37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 071
CONTENTS
Monday, March 17, 2003
|
 |
Vacancy |
|
|
Témiscamingue |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to.)
|
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
Bill C-24--Notice of time allocation |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Firearms Program |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Bill C-13 |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Financial Statement of Minister of Finance |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
International Women's Day |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Peace Scarf |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.) |
|
|
International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Badger Flood |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Zoran Djindjic |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
St. Patrick's Day |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
MetroStar Gala |
|
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.) |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Meteorological Service of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Meteorological Service of Canada |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Acts of Bravery |
|
|
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Canadian Learning Institute |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Amber Alert Program |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
International Women's Day |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Member for LaSalle--Émard |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Aid |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Letter from Member for Calgary West--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Parliament of Canada Act |
|
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency Act |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Freedom of Religion |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Emergency Preparedness College |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Situation in Iraq |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget |
|
|
Financial statement of Minister of Finance |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Financial Statement of Minister of Finance |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
|
|
Situation in Iraq |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Gar Knutson (Secretary of State (Central and Eastern Europe and Middle East), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, March 17, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Vacancy
Témiscamingue
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Pierre Brien, member for the electoral district of Témiscamingue, by resignation effective March 14, 2003.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, February 28, the motion to concur in the third report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons regarding provisional Standing Orders is deemed moved, the question deemed put and agreed to.
However, the proceedings on the items now on the order of precedence will continue under the current provisions of the Standing Orders until all those items have been disposed of by the House at their current stage, while the subsequent stages will be governed by the provisional Standing Orders.
[Translation]
I wish to inform hon. members that the draw for private members' business will be held tomorrow at 1 p.m. in Room 112-N, Centre Block. The first 30 items of business will, however, not be transferred to the priority list until Friday, March 21, at 2 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[English]
Canada Elections Act
Bill C-24--Notice of time allocation
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and pursuant to that consultation I would like to move a motion that has received the consent of all House leaders or a representative in the case where the House leader was not available. Following that, I will be making another announcement. I move:
|
That all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading of Bill C-24 shall be put without further debate or amendment at the end of the time provided for Government Orders on March 18, 2003. |
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the strength of what has just occurred, I now wish to state that tomorrow shall not be a designated day for the opposition. Instead, the opposition day will occur on March 24.
* * *
Privilege
Firearms Program
[Privilege]
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast has given the Chair notice of a question of privilege.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to information provided to Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board. The minister has deceived the House in an attempt to keep Parliament in the dark with respect to the funding of the firearms registry program.
As you are aware, the issue regarding the reporting of the funds for the firearms registry has quite a history. It is a history of deception. The latest deception involves the classification of the firearms registry as a major crown project. On February 25, 2003, in response to a question from the member for Yorkton—Melville, the President of the Treasury Board said, “...according to my information the program was not formally designed as a major crown project”.
The Auditor General, in a letter provided to members of the public accounts committee, provides evidence to counter the claim of the minister. The evidence is not at dispute between the Auditor General and the President of the Treasury Board. The dispute over whether or not the firearms program is a major crown project comes from the same source: the Treasury Board. It is similar to the case of the former minister of defence, who gave two versions of events to the House, and is also similar to a 1973 case involving information given to the House and conflicting information given to a royal commission. I will present the two cases later.
The Auditor General has sent a follow-up memo to the MPs on the public accounts committee and the senators on the Senate national finance committee. The memo provides several examples in which both Treasury Board and the justice department make use of the term “major crown project”.
The National Post obtained a letter from the Auditor General and published some of its contents on Wednesday, March 12, 2003. The article states:
|
“The Department of Justice now appears to be objecting to the chapter's description of the Canadian Firearms Program as a major Crown project, and it appears to consider this a significant matter,” writes Ms. Fraser. “Our review of government documents related to the Canadian Firearms Program clearly indicated that the Program was a major Crown project.” |
| In one example, Ms. Fraser wrote that draft versions of her report are sent to departments for review. Ms. Fraser states the Treasury Board did not dispute the term's use, and in fact corrected one paragraph, requesting that the phrase “major capital project” be changed to “major Crown project”. |
Mr. Speaker, it was the Treasury Board that corrected the draft report to read “major Crown project” with respect to the firearms registry. We have the minister saying one thing and the department saying another.
The Ottawa Citizen and the Calgary Herald ran a similar story. They reported:
|
Fraser wrote to the committee, saying that in March 1998, the year the National Firearms Act took effect, the Justice Department defined the program as a major Crown project when it sought preliminary project approval from Treasury Board, a committee of cabinet. |
|
“The Treasury Board approved the submission in April 1998,” says Fraser's submission. |
|
In May of the same year, the department again stated the Treasury Board had directed the program be managed as a major Crown project. |
|
In a November submission to the Treasury Board, the Justice Department “specifically noted that the project was a major Crown corporation,” wrote Fraser. |
|
Fraser told the committee that even in response to her own findings about poor spending controls in the program last year, the Justice Department and Treasury Board did not challenge her statement, prior to the release of her report, that the firearms program was a major Crown project. |
|
A spokesman for the Canadian Firearms Centre two weeks ago told CanWest News Service that the registry had never been designated a major Crown project, but the department “treated” it as a major Crown project. |
|
The same spokesman on Tuesday, when informed about Fraser's testimony, said he had since checked again and learned that the department had in fact treated only the computer-system components as a major Crown project. |
On February 1, 2002, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar concerning statements made in the House by the former minister of national defence.
The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar alleged that the former minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days and alluded to a number of statements made to the media by the minister.
The Speaker said:
|
The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. |
(1110)
Even though the former minister of defence claimed that he did not intend to mislead the House, the Speaker found that a prima facie question of privilege existed. The Speaker said:
|
I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. I refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit at page 67: |
|
“There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties...”. |
The Speaker concluded his remarks and said:
|
On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in the view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. |
The situation regarding the term “major Crown project” is similar. The minister advised the House that the firearms program was not a major crown project. It was reported to a committee of the House that the program was considered by the Treasury Board and the Department of Justice as a “major Crown project”. In addition, the Auditor General reported to the House that it was a “major Crown project”.
That term is significant with respect to how the government must report to Parliament on the funding for the firearms program. It is also significant that the firearms program is under intense scrutiny and the government believes that it would be advantageous to keep Parliament in the dark as much as possible. It is only advantageous, Mr. Speaker, if we let the government get away with it.
There was a case in 1973 when the member for Northumberland--Durham asked questions of the then solicitor general about the practice of the RCMP opening mail. Later remarks before a royal commission by the former commissioner of the RCMP disputed that claim.
The sum of this evidence permitted the Speaker in 1973 to find a prima facie case of contempt where the RCMP was alleged to have deliberately misled a minister of the Crown and the member for Northumberland--Durham, resulting in “an attempt to obstruct the House by offering misleading information”.
In the 1973 case, two versions of events were presented, one in the House and one at a royal commission. The sources for those two versions were the same: the RCMP. In 1973, the minister was not actually aware that he was misleading the House. He received his information from the RCMP.
In the case I present to the Speaker today, we have two versions of events as well: one statement from the minister to the House, and several statements to the contrary, from department officials, that were reported to a committee. As in 1973, the two versions came from the same source, with officials saying one thing and the minister saying another.
Adding to the allegation of deliberately misleading Parliament, we have an officer of Parliament, the Auditor General, confirming that Parliament has been and continues to be deliberately misled. The Auditor General's report to Parliament states:
|
Back in 1995, the Department of Justice told Parliament that the program would cost taxpayers about $2 million. The Department now says that by 2004-05 the cost of this program could amount to more than $1 billion. |
| And even though the department has many explanations for this ballooning of costs, it never shared any of them with Parliament...What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark. I question why the Department continued to watch the costs escalate without informing Parliament and without considering alternatives. |
The Auditor General also pointed out that:
|
The information the Department provided states that by 2001-02 it has spent about $688 million on the Program and collected about $59 million in revenues after refunds. We believe that this information does not fairly present the cost of the Program to the government. |
|
The Department also did not report to Parliament on the wider costs of the Program as required by the government's regulatory policy. |
|
Furthermore, the entire Program was designated as a major Crown project. Treasury Board policies require departments, at a minimum, to annually report the following types of information to Parliament-- |
The government is playing fast and loose with the term “major Crown project” in order to keep Parliament in the dark. On the one hand, the firearms program is a major crown corporation, and on the other hand, it is not. The government claims on some occasions that the firearms registry is not a major crown project, yet on other occasions it claims that it is. The Auditor General reports that it is. The President of the Treasury Board reports that it is not. The House is told that it is. A committee of the House is told that it is not.
