Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Supply

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, when someone comes to write an exam they obviously should study before they come in. Otherwise it is easier to mark, and it is a lot easier to mark because there is nothing on the paper if someone has not studied.

This member talks about the need to regulate. The NDP's solution to a lot of things is regulate and regulate. What the government and I are suggesting is that we are in negotiations. We are in negotiations and I cannot at this point say what the conclusions will be. Perhaps the hon. member already knows.

The reality is that we are in negotiations. Obviously we would like to have a voluntary agreement, but one in which we are able to assess that agreement. Somehow the member thinks that we have a voluntary agreement and then the government says to come back in five or six years. The reality is that we measure the trajectory. If it goes up we are in fact then able to assess it. I would suggest that we assess it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have no agreement on a fuel efficiency standard with Canadian industry yet. Canadian industry of course only accounts for 20% of the vehicles that are purchased here in Canada. Would the hon. parliamentary secretary answer with regard to the other 80% purchased here in Canada but produced in the United States and in Mexico?

Why has the government not brought the U.S. and Mexico to the table in negotiating a continental standard for fuel efficiency, one that would allow the entire industry to abate its costs across the industry over a defined period of time and share that? Is it because this government does not have the credibility with the United States to bring the Americans to the table and bring them into a common continental agreement?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not use the word “credibility” coming from a party that in fact until very recently denied the issue of climate change, a party which seemed to suggest that Kyoto would not in fact be ratified and that in fact Russia would not ratify. The fact is that in the United States about 42 states are working on Kyoto standards, to meet them.

On an international agreement, the member used the word “continental”, but I will avoid the word “continental”. I would suggest a collaborative approach. The fact is the industry itself has talked about this. There is harmonization that has gone on in terms of certain safety standards in certain areas of the industry. The fact is that may be an option, but at the moment the issue before the House is whether or not it is voluntary.

If in fact this was really being pushed and was really needed I am sure the United States would have put it on the table, but the reality is that the Americans are doing their part. We are doing our part and at the moment we are going to have a clearly made in Canada solution, dealing with an industry which we have been able to work with very well.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North and I will be sharing this time slot.

When I was getting ready to speak today I was going to start this somewhat differently but, having listened to some of the comments from the member for Oshawa, I decided I should talk a bit about our responsibility, both as a party and as a government, in terms of dealing with this issue.

We have to do that in the context of the history of the auto industry, and I am intimately involved in that history. My father worked on both the U.S. side and the Canadian side of the border before he passed away. I have extended family members who currently work in the auto industry. For the last 15 years before I was elected, I was directly responsible in my legal work and the legal plan that I administered in Windsor was directly connected to the auto industry.

The comments I heard from the member for Oshawa, that we do not care about jobs,that we do not care about the industry and that we do not understand the industry, are accusations that I totally refute. The reality is that if we do not get serious about dealing with the environmental consequences that flow from the use of motor vehicles in North America, if we do not play a significant role in cleaning up the use of the vehicles, we will get left way behind. We will continue to see Toyota, the Chinese industry that is coming very rapidly, taking more and more of our market share. Those imports will continue to swamp this market in both Canada and the United States.

We are at the cusp of one of those times historically when we have to act and we do not have a lot of time. Our concern is all about maintaining the industry, but even more important, about growing the industry, making the Canadian part of that industry stronger, not weaker. The do nothing attitude that I am hearing from both the Liberals and the Conservatives is not acceptable. It will not get us there.

Canadian workers, as we heard from my colleague from Windsor West, are among the best in the world if not the best. They have no superiors, although they may have some peers. When we look at the history of what has happened with the auto industry in North America, particularly in the last 50 years, there has been a significant advancement, especially in protecting workers' rights and their right to organize. My father was probably part of the Ford strike that finally forced Ford, by way of that strike, to have compulsory recognition of the union. It is the basis in many respects for our collective bargaining arrangements in this country, not just in the auto sector but right across the board.

There have been advancements on health and safety issues. I think of the strikes that my family went through during the sixties to get parity with workers in the United States. I think of what went on in the sixties and the seventies to get the auto industry to address the issues of auto safety. I think of the fight to get smaller vehicles built in North America after the oil crises of the early seventies. In every case, if one studies that history and understands it or lives it as I have, we cannot talk voluntary. We do not tie our hands behind our back. As the government, as the representative of the people of this country, it is often necessary for us to say that we will mandate these standards.

