Debates of March 2nd, 2001

Member For Etobicoke—Lakeshore

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of one of our very own parliamentarians. Last weekend the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was honoured with three distinct awards for her outstanding contributions to her community and her country.

She, along with our colleague the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, was the recipient of the Canada-Estonia Gold Order of Merit, which was awarded to mark the 83rd anniversary of the independence of Estonia.

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was also recognized by the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers with their community award. This award honours her work in advancing human rights in the law and recognizes her role in mentoring and supporting others.

Finally, she was awarded the special Citizens Thank You Award at the National Archives of Canada. This award gives national recognition to Black History Month.

At the end of Black History Month, it is appropriate that we all take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for all her tremendous efforts in advancing the causes of minority groups in our society. As a former chair of the national women's caucus, she has also been instrumental in bringing to the fore issues that affect women all across Canada.

Heating Fuel Rebate

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents who continue to ask me to enlighten the government about the wrongheaded gas rebate scheme. In the past month I have received hundreds of letters, e-mails, faxes and phone calls about this cruel billion dollar joke.

I could go on about this myself, but instead I will use my own constituents' words.

Leandra, who lives in Kamloops, is upset that prisoners got rebate cheques a month ago while she, who actually pays a gas bill, still has not received a cheque.

Ellen, who lives in my riding, writes that she is upset with the incompetence of the Liberals and really wants to know how this government came up with such a scheme.

There is Stephanie from Kamloops. She is a hard-working single mother who pays a gas bill of $125 a month. She resents being penalized for having a job and contributing to society while the government buys her vote with her own tax dollars.

My constituents want more than vague platitudes from the government. They know when they are being bought and they want this gas rebate scheme fixed.

Landmine Awareness Week

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Canadian Landmine Awareness Week. In conjunction with their many partners, Mines Action Canada is promoting awareness of the global landmine crisis.

Today marks the second anniversary of the coming into force of the international mine ban treaty, the Ottawa treaty. This treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and represents a great step forward in reducing the human tragedy and suffering resulting from their use.

It is on their behalf that I ask all members to support the efforts of Mines Action Canada and of those organizations around the world in encouraging countries, like the United States and China, to accede to the Ottawa treaty so that one day we can achieve the goal of creating a world free of landmines.

Ethics Counsellor

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed that he had followed all of the conflict of interest rules and turned everything over to his trustee.

However, on January 27, 1996, it was not the trustee who contacted the ethics counsellor, as it should have been, it was the Prime Minister himself.

Under the terms of the blind trust agreement, the Prime Minister should not even have known about the problem with his shares.

Why was the Prime Minister involving himself with his blind trust, in direct violation of the conflict of interest code?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the premise of the hon. member's question is not correct. If that is the case, her whole question flounders.

The ethics counsellor was very clear in what he told the Globe and Mail yesterday. He said:

I don't want there to be a sense that the Prime Minister, in our view, was not in full compliance with his obligations.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we can read the conflict of interest code. It is quite clear to us. Let me quote from it. The conflict of interest code states:

The public office holder cannot—participate in any discussion—that may particularly or significantly affect the assets that are subject to the agreement.

How is it possible that the Prime Minister even knew that the shares in his golf course had reverted back to him if he had not participated in a discussion about them?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to assess the premise of the hon. member's question for its factualness and its context. Generally when we check these things we find something missing in terms of language and in terms of context.

It is very important to repeat what that the ethics counsellor told the Globe and Mail yesterday. He said:

I don't want there to be a sense that the Prime Minister, in our view, was not in full compliance with his obligations.

That is a very important statement.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that we ask harder questions than the lapdog of the Prime Minister.

It is interesting how things have changed over the last 15 years. Fifteen years ago members of this cabinet were jumping and leaping over tables to enforce the conflict of interest rules. Now they think it is okay to ignore them.

The Prime Minister obviously involved himself in discussions about his blind trust, which is a clear violation of the code. The Liberals over there think that is just fine.

I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret but time has elapsed.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, last fall during the election the leader of the Alliance and the leader of the Conservatives wrote the ethics counsellor asking him to investigate an alleged breach of the rules on this matter. It was only after the ethics counsellor looked into the matter and found there were no breaches of rules that the leaders of the two parties began attacking him.

Rather than him being a lapdog of the Prime Minister, which he is not, they are unhappy because the ethics counsellor refuses to be a lapdog of the leaders of the Alliance and the Conservative parties.

Customs And Revenue Agency

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

The minister is allowing his customs officers and immigration officers to not only open the mail but to also photocopy and enter information into a secret database, much like the secret database we had in last year's human resources scandal.

