House of Commons Hansard #11 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government indicates that it will pursue its efforts to open the U.S. border to Canadian beef and resolve the mad cow crisis. Far from reopening, the U.S. border is once again being closed, this time to Quebec and Canadian pork producers.
What does the government intend to do so that pork producers do not quickly find themselves in the same difficult situation as cattle producers?
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, in anticipation that there may be a problem, I met with my provincial colleagues a month ago. We had some very in-depth discussions about this issue. I will be meeting again with relevant ministers on Friday to continue the discussion on the types of actions we may want to contemplate. In addition to that, I will be meeting with representatives from the industry next week and we will also be having a discussion about the appropriate measures that we ought to be taking.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is time for action, not empty rhetoric. As regards this specific issue, the Minister of International Trade cannot even rise to tell us what type of actions he can take regarding the pork issue.
Will the government admit that swift and energetic action must immediately be taken and that the Prime Minister himself should meet with the President of the United States immediately after the American election, to ask him to put an end to this protectionist attitude of our neighbours in all areas?
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the most important issue in this respect is to make sure that we assist the producers in the challenges they face. As the Minister of Agriculture, I am very much committed to ensuring that takes place. Part of the strategic approach, of course, is to deal with the issues the Americans have brought forward. We do not believe they are justified and we will certainly, within the power and purview of the federal government, take the appropriate action.
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, while the Americans continue to hurt our trade in connection with softwood lumber, mad cow disease, and now pork, the Government of Canada is doing nothing and showing its lack of backbone in the matter of textiles.
How can the Government of Canada justify not even applying the provisions available under the WTO and refusing to put any measures in place to protect the textile industry, by imposing temporary limits on the importation of fibres already being produced in Canada?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, as everyone is aware, we have already given the industry over $50 million to help it solve its problems. Obviously, protective measures can still be put in place against Chinese imports.
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, all too often, the textiles that compete with our products come from countries where child labour is exploited.
Will the government admit that, if Canada were today a signatory to the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization, it could at least intervene to get these countries to cease these practices and thus provide our textile industry with somewhat better protection against this disguised dumping?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important point. I met yesterday with the Retail Council of Canada. It has adopted standards to ensure that issues such as child labour are dealt with and that Canadian importers do not bring those materials into Canada. If that is being done, we certainly want to know about it because we do not want the products of child labour in our country.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, on the leadership hustings, the Prime Minister vowed “We will put an end to cronyism”, which brings us to a certain $17 million grant to an industry group, which, it just so happens, hired a senior member of the Prime Minister's transition team to head its government relations, Ruth Thorkelson. The money from the grant was used to pay her an additional $15,000 on top of her regular salary.
Is it not true that she succeeded in getting the $17 million grant because she was so close to the Prime Minister?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, that is utter nonsense. The reason FPAC was funded is that softwood lumber is so important to all Canadians: 250,000 jobs, an $11 billion industry. We are going to support that industry and we will continue to.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, other valued industry groups are not so lucky in the grant department, are they?
The Prime Minister is sending the alarming message that one's best bet to get a government grant is to hire Liberal cronies and reward them handsomely for their Liberal connections. Canadians call that cronyism and it destroys fairness.
Why is the Prime Minister playing the same old cronyism game after he absolutely promised that he would clean things up?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, FPAC is the primary voice for the forest products industry in Canada. We are supporting the forest products industry and we will continue to do so.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Prime Minister said that anyone who knows anything that could help shed light on the sponsorship scandal should come forward and not be compelled to do so as they will. We have learned that somebody from his office called Gagliano's office to secure $1.2 million in financing and the man who controls that company raised $1 million for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign.
He can run but he cannot hide. Will the Prime Minister tell us who in his office made that call, or did he make that call?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, it would not be responsible of us to comment on the day by day, play by play testimony in front of an independent judicial inquiry because today's testimony could be contradicted by next week's testimony. It will only be when Justice Gomery tables his whole report that Canadians will have the truth on the sponsorship issue.
