Pierre De Savoye

[Samuel De Champlain Day Act, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-428 proposes the creation of a Samuel de Champlain Day.

As you and everyone else are aware, Mr. Speaker, Samuel de Champlain founded what was to become Quebec City, where I had the pleasure of growing up. He is commemorated all over the city, by statues and in street names, with the boulevard Champlain and an absolutely charming street called rue du Petit-Champlain.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest's bill proposes that a federal statute institute a Samuel de Champlain Day. In his opinion, the contribution of Champlain merits a day right across Canada in his memory. The date the hon. member recommends to us to honour Champlain is June 26, because he supposedly established the first French settlement on that day in 1604.

The hon. member refers here to the colony on St. Croix Island in New Brunswick, an island the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest says he can see from his home every day, when he is in New Brunswick, not when he is here, of course. His bill proposes that throughout Canada, in each and every year, beginning in the year 2004, the 26th day of June be known under the name of “Samuel de Champlain Day”, because that date will mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of that island settlement.

For Quebecers, Samuel de Champlain is first and foremost the founder of Quebec. In 1608, Samuel de Champlain founded what was, in fact, the first city in New France, and now the national capital of Quebec.

It is not just Quebecers who associate Champlain primarily with the founding of Quebec. There are also thousands of Canadian and foreign tourists who visit Quebec City every year and who, walking along the famous Dufferin terrace, admire the imposing statue erected in honour of the founder of the city. As you can see, Quebec did not wait for the federal parliament to act in order to honour this great man.

But let us talk about the Isle of St. Croix. The French settled first on this island under lieutenant general de Monts, assisted by Champlain. They numbered about 80. The winter of 1604-05 on the Isle of St. Croix was disastrous because of the terrible cold and scurvy—35 colonists died. The colony was therefore moved the next year to Port-Royal, an area Mr. de Monts hoped would be more favourable to the establishment of a permanent colony.

Life in Port-Royal was no doubt more comfortable for the colonists. It was here in Port-Royal that de Champlain founded what is known as the Ordre de Bon temps in an effort to break the monotony of the long North American winters. Thus, the Ordre de Bon temps was a sort of brotherhood where members took turns putting game or fish on the table for a festive and well lubricated meal.

Can we say, though, that Champlain played a greater role in establishing this second colony? Historian Trudel, in an authoritative publication, the Dictionnaire biographique du Canada , answers the question, saying that in Port-Royal Champlain was a simple observer. He says that Champlain was not in command either on the Isle of St. Croix or in Port-Royal.

Thus, we have before us today a bill which, in order to commemorate Samuel de Champlain's contribution to history, picks the anniversary of an event in which the person in question played, to all intents and purposes, a secondary role.

Of course, I understand the member, who probably chose this date because of a sentimental attachment to St. Croix Island, which he can see out his window every day, but I feel that the commemorative date chosen should have reflected the historic contribution for which Champlain is really recognized, which is the founding of Quebec.

That is where he made his real mark. In 1608, on his fourth voyage to North America, Champlain landed at Quebec and built a settlement there.

It was thus that Quebec's history began. The settlement was to become the birthplace of New France and that is why historians referred to Champlain as the Father of New France.

During the decade following the founding of Quebec, Champlain travelled back and forth between North America and France. It was in 1620 that he really began developing the new colony.

Between 1620 and 1624, on his tenth voyage, he set about constructing fortifications and renovating the settlement, which was home to about 60 people. During an eleventh voyage in 1625, he strengthened the fort. Quebec was captured by the Kirke brothers in 1629, but was returned to the French in 1632.

Champlain's twelfth voyage in 1633 was his last, since he died in 1635 after serving as governor of the colony for two years. At the time, Quebec was simply a trading post. Despite everything, Champlain had time to note the promising start of the colony before he died.

Although he was given the title of the father of New France, Champlain is one of a gallery of historical figures who built New France. In other words, he is not the only famous person of the period.

