Debates of June 18th, 2002

Airline Security

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is taking $2 billion from the pockets of Canadians for the government's security tax at airports, double what is being spent, yet there is no security at Vancouver airport's south terminal. Bomb detecting equipment sits unused in Edmonton because no one is trained.

The government proposes a public safety act that jeopardizes the civil liberties of innocent people but will do nothing to convict terrorists. The government does not have a security strategy for Canada.

When someone can cross the border with a Glock pistol and kill five people, the government has failed Canadians. What is it going to do to make sure this does not happen again?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, that was such an eclectic question but I will deal with the air aspects of it.

The hon. member has sat in the House for the last year and has seen the kind of security measures that we have introduced, especially in the wake of the tragedies of September 11. I believe Canadians understand that security is needed and that we have put in the measures required. I think that is why they are flying once again.

The hon. member is quite off base. I should say parenthetically that Canadians have demonstrated that they are prepared to pay a charge if they get the service and they are getting very good security service.

Violence against Women

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

Mr. Speaker, let me try to put the question more directly then.

We have had from the government a string of anti-terrorism bills, Bill C-36, Bill C-42, Bill C-44 and Bill C-55. The government spends millions of dollars fighting terrorism yet women in this country live with violence every minute of their lives. The government refuses to make the issues pertaining to women in abusive relationships a priority.

My question is, where is the money to protect women and for public security for women in violent situations? Where is a national strategy on domestic violence against women?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question at this point in time is one that concerns us all.

At the same time, it is important to know that we have passed legislation. We have committed $7 million annually to family violence initiatives. The status of women has allocated $250,000 annually to research in the area of violence against women. The federal government has committed $32 million annually to national crime prevention. I think we have done the work.

Government Contracts

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

And $100 million for new Challenger jets, Mr. Speaker. The minister of public works has tried to deflect the corruption and criticism. By parroting the Gray line, he seems oblivious to the fact that these contracting scandals are his government's fault. The government had the ability to call a public inquiry, or the police or the auditor general two years ago after an internal audit flagged these problems. Ethical misconduct and mismanagement of the public purse could have been reined in then, saving taxpayers millions.

Why did he, the Prime Minister, his predecessor or his predecessor's predecessor not do something two years ago to at least act on these problems rather than try to cover them up and wait until they got caught?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, they certainly were not covered up. The summary of the internal audit was posted on the Internet. There were issues related to that which were published in the newspaper. An action plan to correct the deficiencies identified in the audit was prepared in the latter part of the year 2000, the beginning of 2001 and through 2001.

Those corrective measures were in fact implemented. We went back in the spring of this year to confirm the degree of progress that had been made. Beyond that there are a whole series of other inquiries being undertaken to ensure that we get to the bottom of this.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has done absolutely nothing to offset the devastating effects of the U.S. farm subsidies. Even worse is the government's inability to deal with the devastating effects of the country of origin labelling contained in the U.S. farm bill. Country of origin labelling applies to all agricultural products, including beef and pork. Already Canadian livestock producers are losing American markets.

What is the government doing to achieve a Canadian exemption to the U.S. country of origin labelling? Failing that, what is the government's contingency plan when we can no longer access American markets for our beef and cattle?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the country of origin clause in the U.S. farm bill is one that is voluntary for two years. At that time, that may very well go to compulsory. I have been having meetings with industry people and provinces. A strategy has been put in place to lobby in the United States along with, I might add, many of the participants in the industry in the United States who do not want it either.

Cruelty to Animals

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the cruelty to animals bill was passed by the House, the Minister of Justice assured ranchers and medical researchers that there would be amendments in the Senate. Now we find out this was a complete hoax. Senator Joan Fraser stated:

I hope it is not breaking a confidence for me to say that I spoke directly with the Minister of Justice...and he assured me that no deal had been struck regarding a government amendment.

Who on the Liberal side will apologize to rural Canadians for this deception?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about, is a bill that we are very proud of on this side of the House, Bill C-15B. It is there to modernize a section of the criminal code, create a definition of animals as well, which we did not have, create new offences in that field, which is very important, and increase penalties.

On this side of the House, we are very proud of what we are doing on the issue of cruelty to animals. Having said that, if there amendments, the Senate will decide that.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, members of the rural Liberal caucus used false promises as an excuse to vote for the cruelty to animals bill. They knew full well that there were no amendments coming.