The Liberals have repeatedly told us today about the 14 MOUs and how great it has been that the auto industry has met the requirements under those MOUs. What the Liberals have not told us is that not one of those MOUs was signed before the industry was compelled to meet those standards in the United States under a different administration than is in that country now. In every single case those standards were met and agreed upon in Canada only after they were made compulsory in the United States. We all know how integrated the industry is.

Nothing new was going on there. Nothing voluntary was being achieved in the way of advanced standards. They were already compulsory. However, because we form such a small part of that market, roughly 10%, what was going on in the U.S. mandated that those standards had to be implemented and met. No pluses for that.

The reality is that right now the U.S. administration is not pushing either fuel efficiency or emission standards. It has abandoned the field. As a consequence of that, the field has now been taken over by individual states in the United States, led by California but followed closely by Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, New Jersey and, just last week, Washington.

As of the first of this year, California made certain standards compulsory. We will probably hear more today about the 25% solution, which is to increase fuel efficiency by 25% and reduce noxious emissions by roughly the same amount. Illinois has signalled that it too will sign on to the plan. When we add up the population of those states, it adds up to more than half the population of the United States.

If we sit on the sidelines, which could be the consequence of the negotiations that are going on now, and if they turn out to be voluntary, all of those states will be ahead of us. This begs the question: Will the Chrysler minivan, which we build better than anyone in the world and which is assembled in Windsor, have access to those markets as a result of our dithering here in Canada?

When we talk about job security, we should be thinking about what in fact is happening and not some fearmongering coming from the opposition, the government and, to some degree, from the auto industry.

What is very interesting is that California has shown us technology that will let us meet those standards. We are not talking about future patents or future inventions. The technology exists right now. California has shown us that we not only have that technology but that it is affordable and can be installed in the average vehicle.

I have a list outlining some of the material from California, but depending on which one we use and how many we use, we can get that 25% solution by spending roughly $1,100 to $1,200 Canadian per vehicle. That money would be recouped by the savings on fuel of about $1,000 a year. The initial capital expenditure on the purchase price could be paid off in a year or a year and half and additional dollars would be saved after that. If that technology were put on the minivan that is assembled in Windsor, it would open up markets in both Canada and the United States.

I am quite confident in Canadian workers, whether they be engineers, plant managers, supervisors, skilled tradespeople or the man or woman working on the line. They have the ability to do this. What we are saying is that we must make sure that the auto industry performs and that the people who make the decisions allow this to happen.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

He is talking about voluntary and mandatory, but obviously what we all want is meaningful change to better our environment.

The department's memos indicate that Kyoto has serious problems and design weaknesses, namely, that it would not stop or even slow down global warming and fails to provide proper incentives for technologies that may transform the energy sector over the long term. We are not just talking about our environment in Canada. We understand that the auto industry is an international industry and marketplace, et cetera, but our air, water and environment also cross borders.

I would like to know what the motion being proposed would do to deal with the fact that there is nothing in the Kyoto accord that obligates developing countries to improve their environments. Only 32% of the global emissions are currently covered under Kyoto. What does this motion do to address the other 68%?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would point out is that the motion is about the auto industry. The question has more to do with the Kyoto standards for all sectors of the economy and the whole of the environment.

In answer to the member's basic question, I think she has missed the point regarding the motion. The motion is about whether we are going to approach the problem that 25% of all of the carbon dioxide being released in this country is coming out of the tailpipes of our vehicles. Are we going to require that issue to be dealt with in a quick, efficient fashion and thereby mandate the regulations or are we going to allow the industry to continue on as it has for the better part of this last decade by not seriously addressing this issue? That is what it is about.

Coming out of this, if we do the job right we will begin to address emissions right across the globe because we will be developing and deploying the technology that will deal with those emissions in the undeveloped world.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I was astonished to hear the member from the loyal opposition say that we did not provide support for technology when the rest of her party constantly criticizes the technology partnerships program.

We have put funds into technology related to reducing greenhouse gases, such as ethanol, renewable energies like solar and wind, and biological solutions for greenhouse gases. Hopefully the NDP will support the money that we are investing in renewable energies, even if the other opposition members do not.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points that I want to make in response to the hon. member's question.

First, on one hand we hear about the amount of money that is going into research, but what we do not hear, because it is not happening, are the resources being deployed, the tax system being amended and subsidies being deployed. We need to deploy the technologies that we have.

