda. I mean the resulting restrictions in the fundamental rights of Canadians and Quebeckers.

We had initially decided to split this bill in two. We have always expressed our objections to the part before us today. We objected at second reading; we objected in committee and tried to improve the bill by proposing amendments to prevent restriction of the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and Canadians.

For that matter, we were not the only ones. The then Privacy Commissioner talked about it publicly many times, saying that this bill had to be amended because it was an invasion of Canadians' and Quebecers' privacy. This is a small victory for us, because I remember that this act was even worse. As you all know, I am the national defence critic for my party. Military security zones were created in many parts of Canada and government was being given the mandate to create some.

It was extremely dangerous for us. As you know, my riding is a has a very strong military presence, housing both a military base and a former military college. Some of the original bill's provisions allowed the extension of cabinet's powers. For example, if a danger was perceived at the Saint-Jean military base, the zone could be extended to the whole city of Saint-Jean. That possibility did exist. Some of the bill's provisions allowed the minister and cabinet to extend those zones.

At the time, I had also given the example of the naval reserve at the Quebec City port. That reserve could have been extended to a large part of the city of Quebec City, including the Quebec National Assembly probably.

The federal government's jurisdiction could be extended and the government would be in control. Access could even be restricted in a large zone around the Quebec City reserve or in a large zone in the riding of Saint-Jean, to give maximum protection to the military infrastructure.

This went so far that people inside the zone could be arrested without a warrant and jailed just because they were inside a military zone.

Furthermore—this is important—the government was required to advise the public of this only one or two weeks after having issued the order in Ottawa. People might have been in the zone without knowing it, not knowing they were breaking the law, and could have been arrested on the spot.

The Bloc Quebecois fought against this tooth and nail. It is very reassuring to see that this had disappeared when Bill C-17 came back before the House.

I think two or three areas, like Nanoose Bay, the port of Halifax and another area, have been declared “controlled-access military zones”. Back then, the military used the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen as an example. It said that ports were danger zones and wanted to declare certain ports as military exclusion zones. Ultimately, we are happy we limited this. This is a huge victory for democracy and freedom and for the Bloc Quebecois in having managed to get this dropped.

We find disturbing a number of the bill's other aspects. This is not the first time that interim orders have been mentioned; my hon. colleagues did so earlier. I think that they are going a bit too far with the interim orders. A minister can decide that an interim order is necessary, and it might be some time before it is brought to the attention of Parliament.

We have always been told that if an emergency occurs while Parliament is in recess, then they would be necessary. That is what witnesses before the standing committee said. However, in my experience, Parliament has been recalled before, for instance during the railway strike. I am not positive, but I think that the members were also recalled from recess during the strike at the port of Vancouver.

The interim orders are problematic. Once again, the ministers and the governor in council, or cabinet, are being given too many powers.

There are other ways to proceed, even before this legislation is implemented. I know that the government has the habit of sometimes asking for an opinion from the Supreme Court, which is charged with examining a provision or an act in relation to specific questions to see if it can pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms test.

With regard to the provision on interim orders that is in the bill before us, we may ask ourselves whether it respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I find that it is too easy for the government to hold a cabinet meeting and to decide to make an interim order for some purpose. This would be known several days later. We have tried to reduce from 15 to five days the period before this would be referred to Parliament. The current provisions of the legislation allow the government to circumvent the charter of rights and freedoms, which is quite serious. We cannot say it is not a cause for concern.

As a matter of fact, I continually hear my Liberal colleagues say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is extremely important. It was invoked not long ago in the issue of same sex marriages. They want to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in several acts. It is strange that they seem to be ignoring it in Bill C-17.

If a minister believes there is an emergency, the Department of Justice will not be asked to examine any impact on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government will proceed immediately and the impact on the charter will be examined later on. We believe that this is extremely serious.

We have a Parliament that is comprised of 301 elected members from all the ridings of Canada, including 75 from Quebec. In electing us, the people gave us the legitimacy to sit in Parliament. We have the legislative authority to change things, to vote for or against legislative measures.

Of course, I have blamed this government several times for not letting us vote. What this government has discovered lately, among other things, are take note debates. I remember for example the sending of troops to Irak, when Parliament was in recess. A few weeks later, we came back to Parliament and learned that the troops were gone and we were told that we would have a debate on the relevancy of sending our troops to that country.

