Debates of Feb. 18th, 2003

Canada Elections Act

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member again, but everyone will have their ten minutes of glory if they will just wait.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am confused by the reaction. I am just trying to participate in the discussion.

If we can get money out of the way as a hurdle, then what is a legitimate debate is how we do that. I have no problem with the discussion about how we do that, but I think that the goal is worth pursuing and the goal is worth legitimate debate and informed debate.

One of the things that drove me away from my shepherd's pie to come in here was that I was picking up a sort of partisan element that I would hope we could water down a little bit. I am a border MP. I have a colleague, a congressman, I work very closely with in northern New York and let me say, based on discussions with that member's office, that the amount of time and staff and the machinery required to raise the money to even be in the game should disturb us all. If members want to do something interesting, they can get a copy of an American publication called Campaigns & Elections and take a look at what drives the political industry in the United States, and it is Uncle Sam's pocket liner. It is money.

Now, let us debate the how, but for goodness' sake, let us not get bogged down in a partisan discussion of the why, because I do not think that is serving the people who sent us here.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just listened to my Liberal friend. Saying that we should not become involved in a partisan debate. That rings rather hollow against the comments he was just making. Let that be as it may.

I would like to speak specifically about my own constituency. As you know, Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the people in my constituency, as I am sure you are of yours. In my constituency, the issue of money relative to politics is simply non-existent, because there are people in my constituency, up to 400 people in every election I have been involved in, who have freely contributed to my campaign. These are people who believe in the goals and objectives that I have set on behalf of the Canadian Alliance. These are people who are choosing to support the Canadian Alliance. This is part of democracy.

It has always been my belief that when we involve a person's wallet we somehow have their entire attention. That really is what this is about. Here is what we would be replacing. Instead of the involvement of people like my constituents in my campaigns and in the whole election process in Kootenay--Columbia, instead of them continuing to be involved in the democratic process, it would be the Liberal vision, the NDP vision, the Bloc vision, and we would be replacing their involvement with the involuntary involvement of the Canadian taxpayer, and more's the shame.

My colleague from Crowfoot put it very well, very succinctly and in great detail. I would commend his speech to any readers of Hansard . He outlined in detail where the dollars would be coming from and how the Canadian taxpayer would be paying.

To give an example of how the current system works and how there is a true involvement of Canadians in the process, I would like to give a very succinct history of what has happened, first in Kootenay East, now the renamed Kootenay--Columbia constituency.

Going back to 1992, our constituency organization was solvent. It had a sufficient amount of money in the organization to be able to function. As I have said, the money was coming specifically from people in Kootenay East. As we entered into the Charlottetown accord referendum debate, we were faced with the challenge of requiring more money. We went out with broadsheets, which simply showed in detail what the Charlottetown accord was about. People took a look at those sheets and saw how wrong-headed the NDP was, how wrong-headed the Liberals were and how wrong-headed the Conservatives were in trying to push for the Charlottetown accord. As a consequence, they were motivated to write the cheques. They were involved in the democratic process.

Those same people who wrote the cheques to fight in favour of the no side of the Charlottetown accord were the people who were also putting up the signs and going door to door with these same broadsheets. They were the people who were doing the telephoning for our no campaign. In fact, our no campaign in Kootenay East came in at a vote of 87% no to the Charlottetown accord. I put that down to the involvement of the people in my constituency.

Let me fast forward now to the election of 1993. Again we started the election of 1993 solvent, but just, which is fine. We then went to the people. I had been campaigning at that point, on and off, for a period of about eight months. We went to the people and asked them this: if they believed in what we wanted to do, if they believed that we were going to be changing Canada as we moved into Parliament, as we were drawing the attention of the government to issues like health care, immigration, justice reform and things of that nature, would they contribute? Indeed, over 400 people contributed to my campaign at that time and I was very fortunate in receiving the approval of 49% of the people who voted in the 1993 election.

Following the 1993 election, of course, under the current rules we were in the position of receiving a rebate of 50% of the amount of money that we had spent on election expenses. My constituency organization, being the very sound body that it is, then went to work to decide what we were going to do with that money, how we were going to save the money, put it aside and make sure that it was in existence for the 1997 election.

My constituency organization, along with myself and the president of our constituency organization, were engaged in a process of making sure that we were taking care of, first, of the people's money from our constituency who had contributed to it, and second, the amount of money that had come back from Elections Canada.

