Bill C-293 (Historical)

Official Development Assistance Accountability Act

An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad

This enactment sets out criteria respecting resource allocation to international development agencies and enhances transparency and monitoring of Canada’s international development efforts.

Retirement Income Bill of Rights

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-574. I want to congratulate my colleague. I do not think anybody in Parliament has done more work going around the country and understanding the need to strengthen and make our pension more robust than the member for York West.

One of the biggest issues facing Canadians today is the security of senior citizens. If they have gone past working age, what are they going to live on? It is an increasing problem. Among the saddest meetings we have as members of Parliament, certainly in my case, are with people who tell me they are retired or were planning to retire very soon but it has all gone up in smoke. What they thought was there is not. These are people who do not have the option of going back into the workforce, or if they do, their options are very significantly limited.

So I really want to congratulate my colleague from York West. She has worked hard. She has travelled extensively in a non-political, non-partisan way and has brought forward this very important bill.

We know that a significant number of seniors live in poverty. Canada as a country has done a pretty good job over the last 20 to 30 years of reducing poverty rates among seniors. Going back to the 1970s, we have reduced poverty rates among seniors pretty significantly. It has been on the rise again over the past few years, but the poverty rate among seniors has gone down very significantly.

The problem is that there are still groups of seniors, and it tends to be single women, who have very high rates of poverty. We need to take that into account. However, it is not just the lowest income Canadians. Many middle-income Canadians are having a really difficult time now dealing with retirement.

I can recall somebody in a private company where I used to work who told me the story of having come out of technical school years ago with a friend of his. While my friend went to work for a private company, a big, reputable company, his friend went to work for the City of Dartmouth. Thirty-five years later when they went to retire, the person who had the good pension plan and worked for the City of Dartmouth was very well situated, while my friend did not have very much because the pension plan simply was not as robust.

In many cases, back in those days, people did not look at a pension plan when they started working at the age of 18, 19 or 20. They looked at the salary and never really understood the implications down the road for themselves and for their families if they did not have a strong pension plan.

Then there is the case of Canadians who believe, for valid reasons, that they have a robust pension plan. They work for large, reputable, seemingly solid companies, in many cases world-leading companies such as Nortel. Ten years ago, who would have imagined that people who worked for a company such as Nortel would have trouble? Then when things go bad for the company, they are left holding the bag, and the bag happens to be almost completely empty.

So what do we do? What is the role of parliamentarians in this House? What role does the federal government have? First, the regulation of private retirement savings is in fact a shared responsibility, federally and provincially. Federally, we have the Income Tax Act. We can take some of the instruments that we have control of and make them better.

I want to refer to the issue raised by my colleague from the New Democrats who would say that this bill does not really do anything and that we have a $700 million poverty gap for seniors. This is a private member's bill. I look at the work that members such as my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood did on his private member's bill, Bill C-293, the development assistance act. Those of us in the House know that many Canadians may not know what a royal recommendation is. Very simply it means that, with a private member's bill, we cannot call upon the government to spend money. We can bring it forward, and we have seen many bills from the New Democrats and the Bloc, well intended bills, that required the spending of money, but they do not go anywhere.

Serious parliamentarians who actually want to make things better will craft a bill that is a road map to a better place but does not call on the government to spend money. In other words, some members in the House bring forward bills that can never be enacted, or they can be serious about it and provide a road map. Members can come to the House to make a point or to make a difference, and my colleague from York West is trying to make a difference.

The summary of the bill we are debating today, Bill C-574, is very simple. It says:

This enactment creates a Bill of Rights for a retirement income system that promotes the goals of adequacy, transparency, affordability, equity, flexibility, security and accessibility for all Canadians.

I think in many ways that says it all.

My colleague from York West, in a media release sent out about a month ago, indicated that as she presented the bill in the House of Commons, she noted that the legislation proposes:

to enshrine in law the notion that all Canadians have the right to contribute to a decent retirement plan and to be provided with up-to-date, unbiased and conflict-free information on their retirement savings.

There are 308 members of the House. Many of us have been in business, many of us have been employed, and there are entrepreneurs in this House.

There are a lot of people, and they are not foolish people, who think they are covered, as was the case with the Nortel workers and other people, who simply do not understand that if a company goes under, their retirement goes under as well.

They assume that this is all done above board and it is done with a third-party insurer. They do not understand the concept of self-insurance. I think the government has a role in this case to translate to Canadians what actually is the case so they are not fooled when things go bad.

Our Canada pension plan, established in 1966 under Prime Minister Pearson, was a good and noble goal. It is working. We have had problems. In the early 1990s, there was a severe underfunding of it. Jean Chrétien as prime minister, and Paul Martin as the finance minister, put it on sound financial footing. At the time, I do not think people fully understood how important that was. I do not think the credit was given, but that was a very important piece of both economics and social policy that made it possible for many people to have secure pensions.

Today, once again, we have significant barriers. The bill that we are debating today, Bill C-574, proposes to address that. To some, it may not do enough; to others, maybe it does too much. Maybe that is why it is a good bill, because it sets a road map for Canadians who are having issues with their pensions. It does as much as it possibly can within the restrictions of being a private member's bill. Many people are supporting it.

What does it do? The bill would do five things: create substantive, justiciable rights; give every person a chance to accumulate retirement income in a plan that will be there in the long term, because many Canadians simply cannot join a group pension plan right now; promote good administration of retirement income plans; ensure that members of retirement income plans regularly receive good, plain language information that they need about their plans; and set out in law the goals to which we aspire legislatively as they relate to retirement income.

We all know that Canada is heading into a demographic crunch. We heard from the member for York West her statistic that by 2036 there will be 10.9 million Canadians over the age of 65. It is my sure and fervent hope that I will be among them, because the alternative does not turn me on very much.

The other statistic that I will give people, just to give a sense of where we are going as a country, is from the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. They were in to visit MPs recently and they shared a statistic with us that really says it all. Today in Canada, 44% of all Canadians are not in the workforce. That includes senior citizens, children, the unemployed and those who are unable to work. By 2031, in 20 years, 61% of Canadians will not be in the workforce.

The challenges that presents to us are clear. If Canadians are not in the workforce, they are not producing as much tax revenue for the country that we are going to need; and clearly, at the same time, there is going to be more of a demand for things such as health care and social services.

Many of that 61% will have earned a retirement. I am not suggesting for a second that they should be forced to work. In fact, some of them may choose to work and we probably should make it as easy as possible for them to work if that is what they choose to do.

This is the demographic crunch that Canada is facing. If we do not do more to address the needs of that growing segment of the population, including myself, who are going to be over age 65 by 2031, and from the member for York West's statistics, 10.9 million over age 65 by 2036, then we will have a significant problem.

The time to address that is now, both for those who have a specific and urgent need, those who are hurting right now because there has not been sufficient legislation, but also for the many other Canadians who do not even realize that they are going to have a problem, who do not understand that their retirement is in severe jeopardy.

Those Canadians are going to be going to their members of Parliament in 20 years and saying, “I did not know. I was not aware. Nobody told me that we had this problem.”

We could say in the bill that we should increase the guaranteed income supplement, but then it cannot be enacted. It would require the royal recommendation that so many Canadians go to bed thinking about every night. It simply cannot make a difference.

We either come to this place to make a point or we come here to make a difference. Bill C-574 makes a difference and I want to commend the member for York West for her hard and diligent work on behalf of Canadians.

Royal Recommendation—Bill C-501

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection).

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that its provisions to require the Minister of Labour to appoint an adjudicator to hear and adjudicate claims would require new government spending and therefore would require a royal recommendation.

Page 834 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

—a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered.

Bill C-501 would amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act so that the unfunded pension plan liabilities would be accorded the status of secured debts in the event of bankruptcy.

The bill would also amend the Canada Business Corporations Act to provide for a procedure by which former employees of a bankrupt corporation who were owed amounts by the corporation could proceed with claims against its directors. That procedure is set out in clause 6, which would require the Minister of Labour to appoint an adjudicator to hear and adjudicate claims and would set out the powers and functions of the proposed adjudicator. Section 23 of the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint also includes the power to pay.

The requirement for a royal recommendation for a new officer of the Crown is made clear in the Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978, which states, “If this bill is to impose a new duty on the officers of the Crown, these objectives will necessitate expenditures of a nature which would require the financial initiative of the Crown”.

