Debates of March 1st, 2002

Justice

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has led victims of crime to believe that their experiences and their input is relevant but this report suggests otherwise. To him a victim's impact statement appears to be nothing more than just another piece of paper, not even important enough to ensure its inclusion in a file.

I know what it is to pour one's heart and soul into a victim's impact statement. The fact that it will likely be ignored by corrections staff disgusts me.

What specific measures will the solicitor general put into place to make sure this does not happen again?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, since July 2001 we have allowed victim impact statements to be permitted at parole hearings. We continue to ensure that those victims are heard. The Canadian system wants to maintain the integrity of victims and what those statements say.

I believe that the Canadian people want to have this in place. They know it is important and we on the government side want to ensure that it is in place for the benefit of all Canadians.

National Defence

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

In January the government agreed to deploy 750 members of the 3rd PPCLI to Kandahar in Afghanistan. Is it the intention of the government to deploy any more troops to Afghanistan?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today a further contribution to the coalition campaign against terrorism by the sending of another infantry company to augment the battle group led by the Princess Patricia's.

This is part of the original 1,000 persons that were placed on notice to deploy in November. The additional company is 130 strong. It will come from the Winnipeg based second battalion, bringing the strength of the battle group up to 880, all ranks. They will depart by the middle of this month.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during parental leave, employment insurance benefits cease immediately following the death of the baby. In Canada, one thousand mothers a year experience this tragedy, and on top of that, they lose their benefits as well. This is inhumane and unacceptable.

The report on Bill C-49 contains a proposed amendment to continue benefits for two additional weeks following the death of a child.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show her human side and support this amendment?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that there are parental benefits and there are also sickness benefits. These special benefits are there to assist Canadians when they need them.

The challenge is to make sure that as one moves from one sort of benefit to another, it is done in an appropriate fashion recognizing the circumstances faced by the beneficiary.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is one week from International Women's Day and all we get from the government is empty rhetoric and an added burden heaped upon women and mothers across the country.

Kelly Lesiuk is the Winnipeg mother who took her case that EI rules discriminate against women as part time workers to the courts and she won. What did the government decide to do? To appeal that decision and actually prevent women from accessing their fair share of maternity benefits.

Today of all days will the government at least agree to stop this appeal and start acting for women instead of against women?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the hon. member of the actions that have been taken by the government in support of Canadian women.

I must remind the House again of the doubling of parental benefits. We have reduced the number of hours required to receive these special benefits. As I mentioned earlier, we ensure that in low income families 80% benefits are provided. This primarily supports single parent families, most often women.

We constantly are looking for ways to improve our programs to ensure that Canadians have the support they need to raise their families and participate fully in Canadian society.

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the final determination date for the U.S. department of commerce to establish countervail and anti-dumping charges against Canadian softwood lumber.

The charges are weak, yet the Prime Minister has begun a flurry of negotiations with the U.S.

The United States wants Canada to use cross-border reference criteria to establish Canadian subsidies, increase raw log exports and adopt U.S. style timber auctions.

What has happened to Canada's case before the WTO? Is the Minister for International Trade considering capitulating to American timber interests?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working very closely with the Canadian industry and with all the provinces.

We are today going through a very important day of discussions with the United States. Canada will remain Canada. We are very proud of our public lands and the way we function in this country which is different than in the United States, but we like it that way and we will maintain that.

We want to bring in some elements of transparency. We want to bring our price fixing elements closer to market practices. It is on that policy based solution that we want to get a market access guarantee from the United States. This is the objective of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the U.S. lumber coalition upped the ante in the softwood lumber debate when it filed an application to increase the preliminary countervail charge from 19.3% to 50.8%.

Is the minister aware of this increase to 50.8%? Does he consider this the counteroffer he was asking for?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am not negotiating with the U.S. lumber coalition. I already have expressed time and again what I think of that protectionist coalition. I am negotiating with the Bush administration. I have found an administration that is now at the table, fully re-engaged with the Government of Canada and in close consultation with our provinces. The Prime Minister has raised it with President Bush in the last few days.