We then went into the 1997 election far stronger financially. Again, in the 2000 election we were far stronger financially, where I was fortunate enough that my campaign received 68% of the popular vote. I put that down to the fact that we have people in our constituency who believe in what it is that I am here for and believe that I am here to truly represent them in this place.

What would happen under the proposed bill is that all the hard work, all the savings, all the good management that has occurred on behalf of the people of Kootenay—Columbia, would be set aside. Under this political financing bill, we would be put in the position, along with all Canadian taxpayers, of funding the election expenses of the Bloc Quebecois.

I have nothing against any of the members of the Bloc Quebecois but I totally reject the premise of that party. Why should I and why should my constituents have their tax dollars going to support the Bloc Quebecois?

Some people in my constituency do support the direction of the NDP but the NDP do not share the same political point of view as I do. However, why should the NDP supporters in my constituency end up with their money going to the Canadian Alliance, any more than my supporters of the Canadian Alliance should end up having their money going to the NDP?

It is massive intervention and basically takes away the individual rights and responsibilities of the people of Canada. That is why this is so wrong-headed.

My constituency organization is healthy. In fact, we have well over 1,000 members in my constituency alone. These are people who are active and who are paid up. We have maintained those numbers over a period of time because there is a sense of ownership of what it is that is happening in my constituency and through my office.

In my judgment, the bill, as it presently sits, particularly with the replacement of the voluntary funding to the extent that it is specified and the replacement by tax dollars, is one of the most divisive, negative influences on democracy that I could ever possibly imagine.

What the Liberals are doing is institutionalizing democracy. There is nothing healthy about institutionalized democracy. Grassroots democracy, where Canadians have the opportunity to be involved, is where the strength of our country lies.

I cannot imagine a worse legacy for the Prime Minister than the one that he is bestowing on the people of Canada, which is to take the people of Canada out of the democratic process.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 is supposed to make the whole electoral process and the funding in particular more transparent. In fact, the bill is envisioned to make the whole thing a little more democratic than what we have at the present time.

It covers a number of areas. It would require the registration of all political parties and it would ban political donations by corporations and unions. It would limit individuals' contributions and would regulate nominations for candidates and for leadership personnel. It also would establish a very controversial provision, which is the public funding of electoral campaigns.

I want to address two areas that are glaring loopholes in the legislation regarding financing. This legislation in the first instance is supposed to make the financing of campaigns of political parties more transparent. One of the statements to support this thing was that the reason unions and corporations would be banned from making contributions was to sort of make the influence of the large donors less on the political process.

There is a particular provision that exists in the world that this act studiously avoids and does not deal with at all, that is, the creation of trusts. Trusts are a very interesting construct. This would allow for individuals, corporations, unions or anyone to set up a trust account.

We have before us now the requirement that financial institutions, if they want to merge like the banks or the insurance companies, must go through an approval process. I can easily conjecture the possibility of one of these institutions, or a number of them, establishing a trust fund for a particular individual who has political influence, and telling that individual that it will set up a $1 million trust fund so the individual can access expenditure funds, as long as they are not electoral, to buy motor homes, houses, land or whatever with it. The individual would be told that it was his or her trust fund but that it had the condition that when the legislation came before the House, the individual would support the merger or coming together of certain business ventures.

If there were ever the possibility of a direct connection between big money and political influence, it would be through the arrangement of a trust situation. That is studiously avoided in the legislation.

I suggest that it might be very difficult to enforce particular legislation with regard to trust that does not do away with the fact that there is a vehicle which can be used and clearly ties contributions to a politician through a trust which is outside the provisions of this particular legislation.

If the purpose of the legislation is to make democracy more transparent and to make individuals more accountable, to avoid this particular provision is to deny dealing with exactly one of the major issues that apparently was the motivation for bringing this legislation into being in the first place.

I also wish to draw to members' attention the complexity of the legislation. When a constituency registers, there are clear provisions for the processing of expense claims, deemed contributions, that is, claims that are unpaid after 18 months, financial reporting, contributions to be forwarded to the receiver general in certain cases, and corrections and extended reporting periods. An auditor's report is required if the contributions or expenses of the electoral district association exceed $5,000. Provision is made for the payment of audit expenses to a total of $1,500, and, pursuant to clause 30, the returns of registered associations shall be published.

I want to go further into that business of financial arrangements. I think the people who are watching this would be very interested in listening to some of these things that the Library of Parliament researchers have put together.

