Debates of May 15th, 2003

Industry

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Algoma has made this difficult decision and Canadian producers who believe that they are being injured by dumped or subsidized imports have access to Canada's anti-dumping and countervail rules. With respect to the CITT safeguard recommendations, the government continues to carefully survey all its options and the Government of Canada remains an active participant at the OECD high level meetings on overcapacity and subsidies, which is the root of the problem.

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador has adopted unanimously a resolution directing its government to begin a renegotiation of the terms of union.

In its “Reference re Secession of Quebec” in 1988, a court opinion sought by the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court said when “one participant in Confederation... seek[s] an amendment to the Constitution” there is “an obligation on all parties to come to the negotiating table”. The court calls that a “binding obligation”.

Does the Government of Canada consider itself bound to negotiate when a province seeks an amendment to the Constitution?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, even well before the ruling of the court it has been very clear that the Government of Canada is always willing to discuss any suggestions coming from provinces, whether constitutional or not. The Government of Canada will do it with frankness and we will say frankly what we think about the proposal. Frankly and politely is the way we work.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of discussion. This is a question of what the Supreme Court of Canada, in an opinion sought by this government, calls a “binding obligation”. The resolution adopted yesterday by the House of Assembly refers specifically to “the establishment, through an amendment of the Terms of Union, of shared, equal, constitutional authority...over the fisheries adjacent to the province”.

Will the Government of Canada honour its binding obligation to negotiate or will it ignore the opinion of the Supreme Court?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, never would Canada ignore anything from the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada never spoke about the obligation to agree to what is under discussion. The Government of Canada said very frankly that to share responsibility of the fishery in this way would be detrimental for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for all Canadians. We say that very frankly and we are very open to discussing it with the government of the province.

Ethics

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, reading from the ministry and crown corporation ethical guidelines, it is stated, “No Minister should personally promote the private interests of any individual, corporation or non-governmental organization including a constituent, with any Crown corporation”.

When the Prime Minister repeatedly phoned the president of the Business Development Bank on behalf of a constituent, why is that not breaking his own ethical guidelines?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it was on November 21, 2000, that the ethics counsellor concluded his examination of this very question. In a letter addressed to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the ethics counsellor, after his examination, said that “the Prime Minister, in calling the President of the BDC, did not violate any rule...established by the...Government in terms of Ministers dealing on behalf of constituents with government agencies”.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the ever changing ethical guidelines, I guess. The way it reads here is that “No Minister”, that would be the Prime Minister, “should personally promote the private interests of any individual, corporation or non-governmental organization”, that would be the Grand-Mère inn, “including a constituent”, that would be Yvon Duhaime, “with any Crown corporation”, and that would be the Business Development Bank. Yet it was the bank president who was fired, who was threatened with criminal charges and who has paid the price for this.

Why is it that if it is so unethical now to do this, it was just fine to do it back in 1997?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the question has been answered and the matter has been resolved. What we are seeing here today, and what we have seen this week from members of that party as they put these questions, is a vivid demonstration as to why they fail to capture the confidence of the Canadian people. They have nothing to offer. They have nothing to offer in any matter of substance. They have no thoughtful position on policies that affect people. They have no proposals to make to make this a better country. They wallow in old stories hoping they can throw mud and that is not what the Canadian people are after. They are going to remain irrelevant to Canadian government.

Marijuana

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fears we expressed on Tuesday have been confirmed. Upon his return from Washington, the Minister of Justice, having been given his marching orders by the American government, did not introduce his bill to decriminalize marijuana.

How can the Minister of Justice deny having received instructions from Washington, when the series of interviews with the media scheduled for today has been cancelled and he is now talking about not introducing his bill until the end of May?

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

Mr. Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. It is practically impossible to hear the hon. Minister of Justice, who has the floor. A question has been asked and we have to be able to hear the answer.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, a bill cannot be introduced before it has been put on the Order Paper.

Second, I have always been clear on this. We want to go ahead as soon as possible, and we said we would go ahead before the summer recess.

Yesterday, I said very clearly that we will be bringing in the bill and the whole policy when we come back from the break week. That having been said, I will repeat that what we are doing, we are doing for the Canadian public, and we are doing it in our capacity as the Canadian government.

Moreover, we are motivated by the desire to send, with respect to the use of marijuana, the following messages: it is illegal, and it is harmful to your health. These messages—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after this week's cabinet meeting, just before leaving for Washington, the Minister of Justice knew he did not have any money for the national drug strategy, but he went and consulted with the Americans anyway.

How can he hide behind any excuse whatsoever today for having been given his marching orders by Washington, when upon his return, he started working on a bill that takes the wishes of his buddy, Ashcroft, into account?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these are somewhat irresponsible remarks, given that developing a policy like the one we will be tabling in this place within a week takes time and requires extensive consultations.

When I talk about consultations, I mean that a number of departments are involved. The policy is ready. And so is the renewal of the national drug strategy.

The money is there, and it will be with great pleasure that, along with my hon. colleagues, I will be announcing a policy to ensure that the right messages are sent here, in Canada.

Fisheries

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, recent research found that the Atlantic cod population is at a perilously low level. The response has been mismanagement by DFO from the very beginning. Failure to deal with foreign overfishing has been one thing that has led to this problem. Why will the minister not get off the fence and take a tough stand against foreign overfishing?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the member does a thorough review of the evidence he will find out that overfishing generally has contributed to the perilous state of the resource in general. These are the actions that we have taken: tough decisions that we took on closing some cod areas; we have worked since this government came to power very diligently on the question of foreign overfishing, with incidents, as members will remember, from 1995; we have seen great, great improvements within the operations of NAFO, but not enough. We continue to work, we can improve further, and we will.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries committee recently tabled a report recommending that the minister deal with this foreign overfishing in a much stronger way. The report was rejected out of hand by this minister. Why will the minister not show some leadership and organize an international response to this impending international conservation disaster?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what this government has done. We have been working with our allies, with other countries. There were some recommendations by members opposite that we should leave NAFO, thinking that all other countries fishing in international waters would cease fishing there. Quite the contrary, we would no longer be there to work with them.

We are working to strengthen the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. We are not 100% content with its operations, but as the forum of experts in Newfoundland told us, it is the best possible way to go forward.

Political Party Financing

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister, during his speech in Montreal, skipped over a section confirming that the political financing legislation was a question of confidence in his government.

Can the Leader of the Government in the House tell us here today if the vote on political party financing will be a vote of confidence in the government? Yes or no?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the hon. member's support for government bills and possibly for the government in general. I am delighted by his support for Bill C-24.

I will be happy to work with him and, of course, with the leader of his party in the House to support this legislation and pass it in the very near future, so that Canadians can benefit from even better legislation.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not happy that the Leader of the Government in the House has not answered a very clear question.

Since he refuses to tell us if the vote on this legislation is a vote of confidence in the government, does this mean that the Prime Minister is giving in to the President of the Liberal Party of Canada, who wants this legislation dropped, is giving in to the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is running a leadership campaign with a campaign fund that has been condemned by the other candidates? Is this not what is happening with the political party financing legislation?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member must have a bad memory. Less than one hour ago, he and I were talking in a House committee on this same issue. Of course, the government intends to proceed with the bill. If it were not my intention, I would not have appeared before a House committee for over two hours today, for the second time, to support this initiative.

Moreover, anyone who thinks that the Prime Minister is giving in for any reason does not know him very well.