Roy Cullen

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the motion seeks to reinstate bills that died on the Order Paper when the previous session of Parliament ended.

As all of us know, the goal of the motion is a simple one: to spare members the burden of having to repeat work on bills that got as far as the committee stage in the last session.

This is especially commendable given the numerous pressures MPs are under and the limited resources available to us.

What features are contained in the motion? Simply put, under the motion a minister would be able to request during 30 sitting days after the motion's adoption the reinstatement of a bill that had reached at least the committee stage when the last session ended. Should the Speaker be satisfied that the bill is the same as in the previous session, the bill would be reinstated at the same stage as before.

Thus during this session we can skip all the stages of debate that have been completed so far. The work of the committees that are considering the bills would consequently be preserved. In short, this is a very appealing option.

Parliament relies heavily upon precedents which means we are constantly looking over our shoulder to ensure new measures are consistent with past practices. Is this motion in keeping with the longstanding practices of the House? It is in fact a practice we have had for over three decades.

On a number of occasions reinstatement motions have been adopted by consent and without debate. It is clear that today's motion is well within the bounds of accepted parliamentary practice. This is supported by Marleau and Montpetit's authoritative guide to parliamentary procedure which discusses this issue in some detail. While they recognize that as a general principle prorogation of a session means that all bills that have not yet received royal assent die on the Order Paper and must be reintroduced in the new session, they also recognize that “bills have been reinstated by motion at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session; committee work has similarly been revived”.

One point that needs clarification is that this motion allows the government the flexibility to reintroduce certain bills. It does not require the government to reintroduce all bills that were on the Order Paper at a certain stage when Parliament prorogued. Let me give an example of some bills which the government would have the flexibility to reinstate if it so chose.

One is Bill C-7 on the administration and accountability of Indian bands. The new government has indicated it would like to revisit that whole question of governance but nonetheless, this motion would give the government the flexibility to reintroduce that bill should it so choose.

Another one is Bill C-10B on cruelty to animals which has received a lot of attention in my riding. Bill C-13, assisted human reproduction, as an example had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate and a great deal of the work that had been done here in the House of Commons would have to be redone. Bill C-17 on public safety was another bill that had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate.

Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, is another bill that the government if this motion passes will be able to reintroduce if it so chooses. Bill C-19, first nations fiscal management, was at report stage. Bill C-20, protection of children, was at report stage. Bill C-22, the Divorce Act, was in committee. Bill C-23, registration of information relating to sex offenders, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-26, the Railway Safety Act, was in committee. Bill C-27 on airport authorities was at second reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-32, Criminal Code amendments, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-33, international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, was at report stage when we prorogued. Bill C-34, ethics, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate where it had been amended.

These are bills that have gone through a lengthy debate and process within the House of Commons and some already within the Senate.

Bill C-35, remuneration of military judges, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-36, Archives of Canada, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage and second reading. Bill C-40, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, was at first reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-43, the fisheries act, was at first reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-46, the capital markets fraud bill, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. This is a bill that will help the government deal with the kind of corporate fraud that we have seen with Enron and many other examples. We want to make sure that our government has the ability to deal with these types of issues so that investors are protected from the fraudulent activities of the management of various companies and their directors.

Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries act had passed third reading and was in the Senate.

Bill C-51, the Canada Elections Act, and Bill C-52, the Radiocommunication Act, were at second reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-53, the riding name changes, had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate. Bill C-54, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act was in committee as was Bill C-56, the Food and Drugs Act, when the House prorogued. Bill C-57, the westbank first nation self-government act was also in committee.

There was a lot of work involved in getting these bills to this stage. The government is not necessarily committing to reintroducing all these bills, but we want the flexibility to reintroduce those bills which we support and not have to reinvent the wheel.

The amendment put forward by the member for Yorkton--Melville indicates that there are a number of bills that, given the government's flexibility, he would not like to have reinstated. That includes Bill C-7, the bill dealing with the administration and accountability of Indian bands. Our government may want to revisit that bill.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has said that Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction bill, should be left alone as well. He names a number of other bills such as Bill C-19, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-26, Bill C-34, Bill C-35, Bill C-36, Bill C-38.

I should point out that a number of these bills, Bill C-13 for example, passed third reading and was in the Senate.The member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over with that bill.