Given that, for example, mail between a lawyer and a client is privileged, what assurances do Canadians have that the civil rights of law-abiding individuals are not being infringed by this questionable practice? Also, are lawyers being advised when their clients' mail is photocopied and retained?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, on the customs side, has a dual mandate. Part of this mandate is to make sure that we keep the communities we serve safe. As well, part of this mandate is to make sure that all goods coming into Canada respect Canadian law.

Customs, as we all know, does perform risk assessments. It also performs random checks. When we are referring here to mail and goods crossing the border, we are also talking about international mail and goods. However, we are talking about mail more than 30 grams. Personal letters are not touched at all.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we want a wiretap we have to go to a judge to get it. We have mail coming to lawyers in this country that is being opened by Canada customs.

What Canadians want to know is, if Canada customs retains that mail and makes copies of it, are the lawyers, to whom the letters are being written, informed that their mail has been opened and copied before it is forwarded to them? We want to know if our civil rights are being violated.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are talking about mail and parcels weighing 30 grams or more. Each and every time that we proceed on a random check basis there is a question of risk assessment. After we open something, a box for example, we put a stamp on it making sure that the recipient is aware that that box has been opened by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

When we talk about personal letters, we cannot open a personal letter weighing under 30 grams without the consent of the sender or the recipient. I must tell the House that our attitude with regard to random checks has been very profitable to the Canadian—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Longueuil.

Lumber

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 51 U.S. senators asked the president of the United States to maintain export quotas on Canadian lumber and have even threatened to use retaliatory measures against Canada.

The minister keeps saying that Canada's lumber file is iron clad. Moreover, he constantly refers to the international rulings that all support Canada's position.

Therefore, how does the minister explain his inability to effectively defend Canada's point of view?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible for me to hear that the minister has not expressed the point of view of Canada adequately. The minister has been eloquent and consistent in making clear that Canada's position on this is that we want free trade.

The problem lies south of the border. It does not lie on this side of the border. The Unites States has never won a countervail duty action against Canada, and our opinion is that it never will.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims to be discouraged and, indeed, his attitude is rather discouraging.

Why does the minister attach so much importance to the comments by these 51 senators when he could have shown transparency and got the support here in this House of 300 parliamentarians?

Does the minister realize that by going it alone, as he has been doing since the beginning on this issue, all Quebecers and Canadians may well lose out on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is just incredibly wrong. The Minister for International Trade has consulted widely with all provinces, all trade ministers, including the trade minister of Quebec, and all the sectoral groups involved in the lumber industry.

The fact of the matter is that the Canadian position is very clear. There is a clear consensus in this country, from coast to coast to coast, not to have a quota based system. I would remind the hon. member that includes her own province of Quebec.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, up to now, the Minister for International Trade has not taken a firm stand on the immediate return of free trade in the lumber sector, preferring to speak of a long term transition to free trade.

More recently, in his meeting with the American secretary of trade, he expressed his discouragement at the attitude of the U.S.

Will the minister acknowledge that his attitude and his remarks are not putting Canada in a strong position, which is crucial at the start of negotiations with the Americans over lumber?

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

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. The minister simply expressed the frustration that ought to be shared by all members on both sides of the House, which is certainly shared by the people in the lumber business from coast to coast to coast, that we are interested in a free trade arrangement in softwood lumber with the United States, which claims to be a free trading nation.

Despite three attempts at a countervailing duty action, the United States has never succeeded. That is the kind of frustration the minister has expressed. We have consistently been shown to be correct and we will be again, if necessary.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, beyond personalities, beyond the frustrations expressed, one very important thing stands out and that is the future of the lumber industry and of the thousands of jobs it provides.

Instead of bragging in this matter, as all the members of the government are doing, why does the minister not join the Prime Minister right now and approach the American president in order to pave the way to real negotiations, with the attitude of the Americans, which will not be more intransigent in the coming weeks, so as to reach an agreement that will benefit the industry as a whole and keep the thousands of jobs? Why does he not act immediately, because this is serious?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where my hon. colleague has been, but this issue was raised by the Prime Minister of Canada personally with President George Bush when he met with him.

On Monday of this week, this was one of the very first issues raised by our Minister for International Trade with U.S. trade representative Mr. Zoellick.

One minute the member is describing the minister as expressing frustration, then he says that he is making light of the issue. Quite frankly, it is the member who is playing politics with this and it is not constructive.

Agriculture

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

As the minister knows, the farmers are furious and very disappointed with the announcement made yesterday on the farm aid program. He also knows the government has a budgetary surplus. It is a matter now of priorities for the government.

Can he explain to us why the federal government is ignoring the biggest farm crisis in the history of Canada, at least since the 1930s? The government has the money. Why is there not more money for farmers when they are going bankrupt and being forced to leave the land?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's contribution is half a billion dollars, and along with the provincial contribution, that is $830 million. I do not think that is ignoring any issue at all. That is a considerable amount of support to Canadian farmers.

I would ask the hon. member why the province he is from does not want to participate.