This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #124 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was petro-canada.

Topics

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 54 stands deferred.

That is it for Group No. 2. All the other votes apply. The votes have been called and all the others will be dealt with later. We have dealt with all the ones that have to be done now. When we get to the deferred divisions there will be a few more.

We will now put the motions in Group No. 3.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 7 with the following:

“9. (1) The Minister shall, within three years”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 7 with the following:

“sion for ecosystem protection, academic research, recreational use, geological surveys, natural resources exploration, visitor use and any other human use and”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 26 on page 7 with the following:

“(3) Management plans shall balance the principles of ecosystem management and the precautionary principle with considerations of the fisheries, academic research, recreational use, geological surveys and natural resources exploration.”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 7 with the following:

“agement, marine navigation, marine safety, academic research, recreational use, geological surveys and natural resources exploration are subject to agreements between the Minister, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Natural Resources.”

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB

moved:

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-8, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 17 with the following:

“in evidence only with proof of the signature or”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and carry on with the debate on the motions in Group No. 3.

As I said earlier about Group No. 2, and I think some of these clauses refer to that as well, Canadian Heritage does seem a bit puzzling. I listened carefully to the committee chair's speech earlier about the fact that this is about preservation and making sure, for present and future generations, that this should fall under Canadian Parks. Of course we want to make sure future generations get to enjoy these marine conservation areas, but again, I do not think the government has come to grips with the very basics of it.

As I mentioned earlier when I finished up my remarks, if we are going to look at mineral resource extraction from these areas, the government says now, i.e. in the future, it would make sure it put the boundaries of these marine conservation areas in place so that it did not disrupt any mineral or resource extraction. Yet if we talk about future generations, what is going to happen if in seven months, ten years or fifty-three years we come up with some amazing technological device that is able to find, harvest and extract some of these resources or minerals? What do we do then? I believe the bill says it would be in perpetuity, that they would say “Sorry, we have a marine conservation area here and we cannot do a thing about it. It is there forever”.

I am pleased to see the member is looking through her notes. I hope she will be able to straighten that out and let us know that if in future years another Hibernia, for instance, were to come along there would be room in the bill for it. We are all very familiar with that. I think that would be a major thrill for everybody.

Let me refer specifically under Group No. 3 to Motion No. 18, which specifies that a marine conservation area management plan would have to take into account not only ecosystem protection but also academic research, recreational use, geological surveys, natural resources exploitation and visitor use. Each one of those would include a huge area of concern, consultation and advisory committees.

It is one thing to talk about advisory committees, but it does seem strange sometimes that a government may be only keen to take one side of advice. I mentioned earlier a couple of committees that were struck today, right in this place. The government gave its word that it would just be electing chairs, nothing more. Then all of a sudden, once the Liberals got to the committees they sat down, and I am sure were having coffee and a pleasant visit, and the next thing we knew they wanted to deal with a couple of bills.

It does seem strange. When someone gives their word and their commitment, I would like to be able to take it as such. Surely it is not a good thing when people go back on their word. We would want to make sure when the government says advisory committees would be put in place and consultations would take place that we would get both sides of the equation.

My friend from northern Vancouver Island just made comments about some folks who came down from British Columbia as witnesses. Dear knows, that is a large part of the country. If we are talking about marine conservation, there is plenty of water out in B.C. They should be given the opportunity to give their advice, to participate in those consultations. But what happens?

It does not fit with the government's little agenda. It thanks them for coming in one of those big jets that gives lots of pollution. It is talking about the environment now. It thanks for them coming anyway and says that they can be shipped home.

Another thing the bill fails to do is strike a balance between environmental protection and other interests. Of course we need to weigh the pros and cons. If this is basically falling under national parks, surely we can look at the national parks. My home province of Alberta I think has about 60% of the land mass of the national parks in the country. Somewhere, somehow, we need to strike a balance between environmental preservation and human enjoyment of this.

