Debates of April 30th, 2002

Excise Act, 2001

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this amendment. Yesterday, I spoke about this bill before the amendment was put forward. The amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-47, An Act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”

This amendment, which was put forward by the member for Drummond, is an excellent one, because it corresponds exactly to the actual stage we are at in consideration of this bill.

We realized that the government deliberately decided to exclude from the review of the Excise Act anything to do with beer, except the definition, which was left in the bill. If the definition has been left in the bill, then somehow we should be allowed to address this issue.

When the Bloc Quebecois' proposed amendments were considered in committee, the committee chair used her authority in an unorthodox way, in response to very obvious influences, and decided not to accept the amendment. It was not defeated in committee, but simply rejected.

Since then, all the microbrewers have come forward and said that there were agreements. For example, they had the support of the federal Minister of Justice, who had said that it was a good idea to have this amendment in the bill, so that taxes would be reduced for our microbreweries. Suddenly, they are realizing that the government has decided to abandon them.

The answer probably lies in the letter Mr. Morrison sent Sue Barnes on April 12, 2002—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I just want to remind my hon. colleagues that members should be referred to not by their personal names, but by their ridings or their departments.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for not using the name of the riding of London West. I should have done that. Again, I apologize.

Still, as chair of the finance committee, she received a letter signed by a Mr. Morrison, who is not a member of this House, so I can say his name. He is the president and CEO of the Brewers Association of Canada.

He made some very important statements in his latter. First, he said:

We will support any measure aimed at attaining this objective--

A reduction in the excise tax for small brewers.

--but in light of our prior agreement with the government--

What prior agreement with the government? Where was that decision made? Was it at a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada? We do not know. He added:

--we cannot support amendments which would include beer in Bill C-47.

No substantive argument was ever made to exclude the tax on microbrewery beer from the bill. We were always told that Bill C-47 is not expected to deal with beer. However, beer is defined in the bill. So, it was supposed to be addressed somewhere.

Then we were told that we had to wait for further studies. In this regard, we have all the necessary elements to correct the situation, particularly since there is a sense of urgency. The member for Berthier—Montcalm demonstrated this earlier. Several microbreweries have disappeared in the last few years, and others will be forced to shut down if changes are not made immediately to allow these beers to have a share of the Quebec, Canadian, American and European markets.

Everywhere else, including in the United States—and we know that the U.S. is the mecca of capitalism—it was determined that there could be a different tax for microbreweries: 9 ¢ a litre for them compared to 28 ¢ a litre for large breweries. We know full well that microbreweries cannot, in terms of production costs, compete with those who are engaged in mass production, but there is room on the market for microbrewery products. It would even be very beneficial for us if we allowed them to be successful.

In my own riding, the Brugel microbrewery, which brews a most original beer, is an asset to the tourism industry in our region. People have also started to produce very original cheeses to attract tourists and encourage them to stay. This microbrewery wants to sell its product on different markets. It is a known fact that competition for space on grocery stores shelves is fierce. Profit margins are important. Some grocers are willing to sell that particular product. However, those who buy beer may be willing to pay a bit more to get an original local product, but not as much as what would result from the position taken by the government on Bill C-47.

I know that the Secretary of State for Rural Development is currently touring the country telling people that the government is concerned about rural development. I would like the government to take real action, one single measure that would allow microbreweries to capture their market, by following up on the amendment that was proposed. There is no rush, nothing to prevent us from taking some time to examine the proposal. Nothing prevents the Standing Committee on Finance from studying this question as a priority. We could come up with a solution very quickly. We could simply lower the excise tax. A change in the excise tax would not turn the whole Excise Tax Act upside down, it would simply allow a product to be more competitive.

Of course, the status quo allows the big breweries to increase their market share. For the average person, having 96% of the market share, rather than 95% may not seem to be so important, but for shareholders and companies that want to make profits, each percentage point of the market share represents $17 million. Yet, this same $17 million does not create many more additional jobs. For microbreweries, however, every time a microbrewery sets up shop in a rural or small community, these one, two , three or four jobs add up to one or two more families in town. This is the type of choice we as a society have to make.

