Debates of Nov. 15th, 2004

An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I find peculiar is that this government sets its priorities for regions and that there is a consensus, but that it cannot adhere to it. A while ago, I was giving the example of the regional investment fund which our region would have needed. Once again the Liberals have missed the opportunity. Now, with BSE for example, they do nothing. The same attitude prevails about employment insurance, which is much needed. We have lost millions of dollars. This is disastrous for our region.

Once again, the government comes up short, in spite of the numerous promises it has made.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Our government has set itself the objective of ensuring the success of Canadians in each and every region of our country. Its intention is to support our fellow citizens, as far as is possible, in the realization of their aspirations for prosperity and an enhanced quality of life. This is the context within which the Economic Development Agency of Canada fulfills its mandate to promote the economic development of the regions of Quebec. To that end, it pays particular attention to all the regions of Quebec, especially those with a slower growth rate and insufficient jobs for the size of their population.

In my capacity as a member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to see for myself the work done by the agency to ensure the regional economic development of Quebec and improve its residents' quality of life. The agency has, for instance, made the financial commitment to provide over $1.02 billion for 2,116 projects during 2003-04. When investments from other funding bodies are factored in, the total value of these projects represents an injection of over $3.9 billion into the economy of the various regions of Quebec.

What is more, these projects have contributed to the creation, conversion or maintenance of close to 13,700 jobs in all of the regions of Quebec, regions such as Chaudière-Appalaches, where $60,000 from Canada Economic Development has enabled Soliroc Metal to enhance its productivity. With this financial assistance, the company was able to acquire more efficient equipment, and as a result to raise its productivity by 60%. This is one example of the kind of projects Canada Economic Development has supported, which have highly positive economic spinoffs for the competitive position of a company, thereby enabling it not only to continue to grow, but also to play a vital role within its community.

In the Quebec City area, the National Optics Institute received a $3.6 million contribution from Canada Economic Development to implement a research program in agrophotonics. The purpose of this research campaign is to bring together two major areas of activity in the region, namely agro-processing and optics-photonics technologies.Canada Economic Development wanted to support this regional initiative because it consolidates the institute's leading position in the industry and paves the way for various economic development projects in many regions of Quebec.

In the Lower St. Lawrence region, a marine biotechnology research centre was set up with a contribution of $7.6 million from Canada Economic Development. To carry out its work, the centre plans to create 24 direct jobs and 75 spin-off jobs. In addition, the centre's activities will bring top researchers to the region as well as new companies. I should add that these research facilities are a priority for the people of the Lower St. Lawrence region.

That is why Canada Economic Development wanted to be involved in carrying out this project as part of its commitment to support initiatives that best respond to the needs of the public and that build on a region's strengths. In turn, such projects help fulfil economic development opportunities in the regions that welcome them and elsewhere in Quebec.

These examples are representative of what Canada Economic Development does. They also show how important promotion and innovation throughout Quebec is to the agency. This priority stems from our government's commitment to building the robust and innovative economy that we all want for our country in the 21st century. In addition, the projects I mentioned illustrate Canada Economic Development's goal, which is to strengthen the niches of excellence specific to each region of Quebec. In all, in 2003-04, the agency invested $54.6 million in 739 innovative projects in Quebec. These investments have led to the creation, transformation or maintenance of 4,796 jobs. Furthermore, even the promoters have said that, without the financial support of Canada Economic Development, 55% of the projects would never have materialized.

In an effort to facilitate a culture of innovation in Quebec regions, Economic Development Canada and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada granted $3.6 million to the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue for its participation in an important research project on the development of a new kind of beef that could meet increased consumer demands.

Again, I would like to specify that the achievement of this project is the product of the desire of the region's researchers and cattle producers. This initiative should not only consolidate 34 jobs but also increase the earnings of companies in this area by 15% to 20%.

As I said earlier, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec also helps communities to take control of their own development by focusing on their assets. The agency tries to facilitate public interest initiatives that could have major regional impacts and create significant snowball effects on regional economic activities. The agency works with a network of collaborators comprised of the 57 Community Futures Development Corporations, the 15 Community Economic Development Corporations and the 9 Business Development Centres.

During budget year 2002-2003, projects that were granted loans by CFDCs generated investments of $135 million in the regions. The loans amounted to $45 millions. The nine BDCs participated in 222 investment projects and 570 technical assistance projects.