There was, to start, Laviolette. Sent by Champlain in 1634, he had a fort and a settlement built at the fork of the Saint-Maurice and St. Lawrence rivers. Missionaries arrived there the following year. Trois-Rivières was founded. After Laviolette came Maisonneuve, who founded Ville-Marie in 1642. Ville-Marie later became Montreal.

There were courageous women as well in the gallery of heroes of New France. There was, first, Jeanne-Mance, who established the first hospital in Ville-Marie. Marguerite Bourgeoys established the first school in New France.

Dollard des Ormeaux is also an uncontested hero of New France. While the natives were preparing to destroy Ville-Marie, des Ormeaux decided to fight and save the colony. He and his companions died in the fight, but they saved New France from destruction.

And what about Madeleine de Verchères, who, in 1692, for eight days in a wooden fort, fought off almost single-handed an Iroquois attack until reinforcements arrived from Ville-Marie. Her courage was heroic.

Finally, the historic figures of New France must also include those who explored the vast North American continent. I am thinking here of Joliet and Marquette, who discovered the Mississippi, and La Salle, who was to follow them and take possession of the Mississippi delta in 1682, giving these territories the name of Louisiana in honour of the King of France.

These are just some of the heroes who have left their mark on the history of New France along with Samuel de Champlain. I could name many more, but I will stop there in order to go on with my argument.

Were we to comply with the wishes of the hon. member of the Conservative Party to establish a Samuel de Champlain Day, it would be difficult, in my opinion, not to also recognize all of the other men and women who built New France. Would there have to be one for Maisonneuve, one for Laviolette, one for Madeleine de Verchères, and so on?

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest certainly means well, but he is putting us in a problematical situation. Bill C-428, which is intended to honour an important figure in the history of Quebec and of Canada, leaves in the shadows all the other historical figures who have marked the history of Quebec, Canada and the United States. Indirectly, the bill obscures the accomplishments of all these other builders.

This is why I cannot subscribe to the good intentions of this bill, out of respect for all these other men, all these other women, who left their mark on the history of Quebec over 300 years ago.

[International Museums' Day, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Museums' Day, I wish to draw attention to the unique role our museums play in the cultural landscape of Quebec and of Canada.

Museums put the public in contact with fine arts, with technical and technological development, with folk tradition and with history. The museums of Quebec and of Canada are without rival as windows opening onto cultures and civilizations.

Museums play a key cultural role. They also play a social role, one that has been aptly described by Roland Arpin of the Musée de la civilisation du Québec. According to him, museums are mediators between art, history and science, and their visitors, and as such they contribute to the development of critical abilities, thus making their own contribution to building a democracy.

In each museum, countless people, some of them working behind the scenes, are contributing their multiple talents to the spread of knowledge, to sharing the experience—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the bill on which I must insist, and it concerns international adoptions.

Under this bill, an adopted child could be granted citizenship even before arriving in this country. This goes against current practice under the Quebec Civil Code.

What worries me here is not current practice in Quebec, which could be changed since the Quebec National Assembly has full power over its Civil Code. What I find troubling and even shocking here is to see a federal bill that goes completely against a practice under the Quebec Civil Code.

Quebec has the indisputable right to decide upon it own legislative practices under the Civil Code. It has always exercised that right. It is free to change its legislation as and when it sees fit. It does not have to follow dictates set out in federal legislation.

This is the fundamental problem I see with this bill. It is not the substance of the bill as such, but rather the tone of this federal attack on Quebec's civil legislation. With this bill, the federal government is interfering in an area that is beyond its jurisdiction. Ultimately, this bill, if passed, could even be challenged on this point in the courts, because it oversteps the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Provincial governments have rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and by tradition. The Civil Code, the content and form of which were recently revised in Quebec, forms a longstanding tradition going back two and a half centuries to an undertaking given by the British crown to the French crown that it would respect the French civil legislation known as the Napoleonic Code.

The rights enjoyed by Quebecers today are acquired rights dating from two and a half centuries ago, rights over their own civil legislation, and their own Civil Code, which differs from the British common law applicable in other provinces. These rights were agreed to by the British crown at the time of the conquest; they are rights which continue to apply, rights which the Confederation has guaranteed, rights which, to all intents and purposes, are constitutional.