On September 19, 2006, in the case of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, the Speaker ruled on the need for a royal recommendation for the creation of an advisory committee that:

—the establishment of the advisory committee for international development cooperation provided for in clause 6 clearly would require the expenditure of public funds...

On February 11, 2008, in the case of Bill C-474 provisions, for the appointment of representatives for an advisory council, the Speaker ruled that this required a royal recommendation:

Clause 7 of the bill provides for the governor in council to appoint 25 representatives to the advisory council....As the provision in Bill C-474 is such that the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these representatives, this involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

These precedents also apply to Bill C-501. As I have mentioned, the bill's proposal to appoint an adjudicator would increase government spending for a new purpose and therefore must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Speech from the Throne.

I want to acknowledge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation who just spoke. In the time I have been a member of Parliament since 2004, he has been a distinguished and productive member of Parliament for his constituents. I wish him well as he moves along.

I am going to split my time with the very distinguished and capable hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. In a second I am going to address a question she just asked, but first, I hope members will indulge me.

We are all very proud of the Olympics. First of all, in my province of Nova Scotia, we have two winter Olympians who are both from my riding. Members may have heard of one of them, Mr. Sidney Crosby, the world's greatest hockey player.

I would suggest that if anyone is looking for role models, we have some great young athletes from Nova Scotia, people like the young Brad Cuzner, who played last night for the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, who won in overtime against the Saint John Sea Dogs. Brad Cuzner stood up for his teammates.

It is guys like him who look up to someone like Sidney Crosby. People could not pick a better role model than Sidney Crosby. Last year he brought the Stanley Cup to Cole Harbour. Tens of thousands of people lined up to see him, and he took so much time with them.

I also want to mention our other Olympian from Dartmouth, Sarah Conrad, a freestyle snowboarder. The people in Dartmouth are so proud of Sarah. They have followed her progress. The night she competed, which I think was February 19, a crowd gathered at Dave Doolittle's pub in Dartmouth, people like Andrew Younger, the MLA for Dartmouth East; and Darren Fisher, the councillor and a big supporter of Sarah; and many of her friends.

Sarah did not win a medal that day, but she did exemplify the spirit of the Olympics. She blogged that night, and I am going to read a little of what she wrote. After competing in the Olympics and not doing as well as she had wanted, she wrote:

It just wasn't my night, sorry folks. I wasn't quite comfortable in practice and it showed in my runs. Luckily I squeaked through to semis, but fell both runs so no finals for me. I'm disappointed in my riding, but overall we had great night.

She went on to write:

It didn't really matter to me who made it through, I was just relieved that the amazing crowd had a Canadian to cheer for in the finals.

She added:

The support from across the country has been amazing, it means so much. I hope you enjoyed the show, I know I did.

I can say on behalf of the people of Dartmouth and Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia, and across the country, that Sarah did great and we are all very proud of her. She came first last year at the Canadian nationals in Mont-Tremblant.

Now I want to talk a little bit about the Speech from the Throne in the time I have left. I want to talk about a few things that in my view were missing from the Speech from the Throne.

The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl has mentioned the issue of poverty. This is an issue that matters deeply to many Canadians. We in Canada are coming out of a very difficult time. We have been in a recession. Perhaps the biggest problem and one of the great paradoxes of coming out of this recession is that the stimulus program the government put forward did not, by and large, benefit people who needed help the most. The real problem is that the cuts being made to pay for the stimulus program may target the people who need help the most. I think that is a real problem.

The human resources committee of the House of Commons is undertaking a poverty study now. It had been under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, and is now being chaired by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. I am sure she will be a fine chair.

The committee has looked at the issue of poverty for some time now, for close to two years. We have a housing crisis in Canada. It is not solved by a little burst of money coming from infrastructure; it needs a long-term, sustained national housing policy. We have not seen that yet.

There is child poverty in Canada. As I am sure members would know that last year, on the 20th anniversary of the pledge of parliamentarians to eliminate child poverty by 2000, Campaign 2000 put out some information that should be a real wake-up call and challenge to Canadians that we need to do something about child poverty and poverty in general.

Yes, we have made strides, and some areas have improved. The guaranteed income supplement, the OAS, and the previous Liberal government's successful focus on and success in ensuring the Canada pension plan have done a lot to reduce seniors' poverty, but there is still seniors' poverty that is really very problematic.

Single people in poverty, particularly women, is a huge issue. We should be putting more into the guaranteed income supplement. We should be doing more to secure pensions. We need to focus on health care, palliative care, home care, and all those things that would help with seniors' poverty. Moreover, children's poverty is still a huge problem for a country as wealthy as Canada. We need to do more.

As a country, we need to embrace an anti-poverty strategy. Six provinces have now committed to an anti-poverty strategy, with varying degrees of robustness. In my province of Nova Scotia, the strategy is not very strong, but I am hoping it will become stronger. The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Manitoba all have a strategy. However, they all say the same thing: they need the feds to step up.

The issue of child care continues to be one on which Canada does embarrassingly poorly. Just over a year ago, the United Nations published a report on the OECD nations that measured how different countries fared on 10 different benchmarks of early childhood services. Those included subsidies for regulated child care services and subsidies for accredited early education services and the training of child care staff. In that survey, Canada came last out of 25 nations.

As one would expect, we were well behind the Scandinavian countries who have invested in early learning and child care in a variety of ways. However, we were also behind Hungary, Slovenia, the U.K., the U.S., Korea, Portugal and many other countries. For a country of Canada's relative wealth and one that I would suggest is going be more dependent than ever on educating our children, we have been a very fortunate nation.

We have been very wealthy. We are a large country with a population strewn largely across our southern border. We are a country that is rich in natural resources. We have not had world wars fought on our land. We do not have the kinds of natural disasters that some other countries do, as seen recently in Haiti and Chile. We have done well, in some cases more by accident than design.

However, we are now facing competition. Countries that used to send their students to us are now educating their own children. Countries that did not invest in innovation and research or child care are doing better than we are. That is a real danger to this country, because the most important resources we have are not the natural resources of our land, but the resources in our classrooms. It is the kids, and it is the adults who need help with literacy.

Our literacy rates in Canada are not good at all. We have some nine million adult Canadians who do not have the literacy skills they need. Four out of ten adult Canadians, representing nine million Canadians, struggle with low literacy. They fall below level three on the literacy scale. These figures are from ABC Canada. We need to invest in literacy for adults who do not have the skills they need to upgrade their own jobs.

A gentleman came to see me a while back. We all meet with people in our constituencies whose stories quite often touch us. This man came to see me and told me that he had worked really hard to get where he was. He did not have a great job, but he could raise his children. He now had an opportunity to improve himself and apply for another job. The problem was that he had to do a test. He could not pass the test and he was worried that he would lose the job he had.

It is people like that, Canadians who want to make themselves better and stronger and more able to provide for their families, who are the kind of people the Government of Canada should be working with. Yet when the government was elected, we saw cuts to our literacy programs. That just does not make any sense. That is not in keeping with a country that is looking forward and saying that it wants to invest in its people. If we are going to invest in our people, it means investing in early learning and child care.

I would suggest as a parent, and I think everybody in the House knows, that children do not start learning at the age of six. Children start learning as soon as they are born, and perhaps even before that. They start learning right away and those first years are really important. Yet there are people across the country who do not have access to child care. The universal child care benefit is not enough; it does not pay for early learning and child care and it does not produce child care spaces.

I would suggest that if any one of us heard of a child in second grade who could not find a public school to go to, who was turned away from a public school and told there were no spaces, there would be an outcry. Any one of us would be offended by that, yet every day in every part of this country kids under the age of six are turned away or put on long waiting lists and do not get the early learning and child care they need.

If we are going to invest in our children, we have to invest in early learning and child care. It is so important. That does not diminish the role of parents in any way, shape or form. I think all of us would say that the best teachers of our children are ourselves, our wives and perhaps a grandparent, an aunt or an uncle. However, many people simply do not have that. We are saying to them that there is nothing for them. In many parts of this country, there are no spaces and if there are spaces, people cannot afford them. We have to do better if we are going to make a serious difference.

I will quote part of the Speech from the Throne that I thought was interesting. It spoke about Canadian families balancing work and family life and said:

our Government introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit....

It went on to say:

Our government will strengthen this benefit for sole-support, single-parent families.

