Debates of April 30th, 2008

Food and Drugs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter, not a laughing matter. It has to be debated in the context of the health and well-being of Canadians. I make my comments with all seriousness and based on significant input from many Canadians.

As I also said, we will pursue every one of those concerns at committee to determine the legitimacy. No one is making generalizations without basis in fact. No one is casting aspersions without any reason.

We are here today with one of the most important pieces of legislation this Parliament has seen in a long time. We are questioning on the basis of evidence that has been provided to us. I do not need to tell anyone how many Canadian lives are put at risk every day because we do not have an adequate safety system right now. All I have to do is read through the papers and list off numerous cases.

Maybe the member is interested in this one, if he is not interested in some of the others. It is a recall order for a product for erectile dysfunction. This is Libidus, an unauthorized product promoted on the manufacturer's website as treating erectile dysfunction, saying it does not produce health risks. Well it does. Where is the government?

How about Evra, a birth control product for women, a patch that produces blood clot risks. Why is that? Why are young women at risk right now as we speak?

What about the drug to quit smoking that came out not too long ago, Champix, which produces all kinds of psychiatric side effects?

What about as I mentioned, heparin, in which contaminants were found after production in China?

What about all of these examples? Does it not matter? Should Canadians not feel safe? Is that not what we are here for? It is not to put people at the will of the marketplace and let them take chances. It is about trusting government, and if we cannot trust government when it comes to the safety of the drugs we have to take and the food we have to eat, then when can we trust government?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Prince Albert, I actually love the loony left. The loony left allows average Canadians to see the ridiculousness of the arguments. I commend the member on the passion of her case, but I think the member knows that she is mistaken on numerous points including the suggestion that products or drugs coming onto the market are less safe. This bill does not deal with that. The drugs that have come onto the market are under the same regime with or without this bill. That is important for the member to know.

On the issue of direct consumer advertising, the member also knows that this government is in court to prevent direct advertising of pharmaceuticals to the Canadian market. The member knows that and this bill in fact strengthens the government's position on that.

I would also like to read to the member proposed section 2.3 of the bill:

The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the health and safety of the public and encourage accurate and consistent product representation by prohibiting and regulating certain activities in relation to foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics.

We can see that the intent is in the best interests of Canadians. I would ask the member to put aside the worries about the black helicopters, put away the tinfoil hats and come to committee with an open mind. All the other parties are. We are. If there are reasonable suggestions for amendment, we will listen to them. Will the member come to committee with an open mind and listen to the facts and read the bill for what it is, an improvement to the health and safety of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, you will know that I have already said that we come to this whole process with an open spirit, wanting to know if in fact the substance of the bill meets the rhetoric of the government. We enter the process willingly and with open minds.

I just wish the hon. member were open to some of the concerns being raised because when he suggests that this is about the loony left speaking, he is insulting thousands of Canadians across the country who are raising concerns. He is actually casting aspersions on Dr. Mary Wiktorowicz. He is casting aspersions on Joel Lexchin, on Dr. Barbara Mintzes, on Dr. Steve Morgan and Alan Cassels, many people who came to our committee and expressed their concerns. So, I hope he is open and I hope he is willing to actually amend the bill when those concerns have been substantiated.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, another one upon whom the Conservatives could have cast aspersions is one of my constituents who asked questions. I wanted to ask the government, but it is not putting up any speakers, just the minister who introduced the bill, so I cannot ask the questions. Maybe the member could answer just three concerns that this constituent put forward.

Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others? Why do the bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval? With fines being increased a thousand times and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

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

Mr. Speaker, those are all questions that need to be addressed by the government and vetted at committee. I certainly hope the member will encourage those who have raised these concerns to present them in writing to the committee or in fact to attend our committee hearings.

I hope that we will have a wide open, serious, indepth review of the bill in terms of all of its aspects, because when it comes to judicial oversight and RCMP investigations, as he has mentioned, these are very serious issues. When we are talking about direct to consumer advertising, progressive licensing, natural health products, oversight, investigative forces and discretionary powers, all of those issues are critically important in an area of such fundamental importance.

I look forward to a very serious debate and indepth discussion on this bill.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I was referring to the loony left, I was only referring to the members I sit beside on my right. I note that you are not one of those members, Mr. Speaker.

Canadians want their government to do the best job possible to ensure the safety of foods, health and consumer products. We committed to meeting this expectation in the Speech from the Throne. The bill that we are now debating is an important part of meeting that commitment. It is a major component of the food and consumer safety action plan, which the Prime Minister announced in December.

The plan seeks to modernize and strengthen our food, consumer and health products safety system. It is a plan that is now supported by a two year funding commitment of $113 million, announced in budget 2008. It is a plan which shows that the government is taking product safety seriously and is taking action.

Our plan takes a new approach to food and product safety, based on active prevention to stop as many problems as possible before they occur, targeted oversight so the government can keep a closer watch over the products that pose a higher risk to health and safety, and a rapid response so that we can take action more quickly and effectively to the problems that do occur.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

The next step in the plan is updating our product safety legislation. As a result, Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act , is now before the House. It has become very clear to the government that the Food and Drugs Act needs to be modernized. The act is now more than 50 years old and it has simply not kept pace with modern expectations or standards.

Given the significance of the task, our effort has required discussions with stakeholders. We have heard that it is not good enough for our laws to focus largely on one stage in the health products life cycle. Yes, it certainly makes sense to assess health products carefully before they reach market, and today we are doing that vigorously. Bill C-51 does not propose to change that.

Instead, it seeks tools to conduct ongoing assessments of risks and benefits, even after the product is in use by Canadians. Instead of only focusing on products before they reach Canadians, we want to require companies to provide information throughout a health products' full life cycle.

Under the bill, and every step of the way, we will be able to ask whether a product's risks outweigh the benefits. This means that consumers and health professionals will have access to more and better information. They will be able to make better informed decisions about the safety and the use of the products.

Second, it seeks to anchor the safety planning in law. The reality is that the vast majority of companies already do plan for safety. They know it is just good, responsible business to do so, and with more information made available, it will be possible to update plans for improving safety to reflect new data or emerging concerns.