What we are seeing today with this bill is an intrusion in a jurisdiction that belongs to Quebecers and to the National Assembly of Quebec.

My problem is with the approach, not with the issue of adoption itself. This approach is unacceptable. If this bill, as it stands, were to be passed by a majority of the members of this House, which would not include us, it would clearly leave itself open to a court challenge. We certainly do not want this for adoptions.

The Government of Quebec, in correspondence of May 9 to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration signed by the minister of public relations and immigration, Robert Perreault, proposed amendments that, without changing the essence and merits of the bill before us, would permit it to respect Quebec jurisdictions and avoid potential legal problems.

If this bill were to be passed, clearly Quebecers wanting to adopt a child abroad would not be able to take advantage of the measures otherwise available to them.

I appeal to the common sense and good judgement of this House. Whatever is necessary will have to be done to ensure that this bill honours the constitutional rights of the National Assembly of Quebec and the rights of the citizens of Quebec, my rights.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be wrong, but we do not appear to have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I speak on this issue with a degree of knowledge, since I was the Bloc Quebecois critic for natural resources for a while, in fact, at the time the government decided to shut down Devco's operations.

I listened carefully to the Liberal Party member, who hopes that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, or perhaps it will be the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, will review this bill and propose amendments.

A major problem here is that a committee, and I say this with all due respect for committees, will sometimes come to certain conclusions. However, if cabinet and the Prime Minister do not agree, the committee will unfortunately have to forget about its good recommendations and go in the direction shown by cabinet.

Therefore, since money is involved—the amounts are important but not exorbitant; on the contrary, they are too small—I am afraid that the minister's directives will be rather strict and the committee will have little leeway.

The Liberal Party member suggests, among other things, that the miners could be represented on the board, perhaps by a union representative.

We all know that a single representative on a board may be listened to but, no matter how well informed the representative from the mining sector may be, he can never convince the board to overstep its mandate, which will be defined in the legislation, since the act specifies the amounts involved. It cannot increase the moneys that would otherwise be available to the miners who are being laid off in this sad episode.

There are already some lessons to be learned from this situation. For years the federal government has been meddling in regional development. As early as 1960, it was recommended to diversify the economy of Cape Breton, which was essentially based on coal mining.

Unfortunately, these recommendations were never implemented and the federal government kept on pouring money into coal mining. Hundreds, thousands of jobs were created this way, but strictly in coal mining.

Today, as the government is getting ready to stop supporting this industry, which sadly has not been profitable for years, we can see the economy collapsing in the area because the diversification announced and expected 40 years ago did not take place.

This is by no means the only misguided example of the federal government's interference in regional development. A case in point is Atlantic groundfish. There is no more cod. Sadly, it was over-fished while the federal government was responsible for ensuring the sustainability of the stocks.

In many cases, the federal government may not be the best actor, it may not be in the best position to know what is important for a particular region. Here in Ottawa, everything is fine, of course. We look around us. The economy is relatively prosperous; the number of research centres is increasing. Just because things are going well in this bubble all around Parliament Hill does not mean the same is true everywhere. The Gaspé is another place with a number of problems which have made the headlines in recent weeks. Today, we are talking about Cape Breton.

There are not just the laid-off workers to think about. These 1,000 workers have families. If we look at the impact of the economic collapse resulting from the Devco shutdown, we are talking about approximately 6,000 people—men, women and children—who will suffer the consequences. This is tragic in an area where Devco held up the whole economy.

Earlier, the Liberal Party member mentioned that these employees could perhaps be put to work cleaning up the ecological aftermath. This labour force could indeed be used, but this is to lose sight of what should have been done and what the unions suggested at the time.

Devco employees have vested rights. For one thing, they have been paying into a pension. Some of these employees are a few years away from retirement; others have much longer to go. If Devco itself had made an effort to do something about these clean-up operations, Devco employees would have been assigned to these duties as part of their regular duties. Their pension would have continued to grow and at some point these people could have retired.