It is in the context of the partnership between Economic Development Canada and the CFDC network in Quebec that AFER, Aide aux femmes entrepreneures en milieu rural, was implemented. This pilot project involved establishing a fund to promote women entrepreneurship in rural areas. The 12 CFDCs participating in the initiative represent the following regions: Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Côte-Nord, Saguenay, Mauricie, Chaudière-Appalaches and Montérégie. To date, the AFER program has made it possible to help 93 businesswomen; 31 businesses were started; and 60 jobs were created in various regions of Quebec.

The AFER Canada fund is consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to promote greater involvement of women in the economy of all Quebec regions and initiatives to diversify development opportunities in various Quebec communities.

As I said a moment ago, Economic Development Canada is involved in all Quebec regions.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who also is a Montrealer, who is from this beautiful great region of Montreal, which is home to half the population of Québec.

There is a formula and an originality in Montreal in the area of regional development, which is related to the corporations for economic and community development. I think he has one in his riding. My riding includes the CDEST, the Corporation de développement de l'Est, with Thérèse Sainte-Marie, to whom I want to pay tribute. She is very involved in our community.

We know that corporations for economic and community development were created in the late 1980s, when extremely significant industrial changes were taking place. In the east, for example, Vickers, which was a shipyard, had shut its doors, like a number of labour-intensive industries.

It so happens that the federal government, over the past few months, has been somewhat reluctant with respect to permanent funding for the corporation for economic and community development. Development corporations receive more funding than do the corporations. Good for them. I know the good they do in the regions.

Nonetheless, I was wondering if we could count on our colleague to intercede with the minister in charge in order for the operating budgets of the corporations for economic and community development to be increased.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Hochelaga for his question. I too think it is clear that the development corporations have a very important role. That is what I said to my colleagues of the Quebec caucus and to my colleague the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada. It is also clear that I will continue to support the development corporations' work and funding.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really do not understand. The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier mentioned a few projects, I emphasize the words “few projects”, that received assistance in our regions.

However, I want to give him a very specific example. In recent years, in my region, the right hand of the federal government has been unaware what the left hand was doing. While we were trying to promote employment in our regions, and we succeeded in the Gaspé, thanks to our will and to the help of governments, the federal government was eliminating jobs. It eliminated important and well-paying jobs in the public service. It also eliminated jobs in other areas, including in the transport sector.

Today, when we talk about the help provided by Economic Development Canada, we are not talking about subsidies; these are not donations. More often than not, they are loans. Earlier, we talked about the assistance provided to the Gaspé. It is a loan, not a subsidy, that was granted. Moreover, contrary to what was said earlier, including by some Conservative members, the issue is still not completely settled.

I will give a very concrete example to the hon. member. In fact, his colleague sitting next to him will know exactly what I am talking about. The federal government is about to shut down the Cap-Chat camp for cadets, which creates 70 jobs. Yet, this is in an area where the unemployment rate is extremely high. Regional development should be based on structural projects, and this is such a project.

I could mention transport infrastructures. These are structural projects. Our roads should become highways, so that we can trade appropriately and be competitive. The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is experiencing the same situation. Whether it is highway 195 or highway 132, there should be appropriate transport infrastructures, and the federal government should be present.

Today, and I will conclude on this note, the majority of Canada Post offices are located in convenience stores. If this is what the government calls regional development and structural projects, then I have a problem understanding it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague was saying that the federal government was unaware of what the right hand was doing while the left hand was doing something else. I disagree with that.

The reality is that the hon. member would like to cut off both of our hands, in other words, to prevent the Canadian government from intervening in the regions. The fact that Economic Development Canada works so efficiently and that it helps the regions where needed may be a problem for our friends and colleagues of the Bloc Québécois, who want Quebec to withdraw from Canada.

Therefore, if we are successful in the regions, if we are contributing to the creation of jobs and if a presence of the federal government is relevant and deserving to be highlighted, this obviously goes against the ultimate objective of the Bloc, which is to separate Quebec from Canada.

With respect to the cadet camp, I have to say that no decision has been made so far. For the time being, the hon. member is crying wolf and is being an alarmist, but no decision has been made yet in this respect.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question will be brief and straightforward. I will ask the member for Honoré-Mercier to append this $1.5 million grant to the Université du Québec en Abitibi—Témiscamingue over the next three years to the long list that the minister responsible came to announce.

