Debates of May 28th, 2002

Supply

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate getting a very thoughtful question once in a while.

I think the comments by the agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance are absolutely correct, and boy, would we ever have a different agriculture situation if we had this guy over there instead of the present guy.

It was this government that agreed to tariffication, put supply management on the table internationally and began the process of change for those industries. In typical Liberal fashion, however, there was absolutely no plan for the next step. Even years later with new rounds coming up, there continues to be no plan, no proposals, no consultation, no way forward, just the great dream that everything can go back to the way it was. That is so typical of this Prime Minister's approach to life, not just to politics.

That is something the country will have to address and I am glad to see that our agriculture critic has been doing that. Long before I became leader, I know that he was thinking about it, consulting with the people in supply managed industries and looking at the strategies that may well have to be looked at when the implications of the tariffication process become clearly evident in the years and decades to come.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the newly minted Leader of the Opposition on a very solid speech. He touched on some aspects that I think do hold true. When we have solid public policy, we propose things like an acid rain protocol. When we have solid public policy, we propose that we should enter the gulf war under the auspices of the UN as opposed to a NATO perspective. That is what Canada proposed to the Americans. He also highlighted the free trade agreement. In 1988 we had about $90 billion in trade with the Americans. Now we trade well in excess of $400 billion each and every year.

Given that solid footing that we had with the Americans, I have one simple question. Would we at least concede that some of the vitriolic and visceral language utilized by members on that side against the Mulroney administration during the early part of the 1990s might have been just a little over the top and that there were some significant gains made for the country under the Brian Mulroney administration?

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I acknowledged Mr. Mulroney's contributions, particularly to our trading relationships with the United States.

I think that if we were to look back at the record we would find that our party, under the leadership of my predecessor, Mr. Manning, and not just my predecessor as leader but my predecessor in Calgary Southwest, was consistently supportive of the Mulroney government's approach to opening up our trading relationship with the United States.

I challenge the hon. member to embrace this legacy by walking away from the party that has now embraced David Orchard and the extreme anti-free trade position. I challenge him to walk away from that kind of coalition and instead embrace our offer of a full coalition here.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise on debate and to particularly have the opportunity to speak shortly after the Leader of the Opposition. The member from Calgary made some comments in this supply day debate, particularly comments with respect to our trading relationship with the United States.

The Leader of the Opposition made the comment that we had a problem with the agricultural industry and the softwood lumber industry in our trading relationships with the United States solely because of the actions of the Prime Minister.

Besides being totally incorrect, when we look at the evidence, if that were true, then how can he explain that those difficulties with agricultural trade are not limited to Canada? If we look at the discussions that are taking place across the world, it is not just Canada. Almost every nation of the globe is adamantly opposed to the U.S. farm bill and find it injurious to them.

To suggest for a second that it is the Prime Minister's fault that the U.S. congress passed the U.S. farm bill is nothing but partisan politics at its very worst. It absolutely has no foundation in fact. When we look at the reality of what is happening in the world, that is evident to everybody. I suspect it is even evident across the way but I do not expect them to get up and admit to that.

The same thing is true in other trade issues. Take the issue of steel. The European Union and many nations around the world say that the United States is not listening to them on the issue of steel. Therefore the suggestion that it is one man who has what opposition views to be an inappropriate attitude is totally ludicrous and I think everybody can see that.

There are irritants in trade and we have issues to deal with in agriculture and in softwood lumber. However for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that the whole trading relationship with the United States has fallen apart since 1993 is not appropriate. It is ludicrous. The reality is that when we look at the overall relationship in terms of trade between Canada and the United States, it is a relationship that is working to the economic benefit of Canada. That is the reality, as much as the opposition might want to say otherwise. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that because we have issues, and there are issues in agriculture and softwood lumber, that the whole trading relationship is inappropriate.

