Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1999

Apec Inquiry

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government has co-operated fully with the Public Complaints Commission. Very senior members of the Prime Minister's office have testified before the commission. Why will my hon. colleague not let the Public Complaints Commission do its job?

Fisheries

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the existing chaos and menacing atmosphere resulting from the Marshall decision is taking its toll on fishermen, families and stocks.

Will the minister make a public statement that will clarify the position of his department and apply the principles of conservation for all fishermen in Canada?

I say to the minister, if conservation is truly coming first, why does he not prove it?

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

Mr. Speaker, conservation is our number one priority and we operate and manage the fishery on that basis. That is exactly what we are doing out there.

I have said from day one that we will have a regulated fishery. We have a regulated fishery that we enforcing to ensure that we have conservation.

I have been in contact with all the groups. We now have a federal representative out there speaking to the commercial industries and the aboriginal communities and working to have a practical arrangement. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have conservation, we have confusion; confusion among the fishermen, the aboriginal people and the ministers themselves.

It appears as if the ministers' plan to put a negotiator in place has failed. Now that the Sable gas plan may be interrupted, it seems that every time the federal government goes to court it loses. Even the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stated there has to be more leadership coming from the minister.

If the minister has a plan to resolve the crisis in the fishery, will he please share it. What is that plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member and his party have not been listening. We put together both a short term and long term plan. We have a federal representative who is now talking to the groups.

The only plan the Conservatives have is to use the notwithstanding clause. They do not even recognize that in this case we cannot use the notwithstanding clause. That is the only solution coming out of the Conservative Party.

Child Pornography

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is official. Possession of child pornography is now legal in provinces other than British Columbia. Despite promises from the justice minister that this would never happen, yesterday in an Edmonton courthouse right in the minister's own backyard, charges against Lawrence Edelstein were held over pending a supreme court decision.

Given this contradicts everything the minister said would not happen, including the child pornography case reaching the supreme court, would the parliamentary secretary tell us if the government will now invoke the notwithstanding clause?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to ensuring the safety of our children. We have intervened vigorously at the British Columbia Court of Appeal level and we will do the same at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let us not forget that possession of child pornography is illegal in nine provinces and three territories. Let us not forget that. Also let us not forget that it is illegal to produce, to transfer, to sell child pornography. The government is acting well on this issue.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I still thought Alberta and B.C. were part of Canada. Let me remind the government of the justice minister's words on February 2, 1999 in this House. She said “We are acting immediately. We will not wait for this case to reach the supreme court”.

Let me also remind the government that in January the parliamentary secretary who just answered the question wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to use the notwithstanding clause to solve this child pornography case, as did 62 other Liberals.

When is the government going to bring in the notwithstanding clause and put children first instead of the sexual deviants who are still operating in this country?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this case will be heard on January 18 and 19. We are vigorously defending it. To invoke the notwithstanding clause at this time would weaken our case, a case where we feel we are constitutionally strong.

Genetically Altered Foods

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the closing session of a meeting of the Canadian Health Food Association held in Ottawa last weekend, David Suzuki quite rightly remarked that Canadians are being used as guinea pigs for genetically altered foods.

Is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for the food inspection system to be discredited before labelling and regulating genetically altered foods, as the Bloc Quebecois requested last June?

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

Mr. Speaker, the approval of foods no matter how they are produced and come about in Canada is a very rigorous process. The Ministry of Health sets the terminology and the rules and regulations. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitors and enforces those standards and regulations. The Ministry of Health audits and monitors the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the government undertake to move quickly to carry out exhaustive studies of the effects on health of genetically altered foods and to increase the budgets necessary to evaluate these foods?

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

Mr. Speaker, no food is approved for sale in Canada unless it has gone through one of the most rigorous food inspection systems in the world. It takes a number of years before that process is completed. The best way to explain to everybody how successful and how good it is is to look at the track record. Canadians are fortunate to have the best food regulatory system in the world and the track record shows that.

