Debates of Sept. 28th, 2010

Citizenship Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add to the debate on Bill C-467 brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South. This private member's bill stems from the passage two years ago of an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

The government supports the intentions of Bill C-467, which would treat children born abroad or overseas by crown servants, including Canadian Forces personnel, like children born in Canada so they would be able to pass citizenship on to any children they may have or adopt outside of Canada.

We do have concerns with the bill as it is currently drafted, as it does not achieve its intended objective and would have unintended consequences. However, we are looking forward to working in committee to make a few changes that will be needed to ensure the bill achieves its desired objective.

As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has said, few things in this world are more precious to Canadians than their citizenship. However, over the past several years we have heard from people who thought they were proud Canadian citizens, only to discover that their citizenship did not exist in law due to inconsistencies in citizenship legislation. When they applied for a passport, they were told that they were not Canadian citizens. People who lived or worked here for years without Canadian citizenship could be denied benefits, such as pensions and health care.

The Government of Canada took this matter very seriously. These were unfair situations due to outdated legislation and so we corrected the mistakes of the past and righted a series of wrongs.

As hon. members are aware, amendments to the Citizenship Act have restored Canadian citizenship to those who ceased to be citizens under the 1947 act. These changes gave citizenship to those who never had it but were born of a Canadian, such as the so-called border babies. These were people whose families live close to the Canada-U.S. border and for whom the closest hospital in which to give birth was in the United States.

We can only imagine how difficult it had to be for someone to believe that they were Canadian, only to discover later that their citizenship was not valid all along. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who came forward and testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. They told heart-wrenching stories of how this loss of citizenship had affected them personally.

We also amended the Citizenship Act to support Canadian parents who adopt children from other countries. Such parents no longer have to apply for permanent resident status for their children before he or she is eligible for Canadian citizenship.

The goal of fixing imperfect legislation with the passage of previous amendments was essentially to bring stability, clarity and consistency to Canadian citizenship laws.

Previous amendments to the Citizenship Act also protected the value of Canadian citizenship by ensuring that our citizens would have a real connection to this country.

Along with the hon. members, I agree that the private member's bill before us today is certainly well-intentioned. However, while Bill C-467 does not achieve its objective in its current form, we are prepared to work together to amend the bill. To that end, we will be supporting the bill's passage at this stage so that it can be considered by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am now a member.

However, I would like to reiterate some of the concerns with the bill as it is written right now. The intent of Bill C-467 is to enable children of crown servants born abroad, including the children of Canadian Forces members, to pass their Canadian citizenship on to any children they may have or adopt outside Canada. However, as drafted, the bill fails to do this.

The bill would also have the unintended consequence of denying citizenship for children of crown servants in situations where the crown servant was born abroad to a Canadian parent. That is because Bill C-467 would remove the right, under section 3.5 of the act, which allows crown servants to pass citizenship on to any children they have while serving abroad.

Bill C-467 proposes to confer citizenship automatically to children adopted abroad by crown servants who were born or naturalized in Canada. The current act already allows anyone who was born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent who was born in Canada, whether or not that parent is a crown servant, to apply for a grant of citizenship.

The criteria for such a grant respect international obligations that are there to protect the best interests of the child and that respect the provincial jurisdiction on adoptions.

It is true that under Bill C-467, children adopted abroad by crown servants would no longer have to apply for a grant of citizenship, but they would also not be subject to the safeguards aimed at protecting their best interests. The bill would not treat these children the same as those born in Canada. I am sure all members would agree that we should not penalize the children of crown servants who are not able to pass on the citizenship as a direct result of their parent's service abroad in the name of Canada.

The intent of Bill C-467 could be achieved by expanding the exception that exists in the current act to ensure that the children of crown servants and Canadian Forces personnel, like children born in Canada, would be able to pass citizenship on to any children they have or adopt outside of Canada.

We are already working with the hon. member for Vancouver South to ensure the bill achieves its objectives and will continue that co-operation at committee stage.

As my grandfather said, “You can lose your possessions, but never your pride”. It is a pride he always felt in knowing we are and always will remain proud Canadian citizens.

I congratulate the hon. member for proposing this bill and I look forward to working with him to amend it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-467.

