Debates of Oct. 14th, 2004

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the government is currently reviewing the Patriot Act and looking at our own privacy legislation. As the member knows, we have quite a complete legislative regime to protect the privacy of Canadians. I will be meeting with the Privacy Commissioner shortly to determine the impact of the Patriot Act on Canadian information and we will take action following that.

Noranda Inc.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs are dependent upon the mines and smelters of Noranda and Falconbridge, yet the minister refuses to have this takeover examined by the industry committee.

Vague promises are not good enough for the people of northern Canada. I ask the hon. minister to tell us what concrete steps will be taken to review the sale of Canadian copper and nickel resources to the government of China.

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we do not at this time have an application to review under the Investment Canada Act. When we do, we will review whether that acquisition of a Canadian company is in the interests of Canadians, whether it generates net benefits to Canadians and whether it is consistent with the industrial and economic policies of Canada.

Canadian Heritage

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week again, the heritage minister, no doubt in the interests of transparency, told us that her predecessor had to take a $55,000 government jet to Banff to give a campaign speech because “she flew in and out”.

New information has revealed that the minister misled the House. It turns out that Hélène Scherrer filed an accommodation expense to stay overnight in Banff. It seems she was not in such a big hurry after all.

Why did the minister mislead the House about the infamous Challenger flight and why did her predecessor not save taxpayers $50,000 by flying commercial to give her campaign speech?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, talking about misleading the House, yesterday opponents were saying that the minister never talked about policies but only made a partisan speech.

The minister said, talking about the CRTC, “They have also developed policies to ensure that we have a strong and vibrant broadcasting system that is competitive with any system in the world. The government and the CRTC have developed policies like Bill C-56 and simultaneous substitutions” and “have greatly benefited our industry”. That was what the speech was all about: defending our culture, the CRTC and broadcasting.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for quoting from the speech. I also could quote from the speech, but why do I not quote from Variety magazine of that day, which suggested that “Minister of Canadian Heritage Hélène Scherrer took up the invitation at the last minute to use Banff to trumpet her party...” and make a “nakedly political speech”.

I ask again, why did the minister have to take a flight at the last minute? Did she mislead the House as to when the invitation was accepted?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Again, Mr. Speaker, that is an editorial comment.

I will continue. She said, “Opening skies to American satellites would essentially destroy the system we have worked so hard to build. We would not only--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The minister has been asked a question. She has to be given an opportunity to answer. Whether hon. members like the answer is another matter. The question was asked. The minister has her opportunity to reply. We are going to have to grin and bear it inside us.

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I have a question for my distinguished opponents, Mr. Speaker. Do they agree with this? “Opening skies to American satellites would essentially destroy the system that we have worked so hard to build. We would not only lose our private broadcasting companies and all the people they employ, but producers, writers, directors, artists and technicians would all face significant job losses as fewer and fewer Canadian programs are being made”.

Do they agree with that, yes or no?

Broadcasting Industry

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Liberal MPs promised that RAI International, an Italian television station, would be made available in Canada. In fact, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated at a rally in Montreal that the Prime Minister himself would approve speedy access to RAI.

It is yet another broken promise. Why is the government refusing to allow consumer choice and allow RAI and others to operate in Canada?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we acted within a legal way of acting. We had one report done by Mr. Lincoln, contributed to the discussion at the CRTC, but as members know, the CRTC is making its decision. It is an independent tribunal. We will have the decision before Christmas, would you believe?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. During the election, one of the Liberal members said, “If it is no for RAI, we will take care of it. We will make it happen”. Now they have put it off to a committee, a typical Liberal action.

The fact is, the Liberals tried to shut down CHOI-FM, they are considering throwing Spike TV out of Canada and they have imposed severe restrictions on Al Jazeera. They are not allowing RAI International. The real issue is that the Liberals do not want Canadians to have a choice when it comes to what they listen to on the radio or what they watch on TV.

Why are the Liberals not allowing Canadians the choice of what they can see on TV or listen to on the radio?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that my distinguished critic is up and applauding. As she knows, the CRTC is an independent tribunal and an arm's length body. Of course we cannot have any political use of that body, as everyone knows, unless the opposition wants to abolish the CRTC and would like to take on the issues by itself.

Softwood Lumber

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the Americans are going to appeal the August 31 NAFTA ruling in favour of Canada on softwood lumber.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that this new appeal means that the softwood lumber crisis will drag out even longer and that, if the industry is to survive this new assault, it is in greater need of assistance than ever?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, because softwood lumber is of vital importance to all Canadians.

As the hon. member has said, the Americans have indicated their intention to appeal the decision. We are already familiar with their stalling tactics, and we will continue to stand up to them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that any delay in implementing an aid package for the softwood lumber industry just keeps this industry, so vital to the regions of Quebec, in a precarious position? Does he realize that his inaction does nothing but reassure the U.S. authorities who are using this tactic to bring the softwood lumber industry to its knees, particularly in B.C. and Quebec?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, true, but the hon. member must acknowledge that we have already put $356 million into helping settle the softwood lumber crisis.

Canadian Heritage

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government appears to be confused. Last month the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that when she is at international meetings her Quebec better half can speak for her on Canadian cultural policy. She said, “Line can speak for both of us very well”. The heritage minister described this relationship as “a perfect marriage, if not a bit of incest”.

I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, can Quebec speak for Canada at international cultural forums?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would get interested in cultural diversity, it would know that we want the province's voice to concur with our voice and to give it strength on the international level.

On the subject of cultural diversity, we know that Quebec is our partner. We are also trying to work out a partnership with the other provinces. The fact is that Quebec and Canada are in perfect agreement on what position to take: sign a convention on cultural diversity by 2005, as per the time schedule established by—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously still confused. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is on record as saying that Quebec can speak for Canada on Canadian cultural policy, but her colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, have clearly contradicted her. They have said that Canada speaks as one voice.

I again ask the heritage minister, which is it? Can provinces speak for Canada at international cultural meetings? I want to know what the Minister of Canadian Heritage calls this policy. Is it asymmetrical federalism or asymmetrical Liberalism?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of Canada and speaking on behalf of all Canadians clearly is this government's responsibility. Canada will continue to speak with one voice internationally. We have the responsibility to make sure that that voice is enriched by all Canadians and by all jurisdictions.

Canada is stronger and better and makes the best contribution when it speaks with one voice, after of course making sure that it is enriched by all of our jurisdictions.

Fisheries

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Exploits, NL]

Mr. Speaker, public consultations are currently underway on the possible addition of Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic cod and the Laurentian North Atlantic cod to the list of species at risk. This could have undoubtedly an enormous impact on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Public consultations are currently only scheduled to take place during the day. This could be problematic for people at work who just cannot attend.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please inform the House if there will be any changes for the people affected?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's first question, this issue has been raised with me by a number of colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador, including the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

I share their concerns about the impact of a possible listing and I agree that all Newfoundlanders should have a chance to have their say at these meetings. Therefore I have instructed my department to hold some of these meetings during the evening hours and a new schedule will be released shortly.