With Bill C-51, the government will have greater information. With greater knowledge we can work with companies and health professionals to better protect the safety of all Canadians.

With provisions that support greater openness and transparency in the regulatory system, Canadians can access the information they need about a product, the risks and the benefits, to ensure that they are making informed choices for themselves and their families.

We can use greater knowledge to target our oversight and we can use it to learn about problems as early as possible to respond more rapidly to better safeguard the health of Canadians.

This bill also accounts for the fact that today we receive many products from abroad. As a result, it would provide for modern inspection authorities and new strategies to oversee the safety of imported products. This focus on prevention is critical. Our focus on information is also essential to supporting rapid responses by the government when problems do occur.

Through Bill C-51 we are seeking the power to order a recall of a product that poses a safety threat. I want to mention one example of safety risks, what experts call “adverse drug reactions”. That is the health system term for people reacting negatively to a drug.

Under Bill C-51 we are seeking the authority to work with the provinces and territories to enhance the reporting of adverse drug reactions from hospitals. This would go a long way in helping detect safety problems earlier and the sooner we know, the more rapidly we can respond and better protect Canadians from unsafe health products.

I do not want to suggest that the modernization of the Food and Drugs Act will mean a night and day kind of change for most health products or companies. They do a good and reasonable job now. The vast majority of industry takes consumer safety very seriously. It is only a small percentage that acts irresponsibly and this is who we seek to protect Canadians from. In the process, we will allow law-abiding Canadian businesses to compete on a more level playing field and we will also target those who act irresponsibly with steep penalties.

Today, a serious incident under the Food and Drugs Act can just receive a $5,000 fine. Under Bill C-51, we are seeking to raise that up to $5 million because the health of Canadians is worth it.

The Government of Canada is taking consumer safety seriously and taking action. Many partners across the health system share our commitment to this direction, including consumer representatives. We believe all parties should support the direction set out in Bill C-51. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support Bill C-51, so we can modernize the health and food product safety for Canadians.

We have all listened to the debate today and the health committee will have another opportunity to listen. The government will listen and, there is no doubt about it, the government will act to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have just started debating this bill and I have received many emails from constituents and organizations that represent natural health products.

Because Bill C-51 would amend the Food and Drugs Act, and one really has to look at the Food and Drugs Act while looking through the bill, I want to raise just one of the concerns, which is that many natural health products that have been sold in Canada for decades would become unavailable and remaining products would cost much more under clauses 13 and 18.7 of the bill.

Clause 8 replaces sections 17 to 21 of the act, but clause 13 states:

No person shall conduct a controlled activity unless they are authorized by an establishment licence to do so.

It creates now, I believe, a licensing requirement. I do not see the details on licensing. I assume that licensing is either included under the Food and Drugs Act, in the appendices or regulations, but the member will appreciate when someone makes that assertion, there must be an answer. If the allegation is that these products will not be available because they will require a licence, and the provisions of getting a licence may be so onerous, lengthy or specific, that it may in fact result in there not being the availability of certain natural health products.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is aware of that issue and whether he can provide an answer to the concerns of those who rely on these products.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill looks at the risk profile of particular products and if the risk is low there is nothing to worry about. The only time that there will be something to be concerned about is if the product is dangerous to Canadians.

If the product is dangerous to Canadians, there are going to be hefty fines and I think Canadians expect that. They expect the government to ensure that the products on the shelves are safe. I hope the member does not disagree with that.

There are many natural health products that are healthy, that improve the quality of people's lives. Those will be okay. It is the small percentage of products that harm or even kill people that we are concerned with.

Right now the minister does not have the ability to require that products be removed from shelves and the fine is a maximum of $5,000. We do not think that $5,000 is enough. That is why the maximum fine would be $5 million. Canadians support that and Canadians support the government protecting Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows which questions I am going to ask because I have already asked them, but the government did not have any members on the list so there was no one to ask and I am sure he has his answers ready.

The questions are from two constituents. The first one is basically worried about access to natural health products being protected and thinks that this bill gives police state powers in taking those away.

The other constituent is asking whether the new law will be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others and why do bureaucrats want to bypass Parliament's approval to create new laws? Why does it want seizure warrants without a judge's approval? With fines being increased a thousand times and seizing authority without a warrant, is the bill meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

I am sure the parliamentary secretary has well thought out answers.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that there is some sort of police state initiative does a disservice to the people who actually live in a police state. I just find that just over the top and not helpful to the debate. The only products that people will see affected are products that are dangerous to Canadians. If people put a product on the shelf or market a product that is dangerous to Canadians, they can expect to experience the full force of the law. Under this legislation, that includes a $5 million potential penalty--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry. I am going to have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. We want to resume debate, so that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has some time.

The hon. member for Kildonan--St. Paul has the floor.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, an act proposing amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

First, this proposed legislation is but one element of our government's action for meeting an important commitment.

In October's throne speech we committed to taking action on food and product safety to ensure Canadians had confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.

Following this, the Prime Minister announced the food and consumer safety action plan last December. This is a comprehensive plan with the goal of modernizing and strengthening Canada's safety system for food, health and consumer products.

In February, budget 2008 invested $113 million for two years to support the plan in meeting its purpose. Now we are taking the next steps by introducing important legislation.

Along with introducing the proposed new Canada consumer product safety act, we have also brought in Bill C-51 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Taken together, these two complementary pieces of proposed legislation include measures that will further protect the health and safety of Canadians, and this bill is all about that.

They propose to do this by stressing: first, active prevention to stop as many problems as possible before they occur, second, targeted oversight so the government can keep a closer watch over products that pose a higher risk to health and safety; and third, rapid response so we can take action more quickly and effectively to problems that do occur.

I want to begin by noting upfront that despite the need to update it, how durable our Food and Drugs Act has been over many years. Let me provide a bit of history.

Although certain food laws were in place before Confederation, the first federal legislation dealing with the issue of food safety was enacted in 1874. It is interesting to note that the United States did not pass similar legislation until 1906.