At the time, the union had done some fairly specific calculations showing that retirements would be staggered out over the period between now, when the mine is being closed, and the time the clean-up was complete. The work force could thus be gradually reduced to a minimum. All these employees could have retired with a reasonable pension, with families looked after, with children who could have continued to grow up in their community.

By abruptly pulling the floor out from under these workers, the security they have accumulated has just disappeared. Even if they are given jobs, they will not have the assurance of a decent retirement on a reasonable retirement income, no matter how hard they work.

If the committee could manage to convince the minister that he needs to sweeten his offer so that the workers can remain with Devco, this would be a considerable improvement, and the ecological cleanup referred to by the Liberal member could be carried out.

I trust that the committee will manage to do so, but I sometimes lose hope when I see the best ideas and the best initiatives running headlong into a wall of misunderstanding, for reasons that we do not know and cannot understand. The plan may seem to make some economic sense in the short term, but in the medium and long term it will result in personal disasters on an unacceptable scale.

I see I do not have much time left. Hon. members will have understood by now that Bill C-11 is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, both from the legal point of view—and we will be coming back to that—and from the human point of view. This bill is, first and foremost, unacceptable in the way it treats human beings.

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just mentioned a number of very real consequences relating to health. Indeed, this is what I pointed out earlier in my speech.

There seems to be a will to save federal dollars in the short term. Incidentally, these dollars come from the taxpayers' pockets. There is no Santa Claus in Ottawa that prints money. These dollars come from the pockets of those who pay taxes.

The government wants to save that money, but in 12, 24, 36 months and more, there will be families having a hard time putting food on the table and buying clothes for their children, with the result that these children may not do as well as they should in school. The federal government is sacrificing a whole generation to save a few dollars, primarily because of a lack of vision.

This is not just a dollars and cents issue. It is also a matter of heart. One must have a vision that comes from the heart but, unfortunately, the government opposite does not seem to have such a vision, a vision that would ensure that families can continue to live, grow and thrive on Cape Breton Island.

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with some sadness that I address Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I will explain why I feel this sadness. On January 28, 1999, the federal Minister of Natural Resources announced the closure of the Phalen coal mine and the privatization of the Prince mine, both located on Nova Scotia's Cape Breton Island and managed by a crown corporation, Devco.

At the time, close to 1,700 miners were working for the crown corporation. About 1,000 people find themselves out of work, in a region where unemployment is already at 25%.

At the same time, the minister announced $110 million in assistance to be used for severance pay and early retirement programs for the miners, as well as $68 million for economic development in the region. The Government of Nova Scotia announced in the fall that it would be investing $12 million in the long term economic development of Cape Breton.

It is important to understand that Devco workers are not pleased with the severance package and with the proposed payments. For well over a year now, since February 1999, they have been making representations to the federal government, asking it to reconsider its decisions and to improve its proposals.

In fact, on December 23, a committee made up of representatives from all parties in the legislative House of Assembly of Nova Scotia called on the federal government to improve its offers and increase the amounts proposed to workers.

One million dollars is a lot of money, but when 1,000 people find themselves without work, one million divided by 1,000 is only $1,000 each. This will not pay the grocery bill for very long, or the rent, and it will not put clothes on children's backs for very long either; $1,000 will be gone very quickly. These 1,000 employees are going to end up on social assistance fairly quickly.

They are being offered more than $1,000, but nothing that will really keep them going for much more than a year. These families will be in a very shaky situation.

I would like to depart from my prepared text and share with the House the conversations I had with those representing workers at the time last year when I myself was the Bloc Quebecois' natural resources critic.

I had occasion to meet with mothers who had travelled here to Ottawa to make parliamentarians aware of the fate in store for their husbands, their partners or their sons if the Devco mine were to close. Let us look at the broader picture.

The Devco mine is basically a coal mine. Coal is less popular than it used to be. It is a fairly polluting substance. Therefore, planning to shut down a coal mine, when coal is less in demand internationally, for the reasons I have just given, is not, in itself, illogical. The problem is the approach being taken.