But the moorings had been cast off, and the ships were almost halfway there. What can we do in such circumstances? We object. I think that, as parliamentarians, we must make ourselves heard on issues as important sending troops abroad. We are talking about young soldiers, children of Canadians, young men and women, sent to a dangerous theatre of operations.

The same is true of Bill C-17. As parliamentarians, we want Parliament to retain the greatest control possible on this kind of legislation. If this bill contains any provisions that turn Parliament into a simple rubber stamp, weeks after a decision has been made, we think it is illegitimate to put parliamentarians in such a position.

It even borders on the illegal, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not the only ones in opposition to say so. Rumour has it that some of our Liberal colleagues also oppose this bill because it suspends the operation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for certain periods. I think this is dangerous.

The other aspect is the collection of information. Any time there is talk about giving more power to CSIS or the RCMP, it is understandable that our reaction, in the Bloc Quebecois, would be to want to take a closer look at the situation.

Earlier, we heard colleagues tell us they were arrested, probably without a warrant, and jailed for whatever reason. They were detained for several days without being allowed to call a lawyer. This is in direct violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There might not have been a charter at the time, but there is one now.

We also know what happened. Without calling into question the work of the RCMP and CSIS, I can say that a lot happened during the October crisis. There were even televised reports to the effect that the FLQ did not do many of the things it was blamed for. The McDonald commission later determined that the RCMP had done them.

Everybody remembers the barn burnings. It was terrible. The FLQ, we were told, was burning barns, planting bombs, etc. The McDonald Commission told us that it was not the FLQ that had done this, but the RCMP. Perhaps the RCMP had acted on political orders to aggravate the situation in Quebec so Quebeckers would think that things were really serious. So maybe the RCMP was asked to do that.

Of course no one will ever tell us. No one will tell us that the Solicitor General of the day told the RCMP to do such things. No one has been able to prove it. However, after the McDonald Commission, we know that some people somewhere made decisions for things to happen that way.

When a bill contains provisions that grant more powers to the RCMP and CSIS to gather information on individuals, there is cause for concern and there is good reason to want to limit the scope of these provisions.

I was a member of the legislative committee that studied Bill C-17, a committee that was ably presided over by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I asked a lot of questions. Let us say, for example, that I am sitting next to a person on an airplane and that I have a conversation with that person during the flight. If the RCMP knows something about that person, will it be wondering what ties I may have with that person? Will it be wondering who is the guy that was talking to that person during the whole flight? There must be something there. That is where the ball can get rolling.

Of course, being a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I do not think that the RCMP would dare say that I am a terrorist just because I was sitting next to one. I do not think that it would go that far. It has a certain decency. Moreover, it knows that we have means to defend ourselves.

But the poor businessman who is friendly and speaks with a fellow passenger he knows nothing about might find himself under scrutiny as soon as his plane lands. Police officers might be investigating him, trying to find out who he is, why he talked at length with his fellow passenger, if he has a criminal record, if he had previous business dealings with his fellow passenger, if he knew him before the plane trip. The poor fellow might not even be aware that he is under investigation.

Moreover, the information gathered can be kept for seven days. We want that to be reduced to 24 hours. The Bloc Quebecois has worked hard on this issue and on the orders in council. We have brought forward many amendments to uphold the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians. All of our amendments have been quashed by the Liberal majority.

Therefore, we cannot support such a bill at third reading. There would be too many consequences. Quebec, with its collective memory, does not want the government to be provided with more tools to control the population. We are not the only ones to take that position. Many witnesses have argued the same thing before the committee.

I fail to understand why my Liberal colleagues, after hearing such eloquent and relevant evidence, would not agree with the witnesses, but would rather say “No, we will stick to the bill as it is.”

This is when we realize that party solidarity sometimes goes a bit far, particularly when the government side is involved. They sit down together, listen to all kinds of things being said by witnesses, and then just turn aside and say “That is not it. Those are not the people we want to hear from.” The whole thing has become a bit of a farce.

Yet standing committees of the House of Commons, like parliamentary commissions in Quebec. are created in order to listen to the public. Moreover, the various books on parliamentary procedure agree that it is important to listen to witnesses and to the public.

Has this become a farce, a comedy? Has it become mere fiction? One might well ask. As MPs, we sit on numerous committees and we see how it always goes: if the government wants to pass a bill, even if 500 witnesses spoke out against it, the government sticks to its guns and just ignores all the groups and individuals who made the effort to appear before the committee.

