The House met at 2 p.m.

As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Halton.

[Members sang the national anthem]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I rise in this House to pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Pope John Paul II.

The Pope reached out and touched the lives of millions of people, not only as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church for 26 years but as a simple human being who lived through remarkable times. In his youth, the Pope challenged Nazi fascism during the occupation of his beloved homeland of Poland, and later he played a key role in the fall of communism in that country with his support for the Solidarity movement.

In Toronto the Pope inspired the ecumenical work of the Scarborough Mission to reach out to people of all faiths and cultures. As one of those involved in the ecumenical work of the mission, I can attest to the fact that these efforts of the Pope have been quite successful locally.

I am certain that all members of the House, along with all Canadians, wish to extend our condolences to the Vatican, to Catholics and to people all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Parliament should be looking at ways to get people off drugs and crack down on drug dealers and drug producers, the government is pushing ahead with legislation that will lead to more drug use and an increase in drug related crime.

I am referring to the Liberal government's Bill C-17 to decriminalize the possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana or roughly 45 to 60 joints. The intent of this legislation obviously is to decriminalize the occasional use of marijuana. I do not know what the government is smoking but 30 grams of marijuana is a little more than occasional use.

Decriminalization sends the wrong message to young people; that is, marijuana is not so bad and it is okay to experiment with this so-called soft drug.

I am afraid that if the bill passes it will lead to both an increase in demand and production of marijuana and criminal activity. If grow ops are a problem now, just wait and see what happens if Bill C-17 becomes law, assuming of course the government lasts long enough to bring the bill to a final vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to tell the House about a young man from my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, a young man who overcame tremendous odds to represent his country at the sport he loves.

Two years ago, Eric Watson of Debec was in a horrific snowmobile accident late at night. He spent that night, one of the coldest of the year, outdoors, and suffered severe frostbite and hypothermia as a result.

Doctors questioned whether he would survive. He did not just survive, he thrived.

The road to survival was not easy. Mr. Watson, an avid hockey player, had to have his right leg amputated at 10 inches below the knee. Even as he recovered in the hospital, he told doctors he would play hockey again.

He is not just playing hockey, he is excelling at hockey. Mr. Watson recently earned a spot on Canada's National Amputee men's hockey team and will travel with Team Canada to Italy for the World Amputee Olympic Games in 2006.

I want to congratulate Eric Watson for turning a tragic event into a great achievement for himself and our country.

Mr. Speaker, the community of Warwick and the Bois-Francs region was immensely saddened to learn of the passing of Yvon Paré, a man who was very involved in his community.

During nearly 30 years, he worked for the sports service at the CEGEP in Victoriaville. This former football player with a heart of gold was an icon on the local sports scene.

He was committed to the development of young people and wanted as many student athletes as possible to be able to pursue their sports dreams.

Mr. Paré was also active in the union of non teaching professionals at the Victoriaville CEGEP.

Retired for a mere 18 months, he had continued his community involvement with many groups, including the Vulkins and Vicas football teams, the Warwick golf club, the recreation issue table of the Arthabaska RCM and the sports and recreation regional unit for the Centre-du-Québec region, to name but a few.

The Bloc Québécois extends its deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Yvon Paré. Goodbye and thank you, Yvon.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Tuesday, April 5, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of students from Qarmartalik School of Resolute Bay who were down here on an exchange trip with Akwesasne Reserve students.

These students from my riding of Nunavut travelled thousands of miles from above the Arctic Circle to visit southern Canada.

The students from both communities were thrilled by the Parliament Hill tour, and I appreciated the opportunity to showcase to them the wonderful building and institution in which I have the honour to work.

Student exchange programs are important tools for students to learn about Canada and about each other's culture. We northerners love to share the beautiful part of the country in which we live.

The students of Akwesasne will soon go up to Resolute Bay to learn first-hand about Inuit and a chance to be in the Land of the Midnight Sun.

This exchange is an experience of a lifetime for both groups and I know they will treasure the memories for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, he entered the real estate business in 1977 in northern British Columbia. In 1979 he became a director of the Northwest B.C. Real Estate Board. In 1992 he became the director of the Cariboo Real Estate Association and president in 1995. He became president of the B.C. Real Estate Association in 1998 and honoured as Realtor of the Year in the year 2000.

I am talking about my constituent and friend, Gerry Thiessen of Vanderhoof, B.C., a small town of just 4,000 people in the riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

On Saturday, April 9, Gerry Thiessen will become the new president of the Canadian Real Estate Association.

