Debates of March 2nd, 2009

Motions in amendment

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to see the Conservative members, one after the other, applaud the Liberal member to show how happy they are to see him support the Conservative Party's budget proposals, which fly in the face of a rather important environmental process. We are having a hard time understanding the Liberal Party's attitude and its current position, which is to support the government in measures that are completely contrary to the process we now have in place for protecting the environment and navigable waterways. I would like to hear the member's point of view on this.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple explanation. It is called what Canada and Canadians need today.

I said this earlier and I will close with this. We have read and heard that this budget is not perfect. To use a computer term, the budget has bugs, but the government has made it very clear that if there are any amendments or changes we will go to the polls. I do not understand how the member thinks it is wise to have a national election when Canadians have told us repeatedly, in a very strong way, that they do not want an election. We should take that over half a billion dollars and put it into his community and my community.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is blessed with pristine wild rivers and lakes. I have canoed in many of them for many years, whether it is the Dumoine River, the Spanish River, the French River, the Missinaibi River, the Madawaska River, the Nahanni River or Alsek River. Canada has beautiful rivers that make us proud. It is almost a part of the Canadian identity.

The public's right to navigate these rivers predates Confederation. It is part of our history and heritage. It also needs to be part of our future. Why am I here talking about rivers in the middle of a serious economic downturn when today the Toronto stock exchange index fell more than 5.5%? It is because part seven of this budget implementation bill makes an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It has absolutely nothing to do with economic stimulation. If one reads the entire 360 page budget that was presented in the House, not the implementation act, it says nothing about changing navigable water protection because it cannot justify it.

Because the Conservatives saw how weak the Liberal Party was, they snuck in these pay equity changes and changes that punish students and public servants. They snuck in changes just like they did in the 2008 budget. Some members will remember the immigration changes. They had nothing to do with the 2008 budget but the Conservatives saw how weak the Liberals were and snuck the changes in. At the time, the Liberals said that they did not want an election and that they would support the budget, including the immigration changes even though they did not believe in them.

Last June, the Conservatives tried to change this protection act but they were caught. A lot of the environmentalists saw it and wanted to know why they were not being consulted and how the government could that, The change did not pass. Then, of course, we had an election. Many of my constituents wrote to me and said that we needed to protect public access to waterways in Canada. When we do that, we are protecting the natural environment of these waterways. Navigation is entirely under federal jurisdiction. There are no laws or regulations in place, other than the federal act, to protect the public right of navigation in Canada. The provinces have no jurisdiction over navigation and no ability to protect the waters.

Millions of Canadians access our waterways for recreation. Outdoor tourism around waterways generates many millions of dollars every year. In many parts of the country, the outdoor tourism industry is a critical part of local and regional economies.

My constituents said that the proposed amendments to the act must be withdrawn from C-10 and that there needs to be meaningful public consultation because they have the historic public right to navigate our waterways. We need to protect our natural environment. We need to ensure there is access to waterways for recreation and commercial tourism. I received a letter from another constituent who said that he was a canoeing enthusiast and that he was worried that the changes would threaten Canada's natural waterways that he so loves. He said that in order for Canada to remain clean and natural for all Canadians to enjoy, the Navigable Waters Protection Act amendment must be struck out.

Another constituent wrote to say that he was very concerned that the Government of Canada was poised to deregulate the protection of waterways in Canada which could impact on the rights of all Canadians to navigate and enjoy free access to Canada's waterways under the guise of putting people to work. He said that they were doing so without consulting Canadians in an open and transparent manner.

My constituent also mentioned that the legislation had nothing to do with putting people to work, considering that most, if not all of the economic stimulus initiatives proposed by the government, were for municipal infrastructure and not governed by federal environmental laws. He did not see any connection with what we are talking about here with stimulating the economy and putting people to work.

Another constituent wrote to ask us not to mix these changes.

The letters go on and on. People are extremely concerned and yet we have a Liberal opposition that is so afraid of its own shadow that it is not negotiating any amendments or changes. The Liberals are assuming that any amendment will be a confidence vote. They have not even tried. It is really unfortunate that the budget makes changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, pay equity and students, which has nothing to do with the budget and stimulating the economy.