I thought last week when I saw that in the Speech from the Throne that the UCCB was not the right way to look at child care in the country. However, no one thinks there are no parents who need the money, so I thought, okay, maybe the government is going to look at the universal child care benefit and strengthen it, and maybe go to $200, $300, $400, or $500 a month for those parents who actually need help the most. The very next day in the budget the government talked about changing the taxation part of the UCCB. I want to read what it said:

It is estimated that this change will reduce federal revenues by a small amount in 2009-10, $5 million in 2010-11 and $5 million in 2011-12.

Hence, $5 million dollars is the total contribution and the maximum anybody can get is $168 a year. That is hardly anything. We just have $5 million for single parent families versus $100 million for the government's advertising expenses for its economic action plan. There are many other things that we could juxtapose with that $5 million. By any measure, $5 million is a very small amount, particularly when one looks at the need across this country. We need to address those issues.

I also want to speak to international development. Canada has made commitments in international development. I would personally like to see us get to 0.7%, which has been the target that some countries have achieved for international development assistance. In the last number of years, we have seen the government change the way that international development is done. It has pretty much completely moved away from the continent of Africa, where many people need help the most. In this budget it is proposing a freeze on international development.

It is no surprise that when people were asked about that, their response was that it was a real shame, that it is a real problem for the people who need our help the most. Our aid should not be tied directly and only to trade; our aid should be tied to poverty.

In 2007-08, we had Bill C-293 proposed by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The purpose of that bill was to make poverty the focus of our international aid. It seems very self-evident and obvious. The bill was passed, I believe by all parties, in this House, and yet we have seen no indication that it is the focus the government is adopting for its international aid.

Like other members of this House, I have had the opportunity to travel internationally. A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to go to Kenya with Results Canada, and we saw amazing poverty. This does not diminish the fact we have poverty in Canada in our own communities, and certainly on reserves among our aboriginal populations, and both need to be attacked.

When somebody says to me to think globally and act locally, we can do both. We can make the world better here and around the world.

International Cooperation

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. The Anglican Church of Canada, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church, the Catholic Church, the Lutherans, Development and Peace, and Quakers, are all being branded as subversive because they have the temerity to criticize this Conservative government.

Will the minister immediately restore funding to KAIROS to ensure that Canada's aid dollars are being spent in accordance with Bill C-293 just as these organizations want it done?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, about a year and a half ago, this House passed unanimously Bill C-293, known as the better aid bill.

Putting a bill through this House and through the other place is a formidable undertaking. It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of effort, it takes a lot of people getting behind the bill and indeed a lot of witnesses, et cetera. We were very fortunate to have ultimately got the bill through this House unanimously.

The legislation basically contains three commandments. The first commandment is that Canada's official development assistance will be directed to poverty alleviation and only poverty alleviation. The second is that we will take into account the perspectives of the poor. The third is that it be consistent with Canada's international human rights standards. The bill had a reporting period, and the first reporting period due was September 30. However, the government gave early indication that it had absolutely no interest in complying with this legislation.

Members will recollect that in the early part of this year, the government reprofiled Canada's focus on those who receive our aid. It took it from essentially the desperately poor countries in Africa and reprofiled it to some less desperately poor countries in the western hemisphere.

The minister made it abundantly clear that those who trade with us or vote with us will get our aid, but if they do not, they will not. In her speech and her press release there was not a word mentioned about Bill C-293, which ultimately, as I said, got royal assent and is the law of this land. We have a situation where a government absolutely ignores the will of Parliament.

Along comes September and we get the minister's report. Here it is and strangely enough the cover is blue. I wonder why that would be. It references the bill. It references the three things that are in the bill, poverty alleviation, perspectives of the poor and international human rights standards, and then promptly proceeds to ignore the last two, human rights standards and perspectives of the poor. What we have is a bunch of numbers, an accountancy. It is not accountability. It is accountancy.

It is a painful contrast to what British MPs get. British MPs get from DFID, the Department for International Development, a rather substantial package which analyzes how programs and policies are going. British MPs know whether their foreign assistance is effective. We, on the other hand, being Canadian MPs and getting the back of the hand from this particular government, have no idea. In fact, there is not a person in this House who has any idea as to the effectiveness of our aid. There is no metric, no basis on which we can tell whether our aid goes to poverty alleviation, whether the government has taken into account the perspectives of the poor, or whether our aid is consistent with human rights standards.

The government obfuscates. It does anything but account. This is a legacy of the government. It is also a legacy of this bill.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You are speaking of the reduction in funding to the provinces through the CHST. There was a corresponding benefit from the provincial point of view—they got less money but they got more control. This was at a time when galloping health care costs were going on. My father was the premier at the time in Nova Scotia, and I'm sure he would attest that this was important.

A number of people have mentioned Libby Davies' bill on housing, Bill C-304. We are supportive of it, and we're hoping we're going to get it through committee. It was going to what is called clause-by-clause, which is the final stage in the committee process. But Libby pulled it back because there were some flaws in it, particularly concerning persons with disabilities. We intend to bring it back to the committee, and I hope it can do something.

Private members' bills can be passed by the House of Commons and become the law of the land, but it doesn't mean anything unless the government actually embraces it. Last year, Bill C-293, the overseas development assistance bill, was going to make alleviating poverty the purpose of international development assistance. That passed and it is the law of the land, but it hasn't made a lot of difference yet.

Anyway, we are hopeful that we'll be dealing with that next week. Maybe we can do something to make a difference. Libby is a strong advocate and probably knows all of you very well. We'll do what we can to make that bill a reality.

Thank you.

International Aid

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, study after study has criticized the ineffectiveness of Canada's foreign aid. Hence Parliament last year passed unanimously Bill C-293.

Bill C-293 requires three things: one, that the aid be effective in reducing poverty; two, that it take into account the perspective of the poor; and three, that it be in compliance with international human rights standards.

In the minister's report on the bill deposited last week in the House, she fails to comment on two out of the three criteria.

How could the minister possibly say that she is in compliance with this legislation?

Youth Voluntary Service

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to the motion. I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Papineau who is new to the House but not new to many Canadians. The motion is entirely in keeping with the work that he has led in Canada, being very involved in Katimavik, and as a leader of young Canadians.

I also want to associate myself with the generous comments from the member for Sault Ste. Marie about the member's father, which is entirely in keeping with the way he does his business here. Pierre Trudeau was a great leader in Canada. One of his great friends was Jacques Hébert. Jacques Hébert was the person who really formed Katimavik and battled for its survival when it was in peril. He was very involved as well in Canada World Youth. These are very noble people who have done a great service to Canada. This motion is in keeping with the work they have done.

I want to congratulate my colleague for the motion. It is one that I am proud to second and support enthusiastically.

The member for Papineau is well known in Canada for his support of young people and their engagement in our country. He understands the incredible benefit to our communities and our country when young people participate and are engaged.

This is the overarching purpose of the motion, to begin the debate about young people and their role in making Canada stronger.

We often hear, as politicians in the public discourse, that young people are not engaged, that they are too busy or perhaps do not care. That is not my experience at all. I would argue that there is a wealth of interest in our young people to understand their communities, their country and the world.

As a member of Parliament, it has been one of my highest priorities to meet young people. I visit schools whenever I can, elementary, junior high and senior high. One of the things I hear most often is this interest in providing service to the country, both for their benefit and, more particular, for the benefit of the country and the world.

I have had the chance to hold youth forums within my responsibilities as critic for human resources, meeting students involved with universities and colleges. The young people I meet, almost without exception, care deeply about their communities, the world around them and understand the importance of solving some of the pressing issues of our time better, in a lot of cases, than the adults around them.

My sister has been very involved with Canada World Youth and Katimavik, but she spent many years for Canada World Youth, another great program that takes kids from Canada and pairs them up with kids from other countries, usually developing countries, to do projects. It is a great building experience for young Canadians. She is now working with WUSC, which is another great organization that does work internationally. She is in Sri Lanka, a country that is torn by all kinds of troubles right now, and doing wonderful work there as well.

I have had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to travel, as most of us have, and I have had the chance to see places where Canada can make a difference. I remember a trip to Kenya with my colleagues from Scarborough—Guildwood, Halifax and Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, where we saw among the poorest people in the world, but we saw Canadians working there, helping out, providing service both to that community, to the world and to themselves.

If people do not think we can make a difference through private members' business and private members' motions, I refer them to my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood who produced Bill C-293, the overseas development act, in the last Parliament and steered it through all the challenges and got it adopted.

We can make a difference here through motions like the one the member for Papineau has proposed and the one the member for Scarborough—Guildwood had adopted in the House and proclaimed last year.

There is great work to be done and my colleague, the member for Papineau, spoke about some of the domestic work.

