Debates of Oct. 15th, 1999

Child Pornography

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Canadians have signed petitions. They are not scaremongers. They are calling on the government to act.

The government talks about caring for children, but on October 13 the Calgary Herald reported that the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that a man convicted of possession of child pornography would be allowed to base part of his appeal on the B.C. court decision. This situation is getting more and more out of control while the government congratulates itself about a we love children throne speech.

Why is the government being led by nine judges, rather than—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member chooses to distort the facts. He refers to the Alberta case. What he fails to accentuate is that the accused person was convicted in that situation. Convictions for possession of pornography are taking place all over the country. Police investigations continue. Charges are being laid.

I have made it absolutely plain that we will respect the rule of law. We are intervening in support of the attorney general of British Columbia. We are intervening in support of other attorneys general and other interested groups that work with children. We are—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

Gm Plant In Boisbriand

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry seems determined not to support the Government of Quebec's efforts to modernize the automobile industry in Quebec.

Does the minister realize that, by not backing Minister Landry's proposal, he is standing in the way of a plan that, on the one hand, will further the policy of developing new technologies in Quebec and, on the other, will make it possible to train a workforce specialized in this sector and keep it in Quebec?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Industry, said, because I might not be as eloquent. What he said was that the Quebec government is jumping the gun. Together, we have decided to form a partnership so as to help GM's Boisbriand division.

At this point, I think that everyone agrees that the most important thing is to help the Boisbriand plant find a new model. This was the focus of discussions. My colleague and I also participated in the study done by the survival committee, and we went to Detroit.

We are available and will continue to support employees of GM's Boisbriand plant.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, more speechifying from the government, but we have nothing concrete to show for it. The minister says that the plan is irresponsible and poorly thought out, but the federal government is hardly close to the action.

Does Quebec's plan bother the federal government so much that it is prepared to sacrifice Boisbriand for the 14 plants in Ontario?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's plan does not necessarily bother the federal government, but it should bother Quebec taxpayers.

At this stage, the important thing is to come up with a new model. It is well known that if we can, as a partnership, come up with a new model, the odds are good that GM will not need government assistance, given what happened in the other provinces. But now that the Government of Quebec has tipped its hand, there will obviously be no turning back, should a new model later be found. The $360 million is already on the table and probably ill-advisedly.

Audiovisual Productions

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Journal de Montréal reports that the Montreal urban community police department just completed an investigation on a production company that allegedly falsified the identity of some screen writers and unduly benefited from federal tax credits.

The newspaper adds that the production company has also been the target of an RCMP investigation.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can the minister assure us that she will do her utmost to shed light on this issue, even if some people close to the Liberal party might be directly involved?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I myself found out about the investigation this morning. I believe the investigation is still going on and we should let the police do its job.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister presumably made some checks, can she confirm that the production company CINAR, which is a contributor to the Liberal Party of Canada and which is headed by Micheline Charest, who is said to have organized a fundraising evening for the Liberal Party of Canada that was attended by the Prime Minister, is not the target of this investigation?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have any discussions with anyone about the investigation, because it is a police investigation. I respect that and I do not get involved in police matters.

Agriculture

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. Yesterday the minister told his counterparts in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that they had to put up some money for the farm crisis themselves. That is like asking the farmers to pay for their own crisis as R.B. Bennett did in the 1930s.

The minister knows that in Saskatchewan there is a joint position of all parties in the farm groups asking for an additional $1 billion in emergency farm aid now, on top of what they already have from last year under AIDA.

Will the minister be forthcoming with that money since he took money out of the programs by eliminating the Crow a few years ago? How much money will come back to the farmers on the prairies?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I did have a very frank and candid discussion with the ministers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba yesterday.

As they already know agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. The safety net support to agriculture for the last numbers of years has been shared 60:40. Provinces can contribute in that way. They can also contribute in other ways as was demonstrated yesterday by the province of Alberta.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously not listening. I have a letter from a 14 year old girl in Carragana, Saskatchewan. She is saying that nobody in parliament is listening to her on the farm crisis.

I wonder if the minister could answer my question directly as to whether or not there will be an extra $1 billion going to hard pressed farmers on the prairies. This is the worse farm crisis we have had since the 1930s. Could the minister answer that question directly? Would he screw up his courage and come out to the prairies to see for himself the severity of the crisis?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I have been out to the prairies and I have seen it for myself. I have farmed for a number of years and I know the stress the producers are going through.

In answer to the specific question, is there another $1 billion for the province of Saskatchewan on top of the programs and the money that are already there, no.

Fisheries

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the news that the federal government would appoint a federal negotiator in the Atlantic fisheries crisis.

It is indeed regrettable that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can no longer be directly involved in negotiations to settle a fisheries management dispute. Would the minister agree that the appointment of the negotiator was necessary only because he and his senior bureaucrats have lost all credibility with the people involved?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, that is total rubbish. We have been working very hard. We have had both a short term and a long term plan.

I know Mr. James MacKenzie who is from Nova Scotia will do an excellent job to make sure we sit down, get all the parties together, and have a long term arrangement.

Meanwhile we have a regulatory fishery out there. We are ensuring that we have interim agreements, but this should not reflect on our long term arrangement. That is why Mr. MacKenzie has been asked. I am very happy that someone of his calibre has accepted this position.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is not total rubbish. It is total chaos which the minister has created.

On Monday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be meeting with native leaders in Ottawa. The fact that the meeting is taking place in Ottawa is just another slap in the face to Atlantic Canadians.

We would like to know why the ministers are hiding away in Ottawa. Why can they not go to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and meet these people where the problem really is?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Atlantic Canada before the hon. member even knew the issue existed.

I met with all the commercial groups. I met with the aboriginal groups. We have been working with them. We will be willing to meet with them. We now have a federal representative who will start working on the long term arrangement which is really the important part. It is extremely important that we sit down to ensure that the aboriginal communities can exercise their treaty rights for the benefit of their members. We are going to continue to do that.

Immigration

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I talked to the immigration officials in B.C. and they informed me that only four of the 600 Chinese migrants have gone through their initial IRB hearings. Do the math. At this rate the initial hearings of the 600 Chinese migrants will not be completed until 2034.

The minister assured Canadians that extra resources would be dedicated to expedite the process. Is this the minister's idea of expedience?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on this question. The government has acted and is acting to expedite the process. Let me further inform the member. He knows that the issue we are dealing with is an international one which involves the smuggling of human beings. The member knows that this country is one of the leaders in the fight internationally. The member knows that but he is trying to exploit it.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, even if the minister manages to get the initial hearings completed in a year, the appeals process will take years. These people will spend a significant portion of their lives in detention camps set up by the government. I find this to be unacceptable. Further, every Canadian knows that the longer the process takes, the more it is going to cost taxpayers.

I want the minister to tell Canadians how much it is going to cost taxpayers to complete this process.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear for the Reform Party. This government is acting expeditiously. In a speech in the House a few minutes ago before question period a Reform member said that if the Reform Party were the government it would deal with the issue in days or a matter of weeks. We know that we cannot have justice in a day or a matter of weeks unless we have adjudicators of a commandant form and we are not going to have them.

Air Transportation

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the Onex affair, one of the minister's conditions is Canadian control of the future air carrier.

The present Canadian International Airlines-American Airlines agreement gives American veto power in any major decisions, including a potential merger with Air Canada.

The law limits foreign control of a Canadian carrier to no more than 25%. By blocking any Air Canada offer, American has de facto control over Canadian International Airlines. Can we trust the minister to respect these five conditions, when he is not even ensuring respect of the present legislation?