I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage, under whose purview the bill falls, has made a trip to Banff, has made a trip to Jasper, and certainly has looked at the balance between environment and other interests. I know she has certainly some concerns about it, as everyone does. Although she will talk about scheduling delays or defaults or something or other, our minister for tourism, the Hon. Jon Havelock, has been waiting and wanting to meet with the hon. minister for some time now.

I am not sure if I can use the word stonewalling, but I think that certainly would be the sentiment he has in his desire to meet with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Even though we are landlocked in Alberta, if this whole marine conservation area goes ahead certainly Alberta would express some of those very same concerns.

When talking about consultation, surely from the provincial level to the federal level, we should have consultations between ministers. It seems to me fairly simple. I mentioned earlier the struggle between federal and provincial negotiations and whose power supersedes whose. The member across tried to make us feel better or allay the fears or concerns by saying everything would be up to negotiation and everyone would just sit down and have coffee and a happy time and come up with an agreement.

I see members from B.C. across the way. I am dying to know if the member over there has felt very comfortable in the fact that her provincial government has worked with the federal government and everything is going along just tickety-boo. I will bet 10 bucks she would not, as a matter of fact. When these negotiations are being talked about, surely my minister, the Hon. Jon Havelock, is not the only one being shunned when we are talking about federal-provincial consultations and negotiations.

It is great to throw around that we are to consult and have advisory committees, but it is a very dangerous thing just to say “I will consult with the people who agree with me, and I do not really like listening to those other guys on the other side”. Surely we need to make sure that does not go on.

Talking about the very tenuous balance between environment and sustainable development, there are people who go to Jasper and just love to spend a night or two in Jasper Park Lodge. I gave up tenting many years ago, having grown up on the west coast and having spent far too much time in a wet tent when I was young. I am sure there are others besides me who love to go to Jasper and do some skiing or whatever, and who want to stay in a hotel. That may be terribly capitalistic, but at the same time they want to make sure they have a chance to wander around Jasper Park Lodge or some of the fine hotels in that area, or Lake Louise or Banff.

I would also bet 10 bucks that a lot of members of the government have had a wonderful visit to one of the national parks, Banff or Jasper. I would also bet they stayed in one of those capitalistic, entrepreneurial places such as a hotel and ate in restaurants. I will bet they did not set up their Coleman stoves and just rough it, although it is a wonderful thing to do; it is great.

Many people need to realize there is a balance between environmental concerns and making sure that when they want to make use of those places or buy souvenirs for their children some of those places are in those parks, with a balance, of course.

When we talk about present and future generations we want to make sure we balance these environmental concerns. That is absolutely essential. However, they must be balanced with the interests of those individuals affected by the creation of particular marine conservation areas. People live in the area. People fly their float planes over this area, as we talked about earlier.

I asked the people who were giving me briefings what would happen with jet boats, for instance. They said “We are not going to prohibit boats, but if in future times we decide jet boats are too noisy, or heaven forbid, Sea-Doos, we may be able to have the minister with the power to do so”. Sure, she could work in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, the Minister of the Environment, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It all comes out of the same cat. If on the government side they decide they do not like Sea-Doos and they do not like big, noisy jet boats, they can just put a prohibition on them.

People are used to that lifestyle, and many of those who live in these proposed marine conservation areas are very responsible. I do not think people want to live there or holiday there just to take advantage of those areas. Many of those people are as environmentally concerned as any government member. We need to make sure the individuals who are affected by it would be able to have an amazing amount of input.

This is where I closed my remarks the last time I was speaking. There is a lack of adequate consultation with resources groups, aviation groups and other stakeholders. We should be able to tell them we will listen to their concerns. What about those who make their living by flying float planes up and down the B.C. coast, for instance, or the Atlantic coast?

The minister may all of a sudden say to them “We are going to consult with you. In other words, we will sort of listen for five minutes, but we already have the order in council or the regulations drawn up, and you too will be out of business”. Surely that is not a good balance in making sure we can live harmoniously in some of these areas.

I look forward to the members' concerns about this and certainly possible solutions to the very real concerns. These are not just my concerns. As I say, I live in landlocked Alberta, and I am not sure we are looking at too many marine conservation areas. However, people from the west coast, the east coast and the Great Lakes will need these very real concerns addressed, and unfortunately I have yet to hear any of them being addressed.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak once again this afternoon to Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, at report stage.