We can do more in the world, as well, and the overseas part of this is really important. I am a little too young to recall exactly, but I read a lot about the Peace Corps of John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, the AmeriCorps of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the Gap year in the U.K. and in other European countries. It is so important that young people have a chance. They want to be involved. They want to have that opportunity. They want to know how they can help serve their country and serve the larger community.

The response from students is very important, and it is more than most of us would hope for. There is a sense of optimism and a sense that we can make the world better, and the motion before the House, which I encourage everybody to support, will go a long way in helping them to do that.

International Aid

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Bill C-293 falls in line with our priorities for focused, effective and accountable aid. It is based on poverty reduction. The department has been working on implementation, and I can assure the House that we will meet all of its requirements. I will keep the member informed. We are on track to meeting the obligations.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last May, Bill C-293, calling for proper accountability for Canada's international aid dollars, was given royal assent after receiving full support from all parties in the House.

With the funds recently allocated to the conflict in Sri Lanka, I ask the Minister of International Cooperation, what is CIDA doing to ensure the provisions of this bill are in fact being met, and when can we expect the full integration of this legislation in all of CIDA's aid initiatives?

For those suffering in Sri Lanka and in countries all around the world, it is now time for this bill to be acted upon.

Official Development Assistance Accountability Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 29, Bill C-293, the better aid bill, received royal assent. It was passed unanimously by the House.

Many people and organizations have been fulsome in their praise for this significant achievement. There are many people to be thanked, especially those who have written, emailed, petitioned, demonstrated, phoned and shown up at MPs offices to voice their support for the bill. It could not have happened without them.

Now the task is to have Canada's official development assistance consistent with the bill. Business as usual is not an option. It is reasonable to expect that ministers and departments will spell out in detail how they expect to adhere to the principles and accountability mechanisms in Bill C-293. The principle and concessional aid should be easily achieved, however, large multinational organizations will require special vigilance. The last thing we want is policy incoherence.

Parliament will be watching.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 29, 2008

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Marie Deschamps, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 29th day of May, 2008, at 2:38 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-215, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses—Chapter 16; Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad—Chapter 17; Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments)—Chapter 18; and Bill C-459, An Act to establish a Ukrainian Famine and Genocide ("Holodomor") Memorial Day and to recognize the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 as an act of genocide—Chapter 19.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity to say a few words in support of what are the very final moments of something historic in terms of this Parliament adopting Bill C-293. I am almost inclined to say almost nothing and quit while I am ahead, because there has been a rare coming together here of a collaborative nature.

There have been a lot of disagreements and a lot of pushing and shoving. I want to be fair here and acknowledge the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Macleod, who set out some very severe reservations about some of the aspects of this bill. I think he is the only parliamentary secretary who ever did actually extend the courtesy of sitting down with me in my office to discuss something. We had some major disagreements and there have been some compromises made.

However, at a time when a lot of the public looks on this place these days with a good deal of consternation and sees the dysfunctionality, the division and the dissension, it has to be a good day for us to come together around what is truly a global commitment, about which I think we feel good as parliamentarians and about which Canadians I think very much feel that we need to work together. It is not always easy to do. We have had to make compromises along the way.

I want to congratulate the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, because he picked up the torch and carried it in a very determined way. He, like I, was very grateful for the persistent and consistent support not just from Gerry Barr, an individual who has put his heart and soul into this, but really from the entire NGO community across this country, including campus-based organizations and faith-based organizations that really pushed to make this happen.

We have a lot more work to do, but we will get on with it buoyed by a sense of responsibility and cohesion around this. Let us not forget that it is not just about the effectiveness of aid, but also about increasing our commitment to the level of aid, or we are not going to get the job done.

With those very brief words, uncharacteristically, I want to take my seat and give the last word to the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to join with the hon. members who spoke before me in congratulating the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood on his excellent work, perseverance and tenacity. He knows he can count on the Bloc Québécois to support the Senate amendments. This motion gives us an opportunity to debate them.

The Bloc Québécois has done serious and thorough work, as the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentioned in his presentation shortly before I took the floor. We are in favour of this bill that is still quite useful even though some of the amendments we proposed in the process were rejected. The important thing is that the substance of the bill is still very relevant and it is a firm step in the right direction.

The Senate amendments under consideration today are minor; they clarify certain provisions of the legislation. Let us look at them together.

For example, the Senate is proposing that the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness be respected. It is also proposing that “competent minister” means:

The Minister of International Cooperation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance or any other minister who is providing official development assistance.

The Senate also proposes that:

The competent minister shall consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations at least once every two years, and shall take their views and recommendations into consideration when forming an opinion.

The last Senate amendment reads:

Information shall not be reported under this section if its disclosure is prohibited by the policies of the Bretton Woods institutions.

In our eyes, these are truly minor amendments that, as I was saying earlier, clarify certain provisions of the legislation. We are intent on passing this bill and will therefore maintain our support for it.

I would like to remind those watching us on television of the content of this bill introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

This bill would ensure official development assistance with the very specific goal of reducing poverty. It would also require that CIDA, when providing assistance, be respectful of the target environments. This is a very important element.

In fact, once this proposed bill is put into action, the government will have to consult civil society organizations, governments and international agencies to ensure that our proposals actually respond to the major needs of the people we want to help.

This bill is very interesting because it guarantees transparency in the activities of the department responsible for international cooperation. It requires that at the end of each fiscal year the minister produce a report containing a summary of the development assistance projects, advisory committee reports and CIDA's performance report. The minister is also required to issue a statistical report on the disbursement of development assistance.

As I said earlier, we had some reservations, but we support the main objective and the fundamental purpose of the bill, which is to reduce world poverty through development assistance. However, we must condemn the current lack of resources provided to CIDA. We hope that once this bill has been passed, the government will truly keep its promises and increase funding for this important agency.

Specifically, this bill sets out criteria respecting resource allocation to international development agencies and enhances transparency in development assistance. It states that poverty reduction is the central focus of development assistance, and it takes into account the perspectives of the poor.

Assistance must also be consistent with international human rights standards. The bill also states that the minister shall consult with governments, agencies and civil society organizations. What is interesting and important to note is that, at the end of each fiscal year, the minister must provide a summary of the development assistance projects, present a comprehensive report on CIDA's performance, and present a statistical report on the disbursement of development assistance.

It is easy to see the connection with the UN's millennium development goals. As a reminder, the eight objectives are to: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce female mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development.

Bill C-293 covers two of these eight points, which we think is a step in the right direction.

One way or another, all of the millennium goals are related to poverty. We must not forget that poverty is often the result of social and economic inequality in a given country. As I said, this bill is a step in the right direction. It sets criteria for official development assistance and ensures that it targets poverty reduction. Because of that, we support the bill.

Moreover, as one of the richest countries in the world, Canada must do everything it can to help citizens of poor countries escape their poverty. Doing nothing would be both immoral and unacceptable.

In closing, I would like, once again, to congratulate the member for Scarborough—Guildwood on his work. I also appreciate his thanks to the opposition for having helped him achieve the goal of getting his bill passed so that it can come into force to reduce poverty and help other countries that really need help.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. friend from Scarborough—Guildwood, first of all for his tenacity and for putting up with the hours that we spent together dealing with Bill C-293. I am not ashamed to say that there were concerns that I held with the original form of this piece of legislation, and I will refer to those later, but I do congratulate the hon. member for putting up with my arguments and my encouragement for him to accept amendments that I personally and some of my colleagues on this side of the House thought would make it a more effective bill.

I am encouraged to see that we are addressing this matter of very serious concern to all Canadians and to many people living in poor countries around the world. I am sure the thoughts of all members are with those in Burma specifically today, in light of the tragedy that is unfolding there.

Private member's Bill C-293, an act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, was introduced in the House of Commons on May 17, 2006. The intent of the bill is and always was consistent with the priorities of this government, especially the priorities of poverty reduction and the promotion of human rights.

The proposed amendments to Bill C-293 address most of the government's stated concerns regarding clarity of mandate, strengthened accountability and greater aid effectiveness. The proposed amendments address our main concerns and make the bill even better. They also provide consistency with the government's three point plan for aid effectiveness.

The result of these amendments will be legislation that strengthens the aid program and adds a useful tool to Canada's efforts to reduce poverty, as well as improve living standards for families and communities in the harshest regions of the world.