(1115)
In the Speaker's ruling of February 1, he said:
|
--in deciding on alleged questions of privilege, it is relatively infrequent for the Chair to find prima facie privilege; it is much more likely that the Speaker will characterize the situation as “a dispute as to facts”. But in the case before us, there appears to be in my opinion no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the minister and other hon. members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House. |
Mr. Speaker, in this case, two versions have been presented to the House and to its committees.
The member for Yorkton--Melville has raised a question of privilege in the House on a similar matter. One of his concerns was the impression left with the public. He quoted a headline from the Globe and Mail, “Lies and contempt for Parliament at root of scandal in gun registry”; the Ottawa Citizen, “Government accused of hiding secret audit ”; the Winnipeg Sun, “Liberals lied”. Now we have more stories about scandal, contempt, lies and cover-up.
While certain committees of the House are investigating the scandal aspect of the gun registry, we also need to look into the contempt aspect of this tragedy. There is enough evidence to show, as the Globe and Mail put it, that there exists “Lies and contempt for Parliament”. Of all of the investigations, this one is crucial because in order for other committees to be successful they must be assured that they are not being deceived. Those who are deceiving must be punished and the contempt for Parliament by the government must stop.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a point before the House concerning my response to a question from the official opposition. I was asked whether the firearms control program had been designated a major crown project by Treasury Board. I repeat my answer: According to my information, the program was never formally designated as a major crown project. That is the answer I gave.
I meant that, in order to be formally designated, this ought to have involved a decision by the ministers of Treasury Board, who meet regularly. To my knowledge, after an examination by my senior officials of all Treasury Board records and decisions, there has never been a written decision by Treasury Board formally designating this project as a major crown project.
That said, I think it is quite normal that there has been some confusion regarding this designation and, specifically, the Auditor General's remarks before the standing committee. Why? Because, according to many Department of Justice documents, this program should be managed as a major crown project, hence the confusion. It must be managed, but it has not been formally designated.
I think that, consequently, the Auditor General and the Secretary of the Treasury Board met to try to clarify this whole issue. They both agreed that, other than whether or not the program is designated a major crown project, the most important issue was that of parliamentary reports and their relevancy. This is really the most important issue.
It is so important that this same parliamentary committee—the Standing Committee on Public Accounts—has even asked me to appear this afternoon with the Auditor General to provide all the clarifications needed in this regard and to answer all the members' questions.
For a number of weeks now, this program has raised numerous questions, and I can assure you that all the spending authorities for this program were approved by this House, in the main estimates, or the supplementary estimates, through related appropriation acts and, naturally, the public accounts.
That said, the Auditor General has stated that Parliament should have been provided with better information. The Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat completely agree with her on this. But once again, this afternoon, we will have the opportunity to debate this issue with parliamentarians and answer all their questions.
Far be it from me to provide the House with incorrect information. I have answered to the best of my knowledge.
(1120)
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to quickly add a little to what the hon. President of the Treasury Board has said. I simply want to point out that the question of whether or not something was designated a major crown project is not a question of parliamentary procedure. Obviously it is a question of administrative process and therefore is a matter which is the prerogative of the government.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks of the minister make it abundantly clear why you need to investigate this.
The Auditor General made it clear that the House was being kept in the dark. This was a major crown project and I do not think you have heard anything this morning that would take away from the fact that you must investigate this and investigate it properly.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable members who spoke on this subject: the honourable member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, who raised the issue, the honourable Treasury Board president, the honourable member for Halifax West and the honourable member for Yorkton—Melville.
[English]
The Chair will take the matter under advisement. I will look into the matter and get back to the House in due course.
* * *
Business of the House
Bill C-13
[Business of the House]
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that after further examination a correction has been made to the voting pattern in respect of Motion Nos. 23, 24 and 26 in Group No. 2 of Bill C-13. These motions will now be voted on separately and copies of the revised report stage chart are available at the table for perusal by all hon. members.
Government Orders
[The Budget]
* * *
[English]
The Budget
Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I first want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.
I am very pleased to rise today to participate in the budget debate. I agree fully with the overriding thrust and objectives of the budget. I would refer to this budget as a threshold budget.
As everyone in the House is aware, when this government came to power we inherited a mess left by the previous Progressive Conservative government. Tough decisions had to be made and the correct programs and policies had to be implemented. It is only now that we are in a real position to make some of the additional investments in the social fabric of society.
I will focus my remarks to a certain extent on how the budget will benefit business, especially small business. Since the budget was tabled, I have spoken to a lot of ordinary Canadians, Canadians who go to work everyday, pay their taxes and who want the government to spend their money on the priorities of Canadians.
After having those conversations I was left with two very distinct and clear messages. First, people told me that they liked the budget, that they liked the additional investments in social spending and that they liked the fact that we were going to continue a record of balanced budgets. They also told me that they were getting sick and tired of the interest groups and the provincial premiers whining about everything. We heard that over the last two or three weeks.
I have also heard the argument that the level of spending far exceeds, in this particular budget, the level of growth in our gross domestic product. This is correct, and increases of this magnitude are certainly not sustainable.
However we have to bear in mind that approximately 50% of the increased spending comes from the health accord which is a threshold, non-recurring item and certainly a priority of all Canadians.
Dealing with the health care debate, which to a certain extent preceded the budget debate, I found it somewhat amusing. The Romanow commission crossed Canada, heard from Canadians and came forward with what I thought were excellent recommendations. The report was tabled in the House and the government responded to those recommendations. One of the responses, of course, was monetary. We have a package containing approximately $35 billion over five years. This will facilitate changes in the way health care is delivered in this country. It offers limited home care, catastrophic drug coverage and changes in accountability. This was the biggest investment in health care ever in the country.
What was the reaction of the premiers? It was total rejection. Why? I would suggest it is because the day they stop whining is the day they will have to start delivering. Right now the ball is in their court. They have to deliver and Canadians, certainly the Canadians that I talked to, are quite prepared to hold them to account.
I realize I am a little off topic but the points I want to make today go to how this budget is good for business, especially small business. Before getting into the specific provisions of how this budget will help small business, I want to say that the budget continues in the same basic direction that the government has been heading in the last nine years. The evidence is overwhelming. The fundamentals are correct. The monetary and fiscal stabilizers of low inflation, low interest rates, wholesale tax cuts and modest increases in government spending have led to a very healthy Canadian economy.
We have some right wing interest groups. The Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party come forward saying that the tax cuts are not deep enough, that we have no business involving ourselves in the Kyoto accord and the environment, that everyone in Canada has a God given right to own a gun, and that we should cut government spending.
(1125)
I say to them, let us forget rhetoric for a few minutes and talk about the numbers. Let us have what I would call a 30 minute lucid interval here. Let us deal with the facts.
Whatever ratio, or test or indices people want to use, I am willing to have a chat about it. If they want to talk about the debt to GDP ratio, or debt reduction, or the cumulative surplus, or the gross domestic product, or the projected gross domestic product, or jobs created, or the unemployment rate, or the interest, or the inflation rate or the consumer confidence rate, they can pick whatever indices they want and we can have a chat about it.
However the bottom line is the economy is performing healthily. The reason is that the fundamentals are correct, the programs are there, the fiscal and monetary stabilizers are in place and they are working.
Dealing specifically with the provisions of the budget that have a direct effect on small business, I am very pleased to talk about some them.
The first one I want to mention is the increase in the small business deduction from $200,000 to $300,000. This is a very healthy development. In a lot of cases we have small start-up businesses. They make some money. All of a sudden they get beyond the $200,000 threshold and they get into a higher tax bracket. That $200,000 threshold has been moved to $300,000 which will have a very positive effect in our business community.
The second item which I am very pleased with is the elimination of the capital tax. The capital tax does not tax profit but it taxes the goods that make the profit, the capital. It was a regressive tax. I am a member of the finance committee. Three years in a row we have recommended the elimination of the capital tax. I am very pleased the government has followed up on that recommendation and the capital tax will be eliminated over the next four years.
I am also very pleased that the government has seen fit to decrease the air traveller's security fee from $12 to $7, which is a healthy development, especially for the short haul routes in the smaller regional airports.
I am very pleased the government is continuing with the innovation agenda. We have the increases to the granting councils, the increases in government funding to the universities for indirect costs of research and the scholarship fund. All these items add to the continuing of the innovation agenda which I submit will be very healthy for the Canadian economy.
I was very pleased the government announced an increase in the RRSP limits. This allows Canadians to plan for their retirement. It also provides a pool of capital for Canadian business. This will go to $18,000 over the next four years.
I am also very pleased the government announced that it will continue with the skills and training agenda. This is so important for the future or our economy.
I am also very pleased the government has announced a $30 million expenditure to increase investor confidence in the area of securities regulation.