We do not want to prevent competition or to stop anyone from gaining access to the market. Quite the opposite. I think the government's position is similar to that of Mr. Morrison, which I find unacceptable. For a reasonably intelligent man, he is showing a total lack of respect.

On one hand, they agree that the excise tax imposed on small breweries should be lowered, but on the other hand they maintain that Bill C-47 is not the place to do it. They argue that more studies are needed and things have to done. They believe we should wait some more. We always hear the same old song when people are against legislation. They say, “We will set up a committee”. Or “We will develop a position and try to define something, and then we will decide. We will make a decision in six months, a year, two years or five years”. But six months or a year down the road, another five, ten or fifteen microbreweries will have closed their doors. The big brewers will have gained another 1% or 2% of the market. And in the end, we will be very unhappy with the results.

When the Bloc Quebecois stands up for these people, it does so because it feels that it is important to care about our small businesses, about these people who are earning a living in our regions and who try to compete. We try to alleviate the negative impacts of globalization.

The beer industry went from a highly regulated market, where each province was subjected to certain restrictions and could not easily export beer in the other provinces, to a slightly broader market. We made room for large businesses. Why not take the time now to allow microbreweries, as they did everywhere else in the world, to have their share of the market and be able to compete with other businesses?

Yesterday, I heard two Liberal members address this issue when I was here in the House. Afterwards, they came and said “You are right. We do not know why our government is not doing something, but we will still vote with it”. We must make a plea to Liberal members and tell them “Check in your ridings to see whether there are microbreweries. Go and ask them if it would be worth waiting one, two, three and even up to six months to settle the issue of microbreweries, so that by the summer they would know that they will be guaranteed a share of the market and be able to compete with American and European microbreweries”.

This would ensure that the bill and our review of the Excise Act are exhaustive. We will then be in a position to all vote together, after completing the work that was not done.

This is why I am urging all members to support the amendment of the hon. member for Drummond.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to an issue like the microbreweries, it is sometimes difficult for the Quebecers listening to us to understand how an industry can ask a government for tax advantages.

If I may simplify things a bit for the benefit of our audience in Quebec, one can say that of course, where globalization is concerned, and the multinationals that some major breweries are part of, the world's governments are obliged to give certain advantages to certain types of industries in order to attract them. This was the case with the microbreweries. Certain countries, including the U.S., have made it possible for their microbreweries to benefit from a reduction in their excise tax. In the case of concern to us, this means 26 cents per case of beer. This is enough to make a difference between a competitive industry and a non-competitive one.

It is never easy, of course. People wonder why certain industries and businesses ask for tax reductions. In this case, however, it is necessary because their competitors outside Canada enjoy some quite considerable tax advantages. This is a current issue.

In fact, a case in point is the softwood lumber issue, where the Americans are demanding countervailing duties of $29. This places a whole sector of industry in a terrible situation. As can be seen from that industry, the results are job losses, plant closures, some very difficult situations. Once again, the federal government has done nothing, not one thing.

It is now taking the same approach with respect to the microbreweries. Despite the industry's demands because of the competition from foreign microbrewers, because of the lobbying by the multinationals and the big Canadian breweries, Labatt and the like, and because of the lobbying by Canada's major breweries of a committee chaired by an MP with connections, among others, with members of the Labatt board, we have seen the government refuse to include beer in a bill which was precisely intended to re-examine the entire excise tax situation.

The government, the Liberal majority, did not heed the call of microbreweries and decided to simply remove from this bill anything that could have been beneficial to the microbrewery industry across Canada. Of course, microbrewers will pay the price but, again, this is totally in line with the Liberal government's overall policy. It is much more responsive to large multinationals than it is to small private businesses, which also employ people across Canada.

As my colleagues explained to the House, many microbreweries across the country had to shut down in the last five years. If the government persists in not helping them be more competitive and not allowing them to benefit from the same excise tax rate as microbreweries outside Canada, we will see more and more of these businesses close their doors.

