Debates of April 27th, 2001

John Duncan Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the new Bush nominee for the commerce department on international trade said yesterday that U.S. anti-dumping and countervail measures were being used for protectionist purposes rather than for ending unfair trade practices.

With this kind of support, why is the Prime Minister dividing Canadian interests by assuring the Atlantic lumber industry yesterday that “we will negotiate?”

John Duncan Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the pro-free trade converts in the Liberal government who discovered their free trade in lumber position in 2001, the American consumers for affordable homes has been lobbying the U.S. administration consistently for the last two years to promote a full return to free trade.

This consumer group represents 95% of U.S. domestic lumber consumption. With this kind of support why is the Prime Minister displaying weakness by saying we will negotiate?

Herb Gray Deputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, in 1993, when Mr. Duhaime took over the hotel, he also assumed responsibility for the lease.

From that time on, all financial ties between the hotel and the golf club were severed and all these facts have been confirmed by the ethics adviser.

Stéphane Bergeron Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here are the Prime Minister's repeated statements that there was no business relationship between the auberge and the golf club. A ten-year lease signed in 1988, however, indicates quite the opposite.

If the Prime Minister is convinced that this legal document, which clearly contradicts his statement, was no longer valid at the time of the events in question, why is he refusing to give us proof to that effect?

Herb Gray Deputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I have provided the proof. The member is wrong. There was never any lease between the golf club and the auberge.

Where is the proof of the hon. member who says otherwise? In our system of justice, it is incumbent upon the member to provide proof and he has not done so; he is therefore wrong.

Chuck Cadman Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have another release from the Surrey RCMP. Another elderly man was beaten severely in his own home.

Over two years ago I asked the justice committee to address the issue of home invasions and I was called silly by a Liberal member of the committee. The minister now will undoubtedly talk about Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, in which home invasions is mired. It is not even on the legislative radar screen.

How much longer will Canadians have to wait for some effective legislation on home invasions?

Chuck Cadman Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is mired in an omnibus bill. On another issue, some members of the immigrant community in my constituency paid me a visit a few weeks ago.

Their complaint was that recently introduced legislation does not go far enough. It only removes charitable status from organizations that fund terrorism. It does not stop the actual funding of terrorism.

My constituents want a law that actually makes the funding of terrorism illegal. Will the government commit to such a law in the near future?

John McCallum Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, those of us who think that Canada should increase foreign aid to less developed countries were dismayed to read in the press that in fact we seem to be going the other way.

Our overseas development assistance which was 0.28% of gross domestic product in 1999 fell to 0.25% last year. Could the minister explain to the House what is going on?

Maria Minna Minister for International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, the government increased the budget by $435 million in the year 2000. In fact we are doing a great deal more in development.

The economy is growing much faster and that is why there is a difference in numbers. We are doing more. In the Speech from the Throne, as all members know, there was a major commitment to increase ODA yet again for Canada. I am very hopeful that will happen.