I spent the last four years in the House as the environment and energy critic for my party. Everything I learned in that process tells me that we can deal with our environmental problems with existing technology and know-how. That is not where the problem is. We really do not need more research and development. We need to deploy the resources, the knowledge and the technology that we already have. No one can tell me one problem that we cannot resolve with what we already know.

The second point I want to make quickly is that as long as we continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year, we are not being very serious about dealing with climate change and global warming.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in this debate and to follow the member for Windsor—Tecumseh who gave us a very good perspective on this whole issue. I want to thank our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for their leadership on this very important matter of the future of the planet and for their vision in bringing forward the motion that is before the House today.

I am proud to be associated with the motion which is visionary, very decisive, substantive and I must say very timely. Given the fact that yesterday was the day that the Kyoto protocol came into effect and given the clear revelation that the government to this day has no plan in place to seriously meet our targets under Kyoto, it is critically imperative that we give direction to the government on how to do just that.

It is also important to note that we are debating this matter at the same time that the alternative federal budget was released in Ottawa. The alternative federal budget is sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. For 10 or more years it has been far more accurate in predicting budget forecasts than has been the government itself with all 19 of its so-called big bank economists and forecasters.

If we are going to take advice from anywhere, let us take it from the document “Alternative Federal Budget 2005: It's Time”, because as my colleague has said, the centre knows what it is doing. I cannot think of a more appropriate subject matter for relating part of that title, “It's time”, than the environment and the future of this planet.

These individuals, who are so accurate in their forecast and so visionary in their recommendations, clearly point us in the direction of decisive action on the environment. The document, which is hot off the press, states on page 55:

Canada's emissions of greenhouse gases are among the highest in the world on a per capita basis and are now 20% higher than our Kyoto baseline level in 1990. Serious action--and not just more hot air--is now needed for Canada to meet its Kyoto commitments--

Absolutely this is what is needed: action, timelines, decisive action like that outlined in our motion, not hot air, the hot air that we have seen from the Liberals over the last number of years time and time again. The document also states:

The environment and the economy are inextricably linked. Decisions taken in either realm will inevitably have a lasting impact on both. Unless Canada takes decisive steps to make our economy and industries more environmentally friendly, then both our environment and economy will deteriorate over the longer term.

Those are prophetic words. I do not think anyone could disagree with those words. We are talking not only about the future of the planet; we are talking about our economy and what kind of future we are handing over to future generations.

While we are on the topic of the alternative federal budget and the accuracy in its forecasts, let me point out that this year the alternative federal budget is forecasting a $45 billion surplus over the next three years. Let us remember that the alternative federal budget has been accurate over the last six years, or five budgets.

Let us remember that the government over those five budgets has been out $61 billion. As a result of that lowballing exercise, that is money that has disappeared, gone off as automatic payments against the debt without consideration to the huge deficit we have today in terms of human needs and our environment.

Let us juxtapose the $45 billion projected over the next three years with the $21 billion predicted by the Minister of Finance in his last economic forecast.

Let us remember that the government is pretending to be honest in terms of this year's surplus. It has acknowledged that we are talking about a minimum of a $9 billion surplus this year, which more likely is $11 billion, but then it is prepared to slip back into its old ways of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians and give us false numbers, lowball forecasts, so in fact we end up with the exact same problem we have had for the last number of years.

Canadians want accountability. They want Parliament to ensure that first and foremost we invest in saving this planet, in dealing with building a sustainable economy for now and future generations.

I want to refer to the hard work of the finance committee in the prebudget process. That process was instrumental in building the case for the motion before us today. Some 400 groups and individuals came before us to give us their views about what needs to happen in this country. They were all clear about the importance of ensuring the survival of the planet. These people were from all types of groups, not just environmental organizations. Everyone spoke with one voice. They know that the quality of the air we breathe and the atmosphere in which we live affect us whether we are young or old, in our businesses, our schools and universities, our jobs, our homes. All of it literally impacts on every aspect of our lives and the lives of our families.

I want to focus specifically on some of the environmental groups' presentations to our committee. We heard from so many. The Green Budget Coalition, which represents some 20 national environmental and conservation groups, gave us an excellent report and an excellent plan of action. I want to refer to the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which represents more than 100 of Canada's public transit systems, and other organizations whose roots also extend into small and large communities right across the country. These groups described a neglected environmental situation requiring urgent attention and federal leadership.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ranks Canada's environmental performance 28th out of 29 member industrial countries. Imagine that a country as rich as Canada, with the kind of energy and creativity that is so obvious all around us, is 28th out of 29 industrial countries when it comes to environmental performance.