The employment insurance premiums have been decreased. I believe that is 10 years in a row.
The government has also announced a decrease in taxes for income from resource revenue, decreasing 21% over the next five years.
Most important, I believe the message is there by virtue of a balanced budget. This sends a very clear message to all Canadians that the trends will be there in the future.
The government has also made very significant strategic investments in child care, environment, cities, child poverty and health care which very clearly define the link between social spending and economic policy.
I realize my time is up. I want to say to the House and to all Canadians that I support the budget. I urge my colleagues in the House to support the budget. We are laying the foundation for the future of the country. It asks us to all move forward with commitment, with confidence and with courage.
(1130)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Prince Edward Island a couple of questions that are close to his area of concern.
The budget was very clear in the fact that it did not in any way adequately support the men and women of our Coast Guard. As he knows, the Coast Guard plays a vital role in the economy and in the security and protection of Atlantic Canada as well as the rest of the country for that matter. The moneys as stated in the budget are clearly inadequate compared to the moneys for which it has been looking. Could he comment on why the budget neglected those concerns?
As well, last October the Prime Minister stated in a big press conference in Ottawa that parks were one of his major priorities and that they would be creating 10 more national parks throughout the country, including five marine parks. However everyone in that conference and everyone who has worked on this file for many years has stated that the minimum amount required is $200 million over a five year period. Again the budget fell way short of those recommendations.
Why has the budget so inadequately addressed these two serious issues which affect the country?
(1135)
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say to my learned friend about the Coast Guard but the budget that I have read very clearly states that the Canadian Coast Guard will receive, and I may stand to be corrected, either $75 million or $90 million for additional capital requirements which I think is a very important announcement. That was in the budget. That is to start to replace the fleet, which hon. members have pointed out is needed. I read it. I am certainly pleased that it is there. I point out to my learned friend that it is there and that he should read it and applaud the government for doing that.
I want to applaud the government for the initiative on the national parks. While it was not in the budget, in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister announced 10 new national parks for Canada, which is a tremendous initiative. These parks would be in remote areas of the country which I think would expand the infrastructure of our park system which is a tremendous development.
Again, I applaud the government for both the increase in the funding for the Coast Guard and for the announcement that we will be creating 10 additional national parks.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question for the Liberal member from Prince Edward Island is pretty straightforward. Why is the member against his own farmers of Prince Edward Island?
The APF, agricultural policy framework, which is part of the budget, is not popular with the PEI industry. According to Doug LeClair, Executive Director of the PEI Federation of Agriculture, the island agriculture leadership wants nothing to do with it. That is why he says that this should remain unsigned. Still the member stands here and supports a budget that will hurt farmers in his own riding.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as my learned friend is aware, recently the Prime Minister announced that $5.2 billion in additional funding would be made available for the agricultural industry across Canada. The agricultural policy framework followed an across-Canada consultation. It will provide additional funding for technology, for support for farmers, for environmental and for technology issues. This is a good development. It will lay the foundation for our agriculture industry into the future.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I was not going to stand but after I heard that reply, I have to ask this question. Would the hon. member please tell the House just how long a timeframe that $5.2 billion is extended over? It is not a one year program. It is over a number of years. Does he know how many years that $5.2 billion is extended over?
Can he honestly say this? Has he not been listening to the producers of this country when they say they do not want the APF? All of a sudden he stands here in the House and, through the budget, says that it is the best thing since sliced bread. How long is that $5.2 billion extended over?
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that a member of the Progressive Conservative Party would even participate in this debate. I know the member has heard it before that in 1993 inflation was 11%, unemployment was 11%, the deficit was $42 billion and debt to GDP ratio was 71%. I have done my own calculation. If that party had been in power for another 20 minutes, we would have gone broke.
Going back to my learned friend's question, the $5.2 billion was announced. It is an excellent announcement for the farmers of our country.
(1140)
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to address the House this morning. I am very proud to be part of a government whose priority it is to improve the quality of life of all Canadians.
I am especially proud of the fact that in the 2003 budget our government decided once again to address what I consider to be a very serious problem. I am talking about homelessness, a tragedy for thousands of people, especially young people who find themselves in this hopeless situation.
The dichotomy between those whose personal situation is improving and those whose situation is getting worse also exists in my riding.
At the dawn of this century when the effects of globalization and technological innovation are increasingly transforming not only the relationships between countries but also the daily life of all citizens, I feel we must pay special attention to the life of the community.
In an address to the House in October 1999, I commended the programs, then in their infancy, set up specifically for the homeless. I said that these measures could lose their effectiveness and end up being too scattered if they were not all coordinated by a single minister.
Today I would like to reiterate my comments and pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour and federal coordinator on homelessness, whose efforts have been remarkable, and who has demonstrated such energy and sensitivity when it comes to working on this complex and difficult issue. She understands that thousands of Canadians have an urgent and pressing need for help.
Allow me to provide some context for homelessness. Who are the homeless in Canada? It is estimated that half of those who live on the streets are people with a history of mental illness, people who have been discharged from psychiatric care and have nowhere to go.
There are also single parent families. There are also youth who have dropped out of school, who live on the street and who have not received the needed education or who are not ready to find a job and certainly not to hold one down.
We need a broad understanding of the problem in order to develop and implement programs and services that will provide support for all those who have no home.
Anyone can become homeless, regardless of age, gender or ethnic origin. Homelessness does not discriminate, one could say.
The fate of the homeless is such a pressing issue across the country that our government has announced that the supporting communities partnership initiative, or SCPI program, will be renewed for two years. The government will provide $135 million per year over two years in order to help communities solve this problem.
(1145)
Even a government with the best intentions, and even all levels of government working together, will never be able to solve the homelessness problem without the support of all Canadians.
Homelessness is a problem that affects all of society, and all of society must fight it together. We need to develop approaches and initiatives together with public administrations, community groups, educational institutions, the private sector and everyone who wants to contribute to the betterment of their community.
In closing, I would like to raise another point from the 2003 budget that is near and dear to me. I am referring to the announcement made by the Prime Minister of Canada last week on the action plan developed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to promote official languages.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and I am very proud to support and applaud this government initiative.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will preface my question to the hon. member by asking her what has happened with the $753 million of homeless funding initiated three years ago and now at the end of its three year program?
Homeless counts are up 60%. Nationally, few shelter spaces have been added to the system. In Edmonton this winter, an LRT station was opened to put homeless people up on a few square feet of concrete floor. That is the progress that has been made in three years with $753 million. In Edmonton alone, some $20 million went into homeless funding and the result has been people sleeping on LRT floors. There has been no progress made if that is the result of it.
I ask the member opposite, what exactly does the government intend to do with the additional $400 million? Will the homeless count be up again?
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for this question. I listened to his remarks, and I can assure hon. members that in my riding, for example—to speak of a place I know well—nearly $7 million was invested, resulting in more than 20 initiatives. A dozen beds were added in a shelter for the homeless; apartments were provided for former residents of psychiatric institutions who need a transition period; Repas du Passant is another initiative in my riding to feed people living on the street. About 15 such projects are underway in my riding.
Allow me to share a little anecdote. Three or four weeks ago, the labour minister said to me, “You have been lucky, Yolande; there are several projects in your riding.” My reply was, “That is one way of looking at it, Madam Minister, but, in fact, this shows how great the needs are in my riding, and across Canada”.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member who expressed great concern about the plight of the homeless and the increasing numbers of homeless people in Canada as well as the increasing pain and suffering to which they have been subjected.
I have no doubt that the member is very concerned about that. However, the reality is that the budget introduced by her government, while acknowledging that there are at least 100,000 homeless people in Canada today--a massive increase over anything we have experienced before--only offers in total 2,500 homes.
Can she shed some light on why the government turned its back on the very comprehensive proposal for the 1% solution put forward after a great deal of consultation among groups committed to affordable housing, groups working with the homeless, and non-profit and cooperative housing?
(1150)
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite is referring to a situation that may be different from that of the homeless. She is talking about affordable housing and social housing.
This year, the government chose to add funding. Naturally, for the working poor, it will not be enough. It will never be enough. But if we look at what the government is doing for the homeless, in social housing and in other areas, I think that this budget is doing a great deal for our less fortunate fellow citizens.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we return to debate the federal budget. This is the Prime Minister's swan song budget, which is the best way I could describe it. It is not the budget that is needed for Canada because the priorities are all wrong, and as a result, I do not support it. As I said earlier to the member from Prince Edward Island, many farmers across the country do not support it.
I only have a limited time of 10 minutes for my speech, so I will touch on the main topics of agriculture, health care and, of course, the firearms registry.