I have had the privilege of working with the member for St. Catharines on the citizenship and immigration committee since I was elected. He has been a spectacular leader and I have learned a lot from him. I have also worked with the minister who has brought forward a number of changes and has a passion for this portfolio that has been unmatched by many others. It has been one of my great pleasures since I have been here to be able to do that.

Bill C-467, as was mentioned by my colleague, stems from Bill C-37, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. Because of the demonstrated need for stability, simplicity and consistency in citizenship status, the 39th Parliament passed Bill C-37 which restored Canadians citizenship to individuals who fell into different categories.

For example: they may have lost their Canadian citizenship by becoming citizens of another country either as an adult or a minor; they may have lost their citizenship when they took an oath of citizenship in another country which included a clause that renounced any other citizenship; or, they were born abroad and lost their Canadian citizenship under the 1947 act because they were living outside of Canada on their 24th birthday and failed to take steps to keep it.

The so-called border babies born under 1947 citizenship act had to take steps to register as a Canadian citizen and, if they failed to do so, they never became Canadian citizens.

Bill C-37 protected citizenship for the future by limiting citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad. That was as a result of consultations that we had heard across the country. What that means is that subsequent generations born abroad would no longer be given Canadian citizenship automatically. This was to end the practice of passing citizenship on endlessly to generations even if they had no real connection to Canada. The goal of fixing imperfect legislation is essentially to simplify the complex rules around citizenship.

Today, Bill C-467 calls on the government to treat children born or adopted overseas by crown servants and Canadian Forces personnel as children born in Canada, such that they would be able to pass citizenship on to any children they may have or adopt outside of Canada.

The government supports the intention of Bill C-467 but, as we have said, we have concerns with the bill in its current form as it does not achieve its intended objective and would have unintended consequences.

We have a bill before us that, if passed, would no longer enable children of crown servants, including the military serving overseas, to pass citizenship on to any children they may have or adopt outside of Canada. Bill C-467 would remove the right to citizenship under section 35 of the act which allows crown servants to pass citizenship on to children they have while serving abroad.

Effectively, this would strip citizenship from children of crown servants born or adopted abroad where the crown servant had been born abroad to a Canadian parent. Bill C-467 proposes to confer citizenship automatically to children adopted abroad by crown servants who were born or naturalized in Canada.

The current act already allows anyone who is born abroad and adopted by Canadian parents who were born in Canada, whether or not the parent is a crown servant, to apply for a grant of citizenship. The criteria for such a grant respects international obligations that are there to protect the best interests of the child, including protection from trafficking and respects provincial jurisdiction on adoptions.

It is true that under Bill C-467 , children adopted abroad by crown servants and the military would no longer have to apply for a grant of citizenship but they would also not be subject to the safeguards aimed at protecting the best interests of the child.

As a result, the bill fails to meet its objectives. The government is confident that the intent of Bill C-467 could be achieved if we expand the current exception that exists in the current act to ensure that children of crown servants, including Canadian Forces personnel, like children born in Canada, would be able to pass citizenship on to any children they have or adopt outside of Canada.

We obviously want to continue to work with our friends opposite and make this Parliament work. We have shown clear indications since we returned and since we were elected that we are willing to do what it takes to make Parliament work to get results for Canadians, whether it is on the economy, whether it is seeking the best for our Canadian armed forces, or whether it is on our justice system.

Of course, we have seen dramatic changes with respect to Canada's refugee protection system. They were brought in by the minister and ushered through committee by our parliamentary secretary from St. Catharines. We did that in a spirit of cooperation that we could all be proud of. It was one of the most satisfying days I have had in the House. It was prior to the end of the last adjournment for the summer break. All parties stood in the House and congratulated the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and each other for a job well done with respect to refugee reform.

This is another opportunity for the citizenship and immigration committee to again work together in the best interests of Canadians and the best interests of the people the bill seeks to help. I am confident that by working together and by allowing this to get to committee, where we can make the amendments that I am hopeful and confident the hon. member who introduced the bill agrees are needed, we can come up with a bill that works for all Canadians, and we can continue to be proud.

