Debates of Nov. 5th, 2004

National Defence

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a poll shows that 65% of Quebeckers are opposed to the missile defence shield. However, the Minister of National Defence said that, personally, he would prefer that the House vote on this issue after, rather than before an agreement is signed.

How does the minister explain that he will not respect the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, to the effect that there should be a vote in the House of Commons before the government makes a final decision on the missile defence shield?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government's commitment, as reflected in the throne speech, is that, indeed, the House will have an opportunity to vote on this issue, and the government fully intends to respect this commitment.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of National Defence realize that, not only he is not respecting the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne, but he is also not taking into consideration the opinion of Quebeckers and he will pay a political price in Quebec, because he stubbornly refuses to have a vote on the missile defence shield?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the question is the same as the previous one put by the hon. member.

The government fully intends to respect the commitment made, namely to have the House vote on this issue in due course.

Child Care

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Minister Claude Béchard of Quebec reaffirmed his position that the federal government should hand over the funding earmarked for child care with no strings attached. The Minister of Social Development, on the other hand, felt it was too soon to be talking money; he was still at the stage of discussing principles.

When the minister says it is too soon, are we to take it that he is questioning the Prime Minister's commitments and that there will be strings attached to the money that goes to Quebec for child care?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Béchard said earlier, the question of funding was not discussed at the meeting and this was the beginning of a process. There will be another meeting in January. All the provinces will be at that meeting, and Quebec will be at that meeting as well.

We had great success in September with the health accord, and I am convinced we will be able to find an agreement with the government of Quebec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the meeting at the beginning of the week with the ministers responsible for child care was about principles. Quebec's position is clear: an unconditional right to opt out with full compensation. That is one principle.

Can the minister make a commitment to retain that principle in the planned program for child care in Quebec?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same answer to the same question: that as Monsieur Béchard said, the question of funding was not discussed and there will be another meeting in January and all the provinces will be there. I am convinced that as we did in September we will be able to find an agreement with the Government of Quebec.

Crown Corporations

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 15, the President of the Treasury Board announced new rules pertaining to the appointment process for the top executives of crown corporations. Yet in a letter sent to Canada Post executives, the minister outlined a remarkably different process to replace the much maligned chair of Canada Post.

Canadians are tired of cronyism at crown corporations, yet the President of the Treasury Board ensured that cronyism flourished when he allowed his rules to be broken. Why did the President of the Treasury Board covertly instruct crown corporations to follow a weaker set of rules?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have 46 crowns that range in size from Canada Post, which is a $6 billion a year corporation, to a parking garage in Toronto. The reality is that we have to have a range of solutions for them. What works for one does not work for the other.

As far as the issue of Mr. Feeney goes, if the member reads the testimony or the comments of his own members before that committee, they went to some length to state the excellent qualifications he had.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, it is “highly irresponsible” for the member for Mississauga--Erindale “to say things that are so clearly detrimental to our interests. She's done this several times”. Its president says to “put her out of caucus”.

The head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives says:

The real issue is that she's allowed to get away with it. The Prime Minister is the chief and yes, it's his fault. The buck stops with him....He should dump her.

When will the Prime Minister show some leadership and remove her from caucus?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that the Prime Minister has stated without reservation that the comments of the member in question do not represent the views of this government. They do not represent the views of our caucus.

Indeed, I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the House, all ministers and caucus members, have worked hard with our counterparts in the United States. Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to the vice-president, Mr. Cheney. I have invited him to come to Canada for an official visit. I think it is fair to say that our relations--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vegreville-Wainwright.

Agriculture

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has stood by and watched for months now as the top brass at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have prevented the Blue Mountain packing plant from opening. Cattlemen desperately need this plant. It is ready to go. Inspectors on the ground have said so. The government continues to be part of the problem instead of the solution.

In fact, how many plants has the CFIA approved in western Canada in the 18 months since the BSE crisis hit? The answer is none. Why is that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of the issue the hon. member talks about. In fact, I have talked to some of the investors who are involved. CFIA has a job to do and that is the protection of food and safety and the security of food for Canadians and in terms of our exports. It has set up a process in which it will send an expert out to the plant on Monday to try to settle the issues on the ground, but the bottom line has to be the protection of the food and security of Canadians and in terms of our exports around the world.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of livestock producers in my riding and across this country are suffering from this Liberal government's complete failure to address the BSE crisis. It has consistently used the American election as an excuse for not challenging the border closure. With the U.S. election now over, this government can no longer stall in taking further action on the BSE crisis.

I ask the agriculture minister, why has this government refused to stand with producers by taking effective trade action through the WTO or NAFTA?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, if there has ever been a government that has stood with its producers on a tough issue, this is the government that has. Not only have we made 150 interventions with the Americans, with officials and regulatory authorities, we have actually, with the provinces, put $2.3 billion of ad hoc programming on top of the regular safety nets for producers.

We recognize that there is a difficult situation out there and we are working with producers to cure it. We are trying to increase the slaughter capacity. We are trying to improve the market with the fed and feeder set-aside programs and--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Ottawa South.

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell us his reaction to this action by the Russian president, which represents a crucial step for Russia and makes it possible for the protocol to take effect next year?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Canada wishes to congratulate the Russian president. Canada has played a key role in the design and negotiations leading to the Kyoto protocol, and ratified it with pride, as a good world citizen. With the Russian ratification of the protocol, which will be taking effect shortly, Canada is more determined than ever to implement the protocol and do its share for the sake of our planet and our children's future.

Transport

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Currently security clearance policies are under development with the marine facilities restricted access program. Longshore workers who are suspected of being associated with a criminal organization, suspected of being associated with the misuse of port facilities, or suspected of having been associated with anyone who has done those things could be denied clearance to work.

Will the minister abandon this course and ensure reasonable security considerations based on actual criminal convictions and not mere suspicions about a worker's character?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are developing this process for background checks. We want to make sure our ports are secure. We will do whatever we have to do to make sure that the personnel working in those installations are of good background and in good standing. We are consulting with the unions. I want to report to the House that I met the president of the Teamsters, for example, and he assured me that his members are going to collaborate with this background checking. We are very happy that this file is progressing very well.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, rather than treating all workers as potential criminals, the minister should deal with criminal activity that actually occurs.

This proposal includes other questionable requirements. Workers will have to report their complexion, their past travel outside of Canada, and information on their spouse and even their in-laws. Denial can lead to loss of their job. The only appeal is to the minister himself. Will the minister immediately withdraw this proposal and go back to the drawing board for a plan that respects and protects the basic rights of Canadian workers?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has to realize that we are working at the drawing board right now. What we are trying to do is make sure that the ports in Canada are safe and secure. We are going to work at it, but we are not going to protect any criminals that would be working and putting Canada's security at risk. We are not going to accept that at our ports.

We are working at it. We are at the drawing board and we will make sure that we protect our borders and our ports. Perhaps the hon. member does not like it, but we have to make sure that we have a safe process, and we will get it.

Agriculture

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, beef producers devastated by the BSE disaster are being forced to decide whether or not they can afford to sign up for the CAIS program before the November 30 deadline. This government has made participation in CAIS a condition for receiving portions of the BSE aid money announced in September.

This government is forcing beef producers to pony up the dough in order to access disaster relief and it is clearly imposing hardship on producers. My question is for the agriculture minister or his designate. What will he do to help farmers who cannot afford to enroll in the CAIS program? And when will he commit to getting rid of the cash deposit?