Debates of Nov. 26th, 2001

Child Poverty

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the leader of the NDP Party who has managed to survive. We are very happy to keep her in that job for a long time. She has been doing it very well.

I just want to say that, yes, the children's agenda has always been a very big preoccupation for the government. In the past year we have created all sorts of new initiatives to make sure that child poverty is being reduced constantly in Canada. We have managed to do that over the last--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended a deeply disturbing photo exhibit at the National Arts Centre about Canada's children living in poverty. June Callwood spoke at that opening. Let me tell the House what she has said. She says that if any adult anywhere in this country sees a house burning he or she rushes in to rescue a child who may be within.

I smell smoke. I see fire. Will the Prime Minister rush to the rescue of Canada's children?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the problem long before the hon. member got up in the House. We have talked about a children's agenda every year and in every Speech from the Throne that we have had since we formed the government in 1993.

Public Safety Act

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the combination of the two new security bills constitutes an unprecedented power grab by this government. Bill C-42 lets the defence minister, after consulting only his chief of defence staff, designate military security zones. That authorizes the army to stop citizens from going places where they might normally go, specifically places like national parks, places like the post office, without any explanation or any justification.

Will the Prime Minister introduce at least an oversight provision that might protect Canadians against this serious and unjustified abuse of civil rights?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party likes to scare the people. There is a bill for the protection of Canadian citizens. We have to start from that basis. Not only that, this bill is in front of the House of Commons and there will be work in the committee, so the argument can be made there.

We have shown in the past that we can look at the suggestions of the members of parliament. However, I do not think it is a good technique at this moment, when the members are studying the bill, to try to scare the Canadian public.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week's anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, empowers the government to hide information.

This week's anti-terrorism bill, C-42, allows ministers to issue all manner of orders in all manner of circumstances. In other words, a minister acting alone can make decisions that might be prejudicial to individuals without having to notify them, or even having to offer explanations.

How can the government justify such a flagrant abuse of power?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the terrorists gave much notice before they took the lives of 6,000 people in New York City or tried to destroy the Pentagon.

What we have here is a bill that responds to the new necessities of the times, and we are providing hon. members with the opportunity to examine it and to make recommendations to the government. That is what we have been doing recently.

Yet the leader of the Conservative Party, having voted in favour of the bill in committee, is now criticizing it. He ought to start by deciding which side he is on.

The Economy

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over 650 days since this government last tabled a budget. It is the longest period that this parliament has ever gone without an accounting of the nation's finances by the government. It has waited for the onset of a recession and an international crisis to finally agree to do so.

Could and would the finance minister stand up and confirm that he plans to table a budget here on December 10?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that the traditional question from the finance critic of the opposition is supposed to lead to such rhetorical flourishes and indignations.

It is, however, a great pleasure for me to announce that the government's next budget will be brought down here in this House on Monday, December 10 at 4 p.m.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

When it comes to indignation, he is a great tutor, Mr. Speaker.

Tens of thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs, the economy is in its second quarter of contraction, the loonie has sunk to an all time low and our standard of living continues to lag behind our major competitor. In the face of all this the finance minister is floating the idea of either no cut in EI premiums or a paltry reduction of 5 cents.

Will the finance minister get up off his $36 billion EI surplus and give workers and employers a break or will he just leave them to suffer the consequences of his recession without any tax relief?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to announce that the government's budget to be presented in the House on December 10 will be the perfect antidote to the fearmongering of the opposition.

Public Safety Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-42 had been applied at the Quebec City summit, for example, this would have meant that control would have been taken out of the hands of the regular police forces and handed over to the army and, what is more the protesters' rights and freedoms as well as their right to sue would have been suppressed.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that under this bill a peaceful protester who had a run-in with the military would not have had any rights or any right to recourse?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there are no new laws involved here that do not already exist. The police already have the authority to create, as they did in Quebec City, a security area. There is nothing new about that. The only difference is that if it involves military equipment or the Canadian forces the Canadian forces would carry it out. It is not additional to what already exists. It already does exist in law for the police.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to understand that he can create military security zones anywhere.

How can the Prime Minister promote a bill intended to deprive businesses of the right to claim damages if they have the misfortune to find themselves within a military security zone, where assessment of the damages will be determined arbitrarily by the Minister of National Defence?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what applies in the case of the police doing this would also apply in the case of the military but that is not the intent of the legislation. It is intended to protect Canadian forces or allied equipment, ships, planes, et cetera, which may not be on defence property at any given time, to make sure we can provide the necessary security protection in this time of armed conflict.

Immigration

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is the for the immigration minister.

Yves Bourbonnais, who is now under corruption investigation, has already been convicted of breach of trust, sentenced to prison and suspended from the practice of law. However, when this was revealed six months ago, the chairman of the IRB stood by this blatantly unqualified patronage appointee.

How can Canadians trust the integrity of our immigration and refugee system when the minister continues to appoint Liberals tainted by scandal to the sensitive job of who gets to stay in Canada? How can she do that?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on any investigation because we would not want to prejudice the outcome. I know the member would not either.

However I want to say very clearly that as far as I and the department are concerned and, I believe, the chair of the IRB, there is zero tolerance for any suggestions of either malfeasance or corruption. Anyone who is appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board goes through an extensive process where they have a written test, references are checked and competence is the bottom line for those appointments.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the state of the refugee determination system: inadequate screening at the front end and decisions on status being made by unqualified patronage appointees, some with criminal records. It is unfair to the reputation of genuine refugees. It is clear that the job of deciding who can remain in Canada is too important to be left to Liberal hacks.

Will the minister promise today to scrap the patronage ridden Immigration and Refugee Board and replace it with a truly independent, impartial and credible adjudication system?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely with the categorization of the member's preamble.

The Immigration and Refugee Board is highly regarded internationally. Members of the board are subject to intense scrutiny prior to their appointments. I would say to him that they actually, I believe, serve with distinction. As a member of the immigration committee he has had the opportunity to question the chair who has all the tools and authority necessary should any question of either competence or malfeasance arise.

I would encourage the member not to engage in anything that would prejudice an investigation.

Terrorism

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Government of Spain announced that it would not extradite the eight terrorists in its custody unless the United States guaranteed that they would be tried before a civil court and not a military court, and that they would not be subject to the death penalty.

Will the Prime Minister follow the Spain's lead and assure us that we will not extradite suspected terrorists without first obtaining a guarantee that they will not be tried in a military court, nor sentenced to death?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, for now, no one is being extradited. There have been no arrests made here for which an extradition has been requested by the United States. This is a purely hypothetical question.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, any fighters who surrender are no longer legitimate military targets. This is a basic concept in international humanitarian law. Unfortunately, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, there are some parts of Afghanistan where no prisoners have been taken. The military orders have been clear: no one is to be spared.

Does Canada plan on denouncing these violations of the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we do not support such actions. We believe that not only must the principles of the Geneva convention be respected, but so must the principles of the rule of law.

The situation is changing daily. The information we have is not really clear or certain. We most certainly want to obtain more information.

However, I do support the position expressed by the member.