Debates of May 27th, 2003

Poverty

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations calls poverty the planet's greatest threat to political stability, social cohesion and environmental health.

According to the G-8 Global Poverty Report, poverty encompasses economic, social and governance dimensions. Economically, the poor are deprived not only of income and resources but opportunities as well.

The Global Poverty Report at the G-8 summit in Okinawa in July 2000 also said that the lives of poor people are more affected by actions at the national level. This is borne out by our own statistics here in Canada, which reveal that one in eight people live in poverty. Putting it in perspective, 13% of Canadians, almost four million people, are poor.

Impoverished children come from impoverished families. We here in the House of Commons passed a resolution back in 1990 to abolish child poverty by the year 2000. Why have the Liberals not kept that commitment?

Better Speech and Hearing Month

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, each May, I make a point of finding a special way to celebrate Better Speech and Hearing Month.

This year, I had the pleasure of meeting various organizations and learning about ongoing initiatives, particularly at St- Jude school in my riding, where the oral method is taught to deaf children, among other things.

However, despite the remarkable work of the school staff, the problem remains, since these children cannot hear. Not all television programs are close captioned, so that they may read what we hear.

I also met with people from CRIM and the Regroupement québécois pour le sous-titrage, which are collaborating on a research project to develop a real-time captioning system using voice recognition technology.

Although this cutting edge technology will soon be available, the key is obviously financing. Therefore, I invite all members, as well as the government, to remember the House's unanimous commitment to provide the necessary tools to ensure the full integration of the deaf and hard of hearing in our society.

We must turn our words into actions..

Kevin Naismith

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words in memory of one of our best and finest, Captain Kevin Naismith, who was tragically killed during a military exercise in Alberta yesterday.

The brave men and women of the Canadian Forces participate in regular allied war exercises to constantly improve the readiness and interoperability of our troops.

Monday's air exercise involved aircraft from Canada, the United States, France and Belgium. Sadly, it also came with a loss for Canada. These war games try to be as realistic as possible and thus are not without risk.

Captain Naismith joined the Canadian Forces in 1991 and was based at the 416 Tactical Fighter Squadron in Cold Lake. He had a wife and three young children.

Let us remember Captain Naismith as a friendly and exceptional pilot who loved going to air shows and sharing his love for aviation and his aircraft with young people.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Kevin's family and his squadron.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Assembly of First Nations that rejects the first nations governance act. Fully 95% of the presenters to the standing committee, including many non-aboriginal representatives from civil society, vigorously oppose it.

All of the mainstream churches, many respected academics, law professors, bar associations, and even a former minister of Indian Affairs, testified that in their opinion Bill C-7 infringes upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights, section 15 of the charter and international conventions regarding the right to self-determination.

Reasonable people who have studied the bill have legitimate concerns about changing the legal status and capacity of first nations and about enhancing rather than reducing the discretionary authority of the minister, but whether we accept or reject these concerns, the only justification I need to oppose this piece of legislation is that first nations from coast to coast have told the standing committee in no uncertain terms that they do not want it.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the government announced today its plans to decriminalize marijuana, but apparently it wants to go further and actually encourage its use among young people. It calls for fines for possession, but will actually bring in lower fines for young people. This would be like offering a discount on a pack of cigarettes with a student ID card.

What kind of message does the government think it is trying to send?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased to table today a policy regarding the use of drugs in the country to ensure that we send the message we want to send as a nation to the effect that the use of drugs is illegal in Canada, and to ensure as well that people understand it is harmful to our society. That legislation, together with the renewal of the national drug strategy, will ensure we will be stronger in terms of law enforcement, and send all the appropriate messages.

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

Mr. Speaker, just like on the gun registry that minister screwed up, he does not have any answers. Therefore, I will put the question again.

Why lower fines for the kinds of young people who we do not want to start using drugs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure the member realizes what is taking place across the country.

There is an increase in the use of cannabis. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the existing legislation does not work the way we would like it to work. There are 100,000 Canadians using cannabis on a daily basis. We have to put in place a tool that we will be able to use and that will be enforceable. The policy we tabled this morning will do exactly that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister still could not answer the question, but I guess I can thank him for telling us that cannabis is actually used in Canada. We kind of figured that out over here.

American authorities have threatened to increase searches on Canadian travellers at the border. We already have duties on softwood lumber and wheat. We have bans on importations of beef. We have travel advisories because of SARS. We have an endless number of problems because of bad relations over Iraq.