My question is very specific. Does he not believe that it may be relevant to invest in the regions, but only following a regional consensus? It is all very fine and well to have CFDCs, but when they will not even communicate with local development centres, there is a problem. That is what is happening in all regions of the province of Quebec, specially in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I would ask the member for Honoré-Mercier to ask his neighbour if it would not be appropriate to work towards consensus on a regular basis, and, if need be, to organize working conferences to get the two bodies talking. That is the only way to achieve regional development, but this is not something the federal government acknowledges.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I want to reassure him; I speak regularly with my neighbour. He is a very good friend.

I would like to say that the development strategies of Canada Economic Development are implemented in cooperation with the community and are in fact established with the community. I myself have had the opportunity to see this regularly when I met with community stakeholders, like mayors or project developers, or even when I went to make announcements just recently. People from the community were there and applauded the effort of Canada Economic Development because it was relevant, necessary and based on a consensus within the community.

I would say that there is another clear consensus in Quebec. Perhaps the Bloc is the only one not to agree with this. However, the consensus is that this bill must be approved.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind something to our colleague from the other side, the member for Honoré-Mercier. He mentioned earlier that BDCs had invested money in 2002-03. As far as I know, BDCs were merged with CFCs in 1995 to create CFDCs.

In that sense, CFDCs, as well as CFCs at the time, are comprised of people from the community who make decisions about development in the community. Today, the Economic Development Agency that is proposed to us would eliminate all these types of intervention from people in the community. It would be the nanny state, the federal government, that would make decisions about regional development, as it would see fit.

Consequently, I ask the member for Honoré-Mercier what purpose would an economic agency serve for Quebec. There already is the Canada Economic Development which simply needs openness in its programs to help regions develop, without having to encroach upon provincial jurisdictions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the involvement of Canada Economic Development at the regional level is highly relevant.

I myself had the opportunity of seeing this last week. To answer the member's question, I could enumerate numerous initiatives where Canada Economic Development plays an important role in the various regions of Quebec. It responds to community needs and consultations. We have the support of mayors, stakeholders and developers.

Last week, for example, I went to La Macaza to make an announcement in support of the report project at that level. All the local stakeholders attended and clearly said that this bill was long overdue and that they are pleased with the involvement of Canada Economic Development.

This is one initiative, but there are many others. What is clear is that there is a consensus in Quebec for the agency to continue to play its role. I would appreciate it if the member would recognize that also.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this is my maiden speech, you will certainly bear with me if I thank the electors in my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the trust they put in me. This is a riding that adopted me in 1954, perhaps unknowingly, but I have to say I have always been welcome and well considered.

These people are hard-working, dynamic, and resourceful. Their only handicap is the lack of vision of the various levels of government, since Quebec does not have enough money and wants to concentrate its assets in bigger cities to compete with federal investments in English-speaking Canadian provinces. For example, in 2002-2003, the western Canada economy, which represents 16.8% of the Canadian population, received $267 million, and the Atlantic provinces, with 7,3% of the population received $361 million, but Quebec, with 24%, received only $327 million, even if the squandered funds of the sponsorship program are taken into account.

Again, these figures do not give an appropriate picture of the redistribution of Canadian wealth. Let us remember the auto pact, implemented with an exaggerated fervour, which made Ontario the wealthiest and most privileged province in the Confederation. By the way, that was what prompted Pierre Elliott Trudeau to declare, in the case of Volkswagen, a car maker which Quebec was trying to woo, that the auto industry was Ontario's prize and that Quebec's was aeronautics. It should be recalled that Quebec offered Volkswagen substantial assistance for it to set up shop there and that PET, on behalf of the federal government, had more than doubled that offer, on the condition that Volkswagen set up shop in Ontario.

We should also point out that 25% of that amount came from the wallets of the people of Quebec. That was structuring aid which probably has not been included in the expenditures of Canada Economic Development.

When this government subsidizes nuclear and thermal energy in Ontario, it is structuring and polluting. When the government subsidizes GM for it to shut down its only plant in Quebec and open it in Ontario, a plant which, by the way, was preparing to make auto parts with raw materials from Quebec, this is structuring for Ontario--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but he will have 17 minutes left to finish his speech next time.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, Bishop Henry, in a pastoral letter, stated:

In much of the secular media [the] Prime Minister... is frequently described as a 'devout Catholic'. However, his recently clarified position regarding... same sex [marriage] is a source of scandal in the Catholic community and reflects a fundamental moral incoherence.

Bishop Henry states that in response to that letter he received a call from a federal tax collector in Ottawa and was advised that the Catholic church could lose its charitable status if he continued to challenge the Prime Minister on such issues.