Canada's 1874 law did not receive its main impetus from adulterated food. What apparently forced the legislation were the large quantities of grossly adulterated liquor being consumed. Parliament was besieged with requests to do something about the situation. Hence in January 1875 an Act to Prevent the Adulteration of Food, Drink and Drugs came into effect. In 1920, just in time for America's prohibition act and the roaring 20's, it was superseded by our Food and Drugs Act.

That the world has changed since the 1920s is certainly an understatement. In fact, it has changed a great deal since the 1950s when the act was last updated. While the act has proven resilient, it is now 50 years old and definitely in need of updating.

Our foods and health products now come from the four corners of the earth. Moreover, new technologies and production practices have radically changed the industry. It is also the case that consumers today are more health conscious and have higher expectations about the food and drugs they purchase.

While on the whole food quality has increased, incidents of contamination are by no means rare. Furthermore, production and technological advances have created new risks and challenges for food inspection and oversight mechanisms.

Today, however, modernizing our food safety system means adopting a more integrated and proactive approach. Moreover, any improvements made today should lead to more extensive information on food and drug risks being provided to the Canadian public. They should involve the food industry and the consumer as well as government in addressing risk. This only makes for greater safety. The proposed amendments should help streamline and provide more consistent regulatory mechanisms across all sectors.

Bill C-51 would do all of these things and more, and I will elaborate.

The government's proposed amendments will make the Food and Drugs Act much more proactive. Let us look, for example, at the amendments in the bill, focusing on the food regulatory system. They will permit us to focus on identifying where potential risks may be introduced in the food system and on taking more active steps to prevent food safety issues. Moreover, the amended act would extend its coverage prior to the point where food is actually sold. In fact, the amended act would apply to food from the moment it arrived in Canada to the point of sale. With these—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has expired. The hon. member has five minutes left in her time when the House returns to this bill.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

National Defence Act

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

moved that Bill C-513, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (foreign military mission), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to debate Bill C-513, which I introduced on February 25.

This bill has to do with the process for deploying or placing Canadian armed forces on active service as part of foreign offensive missions. This bill would make the process for deploying our troops much more democratic.

We believe that the federal government should obtain the authorization of Parliament before deploying troops in foreign offensive missions. The deployment of troops is a government prerogative under the National Defence Act, but we think this act must be amended so that elected members determine whether or not Canada will participate in a foreign offensive mission. In fact, excluding parliamentarians from this decision amounts to a denial of democratic principles.

Let us look more closely at this bill. It amends sections 31 and 32 of the current National Defence Act, which govern troop deployment during foreign missions deemed offensive.

First, in section 31 we recognize the government's prerogative to place the Canadian Forces on active service. However, we amend this section so that the placing of the Canadian Forces on active service is subject to section 32, which we amend as follows.

First, the government must lay before the House a motion before sending Canadian troops on a foreign mission that includes or might include an offensive facet. This motion must be laid before the House within five days after the declaration of intention to place the Canadian Forces on active service is issued.

Second, once the motion is laid before the House of Commons, the House must immediately take up and consider the motion.

Third, the debate must not go longer than three hours, after which the Speaker must put the question.

Fourth, the placing of the Canadian Forces on active service takes effect only once the House of Commons has ratified the motion.

Currently, under these two sections of the National Defence Act, the power to place the Canadian Forces on active service is in the hands of the Governor in Council and therefore the government alone. The act also gives the government a great deal of latitude; in fact, the government can make such a decision when it sees fit. Moreover, Parliament has no responsibility for giving prior approval, although Parliament must be summoned within 10 days if it has been adjourned for more than 10 days.

Nothing in the current act requires the government to consult Parliament before deploying troops on offensive missions. I can give a good example of this. We remember the arrogance of the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien, who refused to hold a vote in the House on the deployment of 3,000 Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2006, despite repeated demands by the three opposition parties that the government hold a vote in the House on sending armed troops on offensive missions.

I therefore hope that I will have the near-unanimous support of this House, seeing as how at the time, the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc were calling for a vote in the House.

I could give other examples regarding how the government sometimes consults Parliament and sometimes does not, as it pleases. The Korean war is a perfect example. The government did not seek the consent of Parliament before going into Korea.

Nevertheless, on June 30, 1950, the Prime Minister decided that Parliament could be consulted if new facts emerged. In the end, Parliament never voted on the deployment of Canadian soldiers to Korea. However, if there had been legislation and if there had been an amendment to the legislation, Parliament would have been consulted before the government deployed troops to Korea. Members could have voted on whether or not they wanted Canada to go to war in Korea.

The Gulf war is another example. Because it was a UN-sanctioned multilateral action, like the Korean war, Canada did not have to declare war officially. The House was not able to vote on the matter before troops and ships were sent to the Persian Gulf; it was not consulted. On September 24, 1990, the Minister of National Defence tabled an order in the House to the effect that Canada was deploying troops and ships to that region. On October 23, 1990, the House passed a motion that supported sending military members, vessels and aircraft, but that motion was nothing more than approval after the deployment.

These examples clearly show that whether or not the government consults the House depends entirely on its own whims.

The bill that I am sponsoring today would free the House from the government's arbitrariness, regardless of the party in power. The government would not lose the power to deploy the Canadian Forces. Deployment would simply have to be approved by the House to take effect. After all, the government's power, like it or not, comes from Parliament. Parliamentarians are the ones who passed that legislation, and I believe that parliamentarians also have the power to amend it.

It is now 2008. I think it is high time we modernized this legislation by making it more democratic, by making the process of deploying troops abroad more democratic. Let us not forget that the decision to deploy troops abroad is a serious decision because it puts human lives in danger. Such decisions must not be taken lightly. They have a direct impact on men and women who risk their lives in foreign countries, who risk death.

It also has a major impact on the lives of these people, their families, their friends, their loved ones, and their community, which is directly affected when these people go away. It is not just about leaving a place, about leaving family and children behind. When the troops left for Afghanistan, we saw heartbreaking scenes of men and women leaving their children.

Regardless of the causes and the ideological reasons justifying deployment, we are making serious decisions here in the House when we decide to send the troops to fight in foreign countries.