We would be making a serious mistake here if we were to pass this section of the bill. I just wish the Liberals would actually stand up for what they say they believe in and split out this section and vote against it. They would then be able to tell their constituents that they tried and that they did their best and allow their constituents to judge. If they do not to that, then it has all been empty words. They say one thing here in the House but they act totally different when the vote comes. That is not what we call leadership.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I carefully listened to the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina speak to the budget issue. She really questioned the Liberals and asked us what we believe in and why we were supporting this.

It is not only a matter of belief. It is a matter of faith. We have faith in the DFO. We have faith in the infrastructure of Canada. We have faith in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Over and above this, we have faith in the development of the consultation process with people.

We have faith in those agencies. We have put the government on probation and we will ensure those agencies are consulted and that the rights of those people who are concerned are not jeopardized. Not only that, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 enshrined the rights of all Canadians in the court of law, which is why the Liberals support this particular budget.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand this. The budget was presented and, fair enough, the Liberals want to support the budget. However, what does destroying the pristine rivers or taking pay equity out of the Canadian Human Rights Commission have to do with stimulating the economy? I just do not understand it.

Could the Liberals not have even tried at the committee level to split up the bill, to take out clause 7 in this case? They did not even bother trying. Have they tried negotiating? No.

Have the Conservatives or the Prime Minister said that they would not do it? I have not heard it.

The Liberals are so afraid. I do not understand it. They say that perhaps there will be an election. No, not necessarily. The Constitution experts have said that if the government falls, we may not have an election. We may have a different kind of government.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation now. We have a coalition of sorts between the Liberals and the Conservatives over the budget. We hear some protestation on their part about this part of the budget.

Some of the comments I have heard today suggest that those members probably support what the Conservatives are doing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. They are not standing up against it. Quite clearly their leader, who leans very much toward the Conservative side of the House, is supporting it as well.

I do not think we should be surprised by what the Liberals are doing here. It is part of their new leadership. As such, we have to accept that.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is probably correct. After all we have a leader in the Liberal Party that believes the expansion of the oil sands will contribute to national unity. He seems to have nothing critical to say about some of the problems, like the greenhouse gas emissions being creating by the oil sands.

Perhaps I should not be surprised that the Liberals are not at all worried about the amendment on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Even though it contains no consultation, no transparency, not one single Canadian has been asked—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this issue, which ties into a much deeper issue of what we are doing here.

First, as a lifelong paddler, I am deeply concerned about the changes the Conservative Government has packaged into their budget on the NWPA.

Before we even get around to that, let us talk about the responsibilities we hold as parliamentarians to represent our constituents and to govern adequately and for the future of our families and our people.

The government and members of Parliament must respond to Canadians' needs. We have to be there for our fellow citizens, and we must always make responsible decisions. It is easy for the NDP and the Bloc to stand in the way, to oppose without ever having to propose, without ever having to make judgment calls and difficult decisions.

I recognize we had plenty of difficult decisions to take when faced with this budget. Throughout the fall, the Conservatives continued to say that there was no economic crisis, that they would be in surplus, that everything was well. We had to push them extremely hard to get them to admit it. We then had to get them to start spending, to start giving to Canadians some of the stimulus, some of the response that they desperately needed.

Was it enough? No, it probably will not be enough, but it is a damn site better than delaying, than putting off our interventions, than dragging Canadians through another expensive election, which would probably return a very similar result of a minority Parliament of some sort, while Canadians are losing their jobs, families are struggling to plan for the future, kids are anxious about what their parents are arguing about late into the night as the bills come in and the job prospects look less and less likely.

Canada is in a crisis. The NDP members announced even before the budget hit the table that they would in no way support it.

The Bloc Québécois proposed unrealistic, unacceptable amendments.

The Liberal Party took a good look at what the Conservatives have done. This is basically a Conservative budget; we understand that. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition, with the Bloc Québécois' support, was able to push the government to take positive steps for our economy, to propose measures we really need.

At the same time, the Conservatives have chosen to sneak some measures that will not be good for Canada into the budget. For example, it includes measures that are not good for pay equity for women, not to mention some real flaws when it comes to protecting navigable waters.

Even so, the Liberal Party decided that it was in Canadians' best interest to get the money flowing right away.