In the motions in Group No. 3, the Bloc is proposing that clause 9 dealing with management plans be deleted. Through this clause, the government will draw up a management plan five years after the establishment of the marine conservation area.

This does not make any sense. There will be no management plan beforehand, only afterwards. The government should go back to the agreement it signed with the Government of Quebec and all the stakeholders to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was established jointly by the Quebec and federal governments in 1997, when they passed mirror legislation. I wonder if members opposite know what that is. Mirror legislation is passed with the support of everyone concerned, following extensive consultation of all the various stakeholders. These people said “This is what we want”. They wanted a plan and the governments told them that they would pass mirror legislation. Under this legislation, the Quebec and federal governments agreed there would not be no transfer of land. The two governments will continue to exercise their respective jurisdictions. I hope our colleagues opposite now understand what it means.

Second, the park is located entirely in a marine setting. We should not forget that. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. We can just imagine how huge that is. Its boundaries may be changed by mutual consent and following public consultation by both levels of government.

As members can see, public consultation is always carried out because there is a management plan. To facilitate community involvement, Quebec and Ottawa agreed to create a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is determined by the federal minister and the provincial minister. That is what a management plan is all about.

The committee's mandate is to make recommendations to the minister responsible with regard to measures which should be taken to meet the objectives set out in the management plan. The plan will be reviewed jointly by both governments at least every seven years.

We can see that before the marine park was established through mirror legislation, there was a management plan. Under clause 9 of Bill C-8, a management plan would be prepared five years after the establishment of a marine conservation area. I think this is absolutely ridiculous.

As I was saying earlier, this bill should have never been introduced. We in the Bloc Quebecois also think that clause 28, which deals with proceedings by way of summary conviction, should be deleted.

There should have been a management plan with specific benchmarks right from the start, to avoid doing everything all over again. I do not know what language we have to use to talk to the government and tell it that enough is enough, that we already have mirror legislation containing a management plan. We have legislation on marine areas that was drafted in co-operation with all federal and provincial stakeholders. We already have that. So why is the government setting up another structure which will only create further confusion? It will be like the tower of Babel.

Perhaps hon. members do not know about the tower of Babel. People started to talk different languages and could no longer understand each other. One minute they were all talking the same language and the next they were all talking at the same time in different languages and no longer understood each other. A self-styled responsible government should not be setting up such a monstrous structure.

I believe the environment is an important issue and so are the marine conservation areas. Before the government puts the bill to a vote, let it come to my riding. We will explain how to go about this. If it does not remember how we went about establishing a conservation area in 1997, which is not exactly the distant past, we will sit down with the government and we will explain it all.

This bill is a waste of members' time and a waste of money. Members have more important issues to discuss. We will support the Bloc Quebecois amendments in Group No. 5 and we will ask that this bill be withdrawn.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the dialogue on Bill C-8. I will quote the hon. member for Churchill River who said:

Adequate resources must be defined and committed to pollution monitoring. The Liberal government's repeated statement to Canadians that the high standards of environmental protection are being met is not true. There is continued devolution and abdication of environmental responsibilities. This government can sign a piece of paper and have a photo opportunity for the news. Then the government has a program review and always cuts the budget and at the same time says that things are going great. This cannot continue with Bill C-8.

Those were the words of the member for Churchill River.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Speaker

We will have a small change today in our regular schedule. I announced to the House that last Sunday a former Speaker of the House, Mr. Marcel Lambert, elected in 1957, who was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, who became Speaker of the House of Commons and then subsequently returned to the benches to serve with the Progressive Conservative Party, passed away. His son Chris is here with us today. I invited him for this, for what will be a fitting tribute to Mr. Lambert.

The Late Hon. Marcel LambertGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of serving in this Chamber with the late Marcel Lambert and am honoured to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to a man who served this country and the House so well.

