Debates of March 21st, 2001

Free Trade Area Of The Americas

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that several countries from the southern hemisphere feel that including the environment in a free trade agreement is an indirect way of engaging in protectionism, of keeping southern countries behind and of imposing on them a way of doing things that slows down their economic development.

We feel that, through trade, we must allow these countries to improve their access to the global economy, thus strengthening their own economic development. However, we must also make progress regarding the environment as well as labour standards. We want.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

Drug Legalization

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is believed that at the Summit of the Americas Uruguay may raise the issue of drug legalization. In fact, Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, feels that legalization is the only way to lead an effective international war against organized crime, as it relates to the trade of illicit drugs.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether Canada intends to support the approach advocated by the Mexican president?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that at this time the government has no plans to legalize the possession of marijuana. The hon. member knows that the whole issue around drug enforcement is a complex one. It is a health issue. It is a legal issue. It is an international law issue. It is a law enforcement issue.

I wish there were simple and easy answers to this question. Canada's approach again reflects the balance that is required. It is an integrated approach, working both internationally and domestically, treating it not only as an issue of law enforcement but as an issue of health treatment.

Canadian Forces

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were elected in 1993 the Canadian forces consisted of 90,000 members. An internal document states that the military now faces a significant shortfall below the government commitment of 60,000 and still dropping.

Will the minister tell the House today, first, how many members there are in the Canadian forces on the active list? Second, what will Canada's military needs be in terms of personnel over the next five years?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the defence white paper of 1994 calls for 60,000 regular force troops, plus a number of other civilians and a number of others in the reserve force. We intend to continue to work toward that level and try to maintain that level.

We have a shortage now because of attrition. We are in fact going on a recruitment campaign to make up those numbers.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer conflicts with a recent study which said that in fact Canada's military is now 4,000 short, but it will be a startling 17,000 members short by the end of 2002 if the current trend continues.

The minister will go down in history as the man responsible for killing Canada's military through funding cuts, through delayed equipment replacement, and now through a critical shortage of personnel. Is the reason for this critical loss in personnel the weakness of the minister, or is it a deliberate plan on the part of the government to destroy Canada's military?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his numbers all wrong, as he usually does. He is extrapolating very extreme cases where there is no intention of the government to see that happen at all.

The government has made a very clear commitment that we want to make sure we keep the Canadian forces in a position where they are able to contribute to international peace and security and to carry out the will of the government and the people of this country in their desire to create peace and security in the world. We will continue to do that. We will continue to follow the white paper defence policy of parliament.

Foreign Affairs

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada had decided to restore formal relations with India.

Why has the Government of Canada changed its policy and announced a re-engagement with India? What does the announcement mean for Canada-India relations?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Canada's re-engagement with India recognizes the fact that a better climate now exists which allows us to pursue an effective dialogue for all aspects of our relationship.

Canada is committed to pursuing the broadest political, cultural and economic relationship with India. We will continue to call upon India to renounce its nuclear weapons program.

Moreover, re-engagement through full ministerial visits and full restoration of CIDA programming, as well as support for cultural exchanges, will enrich our political relationship.

Agriculture

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. For three consecutive years B.C. fruit growers have suffered setbacks on the basis of hail, heat stress and the collapse of their export market in the last year. NISA helps a few. AIDA does not help them at all.

The minister of agriculture knows that B.C. fruit growers are in an emergency situation which requires special action. What is the minister prepared to do to deal with the emergency situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, with the support of crop insurance, NISA and the Canadian farm income program last week, the province of British Columbia will get its portion of the $500 million.

It will add its 40% to that in order to assist producers according to the way the provincial government wishes to direct those funds. That will certainly be there to help the producers to which the hon. member refers.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Tomas Duenas, Minister of Foreign Trade for Costa Rica.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my moment of atonement has arrived. I am referring to my recent standing order transgression for which I apologize not only to you, Mr. Speaker, but also to the House and to the nation whose interests I serve.

While certainly I meant no disrespect in my action, all infractions of order do have consequences. In the House, even minor infractions are potentially serious in their longer term effects.

Parliament's rules are to be respected because they are written by all, for all.