He said that Bill C-34, the ethics legislation, should not be reinstated, yet that bill had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate where it had been amended. We all know about that bill.

He said that we should start all over again with regard to Bill C-35, remuneration for military judges legislation. That bill had passed third reading and was in the Senate,.

I do not know what is so contentious with regard to Bill C-36, the archives of Canada legislation, but the member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over again with that bill. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage.

A lot of work has already been done in this chamber and in the other place on bills that, without the passage of this motion, would have to be started all over again. There is a long list of precedents for reinstating government bills and reviving committee work.

For example, in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986, the members of this House gave their unanimous consent to a motion to reinstate bills from a previous session.

In 1977 and 1982 members amended the Standing Orders to allow Parliament to carry over legislation to the next session. All of which testifies to the longstanding practice of the House of allowing the reinstatement of bills at the same stage as was the case in the previous session, which is precisely what the motion calls for.

It is interesting to note, and I have some personal interaction with this particular idea, that the procedure proposed in the motion is similar, in fact it is identical, to that which exists in the Standing Orders for private members' bills which the House adopted in 1998.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees, that unanimously passed all stages in the House, was in the Senate, had passed first reading in the Senate and had been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. Then we prorogued. Without this particular feature, I would have had to start all over again in the House of Commons after two to three years of work and a bill that had passed unanimously at all stages in the House of Commons.

With this particular Standing Order, the bill is already on the floor of the Senate. We did not have to reinvent the wheel here in the House of Commons. I am hopeful that it will be passed to the Standing Committee on National Finance shortly and then onwards from there.

We say that those rules are good for private member's bills, in fact they have the support of the House because they are now part of the Standing Orders. We say, on the one hand for private members' business, it is all right to reinstate these bills, but for the government's business it is not, this is a whole new thing.

The member opposite said that if we have a new government then why do we not have new ideas. I can assure the member that if he read the throne speech, and if he looked at the new democratic deficit paper, this is just the start. He will see that the government will be operated very differently.

However, having said that, there is no problem in my judgment to reintroduce those bills that make sense. There has been a lot of work done already. With this motion, the government would have the flexibility to deal with these bills that have been passed, where there is consent of the House, and send them to the Senate.

It is interesting to note that in 1977, a private member's bill was reinstated after Parliament was dissolved.

All of which inevitably leads us to the conclusion, as I said earlier, that if it is reasonable to reinstate private members' bills at the same stage, surely we have the common sense in this chamber to say that it is reasonable to follow the same procedure with respect to government bills.

What would be different about government bills? If we have adopted the procedure in the House for private members' business, why would we want different rules for government business, unless we are out to score political points or be partisan in our debate?

I should point out that this practice of reinstating bills is also practised in other mature democracies that have ruled in favour of bringing legislation forward from one session to another.

I think of the parliament in the United Kingdom from which many of our own parliamentary practices originally came. It has reinstatement motions to allow government bills to carry over from one session to the next.

The official opposition has told the media that it would oppose the motion for the sole purpose of delaying bills from the last session. This is patently unfair and contrary to House practices. The attitude shows it has little regard for the work of the House and for Canadian taxpayers. Opposition members will ask members of the House, at great cost to the public treasury, to come back and re-debate bills that have already passed this chamber and are in the Senate in many cases.

The bills that will be reinstated would include the legislation to accelerate the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries which was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

We talk about dealing with western alienation. This particular legislation would allow more seats for British Columbia and Alberta. This is the way to proceed. Why would we want to delay that bill? Why would we want to have the debate all over again on something that is patently obvious.

We take the census and figure it all out, and draw the boundaries. This is not rocket science. This is done by Elections Canada. It redefines the boundaries. It recognizes that Canada is a growing country, that different areas are growing more quickly than others, and it redefines the boundaries.

If we have that bill when the next election is called, Alberta and British Columbia will have a bigger voice. I think Ontario would receive more seats as well. I am sure that there could be an amendment that could be put forward to deal with Nova Scotia perhaps.

There is the legislation to create an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer, something that the members opposite have argued for vociferously for months, perhaps years. This bill could be reinstated very simply by agreeing and adopting this motion. We could have an independent ethics commissioner for the House and a Senate ethics officer.

