Debates of Feb. 12th, 2003

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important matter. I think the Speaker should be apprised of when this vote for the $72 million was to take place in the House. The government House leader was correct. He did some negotiating around the table. It is not correct to say that one person's motion was why this was done. The minister wanted to take $72 million out of his budget because he knew he would lose his whole budget if he did not do that. Members of his own party would not vote for his budget with that $72 million in it.

This party could have played political games, and so could have others, and we said no, let us have it go to a vote and really disrupt the government. We decided we would help speed things up. We agreed and the House agreed to drop the $72 million, so everybody assumed that we would see no new action in gun control.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to read to you the question and answer of yesterday, but anybody who does read it will see that the minister is waffling. He does not tell Parliament how he has cut back the $72 million that had to be in there for the gun registry. I would say to the House leader that this is not about gun control, it is about a gun registry, a gun registry that has run amok.

If we go back to look at what the Auditor General said about this department, which is what started this whole thing going, she said that the report deals with two issues of great concern: the need for Parliament to see full and accurate information from the government, and the government's ability to successfully manage its long term reform and issues. It is a long dissertation with which I will not bother you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will want to look it up yourself to make sure you see all the details of this issue.

In the Auditor General's report, at page 10, she talks about this department and how it does not give Parliament full information. It would seem to me by the minister's answer to a member of his own government party yesterday that he is telling the House he is not listening to what is happening. He said that he was sure we will all go along when we see the supplementary estimates.

In the meantime, how can he maintain the program? He said from “cash”. Which cash? Is it cash from another section of his department? I think the House made it very plain when it voted that day that there was to be no money in the minister's department for the gun registry until he could come back to the House with a plan that we could all vote on and see that it works. That is not what is happening. The government is still running it like it is a regular program.

I would hope that you will dig into all the details of this, Mr. Speaker, so that Parliament, including government members, can feel that the government does listen to parliamentarians when they vote.

[The Speaker]

I want to thank all hon. members who have participated in the discussion this afternoon for their contributions: the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton for raising the matter, the hon. members for Yorkton--Melville, Vancouver East, Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast for their assistance, and of course the government House leader for his assistance.

I will look into the matter and I will get back to the House in due course.

Terrorism

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise the House that the government has listed three more entities pursuant to the Criminal Code, bringing to 19 the total designated since last July under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act.

The newly listed entities are the following: Abu Nidal Organization, Abu Sayyaf Group, and Sendero Luminoso organization.

This listing is a public confirmation that these entities are engaged in terrorist activity. The consequences are severe, not only for terrorists but for those who support them. It is now a crime to knowingly participate in, contribute to, or facilitate the activities of these entities. Any person or group that is listed may have its assets seized and forfeited. Those who deal with the property or finances of these entities are subject to severe penalties, including up to 10 years imprisonment.

The listing process was carefully designed to balance our collective right to security with individual rights and freedoms. We cherish these freedoms, but we must recognize as a reality that there are those in society and around the world who would use these very freedoms against us.

As I have said before, this list is a work in progress. I can assure the House that the assessment process for other possible listings of those who support terrorism is continuing.

Nearly a year and a half has passed since September 11. The events of that day galvanized us and many other nations to action. Since then we have acted swiftly and decisively. From the listing of entities to the freezing of assets to the signing and ratification of international agreements, our efforts to combat terrorism have been both comprehensive and balanced.

However, we are not done. Our anti-terrorism measures and capabilities will steadily increase as we continue with our long term anti-terrorism plan, as provided for in budget 2001. We shall continue to be part of the international effort to deny terrorists sanctuary, funding and a base of operations.

During the last year we witnessed new acts of terrorism around the world. Those who perpetrate these acts of terror must be confronted, pursued and brought to justice. This is a national and international challenge.

We cannot consider ourselves immune. As a nation, our paramount duty is to ensure our safety and security, but this obligation does not stop at our borders. That is why we have been working more closely than ever before with the international community and in particular with our good neighbours to the south. We are committed to working together to protect our common beliefs in freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and while from time to time we may disagree on issues, we continue to make great strides toward achieving our common security goals.

We have accomplished a great deal, some of it by moving forward on our own and a great deal through teamwork. The smart border declaration is testimony to that. That is why we will continue to improve our law enforcement and security intelligence co-operation, which even before September 11 was, as United States Attorney General Ashcroft has noted, a model of co-operation and an example of how two neighbouring countries should conduct themselves.