Congratulations, Gerry. His hard work, honesty, dedication and integrity has been recognized by his peers and I know he will serve them very well in his new role as president of the Canadian Real Estate Association.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Friendship Group recently elected a new executive, including the members from Thornhill, Nanaimo—Alberni and Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles as vice-chairs and myself as chair.

This unique forum allows parliamentarians of all parties to join together in their common support for Israel, a fellow democracy and the strongest Canadian ally in the region.

Our purpose is to foster better relations between Canada and Israel by focussing on our shared values, our common interests and the undeniable benefits gained from sharing and cooperating together.

We are working together as a group to build an exciting agenda for this coming year, and I invite all members of the House and the other House to participate in our activities. I welcome all members to join this non-partisan group, the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Friendship Group.

Mr. Speaker, this week has been designated Adult Learners Week in Quebec. This is the third edition of this event designed to instill in Quebeckers a love for lifelong learning and to develop learning opportunities for them.

Extensive activities are scheduled as part of this week of recognition, the success of which will be ensured by 17 regional issue tables bringing together hundreds of partners.

In Quebec, 1.5 million adults are striving to pursue continuous training or working on furthering their education. The importance of the Quebec Adult Learners Week rests in acknowledging their efforts.

In the current context of plant closures, manpower retraining is paramount, and Quebec wants the emphasis to be on continuous training.

Let us now hope that the federal government willfollow suit by moving forward with the transfer to the provinces for manpower training.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to pay tribute in the House today to Lazare Gionet, who passed away last Friday, just four months short of his 109th birthday.

Mr. Gionet was born in St. Paul, Middle Caraquet, New Brunswick. He followed in his father's footsteps, farming and fishing until he joined the army at the age of 20. After the war, Mr. Gionet married Lauza Hébert, with whom he had nine children. One of them, Armand, was killed during the second world war.

Remembrance Day was always extremely important to Mr. Gionet, who attended the ceremonies each November 11 until he turned 101. In 1998, he also took part in a trip to mark the 80th anniversary of the war to end all wars.

On behalf of all the hon. members and all Canadians, I extend my sincere condolences, in this Year of the Veteran, to the family and friends of Mr. Gionet. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, on March 9 a team of 11 people from the Collingwood Church of God went to a small village in Paraguay to put the finishing touches on an orphanage that they helped build over the past year.

The team leader, Dan Miller, has led a number of these trips to help those in need in very impoverished areas. The team of five adults and six teenage girls raised the funds for their trip and were very involved in all aspects of the construction.

In addition to helping to build the orphanage, the team helped replace the roof on a local church and ran a one day youth camp for the local children.

While their trip lasted 14 days, the efforts made in Paraguay will have a lasting impression on the orphans for the rest of their lives.

It is with great pride that I recognize Dan Miller, Jason and Sarah Burt, Nathan and Amanda Westendorp, Alexandra Foster, Erica Jones, Jillian Grant, Amanda Cramer, Erin Wiley and Laura McGill for making such a tremendous difference.

It is incredible to see our youth with such a healthy approach to serving the community both locally and globally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge five exceptional students from my riding of Brant.

Throughout March and April, high school students from across Canada will participate in the Forum for Young Canadians. It is with admiration that I acknowledge those selected from Brant.

The event, which takes place on Parliament Hill, is an excellent opportunity for senior high school students from across Canada to study firsthand the roles and processes of government in Canada. The event is also an outstanding opportunity for younger Canadians to socialize with their peers and gain knowledge of the unique and varied aspects of Canada.

I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all those involved in this educational and meaningful event.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is World Health Day. The theme this year is “Make Every Mother and Child Count”.

The global reality for women and children is that issues concerning their health are a low priority and Canada's Liberal government is no exception.

In a recent UNICEF report on child poverty, Canada ranked a shameful 19 out of 26. This confirmed what we already know; that the government has completely failed to live up to its 15-year-old commitment to eliminate child poverty.

Another report by the United Nations reveals that in the past decade the number of women living in poverty continues to increase.

Poverty is the number one determinate of ill health. If mothers are living in poverty then their children are living in poverty. It is that simple.

We call on the Liberal government to bring forward progressive legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of the thousands of mothers and their children who are now living in poverty. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and John McArthur of the United Nations will share their views on eliminating global poverty with the foreign affairs committee.