The motion should have the support of the House. It is the practice in most mature democratic countries.

In conclusion, we need to be clear that adoption of the motion does not mean that all the bills that were on the Order Paper when we prorogued would automatically come back. It means that the government would have the flexibility to pick those bills that, in its wisdom and judgment, it sees fit to bring back. That would allow us not to have to reinvent the wheel and re-debate those bills that have the support of the chamber. Many of them also have the support of the Senate, at least at first reading stage.

The motion before us today does not represent a break with our parliamentary traditions. In fact, it is very much a part of our parliamentary traditions and it is entirely consistent with the practice of the House dating back to 1970.

Moreover, the measures described in the motion would greatly contribute to freeing up the members so that they can focus on the important task of developing new initiatives for promoting the well-being of Canadians.

With this in mind, I certainly intend to support this motion. I would urge other members to support it so we can get on with the business of the House, the important business and legislation that can be brought forward and reinstated and not have to be re-debated.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were debating the reinstatement of bills, not Bill C-2. I thought we debated Bill C-2 earlier on in the day, and now we are on to the motion on the reinstatement of bills. I thought the member might be off topic. Perhaps he was not here this morning and he realized he should be debating this main motion.

[Radiocommunication Act, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Radiocommunication Act to better combat illegal decoding of direct-to-home satellite television signals. The bill deals with the growing problem of piracy of signals for direct-to-home satellite television, or DTH. It aims to strengthen our ability to protect one of our important cultural industries.

I am reminded of a television ad that is quite poignant on this topic. It depicts a young boy who I think shoplifts something. At home his father lectures him about the fact that he has been caught stealing and that this clearly is something which cannot be tolerated. The young boy turns to his father and says “Well, Dad, you steal”. The father says “What do you mean? Of course I do not steal”. The young chap says “Well you do, with the satellite signal that you are picking up illegally”.

The word piracy itself of course means stealing. Pirates used to sail the seas and when they would come across a ship that was carrying goods, they would board the ship, perhaps kill everybody on board, and steal all the goods. Even today we have piracy. We have piracy off the coast of Asia. We have piracy off the coast of Africa. We may have piracy off the coast of North America, I do not know. However, this is a different type of piracy where people take telecommunication signals that do not belong to them and make a profit from it.

Our government does not want to target individual Canadian viewers, but rather the men and women who make piracy a lucrative business.

The bill is not targeted at individual Canadian viewers, but rather on those individuals who make piracy a business. The theft of satellite signals denies legitimate Canadian broadcasters, content producers and programmers millions of dollars a year. It robs money from an industry that supports thousands of jobs.

Like a lot of our legislation, the current legislation has not kept pace with our rapidly changing world, a world of telecommunications that has changed geometrically in the last few decades. We continually have to update our legislation to ensure that it reflects these new realities. What we have on the books today is simply inadequate to deal with the growing problems we are currently seeing. Law enforcement officials and industry lack the tools they need to deter the criminals who are importing, manufacturing and selling illegal signals.

How much of this is going on? The industry estimates that there could be up to 500,000 to 700,000 users of unauthorized DTH, or direct-to-home, services in Canada. These activities result in a loss of subscription revenues of about $400 million annually for the Canadian industry. The bill is about creating a fair marketplace for these companies to recoup the considerable investments they make.

I should note also that there is a public safety component to the bill before us. The use of pirated-receiver cards has been found to create signal interference with communications systems used by search and rescue services and by the police. The bill would reinforce existing laws in Canada. It has received widespread support from all actors and the Canadian Broadcasting System as well as law enforcement and customs officials.

Bill C-2 will also create a level playing field for Canada's cultural industries and ensure sustainable competition in broadcasting, for the benefit of Canadian consumers.

The bill, basically, is about creating a level playing field for Canada's cultural industries and ensuring sustainable competition in broadcast programming to the benefit of Canadian consumers.

Let me describe the ways in which the bill deals with satellite piracy. First, the government wants to make it more difficult to obtain the hardware required to steal a satellite signal. I know many of us go around to friends' homes where they sometimes have satellite dishes. Frankly, I never know what is legal and what is illegal. They are everywhere. Some of the satellite signals are legal and some are not. I think we need to make sure we know what is and what is not legal.

