Debates of May 15th, 2003

Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what my colleague has said. We are very happy to be working in partnership with the government of Quebec on this very important issue. As my colleague indicated, every year we transfer almost $600 million to the province of Quebec for just such a case.

We are very happy that the unemployment levels are coming down in Canada. These moneys are there for all Canadians who may find themselves without work. We know that the fishery is an area of direct concern right now. The moneys will be funnelled to those areas because that is where the need is today.

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Looking at the recent rise in the value of the dollar, it seems to me that the government now has a much stronger case in the softwood lumber negotiations when they resume today. The Liberals must stop selling out our forestry workers.

Why does the government's strategy rely on provincial concessions rather than seeking a bilateral forestry agreement with the United States?

Herb Dhaliwal Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about dealing with the workers, as he knows we announced $350 million to make sure we support workers and we support communities. In fact, my colleague responsible for WED has put out a call to see how we can diversify their community economies: $50 million of new programs to help in tourism and help them diversify their economies. We are monitoring the situation very closely. We know that the dollar value does have an effect, but we are making sure that we are helping those communities that need it through the $350 million program which we announced.

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about supporting Canadian sovereignty and we certainly hope that on the softwood lumber file the Liberals have more luck than they did when Mr. Spliff went to Washington. He came back with an American drug policy but unfortunately what he did not come back with is an American steel policy, because Americans do something about steel dumping: They defend their steelworkers.

This government is allowing 600 jobs at Algoma Steel to disappear in Ontario because it will not do what the industry and the union have recommended. When is the government going to stand up for steelworkers in this country?

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador has adopted unanimously a resolution directing its government to begin a renegotiation of the terms of union.

In its “Reference re Secession of Quebec” in 1988, a court opinion sought by the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court said when “one participant in Confederation... seek[s] an amendment to the Constitution” there is “an obligation on all parties to come to the negotiating table”. The court calls that a “binding obligation”.

Does the Government of Canada consider itself bound to negotiate when a province seeks an amendment to the Constitution?

Stéphane Dion President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, even well before the ruling of the court it has been very clear that the Government of Canada is always willing to discuss any suggestions coming from provinces, whether constitutional or not. The Government of Canada will do it with frankness and we will say frankly what we think about the proposal. Frankly and politely is the way we work.

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of discussion. This is a question of what the Supreme Court of Canada, in an opinion sought by this government, calls a “binding obligation”. The resolution adopted yesterday by the House of Assembly refers specifically to “the establishment, through an amendment of the Terms of Union, of shared, equal, constitutional authority...over the fisheries adjacent to the province”.

Will the Government of Canada honour its binding obligation to negotiate or will it ignore the opinion of the Supreme Court?

Stéphane Dion President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, never would Canada ignore anything from the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada never spoke about the obligation to agree to what is under discussion. The Government of Canada said very frankly that to share responsibility of the fishery in this way would be detrimental for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for all Canadians. We say that very frankly and we are very open to discussing it with the government of the province.

Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, reading from the ministry and crown corporation ethical guidelines, it is stated, “No Minister should personally promote the private interests of any individual, corporation or non-governmental organization including a constituent, with any Crown corporation”.

When the Prime Minister repeatedly phoned the president of the Business Development Bank on behalf of a constituent, why is that not breaking his own ethical guidelines?

Allan Rock Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it was on November 21, 2000, that the ethics counsellor concluded his examination of this very question. In a letter addressed to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the ethics counsellor, after his examination, said that “the Prime Minister, in calling the President of the BDC, did not violate any rule...established by the...Government in terms of Ministers dealing on behalf of constituents with government agencies”.

Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is the ever changing ethical guidelines, I guess. The way it reads here is that “No Minister”, that would be the Prime Minister, “should personally promote the private interests of any individual, corporation or non-governmental organization”, that would be the Grand-Mère inn, “including a constituent”, that would be Yvon Duhaime, “with any Crown corporation”, and that would be the Business Development Bank. Yet it was the bank president who was fired, who was threatened with criminal charges and who has paid the price for this.

Why is it that if it is so unethical now to do this, it was just fine to do it back in 1997?

Allan Rock Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the question has been answered and the matter has been resolved. What we are seeing here today, and what we have seen this week from members of that party as they put these questions, is a vivid demonstration as to why they fail to capture the confidence of the Canadian people. They have nothing to offer. They have nothing to offer in any matter of substance. They have no thoughtful position on policies that affect people. They have no proposals to make to make this a better country. They wallow in old stories hoping they can throw mud and that is not what the Canadian people are after. They are going to remain irrelevant to Canadian government.