This is a timely opportunity to remind the government of the commitment made over 25 years ago to achieving the level of 0.7% of Canada's gross national income on development assistance.

Canadians proved once again that they are ahead of government when responding to the tsunami crisis both in compassion and in generosity. Canadians would want their government to be showing moral global leadership in the face of 1.1 billion fellow human beings living in extreme poverty.

Tony Blair has shown that leadership pressed by the British people. Germany is expected to announce soon a commitment to reach 0.7%.

The government wastes enough money in its operations to be able to afford this and development assistance has now evolved to be very effective and accountable.

The government should honour its commitment to 0.7% now with a set timetable.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, the daffodil has become the symbol of the Canadian Cancer Society's cancer awareness campaign. This flower, symbolizing life and hope, will be on sale during the month of April to raise funds to fight cancer.

In addition to helping fund cancer prevention activities, the money raised will help fund important research for all types of cancer, provide comprehensive information about cancer care and treatment, support people living with cancer and their families, provide training and education for volunteers and promote healthy lifestyles and strategies for preventing this terrible disease.

If we all work together, cancer can be beaten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the man of the century, my hero, a man who will no doubt come to be known in our lifetime as St. John Paul the Great.

We are moved to see how even in death this man of God can evoke such an outpouring of love. During the 26 years of his pontificate, he attracted the largest crowds in human history and was encountered by more people than any man or woman who has ever lived. He did so because he was an icon of self-giving love and a constant and courageous voice of moral clarity.

In every field of human endeavour, in every language and on every continent, he preached and lived the fundamental Christian truth about the human person: that every human life, from the moment of conception to natural death, is created in the image and likeness of God and therefore possesses an inviolable dignity.

He preached this truth in the face of the inhuman ideologies of what he called the century of tears. In the face of the terror of Communism and Nazism, he relentlessly defended the freedoms of conscience and religion.

He was a man whose memory we will always hold dearly. Requiescat in pace.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are playing a dangerous game threatening Canadians with another election. The two parties are making their disdain for public opinion quite clear.

The Conservatives, by joining with the Bloc, are de facto supporting the cause of sovereignty, and the Bloc is supporting the reactionary policies of a party that has no respect for official languages or human rights.

The stranglehold on virtue is weakening. How does the leader of the Conservative Party justify his support for Quebec's separation? How can the leader of the Bloc Québécois call himself the apostle of transparency, knowing full well that the mother house in Quebec received some one hundred thousand dollars from Groupaction, the company of Jean Brault? Given his ambition to head the Parti Québécois, will he demand an inquiry into the awarding of these sums as he did for the Liberals?

The new slogan of the unCanadian alliance should be—

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when so many other issues dominate the domestic and Canada-U.S. political scene, I rise to ask the House to focus for a moment on the fact that an entire Canadian ecosystem is in imminent danger because of the Liberal government's failure to get the American government to refer the Devils Lake diversion project to the International Joint Commission on Boundary Waters.

Premier Gary Doer has been working all out on this issue but he needs a federal counterpart who is fully focused on this issue.

The Prime Minister came back from Texas empty-handed. Time is short. Lake Winnipeg, our sixth great lake, is in danger of being permanently contaminated and soon.

I urge all MPs to join in the campaign to save Manitoba from this disaster. It is not a regional issue. It is an issue of national environmental integrity. Security is a two-way street. Violating Canada's environmental security by trans-boundary water pollution is not an example of what good neighbours do to each other.

Mr. Speaker, after Jean Chrétien testified and showed his complete contempt at the Gomery inquiry, the Prime Minister met with his caucus, punched his fists wildly in the air and told them that Chrétien did, “a tremendous job for Canada and for the Liberal Party”.

Since I do not hear any applause for that today, does the Prime Minister still stand by that statement?

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the hon. member being at the caucus. I am not quite sure how he would be able to describe that, but if he would like to join us and become a bit more progressive, I am sure he could. After all, we too in our caucus have chairs that can be kicked.

Oh, oh!

I am afraid that is all we will have on that answer.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Prime Minister that I do not want to be under investigation.

It has now come to light that hundreds of thousands of tax dollars may have been funnelled through the Liberal sponsorship program to the Parti Québécois. I guess the keystone crooks stole the money and gave it to the wrong people.

Could the Prime Minister stand in his place and guarantee Canadian taxpayers that not one red cent of their money went to the separatist cause in Quebec in the name of national unity?