However, the federal Liberal government is true to itself. It decided not to support private businesses. It is sad for Quebecers who are watching us, those who are retired and who were lucky enough to have a job, good employment income and good pension funds. This Liberal government has no intention of helping industries that are going through tough times. It did not do it for the softwood lumber industry. It did not do it for the airline industry. As transport critic, I know that businesses were left to die and that no ongoing support was provided to the airline industry. There is no such support for the softwood lumber industry, and there will not be any for microbreweries either. That is what this bill is giving us.

What Quebecers find hard to swallow is that they see the federal government swimming in surpluses, yet it does not transfer more money for health and education. What is it doing with its money? What is the Liberal government doing with its money?

The answer is simple, it is trying to build an international reputation. The Prime Minister appointed a Deputy Prime Minister, a right-hand man, so that he can travel around the world, make all kinds of nice announcements, give nice speeches, and grant funds in various countries. This is fine. The only problem is that we in Canada are experiencing serious problems, and the Liberal government is refusing to deal with them.

They talk, they discuss, they strike committees, they allow industry representatives to come before committee to explain what kinds of problems they are having and the solutions they would like to see, as the microbreweries did. In the end though, there are no solutions. The federal government does not intend to help any industry. It is letting free market handle things.

What will happen? There will be more microbrewery closings. Microbreweries are complaining about competition and unfair competition from foreign companies that do not have to pay the excise tax that Canadian microbreweries have to pay. Once again, the government has turned a deaf ear to them. Lobbyists for the big breweries, which would like to see the microbreweries go belly up, have been very busy. It is always the same old story. Labatt and the other big breweries in Canada are trying to get a stranglehold on the market. Why? To provide dividends to their shareholders every three months. This is the reality.

In the meantime, the employees who are hard at work in the microbreweries are watching their industry deteriorate, and they live in constant fear of losing their jobs, while the big breweries are paying out dividends to their shareholders. This is the harsh reality, but that is the Liberal government's philosophy.

It is letting the free market and, ultimately, multinationals seize control of the airline industry, breweries and the lumber industry. This is what is going to happen. This country will be governed by a few companies. It is probably much more easier for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry to deal with only two or three businessmen who make huge contributions to the election fund of the Liberal Party. This way they will solve all the problems. Finally, when everyone is gone, this is what will happen.

However, this is not the way Quebec developed. It developed through small and medium size businesses, which allowed Quebecers to become one of the most prosperous people in the world. The people of Quebec relied on an industry of primary and secondary processing, a primary industry that developed thanks to small and medium size businesses. This is the secret behind Quebec's success.

Once again, the federal government is preventing small and medium size businesses, microbreweries, in Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada, from continuing to exist. This is exactly what it is doing.

When a committee reviewing the excise tax refuses to discuss the problem of microbreweries; when it considers the problem of those who sell wine and spirits and refuses to take examine the problem of beer sales, it simply hinders the whole industry, those small and medium size businesses which, as we can see, have taken over a significant part of the market. The proof is that there was a demand, a need on the part of consumers. Indeed, those businesses grabbed part of the multinational brewers' share of the market, among them John Labatt Ltd. and its board of directors.

Today, we witnessed once again the pressure large companies like John Labatt have brought to bear on this issue, through their contacts with a member of parliament who happens to be the chair of the committee. They succeeded in completely excluding the problem of microbrewers from the discussions of the committee, which was responsible for reviewing the excise tax.

Once again, I thank my colleague from Drummond for having moved an amendment in the House in support of microbreweries. This amendment, which we are discussing today, is a wake up call for the federal Liberal government, which has shown absolutely no interest in the fate of small and medium size businesses in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me once more in this debate. I will make the link between Bill C-47, microbreweries and the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry.

Why? Because this is another opportunity to point out that there is a microbrewery in his riding, Brasserie Saint-Antoine-Abbé. I hope the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry will stand up, just as we do to defend the people and the small businesses of Quebec, for a microbrewery that needs his help. I explained this morning why it needs help.