The evidence of that is to look at the Canadian economy and go back to 1993. This great nirvana that the member of the opposition wants to refer to as being the point at which everything was great was before 1993, and then that it turned bad. If I remember correctly there was a $42 billion deficit in 1993 when we came to power, yet the Leader of the Opposition thought it was a wonderful period in time. That deficit is gone. In fact for five years the government has operated in a surplus. So much for it being an inappropriate activity since 1993.

There are low interest rates and low inflation. The country is having the strongest employment growth among the G-7 countries and has just returned to the highest credit rating we can possibly have. It does not seem to exactly be policies that have not done well by this country.

I am sure our viewers can hear that this is sort of striking home. The members are getting a little excited over there on the other side. I do not blame them, when we have an opportunity to point out what the record actually is instead of the record that they pretend it is. I can certainly understand that.

However the hon. Leader of the Opposition made a point about sovereignty. He talked about sovereignty and what it sovereignty should be. There is a great deal of difficulty with the viewpoint of the Leader of the Opposition. What he essentially said was that sovereignty to the Alliance Party was the freedom to say yes to the Americans. That is in contrast to our definition of sovereignty which is the freedom to say yes or no, depending upon whether it is in the Canadian national interest. That is the difference.

Their relationship, or their conception of a relationship with the United States, simply is to go down to Washington and say “Mr. President, if that is what you want, that is where we are. Mr. or Mrs. Congressman, if that is there you are at, that is where we are at”. That is not what sovereignty is all about. Sovereignty is acting in the best interests of Canada. It is acting in the best interests of Canadian farmers. It is acting in the best interests of Canadian forestry workers. That is what Canadian sovereignty is all about and that is what the government is doing.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about dealing with the Americans and said that there was absolutely no co-operation with the Americans and that there was nothing getting done vis-à-vis the Americans. He conveniently overlooked evidence to the contrary. All members of the House know, or at least they should know, that Canada and the United States, under the able leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister in working with homeland security director Ridge, formed and developed an action plan to deal with border security. Border security and the efficiency of moving goods over and across that border are an important part of our trading relationship.

We came not only to an agreement last December on an action plan to ensure that we facilitated the movement of those goods across the border, but both the governments of Canada and the United States, led by the Deputy Prime Minister and homeland security director Ridge, worked well to ensure that could take place.

When we deal with the issues of agriculture and softwood lumber, there are a number of component parts with which we need to deal. Yes, we need to deal with our international partners and form consensus because when we deal with the inappropriate, and it is inappropriate, U.S. farm bill we need to do it not just by ourselves but with every part of this globe that trades on agricultural production with the United States. We need to form those alliances and form a consistent approach, and we are doing that.

We need to resolve how we will deal with the agricultural industry. The Alliance says that no action has taken place and that is ludicrous. That is why the minister of agriculture, with the ten provincial agricultural ministers and three territorial leaders, signed an agreement last year in Yukon to create a new agricultural policy framework in Canada. The federal government did not do this by itself. It was done in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, governments of all stripes, so that we could lead our agricultural industry into a strong and vibrant economy and restructured for the future. The industry supports that. Canadian producers support that. Provincial governments support that. We as a federal government support that.

We will continue to work with the premiers and the provinces on that. We will ensure that we have a strong agricultural industry in Canada. That is the reality. It is very different than the reality painted by the Leader of the Opposition, which is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question. Western Canadian farmers could quite easily increase their incomes, diversify and value-add the same as they are doing in Ontario by getting rid of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the member, who is supposed to be trying to help rural Canadians in the west and across the country, willing to stand and say that he also supports a voluntary wheat board?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for rural affairs, I firmly believe and support working with the provincial governments on an agricultural policy framework to ensure that our producers and the network of communities that support our producers work to create a framework within which our industry can be successful and within which those people who depend on it are successful from coast to coast to coast. This party sees Canada not as a collection of different regions but as one nation with national values, national goals and national objectives.

[The Speaker]

When the debate on this matter resumes later this day, the hon. minister will have four minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments.

Privacy Commissioner

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the privacy commissioner concerning substantially similar provincial legislation.