However, navigable waters is an issue, and it is an issue for me. The powers granted to the minister would allow the government to bypass some of the triggers for environmental assessment. It removes the words “dam”, “weir”, “log”, “bridge”, ”causeway” from the automatically triggering environmental assessment procedures. This is a strategy of bringing more power to the ministers. It is similar to the power brought to the minister in the Immigration Act, which the Conservatives adopted last year. This trend is absolutely troubling.

The rights of Canadians to explore their waterways is one that goes into our very identity as Canadians. Our ability to explore this great land, as generations before us have, which was allowed through our waterways, is one that predates Confederation. It goes all the way back to Roman times. To have free access to waterways is essential.

However, the NWPA is over 100 years old. It was brought in 1882. It does need a little reworking, which is why the Liberals worked hard in committee last year to bring about some positive impacts. However, the Conservative government slipped in these changes without any possibility of discussions, debate, back and forth for positive consensus. Then it said if we did not accept the package it put forward in its entirety, regardless of the fact that it is not all about stimulus, we would go into an election.

We are facing tough choices here. We can either try to protect our jobs and not protect the jobs of Canadians, or we can say that Canadians need help and they need help now. They need us to reach out to them. They need us to stimulate them economically to allow them to have safer jobs, to allow them to train for the future and to allow communities to spend on much needed infrastructure.

Are there faults in the budget? Absolutely.

It is wonderfully easy for the Bloc and the NDP to stand on their high horses and shout out that it is terrible this is going through. They do not have to make any of the tough decisions. They have absolved themselves of responsibility that way. They are happy to oppose. However, the Liberal Party intends to form the next government. Because of that, we need to be responsible. When Canadians turn to us and ask us why we do not support the budget or the money that will come from it, we will have no answer if we block it.

Pressure by the Liberal caucus and in committee allowed for a mandatory five year review clause in the NWPA, which means this implementation is not automatically forever. Indeed, the Liberal Party feels that it is time for a comprehensive overhaul of environmental assessment to ensure that we are properly protecting Canadians, that we are properly balancing economy and environment. There is no question that the economy and the environment need to be built together in the future. However, to jump and pull the trigger right now because this is not a Liberal budget would be irresponsible.

We have to give the Conservatives credit. They went a long way in acting against type by actually reaching out to help Canadians and spending on them. For that, we applaud them. However, the challenges we face mean that we need to work together. It would be wonderful if, for once, a party like the NDP would read something before it decided to vote against it. It gives the NDP members the idea that they can stand there and be defenders of the people, the way the Bloc members are defenders of Quebeckers.

We need to be actual defenders of the people. That means taking action. It means making compromises. Like it or not, Canadians voted a Conservative government in last time. What we have to do is make sure that Parliament works. That is what the Liberal Party is doing. It is making sure that this imperfect budget serves Canadians. It is making sure that the naysayers who want to trigger an election or an unstable coalition do not get their way and that Canadians get the help they need.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the enthusiastic remarks of the member for Papineau. I was curious about his characterization of the role of the NDP. I believe what we said was that we lost confidence in the government. From the speech of November 27 and over the following days, given what was going on, we had no confidence that the government could produce a budget or do anything that was going to please the people of this country.

The hon. member for Papineau, along with all his colleagues, signed the letter and agreed.

What I would like to ask the hon. member is this: when did he actually regain confidence in the government? He is concerned about reading things, so was it after he read the budget, after he read the documents that were put out, after he read the section dealing with pay equity with all the detail there? The budget said we will fine a union $50,000 if it assists any of its members in pursuing a pay equity claim. Is that when he got confidence in the budget and decided to support the government? Can the member tell us that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member would like to know when we regained confidence in this government. It is quite simple. We did not have high hopes that the government would be able to put forward an attractive budget, one that would help Canadians. Throughout the fall, Conservatives were in denial about the problems, the environmental challenges, the need for Canadians to spend, and we were no longer confident that this government could act accordingly.

So we applied pressure. We formed a coalition that was ready to take back power if the government could not meet Canadians' needs. After consulting with Canadians and those who support us, we saw that the budget they presented was not perfect but that it did provide tangible assistance to Canadians. Yes, there are big holes in this budget. However, the challenge is to get money out to Canadians and that will be done.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Papineau is speaking with a great deal of emotion. His voice is trembling.