The real life impact of that record was hammered home last week in eastern Canada by an extensive off-season pollution health warning. One paper described the local scene here as “by far the worst air pollution episode since pollution measurements were first kept”. Goodness gracious, is that not enough for members opposite to act? Is that not a call to arms when it comes to the future of the planet? Air quality was categorized as poor. Asthmatics and those with heart conditions were especially warned to exercise caution. In February, in the heart of this country, in the middle of winter, there was a smog warning of significant and serious proportions.

That Canadians are faced with this situation today with a Liberal government that still claims it has been doing everything it can to improve our air quality is absolutely appalling. It is time for the Liberals to step aside, or to decide finally to do something. We are ready to take over and do what is necessary to ensure that the kind of plan we have produced, the Kyoto plan and a plan to sustain our economy and build on that, is adopted as soon as possible.

The David Suzuki Foundation reminded us that the OECD has found that Canada relies too heavily on voluntary programs and incentives and not enough on regulations and economic instruments. This is from the market friendly OECD. This is not from some left wing think tank. An organization that is concerned about the free market says that we have to do more in terms of regulations and use of economic instruments.

My time is almost up and I have barely touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of this very serious issue. I hope above all that I have left a clear message that today's motion is offered to Canadians as a constructive instrument to help ensure that we sustain our planet, that we stop very serious health problems from arising because of greenhouse gas emissions.

We are ready to take decisive action that calls for mandatory emission standards. We cannot rely on voluntary standards because they have not worked. We cannot wait. The situation is too dire and the needs are too urgent. We have to act now with political courage and great determination.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are a little more than three and a half hours into the debate on today's motion. About 20 minutes ago the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh finally said that the NDP is seeking a 25% improvement in fuel efficiency.

What is the timeline for achieving the 25% increase in fuel efficiency? Would we get existing technologies to new products quickly enough to meet that timeline, or do we need more time to hit a 25% fuel efficiency increase standard?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want the members on the Conservative side to know that if the motion is approved, which we hope it will be, we believe it can be brought into effect almost immediately. We can move expeditiously toward the implementation of mandatory emission standards.

We believe that will achieve the 25% target, if we are committed to doing this and we do it immediately, by the year 2012. We are certainly in a hurry. Time is moving on. We do not have time to lose. We have to do this now in order to achieve those targets in another six or seven years.

We have heard very little from the Conservatives on any specific timelines, goals or targets in terms of dealing with the situation. They have no plan. Like the Liberals, not only do they refuse to accept our motion but they also have no plan, period. They prefer to look to the past instead of to the future. They prefer to leave it to the market to handle our future instead of taking full responsibility and guiding us toward a future of prosperity and tremendous potential.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member mentioned that we managed the finances so well that there was $45 billion to pay off the very large debt so that we could have various programs, such as to reduce greenhouse gases. There is also the millennium scholarship, the biggest scholarship in Canadian history. There is also the record health care agreement we made with the provinces.

My question is related to employment in the auto industry. The opposition suggested that reducing emissions would be of great harm to the auto industry. We are making the point that we are looking at autos that are sold here, not made here. Of the autos made in Canada, 80% are exported anyway so this is not going to hurt the auto industry from our perspective. I would like to know from the member if she thinks that her party's motion would hurt the auto industry.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question I cannot help but respond to the member's assertion that the government has done great things such as the millennium scholarship fund.

We just heard from the Auditor General yesterday who said that $7 billion in foundations is sitting there untapped. In terms of the scholarship fund, students are dying to get into university but cannot because the tuition is too high, and the government is allowing the foundation to sit on $690 million in interest alone because of inaction. It could have used that money to pay the tuitions for 200,000 students.

Shame on the Liberals when it comes to education. Shame on the Liberals when it comes to the environment. We have heard nothing but empty rhetoric from Liberals and no decisive plan of action.

The question about the auto workers is a very important one. The parliamentary secretary should know that we have been working with both the environmental community and representatives of the auto workers. We have developed a win-win plan for climate change.

The auto sector is vital to our economy. We have had great success and continuing that success will be based on Canadian auto producers taking the North American lead on future manufacturing, design and production. The future of this production is green. What would hurt the auto dealers and the industry generally is not tax disincentives. It would be refusing to leap at the opportunities lying open at this critical moment.

