Debates of March 10th, 2005

Sponsorship Program

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

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is not contradictory. The evidence is mounting that the Liberal government is involved and has been involved in some pretty sketchy activities.

Last week during an advocacy day in Washington, D.C., 1,700 tee-shirts were distributed promoting Canada on Capitol Hill. The shirts were supplied by a company with a sketchy record of unfair labour practices in the third world, and these 1,700 tee-shirts were made in Mexico, not Canada.

Why would the Canadian government not distribute Canadian products on a Canadian trade mission?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts if the member is really interested. The shirts were sewn in Mexico and packed in the United States. However, they were designed by Canadians. The thread was made in Quebec. The tissue was made in Quebec. The shirts were dyed in Quebec, and they were purchased from a Quebec company. Most of these shirts were from Quebec.

Textile Industry

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian input was not indicated on the shirt or on the packaging.

The United States did not hesitate to protect their textile industry by opening their border to apparel from all over the world, provided such imports were made with American thread. Canada refused to do the same, with the result that Canadian textile plants are closing one after the other.

Why did the government refuse to do the same thing to protect the textile market, particularly considering that such a measure would not have cost it one penny, since it would simply have had to pass legislation?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as we have already mentioned, most of these T-shirts were made in Canada by Canadian workers.

Having said this, our support to the textile and apparel industries is very significant. Over the past two years, we gave them close to $600 million. Such is our support to help these industries become more competitive.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, passing legislation does not cost anything, except a small amount of political courage and the will to act. The Americans legislated to ensure that clothing sold in the U.S. has American content, thereby protecting their industries.

Why did the government not see fit to take similar action to protect our textile industry?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we did take action to protect our textile and apparel industries in Canada. We have given them close to $600 million to become more competitive. That is the support we have provided.

National Defence

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a $1.5 billion contract for pilot flight training was supposed to have been awarded last October but the government is dragging its feet. We are not sure why. Our information is that the evaluation between Allied Wings, a western Canadian consortium, and Bombardier, the present provider, was also completed months ago. There is growing suspicion that if Bombardier had the winning bid, the contract would have been awarded months ago.

As the deadline is fast approaching I want the government to tell us today, will it announce the winner of this contract, or is this part of the Bombardier bailout package?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is a totally outrageous and divisive analogy to take in this House to try and divide one part of Canada from another. It is typical of that party, divide the country and make us all fight one another.

What we are doing in the Department of National Defence with the cooperation of Industry Canada and with my colleague in the Department of Public Works is to work on these contracts to make sure they are the best contracts for our defence forces, the best contracts in the interests of our forces and in the interests of our country. We will do that.

Treasury Board is examining this contract. The award will be made this spring, but it will be made in the national interests, not narrow parochial interests that the member is--

Justice

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, crystal meth is a highly addictive, destructive menace that is ruining lives and communities across the country.

The Minister of Justice has said that he is waiting until June for a task force to tell him that he needs to reclassify crystal meth as a schedule I drug. How many more Canadians will be hooked by then?

Once again the government has failed to take immediate and decisive action to protect the well-being of Canadians.

Will the justice minister act immediately to get tough on crystal meth traffickers by allowing judges to impose stiffer penalties?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that crystal meth is becoming a scourge within our communities.

Recently the view has been expressed that the current classification of methamphetamines in our drug legislation results in a maximum penalty for possession and trafficking that is not proportionate to the potential harm that can be caused by this drug. Accordingly, Health Canada is examining this and will make recommendations as to whether this designation should be changed.

Foreign Affairs

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and concerns Taiwan.

The United States of America has recently announced it is opposed to China's so-called anti-secessionist law, which would have the Chinese army invade Taiwan immediately following any undefined move toward some form of independence by the Taiwanese government.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs add his voice to that of his American counterpart in condemning this unilateral action by China?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the record of the proceedings on the bill in question has not been made public by the National People's Congress. We are anxious to apprise ourselves of its content and we will review it once it has been published.

I would like to point out that Canada has always been adverse to either side taking any unilateral action to change the status of Taiwan and cause tensions to intensify, which would have an impact on prosperity and political stability in east Asia.

Tobacco Products

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada has reported that the illegal trafficking of cigarettes through the Akwesasne reserve is growing. In the first two months of this year alone, RCMP have made 35 seizures at a value of over $1 million. An estimated 20,000 cartons of cigarettes cross the reserve's border illegally every day.

