Debates of Nov. 6th, 2001

Softwood Lumber

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, some do not have long hair and shake a lot, as is the case with the leader of the Conservative Party, who will be up soon.

I just want to say that I made it clear in the House of Commons that when we signed the free trade agreement, it was not a partial free trade agreement that was signed with them. It was a free trade agreement where in part we were able to sell softwood lumber to the United States. That is what we want to do and what we will achieve--

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the Prime Minister's deliberate linkage of the softwood lumber issue with oil and gas exports. When he made that same threat last August, he triggered fears about a new national energy program which of course the Prime Minister supported so very vigorously when it was imposed upon western Canada.

The trade minister has yet another softwood meeting today with yet another American official. If this fails too, will the Prime Minister personally get on his government airplane tomorrow and take Canada's case on softwood lumber directly to President Bush?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, some said GI Joe. I have talked regularly with the president. I do not think grandstanding will be the system that will work. We are a serious government. We are acting seriously.

I am very surprised that, with the experience of the leader of the fifth party, he would think that grandstanding will lead us somewhere. That is what they did when they were the government and look at the results.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whatever it is the Prime Minister is doing it is not working. The U.S. president has appointed a special envoy on softwood lumber and he is here today to drive home the American position. He says he wants things resolved by Christmastime.

The Canadian government could learn a little from this process. It is called trade negotiations 101. We take an issue and make it a top priority, put a deadline on when it should be resolved and then spend time, lots of time, at the highest level until it is resolved to Canada's satisfaction.

When will the Prime Minister get on his government plane, meet directly with the president of the United States and resolve this thing to Canada's satisfaction?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this is the top priority of the government. We have made that very clear. We are working hard at it.

I spent the time this weekend speaking with a number of chief executive officers of softwood lumber companies from British Columbia. They told me that the Prime Minister has been more active on the file than any prime minister in the past 20 years.

I thank him in the name of communities in British Columbia and in the rest of the country. The Prime Minister has been more active than any prime minister in the last 20 years. We must thank him for that and for the communities that he has assisted.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about not wanting the Americans running everything in Canada. If the Prime Minister continues to display a lack of leadership that is exactly what happens.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said the 1996 softwood lumber agreement worked for five years. It worked all right. It worked against us. We had companies with quota and without quota, loss of investment, job loss, and the Americans continue to attack our value added products to reclassify them as softwood lumber.

If the Prime Minister thinks that was a good agreement, what is a bad agreement?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this is very nice. Now opposition members are blaming us for letting the agreement extend on March 31 and not renewing it. Then they tell us that we should have continued it, or the other way around.

They continually change their tune. Sometimes they tell us to do the linkage with energy. Sometimes they tell us not to link it. Sometimes they tell us to link it with our commitment to fight Osama bin Laden and sometimes they tell us the other way around. They have to make up their minds in the opposition and determine what is the real line of business they want on softwood lumber.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

That just goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, that they can create statements that have never been said. The government has abdicated responsibility and displayed lack of leadership on the softwood lumber talks.

Last week after the anti-dumping announcement everyone fully expected the Prime Minister to engage himself with the U.S. president on softwood lumber. It did not happen. It still has not happened. When will the Prime Minister treat softwood lumber as an urgent priority?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is an urgent priority. As I have said and I want to repeat, I talk with the president regularly. I met him in China the other day and I talked with him. That is when I made the statement: “You want our oil and gas and we want to keep selling wood to you”. He agreed that it was the right thing to do.

We keep talking with them. There will be another discussion this week with him. As I said, at the moment there is an ongoing process in the United States that is very frustrating for us. We are telling them that all the time.

The Economy

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance tells us that he does not want to return to the era of deficits. We agree with him and we even proposed an antideficit bill, which he opposed, incidentally.

Will he admit that the plan to use the surplus that we proposed to him could stimulate employment and economic growth without causing any deficit?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member made suggestions. We will take all perspectives into consideration when we bring down the budget.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his next budget, is the minister considering using $5 billion of the expected $13 billion surplus for the current fiscal year to stimulate economic growth and employment?