In the last two days, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot be discussed in committee. If I am singling out the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, it is because there is a microbrewery in his riding. He too is aware of the problems it is struggling with, or he should be. But I hope things are working out nonetheless.

In the last five years, 38 out of 86 microbreweries have gone under. Why did the government refuse to talk about this problem in the context of the excise legislation? It was a golden opportunity to do so. In the last five years, people have been working hard to find a solution. The government said it needed some data to determine whether the taxation should be reduced.

The Brewers Association of Canada mentioned, in a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, that it supported a tax reduction, but that this reduction should not be included in the bill.

How can the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry that his government should behave in this way? This is a fine mess. Last week, in my riding of Châteauguay, this same member declared that the Bloc Quebecois was against Bill C-47, while he was talking about highway 30. Imagine how well he knows this issue. Today is the day we are debating Bill C-47.

The member actually wanted to explain why we voted against Bill C-49. He made the headlines, saying that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to highway 30 and to the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. How demagogic can one get? The member did not even refer to the right bill, and then he wondered why the Bloc Quebecois voted against Bill C-49, not Bill C-47.

Many reasons justified our position. It was not only the establishment of the fund. There was also the whole issue of the employment insurance fund, all the money not available or not transferred for health. There were also airfares in the regions. So, there were many reasons for the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to Bill C-49.

However, the member would rather keep saying that the Bloc Quebecois is against legislation. I would like him to count the number of times when I, as member for Châteauguay, and the Bloc Quebecois have talked about highway 30, have asked that the project be made a reality and that the necessary amounts be invested in the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. Then I would like him to count the number of times when he, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, dared to ask the House to invest those funds. The result of those calculations will indicate who wants highway 30 the most, the member for Châteauguay or the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry. The answer is obvious.

Once again, I am calling on the member to stand up, but this time I am talking about Bill C-47. The newspapers are talking today about Bill C-47, not Bill C-49. I hope the member will meet the management of the microbrewery in his riding and ask those people “Is it true there are taxation problems?”

I hope he will get some information and find out that, currently, in Quebec and in Canada, microbreweries have to pay a 28 ¢ tax on each litre of beer whereas their foreign competitors, the microbreweries of Europe and the United States, pay a 9 ¢ tax.

Worse still, large Canadian breweries have dared to sign distribution contracts with foreign microbreweries, which therefore compete with our overtaxed microbreweries. Moreover, large breweries are making money by doing this. We can imagine why the government wants to protect these large breweries.

We must not forget where a large brewery such as Labatt is located. It is in the finance minister's riding. In 1997, microbreweries had a 5.5% share of the market. Now, five years later, their share has dropped to 4%.

We see very well what large breweries are up to in delaying a tax reduction for microbreweries. When microbreweries lose 1% of the market , do members know how much more money goes into the pockets of the large breweries' shareholders? An amount of $17 million, for a 1% drop in the share of the market. It means a net increased revenues of $17 million in the pockets of the large breweries' shareholders, those who will donate money to the Liberal Party's coffers. This is the truth of the matter.

We saw what happened in committee. We saw why the Liberals voted against Motion No. 2 that changed the powers of this government and gave greater powers to committee chairs. The chair used these powers. I will not go back to the issue, I talked about it for 20 minutes. The chair's husband, Mr. Barnes, was sitting on the taxation committee of the Brewers Association of Canada. Incidentally the chair did not have the honesty to tell members sitting on the committee: “In these circumstances may I withdraw to allow a discussion on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot?” She did not do so. I do not want to revisit the issue. I have talked enough about it earlier.

I go back instead to the case of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. He is an hon. member from Quebec. Quebec microbreweries are not the only ones experiencing losses because of the current situation. In Ontario, 13 microbreweries have closed. In Quebec, we have lost 11. There were also seven in British Columbia, one in Manitoba and another one in Nova Scotia that had to close.