There are huge holes in the budget, but they are not big enough for the Liberals to vote against it. On Saturday, in Halifax, unionized public service employees held a demonstration about the huge problems in the budget. They told the Liberal leader that the measures in Bill C-10, including the pay equity measures, made no sense. That is just one of the issues they raised.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about this, about the fact that he is supporting such a budget and such a government, which reneged on its promise to the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador. It also went back on its promise to Quebec. We know that the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion about equalization.

All these people cannot be wrong. It is the Conservative government that is wrong. That is what the member is saying, but at the same time, he is going to support this bill. I would like the member to explain this glaring contradiction.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the contradiction, that is what makes it so difficult to make responsible choices as a member of Parliament. The truth is that we have to make choices here. We have to act in the best interest of the people we represent and the whole country.

Yes, pay equity is a real problem, and the Conservatives should be ashamed of what they are doing. Yes, unions are right to protest many of the things in this bill, but they are protesting against the Liberals when they should be protesting even more against the Conservatives.

The challenge is finding a balance, figuring out how we can best help Canadians. The truth is that we have to accept this very imperfect budget because we have to get money flowing to Canadians right away. We have to help them find jobs, keep their jobs and get ready for the future.

However, when it comes time for an election, everyone will see that we are only too ready to get rid of the Conservatives and form the next government.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the amendment to the budget implementation bill.

I would like to take up a little of what the member for Papineau was saying when he was concerned about the options that are available to the House at this time. He talked about one option being supporting the budget, supporting the government, showing confidence in the budget, making a compromise, et cetera. He referred to the alternative as an “unstable coalition”.

On the other hand, the argument that was made, and made quite quite strongly, was that the coalition proposed between the Liberals and the NDP had a very stable form of government that would have got us through two budget cycles without the threat of the kind of thing that is going on now, the so-called compromises against principle that the member is being forced to make. We would have an agreement that would last us through two budgets and we would have stability.

We have members from the Liberal opposition now saying that in June they will call an election. They will call an election in June, or at the first opportunity--not March, but June. They were saying they did not read the budget and were going to vote against it, but now they are saying that in June they will trigger an election.

What kind of stability is that? What kind of stability do we have with this government in power and the Liberals ready to pull the trigger at any time it suits them? When the terms of their probation are not being met, they will pull the trigger.

Every day we see members opposite, ministers, and the Prime Minister rubbing the Liberals' noses in the support that they are giving to them. I cannot believe they can get away with it. I am here every day. I hear the Liberals complaining about the government. Then I hear members of the government say that the Liberals are voting for all this stuff and that they are supporting them. They are not even thankful for the Liberals' support. They are not even giving the Liberals anything, not a crumb, even though they are asking the Liberals to go against their principles.

The member for Papineau should read this letter. I am sure he has a copy. It is a letter from CAUT complaining about pay equity. What do they say? They say that there is a breach of Canadian commitment to international conventions. They say there is a breach of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was brought in by former Prime Minister Trudeau. It is a breach of constitutionally protected labour rights. It is a breach of the principles of democracy and all those things.

The government is rubbing the Liberals' noses in it, making them vote for it and support it. Why? Is it in the interests of stable government? This is not stable government. According to the Leader of the Opposition, this government is on probation, the terms of the probation can be broken at any time, and they will pull their chain. I do not see any chain pulled by the members opposite. In fact, they are so secure that they are ready to rub the Liberals' noses in it every single day.

The people of this country are able to watch that. They know what is going on. There is a lot of talk about being responsible and compromising and all that, but the people of this country see what is happening here. They know that prior to the budget being brought down, our leader said that if the government came up with a budget that had any merit, we would easily adapt those matters into a budget for the coalition. That could be done very quickly and could implement any measures that were desirable.

The motions before the House today to amend the budget, to remove these odious provisions in relation to pay equity, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other things, are an opportunity for the opposition members to stand on their feet and support the principles they say they believe in, but we do not see any evidence of it before the House.

