Debates of Dec. 1st, 2004

National Defence

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we had a very successful visit yesterday by the President of the United States and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Indeed, we had exchanges of the utmost importance for the future of our continent that is really the envy of the world. We must continue to ensure that.

We will continue to be deeply interested in the defence and security of our continent. As to the participation in the ballistic missile defence system, this is a decision that will be made in due course in Canada after a vote in this House of Commons in the best interests of Canadians.

[The Speaker]

A very brief question from the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. No preambles, just the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, we already know the Prime Minister's cavalier attitude toward the flag. With the evidence now absolutely clear that this is weapons in space, will the Prime Minister simply say no and say no now?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government has always been very clear and we say an absolute no to the militarization of space. Our government has been clear on that and I repeat it in this House of Commons today.

As to the respect for the Canadian flag, our Prime Minister does not need to take any lessons from the NDP leader. We will stand for the Canadian flag as we stand for our country. We will continue to make decisions in Canada in the best interests of Canadians, but with a wide perspective.

Justice

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister frantically pushes his project to liberalize marijuana, health experts tell us that it is four times more toxic than tobacco. Neurologists tell us that it leads to long term cognitive decline. Police experts say that it will lead to increased criminal activity and driver impairment problems. Now trade experts tell us that it will lead to congestion at the borders and a loss of Canadian export jobs.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to push his pot project in the face of all this expert advice?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not a pot project. It is a prevention of pot project. I would like the hon. member to appreciate the elements in this prevention of pot law enforcement project: first, an alternate penalties framework; second, new offences to combat the grow ops; third, a renewed education strategy regarding the health hazards of marijuana; fourth, cross-border cooperation; and fifth, the whole approach with respect to both prevention and bringing to justice those who need to be brought to justice regarding marijuana.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, more access and less sanction do not equal prevention.

The Prime Minister really wants his legislation on marijuana, despite the fact that neurologists maintain that marijuana is a scourge and that it creates problems, that the police say it is linked to crime and now economic experts say it is responsible for lost jobs.

Why is the Prime Minister hiding behind an exotic smoke screen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I met yesterday with representatives of the Association of Chiefs of Police and I must say that my answer in French is the same as in English.

Sponsorship Program

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bernard Roy, chief counsel for the Gomery inquiry, says that some of the paperwork handed over by the Privy Council Office has been edited to delete sections relevant to the inquiry. On February 11 the Prime Minister told Canadians about ad scam, “the government will ensure that every single piece of information and every fact on this matter are made public”.

Given that the Liberals are hiding information, what happened to transparency and why is the Prime Minister hiding information from the Gomery inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, no one is hiding information here. Tens of thousands of documents have been provided to the Gomery commission. There may very well be procedural issues and questions that come up during the course of the hearings. We have seen this. Mr. Justice Gomery, along with legal counsel for all involved, will discuss those issues, and rulings will be made. This simply speaks to the fact that we should not spend our time questioning and assessing the daily activities of Gomery, but let the commission do its work and issue its report.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, either Bernard Roy is not telling the truth or the Liberals are not telling the truth. I think I know on whom I will put my money.

The Liberal government promised us that it would put everything before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and we believed it. The Liberals hid relevant information from the committee. Now, we are seeing that they are hiding information from the Gomery commission.

Why should we believe that the Gomery commission will do better than the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, if relevant documents are also hidden from it? What is the government hiding?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Gomery commission has tens of thousands of documents before it, provided by the government in an unprecedented act of openness. If there are procedural questions that arise at the inquiry, those will be dealt with by Mr. Justice Gomery.

I reject entirely the assertion by the hon. member that somehow the government is hiding anything. We are not.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that it will be another five to six months before the U.S. embargo on Canadian beef is definitively lifted. The UPA, the Government of Quebec and the Colbex slaughterhouse have done their part to find a solution to the crisis. The Canadian government is the only one dragging its feet.

Does the government intend to get down to business and work with these three stakeholders?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions in the House, there are a number of solutions that are being suggested. There is the long term solution, which is to create increased slaughter capacity in the province of Quebec in a competitive environment. We have announced support for that programming. Also, solutions have been suggested in terms of what the price of milk will be set at in the next few weeks. There is the issue of what the rule change will be in the United States and how that will impact the process in Quebec. There have been suggestions both in terms of direct payments as well as in terms of a minimum price.

We are discussing all those, both with producers and all provinces. In the words of a motion that will be in front of the House tomorrow, we intend to do this as soon as possible.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the government continue to maintain that it invested $366 million to deal with the cull cow crisis, when the UPA states, with figures to back it up, that only $90 million was actually received by the producers? This $90 million is a long way from $366 million.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of all programs that have been provided nationally, when they are fully expensed, they will be in the neighbourhood of some $2 billion; in Quebec, on business risk management, $366 million.

As I said to the hon. member on a number of occasions, there are some specific issues in specific sectors. We are determined, in working with all provinces and producers, to deal with those issues and to find solutions.

Sponsorship Program

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, counsel at the Gomery commission complained this morning about the government's lack of transparency. One of them, Bernard Roy, was exasperated and denounced the government's censorship and the secrecy about the use of the national unity fund.

Will the government, whose leader promised to get to the bottom of things, finally agree to cooperate with the Gomery commission by making public all the documents required by Bernard Roy, lead commission counsel? That is what transparency is all about, is it not?

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

Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is before the Gomery commission. We have turned over hundreds of thousands of documents so the Gomery commission can do its work.

Let me assure the hon. member that what needs to happen is that Mr. Justice Gomery be allowed to do his work and issue his report. Then we will all know what happened.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister publicly said, and I quote, “Anyone who knows anything that could help shed light in this area… should come forward and not wait to be compelled to do so as they will.”

How do we reconcile this statement with the fact that the government is purposely hiding information from the Gomery commission? The public wants the truth. Why is there such censorship?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Gomery commission has been given a very broad mandate so it can get on with its work, determine what happened and issue a report. I would hope that the hon. member would stop haranguing everyone and simply accept the fact that the Gomery commission has the powers needed to do its work. Let us get on with it.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are troubling inconsistencies in the immigration minister's story. First she said that she did not want to separate her campaign worker from her Canadian husband. Now she is forced to admit that separating couples is precisely what Liberal government policy demands in such cases.

Why did she not change the rules to make them fair for everyone rather than give a special permit to this one campaign worker?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on these issues. We continually review our policies. We are looking at a variety of them, as we move forward in the 21st century, to bring in an immigration framework in cooperation with the provinces.

The issue to which the member refers I referred to the Ethics Commissioner. Let us let the commissioner do his job and we will respond then.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of why the minister's excuses do not add up. She said that she decided to do her supporter a favour in order to rescue her from sexual exploitation. In the same breath, she argued that this woman was brought to Canada to fill a legitimate labour market need.

She certainly does not gain credibility by defending Liberal policies that bring young women in to work where they can be sexually exploited.

Is the minister's real problem that there is simply no way to justify the preferential treatment she gave to her campaign supporter?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is with the Ethics Commissioner, a very important person. People on the opposition benches also said that they wanted an Ethics Commissioner.

The Ethics Commissioner will respond, and I will answer at that time.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told us that the stripper program did not exist. The Prime Minister told us that it did exist but it was under review. The minister told us that it really was not about strippers after all.

The facts are this program does exist. It is degrading, insulting and it exploits women.

Why are women in such vulnerable positions being told that they should submit a nude photo of themselves in order to be accepted into the country?