This government has made it clear that poverty reduction is the overarching purpose of our international development assistance in poor countries, places where Canada can and is able to make a difference in the lives of people who just need a helping hand. There should be no doubt that poverty reduction is central to all of our international development assistance efforts, and while Canadians are eager to help the poorest of the poor, they want reassurances that their tax dollars are making a real difference in the lives of the people that they are intended to help.

Canadians have told us that they want their government to lead by example in the area of international assistance by delivering on its promises, ensuring aid is effective, and implementing innovative approaches to development cooperation. In response, this government has been working to improve aid effectiveness through greater focus, efficiency, accountability and results.

The government has demonstrated this through a concrete three point plan for aid effectiveness, which is helping to transform how Canada delivers aid around the world and which represents a commitment to greater results and accountability.

Budgets 2007 and 2008 laid out details of this plan to meet Canadians' expectations by establishing a clear direction for Canada's international assistance. The plan concentrates on three important areas: strengthening focus, so that our development assistance to other countries is consistent with our foreign policy objectives; improving the efficiency of Canadian aid, to reduce administrative costs and improve overseas field presence to areas where we can get better mileage for our aid dollars; and most important, building in greater accountability.

For Canadian taxpayers to understand and support Canada's effective role in international development assistance, they need to be reassured that we are committed to using tools such as independent evaluations and objective assessments that help achieve results and communicate these results to Canadians.

In this way the government has begun to transform the way we deliver aid around the world. In doing so, the government has increased engagement in the Americas. It is doubling assistance to the Caribbean. It has increased presence and resources in fragile states like Afghanistan and Haiti.

In the last two years the government has made significant progress in reforming Canada's international assistance and shaping it to meet new priorities. We have undertaken long term commitments to Afghanistan and Haiti.

As our Prime Minister has announced previously, we are re-engaging Canada in the Americas and doubling our assistance to the Caribbean. In addition, we are ensuring that Canada is meeting its G-8 commitment to Africa.

The government's commitment to the most vulnerable was most recently demonstrated by our response to the current food crisis. We allocated substantial new funding for food aid to help those most in need. Canada has maximized the effectiveness of this contribution by untying restrictions on food aid procurement.

I want to pause for a moment to emphasize what an important step this is. From consultations with members across the aisle, and with the industry leaders in the agricultural community, this was a non-political, non-partisan measure. It will result in saved lives and it is the right thing to do. It is an example of this government making Parliament work and I am proud of it.

This has provided the World Food Programme and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank with the flexibility to procure food commodities from all countries, especially from developing countries. By removing these restrictions, Canada is promoting the growth of local and regional markets in developing countries. This will contribute to longer term solutions to the problem of world hunger.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that removing the restrictions is just one way whereby the Government of Canada is demonstrating that we are serious about working efficiently and effectively, while taking into account the needs and the perspectives of the poor.

After working a great deal on this file with colleagues, and especially with my friend from Scarborough—Guildwood, I recognize our discussions were not always as pleasant as one would like, and could have even been extremely frustrating if we had not moved forward with this process. However, I thank my friend for his hard work on this file and congratulate the Minister of International Cooperation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of International Trade for their willingness to show leadership on this very important file.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this, I hope, final opportunity to speak to the bill. Just for the purposes of those who might be watching this debate, we are anticipating that the debate will collapse today, that it will go to a vote and that this will be the final debate on this bill. I am hoping for that and seeking the assurance of my colleagues in the House that we will work on that basis.

This has been a long journey. It started almost two years ago. There is a saying that “it takes a village to raise a child”. Well, it takes a caucus to raise a bill and it takes another caucus to raise a bill. I want to publicly thank my colleagues in the NDP caucus for their support and it takes the caucus of the Bloc Québécois to raise this bill. I want to thank the government, particularly the minister of international development assistance, for her assistance in finally bringing this bill to the stage that it is at today.

Most important, I want to thank the thousands of Canadians who supported this bill through visits to their MPs, telephone calls to senators, emails, letters, petitions, rallies outside on Parliament Hill and literally tens of thousands of names that were put forward on petitions supporting this bill. I am hoping today is the payoff day. I hope those thousands of Canadians who supported this bill over the last two years and have been very faithful in their support, will raise a glass to themselves tonight and say “job well done”, because today is, hopefully, the end of Bill C-293, that it will receive royal assent and then move from the position of being a bill to being law.

I am afraid that if I start thanking all the people I need to thank for this bill, I will defeat myself and run out the clock. I will try to be brief on the people who I need to thank because they have been very supportive. As I said, the Bloc and the NDP caucuses have been there from the beginning and I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the member for Halifax who has been steadfast in her support.

I also want to thank the leadership of the Liberal Party, both the interim leader, the hon. Bill Graham, and our current leadership, the House leadership and the Senate leadership who have been steadfast throughout, particularly the whip and our House leaders.

My special thanks go to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the member for Richmond Hill, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, and the member for London North Centre, all of whom have personally encouraged me in many different ways and stepped into the breach when they needed to.

I also want to acknowledge my thanks to Senator Segal, Senator Smith and Senator Cowan who, in the other place, were very pivotal in moving this bill forward.

Indeed, I would be remiss if I did not thank the member for Mississauga South who navigated me and this bill through the increasingly complex labyrinth called private members' business.

It also would be remiss of me if I did not thank my friend, Gerry Barr, from the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, for his support throughout this two year period. His tenacity is incredible and we called upon all of his formidable organizational and intellectual skills to see that this bill would receive royal assent.

I also want to thank Professor Aaron Freeman for his invaluable legal assistance at particular points in drafting and when we had to renegotiate when a royal recommendation was needed.

Who can forget the Engineers without Borders who phoned me, literally out of the blue, and encouraged me and invited me to their conference and got behind this bill. It is so encouraging to see young, bright, vibrant, energetic people, our nation's future, get behind a bill such as this and give it their enthusiastic push.

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has been stalwart, as have World Vision, Results Canada, Make Poverty History and literally hundreds of other NGOs who saw that this bill would be a good allocation of public resources.

I was greatly honoured to have General Roméo Dallaire, now Senator Roméo Dallaire, as my bill's Senate sponsor. He is a moral force for good in this nation and a hero to many of us. I am greatly honoured to have had him sponsor this bill in the Senate. He moved the bill forward with the moral authority that only General Dallaire has.

I do not want to get into all of the thanks, but I just have to thank my staff, Robyn Mogan, Trish Renaud, Kein Turner, Anna-Christina Gamillscheg and Janice Luke, and of course my family who has heard more about this bill than it ever cared to hear about it, my wife Carolyn Dartnell, my sons Ian and Nathan, and my daughters Caitlin, Rachel and Sarah. I would go home on a Thursday or Friday night and they would hear all the stories about Bill C-293. I want to thank them publicly.

We are all here to make a difference. We aspire to make a difference here. We leave our jobs, our families and our communities to come here to try to make a difference. This bill could actually make a difference in the lives of so many people who are impoverished in our world.

I call upon those who will be called to fulfill this law, to fulfill it not only in practice but also in spirit and to fulfill it with enthusiasm. We should not let the cynics get us down. This is a law that actually could make a difference in how Canada is perceived in the world and how we minister to those who are impoverished.

In January of last year I travelled to Kenya with Results Canada. One of our stops was at a hospital in western Kenya. We were visiting AIDS patients. The hospital is literally divided into two parts: on the one side were men and on the other side were women, all of whom were either sick or dying. There were 50 beds for men, 50 beds for women, and 70 patients on each side. As one can imagine, there was more than one patient in some of the beds. Some of these people were literally on their last legs, and the nurses told us that two or three would die that day.

Part of the hospital services was to make available job training in a workplace training centre, so we visited there. I can still see this woman who was sitting at a sewing machine making handbags. She had a huge smile. She was wearing a red dress. She can make about five handbags a day. She is paid the rough equivalent of 65¢ a day. She looked up at me and said, “I am HIV positive. I choose to live my life as HIV negative. I want to live long enough to see my child marry. I thank Jesus for every day he gives me”.

That had an impact on me. I know it had an impact on our delegation. That is why it is so important that Bill C-293 receive royal assent. Maybe that woman and thousands of others might well be positively affected by Bill C-293.

I want to conclude by thanking each and every member here for his or her support. I want to thank everyone for the support that we have received from literally thousands of Canadians around the country. I want to thank those in the NGO community in particular and my friend Gerry Barr for all of their persistence in seeing that today arrived.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our week devoted to action on the environment and health of Canadians is proving to be a success. We just passed Bill C-33 at report stage with the support of two of the other three parties. This is our bill requiring that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel fuel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. It represents an important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Debate of this bill at third reading will now be able to commence tomorrow.

