House of Commons Hansard #154 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, right now, we are not aiming to fail in these negotiations.

We are being asked what we will do in the event of failure. What I can say is that, tomorrow, our government will sit down with the Canadian provinces, with the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Quebec. The industry will also take part in this meeting.

In the days to come, we will be making a tremendous effort to obtain what we have never obtained before, which is access in the form of guaranteed free trade with the U.S. market, under a system which we are negotiating in Washington.

Research and DevelopmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health refused to criticize the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the power play on stem cell research. In fact she commended it for putting the rules in place.

It is interesting. The minister thinks it is important enough for the provinces to wait for the Romanow commission, so why should her own bureaucrats from the CIHR not wait until legislation is in place?

Research and DevelopmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the CIHR guidelines relate to publicly funded research, research funded by federal tax dollars in this country. It has every right to issue guidelines in terms of how that money is dispensed.

I have made it very plain in this House and before the Standing Committee on Health that I will be introducing legislation in the House before May 10.

Research and DevelopmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks ignoring parliament is acceptable, but not all of her colleagues do. The member for Mississauga South said “The CIHR doesn't have the right to make policy”.

Does the minister agree with her colleague and will she suspend the new rules until parliament passes the legislation?

Research and DevelopmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the CIHR is not ignoring parliament. This government will introduce legislation. Parliament will decide the content of that legislation. At that time, if there is any inconsistency between the CIHR guidelines and the legislation, the legislation applies.

TradeOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It relates to investor rights under the free trade agreement and specifically chapter 11.

As members know, last July a commitment was made to deal with the thorny issue of compensation to multinational corporations suing governments. Could the minister inform the House what progress has been made in addressing this intractable problem?

TradeOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Davenport. Indeed, when a country like Canada exports 46% of GDP, it definitely needs to have predictable rules and effective dispute settlement mechanisms, so all three NAFTA parties are advocating for the NAFTA chapter 11 clarification process. I have also asked my trade officials to continue their work examining the implementation and operation of chapter 11.

I can therefore report to the House that trade officials are engaged with their NAFTA colleagues on an ongoing review of the chapter 11 operation.

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. response to the Canadian proposal to resolve the softwood lumber dispute is not encouraging. The Prime Minister has made light of the situation by suggesting that Americans burn our softwood lumber rather than our oil and gas. This behaviour is alarming.

Given the seriousness of the gulf between the Canadian proposal and the U.S. response, why is the Prime Minister making light of this situation?

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I have always made the point that we want the same free trade agreement on softwood lumber as we have on oil and gas. This is a very serious problem. I have made sure the Americans understand that if they want free trade it should not be at their choosing but that it should be according to the agreement.

CbcOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage about the unfair situation of women employees of the CBC. We have learned that, with similar levels of seniority, there could be up to $16,000 difference between men's and women's salaries. Today representatives of the communications union are in fact meeting with some MPs to seek a solution for this deplorable situation.

Since the situation is not yet settled, can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us in concrete terms today what she intends to do to settle this deplorable situation, as far as female employees are concerned?

CbcOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I am totally in agreement with the hon. member. This is an unacceptable situation. It amazes me that it has taken 16 years to get to the negotiating table, and I am anxious to see it settled promptly.

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, Correctional Service Canada has budgeted close to $350 million for the construction of new condo style prison accommodations. History has proven that the open style of incarceration is less secure, more luxurious but done in the name of rehabilitation.

Could the solicitor general explain to the House and to members of the Canadian Police Association who are visiting today what he learned from his meetings with the police, not what he told them, and why his department and his government continually put public protection behind Liberal policies like statutory and early release, cascading prison classifications, prisoners' rights and club fed conditions?

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I did have two meetings with members of the Canadian Police Association. I met with them a number of times and they had very important input into policies with this government.

What needed to take place was the building of five maximum security institutions for women in this country. That has been done. We needed to make sure we had secure facilities for maximum security female offenders.

BiotechnologyOral Question Period

March 12th, 2002 / 3 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

As the knowledge of humanity grew and we discovered elements and their properties, I do not believe we allowed private interests to hold patents on oxygen, hydrogen, plutonium or the other elements, yet that is what we are doing with the human genome.