When will the Liberals represent their constituents, people who work in small businesses, instead of once again defending their own interests in order to crush the little people, the small businesses and fill their party's coffers? This is incredible.

I hope the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will meet the people who work in the microbrewery in his region and ask them if the numbers given today are correct. Is it true that microbreweries are part of the new association, the Canadian Council of Regional Breweries? I would like to know if the people in his riding belong to this association. Why? Because the regional council has asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to put these amendments forward. The government refused to consider this possibility. The Bloc Quebecois was not the only one asking for this. The request came from businesses, people who need to have the tax on their microbrewery reduced to be able to survive. This is incredible.

When I was saying that I was making the link between the member and these microbreweries, it is because he mixed things up in the media. It is today that we are talking about Bill C-47 and it would be time for him to really deal with Bill C-47.

He would realize then why he should be working with us to defend our people, our businesses. I am being told that I do not have much time left, so I will conclude by stressing the fact that the Bloc Quebecois truly disagrees with how Bill C-47 was handled by the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the member for Châteauguay for the excellent speech he just made here, in the House.

I am also pleased to speak to Bill C-47. As I have said a few times, when I say that I am pleased to take part in a debate, it does not mean that I am pleased with the provisions set out in a bill, Bill C-47 in this case, on the contrary.

I considered very carefully whether I should address this bill. Why? Because I wanted to avoid taking part in a partisan debate that could have a demagogic undertone. However, I happen to have in my riding a small microbrewery called La Seigneuriale, which is in a rather unusual situation, since it was bought by Sleeman, a major brewery, a few years ago.

It is a situation that most microbreweries will have to face pretty soon. They will either have to close down or let their fierce competitors, the large breweries, take over. This competition amongst the large breweries does not exist only at the counter, in the corner stores, the groceries and the liquor stores. It even exists here on the floor of this House. It does because the large breweries go as far as trying to influence the decisions of the lawmakers that we are to put the microbreweries in a more than precarious position.

The amendment moved by my colleague from Drummond is simply an attempt to make the government take a step back from a bill that has obviously been prepared very quickly—I am trying to be polite here. However there are those who would say that it was prepared taking certain interests into account.

If the government believes in our role to preserve the general interest and not the special interests of lobbyists who generously contribute to certain campaign funds, it has to acknowledge the amendment proposed by my colleague from Drummond, put things into perspective, review the whole issue and come back with a formulation that will be much more acceptable, taking into account the general interest.

This bill is fundamentally flawed in that the excise tax provisions excluding for example small wine producers do not apply to small beer producers. We have to wonder why some small scale producers of certain spirits would be excluded but others would not. Why? I believe we have given in the last few days a number of explanations as to why the government has chosen to exclude microbreweries from Bill C-47.

Now, there surely is an explanation. As I was saying, Bill C-47, in its present form, has a major flaw that we tried to correct in the finance committee. My colleagues, the members for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot and for Drummond, tried to correct this flaw in good faith, always in the public interest.

With public interest in mind, we came to the committee and said: “We will try to correct this flaw”. The chair of the committee then questioned the admissibility of the amendment. We must first ask why the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance refused the amendment. I will come back to this after question period, but this question about the motivations of the finance committee chair is fundamental.

Science and Technology

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we scored an important victory two weeks ago when the president of the CIHR announced that he was backing off experiments on human embryos for a one year period. Members on this side of the House have been very vocal in criticizing the CIHR for circumventing parliament on issues of national and ethical importance.

In the face of much pressure from the health committee, Dr. Bernstein was forced to admit that his plans were premature. The Bernstein announcement had an effect on postponing research on human embryos announced by Genome Canada a week earlier.

The role of the ministers of health and industry in this affair are unclear but we know that these ministers ignored the hard work of the health committee. The need of parliament to be heard on these issues is important. We are the party committed to democratic, transparent lawmaking. We would not stand for allowing unelected scientists to set the agenda. The voice of parliament must be heard.