There will, of course, always be some witnesses—the government will make sure there are one or two—who share the government's views. These are the ones who will receive the spotlight, not all those witnesses who do not agree with it.

We are, therefore, in a position to have some very serious questions about Bill C-17. There have been a number of witnesses. This is a bill on which there have been a number of discussions in this House. We cannot, however, say that the government passed a gag order, though it did not listen any more than if it had.

Speaking of gag orders, that is another thing. If the government does not want to listen to us, if it thinks we are going too far, it imposes a gag order. So far with Bill C-17 the government has not been too put out, since it has not gagged us. It has not, however, listened to us any the more. That is the situation.

This government needs to set its arrogance and its majority aside and listen to the people in opposition. A democracy without an opposition can easily get off the track. This is not a dictatorship. If a government with a majority never listens to the opposition, there is something wrong. It is like a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship by the majority, even if they outnumber the minority by only 10.

We are ignored and the government does what it wants with witnesses during parliamentary committee meetings, as was the case with Bill C-17. Indeed, it listened, it heard witnesses and then it decided to ignore what was said and include exactly what it wanted in the bill. In the parliamentary committees my Liberal colleagues went along with this. I hope, for the sake of democracy, rights and freedoms, that when it comes time to vote at third reading, some of them will stand up. I hope so. We will be watching them, although we are not kidding ourselves.

We believe this bill has gone too far. That is why we have to vote at third reading the same way we did at second reading, in other words, against Bill C-17.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, during his speech the member made a statement to the effect that it was inappropriate to give the government any further instruments to control the people. It is unfortunate that it comes to a point where we talk more about the concern of the controlling aspect and move away from the realities of the need for security within Canada and safety for its people.

Similar to the question I asked previously, I again would like to ask the member about the balance between the safety and security of Canadians and their collective right to privacy. Without safety in this country we have no sovereignty and without sovereignty we have nothing. There is something to be said on both sides and I guess it really goes to the heart of the question of how we cannot have it both ways. There has to be some point at which it is in the best interests of all even though there may be conflicting needs or interests on behalf of Canadians.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking his question a second time. The first time around I thought that if he had directed his question to me, I would have had an answer for him.

I have to partially agree with him. We are trying to find a balance between security and protecting citizens' rights and freedoms. That is certain. Nonetheless, my colleague will agree that this is arbitrary. What would we do if we were American? We would tighten measures even further and invest in the army and anything related to war. They did just that with their intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is how Americans see things.

The United States, our neighbour, has ten times the population we do. The member was talking about sovereignty. He knows full well that the issue of sovereignty is especially dear to our hearts on this side of the House. When he talks about sovereignty, is it a good idea to copy an American system?

I saw Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft come to sit in the gallery of this House and listen to oral question period; I saw the Minister of Finance, in the last budget, invest $7 billion and change in security by giving more to the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian Forces and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

Where does Canadian sovereignty fit in all this? Are we no longer able to have our say? Are the Americans dictating their wishes to various ministers and members of Parliament?

It is reflected in the budget and in the bill we are debating today. The Americans have probably asked the Canadian government to tighten things up concerning immigration, customs and revenue, and so on. We can see this developing and we have seen it starting with the 2002 budget, where $7 billion more was invested in security.

I think this bill goes much too far in the name of security. Canada has always been distinguished by its rights and freedoms; that has been our way of life in Canada and in Quebec. With this bill, we are making a dangerous change. In my opinion, we are in the process of losing—and this is a sovereigntist speaking—parts of Canadian and Quebec sovereignty by passing laws like this and playing the game by American rules.

Some people say that in 50 years the rest of Canada—perhaps not Quebec—will have become nine additional American states, and that this transformation will perhaps have started under the Liberal government now sitting opposite.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague for Saint-Jean that he has answered our Liberal colleague's question a second time. That hon. member did not understand the second time either, because the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles gave essentially the same answer. What we want is balance. The hon. member for Saint-Jean has explained it to him again, but I do not think we can find a way to make ourselves understood, which is a bit sad.

There is one aspect of this bill that annoys me. We have talked a great deal about military security zones. Since my hon. friend from Saint-Jean is an expert in that field, I would like him to say something more about these zones.

Just before that, I would like to tell him that in the 1970s a Mr. Samson, an RCMP officer, was caught planting bombs in the name of the FLQ. Unfortunately, the bomb went off in his hand while he was setting it near the residence of former Prime Minister Trudeau, to give the impression that Quebecers were “bad guys”. Then it was discovered that the RCMP was behind it. Thus, as far as trusting the RCMP is concerned—thanks but no thanks.