In my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham I represent one of the most diverse communities in all of Canada. We have people from all over the world, and I have been extraordinarily proud to represent them. I have heard what they are saying. We see what needs they have. We can appreciate all that new Canadians do for this country. One of the things they tell me they like best about Canada is that they understand that Canada realizes that its strength is its diversity. That is something that this government has focused on. We will continue to do what is best for new Canadians and what is best for immigrants, and hopefully we can work together to get a proper bill through on this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. There being no other members rising, I will turn to the hon. member for Vancouver South for his five-minute right of reply.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually pleased with the response from the House. I do not want to waste any more time. I believe that the bill should go to the committee. I am looking forward to the constructive amendments the government has promised, and we can deal with all those issues before the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the poverty that exists in Canada is staggering. In fact, 3.4 million Canadians live in poverty, which is equal to one in ten Canadians. This poverty is making people sick. It is having long-lasting effects on our economy and on our education and health systems.

The Canada Health Act guarantees universal access to health care, but that universal access does not actually exist for people living in poverty in Canada. This is also an issue of equality rights. Poverty disproportionately affects women, as well as children, seniors, first nations, aboriginals, people with disabilities and newcomers.

Food bank use in Canada is skyrocketing, pharmaceutical costs are rising and 30% of Canadians live in inadequate or unaffordable housing. This situation is untenable for our health outcomes.

Before being elected the member of Parliament for Halifax, I worked as a community legal worker and poverty activist in Halifax. I worked with people whose health outcomes were negatively impacted every day by the fact that they lived in poverty. I cannot tell members the number of times my clients would say to me that they wanted to eat good food and nutritious food like fruits and vegetables or drink milk. However, the reality was that pop was less expensive and that was what people were forced to buy.

It is shocking to me that in 2010 the federal government still does not have a poverty reduction or a poverty elimination strategy. The Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have failed. We need a poverty reduction strategy now.

After the last recession, it took eight years for the job rate to bounce back, but it took fourteen years for the poverty rate to come back to where it was. We need to act quickly to help people living in poverty to recover from this recession.

We cannot just keep reacting in the short term, when the government's hand is forced. We need a long-term, consistent approach to poverty reduction. This is why the NDP, led by our poverty critic, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, has introduced a comprehensive national poverty elimination strategy. I commend the member for Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this bill forward and for the fact that he worked so closely with community groups and people living in poverty and poverty advocates to ensure that he got the bill right, to ensure that it was strong and comprehensive as possible.

The bill would address many of the root causes of poverty by taking income security, housing and social exclusion and unique responses for urban and rural communities and making them core priorities.

The bill recognizes that rural poverty exists, something that we often forget about in Ottawa. The bill includes a strong human rights framework and addresses gender-based inequalities and the poverty experienced by seniors and those living with disabilities.

Not addressing poverty would be more costly for our country in the long run. Eliminating poverty would make our communities and our economy stronger through a healthier and more equal workforce.

Will the government recognize the link between poverty and health, live up to the principles of the Canada Health Act and support the NDP's proposal for a national poverty elimination bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of affordable access to medications as part of a quality health care system that meets the needs of all Canadians, including those who are poor and the homeless.

In the area of health, the Government of Canada's role includes setting and administering national principles for the health care system through the Canada Health Act. This includes providing financial support to provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer, which is the key federal vehicle for supporting health care for the delivery of health care services. This arrangement provides provincial and territorial governments the flexibility and the autonomy they need to respond to their respective health care priorities and pressures with regard to poverty.

Budget 2010 confirmed there would be no cuts to major transfers to other orders of government and that transfers were projected to grow at current legislated rates over the forecast period.

The funding of hospitals and remuneration of providers is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. It is the prerogative of the provinces and territories to develop health services structures and programs that are responsive to the needs of the poor and to deliver those services to those folks in need, wherever they are.

The Government of Canada continues to work with the provinces and territories, with health care providers and with Canadians to make real improvements in the health care system for all Canadians, including those who are affected by poverty.

It is simply not correct to say that universal access to health care services does not exist for the poor in Canada. The Canada Health Act continues to be the cornerstone of this health system and ensures that all eligible residents of Canada have reasonable access to medically necessary insured services without charges related to the provision of those services.

