Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2001

Border Agreement

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps talking about Canadian values and says that the legislation which will apply to Canada will be passed by parliament.

Will this government's laissez-faire attitude not ultimately lead to the Parliament of Canada passing legislation that is nothing but a carbon copy of American legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the co-operation agreement which will be signed this afternoon is a partnership agreement whereby both countries will consult with each other.

For example, earlier this morning I informed Attorney General Ashcroft that very soon Canada will be imposing additional visa requirements on certain countries. This agreement commits us to work together to discuss the visa policies of both countries. One important new provision is that we will share information about individuals whom we have denied visas to, especially where we believe those individuals pose a security risk. That is an important addition.

Agriculture

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister.

The Canadian economy shrunk in the third quarter of this year. For the first time since 1992 we have seen a shrinkage in the economy. What we need is a stimulus budget to get the economy back on its feet. One area that needs investment is agriculture. Since the Liberals took office in 1993 they have cut spending on agriculture by almost $2 billion, a cutback that is approaching some 50%, and further cutbacks are being planned.

Will the government make a commitment now to invest in agriculture, or do we have to endure another round of empty promises and hard times for the farmers? Can we have a commitment now?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I will again remind the hon. member that in the last four years the government has more than doubled the support for agriculture in Canada. This year alone program payments between the federal and provincial governments as a result of the safety net programs, which we will continue to review, are close to $4 billion.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Despite that, Mr. Speaker, there has been a cutback of almost $2 billion since the Liberals took office in 1993.

We have now seen the Americans approve another farm bill of $173 billion U.S. for the next 10 years. This is on top of some $70 billion over the last four years.

Under the Canadian farm income program, only about half of Saskatchewan farmers will actually use the money because most farmers do not qualify as the standards are too strict. There is a need for investment in agriculture and farmers are waiting. I ask again, when can we expect some assistance and what kind of money can we expect in the budget? The farmers are waiting for an answer.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should do his research. There has been no approval of a new farm bill in the United States. There have been discussions but no approval at this date.

I also want to remind the hon. member that we struggled last year to get his own province to pay even its 40% share. Just recently the minister of agriculture in his province made the statement that farmers in Saskatchewan did not need any more money. The realized net farm income is $400 million higher than it was last year.

Public Security Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has already tried to purchase untested drugs illegally from his friends at Apotex. That time, parliament was able to stop him.

Now, Bill C-42 enables that same minister to take interim measures unilaterally, secretly and without any explanation. He could even do the same thing again with Apotex without referring to parliament or having to provide any public justification.

How can the government justify this abuse of power, which enables a minister to do what parliament prevented him from doing two months before?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the position expressed by the member is completely absurd. He knows that in the case of the drugs, all the laws were respected and the health of Canadians was protected, which is the most important thing.

In connection with Bill C-42, the legislation merely contains provisions that are intended to ensure that in cases of emergency, the government and its ministers can react quickly.

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

Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday the Minister of National Defence said that his new military security zones could include an area where meetings are held, somewhere such as Kananaskis. Does the government consider Indian reserves to be, in the language of Bill C-42, “property under the control of Her Majesty in right of Canada” in which the Minister of National Defence can unilaterally impose a military security zone? Specifically, since the road to Kananaskis goes through the Stoney Indian Reserve, is the government considering designating the Stoney reserve as a military security zone under this new power grab legislation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be on a fishing expedition. He is greatly exaggerating what this whole thing is about. He is creating fear unnecessarily.

We are talking about codifying and clarifying responsibilities which exist under the crown prerogative. They are the same kinds of authorities that the military was using and that the police already have. The police already have these kinds of authorities. The purpose is to control access to people, equipment or property that could be at risk in the case of an emergency.

National Security

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite this latest agreement with the U.S. government, our security forces need new resources. We have found out that in this belated budget there is only going to be $600 million of new spending for those resources.

