House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was international.
Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the question as asked leaves me a little perplexed. I believe at this time we have not changed in any way our approach to the issues that are being discussed as a result of his article and his views expressed in the article.
We, too, as a sovereign country, are asking for visas in certain cases, even from other countries, with regard to landed immigrants, even when those countries are Commonwealth members. Like the United States, we have our rules and we attempt not--
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the environment minister have often stood in the House and said that Kyoto will have little cost effect on most Canadians. They have used figures like 3¢ a barrel for conventional oil and 13¢ a barrel for oil sands recovery.
Will the environment minister today stand in the House and agree to provide Canadians with a written warranty that the federal government will pay any costs in excess of these fictitious figures?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the future 10 years out, we try to give the very best economic information we can. However, as we discovered this year, the rate of growth of the Canadian economy was three times what the private sector told us it would be only a year ago.
We are doing so much better than the private sector forecasters expected that it is a little difficult to give the kind of precision 10 years hence that the hon. member is looking for.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, industry says that those figures are totally unrealistic, that it could not possibly get to those figures.
The environment minister produced a PowerPoint presentation in preparation for the meeting several weeks ago in Halifax with the environment and energy ministers. The presentation was long on fluffy rhetoric and very short on detail.
Could the minister advise the House if he will be providing details on the costs, details on the implementation plan and details on accompanying legislation for the meeting with the provinces on November 21?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing exactly what those private forecasters were doing yet a year ago. They were saying that we could not possibly reach the figure but after 10 months into this year 459,000 new jobs were created in Canada. They thought it was impossible but this government did it. That is what they just do not understand.
He talks about not possibly reaching the figures that we have set forward. I assure him that when we put out figures like that, based on very careful analysis of the provinces, territories, ourselves and the private sector, we fully intend to reach them.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada recently released some very good economic news about employment in Canada. Opposition parties, until very recently, were in the dark about the good economic performance of the government.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could perhaps enlighten some people as to the economic news released yesterday.
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to provide the member with some good economic news and put the opposition in the light.
First, because of the sound economic policies and fiscal management of the government, coupled with a strong, vibrant private sector, the unemployment rate is now down to 7.6%. In practical terms, 33,000 new jobs were created in the month of October and 459,000 new jobs this year alone.
The government has found the right formula and we are on the right track.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, as we heard earlier this morning, the UN Security Council voted to adopt a U.S. sponsored resolution on Iraq.
The resolution calls upon Iraq to comply with earlier UN weapons inspection resolutions or face serious consequences. It does not, however, authorize the use of military force without further UN consultation. That is not the position that the U.S. government has taken saying that it does not prohibit the use of military force. That is its position.
Does the Canadian government share the view of the United States that this resolution permits the use of military force without further authority from the United Nations?
Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes the success at the United Nations this morning as the Security Council resolution 1441 on Iraq was passed. It contains all that we felt was vital. It makes very clear that the onus is on Iraq to comply with Dr. Blix's team and to be very open and transparent on what is or is not in Iraq.
Any indication to the contrary will return the issue to the United Nations Security Council, and that is just the way it should be.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, the Canadian government rescinded its advisory for Canadian travellers to the United States. We know now that was premature since Canadians continue to be humiliated at the border.
Will the government agree to set up a border task force to report on racial profiling and report back to Parliament on what we need to do to protect our Canadian citizens?
Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned about some of the stress and lines that have been shown at the border. However, I think it is very important not to be overly negative.
Yesterday Mr. Ashcroft confirmed exactly what we wanted to hear: the country of birth on our passports will not trigger NSEERS. One should really have some confidence in the expertise of our department and know that we will be monitoring carefully any special incidents. If any of those incidents occur we look forward to them being reported, and we will respond, as we should.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question of my friend, the member for Macleod. The Minister of National Defence jumped around and would not answer the question directly. Let me give him a chance again.
