Debates of Sept. 29th, 2009

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 30, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in today's adjournment debate.

On April 28, 2009, I asked a question in this House concerning this government's financial contributions to Canada Day celebrations. We know the federal government has a document on the funding it has provided to provincial and territorial celebrate Canada committees for the years 2003-04 to 2008-09. That document shows that Quebec received the biggest piece of the pie, we could say, since Quebec was given $3.2 million out of a budget of $3,766,000. The money was given to Quebec's provincial committee. A sum of $3.2 million out of a budget of $3,766,000; that equals 85% of the entire subsidy, of the entire program.

The pie was shared by Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario—Ontario received only $100,000. This must be the first time the government has not helped Ontario, although it gives billions of dollars to the auto industry while giving nothing to Quebec's forestry industry. For Canada Day, this government gives $100,000 to Ontario, and $3.2 million to Quebec—and by Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, British Columbia and Alberta—even Alberta, only $50,000—and Yukon, $20,000. In short, $3,766,000 in total, 85% of which was given to Quebec for its committees. Let me quote:

These amounts represent the usual operational contributions provided to Celebrate Canada committees and do not include other amounts that could be allocated for special initiatives such as the Year of the Veteran, the centennial celebrations of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the 400th anniversary of Quebec City.

This really is just for Canada Day. It is a document produced by the government across the floor, the Conservative government, that comes directly from Canadian Heritage.

The minister to whom I posed the question in this House told me that my numbers were completely inaccurate. I asked him for permission to table the document in the House. He refused. I will ask the parliamentary secretary again in a moment.

I seek leave to table this chart in the House. This is a Canadian Heritage chart that clearly shows how the $3,766,000 budget was distributed to provincial and territorial celebrate Canada committees.

Very few programs allocate 85% of their budget to Quebec. Typically, that only happens with programs under which the Conservatives, like their Liberal predecessors, spend taxpayers' money to boost their visibility and spread their propaganda in Quebec.

As I said at the time, they are trying to shove the Canadian flag down Quebeckers' throats. They are taking advantage of Canada Day and spending millions of dollars to force the Canadian flag and their vision of Canadian unity on us.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of shocked by this question, to be honest. It was only a few short months ago that the member stood in the House and argued in support of a great national institution, CBC/Radio-Canada, something which our government is very proud to support.

Maybe I could add a bit of logic so the member can understand the fulsomeness of the answer that the minister gave.

The best way to bake a cake is to use a recipe, but if we only use half of the recipe, we are not going to wind up with a cake. The member, frankly, is using half the recipe here. She is talking about a part of the program. She is not talking about the entire program. I would like to correct the member's facts. The member cited a figure of $3.7 million, but the only problem is that the program is $6.7 million. We can see why her facts are somewhat misleading. We can see why this cake simply would not look like a cake if she were to bake it. It is not the recipe.

I would like to add a bit to what she said and talk about some of the things that the celebrate Canada pool of funds supports. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are 194 projects across the province. In Nova Scotia, there are 89 activities, including Pier 21. In Manitoba there were 123 events funded in 2009, including a ceremony to bestow citizenship on 60 new Canadians. Wow, 60 new Canadians; what a way to celebrate Canada. The celebrate Canada program supported many other projects such as the Canada Day breakfast in Edmonton which served over 10,000 people.

The list goes on and on from coast to coast to coast of Canadians who want to get together to celebrate what is the greatest country on this planet. That is why they get together. Our government is proud to support it because we think it is important that we celebrate Canada, all it has to offer and all its greatness.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the parliamentary secretary has not agreed to allow the document to be tabled.

This program is called “Funding to provincial and territorial Celebrate Canada committees”. According to the document, Quebec gets 85% of the pie.

This is an example of the Conservatives' pathological obsession with propaganda and visibility, the same obsession that inspired the Liberals to create the sponsorship program, which ended in scandal.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the example that I used.

The member is using half of the facts. If it were a recipe, she would only be using half of the recipe. That is no way to bake a cake. We have to use the whole recipe. The amount she is speaking of, the $3.7 million, is the amount that is given to the granting committees, but the full budget, including the committees, is $6.7 million.

Celebrating Canada is not propaganda. It is celebrating what a great country we have, what a great nation we have, the friendship that binds this country together from coast to coast to coast, Canadians in every part of this country standing and celebrating together in great numbers. I am very proud that this government supports it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am compelled to raise the matter of the public inquiry and the government's mishandling of the listeriosis crisis once again. It might have helped if the parliamentary secretary had answered my questions the last time we had an adjournment debate rather than reading a prepared statement without substance. However, it is not unusual for the government to read a prepared statement out of the PMO.

The government has consistently and desperately avoided the one means by which to fully clarify and adequately resolve the crisis of confidence that has surrounded the government since the outbreak of the listeriosis crisis that claimed 22 lives last year. It refuses to hold a full public inquiry.

