Debates of Feb. 7th, 2002

Agriculture

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Food Freedom Day. Food Freedom Day is a calendar date representing when Canadians have earned enough income to pay the entire year's food bill. This is that day. Unfortunately it is not farmer freedom day. Under the government, while it takes six months to pay our tax bill and it takes 39 days to pay our food bill it takes only nine days for the farmer to be paid for his contribution to the Canadian food supply.

Farmers continue to be held back by the Liberal government with its outdated farm plans, its stifling regulatory control and its constant failure to respond to income crises. Farmers have little freedom, particularly western Canadian grain farmers held captive and held back by the Canadian Wheat Board. Today we should be thankful for the low cost of food in this country but should take a minute to consider those who are paying the price so that we can have cheap food.

We should never, ever cuss a farmer with our mouths full.

National Defence

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal spin machine is going full speed. The Prime Minister in an effort to cover for the minister of defence has decided the best defence is a distraction.

We listen to the Prime Minister crow that somehow the opposition parties who question the lack of integrity of the minister of defence are soft on terrorism. Talk about the rooster crowing from the top of the manure pile. The truth is the Liberals are soft on terrorism. The truth is Canada would not even have troops in Afghanistan if we had not forced the Prime Minister's hand.

We know the Prime Minister's record on defence. We have troops in Afghanistan forced to ration water and to eat American rations because our supplies have not arrived. This is the Prime Minister who refuses to purchase helicopters just to satisfy his own ego. This is the Prime Minister who stated Canadian troops in Iraq should return home when the fighting started.

The government's record on defence is abysmal and embarrassing and will stick to the Prime Minister and the minister of defence like scum on a pond.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, police recently raided 189 homes and seized over 50,000 marijuana plants worth $56 million through Operation Green Sweep and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

However, most of the people arrested will only get a fine or some form of community sentence such as house arrest.

We must do everything we can to show all people, especially the younger generation, that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated, to help lead them in the right direction.

We need stiffer sentences for these people. We must do everything possible to discourage this dangerous and illegal activity.

Health

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to a very serious environmental and health issue.

Health Canada has still not issued the report that it started 10 years ago on the dangers of wood that has been treated with chromated copper arsenate, CCA. Arsenic and chromium are listed as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, yet CCA pressure treated wood continues to be used throughout Canada for building purposes. CCA is proven to leach from the pressure treated wood and can cause serious or debilitating illness yet this toxic wood continues to be used for our homes, decks and children's playgrounds. Other forms of pressure treatment that do not involve chromium or arsenic are now available.

CCA has been banned or restricted by six countries. It is time that Canada also addresses this issue and gives serious consideration to ending the use of CCA treated wood for any purpose through which it can contaminate environments in which Canadians live, work or play.

Softwood Lumber

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government has cancelled talks on the softwood lumber dispute because the U.S. will not come to the table with a serious proposal.

The government has been talking for over six months and has come up with nothing. When will the Prime Minister intervene personally on this file and directly deal with the U.S. administration?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my information is that there are good communications which have resumed today. I think that probably the statement of yesterday has helped. We are in discussions today and progress is being made at this very moment.

I have had the occasion to discuss this file with the president more often than any other file that faces this government in relation to the Americans.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister's foreign affairs adviser have been burning up the phone lines with their American counterparts to ask the U.S. to set up tribunals for prisoners in Afghanistan, but on our number one, cross the border economic file we are content with slow paced talks between junior level officials.

Why is this government spending more time and effort fighting for the rights of the al-Qaeda terrorists than for the 20,000 softwood lumber workers and their families laid off because of this U.S. protectionism?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked, as I will repeat, I have talked with the president of the United States more often in the last six months about that than any other time. I am informed that today the negotiations have resumed, that we are making progress. There was some tabling of some clarification by the provinces that is helping in the circumstances, and I am very hopeful that there will be a resolution of this problem in the weeks to come.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we have been getting that same answer for six months and Canadian families are going hungry because of the ineffectiveness of this government. There are 20,000 people in my province out of work and their families are suffering.

The federal bond program is so poorly designed that not a single Canadian forest company has been able to use the program.

Now that it looks like this lengthy dispute is going to drag on for months and months to get to the WTO, what is the government prepared to do to support softwood lumber producers and the laid off forestry workers in my province?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is a file that we are discussing with the American government and with the provinces, for many weeks, and I want to congratulate the Minister for International Trade who has been working very closely with all the provinces. It has been a long time since we have seen a file where the provincial governments and the federal government are working hand in hand to find the proper solution to this very important problem.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has tens of thousands of forest workers in dire straits. Forest companies are hurting.

There is a federal bonding program run by Export Development Canada that has been so poorly contrived that not a single Canadian forest company has been able to use it.

The government has made no attempts at dialogue or any movement of assistance for laid off workers who are exhausting their medical, dental and EI benefits.

Why is this government ignoring rural Canadians, rural Canada and our most important export earning industry?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the opposition is very isolated on this file, because we have been in dialogue with the industry very closely. I was in conversation two days ago with the British Columbia lumber council. I was speaking with l'Association des manufacturiers du bois de sciage du Québec.