The intention appears to be to compensate parties for the removal of corporate and union donations, which are largely made at the party level rather than to individual candidates or constituency associations. Political parties are at the heart of a modern political electoral system and, arguably, are essential, which is correct, and I agree with that.

At present, registered political parties are publicly funded through the tax system. I agree with that. It is roughly about 40%. The provisions in this bill would raise that total contribution attached to the public purse to somewhere around 70%. Bill C-24 proposes to extend and enhance the extent of access to political parties to the public purse.

The rate of reimbursement of electoral expenses for candidates is currently 50%. Bill C-24 proposes to raise to 50% the reimbursement rate which is now 22.5%. With respect to individual candidates, the bill proposes that the percentage of votes that a candidate must obtain in his or her riding to qualify for reimbursement of electoral expenses be lowered to 10% from the current 15%. Fewer votes would be required in order to qualify for the rebate.

The controversial part is that the bill would provide for an annual allowance to registered parties in the amount of $1.50 per vote received by the party in the previous general election, provided that the party had received in the last election either 2% of the valid votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes in the riding where the party ran candidates. The figure of $1.50 is apparently based on the calculations of potentially lost income to parties as a result of the changes in eligibility of donors.

It appears that several provinces in Canada provide allowances to registered parties based on their electoral results. That does not make it right. Just because somebody is doing it does not mean that it is the right thing to do. This is a controversial issue and largely a matter of policy and philosophy as to whether one subscribes to that.

The reason I have difficulty supporting this kind of thing is because it would give the party that won in the last election a financial advantage over any other party that might be contesting the next election. That is not democratic. That is building on a bias which is false, which is bias in its interpretation and which gives an advantage to a particular group.

As an incentive to encourage contributions by individuals, the bill also introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual's political donation that is eligible for a 75% tax credit, from $200 to $400, and to increase accordingly each other bracket. All of these are different ways of getting more money out of the public purse.

The question really becomes: Where is the individual's choice in the matter?

I want to point out another loophole in the bill that all members of the House ought to be aware of. A deemed contribution does not apply to an unpaid claim that on the day referred to in the previous subsection has been written off by the creditor as an uncollectable debt in accordance with a creditor's normal accounting procedures. This can be read very clearly, and I have checked it out with some legal beagles who have told me that the reading is correct. This is a possible reading. It would then be possible for someone to extend a loan to either a candidate or to a party and then declare, according to his or her particular pattern, that the loan is uncollectable. What could that be? It could be that a bill is extended to the party or to the candidate and the candidate agrees not to pay it. If it has not been paid for 19 or 20 months, the company says that it is not collectable because that is the time a bill is usually written off. Therefore it is an uncollectable debt and not a contribution to a party and not a deemed contribution.

That is a loophole that exists in the legislation. I suggest that not only does this hide a lot of things, but it provides for the chicanery to allow the political, misleading statements and the clever arguments that really hide the truth in this legislation. I cannot support the legislation for those reasons.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, today and the next couple of days we will be discussing a very important piece of legislation. This legislation is asking us, for the first time in 30 years, to reform how we go about collecting and disbursing funds for our elections.

Democracy is 2,502 years old. It was created in my birthplace. People gathered together and said, “This is the way we want things done”. At that time the leaders of the people of Athens took a straw vote and continued in their infinite wisdom to rule the country and to prosper.

Here we are 2,502 years later continuing the process of democracy and building on what those people felt democracy was all about. Members are elected and come to the House of Commons; it is 50% plus one. We are here to represent the wishes of our constituents. We are here to listen to the grassroots and to apply what the grassroots tell us.

The bill in front of us is probably one that will outline the legacy of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in his wisdom wants to make sure that when he leaves the House we will have the means to have fair elections.

However, I have a problem in that I have been elected four times and every time I have been elected, it has been under the same set of rules. When the rules suddenly change, people ask why the changes are needed and if there is something wrong with what we have had in the past. Maybe there is and maybe there is not.

Perhaps changes are needed. However, a lot of people are saying that because the way we do things and the way we define democracy are so embedded and entrenched, we have to take a step back and consult with the grassroots, whether they be people in our political parties, people who actually make political contributions, or average Canadians.