We must not forget that it also has an impact on the people in the places to which our troops are deployed with their guns and weapons, regardless of the ideology participants are trying to protect. It has a major impact. Civilian populations endure invasions and the presence of foreign troops on their soil. Every day, women, men and children die. We have people being killed, but we also have people living in utter poverty because they are in a state of war.

It is our responsibility to protect our people and our soldiers, but it is also our responsibility to protect the civilian populations wherever we decide to get involved.

When troops are sent abroad to engage in war and take the offensive, there is a risk that these men and women might harm civilian populations. It is our responsibility to consider these casualties, what I would call terrible human losses.

Furthermore, I would say that war not only has a human and social impact, but an impact on society as a whole. We see this quite clearly in Quebec right now. The latest polls show that 70% of the population is completely opposed to our presence in Afghanistan. This has a major impact on the lives of these people, even if they do not have a brother, father, uncle, cousin, or mother serving in Afghanistan. Every day, when they turn on the television they see war and violence. Whether we like it or not we are fighting violence.

I do not believe in fighting violence with violence. It is not a good image for the country in question. I am talking about Canada. Perhaps one day we will be talking about Quebec, but Quebec will not go to war.

It is an image. I want to tell hon. members something. When I went to Lebanon during the Israeli-Lebanese crisis, people told me that Canada is a country of peace and human rights. It is a country that stands up for human rights. They wondered, “What is happening to Canada? Why did Canada take a unilateral position with Israel? What is going on?” We project an image and our troops project an image. But we, as elected representatives, have a message. We project an image and we have our soldiers project that image. If we make bad decisions, it reflects on our soldiers in Afghanistan, Lebanon or anywhere else. They are currently not in Lebanon, but if they were there or elsewhere, it is important to consider what is going on here.

We make the military decisions, but we are not the ones on the ground with the weapons. Other people have to go there with their weapons and deal with the consequences of our decisions. We have to make our decisions properly and democratically to at least have the support of our constituents for the decisions we make.

The people are never wrong. They can be fooled, but they are never wrong. When 70% of people say they do not want Canada to be in Afghanistan, that means something. We must listen. I think it is our duty to have the ability to be humble and realize that, even though we are here, we are not gods and we do not know everything. We are here to make difficult but important decisions and we must make them together. The decisions should not be made by just one side, by the government, and suddenly, we are all at war. No, such a decision should be made by everyone in this House and then we should bear the consequences of that decision together, because it is the people who will also have to bear them.

Sending troops overseas has a major economic impact. I am a caring woman. Since I see I have only a minute left, I will speed up.

Economically speaking, war is very expensive. There is a great deal of poverty in Canada. There are a million children living in poverty. It would be good to use this money to address or perhaps eliminate poverty, instead of investing it in weapons.

In closing, with Bill C-513, we hope to enshrine in legislate the government's obligation to obtain the assent of the House before deploying troops overseas. We think this is a major democratic reform, and I strongly urge all members to vote in favour of this important bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, during the Lebanon crisis, the hon. member for Ahuntsic said the following during a committee hearing on August 1, 2006:

I understand what you're saying, but I have to wonder why it is American convoys are getting into southern Lebanon and managing to evacuate US or Australian nationals. Why is Canada unable to reach an agreement with Israel while at the same time, the US has managed to do so and send in convoys? [...] Summing up, I think Canada could follow the lead of the United States and go in and rescue these people.

I wonder how my hon. colleague can reconcile that understandable desire for rapid action in the case of a crisis with the bill that she is proposing before the House today. When we go into a war, even if it is to recuse people, we have no idea whether we are going to be offensive or defensive. So, I just wonder how she can reconcile her statement then with her bill now.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this question. This brings back painful memories of 2006.

As a member of the specially convened committee, I spoke to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs about this. In fact, in speaking to the people on site and the Red Cross representatives, I realized that American convoys were managing to get through areas under heavy bombardment. The Americans had agreements with Israel for safe corridors in order to move their nationals to the Canadian vessels moored outside Tyre.

Whether we like it or not, there was a need in that area: many Canadian citizens were trapped in the area; they were prisoners.

How did the United States manage to conclude agreements with Israel to obtain safe corridors, but we were unable to do so in order for our people to get to the port of Tyre and get on the ships? The minister acknowledged that there were many more Americans, Australians and other foreign nationals than Canadians on the Canadian ship.

We provide unilateral support to Israel but we cannot even manage to obtain some very small humanitarian corridors in order to get our people to our own ships. We have some work to do when we decide to repatriate our people. We have a great deal of work to do in this regard. I realize that the government was caught by surprise, but it should have taken action quickly, as did the Americans, French, Australians and others.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the impact the proposed changes would have on potentially extending the mission in Afghanistan past 2011.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I would be completely opposed to extending our presence in Afghanistan. In fact, I am in favour of immediately withdrawing our troops. That said, let us be honest—we must acknowledge that this government has asked the House a number of times to extend the mission, something the Liberals did not do. It should be acknowledged, but it is still at the government's own whim.

Now, if the act were changed, whatever government is in power would be obliged to go through this House to get a decision on whether or not we would be in Afghanistan. The decision made on the motion would be respected. I remember a time when we wondered whether a majority motion against extending our presence in Afghanistan would be respected by the government. That is another story.

What is happening now in Afghanistan is serious. We must think hard about our presence over there, because in my opinion, we have no business being there.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, deploying military personnel to trouble spots around the world is one of the gravest decisions that the Government of Canada can make, or any government can make. Like every government before us, we take this responsibility very seriously because Canadian interests and values are at stake, and lives hang in the balance.

Canada has a history of being able to react rapidly in support of our allies, our international obligations, in support of freedom and human rights. The only two parties that have ever governed, or likely will ever govern this country, have taken the same basic approach. While this government wholeheartedly supports and promotes vigorous parliamentary oversight of Canadian military operations, this bill goes beyond oversight. Unfortunately, Bill C-513 would fundamentally change the relationship between the government and Parliament in critical areas related to national defence.

At issue here is the government's authority to act quickly and decisively in defence of Canada and Canadians, and in support of international peace and security. Aside from restricting the Crown's prerogative in vital areas of foreign and defence policy, the bill is poorly worded and simply unworkable in the real world. And the real world is where the Canadian Forces must operate.