I would like the hon. member to tell us about military security zones, because I could point out that there are still some 300,000 mortar shells on the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre, of which 10,000 to 12,000 are still dangerous. Before discussing military security zones, it seems to me that we should require our armed forces to prove that they are keeping us safe at home.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

What bothered us with the military security zones was the fact that the minister could at a whim extend a well delineated zone such as the one under the jurisdiction of the naval reserve, in Quebec City, as much and for as long as he wanted. Moreover, he did not need anyone's permission to do so.

I take the example of the naval reserve because this is a very political issue. Just imagine that a decision was made that all of Old Quebec, including the National Assembly buildings, was to come under the jurisdiction of the naval reserve. What would it look like if members of the Canadian Forces controlled access to the National Assembly? It could have gone that far. The same thing could have happened in the riding of Saint-Jean. The limits of the military base could have been extended to include part of the town of Saint-Jean, including city hall, and soldiers would have controlled the access of city councillors and residents to city hall.

That was going much too far. My colleague did give examples where the army was at fault. We know that it was at fault with respect to Lake Saint-Pierre, and that 300,000 rounds were indeed shot in the water, in the river, of which some 12,000 are likely to still be live. Instead of announcing that they will be helping residents clean up the lake, the departments of the environment and of national defence are passing the buck to each other.

So, the issue of military security zones is very important to us. Once again, we had to be suspicious. There had been abuse in the past; we are trying to remedy that. With a bill like this one, conditions must not be created whereby this abuse could start all over. I have no desire of leaving contaminated land or 300,000 rounds of ammunition in the bottom of the river as a legacy to future generations. This kind of abuse had already taken place.

That is why we are vigilant today. That is also why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are staunch defenders of the rights and freedoms of individuals. This is very important to us because we have suffered because of that. Our rights and freedoms have been repeatedly trampled on. As a result, we can tell now when a bill contains dangerous provisions.

I think that we are doing our job in taking our responsibilities as parliamentarians. We did so at second reading. We did so for several months at the standing committee, the standing legislative committee which you used to chair, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to do so because we have had our rights interfered with by actions taken by the federal government for far too long, and we think that the bill before us also poses a threat.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17, the public safety act, has a long history. As the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam mentioned in his speech, this is probably the third kick at the can. This is unfortunate because some important elements of Bill C-17 are essential to the safety and security of Canadians.

I should clarify that notwithstanding the frustrations of the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, he also confirmed that the Alliance Party supports the bill and I hope most members will.

Last night I happened to be watching the miniseries on Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One of the last events which occurred in the first part was the invocation of the War Measures Act, where basically the civil liberties of Canadians were totally set aside and hundreds and hundreds of people were summarily rounded up and taken into custody. It is a dark period in our history and I guess some would, in hindsight, try to reflect on whether the actions taken by the then federal government were appropriate under the circumstances.

Canada is not accustomed to terrorist type activities, but the members will also know that the federal government cannot bring in the army or do certain things without a request from a province. That is part of the jurisdictional relationship that exists.

I am somewhat sensitive to the arguments that have been raised by members of the Bloc Quebecois with regard to privacy and, maybe more broadly, to the civil liberties, civil rights of Canadians. A prior speaker had indicated that one of the concerns, to summarize, was that basically this is yet another instrument that the government is being given to control the people. It is quite concerning because I suspect that there are some who share that view, particularly from the standpoint that they hear anecdotally about stories where things are happening that in fact do appear to be an infringement of privacy rights of Canadians.

One of the first ones that occurred following September 11, 2001 was the requirement by the United States that a passenger manifest be provided for all aircraft originating in Canada and landing in the U.S. I know that at that time there were some very serious concerns about that, but the U.S., as a sovereign nation, has certain rights to require certain things to protect its own sovereignty and its own security. As a consequence, if we wanted flights to fly between Canada and the U.S., we were going to have to comply and that has happened.

What kind of information? Well this sort of is a starting point of when one gets from a standpoint of who is travelling, how often, what destinations, et cetera, and patterns begin to develop. Following that to its logical conclusion, it is pretty clear that we are talking about profiling people. If we start talking about profiling in terms of their physical activity, it does not take very long before we start talking about profiling people based upon their personal characteristics, whether it be their race, colour, ethnicity, et cetera.

