House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, the decision on pay equity is clear.
It comes down hard on the government for using stalling tactics solely for the purpose of avoiding the obligation to settle with its employees.
Does the President of Treasury Board commit today to abandoning immediately any plans to appeal the decision? Does she not consider that the employees, women employees specifically, have suffered enough from the government's behaviour in this matter?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that public servants are hoping for a rapid conclusion to this matter, because there have been discussions on it between ourselves and our union partners for some years now.
We have just received a very important decision, as we wished clarification of section 11 of the act, and now with this decision we have it.
I believe it is totally normal for a responsible government to take a few days to examine the decision before taking a position, and I can assure our friends the public servants that this is what we will be doing.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is utterly unbelievable. It is the fourth time the decision has been in favour of the workers.
The President of Treasury Board keeps on saying that she and her government are in agreement with the principle of pay equity.
If the minister wants to prove without a doubt that she supports the principle of pay equity, why does she hesitate to apply the judgment in its entirety?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this government has committed to respecting the principle of pay equity. The proof of this is that we have already made payments to the union partners in connection with pay equity.
What put us on opposite sides of the question was the methodology per se. This is why it was so important to ask the courts to examine the matter. Now that we have the decision, we are going to examine it very carefully and we are then going to reach a decision accordingly.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, bogus refugees have gone missing. At least 56 of the 600 migrants have either abandoned their claims or have been denied refugee status.
They all have something in common, however. The immigration department does not have the first clue as to where they are right, at this very minute. No doubt, however, the people smugglers who brought them here know exactly where they are.
Why is the minister allowing organized crime to profit from her lack of action?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely inaccurate and wrong in his contention. It is utter nonsense. I want to tell him that it is not the policy of the government to detain all failed refugee claimants.
The sudden arrival on the B.C. coast this summer posed new challenges. We have been making the argument successfully to detain the people in boats two, three and four. Those people who arrived in the first boat were not detained after we had identified them. We experienced a problem and because of the information we had we were able to make the case for boats two, three and four.
What they are proposing is undemocratic.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, everything in the minister's answer was really irrelevant. It is clear to Canadians that this system is not working well at all.
It has been over three months and the government system has completed six claims. Over 50 people are missing and more are being released every day. Of course we know that they will disappear.
I want to know why the minister is allowing people who came here illegally and have been denied refugee status to be released on Canadian soil.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is proposing that the state have the power to detain individuals when it has no evidence that those individuals will in fact flee.
We detain them and we have the right to detain if we do not know who they are. Until we have their identity we have the right to detain if we are concerned about criminality. We have the right to detain if there are concerns of flight.
The individuals the member referred to had shown up for all their hearings as part of the due process. I would say to him that unless there is evidence and we can make the case to detain it is not appropriate that we should do so.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, the Air Canada Pilots Association filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency regarding the agreement linking American Airlines and Canadian International Airlines, and more specifically the provision providing that the American carrier has a veto over any major decision, including takeovers or mergers affecting Canadian International Airlines.
This basically means that American Airlines has a veto over any possible agreement between Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines.
Does the Minister of Transport really believe that this arrangement complies with the National Transportation Act, which provides that foreign interests cannot in effect control more than 25% of an air carrier?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the issue raised this morning by the pilots falls completely within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency. I will not comment on the process, because it is not my responsibility to do so. It is up to the courts to deal with this issue.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have kept repeating for 10 days that they are setting five or six conditions, depending on who is talking, for any merger or takeover in the air transportation sector.
How can we believe that the government will ensure that its conditions are strictly followed, since the minister is not even prepared to ensure that the existing act is complied with?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have set five principles for the restructuring of our air transportation system, but there is one principle, which is very important and which is non-negotiable as far as the government is concerned, and that is the application of the Official Languages Act, which is important for all Canadians.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, of the 600 Chinese migrants who arrived by boat this summer only six of them have been processed so far. It is hardly breakneck speed.
The minister just basically admitted that these people were rejected as refugees. We know that. They were then set totally scot-free. The minister seems to think that unless they just come forward and admit that they will run away she will not detain them at all.