We have also started to debate two bills to improve the safety of food, consumer products and medical products in Canada.

On Monday we debated Bill C-52, to create the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and yesterday we debated Bill C-51, to modernize the Food and Drugs Act.

We also introduced Bill C-54, to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. We will continue to debate these bills today and tomorrow.

During these uncertain economic times to the south, our government has led the way on the economy by taking decisive and early action over the past six months to pay down debt, reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and provide targeted support to key industries. In keeping with our strong leadership on the economy, next week will be maintaining a competitive economy week.

We plan to debate the following bills intended to enhance the competitiveness of certain sectors of the Canadian economy: our Bill C-23, at third reading stage, to amend the Canada Marine Act; our Bill C-5, at report stage, on liability in case of a nuclear incident; and our Bill C-14, at second reading stage, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We will also debate at second reading Bill C-32, which modernizes the Fisheries Act, Bill C-43, which amends the Customs Act, and Bill C-39, which amends the Canada Grain Act. We will also begin to debate Bill C-46. This is our bill to free western barley producers from the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly by giving them the freedom to market their own products. We will debate at third reading our bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-7.

My friend, the member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader, said that government business and the doing of business in the House of Commons appeared to end on Tuesday. That is because next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and I would like to allot them as such at this time.

In terms of the question he raised with regard to Bill C-293, which is a private member's bill, I understand it is scheduled to come before the House in early May. At that time the House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter.

In terms of estimates and witnesses appearing before committee of the whole, the government does have to designate those to occur before May 31. Late last night I finally received notice of which two departments were identified and we will soon be advising the House of the dates that will be scheduled for consideration of those matters in committee of the whole.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader to outline the business that he intends to call for the balance of this week and next week. In the information that he has provided so far in an informal way, the agenda seems to end at the end of the day next Tuesday, so I would be interested to know what he has in mind for the whole week following this one.

I also would ask him specifically if he is in a position today to agree to concurrence by unanimous consent in the Senate amendments that have been made to Bill C-293. That bill is done in the Senate. It has been reported back to the House with some technical amendments, amendments that were in fact proposed by the Conservative Party. All other parties are prepared to accept those amendments and agree to that bill proceeding to conclusion now by unanimous consent, so I would ask the government House leader if he is prepared to agree to his own amendments.

Second, there are still three opposition days that need to be designated in this sitting before the House adjourns in June. I wonder if the government House leader could tell us if he intends to designate opposition days in the period between now and May 16 and, if so, which days those would be.

Finally, in the business of supply, it is the prerogative of the official opposition to select two government departments to bring before the House and the committee of the whole for examination of their estimates in that forum. It is then the government's responsibility to designate the two dates upon which those estimates will be heard in the committee of the whole.

The official opposition has in fact now designated the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to appear before the committee of the whole. I wonder if the government House leader could designate on which two dates those two ministers will appear to defend their estimates in the committee of the whole.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-33, the amendments to Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I will use my time to speak to a few of the issues.

When the bill was first envisioned, I do not think it was controversial. However, since then, a lot of ramifications have come in to play, in particular those outlined by the opposition critic for foreign aid. I will talk later about the effects on the world food supply and world food crisis, the interrelations with the bill and the tweaking of it.

For the public watching and hearing the different points of views and concerns, the first thing to remember is the bill would only change the regulatory framework. It would not in itself do anything other than that. It would set the stage and the legislative ability for the government to act, but it would not cause any action. Nothing would change until the power provided under the bill would be used.

Almost everyone in the House, with the exception of a few members, understands that the regulations then can be used most effectively when the results of current scientific and statistical studies show the best use of those regulations, the best allocation of funds, regulations and legislation related to biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol and various products.

The bill only would allow the government to make regulations related to the exporting and composition of fuels. I think most people would agree that it is good for the government to have the ability to control these items. However, then the debate will be over what the government does with that control.

Current debates are around the world food crisis, the impact ethanol and biodiesels have on that and the use of waste by the next generation. I think most members of the House, including the minister, because he set aside $500 million for it, would prefer to have biodiesels produced not from items that could be food or food producing soils particularly, but from the waste products of those soils. The various alternative fuels, low emission fuels, can be produced from animal waste, plant waste and agricultural waste, such as straw, husks, wood waste from sawmills, switchgrass and cellulose waste. There is a great hydrogen plant in Ottawa.

I do not imagine too many people would disagree that there can be a great symbiotic relationship between agriculture and the use of waste products to ultimately produce a cleaner environment. Those waste products could be used for something productive and we would have much lower emissions. As we know the world is in a crisis in regard to greenhouse gas emissions. It affects my riding in the north more dramatically than anywhere else in the world. Species are becoming extinct. They are moving their ranges, which then threatens aboriginal peoples who depend on a certain species to be in a certain location at a certain time. It is causing havoc with the infrastructure. Therefore, we need bills such as this, initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gases.

Notwithstanding a lot of the scientific advisers have been cancelled by the government, we need to do a good scientific analysis on the actual effectiveness and efficiency of the various proposals to reduce greenhouse gases and other noxious elements in our air.

Everyone is quite aware that there is a world food crisis and it is the link to ethanol, which is part of the debate. However, I want to reiterate what many other speakers have said, which is we have another important bill before Parliament, Bill C-293. Hopefully everyone will support it and get it through quickly. It targets Canada's aid to the areas where it was originally intended to go. Our former agriculture minister, Susan Whelan, when she was the CIDA minister, worked in this direction to ensure that aid went to the right areas, and food would be one of those.

I want to talk about one area of the food crisis that has not been mentioned in the debate. It is a bit peripheral, but it is a very important crisis to a number of people in the world. That is the Burmese people in refugee camps on the Thailand border, where I visited in January. About 140,000 Burmese people are running from a horrendous dictatorship. All members of our Parliament have been very—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question would probably be better posed to and answered by the party to which the member is referring. I will not speak on its behalf.

However, I would use my remaining time to suggest to the entire House to recall that we have Bill C-293, which deals with developmental assistance, aid and poverty alleviation. That bill is coming back to the House as a result of a Senate report. I hope the government will support Bill C-293 so we have the proper definition and guidelines for developmental assistance and ensure we have the proper tools and are in the right direction to deal with poverty alleviation and food shortages.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to help the poor, then he will deal with Bill C-293, the private member's bill from my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, which deals with ensuring that CIDA's main focus is poverty reduction. I look forward to him supporting and getting his government to support the bill forthwith so that it can come through the House and become law.

On the issue of agriculture, our former colleague, Susan Whelan, who was the head of CIDA, made agriculture a priority. We were trying to do that, but unfortunately things changed. I do not know quite what the government's priorities are on agriculture with respect to CIDA, but I do not think that they are there.

On the issue of what Mr. Zoellick said as head of the World Bank, he is right, but what happens is that all of these international organizations produce a mountain of studies and reports and nobody implements them. That is the problem. If we do not take our subsidies and our reports and do something with them, as I keep telling people, we set countries up for failure.

What happens is that large international organizations develop very expensive studies, done by very expensive consultants, and hand them to developing countries. They then tell these countries to deal with them, but if they do not have the capacity to implement the studies, and they do not, then we are setting up developing countries for failure. That is what we do time and time again.

The greatest thing CIDA could do would be to build up capacity in developing countries so that when those countries receive the plans they have the capacity to implement those solutions. Can we do it? Absolutely. I developed a plan called the Canadian physicians overseas program, as part of a larger plan to get Canadian professional groups to go abroad and help build capacity in focused numbers of countries. That is a variant on the Canada Corps that our previous prime minister developed to give support overseas.

The current government should support that. If we were to take on that mantle of building capacity in developing countries, using Bill C-293 to do it, we would do something that has not been done before.

We would enable developing countries to have the capacity to implement these plans so that we can have an effect on the ground and on the person who makes a dollar a day. It would result in them not making a dollar a day any more because they would be making a reasonable amount of money. They would be able to put their children in school. They would have enough food on the table. They would get education for their children. They would get access to health care. We would not see the deplorable, appalling, disgusting, unfathomable and immoral situations that we are now seeing in developing countries.

This is something the government should take on the mantle for and implement, and it should do it now.

National Defence Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate on Bill C-513, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, introduced by my colleague in the Bloc, the member for Ahuntsic. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill, and I commend the member for bringing forward a bill that generates an important debate.