In August, representatives of the Catholic church and the evangelical movement met with officials of the Canadian Revenue Agency to discuss their charitable status. To some representatives the message was very clear: shut up during elections or lose their charitable status. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press are the most essential elements of a free and democratic society. These are freedoms that are so important that the designers of the charter itself, Pierre Trudeau and 10 premiers, called them fundamental freedoms. Those are the most important points of the charter.

There will always be individuals who disagree with other people's points of view. Unless these people are advocating criminal actions by somebody else or encouraging people to commit criminal actions, my view is that they have a perfect right to express their views in a free and democratic society.

It is however very disturbing when government uses the machinery of government, the powers of the state, to muzzle and shut down our most fundamental freedoms.

In recent times the Liberals shut down a radio station in Quebec because I think they thought it was too right of centre. The Liberal government has decided in its wisdom that the Fox news network cannot be in Canada because it is too conservative. We have even heard members on the opposite side say that Don Cherry should be fired from CBC, or at least censored, because they do not like his points of view. If freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean anything we have to accept other points of view even if we disagree with them.

We will be talking a lot about this on privilege. As members of Parliament, we like to say that we have the widest latitude of freedom of speech that anyone can have. When the issue comes up with Mr. Guité and other people, we will all slap ourselves on the back and say that freedom of speech is really an important issue and something we all have to stand in the House and defend. However the Liberal government, through its agencies, goes around intimidating and harassing Canadian citizens for doing something that they have a right to do, which is to express their religious beliefs and their beliefs on issues of the day.

I take this issue very seriously. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are very fragile concepts. If members do not believe me they should start reading some history books or start looking around at some of the other countries in the world. When the state gets directly involved in intimidating, threatening and challenging people's right to express their points of view, that is dangerous.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member regarding the importance of freedom of speech, but my contention is that is not at issue in this matter.

The hon. member has requested a more detailed answer to his question about partisan political activity by registered charities. As the hon. member knows, the Income Tax Act prohibits me from breaching the confidentiality of any taxpayer, but I would like to address the role of the Canada Revenue Agency in regulating charities.

I would like to remind the House that this is not about religious charities, but about all charities. The Canada Revenue Agency is mandated to regulate certain aspects of charities and does so using rules based in law that are applied consistently and fairly to all charities across this country.

We know that the great majority of charities will conduct their activities within the law when they fully understand it. It is the job of the officials of the Canada Revenue Agency to help charities understand the rules so that they can easily comply. It is common practice for our officials to be proactive in dealing with registered charities and to provide guidance and assistance in helping them comply with the law.

Outreach and education are important and our guidance on the rules about political activities is particularly helpful at election time. In our experience this assistance, which has been extended to organizations on all aspects of various issues, has been welcome.

We are sometimes called upon to discuss the issue of partisan political activities with charities. This can happen after receipt of a complaint or when an official notices that the rules are being pushed. In these cases, we always try to understand what the charity is trying to achieve and what it is planning on doing in the near future. We then ensure the charity understands the rules and its obligations under the act with respect to partisan political activities.

The CRA regulates 80,000 registered charities. Some five and a half million Canadians directly support the work of charities by donating over $5.8 billion to them each year, contributing to the social fabric of our nation. We encourage Canadians to take advantage of the information available to the public on the CRA charities website in order to help them understand the rules that regulate all Canadian charities.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the state is re-educating our citizens and what their limits are on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and religion mean nothing if the state is going to actively decide what is acceptable and what is not.

The strength of this nation is not the member across the way. It is not this institution. It is not the Liberal Party of Canada or its so-called monopoly on values. The backbone of this country is the high level of personal freedom and liberty we have. That is the backbone of Canada as a nation. That is what our veterans put their lives on the line for in two world wars. It is very dangerous for the state to be telling people what they can say and what they cannot say.

Men and ladies of the cloth deal with moral issues on a day to day basis, whether one is talking about war, family, marriage, just name it. They speak to these issues all the time because that is the nature of their occupation. It is really wrong that the state during an election campaign could tell people of the cloth to shut up, that they cannot speak on these issues during an election and to close down their churches or religion during the election period because the state does not like what they have to say on moral issues during an election campaign. That is wrong.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, that would be wrong, but that is not what happens. Indeed, the hon. member may have trouble understanding these rules, but the churches understand them.

In particular, I am referring to the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which has a document on its website entitled “Federal Election: Do's and Don't's for Churches”. Among other things, this document states. “A church may not endorse a particular candidate or political party, or use its resources to support a candidate or party”. The document from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada goes on to list the things that a church may do and the things that a church may not do if it wishes to retain its charitable status.