Why does the government maintain a policy that gene by gene is transferring the basic building blocks of life from the public to the private domain?

BiotechnologyOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that genes in their natural form are not capable of being patented. I think the public policy question is whether when someone through ingenuity isolates a particular gene which is then applied for a specific purpose that innovation should be capable of being protected by our intellectual property laws.

The member for Ottawa--Vanier has done a great deal to increase public understanding of this complex issue. As he knows, the Canadian biotechnology committee has been asked to look at this, consult broadly, look at what happens in other countries and come back with sound recommendations. That process continues. We expect those recommendations later this year.

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, whether it is softwood lumber or anything else, any good negotiator knows that one cannot unilaterally be in a hurry for a deal. A good negotiator must also have a contingency plan in the eventuality there is no deal.

The government has failed on both counts. It promised to assist forest workers and companies but there has been no change to EI rules and no workable programs for tariff assistance.

When can we expect an EI and tariff contingency plan?

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, HRDC has done an extraordinarily good job by working closely with the workers of this industry in the last year and we should commend the Minister for Human Resources Development for having paid close attention to the workers of the softwood lumber industry.

The date of March 21 is a very useful date. It is the date of the final determination that we want to avoid. We are using this date very much in our negotiations with the Americans to reach an agreement for unfettered market access in the United States before the final determination. The objective is to use that date as a target, and I hope it works for Canada.

Nuclear WeaponsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, a number of members of the international community have expressed concerns about the American plan to attack certain predetermined countries with nuclear weapons.

Since the Prime Minister is scheduled to meet with President Bush in Washington this week, does he intend to voice the concerns we, and the official opposition in particular, have about this?

Nuclear WeaponsOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this is a nuclear matter.

We have asked the U.S. government for explanations. Too much importance must not be attached to a document that comes from the administration, unless we are sure it really represents government policy.

We have done our duty. We have asked for an explanation and, if none is forthcoming, I will have an opportunity to raise the problem with the president as early as this Thursday.

Presence in GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a delegation headed by the Hon. Namik Dokle, Speaker of the People's Assembly of the Republic of Albania.

Presence in GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. I am now ready to rule with regard to the point of order raised this morning by the hon. House leader of the Bloc Quebecois relating to a decision made yesterday concerning the votable status of the PC/DR motion to be debated today.

I want to thank the hon. member for Roberval, the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona, the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and other hon. members who contributed to the discussion.

I have carefully reviewed the interventions of hon. members and the procedural authorities that govern our deliberations. I would like first to review the current situation in which the House finds itself.

Standing Order 81 lays down the rules for consideration of the business of supply. I need not remind the House of all the provisions in the 22 sections of the standing order. Let us simply look at those sections that need concern us.

Standing Order 81(10)( a ) states, in part, “twenty-one days are to be designated as allotted days”.

Standing Order 81(16) provides that:

Not more than fourteen opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote—

There are, as we can see, two aspects to any allotted day: first, a motion is put forward by the opposition party; and second, the motion may be designated votable.

The standing orders clearly provide for the Speaker to resolve any disputes arising about the first aspect, namely which opposition party’s motion is to be considered on a given day. Standing Order 81(14)( c ) states:

When notice has been given of two or more motions by members in opposition to the government for consideration on an allotted day, the Speaker shall have power to select which of the proposed motions shall have precedence in that sitting.

By contrast, should a dispute arise on the second aspect, namely designation of the motion as votable, the standing orders are silent.

Our practice provides guidance in these matters. Marleau and Montpetit states at page 726:

The allocation of the 14 votable motions is worked out in an informal agreement among the opposition parties.

In their remarks earlier today, some hon. members have suggested that by the ruling yesterday the Chair intervened in a matter in which it had no place and, by implication, had unfairly sided with one of the parties to the dispute. I trust that the House will agree that the Chair never intended to do any such thing and sees matters from an entirely different perspective.