I would like an answer to this question. Does the government intend on introducing amendments that would prevent animals rights extremists from attacking responsible animal use or is the minister still committed to passing this bill in its current form?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the hon. member and his party have against Bill C-15B. It is a bill which modernizes the provisions of the criminal code which were essentially outdated. We did not have, believe it or not, in our criminal code a definition of animal. We had to create new offences as well. Basically the new provisions that we will have with Bill C-15B will put our country in line with what we see in other countries in the world.

Having said that, the bill is in the Senate. As I said, if there are amendments, the Senate alone will decide that.

Foreign Affairs

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his disagreement with the positions taken by President Bush, saying that the Canadian government was in favour of respecting the law and international standards under the aegis of the United Nations.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us how he intends to make it known to the U.S. administration that the Canadian government disagrees profoundly with its new and dangerous doctrine of pre-emptive attack?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the United States has an embassy here in Canada. The embassy staff is just as capable as the member of reading the newspapers.

It is not necessary to communicate our position officially. However, I again state before the House that Canada still intends to act in accordance with international standards in this regard. We call on all our friends and also those in other countries to try to respect established international standards in applying their law and international policies.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the G-8 summit, to be held next week in Kananaskis, not be an excellent opportunity, and will the Minister of Foreign Affairs ask the Prime Minister to let the President of the United States know that Canada is opposed to this doctrine of a pre-emptive attack, which threatens the delicate balance of international relations?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always had opportunities to speak directly with President Bush. He will have another opportunity next week.

He has always expressed the Canadian government's position frankly and accurately, in the interests of Canadians. I have no doubt that he will do in Kananaski what he has done in the past.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is still pursuing farmers who have challenged his monopoly. Farmers who have helped draw attention to the need for reform in the Canadian wheat and barley marketing are presently facing fines up to $4,000. Now even the Liberal members of the agriculture committee have recognized the need for change and have recommended a free market for wheat and barley.

Will the government listen and act on the committee's recommendation, and stop criminalizing farmers for trying to improve the incomes of their families?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal proceedings, they are of course not optional. The law does need to be enforced in all circumstances.

With respect to the recommendation from the agriculture committee, it will go, in the words of the recommendation itself, to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The directors have indicated that they will take the matter under consideration, as is required by the law.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is only western Canadian farmers who face charges for violating the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Producers in other parts of the country have the freedom to make their own marketing decisions and process the grain grown on their farms. Western farmers should not be made into criminals for pursuing marketing choices.

Will the government impose a moratorium on future charges against western grain producers at least until the minister has time to respond to the report of the committee?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I make no decision in respect of what matters are investigated or not or what charges are laid or not. It is up to the appropriate law officers of the crown.

With respect to grain marketing legislation, that legislation was amended very recently in the House. The legislation requires that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board be consulted and that farmers, not politicians, have the final say.

Transportation

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadian Pacific Rail is reportedly making 1000% profit off B.C. taxpayers on a contract with commuter rail service West Coast Express. West Coast Express has filed a petition with the governor in council requesting cabinet granted access to final offer arbitration. This petition is supported by the B.C. government, the B.C. federal Liberal caucus and every mayor in greater Vancouver.

Could the minister tell the House today the status of the petition or offer some solutions to ensure that lower mainland residents have access to commuter rail?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that commuter rail is becoming a necessity for our larger cities. Of course with the federal jurisdiction and regulation of the railways, we are able to do something about it. In fact the CTA review panel made specific recommendations and I will be asking the advice of hon. members before we bring in amendments to that act this fall.

On the specific question with respect to the petition by West Coast Express, obviously as it is before the governor in council, it would be inappropriate to comment except to say that we will be dealing with it as expeditiously as possible.

G-8 Summit

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is now reported that the G-8 protesters will be trying to shut down Ottawa during the G-8 summit. It is also reported that the federal government has informed the business owners and the police force in Ottawa that since the summit is in Alberta there will be no compensation.

Since the Prime Minister selected such a remote location and Ottawa has been picked as a more convenient place for protesting, what will the government do for businesses in Ottawa that will be affected as a result of the summit?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the RCMP and other police forces are well prepared for the G-8. Also, we will continue to pay any compensation for which the federal government is responsible. We have and will continue to do that.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the government has informed the Ottawa Police that it will not fund any losses in Ottawa. Ottawa is anticipating 10,000 activists from more than 35 different protest groups. The cost to the police in Ottawa will be in excess of $5 million. How can the solicitor general expect the people of Ottawa to pick up the tab for a federal government function?