Just last December I met with Attorney General Ashcroft to sign an agreement to improve the exchange of fingerprint information between the FBI and the RCMP. This spring we will meet again under the longstanding Cross Border Crime Forum to continue to fine-tune this co-operation. It is this type of collaboration, along with dedication and continued action, that will further strengthen our global offensive against terrorism.

These are indeed troubling times and this must be a time for vigilance and preparedness. We are determined and committed to making the right choices to safeguard the nation against terrorism and to protect our freedoms and our values.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Solicitor General's statement regarding the listing of a further three entities pursuant to the Criminal Code.

In late November the Solicitor General stood in the House to announce the addition of six entities to the list initiated on July 23, a list that contained a meagre seven terrorist organizations.

On December 11 the Solicitor General rose again to announce that Hezbollah was finally being added to the list but only after enduring two weeks of relentless pressure from the official opposition and from the foreign affairs critic.

Since July 23, when the Solicitor General first announced the listing of terrorist organizations, the Canadian Alliance as well as many organizations and concerned citizens criticized the government for failing to list Hezbollah as well as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Tamil Tigers, all known terrorist entities as identified by the United Nations.

We have repeatedly condemned the government for the inordinate amount of time that it took to compile the initial listing at a snail's pace at which names were being added on an ongoing basis.

Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, received royal assent in December 2001. After more than a year, we now only have 19 entities listed as terrorist organizations while the United Nations has listed over 200. Furthermore, Jemaah Islamiah , responsible for the largest terror attack since 9/11 in Bali, and FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Force of Colombia, are still missing from that list.

I therefore take great exception to the Solicitor General's contention that the government has acted “swiftly and decisively”. This is not the case. The Subcommittee on National Security, a committee convened since 9/11, is a prime example of the government's lack of commitment. To date, that committee of which I am a member has only met five times. Since this past summer we have only had two meetings. Meanwhile the Senate committee on national security and defence has been travelling across the country. It has produced numerous reports. Most recently, it released a report on January 20, a report on security at Canada's airports.

The Senate committee has found that “side door and back door” security is extremely poor and much more needs to be done to tighten up security at Canadian airports. Effectively, the Senate committee is doing the work of the House, perhaps doing much of the work of this department.

I also take exception to the Solicitor General's statement that the government is working together with the United States to protect our common beliefs. An article in the Globe and Mail on January 31 said that the government was seeking a blanket exemption for Canadians from new U.S. rules requiring records to be kept on everyone entering and leaving the United States.

The article said:

The entry-exit issue is shaping up to be the next major irritant in Canada-U.S. relations.

I would suggest to the Solicitor General that rather than seeking exemptions, the government should emulate the United States security measures and immediately initiate an exit-entry control system in this country.

If, as we have said repeatedly, the government is truly committed to fighting the global war on terrorism, the Solicitor General should be doing so much more, such as identifying and listing entities at a much quicker rate for the security of the country. He should be significantly increasing the resources of CSIS. He should be significantly increasing the resources to the RCMP for the security of this nation. The Solicitor General, working with the transport minister, should be tightening airport and port security. Failure to take such action clearly threatens the safety and security of Canadians.

We would encourage the Solicitor General to speed up the process to assure that Canadians are kept adequately safe. That is the responsibility of the Solicitor General.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent to ask the Solicitor General why he has not added to the list the murderous al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths in the state of Israel.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Solicitor General added three new names to the list of terrorist groups under the Criminal Code, bringing the total number on this list to 19 since July.

As you know, the Bloc Quebecois opposed the creation of such a list. Today, the Solicitor General has talked about the rule of law. We presented amendments to this list. Why? The law allows the Solicitor General to place these groups on a list of terrorist groups without legal authorization and without allowing them to have access to the evidence against them. And people are invoking the rule of law. It is hard to believe what we are hearing.

During this time of uncertainty, fear and violence, the Bloc Quebecois believes that our commitment to liberty and democracy must be clearly reaffirmed. The measures resulting from the national security policies indicate otherwise. It is not true that Quebeckers and Canadians have voluntarily agreed to surrender their rights and freedoms. We do not want to fall victim to fear; we want our freedom to be unfettered.

This is truly a value that we must not only preserve but foster and develop further. I am concerned to learn that the groups added today managed to sabotage our freedom. Our rights have taken a back seat.