Why is the minister releasing bogus refugees here on Canadian soil?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, while I will not discuss individual cases I will tell the member that the individuals she was referring to who have been part of the accelerated process, which was part of the IRB decision, were not in detention prior to their hearings.
They had met all their obligations. They had shown up for all their hearings. Because they were entitled to a judicial review before the federal court, there was no reason to assume that they would not continue to meet their obligations.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is fine if they are not detained beforehand, but if they are deemed bogus refugees perhaps it would be wise to detain them after. The minister does not have a sweet clue where these people are.
It is impossible for anyone to try to understand the logic behind a system that releases migrants after the hearing regardless of whatever it was that hearing determined. Due process should not mean disappearance instead of deportation.
Why will the minister not stop this little game of catch and release?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. The government will uphold the charter of rights and freedoms. We stand for due process of law. Unlike the Reform Party, we are not attempting to throw out compassionate and humanitarian traditions. We will not rip up our charter of rights and freedoms. We will not walk away from our international obligations.
We offer people due process. The individuals she is referring to had the right to a judicial review with the federal court. It is not the policy of the government to detain all failed refugee claimants before they have received due process.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
Mr. Speaker, again today, we cannot help but note that, since the Marshall decision, the fisheries minister has been running in circles. However, when he took over the portfolio, he said that, whether it was counting pennies or fish, it amounted to the same thing.
The fishermen and the aboriginal people are now sending him a clear message. They are saying they no longer have confidence in him or his government and they have rejected his mediator. They want to negotiate directly between themselves.
When will the minister stop behaving like a spectator in this matter and take a clear stance that might resolve the conflict?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I announced in the House the appointment of the federal representative, Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Mackenzie is now out talking to the parties in Nova Scotia. He will be meeting with both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.
His appointment was welcomed by all the groups as a very important step. I have all the confidence in Mr. Mackenzie. I think he will do an excellent job. He is out there talking to the parties right now. Let us let him do his job.
Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Canadians want our government to protect their cultural identity and to preserve global cultural diversity. Both the foreign affairs and heritage committees have recommended strong international action to achieve this goal. What steps is the government taking to implement these important recommendations?
Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairmen of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage because both committees approached this very difficult issue with a new solution, that is the creation of a new international instrument on cultural diversity.
I would like to thank all of the members of this House, both sides of it, who worked on it, because yesterday, Cabinet decided unanimously that we would continue with a new international instrument to recognize cultural diversity because of the work of these members of the House.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence wants to be informed if an access to information applicant is a member of parliament or a member of the media. He does this and he demands this so that he can be prepared for question period.
The information commissioner's report to me stated that this practice is not consistent with the Privacy Act. Why is the Minister of National Defence singling out members of parliament and members of the media and putting his interests above the interest of the privacy of all Canadians?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday that is absolutely wrong.
First and foremost I want the laws, whether they are privacy or access to information laws, to be fully complied with by the Department of National Defence. I issued a very clear instruction back on April 6 to that effect.
The privacy commissioner in his report yesterday indicated that had been done. Also yesterday the privacy commissioner indicated in his report that great progress had been made with respect to the Department of National Defence answering these very matters and ensuring that we abide by the law.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner says he is still monitoring the minister's office.
In a letter to the deputy minister on April 6, and again yesterday in the House of Commons, the minister confirmed that the preparation of his talking points for his briefing book is more important than the privacy of all Canadians.
The information commissioner has said that singling out members of parliament and journalists gives the appearance of political influence and bias. Why does the minister put his own political bias above that of the right of privacy of every Canadian in the country? Why is he doing that?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to understand any of the answers he gets.
I have said quite clearly that following the law and the regulations is first and foremost. I said at the same time that this information goes out I would like to know about it so that I can respond to questions from hon. members in the House, or the media or the public. I think that is fair, that we would be able to be fully accountable and I am fully accountable for what happens in my department.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
Two constituents of mine who were recently bilked out of $700,000 in a stock market swindle recently received a letter from the RCMP saying, “You have a valid complaint but sorry, we don't have enough money to continue with our investigation”.
As the minister responsible for the RCMP, if the police are saying that they are unable to enforce our laws, what action is the minister taking and what advice does he have for my two constituents?