I would commend this document to the hon. member. It is a good example of the regulation of charities in a consistent and fair way across the country, a fact that has been recognized by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in issuing this document on its website.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, recently I rose in this chamber to ask why the Canada Revenue Agency was being allowed to threaten religious freedom in Canada.

There is a pattern emerging from the Liberal government. A religious organization, such as the United Church of Canada or the Metropolitan Community Church, that agrees with the government on a moral issue, for example, same sex marriage, is free to publicly support the government.

CRA guidelines for charitable activities, which I happen to have read and know because I have had some experience in this area, state:

A charity cannot be established with the aim of furthering or opposing the interests of a political party, elected representative, or candidate for public office

Not opposing, but furthering them, supporting them.

I do not want either the United Church of Canada or the Metropolitan Community Church to be called before the CRA and threatened for their charitable status. Their free speech should be preserved.

The pattern continues like this: A religious organization that disagrees with the Liberal government on a moral issue, same sex marriage, for example, is threatened by Canada Revenue Agency officials. Focus on the Family was threatened with an audit for criticizing this government.

The CCCB and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada were suspiciously called into CRA offices just before the recent federal election and were warned not to oppose the Liberal position on same sex marriage. This was reaffirmed by the national revenue minister's own media relations officer. Recently, during the federal election, Catholic Bishop Frederick Henry was threatened to remove a teaching letter from his diocese's website or risk losing charitable status.

In response to my previous question, the hon. Minister for National Revenue stated in the chamber:

The only thing they cannot do as a registered charity is advocate for a political party or a political candidate in an election

I have the letter that was on Bishop Henry's website. I do not see anything here that advocates a cause for voting or not voting for a particular candidate or political party and yet he was threatened anyway. The minister owes us a much better answer than the first time around.

I will ask the minister again the same question. Why is the Prime Minister and the Minister for National Revenue permitting government agencies to attack and threaten religious freedom in Canada? Did this government direct the Canada Revenue Agency to threaten church groups?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, in general terms I reject the charge, but the law, as I have said before, does not permit me to refer to any conversation or even to acknowledge that such a conversation did or did not take place.

The question posed is very similar to the previous one, so perhaps it would be useful if I provided my second answer in French.

Consequently, there have been concerns about the capacity of charitable organizations to register to engage in public debate.

As the honourable members know, the Income Tax Act prohibits me from breaching the confidentiality of any taxpayer, so I am unable to address any concerns they may have with regards to specific organizations. I can, however, address the role of the Canada Revenue Agency in regulating charities.

I would like to remind the House that if the CRA is mandated to regulate certain aspects of charities, it does so using rules based in law that are applied consistently and fairly to all charities across this country. If the CRA is compelled to take action against a registered charity, it does so based on the actions of that charity, not on who that charity is or who it represents.

We have to be quite clear on this point. Neither the CRA nor the Government of Canada has the faintest intention of suppressing freedom of expression or freedom of speech. It is important for the honourable members to remember that registered charities enjoy significant benefits under the Income Tax Act. They are tax-exempt and able to issue official donation receipts to allow donors to claim tax relief for their donations.

In seeking and attaining registered charity status, these organizations have made a commitment and have an obligation to comply with the rules. In seeking to obtain the benefits of a charitable organization, tax exemption, the right to issue tax receipts to donors, allowing them to deduct the amount of their donations from their taxable income, churches and religious groups, which are in fact all organizations having obtained the status of registered charitable organizations, make certain commitments to Canadians.

That commitment in no way infringes on their freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The commitment is that the bulk of the funds that those organizations raise must be used for charitable purposes as defined by the law. I emphasize the word “law” because it is not up to the CRA or the Government of Canada to decide what is a charitable activity. The courts have been very clear on this. Political or religious activity is not considered by them to be a charitable activity.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it does not matter whether it is in French or English, it is still the same bad response, one that is sorely lacking. I know the guidelines quite well. I have been over them with churches before.

I will ask another question of the hon. minister. I hope that this time we will get a real answer, although I do not imagine we will. The same government that likes to talk about defending the rule of law likes as well to hide behind the law instead of giving a truthful answer.