The government talks about reconciling collective rights and security with our individual rights and freedoms. I think this is not so much a case of reconciling, but of caving in.

The Solicitor General says that this is one simple step in a work in progress. He also says that this list has been carefully compiled. In the end, however, we Quebeckers and Canadians are the ones who are paying with the loss of our freedom. Where will this end?

I also find it troubling that the Solicitor General is not required to explain or justify the choice of these groups. Obviously, there are security issues, but there is also a fundamental principle. We are elected by the people to represent them. We therefore have the responsibility to question the government on its actions. So then, why are these groups on the list in question?

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the actions of the government must not limit our rights and freedoms. We must not give up any more freedom out of fear. We must not yield to fear. Fear must not dictate our conduct.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that we must follow the directives of the United Nations. This organization is qualified to guide us and we should listen to it. Are these groups on the United Nations' list? I would like the Solicitor General to confirm this.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words in this debate before the House and respond to the minister. I do not consider myself to be an expert on any of these organizations, however I had a chance to do a bit of research on them. I know I cannot ask a question at this time but I will say it in sort of an interrogation kind of way.

The minister has announced today that he is putting the Abu Nidal Organization, which split away from the PLO in 1974, on the designated list. The first thing I noticed on the government website was the government already did that on November 7. If it was put on the list on November 7, why is it being announced today? There is a slightly different spelling on the website compared to what is in the minister's statement but it is the same organization. I do not know what that means.

If we check the government website, the Abu Sayyaf Group, which is the group in the Philippines, was listed on October 2. October 2 is quite a few months ago. Again, the spelling may be quite different, but the group is the same. Why is this announcement being made today when these organizations are on the government website as being listed in October and November?

I know sometimes the government across the way is not a very competent and efficient government in terms of organizing its work. These inefficiencies are noted in a number of agencies and departments. We saw that a few minutes ago when the member for Sarnia—Lambton talked about the overspending on the gun registry.

Although I know I cannot ask a question at this time, I do wonder about these things in terms of the minister across the way, who has been a long time friend.

I do not see any argument as to why these organizations should not be put on a designated list. As I said, I am not familiar in detail with all of them. They all appear to be organizations that are involved in violence and terror. I would like to know more details as to whether there is evidence of them operating in our country. What is that evidence? What have they done? What are they trying to do in terms of soliciting funds or other activities in Canada?

It becomes a very difficult thing to designate. We have seen that with the statement from the Bloc Québécois. Often one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We have seen that throughout history.

I remember going to the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. I remember my history when the British considered Menachem Begin to be a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter to many of the Israeli people.

Nelson Mandela, one of my heroes and a tremendous freedom fighter in my opinion, was considered by some people, including a member of the House of Commons very recently, to be a terrorist.

I see that the member from Calgary is here. I know how he is a self-styled tax fighter. The Boston Tea Party for some was an act of terrorism. However, if the member from Calgary looked back on those days, and his ideology is still back in those days, he would not consider it an act of terrorism. He would consider it an act of patriotism in terms of what happened at that time.

The American revolution was an act of terrorism for some; an act of freedom and liberation for others.

I want to throw in those precautionary notes to the Solicitor General. I know he is well aware of them. I hope when these organizations are put on a list, that they are very carefully looked at by the agencies of government to ensure that a mistake is not made and to ensure that the protection of our national security against genuine terrorism is the sole motivating factor as to why they should be put on a list.

I know that differs a bit from the Alliance position and the Bloc position. I believe those points have to be made. I would also appreciate an explanation sometime as to why these are announced today, when the government website listed them as being listed in October 2 and November 7.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the words of the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle. He brings a practical, historical and sometimes hysterical perspective to the House.

I am pleased as well to see that this list has been expanded now to 19, as the minister has stated. I am concerned by the inefficiencies and the fact that many things the government does these days are a constant public relations effort to garner the most attention, and it announces things three or four times. However the addition of the entities is an indication of the depths to which we must now delve when seeking the security of Canadians, the very rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoy, and the fact that we can never take these issues lightly or take them for granted.

We are living in a brave new world, as the minister himself has indicated. There can be no doubt that the balance of our collective right to security along with the individual's rights and freedoms must be weighed, but in clear cases where the welfare of our citizens has been challenged, we must act. The minister talked about his government acting in a timely fashion. I could not disagree more. The minister stated that the addition of these three would have far-reaching implications. In that he is correct.