Priority spending by the government is the problem and the Firearms Act is the best representation of the mammoth waste of money. A billion dollars has been spent so far with more being spent every day and this budget will continue to support that.
City people and non gun owners should be opposed to the registration of all the rifles and shotguns in the country because it is such a mammoth waste of time. There are so many priorities that need to be dealt with in the cities, that even they need to be against this waste of money. It is the duty of every Canadian, and in particular every firearm owner, to oppose this firearms policy and this bill that was formerly known as Bill C-68 and the continued funding for it. We heard points of order in the House this morning about how the government allegedly continues to deceive not only the House but also Canadians in general.
I do not know if the justice minister is listening to my speech this morning. I hope that he has some staff members listening to it.
In the farming and ranching communities we use firearms, rifles and shotguns on a regular basis. Farmers also have a hard time making a net profit and here we have the government imposing all these additional costs on them with no benefit to them.
The government calls it user fees, but in fact firearm owners are not the users. The government thinks it is going to control crime, which it will not of course, but that is who the real user is, supposedly the Canadian general public.
Therefore, I have to stand here and tell the justice minister that along with tens of thousands of Canadians across the country who are firearms owners, I will never register a rifle or shotgun. We need them in our ranching operations, but this mammoth waste of money and the infringement on individual rights in the country has to stop someplace. This is the time for all of us in Canada to take a stand and see the end of the firearms registry. The mismanagement and waste continues to grow. The government continues to fund it out of this budget.
In the town of Beausejour, in my area, there are not enough police resources to fight crime. What the town of Beausejour had to do was take its bylaw enforcement officers off their regular duties of enforcing bylaws during the day and put them on night shifts to do the work of police officers who were not available. That is real crime control, not registering the rifles and shotguns of duck hunters, farmers and ranchers like myself.
There is very limited money to combat child pornography in Toronto and Montreal. Can members imagine how many children a billion dollars would save?
What about lives? I mentioned I was going to talk a little about health care. In Manitoba last year we had three heart patients waiting for surgery. There were just not enough doctors, nurses or facilities available. They had their surgery rescheduled and rescheduled, and those people died waiting for surgery. That is a terrible shame of mammoth wealth being misused and prioritized in the wrong way.
We have spousal abuse cases. This too is a very sad commentary.
(1155)
In the province of Manitoba, of course, the NDP government is unwilling to properly fund our crown attorneys. It is unwilling to do anything innovative about health care. As a result, the NDP government in Manitoba says that it will not be innovative, but that it will send heart patients down to the States, out to B.C. or wherever people are innovative, to get their treatment and it will pay for it, but that there is no chance that it will change the health care system. The NDP government in Manitoba only deserves a little bit of blame for that. The federal government deserves a lot of blame for insisting that provinces cannot innovate with the mammoth amount of health care money that is going in there.
It is St. Patrick's Day and I might look like I am mad about the budget that has come down but the truth of the matter is that I am bloody mad about the waste of money by the government. We are on the verge of trying to remove a dictator out of a country, a dictator who is tremendously sadistic and kills his own people. Of course I am talking about Saddam Hussein. The world has always had to stand up to cold-blooded killers and people who attack the innocent, the unarmed and the people who cannot defend themselves. That is what Saddam Hussein is doing to his own people, whereas our budget on military matters is very limited. The budget throws in a little bit more money to it but it is so limited that it will just keep the armed forced going in their current situation with no real improvements.
Here again, priority of spending, back to the firearms registry. This is how the firearms registry is working. This is a letter from a constituent:
|
I would like to take this time to let you know what my experience with the firearm registration has been like. I had seven firearms to register. I was going to be ahead of the game when registering my firearms so I sent in ALL my information for my firearms via mail using the old application forms. In April 2002 I received my registration cards. I took a quick look at the registration cards and placed them in my desk and did not look at them till just the other day, February 23, 2003. Well to my surprise there were only five firearms accounted for! |
|
I then proceeded to re-submit the information for the firearms that were missing via the website. As I took a closer look at the registration cards I noticed that one of the guns registered on my licence was not even one of my firearms! So now FOUR of my firearms are not registered. I sent in the information for these firearms through the website and sent an e-mail explaining what happened. |
|
Today at work I started to think about this and wondered if my firearms were registered to someone else. Well I guess time will only tell. |
|
I'm the type of guy who will usually not voice his concern. This takes the cake. We trust that competent people are in charge of this whole gun registry. My application is proof positive that this is not the case. |
I was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 30 years. I am telling the government and Canadians that the firearms registry of rifles and shotguns will not work. It will not reduce crime and it will continue to waste money forever and ever if the government continues to support it.
I am really disappointed in the Canadian Police Association executive, not the policemen on the street, but the Canadian Police Association executive. It will be coming to Ottawa in the next few days to tell us all how the government should continue to spend billions of dollars on the firearms registry when in fact it knows that in the big cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary, police are trying to fight child pornography and child prostitution on our streets. That is the kind of crime that needs to be fought, not the registration of rifles and shotguns by farmers, ranchers and average Canadians.
My final comments on this to the justice minister and to the whole budget process is that I will not register my rifles and shotguns under this system.
(1200)
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that a member of Parliament, who has pledged allegiance to the Queen and Her heirs, who comes here to pass legislation and who is responsible for invoking the laws of this country, would stand here in the House and say that he will disregard a law that has been rightfully passed by this country; a law that has passed through Parliament and through the Senate.
I wonder if the member for Selkirk--Interlake, as a former police officer and as a member of Parliament, would stand in his place and identify which other laws he will choose not to obey so that members of his constituency and all Canadians can get a full understanding of how it works when a law-abiding citizen chooses some laws to obey in spite of the fact that the majority of the population supports gun control, a majority of the members of the House passed the legislation and that in fact it is an important tool for police officers right across this country to deny access to guns.
How much money would he place on each of the lives that have been saved because guns have been held back from people who should not have them?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the current justice minister. The current justice minister on the other side of the House is not even willing to prosecute cases for non-registration of firearms. He has said that very clearly.
I would like to remind the Liberal member that the people of Nunavut do not have to register their firearms. They have a court injunction saying that they do not have to register. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations will not register. The Métis of Manitoba will not register.
She is trying to apply this kind of legislation on some kind of grand social engineering scheme to try to get rid of firearms from every law-abiding citizen, while the criminals will continue to have firearms and shoot and cause mayhem in downtown Toronto. This registration will do nothing to stop crime.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although I agree with the sentiment about the gun registry and the fact that I personally believe that it is a colossal waste of money for the Canadian taxpayer, I would recommend to the hon. member that as a representative and a member of Parliament for his riding he should not break any laws or advise anyone that he will.
We have to uphold the laws whether we like them or not. I understand his frustration. The people in my riding are adamantly opposed to the gun registry as he is but I cannot stand in the House and I would recommend that he not do it as well.
Being a former member of the fisheries committee, he knows very well the issues of the coast guard. The hon. member from Prince Edward Island said that he was very pleased that $74 million would be applied to the coast guard over two years, but the reality is that will buy one coast guard icebreaker. We need more resources and I would like the hon. member to comment on the lack of resources for our coast guard in this budget.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament I will do everything in my power, both as a member of Parliament and as a citizen of this country, to change laws that are wrong and that waste our national resources. If members do not think this has been done around the world, and I certainly do not put myself in this category, but people have opposed oppressive regimes all through history; Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, all these people, when they identify a big wrong, they go against it. I am saying that Canadians should be against this waste of priorities.
The members over on the Liberal side laugh about deaths from heart attacks that could have been prevented with simple surgery. They laugh about child pornography. That member happens to be a female member from the Liberal side of the House. I do not know if she has any children or not, but the fact is that we have a duty and a responsibility to protect our children and using the money for firearm registry of law-abiding citizens instead of protecting children is wrong, wrong, wrong.
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. So, I will have ten minutes to try to get through the February budget.
To start, I would like to say that I will be talking about four sectors that are very important to my riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable: employment insurance, softwood lumber, gasoline and agriculture.
Take employment insurance. For a long time, the opposition parties have unanimously condemned the Employment Insurance Fund surpluses. Several billion dollars were taken from the workers and employers.
It was hoped that, in last month's budget, the Minister of Finance would have announced changes to help the workers frequently penalized by this system. It was hoped that there would have been a real move toward change and a more flexible Employment Insurance Act, but this was not the case.
All that we learn is that, in 2005, we should be getting proposals for change. Consultations must be held. What consultations? We do not know when they will start nor end. All we know is that, in the meantime, the current Minister of Human Resources Development is going to continue to use the legislation rushed through at the end of the 1997-2000 legislature. This legislation allows the minister to set the employment insurance premium rate.