If this bill were adopted, the safety and security of Canadians would be compromised. Moreover, Canada's standing as a reliable ally and our capacity to play a leadership role on the world stage would be diminished.

The government takes parliamentary oversight of military deployments seriously.

Since we came to power, we have twice held votes in this House on the future of the Afghan mission: in May 2006 and in March 2008.

The Afghanistan issue has also been raised on numerous occasions during oral question period and on opposition days.

At least a third of the members of Parliament from all parties took part in the five-day debate that led to the decision to extend the operation until 2011.

In addition, the committees of the House and Senate have studied the issues related to military deployments, including deployments in Afghanistan. To date, two parliamentary committees have issued reports on the Afghan mission, and a third committee is preparing a report.

The assistance we give these committees clearly shows how important our government believes their work is. Ministers and senior officials regularly appear before these committees.

We have organized visits to Afghanistan so that the members of these committees can see for themselves the extraordinary work Canadians are doing there. The government has benefited from the hard work and thoughtful recommendations of the parliamentary committees.

My colleagues and I are glad that a new committee of the House has been set up to look at the mission in Afghanistan.

I would like to say that in addition to its oversight role, Parliament controls the public purse. Parliament has voted the funds needed for the Afghan mission and, ultimately, any other Canadian Forces operation.

No government could take part in a military operation as important as the mission in Afghanistan without the support of this House.

In short, the means exist for parliamentary oversight of Canadian Forces deployments abroad. And it is important that the tools available for the exercise of oversight be coherent. The proposed legislation does not meet that criteria.

The proposed legislation is unworkable. As written, the bill would require the government to receive Parliament's approval before it could put members of the Canadian Forces on active service and deploy them outside Canada on an operation with an “offensive facet”.

The term “active service” is used incorrectly in the proposed legislation. There is no legal requirement to put Canadian Forces members on active service when they are operationally deployed abroad. The placement of Canadian Forces members on active service simply allows the Canadian Forces to retain members in the service if required and allows service tribunals to impose more severe sentences in respect to some service offences.

Also, from a legal and military perspective, the phrase “offensive facet” is so ill-defined that it is essentially meaningless. When we deploy on an operation such as Afghanistan, or any peacekeeping operation that we have embarked on in the past, we have no idea about whether it is offensive or defensive. We may think we are leaving on a defensive operation, but it may turn offensive in a heartbeat.

In the modern security environment, lines can be blurred between what constitutes an offensive or defensive role. Would we wish to be deciphering the meaning of the term “offensive facet” when a situation arose that warranted the immediate deployment of Canadian troops to defend Canada's interests? I do not think so. I am sure we can all agree that we would not.

The most significant problem with this bill is that it seeks to redefine the relationship between the government and Parliament in critical areas of national defence. If adopted, this bill would require government to seek parliamentary approval before it could authorize military operations outside Canada. This could jeopardize Canadian interests and lives.

What if Parliament were not in session, or prorogued, or dissolved for an election? The delay in securing authorization of a military deployment could be lengthy and disastrous. Delay could cost Canadian lives.

I cannot imagine any country that would want to impose such restrictions, and with good reason. The government must be able to act quickly and decisively in the nation's interests. When there is a crisis, somebody has to be able to make a decision. That somebody is the Prime Minister, who, along with cabinet, can make decisions on behalf of the democratically elected Government of Canada.

If this bill were adopted, the government and the men and women of the Canadian Forces could face impossible challenges. Almost every military operation conducted outside Canada by the Canadian Forces is within a binational or multilateral framework, whether it be the United Nations, NATO, a coalition or NORAD.

Any country whose government cannot take military decisions quickly and decisively is a liability to its allies. A country that has to publicly debate a military mission could risk the operational security of its own forces and those of its allies. It would limit our forces' ability to respond effectively when crises occur in other countries. It would introduce a delay that could mean the difference between saving lives and being too late to do so.

In conclusion, this government supports rigorous parliamentary oversight of military operations. We have engaged Parliament through numerous debates and committee appearances. Members of the House twice have voted to extend the Afghanistan mission after lengthy debate, but the proposed legislation before us is not about oversight.

It is an attempt to fundamentally redefine the powers of the government and Parliament in critical areas related to national defence and it is misguided. It is misguided because it can prevent the government from acting quickly and decisively in a crisis. It is misguided because it could jeopardize Canadian interests and Canadian lives. It is misguided because it could cripple Canada's standing with our allies and diminish our capacity to play a leadership role on the world stage.

I urge all members of the House to oppose the bill. I think that members opposite in the Liberal Party, from their experience in dealing with these situations, would share the same view that the Conservative Party of Canada has had throughout history.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate this evening. First of all, I want to salute our forces, both at home and abroad, for the great work they do.

We are always cognizant of the fact that we have the ability to put our forces in harm's way and therefore the bill this evening is very interesting in terms of what it proposes to do. As we know, currently it is a Crown prerogative--that is, cabinet--to determine the sending of troops abroad, or it can be done through statutory powers under the National Defence Act under sections 31 and 32.

Obviously Bill C-513 is designed to enhance the role of the House. Currently we have debates on foreign policy issues, on issues with regard to Afghanistan and on the deployment of troops et cetera, but ultimately the authority rests with cabinet. A similar proposal was made in the United Kingdom in 2005-06 and the same debate occurred as to whether or not that role should be enhanced to give Parliament that ability.

Clearly, although the bill is well intended, the issue comes down to the fact that it would undermine the ability of a government to act quickly or to have flexibility in times of a crisis. The element of surprise of course would be lost as well in dealing with operations with the potential of jeopardizing our troops.

The bill does not specifically say whether or not it includes current missions and whether that would require additional troops; for example, if we wanted to add troops to particular operations abroad. The discretion of deploying troops rests with the governor in council, with cabinet. In my view and the view of our party, we should not try to constrain that.

Obviously there are questions that emerge in regard to the bill. If I may, I would like to address a few of them.

First, there is the definition of “foreign military mission”. I do not think it is workable. Does it include the smallest offensive act, such as, for example, a four man special operations team? Would it include that? Would it include the largest, such as a task force, for example, that we may be sending over?