I am encouraged by the minister's announcement and glad to see that he is starting to listen to the concerns raised by the Progressive Conservative Party and others, and other Canadians, calling upon his government to react quickly and decisively when faced with information of this nature. Sadly that was not the case when it involved Hesbollah.

It seems that the government has been dragged, kicking and screaming in many instances, to come forward with the action that we see today. Given the extremely disturbing information of the past few days with a call to arms by Osama bin Laden to the people of Iraq to engage in further terrorism against our neighbours, we see how real the threat is. Terrorism is not going to go away and terrorist organizations are not going to cease. We must remain vigilant in the face of grave danger.

This recent announcement of three new entities, bringing to 19 the total that have been banned in Canada, is at least a step in the right direction. Any form of terror or threat to human life, safety or security must be condemned in the strongest of terms. What we are talking about here is the ability to fundraise and funnel money to terrorist acts.

The snail's pace with which the government has acted in the past is disturbing, Hesbollah being the most obvious example. These organizations operate in the shadows. Once money is collected there are often very few ways to track the money and see what it is being used for in the final analysis. The decision today to take action and combat these groups should be welcomed, however the minister's statement is that the government is working closely with the international community, and in particular our good neighbours to the south. This is a message I do not believe many Canadians will accept.

Under the Liberal government, Canada's place in the world has been devalued and diminished. Our relationship with the United States has been weakened by the government's policy of never missing an opportunity to criticize, waffle or belittle our most important and closest ally. The government has been anything but timely, diligent, comprehensive or balanced in its approach.

Americans and Canadians have seen what the Liberals have done to our military and our international reputation. Cuts to the police, coast guard and the armed forces, and the elimination of ports police are the real stories. They have starved the armed forces to the point where they are no longer taken seriously when most important decisions are made.

Canada has the 9th largest economy in the world, but in the year 2000 our defence expenditures represented 1.2% of gross domestic product, ranking us 17th of NATO countries, somewhere in the range of Luxembourg.

The government and its lacklustre performance has made Canada invisible on the world stage. Listing is a start but lagging along, waiting for public opinion, and for polls to crystallize is not the way in which Canada should be operating.

The government needs to do more than just spout rhetoric on how we deal with terrorism. While we welcome the action of the minister today, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the Liberal government has done little else.

Energy Price Commission Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

seconded by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest,moved for leave to introduce Bill C-353, an act to establish the Energy Price Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my seconder, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who is equally concerned about this issue.

The bill seeks to establish an energy price commission to regulate the wholesale and retail price of motor fuels: gasoline, diesel, propane and heating oil. The purpose of price regulation is to avoid the unreasonable increases that many Canadians are experiencing today which have a profound effect on the cost of living and a terrible effect certainly on small businesses.

The proposed legislation would facilitate reasonable consistency in energy prices from province to province, also allowing of course for legitimate increases in production and distribution costs. The bill would further minimize the risk of collusion or price fixing in pricing and prevent dominant suppliers from setting unreasonable prices.

The bill seeks to link the issue of price control to competition and any investigation of an alleged offence under the Competition Act would be automatically referred to the new energy price commission. Such a commission would be made up of independent commissioners who would then deal with the matter and report back to the tribunal in the case of that type of complaint.

In setting prices for energy the bill would dictate that the commission must take into account as its primary concern the interests of the public in having energy available at reasonable and consistent prices for their personal, commercial or industrial use.

Everyone here knows that Canadians are fed up with the gouging and they want the federal government to take concrete steps to ensure stability in energy pricing across the country. The member for New Brunswick Southwest and I are proud to present this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce my bill to amend the Income Tax Act in order to allow families in which one of the spouses operates a business or is self-employed and has a low income to deduct child care expenses on the income tax return of the taxpayer with the higher income.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Broadcasting Act and Income Tax Act

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

moved for leave to introduce C-355, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act (closed-captioned programming).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act to require broadcasters to provide closed captions for their video programming.

We are also asking that the Income Tax Act be amended to allow a tax deduction for broadcasters for the purchase of closed-caption technology.

As 10% of the population lives with hearing problems, this is a very important issue.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employment Insurance Act

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

moved for leave to introduce C-356, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (waiting period).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill which would eliminate the two-week waiting period during which a claimant is disentitled from receiving employment insurance benefits. People who go on employment insurance could receive their benefits immediately.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 2002 (Schedule I).

