Debates of Dec. 15th, 1999

Employment Insurance

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question tonight follows on a question I posed on November 19 of this year regarding an agricultural trade issue.

Protectionism in the international trade of agriculture is on the rise. U.S. border state politicians are increasing their rhetoric and are once again starting to rattle their trade sabres, threatening the livelihood of Canadian agricultural producers.

The most recent example of this protectionism is the anti-dumping and countervail petition to the U.S. department of commerce by the Montana producers' group, R-CALF. R-CALF claimed that Canadian cattle were government subsidized and were dumped on the U.S. market. Before the United States International Trade Commission finally ruled in Canada's favour, Canadian cattlemen were forced to pay a 5.63% provisional tariff on their export cattle, open their books to a foreign government agency and spend millions of dollars in legal fees to defend their industry against these groundless claims.

Canadian cattlemen are fair traders but are being left exposed to the threat of multimillion dollar legal battles because of the indifference of the government and its failure to treat agricultural trade as a priority.

The government has had six years to reduce the bilateral trade irritants with our biggest trading partner. The current definition of dumping, which does not consider the cyclical nature of the agriculture industry, trapped Canadian cattlemen when they were forced to sell their cattle below the price of production several years ago. This poorly worded definition does more to hurt Canadian industry than to protect it. A responsible definition should reflect market cycles and take action in cases of predatory pricing and selling below home market prices.

Another aggravation for cattlemen in this case was the failure of the agriculture minister to take decisive action to implement changes recommended by the Canadian cattle industry, changes that would address trade tensions between Canada and the U.S.

Frustrated by the inaction of the federal government in the wake of the R-CALF petition, a group of cattlemen in my riding came together and formed a producer group called the North West Beef Producers. This group raised over $200,000 to finance meetings with U.S. producers to seek a solution to these repeated trade disputes. It requested an expansion of the north west pilot project, specifically asking for a national exemption on Blue Tongue and recommending a treatment protocol for anaplasmosis, allowing year-round entry to Canada of feeder cattle from the U.S.

However, despite the fact that considerable research has proven that lifting the restrictions will not adversely affect the health of the Canadian herd, and that these proposals do not depend on federal financial assistance for their success, the federal minister of agriculture left cattlemen high and dry, promising only to further explore the issue.

Although the U.S. ITC ruled in Canada's favour, this government is making a mistake if it thinks that the Americans are willing to give up the fight. The government need only look at the $75,000 donation that the Government of South Dakota made to the R-CALF campaign to see how seriously the northern tier U.S. states view this issue.

How long will the minister of agriculture leave Canadian cattlemen exposed to the kind of trade harassment that we have seen over the last year before he implements the regulatory changes to the north west pilot project requested by industry groups and when will the changes to the definition of dumping that the industry is asking for be implemented?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter forward tonight. I would encourage him to come to the foreign affairs committee, which has discussed this issue in the past a number of times. His colleagues on the committee might remind him of the times that we discussed this issue at the foreign affairs committee. It is a very important issue for Canada.

In his intervention the member raised the anti-dumping investigation on live cattle which was recently concluded by the United States. It is important to say that the International Trade Commission ruled that Canada's shipments of live cattle are not injuring the U.S. industry. Therefore, dumping duties will not be assessed. The Government of Canada is very pleased with this decision.

As an export driven economy, Canada is concerned with the use of trade remedies such as anti-dumping by growing numbers of countries. These measures can significantly impair access to foreign markets. In this regard we recognize that there is scope for improvement in the rules which allow considerable discretion by investigating authorities. That is why we are seeking multilateral negotiations to clarify anti-dumping rules.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at this time of the year it is very important that we take the opportunity, when it is given, to express our gratitude to the men and women of the Canadian forces who are serving abroad and will not be home with their families.

It was in this context that on December 1 I asked the Minister of National Defence a question pertaining to the replacement of the Canadian forces' Sea King maritime helicopter. I pointed out that the Liberal government's own 1994 defence white paper, which is the official government policy, promised that the Sea King would be replaced prior to the year 2000. The Liberal government's 1994 white paper states:

Canada's maritime forces will be adequately equipped to carry out their new array of tasks. There is an urgent need for robust and capable new shipborne helicopters—. Work will, therefore, begin immediately to identify options and plans to put into service new affordable replacement helicopters by the end of the decade.

That is found at page 46 of the defence white paper.

Note that the 1994 white paper promised to have new maritime helicopters put into service by the end of the decade, not tendered as a contract, but—and again I stress—put into service. That means that our maritime helicopter air crews should be taking delivery of the last few helicopters during the next couple of weeks.

Obviously, given the late date, the Liberal government has broken its promise to Canadians and its commitment to its very own defence white paper of 1994.

In November, during a meeting of the standing committee on national defence, the Minister of National Defence proclaimed that no new maritime helicopter would be in service until the year 2005 at the very earliest.

The Minister of National Defence has broken his own government's stated policy. This broken promise by the Liberal government has very serious consequences for the Canadian forces, and in particular the personnel. Continuing to use the Sea Kings has reduced the operational capabilities of our forces, and it has also placed those air crews at risk.

The Sea Kings are now 35 years old, older than most of the people serving as crew on those crafts. The equipment is technically out of date and requires over 30 hours of maintenance for every one hour of flight. Often, when needed on missions or during military manoeuvres, the Sea Kings are unavailable due to technical difficulties.

In my question on December 1 I said that Canadians continually read about how forces operations have been hampered by the failures of the Sea Kings. It took only one day to find an example. On December 2 the news headlines read that a Sea King helicopter experienced engine failure and was forced to make an emergency landing on the water at Dili Harbour in East Timor. This was an operational disaster that put Canadian air service personnel at risk.