On this side of the House we are trying to do constructive work with the administration of the United States and are not interested in every little blip from the lobbyists in the United States.

The Prime Minister

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is reported that the Prime Minister will be flying to Australia in a leased Bombardier plane at an extra cost to the taxpayer of a quarter of a million dollars. One of the excuses given is that the Airbus A310 cannot land in Coolum but we have learned that the airport in Coolum can land the Airbus A310.

Why is the government wasting hard earned taxpayers' dollars on this trip?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, an Airbus does not fly for free and it is a little big for nine people. Quite apart from that, the Global Express is actually a piece of Canadian technology that we ought to be very proud of. Quite frankly I am surprised the hon. member is not asking why the Prime Minister does not make all of his international trips in that piece of Canadian technology.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is that once again the taxpayers are on the hook for the Prime Minister. The government already has a national defence Airbus A310 to fly the Prime Minister on foreign trips. If this is just an idea to promote Bombardier or to help the Prime Minister's friends, why are the taxpayers paying for it?

I have to believe that the government has not seen a tax dollar it did not like to spend. Once again, why is the government doing this to the taxpayers?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question. If the member is suggesting the Prime Minister should fly on his own tab, I do not think too many Canadians agree with that.

Those members are the same people whose leader turned over the keys to his limousine only to decide they had to take the car back. They promised to turn Stornoway into a bingo parlour. Now they are attacking the question of the Prime Minister flying at public expense. What kind of a country do they think we have here, that the Prime Minister buys a ticket to fly on Qantas?

Softwood Lumber

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with softwood lumber negotiations going full swing in Washington, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister have confused all the stakeholders.

The Prime Minister maintains that the situation will be resolved before March 21, while his minister is more pessimistic and is floating all sorts of scenarios.

Is the Minister for International Trade, who should be showing more leadership in this matter, aware that this confusion is undermining Canada's position?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the confusion is mainly in the mind of the Bloc Quebecois member.

Our government speaks with one voice. It is engaged, as we speak, in negotiations which are proceeding very well and which have made considerable progress.

I do not know when the agreement will be signed. What I can say is that our government is determined to find, with the governments of Quebec and British Columbia and the other stakeholders and in very close and constant consultation with the industry, a long term solution based on the policies on this issue. This is a complex and extremely important exercise for Canadians.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister for International Trade is floating all sorts of possibilities, will he at least confirm that Canada will maintain the complaints it filed with the WTO and the NAFTA panels?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the goal would be to find a long term solution to the softwood lumber dispute.

Every four or five years for the past 25 years now, we have had a major trade dispute with the United States.

Our goal is to find a long term solution. Naturally, if that is not possible, we will take the WTO and NAFTA route.

Bioterrorism

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the U.S. led war on terrorism continues, the government's inaction on bioterrorism is nothing short of scandalous.

Months ago, the health minister promised that there would be smallpox vaccine and now the current minister is thinking of going back on that promise. It is almost half a year since September 11 and the minister's department has only begun to train the 1,500 emergency workers needed to counter bioterrorist threats.

How much longer will it be before Canada is ready for a bioterrorist attack?

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very important question for all Canadians. I am pleased to inform my colleague of our position.

It is already well known that we are prepared at this time to deal with the possibility of an attack using smallpox, should this ever occur. As I have already said here in the House, this threat affects perhaps the entire planet. It requires co-operation, by the various governments involved throughout the world, and by the various agencies on the provincial level.

As for preparations for a potential attack, the minister has reported on what is being done at the present time—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last November the minister announced the creation of a national advisory committee on bioterrorism. The chair was named and a mandate was given. However, over four months later and six months after September 11, we have learned that the committee has not yet even met. My office confirmed this with the office of a committee member just hours ago.

If the government takes bioterrorism seriously, then why has the committee not even met for the first time?

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we take any possible threat of bioterrorist attacks very seriously. What I was going to say was that in the past week, training courses have been started on the response to bioterrorist attack.