At the very heart of the issue is the notion that there needs to be, to the maximum extent possible and feasible, parliamentary oversight for one of the most serious decisions, if not the most serious decisions a government makes and in which a Parliament either participates in a democratic, constructive way or is shut out. That decision is to send into harm's way the women and men of the Canadian armed forces to serve their country.

No one in this chamber questions the depth of commitment and the severity of the demands that places on what are largely the young men and women of our country and the impact it can have on their lives. I think we all are seized, whatever our particular perspective is on the details of this proposal, with the severity of such a decision. One hopes we are all committed to ensuring that the best possible reflection of the views, desires and wishes of the Canadian people is taken into account when such a decision is made.

In fairness, both the member for Richmond Hill on the Liberal bench and the parliamentary secretary from Edmonton Centre have raised some very practical questions and legitimate concerns about the workability of the private member's bill. However, without equivocation and without reservation, I and my colleagues support the intent of the bill, which is to ensure the Canadian people have, to the maximum extent possible, an opportunity to have their views and wishes on what is agreeably one of the most serious decisions we are ever compelled to make on their behalf as their elected representatives in Parliament.

I am also pleased a Bloc member has introduced this bill, at least bringing into the light of day the real issue about how we exercise responsibility around such issues. I was both surprised and disappointed, as I think a lot of people in Quebec were, that the Bloc, when given the opportunity to vote on the question of the Afghan mission, saw fit to give support the extension of it in what seemed at the time to be a very surprising decision, particularly given how extremely truncated and shrunken down that debate was. I am not talking about the most recent vote, but the previous one,

I remember, with a real sense of horror and dismay, the environment in which that debate took place here. It took place when I and the member for Richmond Hill had been back less than 72 hours from having visited Kandahar and Kabul, having come to the realization that there were many problems with the mission. Not a word was said by the foreign affairs minister at the time, now the defence minister, about the fact that this would be rammed through Parliament on very short notice, with absolutely no opportunity for there to be any real consideration of the implications. Also very little information was forthcoming on the basis that one could make a responsible decision.

Therefore, if this means Bloc members have thought about this and perhaps even have had second thoughts and some regrets about their decision in that context, then I would applaud them for giving it that further consideration. This may be one of the motivations behind the bill.

A great deal would be served by the bill going forward for further detailed consideration.

It did not surprise me but I was disappointed when the parliamentary secretary opened his comments by showing that it has taken the Conservative government less than two years to become every bit as arrogant as the Liberals. I do not want to misquote him but he basically suggested that since the Liberals and the Conservatives are the only parties that will ever govern this country it therefore is only what they think that matters and since both parties think this is a ridiculous idea then we should not even consider it.

I could spend a lot of time talking about how often those words were spoken by Liberals or Conservatives in the provinces and territories across this country where it turned out to be a ridiculous assertion. We just need to look at Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I hope this time next year I can say we can look at Nova Scotia where people said that when I sat alone in the Nova Scotia legislature.

It does not surprise me that kind of arrogant comment is made but it disappoints me in the context of such a serious debate.

I want to briefly quote from Professor David Bercuson, a witness who appeared before the national defence committee in the fall of 2006. I very much agree with his comments. He said:

... there ought to be much greater parliamentary control over troop deployments abroad. I have called for the necessity for Parliament to approve deployments of as small as 200 to 300 troops being sent overseas. I believe this is extremely necessary, not simply because of the forms of parliamentary democracy, but to engage the Canadian people in the debate about whether or not troops should be sent overseas.

That sentiment used to be expressed very often by members on the Conservative bench when they were in opposition, and now it is just like a closed door, not even worth a discussion, and mostly hurling insults at how inadequate this proposal is.

The bill merits further consideration. I think we all agree that this is the most serious thing that we are asked to do. We should be looking at this bill in detail. Other private members' bills have come forward that were inadequate and needed the expertise that comes before a committee. I think of Bill C-293 that was originally introduced as a private member's bill by the NDP and then taken up by the Liberals. It has been worked over both at the Senate committee and at our own foreign affairs committee. The bill has been improved to the point where I hope every member is ready to pass it after a huge investment of time and resources at committee level both in the Senate and in the House.

Private members' bills often start out as good ideas, with good intentions and in response to a genuine aspiration by the Canadian people. It is our responsibility to take those bills into a committee, discuss them, do further research, improve them and then move them forward. This bill is one that I genuinely believe Canadians would support.

I will finish by further quoting David Bercuson who said the following:

The people whom we are deploying abroad are also going in harm's way. By signing up to the Canadian military they have taken up, in a sense, an unlimited liability. They will lay their lives on the line for the people and the Government of Canada if necessary. There is no other citizen in this country, including the police, who has a liability that is unlimited. That is why I think your committee needs to have more power and authority than other committees in Parliament and why Parliament should vote on overseas deployments.

I hope we can move this bill forward and improve it to where it is a genuine reflection of what is needed in this country by way of accountability.

International Aid

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative budget is deeply flawed, with massive giveaways for the wealthiest and crumbs for the poorest of the poor.

In the 1990s the Liberals dragged Canada's international development assistance from 0.53% down to 0.23% of gross national income.

In 2005 Parliament adopted unanimously an NDP motion committing Canada to meet our 0.7% ODA obligations by 2015 in accordance with the millennium development goals. The New Democrat budget infused crucial funding toward those goals.

Three Conservative budgets bring us no closer to meeting our global poverty reduction obligations. Development aid is stagnant at 0.3%.

While Conservative senators block the more and better aid bill, Bill C-293, successor to the NDP bill, Bill C-243, undermining transparency, efficiency and effectiveness, the world's poorest of the poor suffer along with Canada's reputation as a caring nation.

Bill C-474--National Sustainable Development Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on December 11, 2007, concerning the national sustainable development act, Bill C-474, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, and its requirement for a royal recommendation. I wish to thank both the hon. parliamentary secretary as well as the member for Don Valley West for their submissions on this matter.

In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary contended that the bill's provisions to establish a new and independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would not only require new government spending but also represent a change in the conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation that accompanied the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act.

He also contended that the establishment of a new Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was similar to the creation of a new government department and that such provisions needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. He cited a ruling of July 11, 1988 when two report stage motions, the first of which proposed the establishment of a separate department of government and the second a separate commissioner of multiculturalism, were ruled out of order on the basis that they offended the royal recommendation which accompanied that bill.

Finally, citing a ruling of September 19, 2006 on the Development Assistance Accountability Act, Bill C-293, which concluded that a royal recommendation was required for the establishment of an advisory committee for international cooperation, the parliamentary secretary argued that the creation of an advisory council on sustainable development also requires a royal recommendation on the basis that it would result in the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

In his submission on January 31, 2008, the hon. member for Don Valley West conceded that the bill needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. He indicated that he would work with other members at the committee stage to amend the bill in such a way that any impediments to its progress would be removed. The Chair wishes to commend the hon. member for his constructive approach.

In order to assist the House, the Chair has carefully reviewed the provisions contained in Bill C-474 to identify the provisions that caused concern regarding the royal recommendation while at the same time responding to the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary .

The appointment of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is currently carried out under section 15.1 of the Auditor General Act. It states:

15.1(1) The Auditor General shall, in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act, appoint a senior officer to be called the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who shall report directly to the Auditor General.

Bill C-474, on the other hand, would provide for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to be appointed by the governor in council as an independent commissioner instead of being appointed by and reporting to the Auditor General. Although funds may have already been appropriated for the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development under the Auditor General Act, the Chair agrees with the arguments put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the effect that the provisions contained in Bill C-474 would clearly alter the conditions under which these appropriations were originally authorized.

Bill C-474 also proposes a new mandate for the commissioner. The current mandate is spelled out in section 21.1 of the Auditor General Act. It states:21.1 The purpose of the Commissioner is to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress of category 1 departments towards sustainable development—

Category I departments are defined in the act as any departments named in Schedule I of the Financial Administration Act, in the schedule to the Auditor General Act or identified by the governor in council under subsection 24(3).

However, clause 13 of Bill C-474 would modify the mandate of this new independent commissioner to require, namely, the development of “a national sustainability monitoring system to assess...the state of the Canadian environment, nationally and by province” as well as “...the national and provincial performance in meeting each sustainable development goal...” listed in the bill.

Goals listed in the bill include “generating genuine wealth, shifting to clean energy, producing healthy food and building sustainable cities”, to quote the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice points out, on page 711:

A Royal Recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.