This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism and the member of parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore.

In 1993 she became the first African-Canadian woman to be elected to the House of Commons. I have known the member since I was elected in 1997 and I can tell the House that she is a truly outstanding woman. I am she sure will be a remarkable secretary of state.

I wish her all the best in her new portfolio and would invite all my colleagues to congratulate her on becoming the newest addition to the cabinet.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Check the record, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first time I have asked the Prime Minister to begin building a better relationship with the president of the United States. Instead, he has been globe-trotting, focusing on his African initiative rather than concentrating on our deteriorating trade relations with our southern neighbour and biggest trading partner.

The ongoing trade war, which now includes softwood lumber, farm subsidies and northern natural gas, is more than news clippings in my riding. It is our livelihood. My riding of Prince George--Peace River in the northern half of British Columbia is primarily dependent upon natural gas, farming and forestry. I agree with the government's action to take these disputes to the WTO but it may be too late when a decision arrives. Immediate action is required.

For the sake of my constituents and for all the other Canadians who rely on the billion dollar a day trade with the United States, will the Prime Minister go to Washington and not leave until President Bush commits to finding a solution to these trade issues?

Science, Technology and Informatics Fair 2002

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is both a duty and a pleasure for me to make statements in the House from time to time on scientific subjects.

I would therefore like to draw to hon. members' attention the 2002 science, technology and informatics fair that was held this past May 24 at La Vérendrye school in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier.

The objective of this event was to support the mission of La Vérendrye school by encouraging the integration of science, technology and informatics into the school curriculum, a fine objective.

It is important to point out the collaboration between parent volunteers and teaching staff in the preparations for this fair.

Two parents merit particular attention, Daniel Cusson and Maurice Lamontagne, who co-chaired the event and were in large part responsible for its organization.

My congratulations to La Vérendrye school, its administrators, teaching staff and pupils. Next year, I hope to have the opportunity to help with the organization.

Howard Mackie Awards

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Interuniversity Sport is the national governing body of university sport in Canada. Each year 49 members representing over 12,000 student athletes and 500 coaches compete for 19 national championships in 11 different sports.

Earlier this month Canadian Interuniversity Sport honoured the top female and male athletes with the 2002 Howard Mackie Awards, a distinction which carries with it a $5,000 scholarship to attend a Canadian university grad school of the recipient's choice.

Taking home the award as female athlete of the year was the University of Toronto's Liz Warden, a member of Canada's national swimming team and a resident of Indian River, Ontario. Liz was joined on the podium by fellow national swimming team member, Brian Jones of the University of British Columbia and a resident of Richmond, B.C.

The winners were selected by the board of trustees of the Canadian Athletic Foundation, a not for profit board established for the purpose of administering the awards.

I know everyone in the House joins with me in congratulating Liz Warden and Brian Jones as recipients of the awards.

Education

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise in the House to congratulate a young constituent of mine from my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound who received a national millennium scholarship.

Greg Dietrich, who attends Walkerton District Secondary School will be graduating and will be attending the University of Guelph where he will be studying animal science. He also expects to go on to be a doctor or be in the field of science on genetics.

This is one of those times that as a former teacher I would like to be back in school to watch the faces of those graduates, their parents and their great teachers as they bring forth this next crop of young Canadians.

On behalf of the House and all members of parliament I would like to congratulate all graduating students right across this country from coast to coast to coast for a job well done.

Softwood Lumber

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government should make the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. its number one priority. This conflict is hurting both countries. The cost of not reaching a solution is enormous.

Canadian lumber exporters have already started paying 27% duties in cash. Why is the Prime Minister rubbing shoulders with President Bush today at the NATO meeting in Rome saying he is too busy to talk to him but he might talk to French President Chirac instead? Will this help our desperate forest communities? Not at all. The U.S. lumber lobby is causing the dispute to pump up the price of wood in the United States. The pain suffered by our forest communities is about to get worse.