Marcel Lambert may not be well known in the House now. He was a soldier. He was an economist, a lawyer and a Rhodes scholar. He was a man whose talent and discipline would have led him to excel in any field he chose. He chose public life because he had a sense of commitment to the community around him.

Marcel Lambert was born and educated in Edmonton and later was educated in London as a Rhodes scholar. He was an effective member of the House of Commons for some 27 years, a Speaker of the House and a minister of the crown.

Mr. Lambert served in the second world war as a lieutenant in the tank division of the King's Own Calgary Regiment. He was part of the Dieppe raid and was feared lost and reported dead in that historic event. In fact he had been captured. He was held as a prisoner of war for three long years.

Marcel was elected the member for Edmonton West in 1957. He served Canada in the House for 27 years and is seen as one of the MPs who worked the hardest on behalf of their constituents. People lined up outside his riding office to speak to him. Appointed Speaker of the House in 1962, he acquired a reputation as a tough arbiter when debate was heated.

In his memoirs, Lester B. Pearson spoke of the fine job Marcel Lambert did as Speaker of the House. His detention as a prisoner of war and his experience in combat were instrumental in his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs in 1963.

During my years in the House as leader of the official opposition, Mr. Lambert undertook the thankless job of leading my party's scrutiny of the spending estimates each year. He held the government accountable for spending. I have to say he did that job with relish. Scrutiny of the estimates was much more intense in those days. Marcel Lambert also served the House as chair of the committee on miscellaneous spending.

If any of us sought a model as to the attributes that should come to the Chamber and the spirit in which Canada should be served here, we could do no better than to look to the example and experience of the late Marcel Lambert.

The Late Hon. Marcel LambertGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were saddened to learn this past Sunday of the death of a former Speaker of this House, the Hon. Marcel Lambert, a proud Franco-Albertan and a distinguished scholar, soldier, lawyer and parliamentarian.

As a member of the Canadian forces in World War II, he served at Dieppe and even spent close to three years as a prisoner of war. After the war, he continued his studies toward a degree in commerce from the University of Alberta. He was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned three degrees in law. He then practised law in Edmonton.

He was elected to the House of Commons in 1957 to represent Edmonton West, now in part represented by the hon. Minister of Justice.

He went on to serve in 10 Canadian parliaments. He was a parliamentary secretary. In 1962 he was elected, unanimously—as if I need to point that out—Speaker of the House of Commons. He also served as Minister of Veterans Affairs. Marcel Lambert was the opposition critic for parliamentary procedures and finance and was known as one of the hardest working and best prepared members of the House of Commons. He later went on to sit on the Canadian Transport Commission.

Although my time as an MP started after the hon. Mr. Lambert had left this parliament, I have clear memories of him from our time together on the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians. I am proud to be able to say that I had the opportunity to work with him.

On behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of my party, I extend my deepest sympathy to the family, to his sons, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren, who have every reason to be proud of the contribution the Hon. Marcel Lambert made to his country in war and in peace.

The Late Hon. Marcel LambertGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Reform

John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is nearly impossible to acknowledge in the short time that we have the accomplishments of Marcel Lambert. The passing of this veteran of Dieppe, prisoner of war, Rhodes scholar, member of parliament, cabinet minister and Speaker of the House, saddens us all.

At the time I first arrived in the Chamber in 1972, Marcel Lambert had been in the House for 15 years, to which he added another 12 years before leaving in 1984. This record of 27 years speaks highly of this gentleman's sense of public duty.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Marcel occupied your chair for a brief but impressive period from 1962 to 1963. He earned a reputation as a tough arbiter in a rowdy Commons in those heady times. Following that, he was appointed minister of veterans affairs and served that portfolio with distinction and honour.

Marcel left the Chamber and the country with many things. In the vicissitudes of political life, Marcel had one thing constant: respect and service to his constituents.

To his son Chris in the gallery and to his family, “you can be very proud of your father. He was a great Canadian”.

The Late Hon. Marcel LambertGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in tribute to Marcel Lambert who passed away Sunday at the age of 81.