I have spoken with industry time and time again. It supports our strategy. It supports the provinces who have been doing a great job. The problem on softwood lumber is not north of the border, it is south of the border. It is time these people realized it.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is good at empty ultimatums and empty statements.

The U.S. lumber lobby thrives on one sided negotiations where it takes and we give. It wants offers from Canada until it gets exactly what it wants. These are not negotiations. They are one sided demands.

Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow another round where the provinces are pitted against one another?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we have been doing for a very long time and that this government takes great pride in. We will not allow one province to be pitted against another.

This is why I called off the talks yesterday. I heard that the United States was not ready to come with a counter proposal on market access provision guarantees. As long as the Americans are not ready to table that, I have said there will not be a meeting. Obviously when these resume it will be on the basis of a true dialogue. Further, we are continuing our work at the WTO on the litigation track as well.

Foreign Affairs

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister accused Bloc Quebecois members of being “defenders of terrorists” simply because it is our firm belief that, even in times of war, international rules must be respected, and that in the case of prisoners captured in Afghanistan, the Geneva convention must apply.

Is the Prime Minister, who, when this crisis first began, spoke about defending civilization, now saying that, in his view, all those defending the Geneva convention are friends of terrorists?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday and what I wish to repeat today is that I am a bit frustrated. While I am looking at soldiers who will be facing combatants in a war situation this evening or next week, they and their families here in Canada see a parliament which is interested only in this other aspect, rather than the real problem, which is the battle against terrorists.

I am not saying that because anyone defends the Geneva convention they are taking the side of the terrorists. On the contrary, I too am defending it. I know that today, for example, the White House has clarified this, and the Americans intend to respect the Geneva convention.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when one is frustrated, one should control oneself and try to react in a polite and rational manner.

Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the combatants captured in Afghanistan should be considered prisoners of war. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell also asked that they be treated like prisoners of war. The British Prime Minister, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe also say that the Geneva convention must be respected.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that, because these international players are voicing this opinion, they are, like the Bloc Quebecois, friends of the terrorists? Are all those who do not think as he does friends of the terrorists?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we want these people to be treated like prisoners, pursuant to the Geneva convention. The fact of the matter is that, right now, they are in prison, they are allowed visits from Red Cross representatives and may communicate with them. We are assured that they are not being mistreated.

As for their legal status, there will be a debate in the press, in embassies, and throughout the world for weeks to come. But the decision regarding the Geneva convention lies with the government responsible for the prisoners and, in this case, that is the American government.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the days of Lester B. Pearson, Canada's foreign policy has consisted mainly in promoting peace in the world under the aegis of the UN, while respecting international conventions.

By making a connection between those calling for adherence to the Geneva conventions and terrorists, are we to understand from the Prime Minister's words yesterday that we are witnessing a split in Canada's foreign affairs policy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this House approved, and virtually unanimously I believe, participation by Canadian troops in the defence of the freedoms we believe in, and in the fight against the terrorists who committed atrocities in the United States.

This was all approved and carried out under a Security Council resolution and with NATO's approval. It is all in keeping with the great tradition of the Liberal Party and of this government to respect the United Nations, to respect NATO, and at the same time to fight terrorism.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have made it clear that, out of respect for the soldiers, they needed to be informed under what conditions they would be respecting the Geneva convention.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the best service he can render to democracy is to make it clear to our American friends that respecting the Geneva conventions, respecting them one hundred percent, is the best weapon against terrorism, far superior to reducing the whole thing to a battle between good and evil, between good guys and bad guys, as the terrorists have?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, right from the start we have insisted on respect for the Geneva conventions, and this has been debated here in the House for the past few days.

The pressure the Canadian government has brought to bear on the U.S. administration in recent days has today resulted in a clarification being issued by the Americans, that they will respect the Geneva convention.

I believe we have done a very good job of ensuring that international law would be respected under these circumstances.

Softwood Lumber

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certain kinds of religious fundamentalism are not the only kind of fundamentalism that Canadians should be worried about.

At the moment our softwood lumber industry is under attack by American free market fundamentalism and a kind of economic terrorism and hostage taking of many tens of thousands of workers in B.C. and elsewhere.

I want to ask the minister of trade or the Prime Minister, if negotiation is going nowhere, what are they going to do to ensure that certain companies and workers at risk survive the litigation? What are they going to do? Are they going to get the EDC to put up a bond to help these people survive until the WTO renders a decision? What are they going to do for these people?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing for the workers is exactly what we have to do. We are working with the provincial governments and the industry to make sure that the Americans will respect the free trade treaty that we have signed with them and we have taken other action in case they did not want to follow the international rules. We have made a case in front of the WTO to show again to the Americans that they have to respect the international laws of commerce, particularly the treaty that they signed with Canada in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States and Mexico.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister: If this case does go to the WTO, as the Prime Minister has suggested it might, what is the government going to do in the meantime for those companies and workers who cannot survive for the time that it takes to litigate this in front of the WTO?

There have been suggestions made about the EDC having a more effective bond program, et cetera. Could the minister of trade or the Prime Minister tell us, concretely, what they are going to do for these people in the meantime so they do not go under?