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am delighted, after so many months of an attempted co-habitation, that the Leader of the Opposition has finally recognized the threat of the separatist cause and the problems that he has in working with them hand in hand.

Mr. Speaker, what the Gomery commission will show is that the best friend of the separatist cause in Quebec is the Liberal Party of Canada.

Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to split the Atlantic accords from the budget bill. He told the House, falsely he will have to admit, that the health accord was part of the budget bill. It is not. It is Bill C-39. The Conservative Party will agree today to pass this bill through all stages this afternoon.

If the Prime Minister is serious about passing the bill, will he agree to this proposal?

Mr. Speaker, this is absolute nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition, the Conservative Party, and the NDP had absolutely nothing to do with the successful signings of the Atlantic accord for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Nova Scotia.

I want to say that it was the members of the Newfoundland and Labrador caucus and the members of the Nova Scotia caucus who pushed for it. The opposition members were 100% absent from the file. They did not support the government. They were not there and it is ridiculous for them to stand up now and try to take any credit.

Mr. Speaker, what a pile of unadulterated bull and the Prime Minister knows it.

The Prime Minister also knows that it would take 15 minutes on a word processor to prepare a new bill that would cause revenues to flow to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia immediately.

He is using the longest possible route to approval. Last year's budget implementation bill is still with the Liberal controlled Senate. If the Prime Minister can split Bill C-43 for Kyoto, why can you not do it for Atlantic Canadians?

The hon. member knows that I am not in the business of splitting bills.

The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor and the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl will address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, not only did the official opposition have nothing to do with the successful signing of the Atlantic accords, but let me say that in the case of Nova Scotia, the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign, and confirmed in the Conservative Party's recent convention, brought forth a suggestion that would have deprived Nova Scotia not only of the Atlantic accord, but would have reduced its equalization. The member for Central Nova once again got suckered by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, when is the Prime Minister going to stop playing games with the Atlantic accord and stop playing games with the lives of people in Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in Nova Scotia?

The government has already agreed to change the implementation bill by agreeing to take out Kyoto. In view of the fact that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are losing $1 million a day, why is the government delaying implementation of its commitment to these provinces by preventing the quick passage of this deal under stand-alone legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that he will support this government's Atlantic accord in this House. We just heard it. He also said that he will not defeat the government over the budget.

The Atlantic accord is contained in the budget implementation bill. I am prepared to move at all stages that bill, if he will support it and keep his word to Canadians not to defeat the government over the budget implementation bill and give Atlantic Canadians the Atlantic accord.

Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 2004, the Prime Minister referred to political direction behind the sponsorship scandal. On Monday, he added to this by stating that “a few individuals” controlled everything—a parallel group. He has always refused to say who was behind the political direction.

Could he tell the public today who those Liberals are who were pulling the strings of the sponsorship scandal? Who are these individuals? Who makes up that parallel group?

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that. Moreover, one of the Bloc members has already submitted all kinds of names.

I would, however, like to ask the leader of the Bloc a question. Since he is seriously interested in becoming the leader of the Parti Québécois, I would like to know whether he intends to call for an inquiry into the $100,000 the Parti Québécois received from Groupaction.

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so anxious to ask questions, he will soon have an opportunity to do so, when he is in the opposition.

The Liberals—

Oh, oh!

Order. Perhaps we should begin again, but without that sentence.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals—

Oh, oh!

Order. We are making very slow progress in question period today. There are going to be a lot of disappointed members at the end of this.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie now has the floor. We must have a bit of order. If people want to have other discussions, there are plenty of places they can do so.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are panicking. They ought to calm down and listen to what Justice Gomery said on Monday “To date, no one has alleged or in any way suggested that money from the sponsorship program went to the Bloc Québécois in any way.”

Let us move on to something more serious, and hear no more from Ali Baba's noisy band.

The Liberals have some nerve to talk about a “parallel group”. Does the Prime Minister, with all his connections—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I cannot think of a better example--

Oh, oh!

Order, please. The time for the question is up. There are lots of other opportunities for discussions of this type. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadians had a chance to see that picture. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the separatist threat and then there they were, all standing hand in hand, the separatists and the Conservatives. That is where they are coming from. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have some nerve to talk about a parallel group.

Oh, oh!

That's enough from Ali Baba's band.

Can the Prime Minister, with his insider knowledge of the Liberal Party, tell us whether Chrétien, Pelletier, Carle, Gagliano, Bard, Corbeil, Morseli, Corriveau, Pichette, Ouellet and Lefrançois were part of this “parallel group”, magically integrated into the Liberal structure, some members of which are panicking and yelling to prevent others from speaking? They are like Ali Baba's band.