But, in the meantime, the workers continue once again to suffer from this unfair legislation. It has become a hidden tax on employment. Often, to people in my riding, and even those elsewhere who have never earned a million or a billion dollars, such amounts are just numbers bandied about by politicians.
When people talk about hours and when they come to my office because they have lost their job, and I tell them they are not entitled to employment insurance because they are short 12 hours, they have no choice but to draw social security. That is quite telling. It happens every day. This is something we see regularly.
We can see how this legislation, which ought to be offering assistance to the unemployed, is badly drafted and penalizes many.
I would like to talk about the softwood lumber crisis. There is a lot of softwood lumber in my riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable. In recent months, we have seen companies shut down, either logging businesses or sawmills.
There have been job cuts. One might have expected the Government of Canada, with its surplus, to invest some of it until the World Trade Organization decision was reached. This government, and the Americans even more so, are letting things drag on. When the WTO does intervene, it may be too late. Our industry already has problems.
The member across the way says that millions of dollars have been devoted to softwood lumber, which is true. But right now, there is a shortage of money. Workers have had money made available to them, but nothing yet has been made available to the companies. Even if the Canadian government has made a small effort, much remains to be done to save the jobs of those working in the softwood lumber industry.
I will let my colleague say more about gas, but what explanation can there be for the fact that, in a certain village in my riding, one person owns two gas stations selling two different brands of gas?
(1210)
Last week, someone who had saved his receipts showed me that, within 30 seconds of each other, the two different gas stations, representing two independent oil companies not associated with each other, raised their price at the pump.
Do you not feel that this smacks of collusion? We are working hard to get to the bottom of this. Here in Quebec, in Canada, we have the refiner, the distributor and then the retailer at the pump. Often the oil company controls all three levels, that is it refines, distributes and then sells to the customer.
I have always said that, when a service station closes down and a self-serve gas bar opens, that is because the oil company is operating it. My colleague will certain address this further in his speech. I do, however, have convincing evidence that, definitely, the oil companies talk to each other when there is any question of raising gas prices.
Price hikes have happened far faster. As soon as the price per barrel goes up on the international level. the oil companies react the very next day. So, as one would expect, it is always the customer who loses in this game.
Now, turning to agriculture, we would have hoped to see in the budget the funding La Financière agricole du Québec needs, that is $100 million, to maintain farm support programs in Quebec.
Once again, because of its obsession with national standards, the Canadian government is blocking the process whereby an agreement could be reached between the federal government and Quebec. And who is, once again, penalized and forced to make difficult choices? The organizations in Quebec, or the Quebec government. Yet this system worked very well up until June 2002, when all the ministers got together in Toronto to renew an agreement that was working very well; that is when the current Minister of Agriculture imposed national standards. We believe that agriculture must be treated on a sectoral basis. For instance, agriculture in Quebec is completely different from agriculture in the rest of Canada. I would have hoped the Minister of Agriculture would have lent an understanding ear and maintained the traditional way of dealing with people in Quebec.
Let us take a look at supply management. We have yet to be given formal guarantees that supply management will remain as is at the WTO.
Two weeks ago, I met with representatives of the Syndicat des producteurs laitiers du Québec in my area. The butter and milk blends transported into Quebec across the border have an impact amounting to $30 million annually. This is $30 million that is not available to dairy producers in Quebec. This means that these products that make their way into Canada because of a lack of leadership at our borders result in a loss of income for our dairy producers in Quebec.
Again, when we raise this issue, we are told that we must be careful because it is part of overall discussions. I cannot help but wonder, however. We have documents showing that the majority of these products are coming from New Zealand, Great Britain and Mexico, with only 0.5% coming from the United States. This means that countries go through the U.S., knowing they will have no problem getting their products into Canada because our borders are sieves. That hurts the economy.
I am calling on the federal government to show more leadership in protecting and helping dairy producers in Quebec.
(1215)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak at this stage in the debate, following the excellent speech given by my colleague, the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.
I have a fairly simple question for him. He spoke at length about employment insurance. Indeed, one would have expected that the government would have decided by now to set up an independent EI fund, but instead we have been given a bit of a smokescreen. Seasonal workers are once again being forgotten—these are workers who, regardless of economic activity, work during certain seasons. The name says it all, they work in seasonal industries.
I would like it if my colleague could elaborate on this, to try to convince this government to take action to help these people, who, after all, are the ones who contributed the most to the fight against the deficit.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is that, indeed, we were hoping that the budget would outline an overhaul of the Employment Insurance Act, so as to take into account the reality of seasonal work. Unfortunately, such was not the case.
What we have seen is that the wall to wall approach, in other words, one national policy that applies from coast to coast, does not take into consideration regional concerns, nor does it take into account the specific circumstances in my riding or the riding of my colleague.
Some people work in tourism, farming, fishing or in forestry. When winter rolls around, unfortunately these jobs no longer exist. We refer to people in these jobs as seasonal workers.
If we really want the Employment Insurance Act to be fair for all workers, the next legislation will have to take this into account. However, what I did learn in reading the budget is that, first, we do not know when these consultations will start, nor when they will end. All that we know is that there may be a new Employment Insurance Act that would come into force in 2005.
In the meantime, what happens to these workers? They continue to contribute money that they should be able to draw on. This money is piling up by the billions and is being used to pay down the national debt.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister, who brought down the budget recently, said that the shipbuilding industry in Canada and Quebec was a sunset industry. We, of course, oppose that. One of his colleagues was very forceful in Bill C-213 to revive the shipbuilding industry in the country with the proper incentives from government and industry.
Could the hon. colleague from the Bloc comment on why this budget is so severely lacking in a shipbuilding policy for our regions in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to understand. It is because this government is not aware of the very significant regional economies.
For instance, in the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, if we had not received help from the Government of Quebec, Davie Shipbuilding might have shut down. Since 1993 when the Liberal government came into power we have witnessed the gutting of an industry that was once the pride of this country. This industry has been let down. I doubt the current member for LaSalle—Émard got involved because he was in a slight conflict of interest, even though he has decided to pass on his company to his three sons.
In conclusion, once again the Liberal government is out of touch with reality. I would like to see the negotiations from now on in the former finance minister's family where the three children will have to ask the ethics counsellor if they can talk to their own father about Canada Steamship Lines. What a joke.
(1220)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on two specific points in this debate on the budget.
The Minister of Finance included a contingency reserve in his budget. I have a suggestion for him that I think most people would support.
I suggest that the government respond to the current unreasonable prices of gas and heating oil with a $130 credit per household. That would ease the pressure on consumers and families without unduly straining their budget.
The government should welcome this measure since it implemented a similar one in the fall of 2000 a few months before the last election when it paid $125 to individuals and $250 to couples to offset the cost of heating.
Of course when the government took this step in 2000, it was in a big hurry because the election was coming up. It went for a program that sent cheques to people who were dead or in prison even though they did not necessarily have any heating bills to pay. At the end of the day, this program did not seem to be a very good one.
The principle is that money which the federal government collected in taxes was returned to consumers, to citizens, so that they could pay their bills. I think that all members should vote in favour of this bill.
The Bloc Quebecois is proposing $130 for each of the 11.5 million households in Canada, for a total expenditure of $1.5 billion. This is approximately the same amount the federal government remitted two years ago.
The difference is that we propose that this money be remitted through energy companies and suppliers, which could issue people a credit on their bills. When we get our electricity bills, we would see a $130 credit, which would offset the impact of the increase. That way, cheques would not be sent to people who should not get one.
I think that the Bloc Quebecois has made a constructive proposal while waiting for a resolution in the debate on gasoline prices. For the past year, the situation has been horrible and has meant an average increase, from February 26, 2002, to February 18, 2003, of 33% in the price of gasoline in Canada.
This increase is not the result of an increase in taxes. That is barely 7%. Most taxes are flat taxes per litre of gasoline sold. For example, the federal excise tax is 10¢ per litre of gasoline sold. Therefore, this tax does not have an escalating effect. The same is true for the provincial taxes.
There is one federal tax that really should be eliminated; I am talking about the 1.5¢ per litre tax that was implemented to fight the deficit. For over five years, Canada has not run a deficit, but the federal government continues to pocket this money. I think that this tax needs to be eliminated, but we must, at the same time, ensure that this money finds its way back to the consumers and not to the oil and gas companies.
In fact, currently, although there has been a 7% increase in tax revenue over a one-year period with a total increase of 33% in the price of gasoline, the oil and gas companies have pocketed 94% more in profits in related to refining. They have gone from 5.1¢ per litre to 9.9¢ per litre. This is an increase of nearly 100%. With a 94% increase, it is as if profits related to refining had doubled. The gas and oil companies have yet to explain this.