The bill would provide for better control at the border by requiring an import certificate issued by the Minister of Industry for anyone wishing to bring satellite signal decoding equipment into Canada.

Second, the bill would increase the penalties prescribed in the act to a level that would provide a meaningful deterrent to direct to home piracy.

Third, the bill would strengthen the existing right of civil action. It is difficult to prove a direct causal link between illegal conduct and the extent of the losses that they actually suffer. The bill would provide an option to seek statutory damages rather than being forced to prove actual damages.

The issue here is to prevent the erosion of the Canadian broadcasting system by preventing blatantly illegal activities.

The bill is much needed. It is about protecting those companies that have invested large amounts of money in legal programming. It protects actors, producers and those involved in this very important industry in Canada. It says that it is not acceptable to steal these goods, and these signals are goods. Even though they happen to be going through the sky, they are goods and they cannot be stolen. We need to be clear that whether someone robs something in a store or one robs a signal, these acts are equally not acceptable. We need to protect those who are making a living from the legal activities of this type of work.

I encourage all members to support this important bill, Bill C-2. It is a bill to amend the Radiocommunication Act to better combat illegal decoding of direct to home satellite television signals. It is much needed because our legislation is out of date and has not kept pace with the changes in this sector.

I urge all members of the House to support the bill when it comes to a vote.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, I find it ironic that both members opposite, or certainly the member for Prince George--Peace River, talked about how everything but the kitchen sink was in the throne speech, and then they want something about BSE, they want something about offshore drilling, and they want something about softwood lumber.

Softwood lumber is a very serious problem as well but what our government is doing is what has to be done. We are working with the stakeholders and we are trying to find solutions. This is not a simple problem. In fact on Tuesday I will have a motion, Motion No. 397, which talks about the need to come up with a different approach to countervailing duties and subsidies, but this is not something that will be accomplished easily, if ever. I hope it can be accomplished but it will not be accomplished easily.

We have situations now where the U.S. is implementing agricultural subsidies in huge amounts. They are implementing state and local government subsidies for manufacturing facilities in, for example, the auto industry. At the same time they turn around and tell us that we are unfairly subsidizing our softwood lumber industry. This is totally and patently--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George—Peace River really has his sights set very low. The intent of a throne speech is to talk about broad directions for the government. BSE is very much a priority for the government. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the minister before him have worked very hard on this, working with the agricultural sector, travelling to Japan and Washington. This is not an easy problem. This is a very serious issue for farmers across Canada and is something that we have to work on.

The government is working on it, but I do not think there is any plan that could be articulated in a throne speech. The plan is to work with the various stakeholders to try to convince the international community that our beef is safe. That is what our minister is doing and that is what our government is doing. I applaud them for doing that.

With respect to gun control, in my riding I have gone to division 23, the local police, and asked whether gun control was useful to them. They say they get a lot of information from that registry and it is helpful to them, although it is not the panacea. So as long as the police tell me that, while yes, we need to improve the operation of that system and the gun registry, because we have built a house that cost too much that is no reason to burn down the house.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the chance to comment on the Speech from the Throne that was delivered by the Governor General on February 2.

This is an exciting time, with a new government and a new leader. The throne speech charts the directions that our government will be taking over the next while. It sets some of the priorities and goals. It is important to know that the members on this side of the chamber and those in what we call the rump played an active role in developing and working on this throne speech.

I was very pleased to see a number of initiatives mentioned in the throne speech, and they will be some of the priorities of our government moving forward. In particular, I was happy to see that the new deal for municipalities is a real deal for municipalities. There were many skeptics who doubted our government's will to work with the cities, municipalities and communities to find a better way to provide sustainable funding and a funding for some key priorities with which Canadians identify.

Beginning February 1, there will a 100% GST rebate for municipalities. This will be a down payment while the government works with the provinces and municipalities to share with them a portion of gas tax revenues, or other mechanisms that may be deemed more appropriate by provinces and municipalities, as the federal government begins to work with them on that point.

This GST rebate is 100%, as I said. Over 10 years this effectively will amount to a $7 billion transfer to municipalities. For the city of Toronto, for example, this equates to some $50 million a year. This $50 million a year can be put to uses like public transit. It can be used to help with the development of affordable housing. It can be used to fight crime.