Will there be at least $1 billion in new spending in the belated budget for the RCMP and CSIS?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware that I am not in a position to indicate what is going to be or not going to be in the budget.

National Defence

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is truer than I think we will ever know.

After many years of neglect there is another problem in our country, which is that our defence establishment has been neglected. Our NATO partners in fact are so far ahead of us in this area that they can hardly see us in their rearview mirror.

On the issue of the Canadian forces, are we going to see at least $2 billion in the upcoming budget for the Canadian forces?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the government has in the last two budgets put additional money into defence resources for the Canadian forces, some $3 billion over the last couple of budgets.

If we want to talk about NATO, let me offer the words of George Robertson, the secretary general of NATO who said “Whenever I lift the phone and ask Art Eggleton, the Canadian defence minister, or the Prime Minister of Canada, to send a reconnaissance company, they do so quickly; they get the job done”. When Robertson asks, when NATO asks, the Canadian forces deliver.

[The Speaker]

Order. I do not know whether it is in order for hon. members to refer to themselves by name. Of course it is out of order to refer to others by name.

The hon. member for Roberval.

Border Agreements

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, NAFTA concerns trade among Canada, the United States and Mexico. In light of this, it would seem normal that the border agreement to be signed between Canada and the United States would include the third member of the trade agreement, namely Mexico.

Could the Canadian government tell us about the impact for Mexico of the new Canada-United States border agreement? Would it not have been normal to include Mexico in that agreement?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement that will be officially signed this afternoon is an agreement among various agencies. It essentially seeks to address the issue of our shared border.

In the past, we have signed similar agreements, including the accord on our shared border signed by the President and the Prime Minister in 1996. Let us not forget that over 80% of our exports go to the United States, and that less than 25% of U.S. exports come to Canada. We will continue to work with the United States to ensure that, indeed, our special relationship can continue. We must ensure that the skies—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Roberval.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that Mexico should be included in any negotiations on security issues in North America? This would ensure a much better balance than in the Canada-United States discussions.

It seems to me that Canada, the United States and Mexico form a meaningful entity that should be recognized, including in the type of agreement that will be signed today.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the current discussions are between the United States and Canada, and they deal with our shared border.

I wonder why the hon. member wants Mexico to be involved in these talks. These discussions do not deal with the border between Mexico and the United States, but with the border between Canada and the United States. It is up to these two countries to sign the necessary agreements.

Immigration

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a dozen men suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda terrorists are loose in Canada due to immigration officials' inability to detain them. The 12 now being sought by police were among some 500 undocumented refugee claimants released in November because of a lack of detention space.

Our failure to hold these dangerous individuals is no comfort to the citizens of Canada and soft comfort to our American neighbours to the south. When will additional facilities be opened and more officials hired to ensure timely and thorough screening of all refugees without documents?

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

Mr. Speaker, the story that was in the Ottawa Sun is false. It is wrong for the member opposite to be repeating those kinds of inaccuracies. They are extremely harmful because our frontline officials know the truth, which is that whenever we have people whom we believe are suspected terrorists or pose any security risk, we are able to detain them.

If all of our detention facilities are full, we have agreements with the provinces and other departments so that we can have additional detention space as required.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is the only one who believes everyone is wrong but her department, that the media and everyone else are wrong.

What is not wrong is that immigration officers and CSIS agents are being swamped by a record number of refugee claimants landing in Canada with no documents. Police checks are taking weeks to complete due to huge backlogs.

The best way to stem the tide of illegals arriving here in Canada is to have more CSIS agents, more RCMP officers and more immigration officers abroad.

Will the solicitor general immediately commit to increase CSIS and RCMP resources--

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. solicitor general.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, just this morning I met with the attorney general of the United States. He was very appreciative of the role of CSIS and the RCMP. They play an important role in making sure that the people who are responsible for terrorism are brought to justice.

As I have said many times in the House, including and since the last budget, the government has put just under $2 billion into the public safety envelope. And just watch. There is another budget coming.