I know I have a few more minutes and the House will be moving on to other business. If it pleases you, Mr. Speaker, I can end here and let you move to other business, or I can keep on till the time is up. I see it is comme ci, comme ça. I can keep going. I might not get as enthused, knowing that I will be cut off in a minute or so.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act is now being gutted by the government, gutted in provision after provision. Even to determine whether a waterway is a navigable waterway is now at the discretion of the minister. Each and every step of the way, it is up to the minister and the opinion of the minister. If the minister makes such an order, he can do so. That takes away the protection of the waters my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, was talking about, in her experience in canoeing on navigable waters throughout this country. The changes that can be made to those waterways will now be at the discretion of the minister, instead of being subject to a proper evaluation and an environmental assessment, and that is wrong.

I urge members on both sides of the House, even government members, to vote against it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for St. John's East will have five minutes left to conclude his remarks the next time this bill is before the House.

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

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the 20th century, influenza threatened the world, in 1918, 1957 and 1968. The latter two pandemics killed a total of three million people. In stark contrast, the Spanish influenza of 1918 killed upwards of 50 million people.

Today the World Health Organization and influenza experts fear a pandemic flu is inevitable and that we are closer to it than at any time since 1968. As of February 27, 2009, the H5N1 influenza virus had infected 408 people and killed 256. Experts estimate that between 11,000 and 58,000 Canadians could die in a future pandemic.

Given the seriousness of the present threat, experts must determine why avian influenza broke out in British Columbia's Fraser Valley in 2004, 2005 and 2008. Therefore, what regular testing is the government undertaking in wild birds and in what species? As over 100 wild bird species carry low pathogenic avian influenza viruses, is the virus being spread from wild birds to domestic birds?

What might low pathogenic influenza strains found in Canada mean in the long term? Recent research shows that H5 and H7 viruses of low pathogenicity can, after circulation for sometimes short periods in a poultry population, mutate into highly pathogenic viruses. What might flyway data suggest, if anything, for the spread of the virus in North America? Some species of migratory waterfowl are now thought to be carrying the H5N1 virus in its highly pathogenic form and introducing it to new geographical areas located along their flight routes.

These are important questions because when wild migratory birds mix with domestic flocks through the sharing of habitat, there is an enhanced potential for genetic re-assortment of avian flu viruses resulting in novel genotypes which could trigger a human influenza pandemic. Once avian influenza is established in domestic poultry, it is a highly contagious disease. One gram of contaminated manure can contain enough virus to infect one million birds.

Is the virus being spread by airborne transmission if birds are in close proximity and with appropriate air movement? There are 600 poultry producers in the Fraser Valley.

Is the environment serving as a source of infection and what monitoring is taking place? When birds visit lakes along their paths, they shed virus into water, the lakes freeze and thus they preserve the virus for months, years, and perhaps much longer. Or is the virus being spread through trade, for example, from flock to flock by contaminated equipment, egg flats, feed trucks, et cetera?

Finally, what specific measures have been taken to look at the intensity of poultry farming in this region? What measures have been taken to reduce the risk of transmission? What specific measures are being taken to protect producers and the $1 billion industry? Most important, what specific measures are being taken to protect civilians from avian influenza in the Fraser Valley when Canada will welcome the world in 2010?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here today to bring some comfort to the member's troubled mind.

Canada's ability to prevent, prepare for and respond to an outbreak of avian influenza is a key priority for us. Regarding the source of avian influenza in the most recent outbreaks in British Columbia, extensive testing of the commercial poultry farms within three kilometres of the infected flocks has not found another flock that may have been the source of the low-pathogenicity virus. Broader surveillance of commercial poultry flocks is set to start within the next week.

At this point in time, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is looking at the wild bird population, which is the natural reservoir of all avian influenza viruses, as the most likely source. However, the investigations are ongoing, and until our investigations and sampling procedures are complete, we will not be able to state with certainty a probable source of the virus.

In previous avian influenza outbreaks in Canada, extensive testing was done in the domestic poultry population, with no further detection of the virus. As a result, a wildlife reservoir was determined to be the most probable source of this virus.

This government takes avian influenza and the associated risks to animal and human health very seriously and is well prepared to react quickly in these cases. Response protocols have been developed and allowed rapid reaction regarding the current findings. The response is focused on containing and eliminating the virus in order to avoid spread. Cooperation between federal and provincial jurisdictions, including diagnostics support, public health protection, and environmental assessments related to containment and disposal, has been of the highest order.