I am sure my colleagues across the way would give me a standing ovation for this, but under this legislation if a party such as the Reform Party back in 1988 wanted to make itself known on the political scene, it would not have had the ability to do it. At the time it wanted to established itself, there were five or ten people who contributed $10,000 and that was how the party started. At that time no one knew that the Reform Party and subsequently the Canadian Alliance would gain credibility and that one day, lo and behold, that party would be the opposition. One never knows, that party may go into oblivion the next time. The legislation would not have allowed the party to be formed. There was absolutely no means of financing the political aspirations of those people.

We have to look at how we enhance and protect the new parties that want people to come to the House of Commons and represent their constituents. That is one of the difficulties I have with the bill.

There is another difficulty I have with the legislation. Indeed we are here for a very short time and we need to make these changes, but the Canadian public, the grassroots Liberals, Alliance, Conservatives and NDPers need time to talk to their colleagues, their members of Parliament to make sure this is the way they want to go.

It is incumbent upon us to take a step back, take this process to the Canadian public and to the political grassroots of our parties and our ridings. The people who knock on the doors for us and who put up the signs for us must be asked what they think. I am sure that all my colleagues in the House would agree that extensive consultations are needed. We must take two steps back, slow the process down and ask for public consultation.

At the end of the day it may be that the bill in front of us is the best thing since apple pie and ice cream. However, we have to consult with the grassroots Liberals, and the grassroots Alliance if there are any left after the next election. One never knows, there is always room for more parties.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

You are a species at risk in my constituency.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

A friend of mine, and a good colleague, mentioned species at risk. I am sure that is not new political parties, maybe existing ones.

We have to tone down the political and partisan rhetoric, see what is good and bad in the bill, and come up with suggestions for alterations.

The bill is asking for accountability and transparency. That is fine. It is something on which all of us in the House agree. However the treasurers and presidents of our political associations are volunteers. They are not lawyers or chartered accountants yet the bill is asking them to become lawyers and chartered accountants and to have audits. Audits, yes, but can we not be a little more friendly? Let us be a little more friendly to the presidents and the treasurers who have been volunteering for the Alliance, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Liberals for the past 20 years.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 will make a severe shift in the sources of funds for political parties. That shift will be from the voluntary actions of people and organizations to a mandatory imposition upon the taxpayers of Canada. That is what we are talking about today.

The previous speaker talked about consulting with the people. I certainly agree with that. He also mentioned that this very important piece of legislation would be on the agenda for a couple of days, probably tomorrow and the next day, once we get the budget out of the way. I have a problem with the whole thing.

Today the whole world and all Canadians are focusing on the possibility of war in Iraq, the problems we have in dealing with terrorists, the fear that is in the hearts of a lot of people and where we are going with all those issues. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have petitioned the government, this body of people, to deal with the pedophiles who are hurting our children through child pornography and our failure to raise the age of consent. They are begging us to do something about the problems we are facing.

Canadians are focusing on being able to make ends meet and being able to feed their families. In most cases both parents are working hard trying to keep food on the table. They are struggling day in and day out. They are focusing on how they can do that. Today many Canadians across the land are wondering how they will pay their heating bills and how they can possibly keep gasoline in their cars. There are problems facing them economically.

The government, this body of people, should be here today focusing on the needs of society and on the needs of Canadians. What are we focusing on? We are focusing on a bill that would enhance a financial gain for political parties. We are focusing on a bill that the Liberals hope would get them re-elected.

If we stop and think about it for a moment, there are priorities. The world is focusing on a possible war. Parents are wondering if their children will be safe in our society because so many things are getting out of hand. Instead of spending a day dealing with child pornography, for example, getting it off the face of the earth and being determined to do it, we are in here talking about what we can do in order to get re-elected and how we can gouge more money out of the taxpayers.

I have news for the Liberals, if they have not learned it by now. Most of the taxpayers are at their limit. I do not know if Canadians have enough money left even to pay that extra amount to keep their houses warm. There are lots of problems out there in society and we are not dealing with them. That is what we were elected to do.

Instead we are focusing on how to gain politically and financially and what we can do to get re-elected. Are the Liberals not a proud bunch? They should hang their heads in shame if that is all they can talk about during this time, during the next few weeks with the difficulties we are facing as a country and as a world. If all they can focus on is how to get re-elected and how to get more political and financial gains in their pockets, then every one of them should hang his or her head in shame.

I for one cannot understand how after 10 years we are still concentrating on how the Prime Minister can put some sort of legacy in place so that he will be remembered.