The minister said that the navy was not allowed to exceed its budget, yet the cabinet was allowed to exceed its budget by precisely $100 million on new Challengers, against the advice of all government officials.
Why is the navy bound by limits when the issue is national security, while the cabinet can ignore those limits when the issue is personal luxury? How does the minister explain this disgraceful double standard?
John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard whatsoever. The right hon. member ought to be aware that the $100 million for the Challengers does not come out of the defence budget. It is returned to the department. Therefore there is absolutely no connection between these numbers other than they happen to both be $100 million.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, and that is the minister who is going to find new money for the military, failure after failure, week after week.
I have a question for the acting Prime Minister. Earlier this week the Prime Minister told his caucus that he had received job offers from seven different law firms. The rules for public servants on these matters are clear. Article 39 of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for the public service states:
Employees must: disclose, in writing...all firm offers of employment that could place the employee in a conflict of interest situation--
Has the Prime Minister disclosed in writing to the ethics counsellor the offers he says that he has received--
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I can see now why the hon. member has chosen to retire. I do not think anyone with any ounce of intelligence would give any shrift to that kind of question.
Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, we routinely suspend the constitutional right to liberty for those convicted of a criminal offence. Outraged Canadians are saying that individuals incarcerated for violating the Criminal Code should not have a hand in writing it by being allowed to vote.
The Canadian Police Association has asked the government for a royal commission into the prison system in general and to immediately remedy the injustice caused by the Supreme Court decision ruling on the voting rights of prisoners. Will the government honour the request made by 28,000 police officers?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked two different questions. I will answer the one about the Canada Elections Act.
That issue is being examined right now by officials. I have indicated that in the past, because of course it is an issue that concerns a number of members, including the hon. member for Provencher, who, by the way, when he was the provincial minister in Manitoba, permitted provincial prisoners the right to vote. He forgot to say that the other day.
Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision stunned Canadians by giving federal prisoners the right to vote last week. Defenders of the decision say that the relatively small number of inmates will make no electoral difference. This is not about numbers. It is about principle.
Killers take away the voting rights of their victims forever. Why is it such a stretch to suspend their right to vote while they are incarcerated? Will the Minister of Justice immediately introduce a constitutional amendment to rectify this affront to victims of crime and to all law-abiding citizens?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this is a Supreme Court decision. It is not even one that can be overridden by, as he knows, the notwithstanding clause, the way his critic was suggesting the other day, while forgetting that, at the same time, when he was the provincial minister in Manitoba, he was permitting provincial prisoners the right to vote.
This is still of concern to us. I told the hon. member that we were examining the situation very carefully. It is one that is of concern to the government, and not just the kind of nonsense we are hearing.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec did not meet the expectations of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. They want to keep their plant and they want to continue processing their products locally. An exceptional situation like this one requires an exceptional solution.
Does the secretary of state realize that existing programs are unacceptable and inapplicable to an emergency situation?
Claude Drouin LiberalSecretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, as I said this week in the House, meetings were held with the Economic Development Agency, on November 4 and 5. We are working with stakeholders. I would appreciate it if, instead of looking for someone to put the blame on, the Bloc Quebecois member would work with local people to find solutions to help the region. This is how we should work and this is what we are committed to doing on this side of the House.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take any lessons from the secretary of state. I have always looked after my region. This is why we had highway 175 in the Parc des Laurentides.
The last time the secretary of state tried to apply regular programs to an emergency situation, the result was catastrophic.
Does the secretary of state realize that much more than regular programs will be required to save the Chambord plant and prevent its dismantlement?
Claude Drouin LiberalSecretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to congratulate our colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who worked very hard to ensure the completion of highway 175, with the help of the Canadian government.
Decisions are not made by the opposition, but by the government. It is we who showed that we cared about highway 175 and the development of the region.
This is what we will do with workers from the Agropur plant when the meeting with them and Agropur takes place to decide what will happen next. We will support these people in their decisions, along with the stakeholders and the Economic Development Agency.