Mr. Speaker, since the potential leader of the Parti Québécois likes to answer questions, perhaps I could ask him a second one. Can he confirm to the House that all the Groupaction gifts to PQ members were in accordance with the electoral laws of Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, the Parti Québécois has answered that question.

Contrary to what went on in Ottawa, the answer is yes.

The Bloc, in fact, refused money from Groupaction. We were not interested in getting our hands on dirty money, like they did.

We did not award contracts either. We never awarded any contracts to our friends.

The Liberals are the ones who awarded contracts, here in Ottawa. They are the ones yelling so nobody can be heard and who are anxious to ask questions because they are going to end up in the opposition. It is time they told us who was behind all this. Which friends of Ali Baba are part of this “parallel group”?

Mr. Speaker, is the leader of the Bloc, potential leader of the Parti Québécois, able to tell us whether the money the Parti Québécois transferred to the Bloc was not money—

Oh, oh!

Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, a Liberal minister said that good federalists should ignore corruption. It seems to me that, a few moments ago, the Prime Minister made a very similar statement.

Is this “we are the state” attitude at the root of this corruption scandal? I think so.

This is unbelievable, and all the more so when we hear allegations implicating the Parti Québécois.

So, does the Prime Minister think that opposing corruption jeopardizes federalism?

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the question of the NDP leader. However, I can say that my party and I set up the Gomery commission to investigate the issue. We did so because Canadians deserve to get answers and because we want Canada's politics to be as honest as possible. That is why we took this initiative and it is us who will shed light on the whole situation. We want the Gomery commission to have time to provide answers.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat my question because it is about time the Liberals realized that people care more about Canada than they do about Liberals.

Yesterday a Liberal minister said that federalists should not attack Liberal corruption, as if this is some kind of a Canadian scandal instead of a Liberal scandal. This is incredible, and even more incredible when we hear the latest allegations regarding the Parti Québécois.

I ask again, does the Prime Minister agree with the position of one of his ministers that to oppose Liberal corruption is to undermine federalism, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member said is that we should wait for the Gomery report.

The Gomery commission was put in place to determine what the facts are. Mr. Justice Gomery will bring down his decision and at that point we will have them and at that point the government can act.

To act on the basis of allegations, on the basis of statements made in the middle of the commission makes absolutely no sense. I would simply say to the opposition, I would say to the NDP and I would say to the Bloc, for heaven's sake let Mr. Justice Gomery get on with the job and let him complete his report.

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting advice, except if my ears heard correctly, I heard the Prime Minister bragging to the leader of the Bloc Québécois that they may have received sponsorship money. Is this the best defence the Liberal Party has to offer, that the separatists are just as big crooks as the Liberals?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Anybody who used the unity crisis to achieve personal financial gain will be punished, because we are getting to the bottom of this issue.

It is very interesting hearing the leader of the Conservative Party talk about national unity because in 1994 on the eve of the 1995 referendum in the province of Quebec, when federalists of various stripes and when federalists of the Liberal Party were working hard to keep the country together, he was giving speeches saying he did not care whether Canada ended up with one national capital or four national capitals. He did not care then and he does not care now.

Mr. Speaker, I just witnessed the entire Liberal Party standing and applauding the fact that sponsorship money may have gone to the Parti Québécois.

I am going to ask the Prime Minister again, can the Prime Minister assure Canadians, all federalists, that his government did not give sponsorship money to the separatists?

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois very much would like to have an election based on allegations. It is in their interest to do that because they do not want Justice Gomery to submit his report. They do not want Canadians to have the truth. They do not want the government or the Liberal Party to be able to respond in a substantive way to that substantive report.

I understand the Bloc members because they are separatists. They want to destroy the country, but I cannot understand for the life of me why the Conservatives support the Bloc in commenting on testimony and wanting to have an election based on testimony, not on the facts, not on Gomery's report.

We want to get to the bottom of this. That is why we support the work of Justice Gomery.

Mr. Speaker, what we want is a simple answer to a very straightforward question.

The Liberals still brag about the sponsorship program as though it was some master stroke of national unity, but Alain Renaud has admitted that Groupaction donated to the Liberal Party and to the separatists after having received money from the sponsorship program.

Taxpayers want to know why taxpayer dollars that were supposed to be for this program, that the Liberals say was for national unity, end up in the pockets of the separatists?