Société Radio-Canada

[Georges Farrah, Liberal, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the Liberal Party of Canada held nine regional symposiums to which were invited delegates from all ridings in Quebec. One of these was held in Matane and was attended by delegates from all the ridings of eastern Quebec.

The Matane symposium was a huge success, with more than 50 people representing four ridings taking part.

At this symposium, the following motion concerning Radio-Canada was unanimously adopted:

Members of the Liberal Party of Canada in eastern Quebec call on the Government of Canada and its ministers... to take immediate action to get Radio-Canada management to immediately terminate the lockout it has imposed and to implement mechanisms and conditions conducive to a rapid resolution of its dispute with its workers so that the people of eastern Quebec may again receive the quality news service to which they are accustomed and entitled, and the disastrous impact on our region's economy may be halted.

Regroupement des jeunes gens d'affaires du Québec

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past ten years, young entrepreneurs who believe in the economic development of Quebec's regions and who are not afraid to devote their time and energy to the cause have joined forces provincially.

The Regroupement des jeunes gens d'affaires du Québec represents over 3,500 of Quebec's young entrepreneurs on issues that concern them, such as the exodus of young people from rural communities, and equity for future generations.

I invite the House to join with me in paying tribute to the representatives of this association who are here today. They are taking part in a day long information session organized by Communications Canada on the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.

I welcome them to Ottawa and wish them all the best in their endeavours.

Immigration

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11 Canada and the United States have joined forces to protect public health and safety, while at the same time ensuring a flow of people and goods across our shared border. Unfortunately Canada-U.S. relations suffered a setback Sunday evening when an American TV show aired a damning report on Canada's immigration system.

Worse still, we learned that Canada's fifth political party had a hand in this exposé. Yes, its MPs used research resources to help 60 Minutes produce its sensational piece on Canadian immigration laws, possibly damaging our important trading partnership with the U.S.

As a border MP who has worked hard to strengthen ties with our American neighbours I was dismayed and angered by the involvement of fellow parliamentarians in supporting this misleading broadcast. Industry leaders should be outraged that their political representatives tried to score political points with no consideration of the potential damage to cross-border trade.

By providing research assistance to 60 Minutes this opposition party has undermined the efforts of Canadians and Americans alike to create a secure, efficient border that is open for business and closed to terror. Shame on their leader and shame on their caucus for placing political gain ahead of Canada's economic interests.

Firearms Registration

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I bring news today of another huge government deception.

Earlier this month the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice told the House that 63% of all female domestic homicide victims were shot with rifles and shotguns in 1998. Yesterday the Library of Parliament provided me with Statistics Canada data that clearly shows the actual figure to be 18.6%, less than one-third the claim of the minister. The library further stated that it was unable to find any publication to support the justice department's claim. It is another justice statistic proven to be a pure fabrication.

Will the justice minister apologize to the House and Canadians for this deception? Better yet, will he tell the House what his two predecessors failed to tell us for the last eight years, that is, how will registration of guns prevent murders? This is a slap in the face for democracy because we need accurate information in order to make decisions in the House.

Nunavut

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, the Nunavut Association of Municipalities is currently in Ottawa for its annual general meeting. Established on April 1, 1999, with the creation of Nunavut, the purpose of the association is to ensure that community based government is respected and protected in all initiatives within Nunavut.

I wish to welcome the Nunavut mayors, deputy mayors and their senior administrative officers to Ottawa and to the House. I know they have a busy and interesting week ahead of them.

I would like to invite all my colleagues to meet with the mayors this evening in room 200 to learn firsthand about Nunavut issues and share their expertise while enjoying delicacies from Nunavut, listening to traditional throat singing and drum dancing, and viewing exquisite works of art from the communities.

Ville Saguenay

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa the first mayor of the new Ville Saguenay, Jean Tremblay.

The challenges facing the new mayor and his municipal council are considerable. In addition to getting this new city off the ground administratively, the main challenge to the city administrators, its mayor in particular, is to ensure its long term development and that of the entire area.

The Chicoutimi-Jonquière axis has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. We must continue to move from a natural resource based economy to one that is focused on the processing of all our resources.