Canada wants to negotiate a solution based on fair trade. The U.S. lumber barons know this but by refusing to negotiate they continue to rake in profits, destroying communities and economies along the way.

The Prime Minister and the U.S. president should insist that negotiations begin again immediately. The Prime Minister must go to George Bush and ask him face to face: “Are you with us or agin us?”

Burlington Economic Development Corporation

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Economic Developers Council of Ontario recognized the achievements of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation and its 2001 marketing efforts at the annual Ontario Marketing Awards dinner.

The Burlington Economic Development Corporation received the Award of Excellence and Best of Show Award in the special events category for its “Driving Burlington's High Performance Growth” dinner. Furthermore, the BEDC received the Award of Excellence in the Business Retention and Expansion category for its “Jobsburlington Recruitment Campaign”.

This campaign, developed in conjunction with HRDC, assisted local businesses by helping them attract the necessary skilled labour. This project's website received over a million hits during a 12 week period and filled 100 job vacancies. The success of this project has been outstanding.

I wish to congratulate BEDC. Way to go team Burlington.

Code of Ethics

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals refused to allow the House of Commons to vote on a bill that I presented and that would have incorporated a code of ethics for ministers into the legislation and created a position of ethics counselor appointed by the House, who would report to the House. This is a bill that could have served them well.

While the rating for politicians' popularity is at its lowest levels in polls, the Prime Minister is doing nothing to remedy the situation.

So it is ill-advised to state in the House that integrity and public trust are the cornerstones of a democratic government, when it is the Prime Minister himself that started this nightmare with the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.

All of these scandals that are being unearthed are just the tip of the iceberg and demonstrate the clear lack of ethics within this government.

Instead of preaching and claiming to be a great democrat, the Prime Minister should urgently order a public inquiry in order to get to the bottom of the reprehensible actions of his ministers.

Mining Industry

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an article entitled “The Future of mines”, appearing in Le Soleil on May 25, 2002, Réjean Lacombe and François Pouliot wrote:

The non-renewal of mineral reserves in Abitibi, the asbestos crisis and problems in the steel market are like the sword of Damocles over at least 2,500 of the 6,500 or so direct jobs in Quebec's mining industry.

In Abitibi, if nothing happens in the next ten years, there will only be one mine left at Matagami (Bell Allard), La Ronde and maybe Doyon. The others will be shut down.

The reserves are running out in Abitibi. Half of the twenty or so mines in Quebec currently have reserves of less than five years.

All of the threatened mines are located in the Abitibi--Chibougamau region. The region currently employs some 3,000 miners, half of whom are in the group at risk.

Science and Technology

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance strongly supports stem cell research. It makes a difference in the lives of Canadians today.

The new reproductive and related science bill wrongly focuses on embryonic research, the benefit of which is only speculative. The number of individuals who have been helped through embryonic stem cell transplants is zero, while research on adult stem cells can help people today.

Recently, a 52 year old Parkinson's patient was treated with stem cells from his own brain. His symptoms were reduced by 80% and he no longer requires medication. Last month, a Quebec woman with MS was reported to be in remission following a stem cell transplant from her own bone marrow. These are just two of many examples I could tell members about.

Adult stem cell research is making great progress without problems of immune rejection and tumour formation and without the ethical minefield of research using human embryos.

Let us get our focus right on stem cell research.

Foreign Affairs

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last month I circulated a petition among members and senators calling upon the Government of Canada to support Taiwan in its desire to obtain observer status at the World Health Organization. With not much effort I collected well over 100 signatures.

My Bloc Quebecois colleagues collected 38 signatures on their own petition.

By any standard this is a strong measure of support by Canadian parliamentarians which transcends party lines. It is both a narrow message and a broad message. Specifically it calls upon the Government of Canada to support the government of Taiwan's position. More broadly however it calls upon the Government of Canada to change its application of the one China policy.

Members have spoken. A policy rooted outside of reality is in nobody's interest, least of all Canada's.