Child Pornography

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the St. Joseph's Catholic Women's League in Kindersley, Saskatchewan, like a majority of Canadians, is alarmed at the Liberals' half-baked measures to combat child exploitation.

CWL President Susan Seidel, Communications Convenor Debbie Wagner, and Nancy Reece circulated a petition to demand the government raise the age of consent and close the Liberal loophole of artistic merit that gives child abusers a get out of jail free card.

There are many reasons, from moral and psychological to physical, why we must establish clear laws to differentiate between normal personal relationships and the disaster of twisted adults preying on children.

Canadians have a right to their own thoughts, but society must protect our children when those thoughts lead to unacceptable actions. The Liberals cannot continue to shortchange our police forces, water down our laws, and provide loopholes to monsters and think they are done with this issue.

I join my constituents in demanding real action to protect our kids.

Child Care

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove agrees with the concept that women have earned the right to make their own choices.

However, she and her party support only one approach to helping parents care for their children while they are working. Tax cuts are not a program but a mechanism that disproportionately benefits high income parents. Where is the choice in this?

On the other hand, the Liberal approach offers real choice for parents by providing a safe, regulated, and supportive environment that incorporates early learning with care. It provides choice and opportunity for parents to pursue both education and economic stability for their families.

The Conservative Party should stop pretending to advocate equality for women when it speaks about choice, when in reality, it advocates turning back the clock to a time when women had little or no control over their lives.

Observatoire du Mont Mégantic

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, astronomy in Quebec is world renowned. The Observatoire du Mont Mégantic bears witness to Quebec's knowledge in the field—world class expertise, achieved in partnership with its universities.

I commend all the pioneers of Quebec astronomy and astrophysics, including Mr. Racine, who have made the Mont-Mégantic astrolabe a scientific research centre that responds to the aspirations of Quebeckers.

To keep its research at the leading edge and to uphold the prestige of its institutions, this sector needs proper long-term funding. The Bloc Québécois urges the federal government to support the long-term plan of the Coalition for Astronomy in the next budget in order to help astronomy flourish and retain its position as one of the world's best.

Rafik Hariri

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sympathy to the people of Lebanon, whose former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, has been assassinated.

Death is something that is inevitable and expected, but always a shock. The death of Mr. Hariri was particularly devastating. The whole country is indeed in a state of shock after losing a man who held such hope for his country.

The former prime minister was a much loved leader and a benefactor to young people seeking a better education, but lacking the means to pursue their dreams.

A philanthropist, he believed in moving beyond diversity, creating harmony and building a society free from tyranny.

I offer my most sincere condolences to Canadians of Lebanese origin in my riding, Laval—Les Îles, and in Canada, as they mourn Mr. Hariri, a man of vision.

Agriculture

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as spring approaches, many farmers in my riding are facing a crisis. Bills remain unpaid from the previous year. Payouts from CAIS have not arrived. Seed and supplies for the upcoming season need to be purchased.

How can a farmer put a crop in the ground when he is not able to purchase seed for the upcoming season?

The agricultural industry in Saskatchewan has been devastated over the past few years by factors beyond farmers' control, such as drought and frost. Farmers are expected to pay 2004 expenses with 1972 incomes.

When other industries are devastated by factors outside their control, the government has been there to bail them out. The airline industry and the tourism industry in Toronto are perfect examples of this. Is it so unreasonable to expect that agriculture would benefit from similar assistance when it is racked by factors outside its control?

The Conservative Party has urged the government to drop the cash on deposit requirements for CAIS. This will free up a large amount of cash and do much to allow farmers to pay off their debts and purchase seed for a new crop year.

I urge the government to move quickly on a plan before the spring seeding. Do what is right to help save rural Saskatchewan.

Firefighters

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 13, in Edmunston, I had the opportunity to present eight Governor General's Fire Services Exemplary Service Medals on behalf of the Government of Canada.

During my visit to the Edmunston fire department, I presented the Governor General's medal to the following firefighters: Jacques Bérubé, Maurice Blanchette, Claude Campagna, André Grandmaison, Mario L'Italien, Léandre Michaud, Wilfrid Morin and Mario Rossignol.

I wish to acknowledge, here in this House, the invaluable contribution these firefighters make in ensuring the safety of our communities. I also want to congratulate the other firefighters from the Edmunston fire department who earned provincial or municipal recognition during the ceremony that I attended.

