Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2001

Fisheries

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

For some time now the inshore crab fishermen in Newfoundland have been operating under permits. They have been requesting that these permits be upgraded to the status of a licence. The minister's department has committed to upgrade the status from permit to licence. In fact it should have happened this past summer.

Could the minister tell us what is happening on this issue? When can these fishermen expect to see the status of permit upgraded to that of licence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as well as for giving me notice on this issue.

As the hon. member knows, the snow crab licensing is very good. What has happened is we have issued temporary licences to 2,400 inshore fishermen so they can take advantage of the fishery.

If the licences are made permanent, we have to ensure that they can fish for the long term so we do not have the situation where the Government of Canada once again spends hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back those licences. This is an area I am looking at. A study has been conducted and we are looking at it closely. However, we have to make sure that the fishery is there for the long term so they can take advantage of the fishery.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while the government's anti-terrorism legislation restricts the freedoms of Canadians in the name of security, the bill next to it, Bill C-35, proposes to place foreign delegates to international conferences above Canadian law by giving them diplomatic immunity. The government already grants full diplomatic immunity to low-ranking foreign support staff who are not entitled to such immunity under international law.

At a time when Canadians are being asked to sacrifice their civil liberties, why is the government placing even more foreign visitors above the law?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the bill to which the hon. member refers, Bill C-35, does not affect the immunities of diplomats and consuls accredited to embassies and consulates. The focus is about people attending international conferences or international organizations that are not created by treaty. This bill is to ensure that those people have the same immunities. It does not enhance their immunities.

I think what might help the member is if I could provide him with a Cole's notes version of the Vienna Convention. Perhaps then he would grasp better what this bill is and is not about.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this goes way beyond the Vienna Convention. Under Bill C-35 any delegate to an international conference can be automatically allowed into Canada without the approval of Immigration Canada, even if that person has a criminal record or direct ties to terrorist groups. The immigration minister will no longer be relevant to the process.

Many members of the House have questioned the minister's relevance in the war against terrorism and this bill makes the immigration minister irrelevant by statute. Can the minister explain how her absence from the process makes Canada a safer place?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not focusing on what the member would have us believe. Again I think if he could grasp what we are and are not doing in Bill C-35, it would help him both in asking his questions and writing his newspaper articles.

For many years there has been a format in place where all diplomats and consuls assigned to Canada are vetted by immigration authorities before their accreditation is approved. Nothing has changed with Bill C-35.

St. Hubert Technobase

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the St. Hubert South Shore Technobase, we are unable to obtain specific information about the public moneys spent and the supposed jobs created.

Does the federal government not have a duty to account for the use of public moneys and to explain in particular what became of the $1 billion contributed by the Department of National Defence to the investment fund managed by the Technobase?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the St. Hubert military base was closed down and those who generated a certain amount of economic activity left, we set up an independent corporation to redeploy and revitalize the region's economy.

Basically, two funds were created: a $1 million fund, designed as a last resort fund, and which took the form of risk capital and loan guarantees; and a $6 million Economic Development Canada fund to promote technological development, in line with the niche identified by Industry Canada.

I would remind the House that when one looks—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry accused the Bloc Quebecois of taking an interest in this issue because of the municipal elections.

If the government is afraid to answer our questions and justify the use of this $1 million fund, is it not precisely because the Hon. Jacques Olivier, a former Liberal minister, is running for mayor in Longueuil?

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

Mr. Speaker, the board of directors of Technobase which, at the risk of repeating myself, is an independent corporation, is made up of a number of elected officials from the region, in this case mayors.

It is a corporation which, in my opinion, has done an excellent job for the entire St. Hubert region and for the greater south shore of Montreal.

At the present time, over $3 million has been invested from the Canada Economic Development fund, which has made it possible to diversify the economy and also to create many jobs. We are especially proud of the work done by this corporation.

Softwood Lumber

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade explained to the House that the U.S. is tying softwood lumber to progress on other files. The parliamentary secretary said that President Bush “needs to work with that congress for certain other initiatives he wants to take” before progress can be made on softwood.

Will the acting prime minister confirm that the Americans are waiting for us to take action on a North American security perimeter and other pressing issues before they move forward on softwood lumber?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible stretch. I in no way said anything like that. I do not know how the member could possibly have come up with that interpretation.