Today the Canadian Press carried a story that the Sea Kings are literally disintegrating in the skies, with at least seven significant pieces falling off in mid-flight since July. For example, on July 7 a window popped off a cargo door, landing near a house in York Harbour, Newfoundland. Worse still, on October 12 a bolt popped off a Sea King, forcing an emergency landing at Shearwater.

This is unacceptable. The Liberal policy has been broken. I believe that the government has lost its commitment to the Canadian forces. It has lost capability for the forces and, most tragically, lost lives.

I ask the government, where is the replacement for the Sea King helicopter?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, ever since they have been in service, Sea King helicopters have made an outstanding contribution in many areas, and more particularly in surveillance, and search and rescue operations.

They have been deployed throughout the world, during the gulf war, in Somalia, in Haiti, in the Adriatic Sea for our involvement in NATO operations, and also in East Timor.

I think all Canadians should be proud of what the Sea Kings and their crews have accomplished over the years. But, as the minister has said, it is time to replace the Sea Kings.

The minister has confirmed on several occasions in the House that, as far as equipment goes, the new maritime helicopter project is his first priority. We are working on an acquisition strategy.

But this work is taking more time than we had foreseen in the white book, because the government wants to make sure we will have the equipment that meets our needs best.

The government must make sure that the new maritime helicopter will met the operational needs of the Canadian forces. For a procurement program as important as this one, several departments have to be consulted. The government will make an announcement when everything is ready.

What my colleague emphatically calls broken promises is the dedication of my government to make things right from all points of view. This is more important than politicking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House yet again an issue that has been before the Canadian public for some time. I am talking about the failure of the solicitor general's department to take control of some of its own internal agencies.

With respect to this issue, the CSIS agent had sensitive documents taken from a car while at a hockey game in Toronto. We know that the head of CSIS has commenced an investigation, but since that time more security breaches have been exposed.

The solicitor general by his acquiescence has been putting in question the good name of the CSIS agents and the RCMP. The problem is obvious. There is no accountability from the top officers at CSIS or the solicitor general and those within his department.

The recent sad chapter involves a CSIS agent at a hockey game with top secret documents pertaining to the plan of the country with respect to internal security. The solicitor general should have said the puck stops here. Obviously that has not happened.

Time and time again we have seen the non-answers, the rhetoric and the tired preprogrammed responses of the solicitor general in the House. He states that he takes national security as a serious matter, that it is a top priority for the government, and that there is a process which has to be followed. Bunk. This is absolute nonsense. If this were the case things would change. They do not change and that is very obvious.

The solicitor general did not inform the head of SIRC, Paule Gauthier. She found out through reading the Globe and Mail almost a week after the event occurred. The solicitor general said he was informed of the event by the director, Ward Elcock. We know Mr. Elcock does not have a great deal of respect for this place or certainly for parliamentarians. He has no respect for SIRC and no respect even for the minister, I would suggest.

The director, aided by the minister, has undermined the role of SIRC. It appears at worst that he deliberately covered up the theft of the CSIS plan or at best acquiesced and sat on it. The solicitor general seems oblivious to this. The lights are on but there does not appear to be anybody home. Furthermore, no one has held the head of CSIS, Mr. Elcock, accountable. The CSIS board has had vacancies for years. It was only this summer that the inspector general's role was filled, just prior to this fiasco being uncovered.

The solicitor general said that he did not inform the Prime Minister's Office. Yet the Prime Minister was overseas making comments about it and trying to downplay it as a serious incident and a serious breach of security. If the solicitor general did not inform the Prime Minister, how was the Prime Minister able to make such pointed comments? Who informed him and what faith should we have in a solicitor general who keeps this from the Prime Minister?

The solicitor general took great licence with the word immediately when the theft had occurred three weeks before and had already been reported in the Globe and Mail before it was uncovered at all. Why was SIRC not informed immediately?

If the solicitor general is covering up for CSIS, this needs to be exposed. Was he trying to hide the embarrassment of the incident from the Prime Minister and the Canadian people? If everyone is informed and the process is going to work, everyone has to be informed.

The solicitor general obviously does not understand his departments. He does not understand the individuals who are involved and he cannot continue to pass the buck. These are very serious communication breakdowns. We already know that the RCMP and CSIS are not communicating effectively. Obviously the solicitor general is not prepared to step in and see that his departments are co-operating.

The parliamentary secretary will tell us in a few minutes that things are fine. It will be the same broken record response that we will hear from the solicitor general. He will parrot the same line, but we know this is a problem in the country right now. The solicitor general should have at least asked to call the director before him and make him take account for what occurred.

Canadians are very worried, as they should be, about national security. The solicitor general and the government, by their actions, demonstrate that they do not take these matters seriously. They demonstrate that they have no respect for the concerns of parliamentarians and Canadians at large.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I find this interesting. The member opposite is accusing me of always giving him the same answers. What am I supposed to do if he keeps asking me the same questions? Do I have a choice?

Let us be clear. There was a security breach, which I deplore as much as my colleague, but he is not the only one who is concerned with the safety of Canadians.

When a security breach occurs, and it does happen unfortunately because our systems rely on humans who sometimes make mistakes, there is a process in place to deal with that.

My colleague knows full well that this very House established two institutions at the same time as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service: the Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC. Both are investigating these matters.

Both institutions are totally independent and have unrestricted access to all CSIS documents.

These matters to which my colleague referred are being reviewed by these two institutions. There was absolutely no obligation on the part of the minister to inform SIRC. It is not his duty. SIRC is a review committee.

I somewhat deplore the fact that, as soon as an incident occurs, my colleague opposite always has the same reaction: first he panics, then he questions the value of institutions that were established by this parliament to deal with these matters.

Again, I am sorry to say that if I am asked the same question tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, in three weeks or in a month, I will give the same answer.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)