Yvon Labelle

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the recommendation of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Yvon Labelle, a resident of my riding, was decorated with a second bar, a high police honour.

This was a well deserved tribute in recognition of 40 years of loyal service, 30 of which were in the city of Montreal at MUCPD, and 10 in Saint-Basile-le-Grand in the riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Throughout his career, Mr. Labelle managed various police teams and civilian employees. Under his charge they achieved noteworthy operational, administrative and community relations objectives.

In both cities, he established new methods for working with the community, bringing police officers and members of the public together thereby personalizing the role of the police in the community.

Congratulations to Mr. Labelle. The Bloc Québécois wishes him a happy retirement surrounded by his loved ones.

Rafik Hariri

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former prime minister assassinated in a car bombing on Monday, had had a vision when he took office in 1992 of building a prosperous country from the ruins of civil war.

Despite the many setbacks, Hariri, remained in office for most of the past 12 years before quitting in October 2004.

Mr. Hariri's resignation came as Lebanon was in real need of his many international contacts to deal with a UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to Syria's military and political roles in Lebanon.

We are mourning the death of Mr. Hariri, the statesman. We also want to extend our deepest condolences to his family and, through them, to the people of Lebanon.

Yesterday, at the funeral, church bells were ringing while the Koran was read over the mosque's megaphones. This was a sign of unity in sadness. Indeed, Mr. Hariri was a symbol of unity.

Sports

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to play hardball with the government over the issue of men's softball.

Recently, a decision was made by the Canada Games Council to remove men's softball from the 2009 Canada Summer Games. Many constituents in Perth—Wellington and scores of sports fans across Canada are upset by this decision.

On Friday of last week I brought this to the attention of the government to have the decision reversed. The government claims to be interested in increasing the numbers of Canadians involved in physical activity, yet Sport Canada seems to be uninterested in helping thousands of Canadians who are already very active in a sport they love. We already have the ball fields, teams, coaches and leagues in place. How much does it cost to run a tournament?

On behalf of softball players and fans across Canada, I respectfully ask for a straight answer. Do not throw me a changeup and I deserve better than a curveball.

Heart Disease

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, February is Heart Month in Canada, a time to make Canadians aware of the things they can do to manage their risk for heart disease and stroke. This includes maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding tobacco, following a healthy diet and being active.

Heart disease and stroke, the leading cause of death in Canada, costs the Canadian economy over $18 billion annually, more than any other disease.

Today, representatives from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses and the Ottawa Heart Institute are providing the “Heart Health Clinic” on the Hill, providing parliamentarians and staff with cholesterol and blood pressure testing, to help us assess our risk for heart disease and stroke. I encourage all members to drop by the clinic before 4 p.m. in the Wellington Building.

We need to do our part in our ridings by informing our constituents about the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle.

Tsunami Relief

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just as the Canadian public responded with unprecedented generosity to the tsunami disaster, so did Canada's health care industry.

The research based pharmaceutical companies, generic drug firms, and other health care companies donated the largest medical aid package ever to Health Partners International of Canada, a Canadian medical aid agency in Montreal.

With the grateful help of the Canadian Forces at CFB Trenton, $7 million of medical supplies were shipped out on January 14 and accepted by the WHO in Sri Lanka. This shipment, affectionately known as “The Big One” has saved many lives. A further $12 million will follow.

I would like to profoundly thank the Canadian people, especially those in Victoria, the five ministers involved, the pharmaceutical and health care companies, Health Partners International, and our Canadian Forces for their collaboration and speedy response. Together thousands of lives have been saved.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian residential schools dispute resolution plan has been a catastrophic failure, with $125 million spent and less than $1 million actually going to victim survivors. It is not meeting the goals of just and fair compensation. It is certainly not meeting the need for truth sharing, public education, and awareness that could finally lead to healing and reconciliation.

With the aging population, 50 former students are dying every week and justice will surely never come to them.

The Assembly of First Nations has tabled a resolutions plan which comprises two components: first, fair and reasonable compensation in an expedited process that includes recognition of loss of language and loss of culture; second, a truth sharing and reconciliation process, including the continuation of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Today, February 17, is the deadline for Canada's response to the Assembly of First Nations plan. I call upon the government to end this shameful chapter in Canadian history and accept the proposals of the Assembly of First Nations.