Social Programs

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 25 my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas and I joined 40,000 British Columbians who marched through downtown Vancouver to voice our dissent and opposition to the massive cuts perpetrated by Gordon Campbell's cruel agenda.

Seniors, single moms, students, the disabled, aboriginal people, workers, kids and families were all united in speaking out against the devastating cuts to our health care, environment, education, welfare, legal aid, employment standards and schools. Even today we hear that tuition at SFU will go up a whopping 30% and yet again poor people are being hit, this time a $75 a month cut on welfare.

Where are the B.C. federal Liberals? Why are they not sticking up for people's basic rights and services? Is our federal government now so gutless that it would allow this B.C. premier to destroy fundamental Canadian values of universal health care and a decent quality of life without fear and punishment for being poor.

We say that B.C. federal Liberals must do their job and support the people of B.C. in stopping Gordon Campbell and these awful cuts.

Liberal Government

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it took a long time to convince taxpayers that it was necessary to reduce the deficit and tighten their belts.

But after months of collective effort, we are uncovering the true face of the Liberal government: rich, manipulative, spendthrift, insensitive and contemptuous of the public's real needs.

In 1993, the Prime Minister said “—we are here to serve others, not ourselves”. But scandal after scandal, we cannot help but see that memory is not infallible. Say what they will, the Liberals have shamelessly served themselves.

How can the government then say that it has no money to help the provinces, to restore fiscal balance, to provide adequate funding for health and education, when it is spending millions to increase its visibility, to the benefit of its cronies.

Things have reached quite a state. The smell of corruption is one more reason we must get out of this rut.

Robert Lay

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned of the passing of a long-time friend of members and staff from all parties, Mr. Robert Lay.

Bob Lay was somewhat of a fixture on the Hill for more than 30 years. Bob worked in the offices of several successive House leaders and chief whips from 1973 until his retirement in 2000. Bob could often be seen roaming the corridors of the Centre Block in his navy blue pinstripe suit late in the evening and on weekends. He possessed a masterful understanding of procedure of the House of Commons and a deep respect for the institute of Parliament.

The Hill was Bob Lay's second home, if not his first. Bob had a deep respect for the institution of parliament.

A lifelong resident of Sandy Hill, he was a font of knowledge about politics and politicians, having been personally acquainted with every Prime Minister since Mackenzie King. Bob's calm demeanour and soft voice allowed him to make many friends. He had a well-developed appreciation for refined living and a sense of humour that could be both wicked and kindly.

We extend our most sincere condolences to his family. We will miss Bob very much.

Agriculture

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today the debate in the House is about how Canadians have lost confidence in the government, more specifically the department of agriculture. So far the minister of agriculture has hidden from tough decisions and from taking positive initiatives.

Today I put the minister of agriculture on notice because western Canada faces a serious chance and a real probability of drought again this year. Action is needed and needed now. The government has said it no longer wants to initiate ad hoc agricultural programs. Here is a chance for the government to do something new, a chance for it to be proactive.

I call upon the government to develop an adequately funded and targeted comprehensive disaster relief program that will serve all farmers across this country with consistency. The government must toss out its wait and see approach to agriculture assistance. The government needs to deal with the problems now before it is too late.

Government Grants

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, today we have new conflict of interest reports. We have learned that the solicitor general lobbied the RCMP, an agent for which he is directly responsible, to help his brother win a $3.5 million grant from the federal police force.

In this All in the Family episode, the solicitor general appears to have used his role as minister responsible for the RCMP to pressure for tax dollars for his brother's project.

Given the Prime Minister's newfound concern for ethics, how can the solicitor general justify his actions?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the facts in this case are very clear. The proposal was prepared for submission to the Atlantic initiative fund. When my office received the unsolicited proposal from a group of institutions, including Holland College, Sheridan College in Ontario and the University of Moncton, it forwarded it to the RCMP.

As solicitor general I do have an interest in education and training. My office receives many requests and proposals, and they are sent on to the RCMP.