House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
There seems to be a double standard in place at the immigration department, Mr. Speaker.
Why are the minister's campaign helpers not subject to the same process as other immigrant hopefuls? Why does this minister not accept responsibility for this mess and resign?
Judy Sgro LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight.
Members opposite continue to talk about the poor woman as a stripper as if she does not qualify because a stripper is not entitled to be protected by this country.
Let me set it straight here. This woman--
Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the minister's answer because of the noise. Order. The minister has the floor. She was asked a question and she is giving her answer and we will hear it. The minister has the floor.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, there continues to be all of these allegations that are completely unfounded and incorrect.
Let me set the record really straight here. This was a woman who was legally in Canada. She was legally married to a Canadian citizen.
All that went wrong was that her immigration consultant, which we now regulate under CSIC, did not do his proper job and did not send in her application. She came out of status and I assisted her.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, in a new dilatory measure, the American government has lodged an extraordinary challenge that will delay resolution of the interminable softwood lumber conflict yet again. Yesterday, the NAFTA panel confirmed that the countervailing duties imposed by the United States were unjustified.
Because the American President himself admits that the dispute settlement mechanism is too slow, why was the Prime Minister unable to get the United States to withdraw its challenge—a challenge that is a political decision?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the way that NAFTA is set up there are provisions for remands and there are provisions for extraordinary challenges.
The Prime Minister has quite rightly pointed out that there are a lot of delays in what is taking place. He has asked for ways to expedite the process so that there is finality and certainty to NAFTA decisions.
It was undertaken that these measures would be looked into.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, as the minister has just demonstrated, and in line with all other indications, the United States is delaying the end of this crisis in hopes that Canadian and Quebec producers will throw in the towel before the dispute ends. As the minister said, the American government is engaged in dilatory measures before NAFTA and the WTO.
Since the Prime Minister never succeeds in getting anything from President Bush, when, at least, will he shoulder his responsibilities and quickly announce the establishment of a real assistance plan for the industry, so that when this conflict is finally ended, there will still be a softwood lumber industry in Quebec and in Canada?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, we have already allocated $356 million to the workers and communities affected by the softwood lumber crisis and we shall continue to support them. At the same time, we shall continue our two part strategy, that is, negotiations and tribunals.
Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We are glad that the U.S. President finally came to Canada, but diplomacy by photo op will not get the job done, nor can our talented diplomats alone.
By my recollection, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has only been on one bilateral visit to the United States, last summer. The Minister of International Trade has not even been to Washington, nor has the Minister of Agriculture to deal specifically with the BSE crisis.
Will the Prime Minister finally make up for 10 lost years and order a strategic plan to make the relationship with the United States a political priority?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the government has been fully engaged on every trade file with the United States.
The Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister never lose an opportunity to raise it, whether in Santiago or wherever we meet with them in the world.
The member said that the foreign affairs minister has only been to Washington once in four months. I have met Secretary of State Powell numerous times, in Santiago at the APEC, in Sharm El-Sheikh at the G-8 meeting, with the Arab League we met in New York.
This is the way diplomacy functions nowadays. The government is fully engaged and raises these files every--
Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested surprise when President Bush pursued missile defence. Either the Prime Minister was playing a little coy or he was ill-prepared for this visit.
After waiting four years, the government was not ready to deliver the goods on issues that matter to Canadians. There was nothing on softwood, nothing on BSE and we remain as vulnerable as ever on our border.
Will the Prime Minister now make this a priority and send his ministers to build those relationships in Congress to get the border open?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have done a great deal more than that. Not only have the ministers been there, but as a result of an initiative of this government we have opened up a secretariat for parliamentarians to deal with Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, because that is in fact where a lot of the problems lie in terms of softwood and BSE.
We have done very well with the administration. We must recognize that under the American system of government we have to deal with Congress and the Senate. That is why we have taken the steps that we have.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On October 5, 2001, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and Teamsters Canada signed an agreement on the hours of service to be performed by truck drivers. Since then, the maximum is 14 hours, including 13 hours on the road. However, officials now want to review this policy and are proposing to increase the maximum up to 18 hours of service, which is totally irresponsible.
Will the minister protect the quality of life of truckers and our own safety on highways by upholding the 2001 agreement and putting a stop to this nonsense?
Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question. We are fully engaged in a consultation process, thanks, in particular, to the cooperation of the Teamsters and to the spirit of the 2001 agreement. I am convinced that, over the next few weeks, we will reach an agreement that will ensure the safety of truck drivers and other highway users. This is precisely our priority. I hope that we can limit, as is our intention, the number of hours of driving to 13, over a 14-hour period of service. This would ensure that everyone is safe. I hope that the spirit of the 2001 agreement will be renewed in the coming days.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government keeps talking about the benefits of its bungled gun registry, which it now says will not be complete until 2008 at a cost by its own figures of $1.4 billion, 2,000% more than the Liberals said it would cost. They are so confident of the benefits that they keep the cost benefit analysis locked away as a cabinet secret.
When will the government just do the right thing and cancel the program, which a leading technology magazine has said is armed robbery?
Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, first of all, in response to the hon. member's allegation that the gun program is not complete, in fact what we do, as members would expect us to do, is review the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. We are introducing new regulations. We will continue to review this program, and as new regulations are needed, they will be introduced and implemented. I should think that is what Canadians would expect us to do.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is panicking over the mad cow crisis, so much so that he is refusing to meet with Quebec farmers of the UPA, although everyone would be quite satisfied to meet with his assistant.
Will he be forced to admit that he got nowhere with President Bush, or is he unable to give us a date for the reopening of our borders? We need a date.
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, in respect of opening Canadian borders, we have made some very good progress.
In respect of the United States, we were pleased a week and a half ago when the rule was put into the White House office of management and budget. A particular timeframe, 90 days and counting, has begun.
In respect of other borders, I am very pleased to see that Hong Kong opened its borders to Canadian beef from animals under 30 months. I am very pleased to see the agreement that we had in China in respect of genetic material from the dairy industry. I am very pleased to see the progress we are making with Taiwan in the meetings that are happening this week.
We are making progress in opening the borders.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the House voted 157 to 118 in favour of returning 11,000 acres to the expropriated people of Mirabel.
To respect the decision made by this House rather than to continue his stubborn stance, if the Minister of Transport is sincere, why does he not meet with the ADM authorities, the farmers and the expropriated people, in order to find a lasting solution that will satisfy all parties?
Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is aware of the existence of a contract between ADM and the Government of Canada. That contract was signed by the Conservative government in 1992 and runs for 60 years. We are going to respect that document signed by the Government of Canada.
We must also point out that we too believe in the future of Mirabel. We do not want to dismantle Mirabel. We believe it will be the site of considerable development, not only with projects like Bombardier's, but others that have been proposed. As a result, we do not wish to reduce the size of Mirabel, but rather to develop it and thus create thousands of jobs.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia continue to live beside the country's largest environmental cleanup challenge.
Some $400 million has been allocated to the cleanup effort. However, the cloud that hangs over the project is exactly what type of environmental review will be deployed, be it a comprehensive assessment or a full panel review.
Concerns raised by the residents centre around the potential delays in the cleanup process, should the decision be to go forward with a full panel review.
I ask the Minister of Public Works to share with this House where does the environmental assessment stand? When can the good people of Sydney expect to see this project completed?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is absolutely eager to move ahead on the cleaning up of the Sydney tar ponds. We are waiting to receive the project description from the Province of Nova Scotia. Once we have received that we can determine what environmental assessment track is appropriate for the project. We will work to ensure that that assessment takes place in a timely manner and that the work is completed in a timely manner.
In the meantime, we are moving ahead with the removal of the cooling pond, the realignment of Coke Ovens Brook, and the relocation of the Whitney pier waterline.
The Government of Canada is proud to play the leadership role in cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds.
John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could advise the House what the business is for the remainder of this week and next week.
Could he also tell us, as all the opposition parties have asked, if the members compensation program would be brought in at the same time as the judges compensation program, and would that be happening in the near future?
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition motion.
Tomorrow we will commence with the third reading debate of Bill C-5, the learning bonds legislation. When that is completed, we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-22, the social development bill. We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; followed by second reading of Bill C-25, respecting RADARSAT; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-27, the food inspection bill; and second reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill.
On Monday and Tuesday we will start with report stage and third reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho bill, before going back to unfinished business.
Pursuant to Standing Order 53(1) a take note debate on credit cards will take place on Tuesday evening, December 7.
The business on Wednesday will be second reading of a bill to be introduced tomorrow respecting parliamentary compensation.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
Finally, the government made a commitment to Canadians to treat compensation of parliamentarians separately and apart from that of judges. It is quite logical to take that step in an independent bill that deals only with the compensation of parliamentarians and to deal with the question of judges in a subsequent bill.
The hon. member seems to suggest that parliamentarians and judges should be treated exactly the same. We think that Canadians recognize that their respective duties, tenure and roles are quite different and that in fact they should be dealt with differently and separately. That is why we will be introducing the bill on MP compensation and dealing with it next week.