For some time now, the Devco mine has been run for the federal government. When we are dealing with a region like Cape Breton and more than 1,000 people who are going to lose their jobs, this is catastrophic in a community where there are not many employment alternatives. In short, the federal government is, with its good intentions of terminating operations for the extraction of a raw material, coal, no longer in fashion in the world market, committing the huge mistake of penalizing a region, with catastrophic results.

Quite simply, once the people have exhausted their benefits, their separation payments, the outcome will be despair and a complete lack of job opportunities.

They will then have two choices: taking their families and settling elsewhere in Canada, in order to make a living, or remaining where they are, in most cases dependent on welfare.

By using this bill to close the mine under the present circumstances, the federal government is, to all intents and purposes, thrusting a region of Nova Scotia into a disastrous economic situation, one that will be very long term. This is not something that will be remedied in six months or a year. It will take decades to be rectified, if ever, because its very clear consequences will be an exodus of families and increased poverty in this region.

I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to meet the wives of the miners and mine workers who are unemployed. The problem could probably have been lessened in various ways, and the unions made proposals—and it was not just the unions that made proposals—that, for the most part, meant that many of the 1,000 workers could have faster access to their pension.

There were a number of ways to go about it. The pensions could have been beefed up for those close to retirement, within two or three years of it—and there were several hundred of them—other workers could have been kept on working in the mine, while the facilities were being shut down. From what I understand, the facilities will be closed by an outside corporation, that may perhaps hire these people for a short while, but will not contribute to the pension fund they have already accumulated.

In short, there were solutions. They could really not have cost more in the medium term. They could definitely cost less in the long term. The government thinks it is only in the very short term that savings will be made, and making a saving in human terms in the very short term is really wasting human capital and thus wasting resources in the medium and long term. This is exactly the situation we are in with Bill C-11, to close the Devco mine.

I do not know how the House could influence the minister to change his decision. I have the impression that things are cast in stone. It is really with great regret and sadness that I realize that the representations made by the people of Cape Breton who came to explain the situation, by the union representatives and by the members of the House, have not had the results we had hoped for.

Again, the short term saving made by the government will be replaced by waste and numerous expenditures in the medium and long terms, particularly for the Province of Nova Scotia, which will have to support, through social assistance, families that will find themselves in a precarious situation.

The Bloc Quebecois does not like this situation. The Bloc Quebecois has a heart and it wants the government to also have a heart. I will conclude by expressing my sympathy and wishing the best of luck to those brave Devco workers, who, unfortunately, are being mistreated by the Liberal federal government, which has no heart.

[Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-451 introduced by the member for Guelph—Wellington proposes to establish an oath of allegiance to the Canadian flag. The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill. I will explain why.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not questioning the relevance of national symbols. All countries in the world have distinctive symbols, such as coats of arms, an emblem in the form of a flower or an animal. The flag has always been an important symbol flown proudly by the various countries of the world.

For example, the flag of a nation is part of all official ceremonies, is flown from the flagstaffs of institutions, accompanies delegations and identifies the nationality of whomever is flying it. Indeed, a country's flag is a powerful symbol identifying the country, reflecting its values and affirming its culture, and I have a profound respect for the flag of all nations since each flag is being borne by a people. This is true of the Quebec flag and of the Canadian flag.

Recognizing and respecting a national flag is one thing. Making it the object of patriotic devotion is another. Yet, this is unfortunately what the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington seeks to do with her bill, which begins by saying that it is desirable to establish an oath of allegiance that would allow Canadian citizens to display their patriotism, and continues by saying that an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada would recognize the importance of our flag in our lives.

That is not right. No one has yet demonstrated the desirability of an oath of allegiance that would allow Canadian citizens to display their patriotism, and I am not talking about Quebecers.

Patriotism is love for one's country and devotion to it. Patriotism is not about taking an oath. My motherland, which I love and for which I work hard, is Quebec. I work for it in a totally legitimate, legal and respectful way.