Yesterday the Chair was asked to decide whether the PC/DR motion was properly designated a votable motion. Given no authority by the standing orders to judge the matter, except insofar as to determine whether the maximum number of votable days had been used, the Chair would ordinarily turn, as indeed I did, to see what was provided in the usual informal agreement among the parties. It is to be noted that no agreement signed by all parties was ever given to the Chair. It now transpires, as the exchanges this morning amply demonstrate, that the very existence of such an agreement is in dispute.

In the circumstances, I decided yesterday that I could not intervene to reverse the designation of the motion as votable given to the Chair by the sponsoring opposition party when the motion was put on notice, in keeping with the usual practice in these matters.

I could not find any authority for so doing since only 8 of 14 votable motions have been used to date and so I declared that, unless a contrary agreement were reached by the House leaders, the motion would go forward, as requested by the sponsor, as a votable motion. This morning, I find that this decision is interpreted as exactly the kind of intervention I sought to avoid.

I can find little comfort in the choices that the House leaders presented to me this morning. If the Chair persists in the view that it has no authority to refuse a sponsor putting forward a votable motion before the full 14 votable motions have been used, it may be viewed as being complicit in what some have characterized as parliamentary mischief that violates an informal agreement. If the Chair is persuaded by the interventions of three of the four opposition leaders to abide by an informal agreement from which the fourth dissents, it may be viewed as interference by the Chair and the prerogatives of the House leaders by the interpretation and enforcement of their agreements.

The circumstances underlying the exchanges this morning leave the Chair in a difficult position. I do not think the interests of the House will be well served if the Speaker is drawn into disputes among parties. I would therefore again urge the hon. House leaders to resume constructive dialogue in the management of the business of the House.

I understand that they will be meeting this afternoon. I would ask that the matter of the allocation of opposition days and the matter of the allocation of votable motions be addressed anew. I hope that they will reach agreement on these matters and that they will inform me of their conclusions in writing, duly signed by all opposition House leaders.

In the meantime it seems to me that it would be most prudent for the Chair not to accept the designation of any motion as votable either today or until such time as I have received an agreement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Point of OrderGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham--Kent Essex.

I was a little surprised to read the content of today's motion because anyone who says that the government does not have a national security policy either has not been paying attention to the actions taken by the government over the past six months or just plain does not know what they are talking about.

We know that Canadians have been paying attention because they have voiced strongly and clearly their consistent approval of the government's actions since September 11.

The government's response to the tragic events of September 11 reflects the principles of our national security policy. Our response was immediate and it was co-ordinated. It was driven by the continued need to ensure the national and economic security of Canadians.

Canadian response to September 11 was immediate. About 250 flights and 33,000 airline passengers were diverted from U.S. destinations to Canadian airports. Officials from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the RCMP went on a heightened state of alert at all border points. Security and law enforcement agencies went into a full court press to investigate terrorism in co-operation with their U.S. counterparts. Ships were put to sea, aircraft was put on alert, and the military was put on standby.

On October 1 the Prime Minister established the ad hoc committee of ministers on public security and anti-terrorism. This committee was tasked with ensuring and building, where necessary, a rapid and co-ordinated response to the new threat environment. Some of the key elements that have been advanced include the following: identifying an initial programming package for this current fiscal year of $280 million for security, intelligence and law enforcement departments and agencies to heighten border security and to undertake initiatives to enhance the security of Canadians; passage of the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36, to put the communications and security establishment on a legislative footing with a mandate to collect intelligence on international terrorism; and the tabling of Bill C-42, the public safety act, primarily aimed at implementing international conventions on controlling biological weapons and enhancing air transportation security.

The 2001 budget clearly identified the two interrelated challenges which are to maintain a strong and stable economy and to protect Canadians.

These goals have been partly achieved by strengthening personal and economic security and by keeping terrorists out of the country and maintaining an open and efficient border.

In all, the budget has committed a total of $7.7 billion over the next five years to enhance the security of Canadians by increasing resources to our intelligence and police agencies, by enhancing screening of new entrants to Canada and by strengthening air security.

Moreover, $1.2 billion will be invested in border security, not only to address the concerns about security but also to improve long term economic opportunities by maintaining a more open and efficient border between Canada and the United States.