Mr. Speaker, again, any guilty party, whatever their stripe, will face the full extent of the law. The reason is that this Prime Minister took action. He eliminated the sponsorship program. He established the Gomery commission. He supports the Gomery commission because we are not afraid of the truth.

The fact is that he is commenting on an allegation from one individual. It is not a fact; it is not a truth. We will have the facts. We will have the truth when Justice Gomery provides us with his report.

Mr. Speaker, it is not an allegation. It is an admission.

Groupaction got money from taxpayers, gave money to separatists, gave money to the Liberal Party, and this Liberal Party now will not answer a simple question. Why did taxpayer dollars go from a program that was supposed to be for national unity to people who are hellbent on destroying Canada?

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the hon. member really wants to act based on fact, he ought to wait for Justice Gomery's report.

If he finally realizes that the Bloc and the separatists are hellbent on destroying Canada, perhaps he should reconsider his party's support of the Bloc's daily commentary on allegations before Gomery.

In fact, perhaps if he really realizes that the Bloc is hellbent on destroying the country, he ought to support federalists in the province of Quebec and support this government as we get to the bottom of this issue, so that we can defend the reputations of all Quebec federalists.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade is negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea and is contemplating similar agreements with India and various Central American countries.

Does the minister not think it is time to ensure that, when such treaties are signed, contracting states pledge to comply with certain obligations, so that the products that we import are not the product of child labour, forced labour, or plants that do not respect human rights?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the minister is in India on a very important trade delegation leading over 65 companies. These are emerging markets. We will be making deals with other countries, so that we increase our trade because we are a trading nation.

Mr. Speaker, on the same issue, a number of groups, including Amnesty International, are asking that the name of the manufacturing plant, and not just that of the country of origin, be indicated on the label, so that consumers can make an educated choice by knowing what is going on in terms of human rights.

Does the government intend to follow up on this request, which would help improve working conditions here and abroad?

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a tremendous record on human rights. Whenever we travel outside the country making deals, like the Prime Minister did when he was in China, we bring up the way we deal with human rights and we expect these other countries to follow suit.

Mr. Speaker, the government just entered into a timid voluntary agreement with the automotive industry, whereby this industry is making a moral commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles by 5.3 megatons by the year 2010. What was agreed to with the manufacturers was not to reduce pollution, but only to curb its growth.

Will the minister admit that it is not with an agreement like this one, which does not place any obligations on the manufacturers, that Canada will succeed in meeting its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Bloc Québécois disagrees with the voluntary agreement so much that it would make such statements. The Sierra Club Washington, D.C. based environmental group praised this agreement as a breakthrough because it would both cut global warming emissions in Canada and set the stage for a similar reduction in the United States.

John Bennett, the Sierra Club advisor to Canada, said:

Mr. Speaker, the minister read only half the article, because Greenpeace and the Québec vert Kyoto coalition have described the agreement as disappointing and timid.

In February, the Minister of the Environment came back enthused from his trip to California, where automobile pollution policies are much more restrictive. That was the way to go, he suggested at the time.

Will he admit that his agreement with the automotive industry is a personal failure and that the government showed no backbone, seeing as the major manufacturers have imposed their own terms on the government?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is mistaken. In fact, the agreement we have just signed with the Canadian auto industry is more demanding and will produce results more quickly than what the Californians hope to get by regulating.

I must remind him that California tried first to reach an agreement. Only when it failed to get this agreement did it turn to regulation. We would have done so too, but we are very happy to have an agreement with the Canadian automakers that will mean a 5.3 megaton reduction for Canada by 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I note the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to the founder of the Bloc Québécois, was the finance minister during the entire time that the sponsorship program was operating.

We know from the testimony and from the admission of Alain Renaud that $100,000 went through Groupaction to the Parti Québécois. That happened on his watch as finance minister. Did he approve of that transaction of money that went to the separatists?

Mr. Speaker, once again, members of the Conservative Party, like the members in its sister party, the Bloc Québécois, are commenting on allegations not facts. For a party that is opposed to same sex marriage, I am surprised that its leader would be so quick to jump in the bed of the leader of the Bloc Québécois on an issue of national unity.

Mr. Speaker, I note the public works minister is not quoting from the National Post today.

Yesterday the Auditor General was scathing in her condemnation of the security practices at the Passport Office. She said it is struggling to meet security expectations and demands for service. This is not the first time thi