Mr. Lambert, who sat in this House and was its Speaker, was born in Edmonton in 1919. He was a student at the outbreak of the second world war. He joined the King's Own Calgary Regiment. He was taken prisoner of war in 1942 during the Dieppe raid. At the end of the war, he returned to the University of Alberta and went on to study law at Oxford. He returned to Edmonton and opened a law firm there.

In 1957 he was elected for the first time to the House of Commons under the banner of the Progressive Conservative Party in the riding of Edmonton, which he represented until 1984. He served as parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence in 1957-58. Re-elected in 1958, he served as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national revenue until 1962. Following the 1962 election, he was appointed Speaker of the House and remained so until February 1963.

The general election brought the defeat of the Conservative government but not of Marcel Lambert who was re-elected. In opposition, he served as defence and finance critic.

When the Conservatives returned to office in 1979, he chaired a committee and was re-elected in 1980. In 1985, when he retired from active political life, he was appointed the chair of the Canadian Transport Commission.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself, I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to his family and friends.

The Late Hon. Marcel LambertGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, like the right hon. member for Kings—Hants and the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, I too had the honour of serving in the House with the honourable Marcel Lambert in the latter five years of his parliamentary career. I consider myself fortunate to have been in that position.

I want to join with others who have already spoken and who have portrayed very well the details of Mr. Lambert's career as a parliamentarian, his service as a soldier, his sensitivity to his constituents and his care for others as reflected in the way in which his constituents repeatedly re-elected him.

I think particularly of his service as a soldier and his capture at Dieppe. If his family might permit me, we see him as a symbol of a generation of young men who were in military service at the beginning of the war and who therefore suffered in ways that not everyone did by being in places like Hong Kong and, in this particular case, Dieppe, and who therefore had the misfortune and the tragedy of becoming prisoners of war.

Time is taking its toll on their generation and so, through my salute to Marcel Lambert, I also want to salute that entire generation of Canadians.

I also want to salute his work as a Speaker and the fact that in the House of Commons one of the special ways in which a member of parliament can be honoured is to be selected as Speaker, or in those days, appointed as Speaker, but clearly governments appointed people whom they thought would have the respect of the House of Commons and the confidence of both sides of the House. Mr. Lambert fell into that category.

For all these things we give thanks. We honour his life and work. We honour his memory and we express our condolences to his family.

The Late Hon. Marcel LambertGovernment Orders

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I reserve a few words for myself, and I address myself to you, Chris, who are representing the members of your family here in the House today.

I knew Marcel Lambert of course, like some of the other members, because we served together in the House. You will recall when you came to see your father that he sat in these seats over here. Forever the vigilant parliamentarian, yes, and forever the critic because that was his role at the time.

I spoke with him immediately after I became Speaker in 1995. He was in Ottawa and he did me the honour of coming to my chambers where we shared lunch together. I asked him at that time that if he had advice to give to a novice speaker what would it be. He told me that these were the important things of being a Speaker. He said “You must respect the parliamentarians. They have work to do here and you must give them as much leeway as you can. You must respect the rules of parliament under which you operate so that you can make decisions in a fair-handed manner. But most of all”, he said, “you must love this place. You must love parliament, this House of Commons”.

I think it is good advice that he gave to me that all Speakers who sit in this chair would do well to remember whenever they do take this awesome task of trying to bring the House to a decision of some kind.

Your father, sir, was an intellectual, a Rhodes scholar. He was a soldier and, in my view, a hero. That has been mentioned. He was a parliamentarian who served in our midst for more than a quarter of a century. We who knew him held him in very great respect. Canada has lost one of her sons. In that way the nation is diminished by his departure.

Please accept my own personal sincere condolences and the condolences of all members of parliament. Some of us had the great honour to serve with your dad. Thanks for coming.

The Late George K. DrynanStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ivan Grose Liberal Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I am sad to say I have to announce the passing of a good friend, an outstanding citizen of Oshawa and a great citizen of Canada, Mr. George K. Drynan, Q.C.

George was an officer in the Canadian army and was wounded in Italy. Being a lawyer he was involved in the war crimes trial of Kurt Meyer, a German Panzer officer who ordered the execution of Canadian prisoners of war in Normandy.