What assurances can the government give us that its pet project on marijuana will not jeopardize legitimate trade with the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows we have very good cooperation with the United States in terms of economic development, as well as with regard to fighting international crime.

With regard to drugs, we are heading exactly in the same direction. We have the same vision. Drugs are illegal in both of our societies. We want to ensure we can continue to fight organized crime together. Of course, the roads that we take could be different, but we will end up at the same place because Canada is a different country with different values.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after three months of Canada-U.S. relations being in the deep freeze, the Prime Minister finally spoke to President Bush yesterday. He raised some hot topics, like the Montreal Expos' baseball season. For some reason, he forgot whether he raised the largest crisis in the Canadian agricultural industry in decades: the ban on beef to the United States.

How could our Prime Minister possibly have forgotten whether he discussed the ban on beef with the United States when he was speaking with the President yesterday?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I know one of the things the Alliance likes to do is to try to portray Canada-U.S. relations as being all bad news. In fact on many files and many fronts we have continuing good news.

One thing the Prime Minister did not have the opportunity to mention to the President yesterday, because it had not yet happened, was the very clear decision of the World Trade Organization in favour of Canada on the U.S. applied countervailing duties on softwood lumber.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have news for the Deputy Prime Minister. The ban on Canadian beef to the United States is very bad news for tens of thousands of Canadian families who depend on it for their livelihood.

Why is it that the Prime Minister could speak to the President of the United States without raising an issue that is crippling a $7 billion industry? Why is it that he could joke about baseball, but not defend Canadian beef farmers?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is due to meet with the President next week at the G-8 meeting--

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

This time answer about beef.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says this time answer about beef.

The hon. member knows not only of the effort that has been carried on by this government with respect to the issue that has arisen, but he also knows about the approval of the Premier of Alberta's own province in saying what we have done properly.

Opposition members do not like it when there is good news. They do not like to admit it when there is good news. However there is good news today on an important trade issue, and that is the WTO decision on softwood lumber. Why do they not want to talk about that?

Government Contracts

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, the numbered company belonging to Alain Renaud, a leading Liberal organizer, gave $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Not long afterward, a company owned by his brother Benoît received a sponsorship contract for $390,000, an excellent return on the investment. Alain Renaud's defence of this was, “We are not the ones behind this, some important people are involved”.

Since Alain Renaud was just one of the cogs in the wheel, can the Minister of Public Works tell us who within government was controlling the Liberal Party money machine that the sponsorship program represented? Who are these people—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House many times, there were obviously serious difficulties with the sponsorship program. Those difficulties have been investigated by the Treasury Board, by the Auditor General and by officials in my department. Where matters have raised legal issues, they have been referred to the police, and those are the appropriate authorities to pursue them.

We are determined that this matter will be thoroughly ventilated and all the facts will be known.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Alain Renaud claims to have been merely a tool of certain important people. I would remind the minister that the sponsorship program, which was used to finance the Liberal Party, his party, was created by his own government.

With such an interconnected system, can the Minister of Public Works today deny that the important people referred to by Alain Renaud are past or present members of this government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know Mr. Renaud and I have no idea to what he was referring.

What I do know is that all issues related to this file are being thoroughly investigated; in terms of financial management issues, by a comprehensive government-wide audit launched by the Auditor General; and in terms of legal issues, by the RCMP.

It seems to me that if the member really wants answers, those are the people to ask.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, someone in the government would appear to have ordered a financial contribution in excess of $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada slush fund, according to Mr. Renaud, who says he was involved unwittingly in a system put in place to take advantage of the advertising and sponsorship program. The government does not have the right to hide behind an RCMP investigation that will just disappear, as was the case with the Human Resources Development Canada scandal.

Given the serious nature of these allegations, I am asking the minister the identity of these important people Mr. Renaud refers to.

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

Mr. Speaker, when a matter is thoroughly investigated, in all the ways that have been referred to in the House, by various government agencies, by the Auditor General, who is an officer of the House and by the RCMP, it is hardly a matter of anything being covered up.

I hear the slurs coming across the floor with respect to the RCMP. Quite frankly, it is the most distinguished police force on the face of the earth and if charges need to be laid, they will be.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Renaud's defence is that he was used as a kind of front, that he was merely a cog in the wheel in an affair that culminated in a $63,000 donation to the Liberal Party of Canada slush fund.

Who in the government ordered a $63,000 kickback to the Liberal Party of Canada as a result of the awarding of a contract to Groupe Everest without any bidding process?