Unfortunately for him I know there will be a lot of people who will remember this government and the legacy that will be formed, and it is formed. They will talk about and remember golf courses, hotels and water fountains. They will talk about pepper spray that was used in a peaceful demonstration, which supposedly we are allowed to have in Canada. They will talk about the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC. Last but not least, right up until today, they will remember the nearly billion dollars that has gone down the tubes through a gun registry.

The Prime Minister should not worry, his legacy has been laid out. There are many things that this country will remember about this government. I hope I live for a long time because I will keep reminding Canadians exactly what has taken place.

The greatest country in the world to live is Canada. It could be so much greater if we would focus on the needs of society that face us today and get away from this idea of what can we do to get re-elected and how can we build our party coffers. That is what we will do today and that is what we did yesterday. Bill C-24 will come up again in midst of all these crises and we will still be talking about what can we do for ourselves, not what can we do for Canadians.

Yes, we are waiting for a budget today. “Wait for the budget”, I hear. We suspect it will be a pretty good budget. Who knows, the government might find more money for health and defence, but I know it will find more money to throw away on useless programs like gun registries, billion dollar boondoggles and handing money out to friends. The government is really good at that.

We will talk about Groupaction. We will continue to remind people about the contracts that were paid for but were never done. We will keep copies of the Auditor General's reports year after year, blasting government department after department for their lack of accountability to the Canadian people and answering to the taxpayers. Now we are discussing legislation to see how much more money can be gouged from the taxpayers, whether they want to pay it or not.

I think about big industry being subsidized or a guaranteed loan going to a corporation. I think about finding out that those corporations have donated huge amounts of money to the Liberal Party.Then I realize that the money which has been used to subsidize that corporation or that loan guarantee is part of my money, because I am a taxpayer. I would not want a lot of people to think that part of my money has gone to support the Liberal Party. My father would turn over in his grave if he thought one nickel of my money went to support this kind of government.

We will keep this thing in the eyes of Canadians. Let them decide voluntarily who they want to support as a party. Why should they be forced into supporting someone who has policies, standards and values with which they do not agree? That should never happen but this legislation will guarantee it. Some of the goals in this document are not too far off but it needs some amendments to close these huge loopholes that will be devastating to the taxpayers of Canada. I hope the government will think about it.

As a final note, for heaven's sake, why in the world are we concentrating hour after hour on a document that will give a personal benefit to us as individuals and we are not addressing the problems in society?

Yes, there will be a legacy. Remember farmers going to jail? Remember when pedophiles were on house arrest? Remember those kind of things? That is a legacy. I know a lot of people in my riding will not forget it. One day I think the people of Canada will wake up and realize that what we have is not real representation of the needs of our society. What we are facing today is representation of what we can do to get re-elected. That is a shame

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that when we discuss important issues in the House for the benefit of the country, such as health care, the security of our nation, criminal justice or more defence funding, we never see the Prime Minister speak to those issues in the House. On issues of real national importance does the Prime Minister ever come to the House and put forward his point of view? No.

When did we see the Prime Minister? When he stood in the House with Bill C-24, his little, private, personal bill, designed to give him and his government even more tools to manipulate taxpayer money to the benefit of that party. He is not fooling anyone in the House.

When I looked at the bill, when I listened to the Prime Minister and other Liberals, I thought, “My God, the sheer hypocrisy of it all”. The Prime Minister stood up in the House and talked about how this system would behave more equitably and with more integrity. This coming from a Prime Minister who since 1993 has been followed by scandal after scandal--

[The Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in full flight, but it is two o'clock and he has eight minutes left. When the debate resumes, he will be able to go on for a full eight minutes. In the circumstances we have to proceed with statements by members.

Association coopérative d'économie familiale de Laval

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the wonderful work done by the Association coopérative d'économie familiale de Laval, which has helped residents of Laval for five years now.

This community organization helps people budget, manage their debts and bills, and is an advocate for consumer rights.

The association helps people to balance their household budgets and provides support to consumers in their dealings with businesses, by informing them of their rights and available remedies.

It is thanks to an organization like the Association coopérative d'économie familiale de Laval that people will become informed consumers.

Sumas Energy 2

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has now postponed hearings into the Sumas Energy's application to hook up its proposed power plant to the North American power grid in my riding. While any delay in this project is welcome, it also typifies the chaotic process that has haunted this project from the beginning.