My fondest memory of George was to see him walking in downtown Oshawa, cane in hand. Incidentally, the cane was more an exclamation point than an assistance to walking.

George was always definite about everything. We knew where he stood and damn the torpedoes. He called me regularly with advice I was to convey to the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice. I passed on to these ministers a great deal of what George said and, amazingly, some of it bore fruit.

“Goodbye good friend. I am sure you will, wherever you go, find some Tories or Socialists to argue with. See ya round”.

Transparency InternationalStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, Transparency International, a global anti-corruption organization with chapters in over 75 countries, will host its first ever integrity awards ceremony in Ottawa on September 29 and 30. It will present integrity awards to those who have shown courage and dedication in their efforts to fight corruption.

Among those receiving recognition include Alfredo Maria Pochat, an auditor in Argentina who was murdered shortly before he was to release a report on fraud in a government department, and Mustapha Adib from Morocco, presently in jail for having blown the whistle on his air force superiors. Among us today, also receiving an award, include representatives for the Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government from the Philippines, and Lasantha Wickremetunge, a newspaper editor from Sri Lanka.

I commend Transparency International's ongoing efforts in curbing corruption at all levels. I recognize and I am sure the House will recognize those who have both committed and paid the supreme sacrifice for their beliefs.

International Day Against MoxStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, today, 161 organizations from all over the world are celebrating the third international day against MOX, to oppose the marketing of that fuel anywhere in the world.

The United States and Russia recently announced that a large proportion of the plutonium from their old ballistic missiles will be used in nuclear reactors to produce energy. Canada, through its Minister of Natural Resources, is jumping head first in this adventure. However, many top scientists feel that the global marketing of MOX could result in an increase in the number of accidents and terrorist acts and adversely affect nuclear disarmament.

Immobilizing plutonium in Russia and in the United States is the only way to achieve disarmament. If Canada is serious about that objective, it is with this in mind that it should provide assistance to Russia, and it should immediately stop importing MOX.

Breast Cancer Awareness MonthStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Mr. Speaker, the month of October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

More than 500,000 women will die this decade alone from breast cancer. That is about one every ten minutes. These very high numbers should be ringing alarm bells across this country. I am sure all of us in the House agree that something must be done immediately.

As it stands right now, we do not know what causes breast cancer nor can we prevent it, but if detected in time it can be cured.

Probably every individual in the House of Commons has been or will be affected by this very serious illness, whether it be directly or indirectly. Breast cancer affects us all. Early detection is key.

Let us commit today to reinvest in our health care system in order to ensure that these preventative measures are in place and, in doing so, more lives will be saved.

Breast Cancer Awareness MonthStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that as we approach October that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a month dedicated to raising the awareness of this devastating disease.

On October 1 we will see approximately 85,000 Canadians in 29 cities participate in the Run for the Cure campaign to raise funds to support the necessary research, education, diagnosis and treatment programs.

Almost 20,000 Canadian women will develop breast cancer this year and over 5,000 will die from it. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women ages 35 to 55. Twenty-two per cent of all breast cancers occur in women below the age of 50.

I know all my colleagues in the House will join me in wishing the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign every success.

BombardierStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Diane St-Jacques Liberal Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bombardier is a household name. That company is very successful and is also a major economic tool in Quebec.

Last Friday, we learned that Bombardier was awarded a $379 million contract to design and build an elevated monorail in Las Vegas.

Under that contract, part of the engineering work will be done at the head office, located in Saint-Bruno. This is a direct economic spinoff for Quebec.

Bombardier, which owns, among others, two plants in my riding, one in Valcourt and one in Granby, continues to be a showpiece of the Quebec and Canadian economy.

Our government's contribution consists in ensuring a very favourable climate for businesses in Canada and in Quebec.

This stimulating context helps attract investments, which have a positive impact on job creation and on our quality of life.

The Mini-BudgetOral Question Period

September 28th, 2000 / 2:15 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could confirm for us today whether the government will be bringing down a mini-budget before October 16 or 17?