As it is worded, this definition would include humanitarian missions. It could constrain the development, for example, of our DART capabilities. As we know, the team has responded in times of disaster. For example, it responded in Pakistan during the earthquake of 2005.

It is difficult to send any military force outside the country in less than a week. If we are going to debate it, it does not seem very practical. Clearly if we are sending our forces into a conflict situation, the other side, the enemy, would certainly be assessing what we are doing.

There is also the issue of “offensive facet”. It could be problematic. Again, it is not very practical. What type of deployment is this subject to? Theoretically, rules of engagement do not necessarily define the nature of the mission. For example, the Afghanistan mission could be labelled a defensive mission, but in reality it may require offensive tactics. I think we all understand that.

What falls under the umbrella of “offensive”? Offensive tactical measures are an effective component of a strategic defence.

If Canada is attacked, will self-defence be covered under this bill? Under NATO's article 5, will Parliament return to debate if collective defence is in fact decided upon by NATO countries? Will it be covered under the bill?

Will peacekeeping missions or peace enforcement be covered under the bill? What about warship deployments that can be offensive or defensive or that simply show the flag?

There are many issues. How about deployments of fighter aircraft or armed helicopters to escort humanitarian supplies? These are other examples that I would note.

I do not think that the bill as it is worded is very practical, because a peacekeeping mission can quickly turn into a peacemaking mission. Again, the issue is one of constraints. We have certainly seen examples of that over the years.

There is the definition of “active service”. What does that mean in practice? What does it mean for the regular forces? Are not all overseas missions active service? Therefore, is there a need for such a declaration? Our regular force elements might already be on an active service and require no further designation. With regard to reservists, here too, they have been brought to full time service, on contract, to support our regular forces without any formal declaration of moving to active service.

The intention will not be workable in practice and it cannot, in my view, be supportable. Again I refer to the armed forces parliamentary approval participation under Bill 16 that was done in the United Kingdom. A similar process was gone through and many of the same arguments that my hon. colleague across the aisle and others, I am sure, are going to be making were made at that time.

The regime suggested by the bill would be effective only in a minority situation. In a majority government, it would not be very practical. It lacks the legs to support its intentions. In theory it is a good idea, but again, the practical, workable aspects are not there. Under the bill it would not increase democracy, because certainly if there were a majority government, it would occur anyway.

In weighing the value of the efficiency in reacting versus the value for thorough debate, this bill is unworkable in a number of areas, in my view. The kind of debate outlined in the bill would be more effective if it took place early on, for months rather than hours. In three hours, I suggest, people are not going to be able to make the kind of critical decision that needs to be made. And as I said, sometimes one has to react very quickly to a situation. Parliament may not have all of the information at its disposal, such as classified information or documents of that nature, so sometimes it is going to be a making decision based on only part of the information.

This does not cover all foreign deployment in practice. Obviously that is an issue. In special circumstances that require quick deployment, the government may decide to act in advance of parliamentary debate. Once it is started, obviously these issues are debated in Parliament. The Liberal Party has been in government and knows about the kinds of situations that develop, and sometimes one simply cannot expect to have a three hour debate or a three month debate on an issue that requires a quick response, particularly when responding in concert with allies.

There is a culture and practice already in place in regard to parliamentary debate. We saw that on Afghanistan. It may not be perfect, but it certainly involves parliamentarians. This section does not include emergency offensive foreign military missions. That would have to be revised.

On the Emergencies Act, I note that it was developed to ensure that the Government of Canada can invoke, in exceptional situations, powers to deal with emergencies. This replaced the old War Measures Act, which some of us are old enough to remember.

Examples would include public welfare emergencies, severe natural disasters or major accidents affecting public welfare that are beyond the capacity or authority of a province or territory to handle. Government needs to respond quickly to these. Again, do we need to have a three hour debate to decide whether that should be done?

There are public order emergencies, such as security threats, that are beyond the capacity or the authority of a province or territory to handle, and there are international emergencies, including intimidation, coercion or the use of serious force or violence that threatens the sovereignty, security or an integral part of this country or its allies, again in terms of the response. Finally, there are war emergencies, such as war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or its allies.

Again, the Emergencies Act guarantees Parliament's right to review and if necessary revoke emergency powers. It ensures the government is accountable to Parliament. Ultimately, the government is responsible and accountable to this place. As I wind up, I suggest that this is an important check and certainly also an important balance.

Again, there are issues with the language, which are problematic, and although the bill is well intentioned, there are issues on the operational side that need to be fleshed out.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate on Bill C-513, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, introduced by my colleague in the Bloc, the member for Ahuntsic. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill, and I commend the member for bringing forward a bill that generates an important debate.

At the very heart of the issue is the notion that there needs to be, to the maximum extent possible and feasible, parliamentary oversight for one of the most serious decisions, if not the most serious decisions a government makes and in which a Parliament either participates in a democratic, constructive way or is shut out. That decision is to send into harm's way the women and men of the Canadian armed forces to serve their country.

No one in this chamber questions the depth of commitment and the severity of the demands that places on what are largely the young men and women of our country and the impact it can have on their lives. I think we all are seized, whatever our particular perspective is on the details of this proposal, with the severity of such a decision. One hopes we are all committed to ensuring that the best possible reflection of the views, desires and wishes of the Canadian people is taken into account when such a decision is made.

In fairness, both the member for Richmond Hill on the Liberal bench and the parliamentary secretary from Edmonton Centre have raised some very practical questions and legitimate concerns about the workability of the private member's bill. However, without equivocation and without reservation, I and my colleagues support the intent of the bill, which is to ensure the Canadian people have, to the maximum extent possible, an opportunity to have their views and wishes on what is agreeably one of the most serious decisions we are ever compelled to make on their behalf as their elected representatives in Parliament.