Of the more than $1.2 billion to be invested in border infrastructures, $646 million will be used to enhance security at the border and facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the United States.

In particular, the focus of the budget is on: new technology to help Canada Customs and Revenue Agency facilitate the passage of goods and people at border crossing points; new Canadian multi-agency integrated border enforcement teams to co-ordinate intelligence and enforcement efforts along the Canada-U.S. border; advanced information sharing technology to help customs officers screen travellers arriving at airports and other border entry points; better equipment for detecting explosives, firearms and other dangers without delaying the flow of legitimate commerce and tourism; and new secure Internet-based technology to ease customs compliance for small business.

We must remember however that our concern for public security is matched by and intrinsically linked with our concern for economic security.

With almost half of our GDP dependent on access to the U.S. market, it is imperative that our shared border be kept open, even as we make it more secure. Most people are aware that Canada and the United States have been working on the smart border action plan since December 2001. My U.S. counterpart on this initiative, Governor Tom Ridge, has stated:

This Smart Border declaration is an agreement between two independent sovereign nations to work together--to solve problems of mutual interest that affect the security and safety, as well as the economic well-being of the citizens in each country.

These issues however are not new. We did not discover border security and border management on September 11. It is an integral part of the government to government relationship that operates every day in hundreds of ways. In fact, Canada and the U.S. share the most extensive bilateral co-operation in the world focused on managing our borders and mutual security.

The action plan that Governor Ridge and I agreed to on December 12 recognizes that link between public and economic security. We cannot adequately protect our citizens if our economies are barricaded. Likewise, our economies cannot function if our citizens do not have confidence in their security. The smart border discussions, which are frequent and productive, build on a long history of border co-operation between Canada and the United States.

All steps that we have undertaken, both before and after September 11, recognize that the guiding principles for a 21st century border include streamlining and harmonizing border policies and management, expanding co-operation at and beyond the border and collaborating on common threats outside of Canada and the United States.

They demonstrate our shared belief that the border should support open trade and travel while defending its people and economies against threats to the social and economic well-being of both countries. We are developing risk management solutions that facilitate the flow of low risk people and goods while concentrating greater resources on flows that may pose a threat to our two countries.

Last Friday in Washington, D.C., Governor Ridge and I announced the expansion of NEXUS, the risk management system for processing travellers. Our customs agencies are working out the details of a similar system for commercial goods.

These initiatives will benefit from a new $600 million program to improve the infrastructure, including highways, commercial vehicle processing centres and the technology needed at the major entry points.

This program will be implemented with the cooperation of public and private partners from both sides of the border.

September 11 showed us that even in an age of globalization we need to remain vigilant that our borders continue to meet our security needs while allowing the growing transborder trade to move swiftly and efficiently.

The smart border that we are building with the United States through strategic planning, risk management and co-ordinated infrastructure will serve as a model to the world. Combined with the new security measures that we have introduced in legislation and in the budget, our border innovations demonstrate that the government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the security of Canadians and the open economy upon which our way of life depends.

Point of OrderGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his speech. While the government is doing some positive things such as looking at expediting low risk travellers and goods, which we applaud it for, there are many things that have happened during this government's watch that we want to hold it accountable for and that it needs to be held accountable for.

It has cut the ports police. It has shut down customs offices, particularly in eastern Canada where people coming by ships are asked to phone in to a station 14 miles inland. How can that possibly provide a secure perimeter to our country? As well, obviously there is the whole issue of RCMP funding. I mentioned earlier in the House that we have four RCMP officers who patrol the border from the west coast of B.C. to the Alberta border, and that is it, four. So certainly there are some things that need to be addressed.

I remind the minister that this motion flows directly out of a report from the Senate, a joint report that was agreed to by our colleagues in the Senate. Is the minister suggesting in regard to the recommendations, which are very positive and were agreed to in a non-partisan way, that our colleagues in the Senate are wrong and that they have not been paying attention? He did submit at the beginning of his speech that those who bring questions forward have not been paying attention. Is he saying that our Senate colleagues, in producing this report to address the serious issues of security, have not been paying attention?