What I said, and one would have to be incredibly naive not to understand it, is that the United States president has his own congressional pressures that he is dealing with. There are people up for re-election in the United States. That is the reality. The United States is determined to protect its lumber industry even if it hurts its consumers and hurts our industry and workers. We will fight for fair trade in softwood lumber.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am too nervous. I am one of the people from British Columbia who they have absolutely treated with disdain in the House.

A few weeks ago the U.S. settled a long running dispute over plywood by securing Indonesia's co-operation in the war against terrorism. Why is the government, and I would hate to say hiding its head in the sand because its head is somewhere else, not realizing that in order to save softwood lumber jobs here at home, we need to take action on a North American security perimeter and other homeland defence measures in order to gain the co-operation of our American counterparts?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of irresponsible suggestion we heard a couple of weeks ago in a question for the Minister for International Trade, that somehow we should bargain our support for the alliance effort against terrorism and link that into the question of softwood lumber. That is irresponsible and we will not do that.

We won this case a number of times before on its merits. We will do so again. We are proceeding at the WTO. We are proceeding with a series of negotiations with American officials. The Prime Minister is directly engaged in this along with the minister. Maybe the member ought to do some homework for a change.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in September Canadians and others around the world witnessed shocking terrorist acts and have come to recognize that new threats face their freedom and security. In light of this, many Canadians are very concerned that minority communities will be unfairly targeted in the wake of these events.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada inform the House as to how we can ensure the security of all Canadians and protect the diversity and harmony that we enjoy in Canada?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill deals with terrorist activity by giving important new tools to police, security forces and prosecutors. It also has provisions to protect against hatred to minority communities in Canada. The bill will amend the criminal code to prohibit online use of hate propaganda. It will create new offences against those who desecrate religious sites or places of worship. It will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend the prohibitions against hate speech.

Cultural diversity is one of the strengths of Canadians--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Softwood Lumber

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps insisting that he is under no obligation to call a national stakeholders meeting because the current softwood lumber meetings with the U.S. are talks only. The provinces, industry and the minister himself have called these thinly disguised negotiations what they are: negotiations.

By not calling a stakeholders meeting, the minister is favouring negotiations over litigation. Why will the minister not call a national stakeholders meeting?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on this issue. We are involved in an ongoing series of discussions with Canadian and American officials, involving all our provincial representatives and in wide consultation with those provinces.

These discussions have one goal: to find a durable solution to this. Of course, the best would be free trade in softwood lumber. We need a durable solution that will stand up and that does not put us in this strait jacket every few years.

Surely the opposition is not advocating that.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are not advocating that. The parliamentary secretary should listen more carefully.

The U.S. department of commerce has biased its anti-dumping investigation into Canadian softwood imports by rejecting all instances of profitability or break-even sales and has chosen to count only negative margins on specific and narrow items within a product line. It then applies this result to all other products, including the positive returns. This is called zeroing out and is challengeable at the WTO.

When will the minister be launching this challenge at the WTO?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been, but on October 25 the Minister for International Trade filed for a WTO panel on the softwood issue. The member is a little behind the times in calling for legal action.

The series of discussions is ongoing because we do not think that we should only tie ourselves to the legal avenue. We need a long term durable solution to this, which will respect the fair trade that we want in this country and for which the Americans claim to stand.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, a special Senate committee has just come out in favour of the key proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois, in particular the sunset clauses and a tighter definition of terrorist activity in the bill. Some Liberal ministers have made similar comments, but the Prime Minister invoked cabinet solidarity to silence them.

Will the government give some indication of its thoughts on this subject?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very grateful to the Senate committee for holding pre-hearings to provide it and the House of Commons justice committee with valuable advice as it considers this important bill.

The Minister of Justice has made it clear repeatedly in the House that the government feels that the bill is within the charter and has the appropriate tools. She has also made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that we value on this side of the House the advice coming from both House and Senate committees on this important issue.

Employment Insurance

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unemployment is on the rise. Yet two out of three unemployed workers will fail to qualify for any EI benefits at all. The rules are so strict that hardly anybody qualifies any more. This is in spite of a $750 million a month surplus.

The U.S. has relaxed its EI rules in the aftermath of September 11. Why will the government not use the EI surplus for what it was intended: to provide income maintenance for unemployed workers? Why will the government not relax the eligibility rules from 920 hours to 700 hours so that thousands more Canadians will qualify for some income maintenance as we go into this long winter?