The member for Guelph—Wellington also contends that an oath of allegiance would recognize the importance of the Canadian flag in our lives. That seems to me to be not only exaggerated, but also completely foreign to Quebecers' feelings.

To respect the flag of a nation is one thing, but it is totally inappropriate to say that the Canadian flag deserves to be recognized in our daily lives through an oath. Indeed, in the daily lives of ordinary people, what is important is not to adore a flag, regardless of which one it is, but to earn a living, raise children, fulfil ambitions and look after one's health.

It seems to me that this House and its members have more pressing things to do than to spend time, energy and money to draft an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada and to encourage and promote the taking of such an oath.

When it comes right down to it, what purpose would this oath of allegiance serve? When would it be used? Who would be authorized or encouraged to take it? And what exactly is the meaning of clause 5 of the bill, which reads “The Minister shall encourage and promote the giving of the oath”.

When we see how, for too many years, the federal government has used Canada's flag and Canada Day for its own propaganda agenda, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, in an attempt to destroy the identity of the Quebec people, I have the very strong feeling that, if ever this bill were to be passed, it too, unfortunately, would be used for the same base propaganda purposes in order to wipe out our identity as Quebecers.

As far as I know, Canada is not handicapped by the lack of an oath of allegiance to the flag. Many countries in the world do not have such an oath and they are none the worse off.

France is a good example. The absence of an oath of allegiance to the flag of France has never prevented the French, through numerous trying events, from demonstrating their vibrant patriotism when circumstances required it. The Americans, for their part, have chosen to have such an oath. That is their choice and it goes along with their mentality.

But we are neither the French nor the Americans. We are Canadians and Quebecers, and that is that. Although we share some values, there are others that set us apart.

A flag is the symbol of a nation's values. The bill of the member for Guelph—Wellington recognizes this by providing that a committee be struck to ensure that the wording of the oath of allegiance contains a statement of the principal values symbolized by the flag of Canada.

What are these values? Is it true that all Canadian and Quebec citizens share exactly the same values and accord them exactly the same importance?

Perhaps it is true that the people of British Columbia share the same values as the people of Newfoundland. Perhaps. But Quebecers attach far greater importance to community values, whereas the people in western Canada attach greater importance to values of individualism.

This is totally irreconcilable, as we can see in the handling of the Young Offenders Act, a bill everyone in Quebec opposes, and the Minister of Justice of Canada does not seem to care a whit.

Here in the House of Commons, we in the Bloc Quebecois respect the great democratic value of 50% plus one, whereas it means nothing to the Liberals.

This bill is not appearing in isolation at this point. In fact, just last week, the Conservative government of Ontario announced that the national anthem of Canada and the oath of citizenship would be part of the daily routine of Ontario school children. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century could not do better.

In fact, asking children in this the beginning of the 21st century to swear their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II seems totally anachronistic to me. And to say that all this commotion serves to ensure better security—that is right, security—in the schools of Ontario. The outcry this announcement raised last week was not surprising.

The bill of the member for Guelph—Wellington is cut from the same cloth. It is a bill that, in the guise of patriotic virtue, attempts to force people to express their belief in moral values to be decided by a committee. This has nothing to do with patriotism, not even with the freedoms of thought and expression guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms.

As a Quebecer, I cannot swear allegiance when the values and patriotism expressed are not part of my own convictions, which I share with my fellow citizens of Quebec.

I have this freedom, we have the freedom to think as Quebecers and to act as Quebecers. This freedom can never be denied us by law. The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill.

[Council On Canadian Unity, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that allegations of fraud have led the Ottawa-Carleton police to investigate the Council on Canadian Unity. She also knows that $4.8 million disappeared, through the council, right in the middle of the referendum campaign.

Will these issues be covered by the minister's investigation?

[Council On Canadian Unity, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us that the minister had changed her mind and had decided to order an audit of grants by her department to the Council on Canadian Unity.

Could the minister tell us what programs and what period will be covered by the audit, and when the House will have access to the report?