We have far too much violent crime in my neighbourhood, crime that is motivated by drugs and gangs. I know Chief Fantino has expressed concerns about his ability to deal with these matters. With these transfers to the municipalities, this will provide the city councillors some scope to start addressing some of these very serious problems such as the proliferation of handguns and the western-style shootouts that happen in my riding. Gangs arrive and start shooting at each other with handguns while innocent people are nearby and could easily be injured. We have to put a stop to that, and this money will start us on the way toward that.

As we work with the municipalities on ways to transfer the gas tax, this will be the next phase as the government's fiscal position becomes more clear and more certain and when the government has more flexibility in the next few years ahead.

We need to involve the provinces in these discussions. One thing we do not want to happen is the provinces clawing back this money from the municipalities. We have seen this before. Our government transfers money to the provinces for the CHST, for health, post-secondary education and social programs. The the Ontario government, under the former administration, then used some of that money to cut taxes. We all want to cut taxes, but we have to also step up to our responsibilities.

I do not want the province of Ontario scooping back this money that we will be giving directly to municipalities. We have seen it also with the national child benefit which went to many citizens in Ontario. The Government of Ontario clawed it back. We cannot have that happening again. We want to make sure this is new money is for municipalities, and I am sure our government is committed to do that.

Another key priority in the Speech from the Throne was a recommitment to our health care system and the follow-up and implementation of a further $2 billion in funding for the provinces for this fiscal year. We have to work on a sustainable health care system. We have an aging population. We have new technologies. The pressures on health care spending are enormous.

That is why this health council will attempt to build information so that citizens in every province can compare what kind of value for money they get out of their health care dollars. They will be able see what the waiting lists are for a surgery, for emergency rooms in their various provinces, and how that stacks up with the performance of other provinces. If their province is not meeting an acceptable standard, then they can then demand that it deal with the issue.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

The throne speech includes the creation of a new Canada public health agency. A new Canada public health agency will provide a much more coordinated approach to public health issues and threats. Right now we have a number of different organizations, agencies, bodies and people across a wide spectrum. This will bring people together. It will bring the experts and programs together under one roof so we can deal very effectively with SARS and with new threats like the avian flu if it should appear on our shores. That is a very important step in the area of public health.

More quality child care, more quickly will happen as indicated in the throne speech. That means more child care spaces more quickly, and for many citizens in my riding this is a very important matter. I have had many constituents talk to me about the importance of home care and child care. This would provide them with that relief.

Our government recommitted itself to fiscal prudence with no deficits. We will not spend our way into deficit, that is for sure. We will continue our track of reducing the debt in relation to the size of our economy. We started out many years ago at 71% debt to GDP. We are now at about 44% and we will get down to about 25% in the very near future.

To do that, we will be reviewing all expenditures to make sure that they align with the priorities of the government and priorities of Canadians, so we are getting good value for all our dollars and spending is being managed well.

The throne speech talked about investments in people, updating and improving grants and loans, to increase access for middle and low income families to deal with the rising cost of education. This is a big issue in Etobicoke North.

Registered education savings plans will be broadened or new incentives created to make it more attractive to low income Canadians so that they can save early on for the education of their children. There also will be more programs to support and encourage skills upgrading as the economy changes and evolves so rapidly.

The ability to live, breathe and walk about in a clean environment is absolutely critical. We have environmental problems in the city of Toronto. We have environmental challenges with air that is not as clean as it should be. Our government has said that we need an equitable national plan to implement the Kyoto accord. There is no point in setting goals unless we can achieve them. We need a plan that describes very clearly what the risks and benefits are, how this will be paid for and how we will accomplish these objectives in very real terms.

The government has committed $3.5 billion also over 10 years to clean up contaminated sites for which the federal government is responsible, and an additional $500 million for remediation of other sites. We have many brownfield sites in my riding of Etobicoke North, and I hope that some of that money can be redirected so we do not have to start new greenfield operations. We can build on the existing infrastructure and halt the spread of the urban sprawl.

The government is also intensifying its commitment to clean air and clean water by focusing on transboundary issues with the United States. There is also the one tonne challenge. Every citizen is going to be challenged to reduce emissions by 1,000 kilograms per person per year.

