Debates of Oct. 7th, 2009

Foreign Affairs

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we asked our public officials, including our Canada Border Services Agency personnel, around the world to do very important and very difficult, challenging work, making thousands of decisions every day. They do that to the best of their abilities, asking questions, looking for answers and trying to determine what they need to determine to protect the integrity of our country's immigration system and our citizenship.

In the particular case in question, anyone can see what questions were asked, what answers were given and then make their own decision as to whether the border services officers were acting reasonably in the circumstances.

Afghanistan

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of National Defence is with respect to Mr. Colvin.

Today the government invoked national security as the reason for not allowing anyone to review his evidence and his affidavit. I would like to ask the minister, if there is no cover up, who will review, in an independent fashion, the evidence and testimony of Mr. Colvin?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, and I know he is aware, this is an arm's length, quasi-judicial inquiry. The individual in question who has evidence to give is given the opportunity to do so. The commission itself is not politically influenced. It is not under the direction of the government. This is a matter that is very serious, as the member knows.

However, this is basically, at the end of the day, governed by the Federal Court and by the National Defence Act. It is governed by legislation that was put in place in 2001 by the party of which he is a member.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that it was lawyers for the federal government who invoked national security in order to prevent anyone else from reviewing this affidavit.

We have Gary Filmon at SIRC and we have lots of precedents with respect to other judges who have been able to look at national security information. Why does the government not create some opportunity for an independent party to review this critical evidence about possible torture?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member, with his own experience and having worked on a quasi-judicial board, is not suggesting that we now insert ourselves as a government, that we now start to interfere in a process that is under way. National security implications are involved. Legislation is involved and, obviously, a court ruling from the Federal Court. Now we hear that there may be a further appeal.

This is all about letting this important process get to the bottom of the investigation, not political interference and not to have the member suggest some other process now intervene.

Democratic Reform

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a second motion urging the federal government to abandon its plan to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons.

Will the minister responsible for this bill tell us whether he plans to comply with the National Assembly of Quebec's request?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ensuring that representation in the House of Commons is fair. We are committed to ensuring that the number of seats in Quebec is protected. I would like to point out to the House that if the Bloc ever achieved its number one objective, Quebec would have no seats in the House of Commons.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as long as Quebeckers keep sending their tax dollars to Ottawa, our representation here will be as legitimate as that of any other person in the House.

However, neither the government nor the House can pretend to recognize the Quebec nation one moment and then reduce that same nation's political weight the next. If the government's bill goes through, Quebec's representation will fall from 25% to 21% of members. That is what is at stake here.

If the government truly recognizes the Quebec nation, why is it so determined to marginalize Quebec in federal institutions?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the member is pulling numbers out of thin air. The government has not brought forward any numbers.

In regard to Quebec's representation in the House of Commons, all federalist parties would guarantee that Quebec would be well represented in the House of Commons. The only party that does not want Quebec represented in the House of Commons is the Bloc.

All federal members agree that our country is the greatest country in the world, united.

Employment Insurance

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now the government has been unable to justify its figures on the number of workers affected by Bill C-50. Again yesterday, senior officials were unable to explain the government's calculation, which confirms the fears of the Bloc Québécois and several agencies in Quebec that the Conservatives' figures are grossly exaggerated. We see to what extent Bill C-50 is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem.

Will the government finally accept that it will take a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system to satisfy the needs of the unemployed and the needs of Quebec?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth measure we have introduced to help the unemployed while the country and the world are going through economic difficulties and a recession.

We began by adding five weeks for the unemployed. The Bloc voted against that. We proposed adding things for work sharing and training. Now, we want to provide 5 to 20 additional weeks for long-tenured workers, those who have been working for a long time, who have paid employment insurance premiums and have never had a chance to benefit from them in the long term. We want to help those workers by giving them an additional 5 to 20 weeks. The Bloc seems to be against that as well.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only are officials unable to justify the government's inflated figures on the number of unemployed people affected by Bill C-50, but they are also unable to specify which regions will benefit.

Will the government admit that it does not want to elaborate on this because Bill C-50 favours Ontario's automobile workers and excludes Quebec's forestry workers?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, with this measure to help long-tenured workers, 189,000 people could benefit from 5 to 20 additional weeks of employment insurance. Instead of making those people wait, instead of depriving them of additional weeks of EI, the members opposite should support the government and rush to ensure that the bill is enacted as soon as possible to help people in difficulty.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to listen to concerns that amendments to NAFO would weaken Canada's ability to protect fish stocks. A distinguished group of former DFO senior executives recently took the unusual action of speaking out, calling the amendments a sellout of Canadian interests.

Why is the minister ignoring the concerns of her former employees who are experts in the field? Does she not understand the implications of the amendments, or does she not care about Canadian sovereignty?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do understand the implications of the amendments and that is why we support them.

I want to remind the hon. member that these amendments came into being with the blessing of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was at the table and agreed with them. Since that time, Newfoundland and Labrador has done a 180° turn on its position.

It is very disappointing that Newfoundland and Labrador has changed its mind on these amendments. On the word of the bureaucrats who were in charge of NAFO, when it was failing Newfoundlanders and—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is admitting that the Newfoundland and Labrador government is vigorously opposing these amendments.

If the government insists on continuing with the proposed NAFO amendments, Canada could lose the ability to enforce fishing quotas. This threatens the livelihood of thousands of people in the fishing industry, yet the minister refuses to have a full and open debate on the amendments.

Why will the minister not allow a full debate on the NAFO amendments? Is she afraid that Canadians will once again see how incompetent the government really is?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out for the hon. member that the mandate for these amendments was the result of the work of an international ministerial conference on the governance of high seas and fisheries, which took place in May of 2005. We all know the party that was in government at that time.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the government's mismanagement on the other coast.

British Columbia is witnessing one of the worst fishing crises since the Atlantic cod stocks collapsed in the 1990s. Eleven million sockeye were supposed to return to the Fraser. Less than two million did.

British Columbians are asking this one simple question: Why is the minister refusing to urgently convene an independent scientific assessment on why these sockeye failed to return?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, if it is urgent, why is this the first time the hon. member has raised the issue in the House?

I have talked to many British Columbians. I have heard requests for a summit on salmon. I have also heard requests for other measures to address the issue of the low sockeye returns.

Planning is currently under way, as I have said, and a government response is forthcoming. This is a very serious matter and it warrants a very serious response.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I personally called the minister when she was in Victoria and she failed to respond to our phone calls.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has the floor. With all this yelling, it is going to be very difficult for the minister to hear the question.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, fish stocks cannot be rehabilitated unless their habitats are protected. Canada committed to 25% protection of our marine protected areas, yet a measly 0.5% is protected right now.

When will the fisheries minister implement a plan to expand our marine protected areas in British Columbia to safeguard our crucial marine ecosystem?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has invested $61.4 million in the health of the oceans, government-wide. Additionally, we have invested $170 million over five years to the Pacific commercial integrated fisheries initiative. We have initiated a climate change science initiative by reallocating $400,000 per year to study the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.

We are looking after the oceans.