In that context, the mayor and his city council know that they can count on their federal MP, and on the Government of Canada as well, in meeting their many challenges.

Sita Riddez and Stanley Cosgrove

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, we were saddened this past weekend by the deaths of two leading figures of Quebec's arts and culture, actress Sita Riddez and painter Stanley Cosgrove.

Sita Riddez helped shape the theatrical history of Quebec as well as generations of actors at Montreal's Conservatoire d'art dramatique.

Stanley Cosgrove, one of Quebec's great landscape artists, enjoyed an equally prolific career. His work is famous for its remarkable elegance and fluidity.

Although their careers may have peaked in the 1950s, they both remained profoundly rooted and attached to Quebec with all their heart. The sensitivity and passion of these two members of the same generation contributed to the development of Quebec culture, and to its becoming wider known.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to the relatives and friends of these two great Quebec artists.

Immigration

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday on the American television show 60 Minutes Canadians witnessed a demonstration of a fundamental difference that exists between Canadian and U.S. culture. It is not that our goals are different but that there is indeed a Canadian way, a Canadian approach to international relations, and a Canadian approach to ensuring our collective security.

We should reflect on the fact that not one of the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks on September 11 came from Canada. They were all legally resident in the U.S. having come through U.S. customs and immigration. In fact, it was Canada that six years ago pioneered the system of placing immigration control officers at airports abroad to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to this country. However in doing so we have not closed our borders. We have not become fortress Canada.

We recognize the responsibility of all civilized countries to be a haven to those who are victims of persecution and prejudice elsewhere. We remember that we are a nation of immigrants and we celebrate the strength that our diversity provides. 60 Minutes , by trying to understand Canada through its U.S. lens, failed miserably. Perhaps next time it will come to learn rather than judge. Canada can and should do more, but as always we will do it the Canadian way.

National Defence

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members of our armed forces have gone into one of the most hostile areas of the world and they have made us all proud. They have proven their dedication to our country.

I only wish that the government would show the same level of dedication to them. The government's apathy and indifference toward our Canadian soldiers goes all the way to the top. The Prime Minister's own senior aide once said, “Being a soldier is not that demanding a task!”

Would he like to repeat that statement to our troops in Afghanistan, fighting a deadly enemy without proper camouflage or equipment? Would he like to repeat that statement to our pilots flying in 40 year old Sea Kings?

The government's disrespect and outright hostility toward our armed forces is an embarrassment. It is time for a serious reinvestment.

Terrorism

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday the American television program 60 Minutes broadcast a story that unfairly painted Canada as a haven for terrorists.

When faced with incomprehensible acts of hatred and terrorism it is easy to give in to our initial instincts to barricade ourselves and look for simple solutions. There will always be some element of risk in any free and democratic society. No country is completely immune to this threat. Canada has been working side by side with the Americans in the fight against terrorism.

The events of September 11 were both tragic and frightening, but let us not in our fear turn against those whose own experiences and fear have brought them to our shores. Closing our borders is not the solution. Immigration is what makes this country strong, not weak.

Let us not lose faith in Canada's ability to fight terrorism. We must not delegate our responsibilities and decision making to the Americans. None of the September 11 terrorists came from Canada. Our response to September 11 has been both measured and effective.

Child Care

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in September 2000 the federal Liberal government unveiled its early childhood development strategy amid much fanfare that finally families and children would have access to quality child care programs. Eighteen months later Statistics Canada now reports that the cost of child care has risen sharply. Worse, 90% of Canadian children under six years are in unregulated care and only seven of 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions have put federal money into child care.

It is crystal clear that the $400 million per year for five years earmarked by the feds is far short of the $2.2 billion per year that is required. The federal government gets a failing grade from kids and parents. Instead of comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, quality and accountability we received useless principles and every province for itself.

I ask the HRDC minister today, what happened to all those Liberal promises for child care? What happened to the 150,000 spaces to be created each year? Why are kids always at the--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

Gustave Blouin

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member representing Manicouagan, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Gustave Blouin, who died suddenly on April 14, at the age of 89.