I am also pleased a Bloc member has introduced this bill, at least bringing into the light of day the real issue about how we exercise responsibility around such issues. I was both surprised and disappointed, as I think a lot of people in Quebec were, that the Bloc, when given the opportunity to vote on the question of the Afghan mission, saw fit to give support the extension of it in what seemed at the time to be a very surprising decision, particularly given how extremely truncated and shrunken down that debate was. I am not talking about the most recent vote, but the previous one,

I remember, with a real sense of horror and dismay, the environment in which that debate took place here. It took place when I and the member for Richmond Hill had been back less than 72 hours from having visited Kandahar and Kabul, having come to the realization that there were many problems with the mission. Not a word was said by the foreign affairs minister at the time, now the defence minister, about the fact that this would be rammed through Parliament on very short notice, with absolutely no opportunity for there to be any real consideration of the implications. Also very little information was forthcoming on the basis that one could make a responsible decision.

Therefore, if this means Bloc members have thought about this and perhaps even have had second thoughts and some regrets about their decision in that context, then I would applaud them for giving it that further consideration. This may be one of the motivations behind the bill.

A great deal would be served by the bill going forward for further detailed consideration.

It did not surprise me but I was disappointed when the parliamentary secretary opened his comments by showing that it has taken the Conservative government less than two years to become every bit as arrogant as the Liberals. I do not want to misquote him but he basically suggested that since the Liberals and the Conservatives are the only parties that will ever govern this country it therefore is only what they think that matters and since both parties think this is a ridiculous idea then we should not even consider it.

I could spend a lot of time talking about how often those words were spoken by Liberals or Conservatives in the provinces and territories across this country where it turned out to be a ridiculous assertion. We just need to look at Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I hope this time next year I can say we can look at Nova Scotia where people said that when I sat alone in the Nova Scotia legislature.

It does not surprise me that kind of arrogant comment is made but it disappoints me in the context of such a serious debate.

I want to briefly quote from Professor David Bercuson, a witness who appeared before the national defence committee in the fall of 2006. I very much agree with his comments. He said:

... there ought to be much greater parliamentary control over troop deployments abroad. I have called for the necessity for Parliament to approve deployments of as small as 200 to 300 troops being sent overseas. I believe this is extremely necessary, not simply because of the forms of parliamentary democracy, but to engage the Canadian people in the debate about whether or not troops should be sent overseas.

That sentiment used to be expressed very often by members on the Conservative bench when they were in opposition, and now it is just like a closed door, not even worth a discussion, and mostly hurling insults at how inadequate this proposal is.

The bill merits further consideration. I think we all agree that this is the most serious thing that we are asked to do. We should be looking at this bill in detail. Other private members' bills have come forward that were inadequate and needed the expertise that comes before a committee. I think of Bill C-293 that was originally introduced as a private member's bill by the NDP and then taken up by the Liberals. It has been worked over both at the Senate committee and at our own foreign affairs committee. The bill has been improved to the point where I hope every member is ready to pass it after a huge investment of time and resources at committee level both in the Senate and in the House.

Private members' bills often start out as good ideas, with good intentions and in response to a genuine aspiration by the Canadian people. It is our responsibility to take those bills into a committee, discuss them, do further research, improve them and then move them forward. This bill is one that I genuinely believe Canadians would support.

I will finish by further quoting David Bercuson who said the following:

The people whom we are deploying abroad are also going in harm's way. By signing up to the Canadian military they have taken up, in a sense, an unlimited liability. They will lay their lives on the line for the people and the Government of Canada if necessary. There is no other citizen in this country, including the police, who has a liability that is unlimited. That is why I think your committee needs to have more power and authority than other committees in Parliament and why Parliament should vote on overseas deployments.

I hope we can move this bill forward and improve it to where it is a genuine reflection of what is needed in this country by way of accountability.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, for having thought to introduce Bill C-513.

I am very pleased to speak about Bill C-513, especially because the Bloc Québécois has long been asking Parliament for legislation requiring that Canada's involvement in important missions subject to international treaties or long-term foreign military missions be debated and voted on in the House of Commons.

Just as the House of Commons must ratify an agreement or a protocol with other countries, we believe that in 2008, the House must ratify a decision that commits Canada to a long-term military mission with an offensive facet.

The government must make decisions and choices, but when the decision pertains to long-term military operations where we must deploy men and women to another country and there is a risk of losing lives, we must, as democratically elected representatives, have the right to debate the matter in the House. This is a matter that goes well beyond political partisanship here in this House.

Furthermore, although Bill C-513 amends the two sections of the National Defence Act on sending troops on foreign missions that are deemed offensive, in other words, sections 31 and 32, it recognizes the government's prerogative to place the Canadian Forces on active service.

We are calling on the government to introduce a motion in the House of Commons before deploying Canadian troops on a foreign military mission that includes an offensive facet.

Bill C-513, introduced by my colleague from Ahuntsic, is a step in the right direction for updating the National Defence Act. In the past, there have been historic precedents where the government sought the support of parliamentarians before deploying troops abroad. I will provide some examples in a few minutes.

The wording of the bill is clear. The Minister must table a motion for ratification of the declaration of intention to place the Canadian Forces on active service before the House of Commons. In fact, the motion must specify the purpose of the mission, the location and the duration of the intervention. That said, this bill is not about one military operation in particular, but all military operations with an offensive facet.

As elected members, we all have a role to inform our constituents. When we make an important decision on a mission, it is extremely important to inform the public of the issues involved.

The National Defence Act currently stipulates that putting troops on active service is the prerogative of the government in power. We believe this act should be amended so that it is the elected representatives of the public who determine whether or not Canada takes part in an offensive mission abroad.

Since there is nothing in Canadian legislation that stipulates that the government must seek the permission of House of the Commons to pursue a foreign mission, we believe that the amendments to the National Defence Act will help modernize this legislation.

In the case of Afghanistan, the minority status of the Conservative government and pressure from the opposition parties to debate the matter in the House forced this government to introduce a motion in Parliament and hold a debate on the issue.

Bill C-513 would simply require future governments to use more or less the same formula. In case of an emergency or a foreign mission expected to last less than a week, the parliamentary approval process would not apply.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I believe that it is important to hold an emergency debate and a vote on the issue in order to make an informed decision.

To the Bloc Québécois, sending Canadian troops abroad is a very important matter. Such decisions must not be taken lightly. The Bloc Québécois believes that we have to modernize this legislation in order to democratize the deployment of troops to foreign countries.