The government's band-aid solutions obviously are not fixing the problem. Why will the Liberal government not drop the smoke and mirrors and seriously crack down on Akwesasne's smuggling operation?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP carefully monitors trends in order to develop and implement effective enforcement strategies and to deploy the appropriate resources. Law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border work together to curtail the illegal movement of tobacco products.

It is totally inaccurate to make the proposal of the hon. member. In fact, the RCMP and its partners, both domestic and international, combat the illicit tobacco market through crime prevention, monitoring and enforcement activities. They shall continue to do that.

Transport

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, auto theft is an epidemic problem costing Canadians over $1 billion every year. I have been working on this issue for the last five years and I am pleased that the Conservative Party's pressure on the government has been successful.

All new vehicles registered in Canada will soon be equipped with an immobilizer as standard equipment, making those vehicles almost impossible to steal. The Canadian standard immobilizer is the best type. Why would the transport minister also permit the inferior, ineffective European standard to still be used, putting vehicles at risk to be stolen?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for recognizing that the government has acted. The Liberal caucus has also been asking for those measures.

The reason we are allowing both standards is to encourage global harmonization by vehicle manufacturers and to open the Canadian market to world suppliers. There are 175,000 vehicles stolen each year. With this measure we hope that number will go down dramatically.

Government Contracts

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, in response to a question about maintaining the 55% Canadian content requirement for army boots, thereby allowing Tannerie des Ruisseaux of Saint-Pascal-de-Kamouraska to remain in operation, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that he wanted to respect international agreements. But the fact of the matter is that DND procurement is excluded from all international trade agreements.

I will simply ask the Minister of Public Works and Government Services again if he can give us the assurance that this 55% requirement will be maintained, thereby maintaining 50 jobs in Saint-Pascal-de-Kamouraska?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and for her diligence on these issues.

The fact is we are working with the Department of National Defence to consider our options. We are balancing the need for a competitive supplier environment with the issues of industrial benefit for all regions of the country, best value for the Canadian taxpayer and best equipment for the Canadian armed forces. We expect to issue an RFP shortly.

Health

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of us know that the World Health Organization is investigating human cases of the avian flu in Vietnam. This is being done to determine if the virus is becoming more adept at spreading from human to human.

Would the Minister of State for Public Health please tell the House if the Public Health Agency of Canada is taking the required precautions to protect Canadians from the human to human transmission of the avian flu?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of State (Public Health)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her ongoing watch on global health and health care in Canada.

To date there is no evidence of efficient human to human transmission of avian flu H5N1. The WHO has not changed its assessment of risk to human health as a result of the health care worker's case. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with the WHO and continues to monitor the global avian influenza situation.

Canada has developed a comprehensive action plan to deal with flu pandemics, including at the provincial and territorial level, with several provinces or territories currently developing their own plans.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

It being Thursday, I believe the hon. opposition House leader has a question he would like to ask.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Conservative Party of Canada has ensured the survival of this Parliament for a little while longer, we are interested in learning exactly what the government's agenda is for the remainder of this week and on into the week after the break.

We are also interested in learning when the government intends to table its long-awaited legislation on the Atlantic accord. Will it be in the budget implementation bill or will it be a stand-alone separate bill?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and all Canadians know the reason the Conservative Party of Canada abstained from voting for the budget is that the budget was very popular with Canadians. In fact the Conservatives did not want to go knocking on doors given the fact that the budget was there. I say that just so we are clear with respect to the preamble.

This afternoon we will continue to debate the supply day motion. On Friday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; Bill S-17, which ratifies a number of tax treaties; Bill C-23, the human resources bill; and Bill C-22, the social development bill.

When we return on March 21 we will resume debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. Tuesday, March 22 shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday, March 23 we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the compensation bill. If we complete that, we will resume business from Friday. We will then return to the marriage bill on March 24.

With respect to the budget implementation bill, I expect to be introducing that bill in the House in the very short term. At that time the hon. member will see its exact contents.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 10, 2005

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the honourable Ian Binnie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 10th day of March 2005, at 12.38 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Barlow

Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was C-24, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories), Chapter 7.

Point of Order

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.)]

Mr. Speaker, today, at the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, I made some comments that raised many questions. I would simply like to say that I had the opportunity to review the transcript and I recognize that I may have used certain words that were a little exaggerated.

I believe it is up to our government and each one of us to undertake to be constructive in our relationship with the United States. It is in our interests. It is part of our Canadian values to cherish the relationship with the United States, as I do as someone who is half American and has family in the United States. I would apologize to the members in this House that my comments were a little bit exaggerated. I apologize.