This is where this argument becomes more sensitive. Most jurisdictions have had this difficulty dealing with the whole concept of profiling. It is one of the reasons that I raised in prior questioning today the appropriate balance between the necessity for privacy and the protection of the civil liberties of Canadians, and balancing that with the realities of security and safety of Canadians and of our country.

As I said, if we have no safety then we have no security, and if we have no security, we have no sovereignty. This goes to the fundamental principles in which Canada is going to have to protect itself.

I believe we are approaching question period. I would like to conclude my comments when the bill is next called simply because I believe there are some important points that have to be put in perspective, but I would like to lay out some of the reasons that I will be supporting Bill C-17.

Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Mississauga South will have approximately 15 minutes remaining in his intervention when the matter is back before the House.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

Children's Aid SocietyStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that is of the utmost importance, that of child protection.

October serves to bring much needed attention to the plight of the abused and neglected child. In order to raise public awareness of the ongoing effort to end child abuse and neglect, the Children's Aid Society of Haldimand--Norfolk has requested that I wear this purple ribbon.

The Children's Aid Society is a lifeline and a safe haven to Ontario's children and families most in need of assistance. I am proud of this organization's long history of leadership in protecting children.

In my own riding of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, our Children's Aid Society has assisted over 1,900 families and has taken 138 children into care in the last year alone.

For over 100 years the Haldimand--Norfolk Children's Aid Society has performed a vital service to our community. I gladly wear this ribbon as I salute the venerable work of this organization.

University of SaskatchewanStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call your attention to the upcoming opening of the expanded vaccine and infectious disease organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

With the new space, equipment and staff, VIDO will be able to capture the opportunities afforded by genomics and other advances in science related to both human and animal health research. This includes a role in the Genome Canada project and collaborative agreements with research institutes and companies around the world.

This major expansion will substantially increase the capacity of Canada and the world to fight not only food safety challenges but animal and human diseases. VIDO will address food safety challenges while building on the University of Saskatchewan's already impressive research infrastructure and the University of Saskatchewan's reputation as a worldclass academic institution.

Cattle ProducersStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC

Mr. Speaker, cattle producers in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have their backs to the wall and are asking Quebec City and Ottawa to take immediate action, before they lose their farms, which are hard hit by the mad cow crisis. To date, they have lost $8 million.

They have not received any assistance since September 1, 2003. On September 26, I met with many producers and the presidents of their associations, Alain Richard and Rosaire Mongrain. This is a Canadian crisis, and we must maintain financial assistance for an indeterminate period, as England did.

Of the 793 farms in the vast region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 597 are directly affected by the crisis.

On September 23, 2003, the government received from Alain Richard, the association president, a list of demands by producers for a new financial assistance program for all sectors of beef production.

Today, I am making a non-refundable $200 donation to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food as my contribution to the financial assistance package to counter the effects of the mad cow crisis. Here is my cheque for $200.

2003 Special OlympicsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to honour the athletes who represented Canada at the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games that were held last June in Dublin, Ireland.

The Special Olympics World Games are held every two years, alternating between winter and summer events.

In Dublin, the Canadian team was one of over 160 international delegations, totalling more than 6,500 athletes from around the world.

The 59-athlete delegation from Canada offered a brilliant performance that drew very positive attention to Canada's special Olympics program. Indeed, Team Canada reaped a total of 102 medals, of which 51 were gold. Several athletes completely dominated their sport, like Johanna Hamblin from British Columbia who alone captured five gold medals in rhythmic gymnastics.

All our special Olympics athletes represented our country with pride, while perpetuating Canada's tradition of sportsmanship.

On behalf of everyone in the chamber, I wish to congratulate them wherever they may be and tell them how much they are admired as athletes and persons. Their success in overcoming adversity in the pursuit of excellence makes them great role models for all Canadians.

Violence on TelevisionStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Carole-Marie Allard Liberal Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Laval East, I am pleased to inform the House of the presence in Ottawa today of various representatives from the health and education sectors in Quebec, including the Collège des médecins, the Ordre des psychologues and the Fédération des commissions scolaires.

These organizations are here to speak out against violence on television, which they estimate has increased by 432% on private television networks in Quebec.

They have tabled a petition signed by some 58,000 parents, as well as resolutions from 288 school boards, town councils, parent committees, school advisory boards and social groups.

According to mental health organizations, if a growing number of children are at risk of violence, our entire society feels less safe.