In terms of access to things like drug coverage, provinces and territories possess all the flexibility they need to develop and implement drug coverage programs for specific segments of their population, including the poor and the homeless.

The Government of Canada has worked, and will continue to work, closely with provincial and territorial governments and stakeholders to develop national approaches on these health system issues and poverty and to promote the pan-Canadian adoption of best practices that would benefit all Canadians.

To achieve lasting results in providing a quality health care system to Canadians when they need it, wherever and however they live in Canada, requires willingness from all jurisdictions and stakeholders to collaborate toward a common goal. This government is doing just that.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, contrary what the parliamentary secretary would have us believe, there is a federal role in health. Let us look at the tools the federal government has at its disposal to help eliminate poverty. We have the Canada social transfer. We have old age security, income security programs, employment insurance, and the working income tax benefit. There is a federal role.

Further, let us take a look at the recent decision of the federal government to scrap the long form census. Health organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and health units across the country all rely on the long form census to do their jobs addressing health and the social determinants of health in our country.

Maintaining the long form census is integral to any poverty strategy, and it is integral to any serious effort to better the health of Canadians. When the government has no poverty reduction strategy and is scrapping the census, which is an important tool for public policy, how does it explain these failures to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my colleague has gotten off track. As we were discussing earlier, we have talked about the long form census today. We heard from witnesses at committee that it does not have to be a mandatory census. We do not have to threaten Canadians to get the information the government and others need to set up their programs.

I want to point out that we actually have put $25 billion in total transfers toward health care. That is 6% more than last year. Government obviously recognizes the importance of affordable access to health care and to drugs, but we also recognize and support and respect the role of provincial and territorial governments. We have continued to honour the 2004 health accord, which provides $40 billion in additional funding to provinces and territories.

One of the frustrating things, actually, with respect to the initiatives we have taken is that her party has virtually opposed every one of them. We would call on them to work with us to provide better health care services across the country for all Canadians.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in May of this year, I raised a question with the Minister of Transport regarding the electrification of trains that will be running through my riding of Davenport.

Residents of my riding of Davenport, as well as many others who live in this area of Toronto, face the prospect of having to contend with literally hundreds of diesel trains travelling through the neighbourhood each day along the Georgetown corridor.

I share the concerns of the residents of the West Toronto Diamond community who have, to their credit, consistently made their concerns known on this troubling issue. These residents support public transit, but what is being proposed here is simply beyond anything even reasonably acceptable.

Any initiative like this must be an environmentally friendly undertaking that respects the quality of life of those who live along the route. Beyond environmental considerations, this is also a health issue for residents. Families live, work, and play along this train route, and there are clearly going to be health impacts if hundreds of diesel trains are permitted to run alongside these homes every day.

Since the spring of 2009, I have been working with and advocating for my constituents and other concerned community leaders in this area. I have repeatedly approached the agencies involved on issues ranging from the unbearable noise of pile drivers to the potential impact of using diesel trains instead of electric vehicles.

I have spoken and written to officials at the Canadian Transportation Agency, Metrolinx, and provincial counterparts to find an acceptable solution for affected residents.

It is essential that we deal now with the issue of which trains will be running along these lines. Postponing this decision is not a solution. In fact, it is the problem.

I join with many residents in my community in demanding that electric trains be used along this line. Across the world in urban communities, from Europe to Asia, electric trains are being used, because they are the best method at every level.

People in my constituency and in communities across the region are deeply concerned about this issue, as am I.

Let me say again that public transit is a priority for all those living in the greater Toronto area, but these transit options must operate in a way that does not destroy communities and threaten the health of those who live there. That is why it is absolutely necessary that this project be created for use with electric trains. The downtown-to-airport corridor is important, but it is no more important than the health of families who live along the route.

Now is the time to electrify this line, not at some later date, when even more expense will be involved and after communities have been negatively impacted for years. Now is the time.

For this reason, community leaders and elected officials from across Toronto and from all levels of government have signed the Clean Train Pledge to press for electrification of this line.

I am proud to sign this pledge, and I will continue to advocate for the residents of my community at all levels of government involved in the funding of this project to ensure that electrification of the corridor is the method chosen to operate along this line.