I would like to give a few details of the restrictions that have been put in place. In order to limit any potential virus spread, the CFIA has applied restrictions on the movement of poultry and poultry products from commercial poultry operations within a three-kilometre radius of the two infected premises and all contacts outside the three-kilometre radius that have been assessed as high risk due to the movement of people, products and equipment. All premises with birds within three kilometres of each infected premises, and all quarantined locations, will also be monitored for signs of illness for a minimum 21-day period following the last possible date of exposure.

The respect of the international community for the integrity and competence of the CFIA's management of these detections is reflected in the decision of the vast majority of countries to limit any trade restrictions to either the three-kilometre surveillance zone or the province of British Columbia.

Avian influenza preparedness and effective response is a top priority for this government. We have developed, in consultation with the poultry industry, a comprehensive and robust avian influenza surveillance program for domestic poultry. This is key to the CFIA's avian influenza strategy and to maintaining Canada's reputation as a credible participant in avian influenza preparedness, our access to international markets, and consumer confidence in our poultry products.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we do not know what caused the three outbreaks in 2004, 2005 and 2009.

All owners, operators and workers on poultry farms should take steps to protect themselves from avian influenza. Operators should develop a response plan to complement provincial and industry plans and designate a response plan manager. All workers should practise biosecurity and know the plan and their responsibilities.

Flocks should be isolated from outside environments, wild birds and water sources that might be contaminated. All workers should know the signs of avian flu with the highly pathogenic H5N1 and the possible symptoms of avian influenza in humans.

What steps has the government taken to make sure that poultry producers have an avian influenza response plan that complements industry and provincial plans? What percentage of Canadian poultry farms is prepared for the next flu pandemic, and what economic—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many of the things that the member has suggested have already been done and are being done by the authorities.

Canada has enhanced our import control measures for poultry and poultry products and has established a national avian influenza surveillance program for domestic birds and wild birds. Before birds can be imported into Canada, they are first isolated and tested in the exporting country. If they are found to be disease-free and safe to import, the birds undergo quarantine and a second round of testing in Canada.

To counter the possibility of avian influenza entering Canada through illegally smuggled birds, Canada conducts enhanced inspections of passengers and goods from countries in which highly pathogenic avian influenza is known to exist.

The CFIA monitors international developments and ensures policies and strategies reflect the most up-to-date science. It also coordinates with other federal government departments, provincial governments and industry, which have roles and responsibilities in preventing, detecting or responding to avian influenza.

In summary, effective plans are in place.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, for those watching at home, we are now in what is called the adjournment proceedings, or affectionately the late show. It happens every day about 6:30 p.m. If there is a question asked in the House of Commons and the member is not happy with the answer, then the member has this time to go into it in more detail.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs made a comment about talking about sovereignty with his colleagues in other Arctic nations. I rose in the House on February 3 to ask a very simple question about what he would tell them. Much to the surprise of everyone in the House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not rise. There was a silence for a while and then another minister rose. If people wonder why I was concerned about what he might tell them, it is because of the troubled history the government has with its promises on sovereignty.

For instance, the Prime Minister's first promise was for three armed Arctic icebreakers. All of sudden, they vanished. The navy has none of those. There is a promise of one for the Coast Guard for sometime in the future. We do not know when that will be.

Patrol boats are boasted for the Arctic policy. When the ice can be 18 feet thick, patrol boats will only be able to go through three feet of ice. Perhaps they can be used in other places or at other times of the year. That is fine. I have every confidence in the navy to do that. However, the government should not be taking the Arctic money for those purposes.

What about the naval strength and supply ships? They were cancelled. The planes for Yellowknife have vanished. A deep sea port is a good idea, but where is it? Where is the development of that? The construction of a winter training centre is another good idea, but where is the progress on that? Where is the training centre?

Another area I have been pushing for years in the House is search and rescue planes for the north. In fact, the whole fleet has to be refurbished. In credit to the Minister of Defence, he said, finally, after us bringing it up so many times, that the fleet would refurbished. However, there has been no mention of it or no announcement. I have no confidence that any of those planes will be placed in the north to protect the lives of northerners.