Our children are our most precious resource. We need to keep that in mind.

Natural DisastersStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, last night, hurricane Juan slammed into Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island causing a trail of destruction.

On behalf of my constituents and the official opposition, I would like to offer my sincere sympathies to those friends and families who lost someone last night.

I attended the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior and can attest to its value in such natural disasters. Maritime community leaders with the Arnprior emergency measures training will be extremely valuable assets to their neighbours in the coming hours.

The government must ensure that communities across Canada have the proper training, facilities and equipment to deal with the unexpected. The government has continued to insist on moving and replacing the Arnprior facility.

It is my experience that maritimers always pull together in times of need. It is their strength that will help their communities return to normal as soon as possible.

PakistanStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the president of Pakistan recently visited Canada on an official state visit. His cooperation on the terrorism file is appreciated by all of the world's countries that want to see the realization of peace and security for their citizens.

However, there is no peace or security for Pakistan's Christians. Repeated killings, bombings and incidents of rape make life difficult for this minority group and others. The Pakistani government's unwillingness and/or inability to provide protection for its citizens is shameful.

All governments have an obligation to protect minorities from persecution and particularly to uphold their rights to believe and practice their chosen religion.

President Musharraf pleads for religious tolerance and understanding for Pakistan's Islamic majority abroad but gives no protection for Pakistan's minority Christians or others at home.

The imposition of theological Sharia law on all majority and minority adherents and the abuse of blasphemy laws make for a perilous existence for Pakistan's minority religions.

I hope that during the course of the visit our Prime Minister and the minister reviewed President Musharraf's pitiful religious record.

City of DrummondvilleStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw attention today to the work of the economic stakeholders of greater Drummondville. In less than 10 years, Drummondville has become a real model of economic development in Quebec, not to mention all the awards in a number of sectors that have come its way.

In 15 years, the number of manufacturing plants has risen from 288 to 547. Of those, 40 or so relocated from abroad.

Over the past 10 years, Drummondville's population has increased about 34%, five times the Quebec average. It has become so prosperous that taxes have been cut, and it has paid down its debt as well. The key to all this success: teamwork.

The success of greater Drummondville depends on a balance between economic and cultural development, between the business and the political worlds. Thanks to the efforts of all involved, I am proud to say that Drummondville has become the envy of other areas.

Centro Calabria FestivalStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country gifted in diversity, language and culture, and I am proud to recognize and be part of our rich mosaic.

I recently had the pleasure of attending an event organized by the Federation of Calabresi of Ontario which represents more than 200,000 Ontarians of Calabrese descent.

The Centro Calabria Festival, which took place in Toronto on September 21, celebrated Calabrese food, music and culture.

The federation hopes to establish a Centro Calabria, a social and cultural centre that will foster a greater sense of community among its members, and which will also help to strengthen the social, economic and cultural ties between Ontario and the region of Calabria in Italy.

I ask all members to please join me in congratulating Tony Silipo, president of the Federation of Calabrese, on a wonderful event and to wish him and the board of directors and governing council good luck in their endeavours.

Korean WarStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring Canadian Alliance Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, today, the war in Korea, the forgotten war, is still a war on hold, still not resolved. It is the war that was never declared, but make no mistake, it was a war.

During the war in Korea, 30,000 Canadians served under severe conditions. They gave a small, beleaguered nation the opportunity to be free. The price of this freedom was 516 who never came home, who never grew old.

In Ottawa a privately funded memorial now stands to remind all of the forgotten war and replicates a memorial standing in the United Nations cemetery in Korea.

Today, on Korea's beautiful and green treed hills, there is still a hopefulness for final peace.

Patrick O'Connor of the Royal Canadian Regiment was killed one day after penning these words:

There is blood on the hills of Korea It's the gift of the freedom they love May their names live in glory forever And their souls rest in Heaven above. Let us not forget.

Monument to Canadian FallenStatements By Members

September 29th, 2003 / 2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Judi Longfield Liberal Whitby—Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a moving and dignified ceremony, an echo copy, a replica of the Monument to Canadian Fallen that stands in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Busan, Korea was unveiled here in Ottawa. This monument pays tribute to the over 30,000 Canadians who fought in Korea to protect justice, democracy and peace.

This monument is one of peace. The Canadian volunteer soldier depicted holds no weapon. He carries a small Korean girl in one arm and guides a Korean boy with his other hand. At the base of this bronze monument are the names of the 516 Canadians who lost their lives in Korean service.