Did Canada Revenue Agency officials, either before, during or after the recent federal election, call in and threaten the United Church of Canada or the Metropolitan Community Church for their support of the Liberal government position on same sex marriage or are there two sets of applying the law in Canada?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, either the hon. member chooses not to listen or he really misses the point entirely. I have said several times that the law does not permit me to state whether even a conversation took place between the Canada Revenue Agency and any church, whether it is the United Church or any other church. It would be a logical fallacy to assume that simply because one church states that a conversation occurred that no conversation occurred with other churches, because those other churches may have decided not to report such conversations.

In all such hypothetical conversations my lips are sealed, because I must obey the law. The law prohibits me not only from describing any such conversation but even from saying whether any conversation with any church ever took place.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, on October 8 I raised a question about oxygen generators aboard our Victoria class submarines, but that was not the first time I have raised it. I raised it in March in the House of Commons in regard to a dangerous situation with the submarines. Then I met with the previous minister of defence in his office at DND for a couple of hours to talk about the possibility of a dangerous situation in existence on our submarines. We went through an unsatisfactory condition report that was dated October 16, 2003, which was written by the captain of one of our submarines and stated that there was a dangerous situation on the subs with respect to these oxygen generators.

We did everything responsibly to try to bring to the minister's attention that there was a dangerous situation on the subs. I think we did it in the right way. I took the minister up on his invitation to come to his office at DND and we went through each sub, actually, and the condition and status of each sub.

We asked the minister directly about the oxygen generators. At the time we did not get an answer. What I wanted to know was whether the unsatisfactory condition report was followed up and whether the changes were made as was recommended in that unsatisfactory condition report. I did not get an answer. That was in April.

Now we are in October. On October 8, I asked again about it and in fact previous to October 8 I asked about this situation. Was the safety report followed? Did the government pay any attention at all to it? Of course I did not get an answer at the time, either in the House or anywhere else.

But then, after I asked the question many times, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald reporter dug around and did get an answer on whether the report was heeded or not. The headline in the Herald on October 14 says it all: “Sub safety order was ignored; Navy denies ammunition lockers played role in Chicoutimi fire”. Obviously this was after the Chicoutimi fire, so that was the answer to my question. The safety orders were not complied with. The recommendation of the captain of a sub who said he had a dangerous situation in his boat was ignored. Then, of course, the navy denied that the ammunition lockers played a role in the Chicoutimi fire, but we found out a little later that in fact the oxygen generators did play a role in the fire.

Going back to the Halifax Herald article of October 14, I would like the minister or the parliamentary secretary to answer this question. Why was the safety order ignored with respect to these oxygen generators?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, let me make something very clear. I know the hon. member knows this very well. By his own admission, he has spent quite a considerable amount of time at Department of National Defence headquarters, meeting not only with the minister but with other officials.

The government and, more important, the members of our defence forces would never put the lives our sailor in danger. They would not send a sub out to sea if it were deemed in any way that it would pose harm or risk to lives of those sailors. That would never happen.

The member brought up the issue of the ammunition that was stored. What was very clear in the allegation was that the ammunition on board the Victoria class submarines was somehow not stored properly and that it was stored in a manner that could potentially ignite oxygen canisters and cause damage. It is a very good question, but the reality is the allegation proved to be absolutely false.

The department's design authority, in conjunction with the navy's technical authority on both coasts, investigated the issue of the location and storage of ammunition onboard our submarines. The storage of munitions was deemed to be within specifications. Most important, the location of the ammunition was deemed to be in a location that was safe.

I think that is the basis of the legitimate question the member asked. Are the munitions stored in a safe fashion and is there any relationship between the munitions and the oxygen canisters? Our military and navy, which do a superb job, have looked at this thoroughly and ascertained that this simply is not the case and that they are stored very safely.

It is also worthwhile noting that submarines are extremely complicated machines. Accidents do happen. However, when accidents happen, it is our responsibility and duty to get to the bottom of it very quickly. Indeed our defence forces do that right off the bat. That has happened in the tragic case of the Chicoutimi , notwithstanding the tragic death of Lieutenant Saunders. It is very clear that our navy acted in a responsible manner by immediately enacting the board of inquiry to look through all the issues surrounding the fire, identify causes, provide solutions and we will implement those solutions right away. The testimony to that is, as a precautionary measure, we put our navy subs at dock right away. That is a responsible thing to do.

Members of our navy and armed forces as well as the Minister of National Defence have acted responsibly from the beginning. I have been there from the beginning and I can tell members that all the information that we have received has been sent out immediately to the public and to members of the House. People were informed as closely and responsibly as we could. Members of the Department of National Defence have done exactly the same thing. They have acted in a responsible and forthright fashion and that is a testament to the honour with which they carry out their duties.