House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, abuse of power is a dangerous thing.
Ontario's privacy commissioner condemned this government's habit of opening and reading private citizens' mail.
Will the Prime Minister assure the public that his government will immediately stop the despicable practice of opening people's mail?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, the customs legislation clearly provides that Customs Canada officials can intercept, upon their entry into Canada, and—with the upcoming legislation—also upon their departure from the country, goods shipped through mail services.
This authority is based on section 99 of the act and on the existence of reasonable grounds. Incidentally, when he looked into the matter, the privacy commissioner acknowledged that these powers were exercised within the law and in good faith by customs officials.
Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, that response made even our young Canadians cry out.
It is not just the commissioner here in Ontario. The federal privacy commissioner has commented about this particular habit. This is an ongoing hostility toward the rights of Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister give clear direction and tell these people to stop reading the mail of private citizens in our country?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, first, if the member would read subsection 99(1) of the act it is quite obvious.
We are not reading the mail at all. We are looking at, on a sample basis, goods coming into Canada by way of the postal stream. The privacy commissioner has said that we are acting within the law and in good faith.
Maybe in the next question I should quote from the privacy commissioner as well.
Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
That is what we are asking, Mr. Speaker. It is very rare to see high level public servants, one from a province and one from the federal government, agreeing on a concern. The concern is the federal government's hostility to the rights of individuals. It continues to open our mail. Never mind looking at the legislation, it should look at what the privacy commissioners have said.
Will the minister put into practice new safeguards and new limits on this dangerous increase in the abuse of power?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, we all know that politics is perception and the leader knows it as well in telling the population that we are having a look at mail, which is not true.
We are stopping illegal goods from coming into Canada through the postal stream. The privacy commissioner has said that we are acting in good faith.
We need to bear in mind that customs officers have a dual mandate, one of course being the question of economic development, and the other, which is important and which I stand by, being the protection of our Canadian society. We will continue to work hard for that.
Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the government is opening the public's mail and on the other hand it is not allowing us to look at its mail.
The information commissioner said that complaints relating to this have doubled in the last year. The public is unable to look at the government documents. Since the government is looking at private documents why will it not release government documents? Why so much secrecy?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we do not look at mail. We look at goods. As well, we work within the limits of the law and it has to be based on reasonable grounds.
Let me state something interesting. I would like to quote the member for Prince George—Peace River. He said back in 1994:
It is reported that the justice department has ordered Canada Customs to allow counterfeit documents found entering Canada through the mail, including phony Canadian passports, to be sent on to their destination. This is an outrageous use of the charter.
Will the minister explain to this House today what must be done to authorize Canada Customs to seize phony documents...?
Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to the supreme court to prevent people from having access to his schedule.
Why does the Prime Minister feel that it is illegal to know his schedule? What is he trying to hide now?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there is a debate on the Access to Information Act. At this point, the issue is to define to what degree documents from the cabinet and from ministers' offices are of a private nature.
There is of course a debate going on. An act was passed and we want it to be implemented. I am sure that the last thing that the Leader of the Opposition would like is to see in the newspapers what is going on in his office. If journalists were able to check what has been going on over the past three days, we would have a whale of a time in the House.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadian assistance to developing countries is way down. According to OECD statistics, Canada has dropped from 6th to 17th position on the list of 22 contributing countries over the past five years.
In 2000 there was even an historic shortfall with only 0.25% of gross national product allocated for international assistance.
Is the Prime Minister ready to stand behind the generous statements he made at the Quebec summit and make an immediate commitment to set aside 0.7% of GNP for assistance to developing countries, as recommended by the United Nations?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have had a very difficult period financially in Canada and, unfortunately, the proportion of Canadian assistance to developing countries has dropped.
But in recent years we have increased our contributions and we intend to continue to do so. In 2001-02, we intend to increase our spending in this area by 7% to 10%.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the figures show the opposite. Under a Liberal administration assistance to developing countries has gone down while the economy has grown.
Since 1993 the GNP has increased by $334 billion while international assistance has dropped by $500 million.
Will the Prime Minister admit that it is all the more important to meet the UN development assistance standards when the economy is doing well in the interests of international solidarity?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have just explained that this has been the government's policy over the past two years. We are going to continue to increase our assistance to developing countries.
I had asked that we do this when we were at the Japan summit last July. In the 2001-02 estimates we are going to increase our spending in this area by 7% over previous years.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, one of the concrete ways of assisting developing countries and at the same time developing new international trade markets is to support the suggestion made by President Fox to create a development fund for the poor economies of the Americas.
Does the Canadian government plan to support the initiative proposed by President Fox and to contribute to the creation of this fund?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, last week at the summit of the Americas the minister responsible for aid to developing countries announced a special assistance program for the countries of the Americas.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, what President Fox wants is to see participating countries put 1% of their defence budget into the fund to assist development of the poor economies of the Americas
Is the Government of Canada in agreement with such a contribution to such a fund?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the figure given by President Fox does not, at this time, strike me as one that will gain the acceptance of the countries making contributions.
As I have just said, however, Canada has decided to increase its contribution to developing countries and we have made a special effort for the countries of the Americas.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
On April 5 last year the Minister for International Trade said in committee that the government is not seeking an investor state provision in the WTO or anywhere else. I further clarified that by asking him about the FTAA.
Why did the Prime Minister allow the Minister for International Trade to make that policy announcement in committee at that time and then later on make the statements that the Prime Minister has made to the effect that there is nothing wrong with the very thing that the minister says they no longer seek?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, our view has not changed. I will repeat it once again in the House because I think it is very important. We believe that NAFTA has served Canada's interests very well and that chapter 11 works reasonably well.
Our view is that we want to clarify certain aspects of chapter 11 within the present mechanism of NAFTA, mechanisms that do exist, in order to make sure that we respect the true intentions of the drafters of NAFTA.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question was not about NAFTA, it was about future agreements.
Perhaps the Minister for International Trade could tell us how he reconciles his statement to me on April 5 last year that the government would not be seeking this kind of mechanism in any new agreement. How does he reconcile that with the fact that the government now appears to be seeking just such a mechanism in the FTAA and is defending the very idea that he rejected on that day?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to one aspect of chapter 11. It is the investor state provisions. We as a government are trying to clarify that agreement right now within the existing mechanisms of chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Obviously when a government negotiates any new agreement or adopts any new formula it takes into light previous experiences.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office has appealed to the supreme court in an effort to keep the content of its agendas secret.
The Federal Court of Appeal has said that the commissioner should have access to the documents. The Prime Minister wants to have this decision overturned. The law is clear: this is not a matter of internal debate but rather a question of keeping the Prime Minister's secrets.
What tracks is the Prime Minister trying to cover? Those that relate to APEC? Those that relate to Shawinigate? What is he trying to hide?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we are simply applying the law as it stands.
The commissioner and the government's lawyers are debating how the law should be interpreted. We are making much more information available to the information commissioner than did the Conservative government the member belongs to.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in history the information commissioner has been taken to the supreme court, all the time by that government for trying to hide its affairs.
There are several ways to muzzle the watchdogs of parliament. One way is to deny information to the information commissioner. The other is to deny adequate funding to the auditor general and to other agencies.
The auditor general's office needs at least $8 million more to provide its indepth audits of government departments. The government says no. Why is the Prime Minister trying to starve the auditor general and keep her from doing the work that parliament explicitly charged her and her office to do? What is he trying to hide?