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-357 seeks to amend Schedule I of the Employment Insurance Act. This schedule makes reference to the table of weeks of benefits.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and another Act in consequence, 2002 (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting).

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-358 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act and another act in consequence in two very important respects: the famous Employment Insurance Account—we do not think it should go into the government's consolidated revenue fund, especially the surplus—as well as the method for setting the premium rate. Those are the two objectives of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (determination of insurable employment).

Mr. Speaker, for those who thought that this might take a while, I will reassure them by saying that this is the last bill I will be introducing today.

Bill C-359 seeks to turn responsibility for determining whether or not a job is insurable over to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling in the House a petition signed by residents of the Outaouais and Ottawa area calling upon Parliament to adopt a resolution against Canadian participation in a war against Iraq without the agreement of the United Nations.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on the subject matter of stem cells signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South. These petitioners acknowledge, as I do, that human life begins at conception and want to point out to the House that Canadians support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown encouraging potential to provide the cures and therapies for the illnesses and diseases of Canadians.

They also point out that non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary for Canadians.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling a petition with more than 590 signatures, to go along with those already tabled by my colleagues with a view to sending a clear message to the government.

Any change to the financial situation of the disabled is a potential threat to their health. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to oppose any plan to limit access to the disability tax credit and to ensure that the government does not pass any measure in the House of Commons without prior consultation of organizations representing the disabled and of health professionals.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who live in Arnprior, Renfrew, Braeside, Kinburn and Pakenham.

The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facilities should stay in Arnprior, and that the government should upgrade the facilities as promised in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians, especially these days when we are on the verge of war.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 98 will be answered today.

Question No. 98

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Did the Royal Canadian Mint use an advertisement changing the words of the traditional Christmas carol “The Twelve Days of Christmas”, and if so: ( a ) what words were used; ( b ) why were the words changed; ( c ) is it the policy of the government to abolish government references to Christmas; ( d ) has the government instructed Canada Post to cease the use of Christmas postage stamps; ( e ) what other steps has the government taken to remove references to Christmas from its programs and publications; ( f ) is it the intention of the government to amend the Holidays Act to include Christmas; and ( g ) is it the intention of the government to introduce a motion in the House of Commons to amend Standing Order 28(1) to remove the reference to “Christmas Day”, as part of its modernization initiatives?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Insofar as the Royal Canadian Mint, the Department of Canadian Heritage, Canada Post and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons are concerned, the Royal Canadian Mint is a commercial Crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the federal government.

With respect to (a)and (b), from November 15 to the end of the week of December 15, 2002, the Royal Canadian Mint aired a television commercial featuring animated characters, a beaver and a caribou, that sing along to the music of the “Twelve Days of Christmas” to promote the most recent new coin releases from the Mint.

The words to the traditional song “The Twelve Days of Christmas” were changed to “The Twelve Days of Giving” in its television commercial. The word “giving” was used to emphasize and reiterate that coins make ideal gifts. The change in words was not intended to be exclusionary of “Christmas”, but rather to be inclusive of the word “giving”. The change was made to build upon the Mint's ongoing marketing efforts of associating coins to the act of gift giving, a successful technique in use for a number of years.

While the Mint has received some feedback that was not positive, most Canadians enjoyed and responded to the commercial according to opinion polling and sales figures.

With respect to (c), the Department of Canadian Heritage has no policy to abolish government references to Christmas.

With respect to (d), Canada Post is proud to include stamps commemorating Christmas in its annual stamp program. The 2002 Christmas stamps display the works of three Canadian aboriginal artists that interpret the traditional theme of “mother and child”. The three works of art featured are the paintings Genesis, by Daphne Odjig, for domestic mail; Winter Travel by Cecil Youngfox, for U.S.-bound mail; and the walrus tusk and soapstone carving, Mary and Child, by Irene Katak Angutitaq, for international mail. The words “Christmas” and “Noël” are printed on each stamp.

Eith respect to (e), there have been no steps to remove references to Christmas from any of our programs or policies.

With respect to (f), the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the Holidays Act which makes provision for Canada Day, Remembrance Day and Victoria Day. The Holidays Act by its nature and content, is a declaratory act. To give effect to its provisions, other legislation must be passed. In relation to legal holidays such as Christmas, those measures pertain to labour and commercial laws, and the jurisdiction over these are shared between the federal government and the provinces and territories. It is not the intention of the Department of Canadian Heritage to amend the Holidays Act.

The answer to (g) is no.