The clause 13 requirements would impose additional functions on the commissioner that are substantially different from those foreseen in the current mandate. In the Chair's view, clause 13 thus alters the conditions set out in the original bill to which a royal recommendation was attached.

Finally, the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that the creation of the sustainable development advisory council provided for in Bill C-474 requires a royal recommendation since this would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

Clause 7 of the bill provides for the governor in council to appoint 25 representatives to the advisory council. Section 23 of the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint includes the power to pay. As the provision in Bill C-474 is such that the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these representatives, this involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation. If the intention of the bill is that these representatives would not be paid, then this should be clearly expressed in the bill.

For all of these reasons, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

However, debate is currently on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate, of course in conformity with the Standing Orders of the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

International Humanitarian Assistance

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has an important responsibility to the poor of this world to whom it sends assistance. It has a responsibility to make sure that the aid it sends to international agencies will be distributed fairly and transparently, so that those who need it most can take full advantage of it.

Bill C-293, which was adopted in this House by all the members except the Conservatives, has this very objective.

However, since the bill was passed, it has been blocked in the Senate by the Conservative senators, who are engaging in an orgy of obstruction and disinformation. Yet this bill was supported by numerous petitions and demonstrations.

Once again, the Conservatives are being hypocritical by talking about transparency and accountability but refusing to walk the talk. This shows a serious lack of leadership on an issue that affects millions of people and Canada's international reputation.

The poor of this world deserve better from this government.

Official Development Assistance Accountability Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year since Parliament passed Bill C-293, the better aid bill, with the support of all members in the House, all parties in the House, with the exception of the Conservatives.

Since then, however, Bill C-293 languishes in the Senate because the Conservative senators have used tactics of delay, misinformation and diversion. They have done so in spite of the will of this Parliament. In spite of thousands of petitions that have been presented here, in spite of rallies and in spite of emails, they continue to delay the bill.

It is time for the Conservatives to stop filibustering Bill C-293. The Prime Minister himself supported this bill when in opposition and it was part of a Conservative platform. The problem, however, is that the Conservatives talk an accountability and transparency game and they practise exactly the opposite.

The poor of this world deserve better from the government.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you.

Gerry Barr, I think, would have hurt feelings if I didn't address Bill C-293. In fact, you did bring that up, and I think you've probably heard all of my concerns about that bill.

The example our Prime Minister gave us with his Canada-led “save a million children in Africa” this week I think is a pretty good indication that we're solidly on track to doubling our aid to Africa, reminding everyone, as you have said, that it's as much about aid effectiveness as it is about the actual dollars.

We've committed to getting to the OECD average by 2015, I believe, in line with the millennium development goals.

[Gerry Barr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Cooperation]

Thank you very much.

My name is Gerry Barr. I'm president and CEO of the CCIC, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Canada's coalition to end global poverty.

The council is a membership-based organization with almost 100 non-governmental organizations working around the world and in Canada on international development, cooperation, and global issues.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation. As you approach the budget this year, I know you are thinking about taxes and tax mechanisms. Millions of Canadians who pay taxes believe Canada ought to continue with its foreign aid effort; millions more believe Canada is not yet contributing sufficiently to its share to help poor nations.

I know that talk of tax cuts is in the air. I know that almost all who are elected and who watch politics full time believe that Canadians as a whole approve of the idea of tax cuts. It is just an accepted truth.

Well, here is another truth, perhaps a little counterintuitive: Canadians also approve of the idea of tax increases to increase foreign aid spending. In a poll conducted by government in 2002, 57% of Canadians said they would be ready to pay 1% more income tax, but those same Canadians also wanted to know this money would be spent on directly improving the lives of those living in poverty.

It's just one reason Bill C-293, which is being debated in the Canadian Senate today, is so important. It gives Canadians the assurances they want that Canada's aid dollars will be spent to reduce global poverty.

Bill C-293 sets out a three-part test: first, aid must reduce poverty; second, it must be delivered in a way that is consistent with human rights standards; and finally, it should take account of the ideas and priorities of those supposed beneficiaries of aid who actually live the experience of poverty.

That's the “better” part of the more and better aid proposal of the Make Poverty History campaign, supported today by hundreds of thousands of Canadians and by organizations like CCIC.

What about the “more” part of more and better aid? I think that's where the committee comes in.

In previous reports this committee has urged successive governments to set a plan to achieve the internationally accepted donor state target of 0.7% of gross national income dedicated to the assistance of poor countries. In 2006 your committee proposed the government strike a plan to reach the target, a plan that in its words “should be developed no later than 31 December 2007”. I note that there's still time to do it: it's about a month from now.

It's now more than two years since all parties unanimously supported the idea of achieving 0.7% by 2015. On his way into office, the Prime Minister pledged his government would do better than previous governments in growing Canada's aid spending. He said that his own target was to see Canadian aid spending equal to the average donor effort. Little enough, you might say, for a country whose economy is more robust than almost all of those that have already pledged to achieve or surpass the 0.7% mark by 2015.

CCIC estimates Canada could almost achieve average donor country effort by 2010, the Prime Minister's goal, with 15% increases to its official development assistance annually; going forward, the same plan and approach would achieve 0.7% by 2017, and that's what we need.

I'd like to ask the committee to suggest that the government set out a 10-year plan to achieve the 0.7% target. It's reasonable, it's affordable, and Canadians will support it.

Mr. Chairman, I've provided the clerk with CCIC's pre-budget backgrounder; together with some charted projections, it will provide a fuller explanation of the points I've made here today.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring the progress of Bill C-293 closely. We understand its intent and its principles. Those principles and the intent reflect the intentions and the commitment of the government.

As I articulated in my presentation, the government has committed to doubling its foreign aid over the course of the next couple of years. We have committed to doubling our aid to Africa. We have enhanced our commitment to the Caribbean and to the western hemisphere.

Just as important, we want to make sure that the commitment of Canadian support in tax dollars is going to be done effectively and efficiently. We want to make sure those dollars are not just announcements of large figures; we want to make sure those dollars are going to help the people they are intended to help.

We have a three-pronged program, which we articulated in budget 2007: to ensure that we enhance our international aid and development support with focus, to ensure that it be more effective and efficient, and to ensure that it is done accountably so that we can report to Canadians the good work the government is doing on the international front.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister and I thought she spoke quite well about a number of issues in which Canada is involved.

Canada is a wealthy nation. We are more wealthy now, conceivably, than we ever have been with the surpluses that we have racked up. I want to ask her about a specific private member's bill that has passed the House and has gone to the Senate, Bill C-293, the ODA act, the purpose of which is to make poverty the focus of overseas development assistance.

Many other nations in the world have gone this route. It seems like a no-brainer to many Canadians. It has the support of all kinds of NGOs and organizations that think Canada could do a lot more and that we actually should be hitting some of our millennium development goals. There are people who believe, as I do, that we should hit the 0.7% of GNI for overseas development assistance.

I want to ask the minister specifically whether she thinks that Bill C-293, the purpose of which is to make poverty the focus of overseas development assistance, is a bill that she could encourage her government to support. Is there something wrong with that bill? Does she believe that Canada should hit our 0.7% target out of the millennium development goals?

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It appears we have a few moments and to save time later I will inform members of something they are just aching to hear about now.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members' business from session to session within a Parliament.

The list for the consideration of private members' business established on April 7, 2006, continues from the last session to this session notwithstanding prorogation.

As such, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session.

Generally speaking, in practical terms, this also means that those items on the Order of Precedence remain on the Order of Precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

However, there is one item that cannot be left on the Order of Precedence. Pursuant to Standing Order 87(1), Parliamentary secretaries who are ineligible by virtue of their office to be put on the Order of Precedence will be dropped to the bottom of the list for the consideration of private members' business, where they will remain as long as they hold those offices.

Consequently, the item in the name of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Motion M-302, is withdrawn from the Order of Precedence.

With regard to the remaining items on the order of precedence let me remind the House of the specifics since the House is scheduled to resume its daily private members' business hour starting tomorrow.

At prorogation, there were seven private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1:

Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;

Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; and

Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bills deemed introduced, read the first time, read the second time and referred to a committee)

Furthermore, four Private Members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House:

Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171);

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord;

Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad; and

Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identification information obtained by fraud or false pretence).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to inform the Senate that this House has adopted these four bills.

Hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. The Table officers are available to answer any further questions that hon. members may have.

I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this second session of the 39th Parliament.

(Bills deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House)