The minister has made a great deal about the Weatherill investigation, an investigation for which there are no transcripts. We cannot see the evidence. It is not available to us. We do not even know who she met with. We do not even know what questions she raised. The report, according to the terms of reference of the investigator, was to be made available for editing or revising by those who were interviewed.

We do not know if that happened but we do know, according to the terms of reference, that the investigator who was supposedly doing the inquiry was to pass over the document before it was released to the people she was supposed to be investigating and then ask them if they wanted to edit it before it went to the minister who would then decide if it would be made public. It has been made public but we do not know what revisions were made.

After this report was released to the public, it failed the test of even one of the government's own advisers to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The University of Manitoba's food microbiologist, Rick Holley, a member of the academic advisory panel on food safety at the inspection agency, said that the “lack of knowledge about food-borne illness--how it happens and its cost to society in terms of death and illness--is a weak spot in the Canadian food safety system that none of the recommendations addressed adequately”.

And worse, he went on to say, “if all 57 recommendations are implemented--will ignore this very, very large issue of food-borne illness surveillance”

That was in the Toronto Star on September 12 of this year.

Professor Holley went even further when he was asked: Are we better off today than in the summer of 2008 with respect to food safety? He said, “Oh, hell no”.

If scientists, who have had a role in advising CFIA, have so little confidence in the government's efforts to improve the food safety system, then why should Canadians? Canadians deserve some answers.

As a member of the standing committee, the problem I have with the report concerns the discrepancies between her report and what she gave as evidence in her report and what we were told at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That is a very serious matter but the parliamentary secretary and his group prevented her from coming before the committee. We need answers.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows and as the House of Commons is well aware, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and our Conservative government have made food safety one of our top priorities. I would like to remind the member for Malpeque that our government took action on food safety immediately after the listeriosis outbreak in 2008.

In the 2008 budget our government committed itself to the food and consumer safety action plan and dedicated $113 million to enhancing food safety. In addition, listeria testing procedures and reporting requirements were revised to include environmental testing, something that the Liberal government cut when it was in office.

In addition, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have been working together to improve their coordination at the federal and provincial levels. Our Conservative government took action because Canadians wanted assurances that Canada's food safety remains at the forefront of our government agenda.

On September 11, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Health announced a further investment into Canada's food safety system. With that action, all 57 recommendations set out in the Weatherill report to strengthen Canada's food safety system have been accepted.

An additional $75 million over the next three years has been committed, along with 166 new food safety staff including 70 new front-line inspectors for ready-to-eat meats. They will be hired to address immediate risks. These new inspectors are on top of the 445 inspectors that have been increased in number under our government. This Conservative government's actions mean a sustained response to help prevent food-borne illness and to better respond to any illness or any type of outbreak that might occur in the future.

We are taking action.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The only action, Mr. Speaker, to be blunt about it that the government is taking action on, is covering the minister's butt and that is the fact. The minister went into hiding when the issue happened in the summer of 2008. The parliamentary secretary can talk all he likes about money, but we are not talking about money here. We are talking about confidence in Canada's food safety system and we are talking about Canadian lives.

The government had no qualms at all about calling an inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings, an issue of some 24 years ago, but gosh no, the Prime Minister would not dare call an inquiry into what took 22 lives in this country, because his minister or his government might have been implicated in the result. What we needed was an open and earnest inquiry so we could get to the bottom of this matter with sound recommendations. Those are the facts. This is about cover-up by the government, and about hiding its responsibility and using an investigator under the guise of an inquiry to cover the minister.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the member for Malpeque ended up leaving the food safety committee meeting early. He could not even bother to stay for the duration of a food safety meeting, and he continually attacked the good work of Ms. Weatherill. In spite of the member's actions, I would like to remind the House that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was so impressed with the work of Ms. Weatherill that it passed a motion stating:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food would like to commend Sheila Weatherill, the independent investigator into last summer's listeriosis outbreak for her excellent work. Ms. Weatherill's in-depth examination has provided Canadians with a complete and comprehensive review of the events of last summer and recommendations that will improve Canada's food safety system. Due to this extensive review, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is of the view that no public inquiry is necessary.

That decision was made by the standing committee, and the decision that no public inquiry was needed was reported to the House. That decision was arrived at after the committee had studied all the facts, which included Ms. Weatherill's report.

Foreign Affairs

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor further to a question that was raised back in April concerning the plight and the ongoing incarceration in Mexico of Canadian Pavel Kulisek.

Members will recall that Mr. Kulisek was charged with very serious offences, but those offences were in fact allegations that were made by an individual whose own reputation was very dubious within the Mexican judicial system, a prosecutor who himself is alleged to have been involved with other issues surrounding the drug cartel within Mexico.

Mr. Kulisek has had a number of medical concerns that apparently have not been raised, particularly, his dental care. As well, I should point out he was very sick for a period of time. Mexican authorities wanted to make some form of intravenous injection to his stomach. He resisted.

The Mexican authorities have offered to provide Mr. Kulisek an answer to some of the witnesses that he has provided as character witnesses to his good nature and his good reputation. They have offered to the Canadian government to provide assistance in obtaining the responses by many of those witnesses. I wonder will it be possible? Has the government heard anything? Have any witnesses here in Canada been approached?