The Minister of Finance has two choices: first, stimulating employment and economic growth, and preventing the Canadian economy from sliding further into recession; or second, doing nothing and applying all of the unexpected surplus, which is significant every year, to the debt.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is very clear. One has only to look at what we have done. We have stimulated the economy to the tune of more than $25 billion. This year, Canada has allocated over 2% to economic stimulation. Compared to the Americans, even Mr. Bush's plan will not exceed 1.5%. So, we will continue in this vein. We will create jobs. We will create a brighter future for our youth.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, numerous witnesses have advised the justice committee that the anti-terrorism legislation unfortunately targets minority groups in this country. The privacy commissioner has also noted that the draconian powers in the legislation prevent the disclosure of any government information.

Why will the minister not admit that despite her best intentions she has overstepped the bounds of what is needed for Canadian security?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, I respect the hon. member's views and those of some of whom have appeared before committee. I think both the assertions he has just made are not accurate. It is unfortunate that he would promulgate that incorrect impression of what the anti-terrorism legislation is directed at.

As I have made plain time and time again, we are targeting terrorist activity. We are targeting terrorist organizations and those who would support terror.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, these are the comments of distinguished witnesses and the privacy commissioner. Canadians are concerned about the failure of the minister to include an effective ongoing review process in the anti-terrorism legislation.

This failure, along with the minister's power to suppress all government information, results in the loss of accountability of ministers to parliament and to Canadians. Why does the minister insist that ministerial accountability to parliament must also be a victim of September 11?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, again let me suggest that the statement by the hon. member is inaccurate. There is a review mechanism in the legislation. In fact a wholesale review of the legislation can be held at the end of a three year period.

I have also indicated to everyone in the House that I am listening intently to that which the Senate committee has reported and to that which the House committee will report in the coming days. I will return to committee in the coming days. I look forward to a fulsome discussion around the appropriate review mechanisms to ensure the legislation is effective for everyone.

Foreign Affairs

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently told the House that Canada would not give a blank cheque to the Americans regarding the bombings in Afghanistan.

What we pointed out last week has now been confirmed: some children have fallen victim to cluster bombs that fell on the ground without exploding.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that we must not wait until other children fall victim to these bombs before taking action to stop using such weapons?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this has been the same question for several days. I am afraid the answer must be the same. Every effort is made to avoid children, to avoid innocent civilians.

There are innocent people in any conflict who become victims, most unfortunately, but every effort is being made by the United States and the allies that are a part of the coalition to avoid civilians, to stay away from civilian populations, and to target only military installations and military personnel.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, voices are being raised everywhere condemning these cluster bombs, both in coalition countries and elsewhere.

The use of these bombs is particularly despicable at this time, as famine has gripped the country and winter is fast approaching.

This is why I am asking the government if it will promote the establishment of a humanitarian corridor in Afghanistan to provide medical care and food, as recommended, among others, by the chair of the Canadian chapter of Médecins du Monde, Dr. Réjean Thomas?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. We will do our utmost to support the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan. This is an important contribution that Canada must make, in addition to its contribution to the coalition.

We have equipment that can be useful to the humanitarian effort. This is a top concern for Canada.

Immigration

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the immigration minister. The government refuses to automatically detain claimants who show up with no documents. Internal communications of Immigration Canada reveal that 60% of refugee claimants show up without papers.

Her officials warned the minister over a year ago that this was a criminal and security risk and that it was critical to stop this practice, but she ignored them. Why does the minister ignore the facts and advice of her own immigration officials about security?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the information the member suggested in his question is not accurate. I am not aware of any report. If he has one, I would ask him to table it because I would like to see it too.

The information I have from my officials is that often people who show up undocumented do so because they flee from a country that does not produce documentation, or if they had stopped to get documentation they might have ended up in jail.

Whenever we have a concern about anyone who shows up undocumented at our ports of entry we have the authority to detain and we do that without hesitation.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, immigration officials with years of experience said at the Senate committee that even Bill C-11 which the minister boasts about would not help the problem. In fact I have heard that she has a senior bureaucrat running around just releasing people if the per diem bill gets too high.

The minister's own officials warned over a year ago about the criminal and security risk of non-documented arrivals. They had to have something to get here in the first place. We believe that all who destroy documents should be automatically detained until they meet identity and security needs. Australia does this in a humane and very cost effective way. Why can Canada not do that?