There was also a 58% increase in the price of crude. We are going to look into this issue. Obviously the Iraqi crisis is being blamed, but it is an anticipated crisis that does not exist yet, speculation. It is not that there is less oil available even today at the moment of truth. It has not come to that yet.
This has to be examined in greater depth. In the long term, what is needed are corrective measures that would give the Competition Bureau more power or lead to a change in the organization and structure of the gasoline market.
We certainly have to ensure that there will be true competition. As it stands now, there is an appearance of collusion in the gasoline market.
(1225)
The oil and gas companies should contribute to the work done in committee so that we can get to the bottom of this issue, shed light on it and propose the necessary corrections to avoid the situation we have been in for several years, or at least since I have been a member of parliament. Every two years there is a sudden price increase that usually follows an international crisis. We are given an explanation for the price increase, but the price never goes back down. When the crisis has passed, the inflated price becomes the new floor, creating the potential for even greater profits during the next crisis.
I think the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology should do something about this. The committee unanimously supported the motion that I moved to invite oil companies and specialists. I hope that the minister is also heard by the committee as soon as possible so that at the end of this session, the beginning of June at the latest, we have solid recommendations and that measures to correct this situation can be adopted in this House.
Obviously, this situation impacts on the price of gasoline for car owners. We are talking about truckers, taxi drivers, maple sugar producers. It is maple sugar season in my area. A lot of the sap boilers are oil-fired. People were surprised to have to pay 65¢ a litre this year when it was around 40¢ last year, which means it cuts quite deeply into the profit syrup producers need to make to provide for their families.
The price hikes have considerable negative impact. It affects truckers of course. Independent truckers came up to me during my tour to tell me, “I don't have any automatic indexation clause”. In any case, those who do end up having the consumer pay for it.
Taxis do not have automatic indexing. They have to go to the Quebec Commission des transports for an authorization every year. So they are the ones absorbing the present price hike.
Is there not some way to find a means of helping them? There is a provincial tax credit of $500 in Quebec to help. When taxi drivers have an income of $26,000, they can get a $500 tax credit, but not at the federal level. Could there not be something similar put in place federally?
Then, of course, there is heating oil. I feel this is even more serious, because we are talking about the need to heat one's home. People are coming to our riding offices, or to consumer assistance organizations, for help in trying to balance impossible budgets. They had not planned for such a price hike; it was unpredictable and often it has now become impossible for them to make ends meet.
I am calling upon the federal government to realize what this means, to make use of its contingency reserve. I am also calling upon the Minister of Finance to make some announcement that will make it possible to achieve these results now, and not to wait for the next election campaign. Now is the time people need the money.
Once the government has taken this short term measure, our role as parliamentarians will be to ensure that members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology take the measures necessary to put an end to the current appearance of collusion when it comes to the prices of heating oil and gasoline.
The proposed $130 credit would be for everyone, regardless of whether they use oil or gas or electricity for heating, to ensure that there is not unfair competition between one energy source and another. Besides, in practice, when the price of any one energy source goes up, the others follow. That is why this measure seems so appropriate to us.
Switching gears now, in the budget—and I will close on this—it was announced that a technical advisory committee would be struck to study the disability tax credit. At present, this tax credit has had a very negative impact on people with celiac disease. The government does not want to recognize their eligibility for this tax credit. However, a judge has ruled that they should be eligible.
Rather than accepting the ruling and applying it, the federal government has tried to deny that celiac sufferers have a major disability. I think everyone knows that celiacs cannot eat any foods that contain gluten. This leads to significant additional expenses. I feel that we should have gone further in the budget and authorized applying the credit to people with celiac disease.
(1230)
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments with regard to the issue of gasoline. As the hon. member knows, constitutionally the issue of competition falls within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and through the Competition Bureau. Where there have been specific complaints brought forward to the Competition Bureau, they have been acted upon. There have been a number of successful prosecutions over the years.
On the issue of pricing of gasoline, I refer the hon. member to the Constitution and the fact that it is a provincial jurisdiction. If he wants to talk to his colleagues in Quebec City, the Government of Quebec has the power as every other province has to put a freeze on pricing. In fact the government in March of 2000 forwarded a letter to all provinces suggesting that the government would suspend its portion of the GST on gasoline if the provinces would follow suit. Regrettably only one province bothered to reply.
Therefore on that issue, although we certainly understand the issue the member has raised, it really is provincial.
On the celiac issue, I point out as well that the government is taking specific action with regard to that. The member I know has had a long interest in this and again I refer him to the consultations and the legislation which will go before the committee in a few weeks.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that what is at issue is not retail sales. It has been clearly established that it is not at the level of retail sales that undue profits are made. The retailers on street corners in our communities are not the ones raking in undue profits.
The issue is the following. The Competition Bureau should have been asked to conduct an investigation that is absolutely necessary to shed light on the current situation, but was not because of the industry minister's inaction. In the House, the minister refused to give the Competition Bureau the mandate to look into the matter. It was then that the members of the Standing Committee on Industry from all parties, including the Liberal majority, decided to conduct studies, to summon oil companies and to ensure that a debate take place and that we get to the bottom of this. The members of the committee were therefore very critical of the minister's inaction.
Regarding celiac disease, I am pleased with what my colleague has announced. Concerns remain, however. These people were been burned when the government introduced a draft bill whereby they would no longer eligible to a tax credit. Since then, they have been living in uncertainty.
To make me aware of their plight, they invited me to a luncheon in my riding. I had the opportunity to see what they are going through. I do wish the federal government would introduce, as soon as possible, a bill making them fully eligible for the disability tax credit. Our society cannot afford to do less.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member from the Bloc is this. At the end of this month the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will make a decision about the cod fishery off Quebec, in Newfoundland and in the gulf. If he makes a decision, which I believe he will, to shut it down completely, close to 15,000 people, which includes fishermen and their families, in Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and other areas who make their livelihood off the groundfish for the cod stocks will be literally out of work and probably out of the fishing industry on a permanent basis.
I would like the hon. member's comments as to why the budget is so inadequate when it comes to DFO budget increases for science. The science division within DFO has been cut drastically and is continuing to be cut, yet the budget has neglected that issue completely.
Could he explain why that is?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this very relevant question. In fact, one of the worst scores given the federal government in the past 15 to 20 years has been in fisheries management.
This may be the most concrete example of a government which is out of touch with the public, which has mismanaged these resources, and which is taking a piecemeal approach. For a few years now—and this is important—the government has been focussing on the new economy, new technologies, investing in these sectors and trying to show that Canada is a leader.
However, at the same time, it is as if it had stopped fighting and given up on our significant natural resources, such as the forests and particularly the fisheries, which were once a source of pride throughout Canada, on both coasts. Today, it is taking a piecemeal approach to management, and making decisions for the short term. Communities have been left to fend for themselves. The government should be very harshly judged for this.
It is incomprehensible that the federal government has not aggressively tackled this issue in the current budget. Let us hope that the members' action will produce results.
(1235)
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this budget is a very promising document, full of optimism and promise for the future. The government should be very proud of it because it tells a story of sound financial management over the past few years. However it is completely silent on one of the most important issues of the day; and that is what will happen if there is an attack on Iraq? In the time allotted to me, I propose to examine the implications to Canada's financial future in the short term and in the long term if the United States and Britain undertake a unilateral attack on Iraq.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the budget before us tells a story of debt reduction of some $46 billion over the last five years, the creation over the last year of more than 560,000 new jobs in the economy, and economic growth of 4%, and all this in a context where other countries in the world, both the G-7 and OECD countries, all are performing less well, including the United States. If all things were equal, what we would see is continued growth in Canada, continued erosion of the debt and continued growth in the economy, while occurs in the United States the opposite phenomena occurs. The United States is now looking at an increased deficit in addition to debt of some $100 billion plus.
That is good performance in the context of a world economy that is weak. However what will happen to world economy if there is an attack on Iraq? It will be a different ball game. The people who will be hurt the most will be our American friends. I will give some examples at the very outset.
We know that a war in Iraq will create a reaction in the world. First of all, there will be a security reaction. I think the National Post had a story the other day in which the U.S. airline industry predicted a loss of 70,000 jobs and a loss of $4 billion each quarter should the United States and its ally Britain unilaterally attack Iraq. We can understand why this is so because the public perceives the airline industry and airliners themselves as extremely vulnerable to retaliatory attacks by terrorists.
For example, there was the incident in Kenya in which two surface to air missiles were fired at an Israeli airliner rising from the airport. That sent an enormous chill through the airline industry around the world. All that has to happen is for one airliner to be shot down under those circumstances and it would be total devastation worldwide in the airline industry; the American airline industry and Canada's as well.