The people of B.C. are united in their opposition to this project because of concerns for the sensitive Fraser Valley airshed. We also share a disappointment that our federal Minister of the Environment has failed to take the leadership role expected of him, and so the project continues its slow but inexorable march toward completion. Where is the minister when we need him?

Recently I met with our ambassador to the United States to once again encourage the development of a process so that projects like SE2 are not handled in such a haphazard manner.

With dozens more of these co-generation facilities planned along our border, a workable bilateral agreement with our American neighbours is in the best interest of both nations. More important, it is in the best interest of the environment that we both share and that recognizes no borders at all.

Biathlon Competition

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Coach Barrie Ward and his team of seven cadets who turned in top performances at the recent Regional Biathlon Competition: Cory Gorrill, gold junior male, silver team relay; Katelyn Jones, silver junior female, silver relay; Beth Ward, bronze junior female; Riley Ward, bronze senior male, silver relay; Nicole Ward, silver senior female; Jessica Frankland, silver relay; and Tyler Sage, silver relay.

Good luck in the upcoming provincial championships and I hope to see them in March as they compete at the Nationals in New Brunswick.

Dairy Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, on February 14 in Val-d'Or, I met with a number of farmers from the Syndicat des producteurs de lait de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, including president Gabriel Rancourt and vice-president Édith Lafond, about their concerns over the federal government's delay in recognizing their right to recover their production costs as well as ensuring greater protection against imported dairy products.

Foreign countries such as the United States and others have created substitutes to get around tariff quotas. These substitutes are used increasingly in food production but, because of current labelling rules in Canada, consumers are unaware of the composition or origins of such foods.

After softwood lumber, Bush is now imposing illegal butter oil on us. The Canadian government must close the U.S.-Canada border to such products and put the truth back into food labelling for the health of Canadians.

Juno Awards

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to congratulate the many exceptionally talented Manitobans who have been nominated to receive this year's Juno Awards.

The 2003 Juno nominations reflect the diversity of Manitoba's talent. The nominees include: Doc Walker, nominated for Country Recording of the Year; Remy Shand, who has received four nominations, including Artist of the Year and Songwriter of the Year; Fred Penner for Children's Album of the Year; James Ehnes, with two nominations including Classical Album of the Year; the Duhks, nominated for Best Roots and Traditional Album of the Year; and Holly McNarland for Best Album Design.

Last week's announcement of the Juno Award nominations solidifies Manitoba's reputation for being a dynamic and outstanding force in both the national and international music communities.

Congratulations to these remarkably talented Canadians.

Ethics

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and the former finance minister who wishes to be Prime Minister have brought discussions on ethics and accountability to a new low. They have redefined the term blind trust so that it is neither blind nor trustworthy.

Canadians want to have a government that they can trust. When ministers say that they have temporarily divested themselves of personal interests so that they can function in cabinet without personal bias and without potential for personal gain, then what they say is what they should mean.

It is unconscionable that the former finance minister was giving briefings about his holdings and business deals while he was in office. It shatters what little trust Canadians have left. It is the apex of disappointment and disillusionment.

2010 Winter Olympics

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before the International Olympic Committee evaluation commission visits Vancouver and Whistler in March, the residents of Vancouver will take part in a plebiscite. On February 22 they will express their views on Vancouver's bid to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic games.

My constituents and I encourage all Vancouverites to go out and vote yes on that day. All Canadians can show their strong support for the bid by participating in on-line polling. The Vancouver 2010 website is www.winter2010.com.

Canada is competing against Austria and South Korea to host the world in 2010. We are confident that Canada can bring home the games. Let us make this dream come true for our athletes and our youth. Let us continue to support Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation in its quest for gold.

Let us bring the Olympic and Paralympic winter games home in 2010.

Beauport Bay

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was extremely pleased recently to hear that the Quebec Port Authority had decided to hand over more than 2 million square feet so that Beauport Bay could be developed.

After several years of stalling, Quebec Port Authority management finally understood that it had to consider local needs and priorities and hand this site over to the community so that it could be developed and permanent facilities put in place. This is an excellent decision and I would like to congratulate the Quebec Port Authority for recognizing the tourism and recreational potential of this site.

I would also like to thank the citizens that have supported my many initiatives since 1995, among other things by signing a petition calling on the federal government to return the Beauport Bay site to the people of the greater Quebec City area.