We are looking forward to that report. I would urge the hon. member, if he has information, to submit it to Justice Gomery, because his party has intervenor status at those hearings.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the following is what the minister said about his boss last year:
He is hesitant, timid, risk-adverse...he runs from a debate, he does not want to take a stand on anything...That is how shallow he really is.
How true he was. I guess that explains why the Prime Minister will not stand in his place.
The Prime Minister said “There had to be political direction. I don't know who it was”. Now we do know. It came from the Prime Minister or it came from his office. Which was it? Was he complicit or was he incompetent? Who gave the political direction from his office?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why those people are so bitter over there. They have not had a good line since I left.
The fact is I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister as he works to improve openness and transparency of government and cooperate with an independent judicial inquiry that he himself set up because he is not afraid of the truth. Our party and our government are not afraid of the truth. I would urge similar courage over there.
Marc Godbout Liberal Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Residents in Ottawa—Orléans have expressed their concern to me about the delays of reaching an agreement with the Public Service Alliance Commission. I understand that we have reached tentative agreements.
Could the minister tell the House why it is taking so long to ratify these agreements?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the public servants who worked so hard to get us to this point. They worked into the Thanksgiving weekend and today they are preparing the documents necessary to distribute to all of the members of PSAC so they can have all the information before they participate in this vote.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled her annual report. She said that the Liberal government was slow in implementing the action plan for official languages. This is a five-year plan, and we have already lost a year. We have to ask ourselves whether this government truly respects the Official Languages Act.
My question is for the Minister responsible for Official Languages. When will the government seriously take steps to implement its action plan?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the government is very serious about implementing the action plan for official languages. The Speech from the Throne, moreover, is proof of the government's willingness to fully implement the action plan. This action plan has been in place for a year and a half. Many departments have implemented it admirably, but others still have some more work to do. I look forward to tomorrow, when we vote on the Speech from the Throne, to hear every member in this House give their support to the action plan. The House can be sure that the government will implement it.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is reported that the U.K. has reached a deal with George Bush to place interceptor missiles on British soil.
It is time the government stopped pretending that participation in BMD will cost us nothing and will not involve missiles on Canadian soil.
Before any decision is made to participate in Bush's missile madness, will the government assure Canadians that they will have their say through cross-country hearings and that no vote will take place in Parliament until after those public hearings have been held?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the committee will decide what it decides to do in terms of the hearings. I will not begin to run the committees of Parliament. It will be up to the committee to decide. We have committed to a discussion and now a vote in Parliament, so there will be an opportunity to do this.
We have a responsibility as a government to pursue the dialogue with the Americans. We are talking here about the security of our continent. We will not disengage from this most important dialogue on the fundamental issue of the defence of North America.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Lanark, ON
Mr. Speaker, underfunding by the Liberals has left defence in dire straits. There are not enough people to do the jobs, equipment is rusting out, airplanes do not fly and trucks do not move. It takes 10 years to get used submarines in service.
Will the minister explain why the government is investing less in the military today than it did 10 years ago?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in the House last week, some $10 billion of new money has been invested in the military since 1999. Commitments have been made under the instructions of the Prime Minister of some $7 billion for important equipment purchases, including new maritime helicopters, sea-going ships, a mobile gun and other important equipment.
The House and the committee will have an opportunity to review our defence review. As members of the House, we will have an opportunity to review this, but the army, the navy and the air force are being equipped by the government to do the job we ask them to do.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Lanark, ON
Mr. Speaker, one of the severe consequences of chronic underfunding is the decay of the defence infrastructure. The prime example is married quarters. There are thousands across the country, the bulk of which are over 50 years old. A very large number are substandard, needing immediate refurbishment or replacement.
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that he will invest what it takes to ensure that sailors, soldiers and aviators do not live in slums?