We already have a situation where Air Canada, our carrier, is facing a $300 million loss in the first quarter and expects to have continued losses of about $300 million to $500 million in succeeding quarters. Air Canada admits quite freely that the reason why it is facing these losses, which could devastate the company and lead to bankruptcy, is because of insecurity worldwide with respect to air travellers being fearful of not the takeover of an aircraft but fearful of an attack on an aircraft.
Then there are other problems. Of course airports are centres of international communication where a lot of people congregate. People worldwide will appreciate that represents a significant hazard that no amount of security in the world could solve. We can see right there that there is a problem.
Associated with that is the insurance industry. I am speaking of the American insurance industry, the Canadian insurance industry, Lloyds of London, all these organizations that insure various kinds of corporations and various kinds of enterprises in the world. They are facing an incredible disaster should there be a unilateral attack on Iraq and should there be terrorist retaliation worldwide. We are not talking about al-Qaeda. We are talking about the release of all kinds of individuals out there who may be disgruntled for whatever reason, whether it is religious, ethical or otherwise. The focus of their anger will be on American interests both abroad and, to some degree, at home.
(1240)
This will create incredible insecurity. Insurance companies will have to escalate their rates or else they will have to stop insuring companies. There is a company in my riding that handles hazardous material. It has always been able to get insurance. It had to pay for it, but it could get it. It no longer can because of the nature of the substances that it carries. Now it is going to be forced out of business because without insurance it cannot operate. That is another example and that could be billions of dollars of loss in the American economy.
Think of tourism and what has happened to tourism already, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is the Caribbean, South America, the Far East, the Middle East, or wherever we go we will find that tourism basically has evaporated. Again it is because of the fear that has been generated by the prospect of retaliation if there is a unilateral attack on Iraq.
This costs companies in the United States and Canada, and very sadly, it costs countries terribly in the world, particularly in the third world because there are many small countries that rely principally on tourism. They have lost that tourism. Look at what has happened in Indonesia with the bombing of the night club in Bali.
It is true that perhaps here in Canada there will be some small gain for tourism because Americans have to go somewhere. We could see some benefit, but this is not a benefit that we as Canadians want. We do not want this kind of benefit at this price, particularly because it is going to devastate the travel industry in the United States as well. How many billions of dollars is that going to cost the American economy?
Worst of all is the fact that we can expect a massive backlash against all things culturally American throughout the world. Already there is a systematic boycott in much of the Muslim world against American-made soft drinks, both Coca-Cola and Pepsi. This is significant for two reasons. The followers of Islam do not partake of alcoholic beverages so soft drinks are extremely important culturally in any Muslim country in the world.
Naturally the best technology, the best flavours, and the best soft drinks in the world are the ones that we too acknowledge are the best drinks in the world. They are mostly the ones that originally were invented and manufactured by the Americans: Coca-Cola, Pepsi and related products. We can travel anywhere in the Far East, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt or anywhere and we will see these products everywhere. They are manufactured under licence in these countries. These products are going to disappear from the shelves.
You may think the comparison to soft drink companies is trivial, Mr. Speaker, but it is not trivial. They are worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the American economy and they will lose that market abroad.
Even worse than that is what happened just after September 11, with the sabre rattling on Iraq and the problem with respect to Israel and Palestine. There have been various tries at boycotts in Muslim nations against U.S. products. If the Americans and the British do attack Iraq without the backing of the UN Security Council, I think it is very clear from what we are reading about world opinion that the majority of people around the world would regard that as an unjust war, an unjust attack. The negative reaction to American interests abroad will be incredibly profound. It will have an enormous negative impact on the American economy.
If the American economy is affected negatively, we can be certain that the Canadian economy will be affected very negatively. What will it mean to have had surpluses of several billions of dollars? Those surpluses will disappear when we as Canadians attempt to bail out Air Canada and attempt to meet the shortfalls of revenues that we may experience.
(1245)
Think of how huge, if we extrapolate that, that problem will be in the United States. We will see a situation where pharmaceutical companies will have problems selling products abroad, any kind of American manufactured goods, and not just in Muslim worlds. There could be a reaction throughout Europe and China. This possibility of going to war in Iraq without the moral authority of the UN Security Council has the potential of catastrophic economic consequences against the United States. It is not a matter of just being short term; it could be long term. As a matter of fact, it is likely to be long term.
There will be some quick hurts. We will likely see the complete paralysis of the American airline industry. That will be counterbalanced by a surge in government spending on U.S. defence products and security products. There will be job creation at airports. As we increase security, there will be increased police forces and that kind of thing. But adding money to the military, adding money to the police and security officials, does not create wealth. Actually, it creates liability.
If the Americans, and they are apparently on the eve of doing so, go into Iraq without the support of the UN Security Council the economic consequences to the United States will be devastating. I think we can easily predict the outcome. Americans will not be able to travel abroad and successfully invest abroad. They will be forced back into the western hemisphere.
Now, of course, we have the free trade zone of the Americas. I think we can make a confident prediction that the Americans will centre their economic and political power in the western hemisphere, and leave the rest of the world to the other interests. We can see what will happen.
The countries that will benefit most from the Americans being forced economically out of the rest of the world will be China, on the one hand, which will come to dominate Southeast Asia, and Europe, on the other hand, particularly France and Germany, which will come to dominate western Europe. Even Russia stands to gain. If American products are forced out of competition worldwide because of worldwide boycotts or worldwide resistance to the sale of their products, if American investors are not encouraged abroad, then European, Russian and Chinese businessmen will fill the void.
What we are looking at, I think, is a fundamental and overwhelming change in the way the world will be 10 or 20 years from now. We will have fortress western hemisphere dominated by the United States and two other zones dominated by western Europe and China.
China, with a billion people, is the sleeping giant economically. More than that, it is a people who have a long culture of enterprise, business, and commercial risk taking. The language of commerce in Southeast Asia is not Japanese. It is not English; it is Chinese. Certainly, if Indonesia and Malaysia, and that whole archipelago out there, reject American products and investors, China will be in there to fill the void.
I really do believe that this move that is being contemplated by the United States--no matter what the reason, no matter what the justification for the reason in the eyes of the White House or in the eyes of the British Prime Minister--is going to cost their countries enormously. Just speaking of Britain, it will be excluded from Europe. Its ability to have a say in Europe will be compromised. Its ability to sell its products will be compromised. Do we think the Commonwealth will make much difference to the United Kingdom after it takes a stand on the attack on Iraq that is completely contrary to the position taken by all members of the Commonwealth? I do not think so.
I do not want to sound terribly bleak, but I do believe that what we are looking at now is the precipice of a fundamental change in global dynamics. It is just not the fact that we will be losing the United Nations as a significant voice. This will be creating a climate of rivalry which our children, and perhaps our grandchildren, will pay for because we will create three great zones of power: the western hemisphere, under the United States; western Europe, under the Europeans; and Southeast Asia, under China.
(1250)
That is not the vision of the world that we saw at the end of the second world war when the United Nations was established. The United Nations was all about the people of the world trying to seek solutions to the conflicts and problems of the world collectively. Now we will have the kind of global super powers that will perhaps be more dangerous and difficult to deal with than when it was simply the Communist block versus the western nations.
There are so few benefits in this. Even the fact that the dollar is strengthening is not a benefit for Canada. We notice that on the market the dollar has been climbing and we must understand the only reason the Canadian dollar has been climbing over the past few weeks is because investors around the world have become more and more uncertain about the economic future of the United States, and so the U.S. dollar has been weakening. We have actually been climbing at the expense of the American dollar. This is actually a bad thing for us because as the Canadian dollar rises it becomes more and more difficult for us to trade with our only really significant trading partner, which is the United States.
So, we are intimately tied to what the Americans are proposing with respect to the invasion of Iraq. I wish the White House would listen to its friends because we as a government, as members in the House--most of us at any rate--have appealed to the Americans to be cautious, to listen to world opinion, to support the United Nations, and to not go down a unilateral course that would only bring, I think, despair, want and hunger on much of the world.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. He obviously has grave concerns about the future of our planet let alone anything else. However, I want to remind him that Air Canada was in serious financial trouble long before September 11. In fact, one of the things I like to say is that what Air Canada and Nova Scotia have in common is they both have a $12 billion debt.
What this budget completely ignored, if I may go back to domestic issues, is our forestry workers, agricultural farm families and fishing families. Those are industries that employ literally millions of Canadians along with their families. They are suffering under the weight of the trade agreements we have come under and the protectionist policies of the United States.
I wonder if the member could comment as to why this particular budget was so severely lacking in those three major issues? I would especially like him to comment on the decision that the fisheries minister will be making. I suspect that at the end of the month he will shut down the cod fishery in the gulf and in northern Newfoundland and Labrador, effectively cutting off the livelihood of 15,000 fishermen and their families on a permanent basis.
