Debates of May 6th, 2003

Fisheries

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us try a little closer to home. In 2002, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set the total scallop quota for area 29 at 800 tonnes. The minister then granted access to 600 tonnes of area 29 quota to fishermen from his riding, even though their licences restricted them from fishing in area 29.

So again conservation and science are set by the wayside for political favouritism. When is it going to stop?

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

Mr. Speaker, again the member is obviously wrong. The quota in area 29 was set in accordance with recommendations by science at a very safe level in an emerging fishery and access was given to coastal fishermen as well as the full bay scallop fishermen who have traditionally been fishing in the inshore areas and midshore areas off Nova Scotia.

National Defence

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last time this government sent troops to Afghanistan it sent them without proper uniforms. Now we hear that the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan preparing for this summer's mission does not have permission to carry firearms. Because the government failed to get permission from the stabilization force in Afghanistan before sending our troops into danger, German soldiers have been assigned to protect Canadian troops. This is shameful.

If this is true, why are Canadian troops being sent on this mission with no way of protecting themselves? Is it because of the government's incompetence or is it because of its complete disregard for the safety of Canadian troops?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Neither, Mr. Speaker, and I must say the Alliance must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel today.

The fact of the matter is that we are on a reconnaissance trip, the appropriate diplomatic papers have not yet been signed, and so we are protected by the German forces who are in the field right now, this small reconnaissance team. Soon the papers will be signed and I can assure the hon. member in the House that when the time comes in August for our people to be deployed, they will be fully and appropriately and legally armed.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks it is unimportant that our troops do not have the ability to protect themselves by carrying firearms. This is right in line with what the government has done in committing Canadian troops to this mission without preparing them or giving them tools to do the job.

After committing to a command role that was supposed to start this summer, we now find out from the minister that Canadians will assume command only after six months. Is it not true that the government has asked Germany to bail Canada out of its commitment because the government committed our troops to a mission they simply cannot carry out at this time?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

My goodness, Mr. Speaker, the nonsense gets ever more silly by the day.

We committed from the very beginning to a sizable contingent to Afghanistan, some 1,800 soldiers for six months and another 1,800 in the following six months, working with our German allies, as I was discussing last night with my German counterpart in Ottawa. Only yesterday did I announce for the first time that Canada was offering to take command of the mission in the second six month period.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the missile defence shield, the Minister of National Defence was hoping to get a mandate from cabinet to allow the Canadian army to negotiate the terms of Canada's participation in this U.S. government project.

Since when does the Canadian army negotiate on behalf of the government? Can the minister explain this new way of proceeding?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the questions are a bit strange today. The army is not negotiating for the government. The army has never done this and never will. The government has not made any decisions. How could the army negotiate something that the government has not decided yet? The army never negotiates for the government.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the Minister of National Defence is also very strange. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the situation was changing. The Liberal leadership candidate has said she opposes Canada's taking part in the missile defence shield. The former and current Ministers of Finance are for it. The Minister of National Defence wants to put the army in charge of the negotiations. What is the world coming to?

Does the Prime Minister not consider this matter important enough for the House to vote on it and give the government a clear indication of the position to take with regard to this sensitive matter?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is an opposition day next week; the Bloc Quebecois could use that day for a debate in the House of Commons.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

There is one this week.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

There is one this week. They can hold a debate this week. They need only ask the House to debate the matter. They will want to talk about other things when they really could be getting answers.

Foreign Affairs

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting situation when the so-called gang of four in Europe, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, are now planning on opening up headquarters just down the street from NATO as they continue with their plan to divide NATO. The British prime minister has come out clearly in opposition to this plan.

Why is it that our Prime Minister will not speak strongly as being opposed to this division in NATO? Is it because he is supporting the Chirac plan?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said in the House last week that I am for a strong, united NATO, but as usual the hon. member did not listen.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he still will not say he opposes France's plan, so no help for Europe.

Let us try Asia. Yesterday the federal Liberals overruled their own members on the foreign affairs committee and all opposition parties by stomping on Taiwan's simple request for observer status at the World Health Organization.

European parliamentarians, U.S. parliamentarians and others recognize this has nothing to do with the one China policy. They have rallied to support Taiwan, but yesterday with the SARS situation still looming, the Liberals slammed the health window shut on Taiwan's face.

Why does the Prime Minister support the Palestinian authority having observer status at the World Health Organization but not Taiwan? Why not support Taiwan?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as every member in the House knows, this was a procedural matter that came before the House. It was deferred into House business under the leadership of the House leader and I am confident it will be dealt with.

The hon. member knows very well that Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and cannot have full membership at the WHO. Canada has always supported Taiwan's ability to get the information. The problem here is that Taiwan will get no more help in the world if it is up to these members, because they will not listen to anything and they will not give anybody else a chance to explain anything.

St. Lawrence Waterway

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is increasingly withdrawing from maintenance operations in the St. Lawrence waterway. Its tendency to download the costs onto marine carriers is eroding the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence River and jeopardizing the survival of the ports.

Will the Minister of Transport not admit that the federal government's withdrawal is making it practically impossible for ports along the St. Lawrence River to compete with ports such as Halifax and that, ultimately, this strategy is compromising the very existence of St. Lawrence ports?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker, and I think that our seaways have challenges for the future. We may have to invest or reinvest in seaways, but I think that this government's policy on seaway marketing has been successful.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, downloading the St. Lawrence maintenance costs to shipowners is tantamount to downloading snow removal and road maintenance costs to truck drivers, with the effect we can imagine.

Does the minister intend to continue anyway and keep overcharging the shipowners, who may abandon St. Lawrence ports for those on the American east coast, for instance?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of challenges facing the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is an aging structure and obviously there has to be some reinvestment, but certainly the commercialization has worked. Costs have come down. There are problems faced by the shipowners. Certainly there are all manner of things that should be explored, including charges that the shipping companies have to bear.

All of these matters are under discussion. I would invite the hon. member to raise his concerns at the transport committee which has a subcommittee studying this very issue.

Agriculture

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, amazing but true, cruise ship companies whose food shipments failed to meet the agriculture minister's new labelling requirements “will be required to remove the product immediately from Canada”. Well, duh, that is exactly what they want to do and it is exactly what they have been doing for the last 20 Alaska cruise seasons. What would be the point of leaving the food sitting on the dock?

I wonder if the minister realizes that these ridiculous new rules of his have already driven some cruise ships to relocate to Seattle.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

No, Mr. Speaker. If we look at all meat products for human consumption in every area of federal responsibility, and cruise ships in particular, these products must comply with food inspection regulations. That is in the public interest.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, cruise lines will have to pay $68 plus GST for the minister's inspectors to make one of two decisions: either the food is labelled correctly and it can leave Canada; or the food is labelled incorrectly and it must leave Canada. If the minister cannot see the folly of this ridiculous situation, he needs to visit Vancouver and watch the cruise ships come and go for awhile, that is if there are any left.

I ask again, when is the minister going to put a stop to this ridiculous and unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense from his department?

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

It is a matter of food safety, Mr. Speaker. I think that all foods imported into Canada must be inspected before they are consumed by the public.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

A few weeks ago, the minister toured the Wellington detention centre with the member for Guelph—Wellington and myself. Can the minister tell us how negotiations with the province are progressing to find space to house those citizens posing a security risk?