Mr. Blouin's political career began in 1963 in the riding of Saguenay, and continued later in the riding of Manicouagan when he was re-elected in 1968. Mr. Blouin represented his constituents with his characteristic energy until the end of his political career in 1979.

When I met him, he was the member of parliament and I was a municipal councillor in Sept-Îles. Despite our different political affiliations, I was impressed by his diligence at work and the energy he dedicated to ensure the development of the North Shore.

On behalf of the residents of the North Shore, I extend my deepest sympathies to the members of his family and to all his friends.

Immigration

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in politics 60 minutes can be a lifetime. It can also be filled with false accusations and misleading information as we saw last Sunday evening. For former Canadian civil servants and the Canadian Alliance to try to link our immigration and refugee system to terrorism and the tragic events of September 11 is not only dishonest, it is journalistic sensationalism.

Canadians know that all of the 19 terrorists involved in the World Trade Center attack were in the U.S. legally. Canadians know that we live in a global world and we are bound to have some bad guys in our system, but so do the Americans, the British, the French and every other open democratic country. The government is working hard with our friends south of the border on these issues.

To trash Canada only fuels the view that immigration is bad. Immigration is what has built this country and it will continue to do so.

Safe Drinking Water

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, almost one year ago today on May 8 an overwhelming majority of members of the House supported the Progressive Conservative motion to ensure that Canada had national enforceable drinking water standards enshrined in a safe water act. I tabled the motion in response to the fact that Canadians' confidence in their drinking water supply had been shattered.

A year ago the House called upon the government to act immediately with the provinces and territories. I hope the health minister understands that immediately means “occurring or done at once or without delay”.

Canadians have a right to know if their drinking water contains contaminants that affect human health. Even the environment minister now considers drinking water safety one of his priorities according to statements he made earlier this month in Banff. The sad truth is this is another chapter in the book entitled “The Liberal Government that Does Nothing and the Canadians that Pay the Price” in this case with their health.

When will the health minister table a safe drinking water act so we can have national enforceable standards for drinking water?

Airports

[Gérard Binet, Liberal, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Rimouski is now the sole owner of its airport. This airport is recognized as one of 70 regional and local airports providing regularly scheduled passenger service to fewer than 200,000 travellers annually.

Now that the airport is operated by people from the region who understand their role in the community as well as their growth potential, the people of the region will be able to benefit more from their airport, reduce costs, adjust service levels to the local needs and attract new and different types of business.

The improved use of transportation infrastructure will most certainly stimulate trade and tourism and create employment, one of our government's objectives, which is striving to establish a flexible, efficient and affordable network of airports to better serve Canadians in the future.

Hurray for Canada's presence in Rimouski.

Military Memorial Service

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton on Sunday a ceremony so moving, so stirring, so right was held as we gathered to mourn and to bid farewell to Canada's fallen warriors. The cavernous Skyreach Centre was packed to the rafters with military, families, dignitaries and thousands of caring Canadians. All were there to add their voices and their presence to a final farewell.

Four soldiers carrying four helmets resting on rifles accompanied by a drum corps slowly marched in. In the tradition of the Princess Patricia's, an altar was made from the regimental drums and the memorial service began.

Canada paid tribute to four young soldiers who gave the ultimate one can give to their nation: their lives. This was a reminder to us all that the price of our freedom carries a supreme price, a price paid by 120,000 Canadians since Confederation.

Now with the lights dimmed, the pipes and drums faded and the crowds gone, we take this lesson, this reminder with us. We will not forget.

Immigration

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when we asked the government how it has allowed Canada to be perceived as a safe haven for terrorists, the Deputy Prime Minister had a strange defence. He said 72% of Canada's refugees come from the United States.

As the Prime Minister often enjoys the pleasure of golfing in Florida, he no doubt knows that the U.S. is a very safe haven. Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why this country accepts refugee claimants from the United States of America?