Pay Equity

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have undermined the solid principle of pay equity by substituting their fuzzy notion of equal value work. The Liberals' little experiment has wound up costing taxpayers $5 billion. Worse, it has sparked a rash of similar suits that will cost consumers billions more. Unfortunately the government's loss has already set a precedent in those cases.

When is the government going to end the confusion for Canadian workers, employers and consumers by defining what it means by equal value work?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a big difference between the Reform Party and our government. I remind everyone that the Reform Party in its electoral platform said: “We will discontinue employment equity programs and will repeal section 15(2) of the charter of rights and freedoms”. That is the section about equality rights. I do not think we have any reason to hear from the Reform Party on that.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pay equity is nothing but pay inequity.

Bureaucrats assigning an arbitrary value to jobs has nothing to do with fairness. It has nothing to do with unity. Every other worker in the country can now kiss a tax cut goodbye so the government can finance its loss to the federal court. It is hard to see the equity in that. There goes the surplus. There goes tax relief.

Why is it that whenever the government makes a mistake, taxpayers end up paying the bill?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been. He certainly was not listening to the Prime Minister the other day.

The Prime Minister said that the pay equity decision will not cause the government to back down on its commitment in the throne speech and before to carry out general tax relief for Canadians. It has already begun doing that to the tune of $19 billion. The government will continue to do this.

The hon. member should not say things which cause confusion and misunderstanding on the part of Canadians.

Genetically Altered Foods

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to protect biodiversity, an international protocol on biosafety that would regulate the export and import of genetically altered organisms is now being negotiated.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is Canada one of the small group of six nations blocking the accord and putting trade ahead of the protection of health and the environment?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the group of nations that export agricultural products. We are also trying to have some good exchanges of views and to reduce the distance separating the opinions of the group of countries to which the hon. member referred from the other countries with their differing views. We are doing our best to bridge the gap and to find common ground.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain that Canada is refusing to include in the biosafety protocol a clause making companies responsible for damage caused to the environment by their genetically altered products?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with like-minded nations which face similar problems.

As the logic of the hon. member's position would indicate, the fact is we cannot simply halt international trade in foodstuffs. We have to recognize that there are differing points of view of differing countries of the world. We must continue to work to bridge these differences and attempt to bring together an accord which will in particular protect the less developed countries. That also depends on our assisting them with technology, information and systems which will allow them to make benefit of any future accord.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the historian whose expert opinion Justice Binnie relied on in the Marshall ruling has publicly stated his testimony was twisted to fit the ruling. Justice Binnie interpreted Professor Stephen Patterson's testimony as evidence that the treaties granted a permanent native right to fish or hunt, but Patterson, the person Justice Binnie relied on, does not agree. The decision is flawed.

Given this evidence of a flawed decision, will the government join with the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition in petitioning the supreme court to stay and clarify the Marshall decision?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is to work out an arrangement involving all the parties in a fair and equitable way. Discussions are under way right now for that purpose. A very distinguished legal scholar has been appointed as mediator. We should support his work to make sure there is a fair arrangement respecting the rights of all concerned, whether the fishers are native or non-native people in any part of Canada, including Atlantic Canada.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be good to hear from the fisheries minister.

The Marshall decision establishes a race-based commercial fishery on the east coast. History Professor Patterson was one of the central experts cited in that case. He thinks the ruling was flawed. He said:

Mr. Binnie relies extensively on my testimony in order to support that position. But I think what he has quoted from my testimony is very, very incomplete.

Why will the government not ask the supreme court to stay the Marshall decision, and clarify it?

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

Mr. Speaker, our position has been very clear from day one.

We have a supreme court judgment. We will make sure that we live within the spirit of that judgment. We have already recognized that treaty right. We are now making sure we have dialogue and co-operation.

The Reform Party of course has a different position from the other parties in the House. Since 1993 it has voted against every major aboriginal initiative in the House and as usual it is carrying on as it always has.