I hereby submit my person to the penance of the Chair, and ask for leniency and appeal for clemency under the circumstances. I certainly do not stand here to challenge, nor do I seek changes to, the rules. My hope is to be forgiven by the Chair, before the witnesses in the House, and in front of my colleagues. The essence of the House is honour. I would never intentionally dishonour the House or its procedures.

[The Speaker]

Of course the Chair is anxious to forgive any transgressions that hon. members make, but I want to draw to the attention of all hon. members the provision in our rules that deals with the recognition of visitors in the gallery.

On page 239 of Marleau and Montpetit, which I know almost everyone keeps under his or her pillow, it states:

Only from the Speaker's gallery can distinguished visitors (such as heads of state, heads of government and parliamentary delegations invited to Canada) be recognized and introduced to the House by the Speaker.

On page 278 of the same work, it states:

During a sitting, the Speaker may draw the attention of the House to the presence of distinguished visitors seated in the gallery of the House. Generally, this takes place immediately following Question Period, though the Speaker has also recognized visitors prior to Question Period and even during Question Period.

I will not read all that at length but I do refer hon. members to the footnote on page 278, footnote 166, which states:

Other Members who have attempted to direct the attention of the House to the presence of visitors have been ruled out of order.

There are various examples cited but I will not bore the House with the dates. It also states:

It has also happened that the practice has been departed from.

It has been departed from on occasion. The hon. member for Edmonton Center-East did depart from the practice on one occasion. I indicated that he had incurred the displeasure of the Chair. He is now back in the pleasure of the Chair and I am sure the whole House is grateful for his withdrawal.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced in London, England a fundamental change in foreign policy for Canada. In question period today the parliamentary secretary confirmed it to members of the House of Commons.

No advance notice was given to members of parliament and no notification was given to the foreign affairs committee. It continues to be the ongoing practice to notify the media before notifying members of parliament.

I take objection to this and, if you, Mr. Speaker, find a bona fide breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to discontinue this practice.

[The Speaker]

I must say to the hon. member that ministers make speeches here, there and everywhere, and so do hon. members. Some of us travel and make speeches in some places and there is always the risk that there might be an announcement in one of our speeches about something or other that is not made in the House first.

I do not want the point of order I dealt with the other day to be misconstrued. It was quite specific and dealt with a press conference held before the introduction of a bill that was to be tabled in the House. However statements by ministers can be made outside the House, and have been made outside the House, and have not incurred the displeasure of the Chair.

I know the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is an expert on the subject. He has raised these kind of points frequently in the House. Perhaps he and the member for Cumberland—Colchester can consult on the point because I think the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is thoroughly familiar with the views of the Chair on the issue. I have ruled on several of his points of order already and I do not think there is a question of privilege or a point of order in the issue raised today.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, a person well-known for her intolerance of anyone who does not agree with her point of view, made a vicious comment by saying that if people want to know about racism and hatred they should go to British Columbia.

She further went on to say they are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak.

Prince George is where I have lived for more than 40 years. My colleague, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, represents the good, decent, honest people of that city. It is revolting that the minister would cast such vicious and mean-spirited aspersions on the people of Prince George, British Columbia.

I ask that the minister be called on to withdraw the statement and to apologize to the House, to the people of Prince George and, indeed, to all Canadians for such a vicious comment.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state of course has spoken extensively on issues of racism.

[Some hon. members]

Yes, she has.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, she has probably been a victim of intolerance. She has spoken about the issue at length.

I will endeavour to reach her later this afternoon. As we speak, she is making an announcement about racism before a group of Canadians of various ethnic origins. As soon as that is completed, I will attempt to have her return to the House to respond to what the hon. member has raised.

[The Speaker]

It is clear the minister is not here to answer the question raised by the hon. member. The Chair will review the blues. The government House leader has given an undertaking in respect to the minister's presence. We will leave the issue at that. We cannot do anything else at this point. We will wait to hear later.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again today I referred to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision with regard to the replacement of the EH-101, and the minister referred to it as well.

Therefore I would ask for the right to table the document to show that the quotes I gave in the House during question period were accurate and correct.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to table the document?