Debates of March 4th, 2009

Softwood Lumber

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, when two countries reach an agreement, like the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement, that is an accord. If there is a problem, a dispute or a challenge, one side can take the matter to a court, which will rule on the case. Once the court has issued its ruling, the parties must abide by it. We will also work with the provinces to determine the funds to be distributed.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Ontario companies will have to pay in excess of $68 million to meet the 10% export charge levied upon them. The Conservatives are standing by a flawed softwood lumber agreement when forestry workers face layoffs and shutdowns.

When will the Conservatives admit that their softwood lumber deal does not work? When will the Conservatives return to the table to help our lumber industry in these tough economic times?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, before this deal was in place, there were innumerable cases constantly going before the courts and costs were being assessed to Canada. Once we had the deal, almost $5 billion was returned to the industry, $1 billion of that going to communities.

Now we have an agreement that if there is a dispute, there is a dispute settlement process, and in the process, we agreed beforehand, we will go along with whatever the referee decides. We do not like the agreement, but it is something we have agreed to follow. Now we will work with the province to see about the distribution of this.

Afghanistan

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to extend my condolences to the families of the three soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

According to an American report on human rights obtained by the media, detainees transferred by Canadian authorities to Afghans were tortured. The Department of Foreign Affairs has refused to confirm this information.

Given that he is answering questions from the American media on the Afghanistan mission, can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not his government has received complaints about torture from prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by this question today.

We would like to offer our condolences to the families and comrades of the courageous soldiers killed in Afghanistan. They are doing a good job over there, an important job for the Afghan people, for the world. On this side of the House, we honour their sacrifices.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we honour their sacrifices as well. However, I find that, once again, the Prime Minister is using the death of these soldiers for purely political purposes. It is shameful. He should answer the question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has the floor.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs stated that it was the responsibility of the Afghan authorities to ensure the safety of transferred detainees. However, transferring a prisoner who may face torture contravenes the Geneva Convention.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his government is responsible for ensuring the safety of detainees transferred to the Afghan army?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Leader of the Bloc who has chosen to ask a question that is so inappropriate today.

Our soldiers respect their international commitments. They have reviewed and changed their procedures to ensure that they respect these responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again, in both languages, thank the Canadian military for the tremendous sacrifices and dangers they undertake on our behalf.

I do not think they have to put up with that kind of stuff from a separatist party.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the same applies to the protection of Canadian soldiers taken prisoner. We are also asking this question on behalf of our own soldiers.

The Prime Minister recently acknowledged that the success of the Afghan mission cannot be guaranteed by military means. Respecting human rights is always imperative. However, by transferring prisoners who are at risk of being tortured, Canada is in violation of section 12 of the Geneva convention.

Will the Prime Minister remain consistent with his recent statements and immediately halt the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the simplest answer is no. In the context of NATO actions, our soldiers, like other soldiers, must respect international codes and all rights on the ground in the Afghan theatre.

As Minister of National Defence, I have full confidence in our soldiers, particularly on such a sad day.

I hope all Canadians appreciate the sacrifices our soldiers are making in Afghanistan.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister acknowledges that success in Afghanistan will not be achieved by military force, which is even more reason to rebalance the mission, particularly through respect for human rights, international laws and the Geneva convention.

At the next NATO summit, will the Prime Minister raise the question of torture by Afghan authorities and the application of the Geneva convention to the conflict in Afghanistan? This also concerns the protection of Canadian soldiers.

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

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers obey all international laws. The success of our mission in Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed by military means alone, as the Prime Minister said, which is why we have adopted a whole of government approach there.

It is important to remember the efforts being deployed every day to protect our interests as well as the interests of the Afghan people.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants a $3 billion slush fund for his ministers' pet projects. The Prime Minister has to report to Parliament before expenses are incurred, not afterward. The Auditor General is opposed to this kind of fund.

If this is not, in fact, a slush fund, then will the Prime Minister direct the President of the Treasury Board to ask for the members' approval before each expenditure?

Will the government submit the details to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to ensure at least a minimum level of transparency?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is not opposed to this but understands, in fact, the necessity of getting out the money. We have in fact made sure that there are appropriate checks and balances in place. Treasury Board approvals must be placed. Existing requirements on accountability and reporting must be met. And of course, our probation officer, the Leader of the Opposition, is sitting across the way. We will be filing parliamentary reports in respect of the funding to our probation officer and I expect him to be fully satisfied with what we will produce.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government may think it is fine for the probationary officer over here to give approval after the crime is done. What we are trying to do is prevent the misuse of the funds before it happens.

Now, in terms of accountability and transparency, the Prime Minister is sounding an awful lot like the party he used to criticize when he was in opposition. I am trying to imagine him on this side of the chamber and what he would be saying about a $3 billion fund that circumvents all the rules and that gives the money to cabinet ministers to dole out.

Why will he not at least bring it before the standing committee and insist that his President of the Treasury Board does that?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

What a hypocrite, Mr. Speaker. What a hypocrite. There is a man who in fact--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I think the hon. President of the Treasury Board used the word “hypocrite” in relation to another hon. member. He knows that would not be proper and he would want to withdraw that. I did not hear the exact word.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, now there is a leader who continuously speaks out of both sides of his mouth. His members come to me and ask for money for projects so that they can get their projects funded quickly and his members stand in the House continuously, voting against these initiatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, the difference between our party and the government's approach here is that we would be perfectly happy to submit our ideas for public spending to public debate. In fact, we have done it many times. We would do it before a committee of the House and accept the decision.

But, instead, the government is proposing a kind of a blind trust where ministers can take money and send it out to perhaps their ridings, to the exclusion of others; to their pet projects, to the support of their public private partnership approach to life. This is not the way to get things done.

Why will the government not, at a minimum, table a list of projects before the money is gone out the barn door?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not understand is that in fact these projects are in co-operation and in partnership with provincial, municipal and non-governmental agencies. In fact, one of the partners is the NDP government in Manitoba.

We are working together with provincial, municipal and other authorities to get money into the hands of these projects, so that they can stimulate the economy. Why will that member and his party not get out of the way and let it happen?

Industry

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the news everyone had been dreading finally arrived Tuesday morning in Sudbury when 261 employees with Vale Inco were laid off, along with 160 more across the country. Yesterday the industry minister told us that he was reviewing an agreement with Vale Inco not to cut jobs until October 2009. His efforts were obviously futile.

This is a government and a Prime Minister in denial. What is the government actually doing to save jobs in northern Ontario and to ensure meaningful work for laid-off workers?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, we are certainly reviewing the commitments that were made by Vale Inco to the Government of Canada. We expect every company to live up to its understanding.

However, in answer to the hon. member's question, there is a lot going on in northern Ontario and, indeed, throughout Canada. There is the community adjustment fund, forestry measures, building Canada fund communities component, recreational infrastructure Canada, extending access to broadband, and improving infrastructure at universities and colleges. That is what this budget is all about. Let us get it out of the Senate, get it out of Parliament, so we can actually do our jobs.