I do not want to go back into a situation we have seen before, a standoff between countries. However, when one is brought before a tribunal, whether that be in Mexico which honours the system of due process as we do here in this country, it seems to me that a year and a half incarceration in one of the most notorious jails arguably in the world is hardly a way of demonstrating to Canadians and others that Mr. Kulisek's case, the plight of his family, the plight for those who seek justice, that he in fact was railroaded, has an opportunity to be given a fair and appropriate day in court. That has not happened. I am very concerned about this. We, as Liberals, are concerned about this.

I certainly do not want this to be seen as another example of the government turning a blind eye on a Canadian abroad. I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary can provide some answers. I did not ask him the question originally. I asked his minister. There seems to be some confusion as to whom I should be asking these questions. If the issue happens to occur in America, it tends to be a minister of state. If it happens to be a consular case, it might be the hon. parliamentary secretary. If it is a more general case, dealing with other parts of the world, it tends to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That confusion aside, I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary. It has been six months since I raised this question. Mr. Kulisek has been a year and a half in prison. I want to know whether the government has provided consular services, if it has been able to raise the question of due process and if he is receiving the treatment that he needs. Above all, I would like to ensure that Mr. Kulisek is not left in a situation where he is being treated differently simply because he is a Canadian.

I will acknowledge that the government is going to respond by saying the charges against Mr. Kulisek are serious. The parliamentary secretary knows that I did his work and he is now doing my work, and we want to work together on some of these cases. What I am asking for are very specific timelines as to when the government believes the Government of Mexico's judicial officials will proceed with this case so that we can find out one way or another determination under Mexican law whether or not Mr. Kulisek will have a fair trial, whether that trial will be timely and, more important, when he will be freed.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to answer a few of those questions.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the member's concern on this issue. He and I have been working on many conflict cases.

It is very important to note that this government's responsibility is to ensure that they are afforded due process when Canadians are arrested or imprisoned in foreign lands and that they are treated fairly under the local law.

The government takes its responsibility seriously and we have been working tirelessly on Mr. Kulisek's behalf since learning of his arrest in March, 2008. Since that time, over 20 consular visits have been made to Mr. Kulisek which is not a normal process, as the member knows. As he was on this side of the House, he knows that this is the Government of Canada process.

Not only that, but we have been engaged at the highest level in talking with the Mexican authorities for a quick, fair and transparent trial. In fact, the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked to his counterpart and the attorney general of Mexico on April 20 when he visited Mexico.

He has even asked theMinister of State of Foreign Affairs Americas, when he goes to meet with his Mexican counterpart, to raise this issue, as I do all the time. Not only that, but I have met with Mrs. Kulisek in Vancouver.

I would like to add another point to my hon. colleague's question about the health of Mr. Kulisek. Last week, my colleague from Vancouver North, who works tirelessly on this file with me, personally went to Mexico. He informed me and the government that he received full co-operation during his visit from the Mexican authorities as well as from the officials. He met personally with Mr. Kulisek for one hour in the prison to inquire about his health.

Understandably, Mr. Kulisek was distraught and unhappy about the situation, which is quite normal considering the fact that Mr. Kulisek is in prison. However, in talking to Mr. Kulisek, there were issues but not very serious issues from the health aspect.

I want to assure the hon. member that, yes, the Government of Canada will continue monitoring this case very seriously. The ambassador, when he meets with the Mexican authorities, raises this issue all the time. In fact, the ambassador told my colleague that every time he went to any function with the Mexican authorities they looked at the ambassador and knew he would raise the Kulisek question.

I assure the member and everyone here that this government takes its responsibility very seriously. We will continue doing it. As he is involved in this file, I have no problem in keeping the member abreast of the situation that is taking place.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for that critical update. It looks like several points have been addressed.

The real question that remains is one that perhaps he can choose to suggest that it may not be the place for him to respond, but certainly we can do that in a meeting or perhaps with the family. It is the of whether witnesses in Canada have in fact been contacted and what level of co-operation the Canadian government has given to Mexicans to ensure that, from our perspective, it is seen as a measure to ensure Mr. Kulisek has a speedy trial, considering the year and a half that he has been there.

I ask the parliamentary secretary then to clarify and to ensure that requests by Mexicans to obtain more information have been agreed to and confirm that Canadian witnesses have been interviewed. Ultimately, he and I would certainly like to see this case move on and have Mr. Kulisek returned. That will require a quick and speedy trial.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague that the Government of Canada is involved in that request. It first came through the Department of Justice and others.

We are working on this file, but due to some further concerns expressed by many sides I can assure him that this matter will continue to be addressed and looked after by this government.

I also want to assure him that the government will do everything and anything possible that will assist in a speedy and fair trial for Mr. Kulisek.

When the member meets with me in a couple of days, I will be able to advise him, in detail, on his question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:18 p.m.)