Currently, the dynamics of the minority Conservative government are advantageous because a majority in the House is needed to make a decision. Canadians and Quebeckers would frown on a government that does not have the support of the majority making such important decisions without the support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons.

I would like to take a few moments to explain why this law has to be modernized. It is for reasons of principle and democratic reform.

All parliamentarians know that soldiers put their lives at risk during foreign missions. These soldiers are Quebeckers and Canadians with families and friends. They risk their lives in other countries because Canada asks them to go there to achieve a set security objective, such as protecting local people from attackers, protecting the interests of Canadians, or establishing peace.

No decision is more important than the one to deploy soldiers to foreign offensive missions. It goes without saying that managing the army and deciding which operations to participate in should be the prerogative of the government in power. It is up to the Minister of National Defence and the chief of the defence staff to decide which offensive actions to recommend.

Our bill does not seek to remove that power from the government. We believe that the decision to deploy troops to foreign countries should have the support of the people. In other words, to deploy troops to offensive missions on foreign soil, the federal government should have a mandate from the people through their representatives.

There are some clearly identifiable historical precedents. We can look at World War I, World War II and even the Gulf war.

With regard to World War I, in August 1914 both Houses of Parliament debated the matter on the occasion of the throne speech. Subsequently, the House adopted a motion approving the throne speech and thereby accepting the deployment of troops.

For World War II, the House also adopted a motion, in September 1939, and the next day the government issued an order in council declaring war on Germany.

As for the Gulf war, in 1990 the House passed a motion to send military members, vessels and aircraft. However, this motion gave approval after deployment. That is the difference.

The Gulf war example is more similar to modern conflicts. In Canada, governments currently make their decisions without true debate, simply by accepting a unilateral intervention sanctioned by an organization such as the UN. Yet, it should be imperative that debate on the matter take place before authorizing the deployment of troops.

In closing, although the Conservatives and the Liberals have advised us that they do not support Bill C-513, I hope that all parliamentarians in this House will take the time to study it properly before voting against such important modernization of legislation.

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

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate gives me the opportunity to come back to the question I asked on February 4 about the complete disregard for private lumber producers in the Conservatives' plan to “save” the forestry industry, or rather to diversify the economies of single-industry regions.

I remind the House that the private lumber industry represents $400 million in sales, $700 million in payroll, $4 billion in processed products, $500 million in tax revenue, 29,000 jobs and 35,000 producers. I also remind the House that these producers have lost $70 million over two years, and are now on the brink of bankruptcy. But the situation facing private lumber producers was completely ignored—and still is—by the Conservative government.

There are many of these producers in my riding and elsewhere, and their demands are legitimate. I will mention a few of them.

The president of the Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec, Pierre-Maurice Gagnon, and the president of the Syndicat des producteurs forestiers du Bas-Saint-Laurent, Jean-Louis Gagnon, are both worried, and with good reason. I completely agree with their requests, which can be summarized as follows.

First of all, they are calling for lumber producers to be recognized as workers, which would allow them to contribute to employment insurance and thus be eligible for benefits.

They are also calling for tax measures so that, like farmers, they can deduct 100% of their expenses in the year in which they are incurred, not in the year the income is received.

They are also calling for one-off, immediate assistance so that people in the industry can continue to manage the forest despite the crisis, in order to keep our forests healthy, as well as financial assistance for work on the logging road network and improved transportation, given that greater distances have to be covered and that the cost of fuel oil and gas is rising.

When we think of the effect of the crisis on the owners of private woodlots, we must think about all the secondary losses suffered by the people in the industry. This affects people in transportation, people who sell machinery and the employees. All sectors that benefit from the purchasing power of these individuals are also affected indirectly.

In the Lower St. Lawrence region, these producers supply 80% of the material required by the factories. This gives an idea of the importance of this sector for our regions, especially mine, of course.

In the Lower St. Lawrence region, 7% of our producers live exclusively off the forest. The others make 25% of their income from agriculture, the maple syrup industry and the forest. Losing 25% of one's income can often be disastrous. That often makes a great difference for people whose net family income is between $25,000 and $30,000 a year.

I would like to reiterate my question, for I think it is completely relevant. How will the Conservative government help these private wood producers? These are self-employed people who create their own employment and do their work while fully respecting the environment. They are entrepreneurs who bring a crucial dynamic quality to our communities. How could the Conservative government have forgotten them completely and how can it continue to ignore them?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the national community development trust is a very important initiative, and I am glad to have the opportunity to give you our point of view.

Thanks to the national community development trust, our government plans to provide real, lasting benefits for communities and workers that have to adapt to changing global economic conditions. Although Canada's economy is very prosperous on the whole, we are aware that global economic instability weighs heavily on some communities and groups of workers, especially those that depend on a single industry or a single company that is in difficulty.

That is why we will invest $1 billion in the national community development trust to support provincial and territorial projects that help these communities and workers cope with economic upheaval. Communities across the country told us that they needed help quickly, and that is why this government introduced Bill C-41 to create the trust without further delay.

I am proud to announce that Bill C-41 was unanimously approved by the representatives of all parties in the House of Commons and received royal assent on February 8, 2008. We are currently working with the provinces and territories in order to identify the priority areas for action and to seek their public commitment to support communities consistent with the objectives of the trust. When these conditions have been fulfilled, the government will set up the trust as quickly as possible.

The community development trust is another important measure that we have taken to stimulate the economy, to improve the business climate and to allow companies in all sectors to increase their competitiveness and to make an investment in the future.

We have adopted significant measures that provide tax relief and we are on our way to becoming the country with the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrial world.

We have invested in skills development and training in order for all of Canada to have the most educated and flexible work force in the world. We have allocated an unprecedented level of funding for infrastructure—$33 billion over seven years—in order for our infrastructure, which is essential for a modern economy, to be on the leading edge of technology.

And we have taken steps to reduce the burden imposed by government so that businesses can concentrate on what they do best, namely investing, creating value and creating jobs for Canadians. Our government intends to put in place conditions conducive to economic progress and to help the disadvantaged, and the community development trust is an indicator of this commitment.