Debates of Dec. 6th, 2004

National Defence

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, duct tape will not fix that problem.

Another naval message surfaced this weekend citing significant electrical problems on the Chicoutimi during its maiden voyage just hours before the fire occurred. On October 13, 2004, the Minister of Defence stated:

The Canadian navy took all of the necessary precautions and professional measures necessary to determine the seaworthiness of this ship before it set to sea.

Which is it? Was the submarine safe for travel or was this decision made for political expediency, to get this submarine home?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, not only were the Canadian naval officers confident the sub was ready to go to sea, the British admiralty as well certified it as ready to go to sea. There were issues involved in testing. There will always be issues on every ship and on every piece of equipment, but I can assure the House that what I have been told by the navy, and the navy knows what is best in this circumstance, is that these were issues that they were capable of managing, that this submarine was in a fit position to go to sea and that it was coming to Canada and any problems that had to be addressed would be done when it was on sea trials in Canada.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to blow hot and cold about Canada's possible participation in the missile defence shield. In view of American pressure, the topical nature of this issue, and the public's desire to know where Canada stands, time is of the essence.

Can the government promise to hold a debate and a vote in this House, before Christmas, on the subject of the missile defence shield?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it was already announced in the Speech from the Throne that there will be a vote on this issue. The throne speech already plans for a vote in the House of Commons.

The hon. member has spoken of pressure from the United States. Last week, however, the President of the United States used very moderate language when he said he hoped that Canada would join this project. I can assure you that we are not under pressure from the United States. The decision will be made in Canada, and this House will of course have a say in it. The government will make its decision following our discussions with the Americans.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to have a debate before Christmas, since the installation of the missile defence shield could start up the arms race again in some 20 countries at least. Russia and China have already clearly announced that they were prepared to relaunch their own program so that it would remain effective whether or not there is a missile defence shield.

What is the government waiting for to send an unequivocal message that not only does Canada not support the shield, but that the Canadian public wants nothing to do with it?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, we ought to be careful not to feed misinformation to the public. The United States has already decided to implement the missile defence shield. The American administration has made its decision on this, with the support of a number of countries. We in Canada cannot say what the United States will think is in their own best defence.

The question is whether Canada will participate or not. We have had discussions with the United States. On the question of whether or not there will be a missile defence shield, the United States has already chosen this way to defend itself.

Aerospace Industry

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government remains strangely silent about the future of Bombardier and the construction of its new aircraft. During the election campaign, the government did not hesitate to free up $500 million for the automobile industry in Ontario. Now that it is Bombardier, the federal government is dragging its feet.

How can the Prime Minister defend such a double standard, doing one thing for the auto industry in Ontario and another for the aerospace industry in Quebec?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are having discussions with Canada's aerospace industry and with Bombardier. We are not going to be talking about it through the media. If that is what the hon. member would like to do, it is not going to happen. We are not negotiating through the media.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government did not hesitate to free up $500 million for the auto industry in Ontario, saying, “If you have plans, we are prepared to listen”, whereas in Quebec, there has to be a plan before a single penny is made available for aerospace. The situation is urgent. There are only two weeks left before Bombardier decides whether it will build this aircraft here or elsewhere.

When will there be a plan for the aerospace industry?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made a commitment of something like $1 billion for the manufacturing industry in Canada, including the aerospace industry.

We are talking to Bombardier. We will not be negotiating with a gun to our head. Bombardier is dealing with us and we are dealing with it in good faith.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the present Premier of Quebec stepped aside as federal minister for calling a judge about the status of an Olympic athlete hoping to compete. Michel Dupuy was dumped after phoning the CRTC under his jurisdiction about a broadcast station application. David Collenette stepped aside for asking the Immigration and Refugee Board to support a constituent's application.

Why is the immigration minister being allowed to cling to her post in the face of much worse conduct?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have both said in the House, the Ethics Commissioner is investigating this matter. The Ethics Commissioner will issue a report and I would ask all hon. members to wait until we receive that report.

I think it is fair to say that I have said that a number of times in the House. The Prime Minister has said it and others have said it. In fact, the answer is not going to change.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are already very well known. The cases I just cited, plus others, are examples of what used to be a reasonable standard of ethics, even for Liberals.

The immigration minister's conduct represents an even more significant breach. She showed political favouritism to a campaign worker. Her office did not notify authorities when they knew the whereabouts of a deportee under a Canada-wide arrest warrant. Her actions compromise the fairness and integrity of our system.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to condone and defend such actions?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, what none of us should condone are the kinds of repetitious unsubstantiated allegations and assertions such as we have just heard.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I sense that there may be some disagreement with the minister's answer but that does not justify trying to shout the minister down. We have to be able to hear the answer. The minister has the floor. If members do not like the answer that they are getting, they should not ask the question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Well, they would not like it if the Chair ruled a question out of order on the basis that it was going to provoke disorder in the House. We cannot have disorder. We need to have answers. If a question is answered, there has to be order. We are going to get an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister whether we like it or not.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for that very erudite presentation.

As I have said before in the House, the Ethics Commissioner is investigating this matter. Rather than make unsubstantiated allegations on the floor of the House, let us allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work. He will report.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister has defended the preferential visas for strippers by citing their shortage in clubs. However, according to strip club operators, there has never been any shortage of such skills in Canada.

We also know that the senior aide of the immigration minister visited and negotiated with the owner of a Toronto strip club. Political influence on the stripper shortage loophole in smuggling sex trade workers is now evident.

Will the disgraced minister now resign?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that there is no such program and that my department offered labour market opinion. I gave an indication last week that HRSD would no longer be providing a blanket opinion. The matter is closed.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, about the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we have heard the minister's excuse about compassion. We have seen her ruse of the Ethics Commissioner. What seems clear is that a specialty loophole was used for exotic clubs because of inside political access. Nearly all of the dancers came from just one country, revealing that there was a special deal.

She has been the minister for a full year and yet it took the human resources minister to shut it down. Why did the minister defend the program for so long when thousands of desperate cases of people in real need have been waiting for years?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member has already heard the answer on many occasions. The minister made her decision and has referred the decision to an independent officer of the House, the Ethics Commissioner. The opposition has also referred the matter to the Ethics Commissioner.

Perhaps opposition members would like to get an answer from the Ethics Commissioner before they jump to a conclusion.

Violence Against Women

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, today is the 15th anniversary of the massacre at École Polytechnique in Montreal where 14 young women were murdered in a senseless act of brutality. As we also learned so soon after the events of that day, they were targeted because they were women.

My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Since that terrible event, what has the government done to take action on the matter of violence against women?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all women and men in the House when I say that the events of that day were profoundly tragic and must never be forgotten. Parliament has made December 6 a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women in order to raise awareness and encourage Canadians to take action in their families and in their communities.

The Government of Canada is committed to preventing violence against women through our national crime prevention strategy, programs to combat hate and promote understanding and by measures to prevent gun violence. The government is committed to promoting a culture of safety that combats violence--