Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2004

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the election campaign, the Liberals made much of reaching an agreement in principle with Quebec on parental leave. Signing the historic agreement is merely a formality, the press release said. The appeal before the Supreme Court is simply for clarification, said the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In this context, how does the Prime Minister explain that his Minister of Human Resources intends to appeal to the Supreme Court to try to impose a parental leave agreement on Quebec adapted to Ottawa's wishes?

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc must know that we appealed because the scope of the decision goes far beyond simple negotiations on parental leave between governments. That is why the government appealed, because the scope goes much farther than the discussions between the two governments.

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is saying is interesting because that is not what his Minister of Human Resources said yesterday. He said that if we reached an agreement, if Quebec went along with the federal government's arguments, then the appeal would be dropped. Yet, the scope of the matter would be no different. The Prime Minister and his minister are not saying the same thing.

Furthermore, we were told that only the figures were not ready, but the terms of the agreement were clear. Are they clear or not? Does the historic agreement in principle still stand, or has it disappeared? What has happened since June 28? Is the appeal just as broad? Is the agreement historic or is it missing a lot of figures?

Lucienne Robillard President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, whether the Bloc likes it or not, we will reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec. Our two colleagues are currently finalizing this agreement.

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources said that, should Quebec City and Ottawa come to an agreement before the Supreme Court hearings begin, Ottawa will withdraw its appeal. Otherwise, the agreement will be negotiated on the basis of the final judgment.

Why is the federal government now hanging a sword of Damocles over the head of the Government of Quebec, when, before the election, it was talking about a historic agreement?

Joe Volpe Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, I also said that the legal issue is a separate issue. We are continuing with the negotiations. Just this morning, I met with my Quebec counterpart.

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, just before the election, an agreement on parental leave was signed with Quebec. We were told that all that remained to be done was to include the figures.

Why is the minister backtracking now that the election campaign is over, especially since he said he would resume negotiations on the basis of the upcoming judgment? Does he not realize that he is taking parents in Quebec hostage?

Joe Volpe Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member opposite did not hear the answer. I said that we were continuing with the negotiations, because we said we would continue. Moreover, I met this morning with the minister responsible in Quebec. Officials from my department are continuing to meet with officials from Quebec. There is no problem.

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who refuses to act to protect Canadians in the face of George Bush's patriot act.

The facts are that the CIBC bank records of Canadians are in the hands of the Bush administration. The facts are that the B.C. privacy commissioner has indicated grave concerns and says that the patriot act knows no borders.

The Prime Minister has refused to lift a finger so much as to ask the United States to obey Canadian laws. How can the Prime Minister pretend to act when our bank records are in the hands of the--

Bill Graham Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, it is not up to us to tell the Americans how to defend themselves. As I have said, and as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said on numerous occasions in this House, we Canadians are looking at what needs to be done to protect Canada in the North American context, a context in which we have always had a very good relationship with our neighbour to the south. That is all. We are continuing our discussions. We shall see what the outcome will be.

Belinda Stronach Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.

Today is election day in the United States. Softwood producers have had $3.4 billion of their money confiscated by the United States. Canadian cattlemen, ranchers and others in the beef industry have been losing $11 million a day for the past 18 months because of the BSE border closure.

So far, the government has failed to produce any results. What will the government do differently tomorrow that it has not done before?