House of Commons Hansard #179 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was microbreweries.
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, have they ever heard of transit? People do enter through transit.
I do not see the member's point. This country is dedicated to refugees. We do not have categories of refugees. If the people want to get in, we are signatories to the convention. If the members are against it, maybe they should change their own policy. They should look in their own mirror.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, applicants for refugee status in this country have to show that their lives are somehow in danger or that they have other stresses in the country from which they are applying. That is not true for refugee claimants from the United States. Can the government not get that into its head?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I think that we should explain what is meant by a country which operates under the rule of law.
People who come to Canada and, with due diligence, apply for refugee status must appear before a judge. We have a quasi-judicial tribunal. There is a procedure to follow. We have new regulations allowing us to send a person back if they pose a threat to the security of our country. That is why we have new regulations.
But we are not going to start being both judge and jury. Our country operates under the rule of law and we respect that law.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, the Mayor of Ville de Saguenay came to meet the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and myself to tell us that Quebec had done its homework regarding highway 175 by signing the protocol, but that the federal government is desperately dragging its feet.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us what he is waiting for to make good on his government's election promises, so that construction of highway 175 can begin at the earliest opportunity?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question a number of times in the House of Commons. It is obvious that the hon. member for Jonquière is playing a political game just to embarrass the government.
However, I should point out that it is our colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who strongly supported this project.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Canada has lost 20% of its built heritage over the last 30 years. What is the Minister of Canadian Heritage doing to reverse this trend?
Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the issue of built heritage being torn down is a huge issue in communities across the country and in particular for mayors and councillors who are looking to save the community--
Canadian HeritageOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has the floor and the Chair cannot hear the answer. I have to be able to hear what hon. members who are recognized are saying. I know everyone else is trying to address the Chair at the same time but it cannot all happen at once. The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has the floor.
Sheila Copps Liberal Hamilton East, ON
The answer is that everyone is anxious to travel to the Saguenay in August. We will then settle all the issues that are being blocked by the Bloc Quebecois.
ImmigrationOral Question Period
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast B.C.
Canadian Alliance
John Reynolds Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I have one final question for the government.
I would like to quote my friend, the chair of the immigration committee, a Liberal. He said:
If you are coming from a safe third country, that is, the United States, you are not being persecuted and you are in that country, why do you want to make a refugee claim here?
In an interview, he said:
We should be able to deport them and send them back to the United States. What the United States wants to do with them is their own problem. It shouldn't become our problem in Canada.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why are we taking refugees into Canada who are already on United States soil? We should let them stay there and make their claims in the United States.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, 200 million people cross the border every year. Who at the border decides that these are refugees who are coming across? It is when they are in Canada that they say they want to be refugees. At the very moment a person claims refugee status she or he is entitled, under international obligations and Canadian law, to due process of law.
Presence in GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Peter Ala Adjetey, Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana.
Presence in GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Goran Svilanovic, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Presence in GalleryThe Royal Assent
The Speaker
Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
April 30, 2002
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Louis LeBel, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 30th day of April, 2002, at 3.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck
Secretary to the Governor General
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, we were saying that an exemption was granted to small vineyards, and that is a fact. Notwithstanding that—and that was the subject of another Bloc amendment in committee— we feel that exemption is clearly inadequate.
We had proposed—
Excise Act, 2001Government Orders
The Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he will have to conclude his speech later. He will have four minutes left.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Excise Act, 2001The Royal Assent
The Speaker
I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy of the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 10.
Bill S-22, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of Canada--Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act--Chapter No. 12.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, third down. One would think we were playing Canadian football.
I am very happy to hear that the Deputy to Her Excellency condescended to give royal assent. Following this short royal interruption, I will proceed with what I was saying.
It has been said that this legislation provided an exemption for small vineyards, an exemption which struck us as inadequate, to say the least. In committtee, we proposed an amendment to make the exemption for small vineyards available to producers with sales not exceeding $2 million.
This is the only amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois that was deemed in order by the chair, and I will come back to this in a moment. But, unfortunately, it must be recognized that members of the government, the Liberal majority, decided to reject the amendment, and this goes directly against the interests of vineyards throughout Canada that contribute a great deal to the development of each of their regions.
I will now come back to the issue of microbreweries. Some wondered why the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance ruled that the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois regarding microbreweries were out of order.
I need not insist on the controversy that surrounded this issue last week and this week. I will not add my voice to those of the many members who commented on that.
One thing is sure: if the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance deemed necessary to ask the clerk for a legal opinion as to whether or not she was in conflict of interest, it certainly brings us to wonder about the fact that there was no conflict of interest in the eyes of the clerk—and we must certainly wonder about the appropriateness of a clerk giving a legal opinion—but if, according to the clerk, there was no real conflict of interest, there was certainly an apparent conflict of interest since the chair deemed necessary to ask the question.
That being said, when we are told that the amendment was ruled out of order because it went beyond the scope of the bill, members will agree with me that such argument is totally disingenuous. Why?
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
As my colleague from Laval Centre just said, it is because it is totally disingenuous. It is also because if members of the committee had given their unanimous consent for this amendment to be ruled in order, it could have been accepted as such by the committee.
One can bend over backwards to try to justify such a decision. One can invoke all kinds of legal arguments and cite all kinds of precedents when looking for an excuse to avoid doing something.
Obviously, in the case at hand, the government was not interested, far from it, in doing anything whatsoever on this issue.
The Brewers Association of Canada wrote a letter to the chair of the committee, giving its opinion on the inclusion of microbreweries in Bill C-47 with regard to a possible exemption.
In the last paragraph, the Brewers Association of Canada pointed out that it totally supported such an exemption for microbreweries, but it clearly stated that, in light of its prior agreement with the government, it could not support including it in Bill C-47.
We certainly have good reason to be concerned about this type of agreement between the Brewers Association of Canada and the government.
