Debates of Nov. 29th, 2004

National Defence

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For almost two years the Prime Minister has suggested that he favours missile defence, but on the other hand, he is opposed to weapons in space. This is despite all the factual evidence regarding the linkage of these two. It is a kind of voluntary ignorance that we are dealing with here.

Will the Prime Minister take the occasion of his meetings with the President to ask why the U.S. missile defence agency has put in its budget request the request for weaponization of space?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, given that the preamble of the hon. member's question is without factual substance, it is rather hard to answer the question. Although as has just been said, what is new?

We are opposed to the weaponization of space. There are obviously discussions in terms of research and development and in terms of various other options. As those are continued, the government will monitor the situation.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussing the defence shield at the same time as opposing weapons in space is a little like considering eating a Big Mac and suggesting that a person is a vegetarian. It is just simply not possible.

There are other reasons to say no to the missile defence shield. This project is anything but a multilateral initiative. It is the starting signal for the next arms race. People do not want to be part of George Bush's arsenal.

Tomorrow, will he simply say no to George Bush regarding the missile defence shield?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear. We are well aware that we have a defence system with NORAD. Canada has always done its part, has always been responsible and shared responsibility for the defence of the North American continent.

As regards the missile defence shield, we are having discussions with the United States. We have established a number of criteria, including the non-weaponization of space, Canada's sovereignty, and the integrity of our territory. Discussions will also take place here, and a vote will even be held in Parliament. Hon. members will then have the opportunity to express their views.

However, there is no pressure on the part of the White House at this point. We will take—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, by giving out political favours to strippers and campaign workers the immigration minister is undermining the immigration system. It is an affront to the more than 700,000 legitimate immigrants waiting for the processing of their applications. The wait for family class immigrants is 53 months and growing.

Would the immigration minister tell us what we should tell legitimate immigrants when they come crying to MPs' offices?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, there is a temporary worker program that is put in place when there is a need for workers. We do it for farm workers and this is done every year.

We cannot mix that up with the immigration process or the refugee process. There are clear processes. The minister has followed the process and there is absolutely nothing wrong. She has referred it to the Ethics Commissioner. Let him do his job.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as an immigrant to this country, I know first-hand how difficult and trying it can be. The fact that the minister of immigration is handing out free passes for working on her campaign is outrageous. Imagine how people would feel if individuals jumped ahead of them in the queue because they stuffed envelopes for a couple of afternoons in the minister's campaign office.

On behalf of the 700,000 people waiting patiently in line and as an immigrant myself, will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and ask the minister to resign immediately?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, all members in this House know that there is a process. Many members in this House have applied to the minister on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Some of them have been given it and others have not. It is done on merit on a case by case basis. The minister has referred this particular case to the Ethics Commissioner. I do not understand why we will not let him do his job.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister's actions are hypocritical. She says she's against importing women into Canada to work demeaning jobs, but then says it is okay. She says she is the minister of hope and dreams, but is allowing 700,000 immigrants to languish in the queue while she rewards her campaign workers.

Will the Prime Minister admit she has failed as an immigration minister and fire her?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rather feel like a cracked record, but I will repeat again.

There is a process. The minister followed the process. Any of these cases are done on merit on a case by case basis. The minister gave the details of this case and she has referred this particular problem to the Ethics Commissioner. Let him do his job.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, letter after letter to newspapers over the weekend voice the outrage Canadians feel over this government's unfair immigration policies. Liberal promotion of favouritism and queue jumping has angered immigrants and their families. The Prime Minister must know that all the actions of his immigration minister have upset all Canadians and not just recent immigrants.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, restore integrity and fairness to the immigration system, and fire the minister?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister has worked very hard on behalf of immigrants. She has worked very hard on behalf of refugees and she has worked very hard to build up the substantive structure of the immigration department so that it can welcome people to this country.

The reason we have an Ethics Commissioner is to deal with these questions. It was the immigration minister herself who took the responsibility of referring this to the Ethics Commissioner. That is how she should have acted. I would suggest to the hon. member opposite that she should act the way that an hon. member ought to and allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his job.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the mad cow crisis is hurting Quebec farmers. After 18 months of the U.S. ban on our cattle, it is high time this matter was resolved.

Does the Prime Minister intend to take the opportunity of President Bush's visit to Canada to tell him that we consider it completely unwarranted to close the border to all cattle because of one cow in Alberta 18 months ago?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we have been making the point to the Americans on an ongoing basis that we believe we should have access to the U.S. market. In fact, we have had almost 160 separate interventions. We were very pleased last week when President Bush informed the Prime Minister that the rule change had moved out of the USDA and into the OMB with a specific timeline attached to that process.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has confirmed that the American President may announce the end of the American embargo on Canadian beef within a six month period. Announcing a timeline is all very well, but the farmers have to live in the meantime.

In addition to this timeline, will the Prime Minister be announcing temporary aid measures to help farmers get through this crisis?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House in answering questions from the Bloc in the last couple of weeks, we provided over $366 million through business risk management to producers in Quebec.

As the hon. member has pointed out to me and others, there is a very specific problem in terms of the cull cows. We are working with the province of Quebec, and producers in Quebec and elsewhere to address that. The long term solution, of course, is to build increased slaughter capacity and we announced funds for that initiative on September 10.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 15 the Government of the United States decided to impose countervailing duties of up to 15% on imports of live hogs from Canada.

Does the Prime Minister intend to explain to President Bush that these duties are unjustified and that Canada does not want another interminable conflict like the softwood lumber issue?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may know that when the Americans brought an action against the Canadian government in terms of a countervail, a ruling clearly indicated that was not the case. The decision found in favour of Canada and no countervail was put in place.

In terms of the anti-dumping, we have been working with the industry, and in particular through our embassy in the United States, to indicate clearly that such an action is not only not in the best interests of Canadian producers, it is in fact not in the interests of American producers as well. We have been making that case to the Americans on an ongoing basis.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, John Block, former U.S. secretary of agriculture, has called these duties totally unjustified and said that Canadian exports do not harm American production.

Does the Prime Minister intend to tell President Bush that these duties harm not only Canadian farmers but American farmers as well, because a number of them buy their feedlot stock from Canada?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I just said. I absolutely agree with the member. We will continue to make that point to the Americans.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals no longer know which end is up. On the one hand we have the minister defending her program for attracting exotic dancers to an industry she claims to want to encourage, and on the other hand we have her shedding crocodile tears on the degradation of sex trade workers.

Can the Prime Minister get his act together and tell us whether he will be putting an immediate end to all programs that are degrading to Canada's image and to the women of Canada?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that CIC does not have a program to facilitate the entrance of exotic dancers. In this particular instance, the minister followed the rules for temporary visas on a case by case basis.

It is interesting that with so many issues in a minority government for the official opposition to work with in the House, issues of policy that are of real concern to Canadians, I wonder why it is not interested in those issues that are of interest to Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, she says that there is no such program. Five minutes ago the Prime Minister said the program was under review. Which is it? Then she says that it is not important. There is nothing more important than fairness and integrity in government, and that is seriously in question because of the minister's action.

I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not at least suspend his minister for having favoured a campaign worker, a minister whose chief of staff has tried to fast track strippers into the country? Rather than defending the indefensible, why will he not fire the minister?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the department does soundings. There is no official program. It does soundings of areas where people are needed. It is no longer doing those soundings. It is over. That was a decision that has been taken.

As far as the minister is concerned, she has worked very hard for immigrants. She has worked very hard for refugees and immigrant settlement. This matter is with the Ethics Commissioner. That is why we have an independent Ethics Commissioner. Why will the hon. member opposite not accept the fact that these things--