This monument serves as a tribute to those who fought and those who gave their lives so that others would be free.

On behalf of the House and all Canadians, I am honoured to thank all the Canadian soldiers and their families for their immeasurable sacrifice.

Communities in BloomStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Progressive Conservative Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride that I rise today in this House to share with my colleagues the experience I was able to enjoy during the Communities in Bloom Festival that was held in my riding of Perth—Middlesex, at Stratford, Ontario.

This wonderful event was designed to make our cities and towns as beautiful as possible. It enjoys an enthusiastic worldwide audience. This year's event included participants representing Europe and the United States, and from right across Canada. This was a great opportunity to work toward cultural and environmental gains.

The main venue was located with the historic Stratford Shakespearian Festival Theatre as a backdrop and was very well attended. Stratford was able to shine again on the international stage. The winners of the various categories should be congratulated, the scores of volunteers should be thanked, and our competitors should be very proud.

I know I am proud of Stratford for the job the city did in hosting the event.

Jean-Pierre RonfardStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, a great figure of the Quebec theatrical scene left us suddenly last Friday at the age of 74.

Jean-Pierre Ronfard, actor, playwright and director, made a huge contribution to Quebec theatre. He constantly sought innovative ways to approach a role and was a mentor to hundreds of actors who followed him.

At the invitation of Jean Gascon, he headed the French section of the National Theatre School for four years, beginning in 1960. The events of May 1968 in France prompted Ronfard to re-examine his approach to theatre. Quebec benefited from what he termed his need to purify, to get down to the bare bones.

The Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to this great creative genius. Our most sincere condolences to his daughters Alice and Bénédicte, his son Benoît, and to the entire Quebec artistic community, which is diminished by his passing.

Hamilton MountainStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, a recent study was conducted by McMaster University in Hamilton on the health of the city residents. The focus of the study was on how neighbourhood factors affect the health of its residents.

The study concluded that the residents of Hamilton Mountain recorded higher rates of contentment than the residents of some other areas of the City of Hamilton. The study found that people who live in good neighbourhoods and with good neighbours and good quality housing and social programs live healthier lives. The residents of Hamilton Mountain reported higher levels of satisfaction with their neighbours, lifestyles and employment.

It is always my pleasure to represent the good people of Hamilton Mountain. Today, it is an even greater pleasure to represent the happy and healthy people of Hamilton Mountain.

Korean WarStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday both Canadian and Korean war veterans received long overdue recognition of their sacrifice for democracy and freedom.

My colleague from Windsor--St. Clair and I joined with Canadians and Koreans to pay tribute to our heroes with the dedication of the sculpture Monument to Canadian Fallen. Although not noted in the ceremony, retired Lt. Col. Chip Bowness, Vince Courtney, Henry Martinak and James Bradley spearheaded this noble cause.

Funds were donated by Korean war veterans, Royal Canadian Legion branches, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., the City of Windsor and Windsor labour unions. In fact, all dignitaries who spoke failed to acknowledge that Monument to Canadian Fallen was first displayed in Windsor, next to our treasured Cenotaph, before Ottawa finally recognized this national sacrifice.

We wish to thank our parks and recreation staff, and Don Sadler and Sandy Lindsay who attended the ceremony with 17 Windsor area Korean veterans. Some 30,000 Canadians served in the Korean war and 516 Canadians lost their lives.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, we wish to thank them and their families for the sacrifices they made for freedom and democracy. They make us proud.

2003 Special OlympicsStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Hélène Scherrer Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to commend the delegation that represented Canada at the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games held in June in Dublin, Ireland.

Winning 102 medals, the Canadian team impressed the international audience by at times outclassing its competitors in disciplines such as rhythmic gymnastics.

This excellent performance is a direct result of the hard work of Special Olympics Canada and its efforts to implement a solid and innovative program for the national team that is now the envy of the world.

The primary role for Special Olympics Canada is to enrich through sports the lives of Canadians with intellectual disabilities. It is a not-for-profit agency with a strong community presence that provides opportunities for training and competition to 28,000 athletes of all ages and levels of skill.

The organization also has an army of volunteers who give their time as trainers, officials and administrators.

Special Olympics Canada can be proud of its achievements and those of its athletes. Its remarkable contribution to the quality of life of countless Canadians—

2003 Special OlympicsStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.