Debates of Nov. 29th, 2004

Citizenship and Immigration

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

Agriculture

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised Canadians on national television to expect a happy surprise tomorrow when the President of the United States will announce a fixed date for reopening the border to Canadian cattle. Yet at the same time, officials from his own government were downplaying expectations. Canadian ranchers, feedlot operators, dairy producers, truckers and their families will not appreciate game playing from this government.

If there is no announcement of a fixed date for the opening of the border, will the minister himself apologize to Canadians for irresponsible management of the Canada-U.S. relations file?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the answer to an earlier question, what in fact took place last week was an announcement by the President informing the Prime Minister that the rule that is necessary to be put in place to make a change was passed from the USDA to the Office of Management and Budget. That process has a set time period to it, 90 days, and that clock has begun to run. Once that is completed, there are 60 days in which it can be implemented.

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We will hear many fancy words tomorrow from the Prime Minister and his ministers, but the reality is that the U.S. President is making his first visit to Canada, its largest trading partner, at the end of his term. There is no better proof of Liberal failure to build this critical relationship.

Will the Prime Minister apologize to Canadian livestock producers, dairy farmers, their families and communities for taking 18 months of their suffering to get the President's attention to BSE?

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

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the case. We have been actively engaged with the Americans since May 2003 to open the border. In fact, we saw after 100 days the opening of the border to certain muscle cuts that could go to the United States. That was very helpful to the industry. Through that period of time we have had four separate programs to assist our producers in dealing with the BSE issue and we continue to work with the Americans. Last week's announcement in terms of the rule change is evidence of that.

Interprovincial bridges

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 2004, NCC president Marcel Beaudry wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning the need for new interprovincial bridges in the national capital region.

This has been a topic of discussion by federal, provincial and municipal authorities for years now. A preliminary study as far back as 1995 confirmed the need for additional interprovincial transportation infrastructures by 2010.

A detailed environmental assessment should make it possible to confirm the definitive locations of these interprovincial bridges.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether the federal government has confirmed, or will confirm shortly, its—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, several planning studies in the past have identified that there will soon be a lack of sufficient peak interprovincial crossing capacity in the national capital region. Consequently, a number of possible corridors for new interprovincial crossings have been identified and appropriate environmental assessments will take place. I can assure the House that the Government of Canada is committed to working with other levels of government to enhance interprovincial transportation capacity.

Softwood Lumber

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada and the U.S. have been without an agreement on softwood lumber for almost four years. NAFTA panels have told the U.S. to halt its duties three times. The minister called the WTO's March 2004 decision on softwood a major victory. I am having trouble finding the major victory on softwood. The duties are still being paid and the workers are not.

Can the minister tell us why the free trading Liberals and the free trading White House cannot get any trade on Canadian softwood?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have incredible trade in softwood, over $7 billion a year going to the United States.

The problem is that we have a trade dispute going on with the United States right now. As we have said many times, we keep winning at the WTO, we keep winning at the NAFTA, and the United States keeps coming back with new measures against us. We are going to continue to fight these measures. We are going to continue to win. We will also continue to be ready to negotiate a settlement that could lead us to free trade.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should take that victory to the workers in our communities who are still not working.

As members know, President Bush will be in Ottawa tomorrow. Last week the WTO condemned the Byrd amendment and opened the door for Canada to retaliate if the U.S. government gives one cent of softwood duties paid by our industry to U.S. forestry companies.

When he meets with the President, will the minister call for the President to dump the Byrd amendment, immediately remove the illegal duties, and cut a cheque dated Wednesday morning payable to the Canadian softwood industry for $3.7 billion?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member that we have to fight the Byrd amendment. We have made this very clear to the United States. That is why we have announced retaliatory measures which could total up to $5 billion.

Justice

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Provincial Police along with Canadian and American border officials spent a year tracking Canadian produced marijuana. They determined that because of lax Canadian drug sentences, marijuana is being produced here in copious amounts and being traded across the border for cocaine which is flooding Canadian streets.

In the wake of this new evidence, does the government still intend to further ease restrictions on marijuana with the understanding that cocaine will come with it?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, our approach with regard to marijuana reform is that marijuana is illegal and will remain illegal. The reference to decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use will bring about better and more effective law enforcement, will discourage the use of marijuana, and there will be less cross-border concerns in that regard.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with 25,000 Ontario grow houses currently flooding the U.S. with marijuana, the U.S. ambassador has expressed that the Liberal government's relaxing of drug laws could make Canada-U.S. border problems even worse. While Liberals play to marijuana growers, $1 million per minute of cross-border trade is at stake.

Why is the government jeopardizing Canadian exports to the U.S. and Canadian jobs with its reckless drug policy?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member put that question because I met recently with Ambassador Cellucci who said that the cross-border relationship and cooperation with respect to law enforcement is a model not only for our two countries, but internationally.

Child Pornography

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

For years we have been telling the Liberals that Canadians want minimum sentences for people who deal in child pornography. Up until now the minister and his party have been attacking us and thwarting the will of Canadians. Now we see in today's paper that the minister is willing to consider minimum sentences.

What brought about this conversion? What minimum sentence is the minister proposing?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the transcripts of Hansard and not just read newspaper reports, he would appreciate that I answered a question as to whether I would be open if the parliamentary committee came to a recommendation regarding minimum sentencing. I said that in the spirit of democratic renewal I would be open to considering recommendations.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sentencing is not the only thing wrong with that legislation. The minister knows that the artistic merit defence has a loophole that lawyers could drive a truck through.

Now that the minister is beginning to admit he was wrong on sentencing, will he do the right thing and drop the undue risk of harm defence and really start protecting Canadian children?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we did not get it wrong on sentencing, nor did we get it wrong on artistic defence. We are following the principles set down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Unlike the hon. member, I have a responsibility to protect against child pornography and certify that the legislation is in compliance with the charter. That is what I have done.

Mirabel Airport

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Transport said that the return of 11,000 acres of land in Mirabel was threatening Bombardier's future development. The company has enough space for its future plans since it is using only a third of the 104 acres it is currently leasing at Mirabel, not to mention the several hundred acres available for possible expansion.

In this context, how can the Minister of Transport use the excuse of Bombardier's future development to refuse to return the 11,000 acres of land at Mirabel?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Bombardier plan for construction of its C series is one of the many plans under consideration for the future development of Mirabel. We have confidence in Mirabel's future, in industry or in cargo and we do not want to limit the future.

This is why the lease signed by the Conservatives was for 60 years. We are going to respect this signature and do everything possible to promote the development of Mirabel, whether in terms of industry or of cargo or of any other project. Four proposals are currently under consideration at ADM for the future development of Mirabel—

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the Minister of Transport to persist, but what does he have to say when James Cherry, CEO of ADM, says:

Bombardier already has an option to expand its plant and use more space around Mirabel, but this property is not in the 11,000 acres.

In light of this statement, does the minister still take the same position?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have always known that the plans for the Bombardier plant did not necessarily involve farmland. In fact, that is why the farmers were offered the use of this land until 2023. I did not think this land would be taken away from them before then.

We have offered the current farmers—139 of them—use of this land until 2023. However, we want to protect the future, because we believe in the future of Mirabel and of Bombardier. That is what we are focussing on, not on trying to shrink Mirabel or destroy future plans.