This victory is the result of a concerted effort by elected representatives at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, from all party lines, and by representatives of the Association nautique de la baie de Beauport.

East Coast Music Awards

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honour all the east coast musicians who won East Coast Music Awards this past Sunday, in particular the four Islanders who won five awards.

Lennie Gallant received two major awards: the male artist of the year and the best francophone recording.

Nathan Wiley of Summerside, who burst onto the entertainment scene a year ago with an album he recorded himself in his basement, won the alternative artist of the year award.

Scott Parsons, another veteran musician from Charlottetown and also a veteran of The Landing: Oyster House & Pub in Tyne Valley, won the best African-Canadian recording award.

Finally, the francophone group Barachois won the roots/traditional group of the year award.

I would also like to mention that the parents and uncle of the Arsenault performers in Barachois also won the Queen's Jubilee medal this past summer for their work in Acadian culture.

Hockey

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's decision to tax amateur junior hockey is killing the hockey dreams of thousands upon thousands of young Canadians.

Canadian junior “A” hockey teams do not want government welfare, but the Liberal government wants to tax them. Why should amateur junior hockey not be treated the same as other amateur sports in the Olympic program? This injustice must stop. Junior hockey is about making dreams come true. The government's decision to tax junior “A” hockey teams is killing those dreams.

Hockey is Canada's official national sport. Apparently it is not the Liberal game. Why does the Liberal government insist on attempting to bankrupt junior “A” hockey teams?

Scouts and Guides Week

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Scout/Guide week which takes place February 16 to 23 of this year.

This is the time of celebration for Scouts Canada and Girl Guides of Canada. It is a time when both organizations come together in the spirit of friendship to honour their heritage. It is a chance for the public to recognize the limitless potential of Canadian youth and the work that scouting does to help build a better world for our nation's future leaders.

Scouting instills values of leadership, honour and teamwork through the many exciting outdoor programs it provides for over 120,000 boys, girls and youth nationwide. These programs are developed and maintained by 40,000 energetic, dedicated Scouts Canada volunteers who give selflessly of their time and deserve our whole-hearted praise and thanks.

I would like all members to join me in wishing both Scouts Canada and Girl Guides of Canada continued success as they move forward into a new century.

Flooding in Newfoundland and Labrador

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and for that matter all Canadians, the terrible tragedy that is happening in the great community of Badger, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last Saturday when the Badger, Red Indian and Exploits rivers backed up with an ice jam the ice flowed through the town and well over 1,000 people went through an absolute horror. They saw their personal possessions and houses covered with ice.

Although the provincial government is doing all that it can, we are encouraging the federal government, especially the Prime Minister, to make an unequivocal statement that the people of Badger, Newfoundland and Labrador, will not have to face this tragedy alone.

I want to encourage all members of Parliament, and all Canadians, to support the Red Cross in its efforts to support the good people of Badger, Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot let them go through this alone. We need to assist them in any way we can.

Foreign Affairs

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost one year to the day since Ingrid Betancourtwas kidnapped and taken hostage by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

This courageous and determined young woman, a Colombian presidential candidate at the time of her kidnapping, must not be forgotten.

Ingrid's daughter Mélanie has not relented in her efforts to have her mother freed. Tonight, at the University of Montreal, she will meet with many people who are interested in this humanitarian cause, including many people who take part in the marches on the 23rd of each month organized by the Ingrid Betancourt Canadian Support Committee.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to assure Mélanie of its full support and hopes that the Colombian commission responsible for negotiating humanitarian exchanges will obtain the immediate and unconditional release of Ingrid Betancourt.

Republic of Somaliland

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome to Canada a delegation from the Republic of Somaliland led by Mrs. Edna Adan Ismail, the Minister of Family Welfare and Social Development.

Many Canadians are unaware of the existence of Somaliland, which became independent from British rule in 1960. It joined the former Italian Somalia to form the Somali Republic. The union did not last and led to a civil war from the 1980s onwards and eventually to the collapse of the Somali Republic.

After the collapse of the Somali Republic, the people of Somaliland decided to reinstate Somaliland's sovereignty. Somaliland today is a peaceful country that abides by the rules of law, which I had an opportunity to witness first-hand while there last August. It must not be confused with the strife torn violence that is continuing as we speak, in Somalia.

I would like to urge the Government of Canada to offer what assistance it can to support emerging democracies such as Somaliland and help ensure its rightful place among other stable countries of the world.