One only has to read the front page of today's Globe and Mail about another aspect of this failed northern policy. Researchers talk about the fact that they do not have the money to conduct their work in the north, especially now that the IPY funds that we had initiated are running out. The chief scientist of the Polar Environmental Atmosphere Research Lab in Eureka, in Nunavut, James Drummond, stated that his lab was threatened by poorly directed funding.

The lack of commitment for the north and Arctic policy can be seen by the fact that the government cancelled the ambassador of circumpolar affairs and has never replaced him in a time when there is more and more attention of the world on the north because of the melting waters and the opening up of such a fragile ecosystem.

At last week's meeting of Arctic parliamentarians, I had the opportunity to discuss the great strengths of our Arctic sovereignty, the greatest strength being the people, and the fact that the northern and aboriginal peoples, who have made up our history for eons, were our highest priority and we would continue to support them.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak in response to the question from the hon. member for Yukon.

Our government firmly asserts its presence in the north on multiple fronts, sending a strong message to the world on Canada's right and resolve to protect its territories.

Measures taken include committing $720 million for a new polar class ice breaker, the John G. Diefenbaker, to replace the Canadian Coast Guard ship CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, scheduled to be decommissioned in 2017. The new ship will have increased ice breaking capabilities and be dedicated to the protection and studying of Arctic waters and, by extension, securing Canada's sovereignty in the north. This will increase our ability to patrol.

We will be launching the RADARSAT-2 satellite for monitoring and mapping. We are committed to amending the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to extend its application to 200 nautical miles. We are creating the Canadian Forces Arctic training centre in Resolute Bay, Nunavut.

We are committed to purchasing new Arctic offshore patrol ships and building a new deepwater berthing and refuelling facility at the eastern entrance to the Northwest Passage in Nanisivik, Nunavut; to expanding and modernizing the Canadian rangers program, a very important presence in the north and part of Canada's reserve force responsible for providing a military presence in remote, isolated and coastal communities in Canada; undertaking sovereignty related military operations in the north, such as operation Nanook; working on the northern watch technology demonstration project, which seeks to identify the best combination of sensors for a cost-effective surveillance system in Canada's Arctic; and investing $40 million over four years to carry out the comprehensive mapping of Canada's seabed in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans to support Canada's submission to the UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in time to meet the UN deadline of 2013.

It is abundantly clear that our government supports a vision of a new north that realizes its full social and economic potential and secures its future for the benefit of all Canadians.

Through the integrated northern strategy, we focus on strengthening our Arctic sovereignty, protecting the north's environmental heritage, promoting social and economic development and improving and devolving northern governance.

What is more, budget 2009 continues the implementation of this government's vision for a new north with new measures that will protect and secure Canada's sovereignty and create more economic opportunities in the north.

These include $50 million over five years to support economic development through the creation of a new regional economic development agency for the north; $90 million over five years for a renewed strategic initiative for northern economic development; $200 million over two years for new and renovated social housing for low income Canadians in all three northern territories; $87 million over two years to support the government's commitment to Arctic science; $38 million in support of environmental assessments, regulatory coordination, science and aboriginal consultations related to the Mackenzie gas project; and up to $17 million to accelerate the construction of the Pangnirtung, Nunavut, small craft harbour.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member opposite, but unfortunately he provided a list with a lot of the same things that I provided of the broken promises or not yet achieved promises.

He started out with the three ice breakers, but there will only be one. I am glad the Prime Minister is so enthusiastic about Pierre Trudeau's Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and has extended it. That is excellent.

However, there is no mention of the dispute and negotiating of the Northwest Passage, no mention of the dispute at Hans Island and no mention of how we will sit down and resolve the dispute in the Beaufort Sea. I see we have a new senator who is also now supporting that we get on with this. Hopefully the government will follow up on that.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is getting things done that the previous government did not get done.

Let me repeat. Our government continues to put the north on the agenda like no government before us. In fact, the northern strategy calls for us to harness the resources and energies of all federal departments and agencies to work towards achieving four core objectives: strengthening our Arctic sovereignty; protecting the north's fragile environment; promoting economic and social development throughout the north; and improving and devolving northern governance.

We are determined to make tangible practical progress in enabling stable prosperous communities in the north and an improved standard of living for northerners.

I look forward to the member's support in all these endeavours.