What specifically is the government prepared to do to assist public agencies and the Government of Ontario to ensure that this line uses electrified trains?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back.

The government has taken many steps towards funding important infrastructure investments, including public transit. On the infrastructure programming, it is clear that public transit is in fact a priority that is approaching one third of the infrastructure funding through funds such as the Canada strategic infrastructure fund and the building Canada fund.

We work in close coordination with municipal and provincial governments in making these funding decisions, but ultimately we are merely a funding partner. It is up to those levels of governments, the ones that actually operate the systems, to decide on how best to use infrastructure funding from the federal government.

Public transit is clearly within the jurisdiction of municipal and provincial governments. It is not the federal government's role to get involved in their day-to-day operational decision-making or to tell them, for example, where to lay the roads or the tracks. What we should be doing, and what this government has been doing, is listening to our partners and investing where those governments indicate the highest priorities are.

I know that in a particular case that affects the riding of my hon. colleague opposite, the provincial Ministry of the Environment has mandated the use of high-efficiency trains that are designed to reduce pollutants by 90% over today's locomotives. I also know that Metrolinx is committed to looking at an electrification strategy for its entire rail network. I think we need to see the results of that study before there are any discussions regarding the best use of available federal funds.

Let me be clear that this government's significant contributions have gone to projects that encourage more public transit in Toronto and less single vehicle use. For example, the federal government is contributing nearly $700 million towards the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension. The government has invested in two programs supporting GO Transit totalling almost $650 million in federal assistance. Then there is the FLOW initiative, which supports transit systems in Brampton, Mississauga, York and Durham regions, with investments in these communities of over $265 million. The federal government is putting another $133 million towards the revitalization of Union Station and an additional $333 million towards the Sheppard light rail transit system. Toronto is also receiving up to $400 million by 2010 and approximately $160 million per year after that through the gas tax fund. I think we can see that the federal government is into Toronto transit in a big way.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but the federal government is still providing a significant portion of the funding for this project. For this reason, it is essential that the government actively pursue the electrification of trains along this corridor and it is the Conservative government that has the means to ensure this happens.

In the previous Liberal government, the then Prime Minister made public transit a cornerstone of the new deal for cities. What is the Conservative government prepared to do to continue to make safe, environmentally friendly public transportation a priority for projects such as this one in Toronto?

When the member speaks on behalf of the government and talks about the electrification project, is the government also prepared to provide funding and have a mechanism in place? When we have the ability to in fact electrify the line, will the Government of Canada be a partner in the electrification of this line?

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

Mr. Speaker, my last answer talked about the partnership and commitment the government has towards these projects already. However, I need to state, as I did before, that it is not the role of the federal government to insert itself into provincial or municipal matters.

We are listening and we have heard that residents in big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary are fed up with congestion and they want some alternatives. That is why the Conservative government is investing in public transit projects across the country. Those investments will encourage people to leave their cars at home and use public transit, which in turn will reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

I could talk a lot about the specifics of this, but I think the funding initiatives that I laid out earlier really indicate and demonstrate the commitment this government has toward public transit across the country and in the riding of the member opposite.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of taking part in the late show that arises from a question on the Arctic environment that I asked in the House last May. In my question, I challenged the Minister of Natural Resources to explain the benefits of a relief well, which, under the best of drilling conditions in an area like the Gulf of Mexico, would take 70 to 80 days or more to complete.

The Prime Minister this spring described the recent BP Gulf of Mexico blowout as a “horrific environmental catastrophe”. If such a thing were to happen in our northern waters, can anyone imagine what our pristine Arctic would look like after a three month wait to drill a relief well?

I remember asking him about drilling in the Arctic, where conditions are far from ideal and winds and ice floes are just a few of the environmental challenges. Even getting to the proposed well location can be a challenge in itself.

Without offering any substance to his answer, the Minister of Natural Resources replied to my question by saying:

Canadian regulations require operators to employ the best technology, equipment and training techniques available, and we will not accept any weakening of these requirements. No drilling will proceed until this government is convinced that the safety of the workers and the environment is protected. Canadians expect nothing less.

Last night I told the House that since 2006 the government has spent a total of approximately $10.25 million on research and development on methods to deal with offshore blowouts and offshore spills, including possible events in Arctic waters.