We are going to build on the investments in science and innovation, in basic research, which amounts to about $13 billion since 1997. We are now at the phase where we need to get that technology transferred and diffused into the economy. We need more commercialization so this innovation can be translated into jobs and economic growth as well, and benefit all Canadians.

We need to ensure that research and expertise is available to small businesses so that they can develop on their own.

The democratic deficit is mentioned also in the throne speech where parliamentarians like those in this chamber will be called upon to more fully participate in the decisions of the government. There will be more free votes. There will be a review by parliamentarians of appointments. When courts are making such important decisions, it is very important that parliamentarians know a bit about these people and what they stand for. I am looking forward to participating in that.

There will be the creation of an independent ethics commissioner.

On the international stage, there will be a review of foreign policy. I hope that includes a foreign policy review in respect to Somalia. I have many Somalia Canadians in my riding, and Somalia is a failed state. They are trying to put it on the right path, and I hope that can happen.

There are new capital investments in defence and also affordable AIDS and HIV drugs for African nations.

These are very positive initiatives. It is an ambitious agenda. I hope the members of the House fully support it, get behind it and support the Speech from the Throne.

[Business of the House, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member for Medicine Hat, who was obviously very agitated and very frustrated and emotional. We heard a lot about what he did not like about the throne speech, but we did not hear a lot about what the new Conservative Party's approach would be to stimulating economic growth.

If we look at the Canadian economy, we will see that in fact it has been a miracle of economic growth compared to the G-7. This year, admittedly, we have a little bit of a bump because of a whole range of issues--SARS, mad cow disease, forest fires in British Columbia, the hurricane, and a whole number of factors beyond our control--but I am sure our economy will start to regenerate as these problems are dealt with.

I know that the former Alliance Party or Reform Party talked about the flat tax. It is interesting, because Russia recently introduced a flat tax. My understanding is that it is planning to flatten the tax. Then, when everyone is on the database, it will increase the flat tax to a higher rate of tax. Maybe that flat tax is something that the new Conservative Party would espouse in terms of economic development. I know that in Russia it is being implemented as we speak.

Perhaps the policies of the Conservative Party are under development and it is a bit unfair to ask the member what the policies of a Conservative government would be.

Before they merged, we also heard from the parties on their attitudes toward regional economic development. There are some who would espouse scrapping all the regional economic development programs and agencies, like Western Economic Diversification, which I am sure has done some good work in Alberta, but the member probably would not acknowledge that, and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, FedNor, and a number of these agencies. Would the new Conservative Party scrap those programs? What would it put in their place? Perhaps nothing. I am not sure.

I wonder if the member for Medicine Hat would comment on the new Conservative Party approach to the flat tax and also to regional economic development.

[Agriculture, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In my riding of Etobicoke North, in an attractive residential area known as Thistletown, many very old and majestic trees are being threatened by a pest known as the Asian longhorned beetle. Affected trees will have to be cut down, but healthy trees could be saved by safely injecting them with the insecticide Imidacloprid. This product was successfully used as part of an overall eradication strategy in the city of Chicago.

Could the minister advise the House if a similar strategy will be used in Thistletown and when will Imidacloprid be available for use on trees in Canada?

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of that event in Oakville, but we could turn the argument around and say that maybe the reason they are closing the plant is because we have not had a tax policy environment in Canada that supports them. However, not being familiar with the case, I am not going to promote that argument too strongly.

We need to be careful in our thinking. We cannot penalize an industry or a company because of some actions they are taking and not be supportive and creative in the way we create a business environment where they can grow responsibly and create jobs and economic activity in Canada.

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the question from the member for Windsor West, but we are confusing the issues.

In Toronto many of my constituents are concerned about air quality, as am I. I hope the new premier in Ontario will accelerate the phase-out of these coal-fired burners. By the same token, we need to be concerned of course with alternative energy. In fact Canada's oil and gas companies are looking at renewable energy and we should be supporting and providing incentives for that type of behaviour, and we are, either at the consumer end or the producer end.

At the same time, we cannot turn our backs on our natural resource economy, which is creating and maintaining thousands of jobs in Canada. We can insist that they be environmentally responsible, and they are. However to just say that we should not support our mining, oil and gas sectors in Canada because we have these concerns about Kyoto and the environment does not add up, it does not make sense and it is not logical. It should not be supported by the Canadian public and I am sure it will not be in the House.