Given this insufficient sum, the minister must agree that when it comes to the environment and Arctic waters, Canadians expect considerably more from the government by way of meaningful research and development spending and preparation for large oil spills, like the one in the gulf or the one with the Exxon Valdez. The government should be prepared to raise its standards to new levels of accountability and standards for drilling in Arctic waters. Canadians expect nothing less.

In correspondence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I raised the prospect of Canada having to address an oil spill that might originate in international waters. The minister acknowledged the prospect of drilling activity off the coast of Greenland adjacent to Canadian waters. His letter informed me that the government views protecting our Arctic waters as a high priority and integral to asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic region. He went so far as to state that the Prime Minister recently informed the House that Canada has strong rules in place and will continue to enforce these environmental standards in the Arctic.

Under Greenland law, proponents applying for exploration licences are required to accompany their applications with a feasibility study, an environmental impact assessment and a strategic impact assessment. Canada does not have these stringent regulations for explorations.

It is disappointing that the government does not have much to say about how it will clean up oil spills in the pristine Arctic, a topic that northerners have expressed so much concern about. Liberals raised this with government ministers on more than nine occasions last spring and we are still waiting for meaningful answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are concerned by the devastating environmental and economic impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is good to take a look at our own situation and ask tough questions about safety and security, and we have been doing that.

However, what we see here today is the member actually trying to change the channel. He is trying to change the channel on the fact that he has failed to represent his constituents. He is trying to move to a different issue.

Last week, the member was in the House and failed to represent his constituents. He failed to keep the commitment that he had made to them. It is not only myself who holds him accountable for that, but his own people back home are extremely dismayed, which is probably a mild term, at his actions, including his premier. We have information that both Premier Fentie and other Yukon MLAs have accused the member opposite of going against the interests of Yukoners by voting to maintain the controversial gun registry.

On May 15, 2009, the member opposite actually voted in favour of scrapping the long gun registry. When it came around this time, he decided that he would not do that. His premier, talking about himself and his own colleagues, said this about him:

We don't change our mind, like the Liberals, on the long-gun registry. We didn't hide from our verbal commitments to Yukoners. We backed it up with action. It is about trust and the Liberals are all in it together. Yukoners cannot trust them.

The Klondike Yukon Party MLA , Steve Nordick. presented a motion demanding that the member opposite return to the legislature to explain his actions.

When the member gets up today trying to represent his people, he needs to be accountable for some things. Steve Nordick said that the member opposite should tell his constituents “why he chose to follow the dictates of the Liberal Party leader...and breach his commitment with Yukoners by voting to save the long gun registry”.

The premier later accused the member opposite of making a commitment to Yukoners “when soliciting their votes” but then later changing his position. The premier's line was “Obviously, once he's received the paycheque, [he] has entirely changed his mind”.

Even the Liberal leader in the Yukon said that territorial Liberals have always opposed the long gun registry.

It is okay for the member to be here today to talk a bit about the oil spill issue, but the reality is that he has been trying to change the channel. He needs to be accountable to his constituents. He needs to stand up and explain to them why he broke his word.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians watched last spring in horror as oil spilled out into the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in North American history. They wondered if their government had any plans to deal with it here.

The parliamentary secretary has just totally embarrassed his government by having absolutely no answer to that. We have been asking for six months now. One would think that in six months they could come up with an answer. He had nothing about relief wells, about oil spills in the ice, or about cleanup equipment, nothing to protect Canada's pristine Arctic. Canadians will be very disturbed at the government's total lack of preparation.

The parliamentary secretary has also embarrassed the minister, because the minister was asked nine times. The parliamentary secretary has a minute left and might be able to at least say that the minister and the government now have a plan to clean up what could be the worst disaster in North American history if it actually occurred in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to speculate about what might be, but I want to talk about what actually is. He can talk about thousands of people standing and watching. Thousands of people watched last week while he stood up and voted against the issues and concerns of his own constituents.

We actually want to talk about his credibility today, which has been completely damaged by his position last week. If we want to protect the pristine Arctic, the best thing we could do is change the hon. member for Yukon.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.)