I wonder if he could comment why the budget was so severely lacking in these specific details?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comment because it fits perfectly into my earlier remarks. One of the reasons why the budget is silent on these trade issues with respect to forestry, lumber and all these issues having to do with our relationship with the United States is the Americans are now completely ignoring rational trade agreements. The Americans are overwhelmingly subsidizing their farmers, as the member opposite well knows.
The reason why we cannot address the problems of the farmers in terms of trade agreements is because the Americans are acting more and more unilaterally not only in ignoring the trade agreements but in putting unfair subsidies into their industries. It is all part of a pattern that has occurred in the last couple of years, where the U.S. administration, the White House, which is in charge of foreign policy, has set an example of unilateralism and ignoring multilateralism, refusing to consider the interests of countries other than the United States, even countries as close as Canada.
As for the cod industry, I know a little about it as well. I do believe that many of the problems that existed with the east coast fishery have been as a result of federal governments of the past putting too much subsidy into the fishermen of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to the point where the fish stocks, including the cod, have been compromised. We do know that the cod stocks dropped dramatically. It is not just cod. In the east coast fishery when the cod moratorium occurred, some of these massive operations that developed as a result of federal and provincial financing, but primarily federal financing, which put more stress on the environment than the environment could stand, has switched to other types of fish that are also under threat.
Then added to that we have the whole problem that there has been severe environmental damage done to the Grand Banks and the ocean floor around our maritime provinces not only by commercial trawlers, both domestic and foreign, but I also point out that there is some evidence that the dumping of toxic chemicals at the end of the second world war may be having an effect on the cod stocks. I applaud the government for finally showing an interest in locating these dump sites of chemical weapons. I have long had the fear that it is these chemical weapons that may have been having a very negative effect on the fisheries on the east coast.
Finally, let me simply say that when the fish are not there, governments have to do drastic things. It is an accident of confederation that it is the federal government that has the yea or nay say on what fish are collected off our coasts and not the provincial governments. I would suggest if it was a power of the provincial governments, they would do exactly the same thing.
(1255)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. colleague opposite.
I heard him mention about a company not being able to get insurance because of the hazardous goods it carried. I want to develop this into a question for the hon. member because I come from a province that has about 50% of all the agricultural land in Canada. Sitting in front of me is my colleague from western Saskatchewan which has had two consecutive years of drought and what did grow, the grasshoppers ate later in the fall.
The premiums for Canada crop insurance, which the farmers have to enrol in in order to survive, went up 52% in the hopes of covering the losses. We did not hear too many complaints about that, with the exception that most of the people cannot pay the premiums and therefore, they are unable to insure isolated crops on their own farms. It seems to me with the vast amount of agricultural land across Canada that had a deficit of $.5 million, when I look at this budget I would have thought the government would have said it would do something about that. However, it did zippo because the amount of money it put in had to be divided by five.
I want to tell the hon. member that we are suffering out there and the crop insurance is not going to work because people cannot pay their premiums for total coverage.
(1300)
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I know they are suffering out in Saskatchewan and it is a great preoccupation with all members of the House of Commons. One of the things I am very proud of is that whether we are from Saskatchewan or Ontario or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, we are concerned about the farmers in Saskatchewan.
The problem though again is this hideous situation in the United States where it is getting so difficult to compete with our product no matter how efficiently farmed because the U.S. farmers are receiving all kinds of hidden subsidies. I cannot make an intelligent analysis or reply to the member's comment opposite. The area of crop insurance is not one in the budget that I have examined personally. As a result of the intervention I will examine it though and put it in the context of the caucus members on this side who are from rural Canada and see whether there is a better solution, because always, the budget is not cast in stone. It is a formula for trying to find a way to do the best things for all Canadians and to help those sections in the country who are most in need.
Our difficulty always is that we are a country that is so dependent upon trade abroad and being so dependent, we are dependent upon the goodwill of those we trade with. One of the hardest problems recently is that goodwill from our major trading partner has been more absent than present perhaps, in the last few years.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the budget debate, I should perhaps remind the House that government budgets are about spending other people's money. It is very easy for us to forget that, especially when decisions are being made on the other side of the House about grandiose social engineering projects such as the gun registry that was mentioned by one of my colleagues earlier today.
People forget that this is about spending other people's money. Members should spend a little time thinking about the families in their ridings who are struggling to get by, to pay their mortgages, to buy their groceries and to pay all the bills while the government over there grabs so much of their paycheques to pay for things that those people do not want. It is all about spending other people's money and I will give some examples of this.
While we are busy spending other people's money, it is very easy to forget that the success that has given that side of the House so much money is not because of the Liberals' policies particularly; it is because of the governments of Ontario and Alberta, those free enterprise governments, and the initiatives they have taken to make business and the economy work well. That is who has generated the wealth for that side of the House to spend.
Not only are the Liberals spending other people's money but they are spending money that was created because of other people's efforts, not their own efforts at all.
I can give the example that as soon as politicians get into election campaigns they think it is a great idea to spend other people's money. Just yesterday or the day before, Quebec Premier Bernard Landry promised that he would force companies to make a four-day work week available to parents with young children. The pay would be commensurate with four days but he would force the companies to pay benefits equal to a five-day week.
It is so easy for politicians to stand up and pass something in a budget that dramatically affects the business community with no consideration about the hardship that it would put on companies or the people who work there.
A good example from the federal government along a similar line was increasing the maternity benefit to a year. I got lots of letters of complaint in my riding. One would think it would be the opposite but people are not stupid. They realize that if they are going to be paying for people to stay off work for a year, it will be tremendously disruptive to business and it will cost taxpayers a lot of money. But again, it is so easy to spend other people's money without giving a thought to the consequences.
I have stood in other budget speeches in this place and asked members opposite to reach into their own pockets and pay for those grandiose schemes they are so much in favour of. Why do they not ever reach into their own pockets and support these things instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for them?
Out of 10 provinces and 3 territories at the moment, only Alberta and Ontario are net contributors to the system of national transfers. I am looking at a newspaper article which mentions that the C.D. Howe Institute has repeatedly noted that for every dollar the provincial governments of these two provinces receive in Canada health and social transfer, Alberta and Ontario taxpayers pay out $1.30 in federal taxes. Where is the value for that? Meanwhile, for every dollar the Quebec government receives from Ottawa, it pays only 70¢ to Ottawa. A similar situation exists for the so-called have not province of Newfoundland and Labrador where taxpayers only pay 50¢ for every dollar they get back.
What this amounts to is the taxpayers of Alberta and Ontario, let us say families who are earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year and paying federal taxes, are actually subsidizing families in Newfoundland and Labrador who are earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year because of the massive transfers to support grandiose programs there. This is not fair.
Albertans and Ontarians, like British Columbians who until recently were also net contributors to the system, are as patriotic as anyone else but they just do not think that it is a fair system of redistributing other people's money.
(1305)
At the time B.C. crossed into being a have not province, in the last couple of years, our traditional spending federal revenue status saw only about 8% of federal spending in B.C. That was despite a generation of providing 13% of the national revenue. We were providing 13% of the national revenue and, for a whole generation, we never got more than 8% of the federal spending. Now we are a have not province and we are still only receiving 86¢ for every dollar we send here. There is something terribly wrong with a system that does that.
The federal fuel taxes alone in the year 2000 in British Columbia took out $750 million from B.C. That was $750 million with not a cent spent on our highways. We can look at the terrible condition of some of the highways, including the Trans-Canada. Parts of the Trans-Canada in British Columbia are so dangerous that they are not even registered as a highway in the North American register of highways.
I was in the United States for a few days over the break. It is astounding the amount of money going into infrastructure and freeways down there. It is absolutely incredible, the freeway building that is going on. The highway system is such an important part of a country for the transport or the ease with which commerce can take place. It is just appalling to come from such a marvellously developed country into one like Canada where we see no spending on infrastructure at all, with nothing being spent on the Trans-Canada, while the federal government drags huge amounts of money out of the economies of the provinces.
Of the $5 billion-plus that the federal government drags out of fuel taxes, 100% just goes simply into general revenue. In comparison, in the United States 92% of those revenues go directly back to the states to spend on their highways and that is why they have decent highways. That is why their infrastructure has developed so well and why that country does so well.
In British Columbia, as I mentioned, we have the Trans-Canada in a terrible state. Highway 97, the major freeway in Vancouver, is not even as wide as the freeway through Ottawa because there is no money to expand it, yet we have almost four times the population. There is something wrong when this government looks after its own territory but is not interested in helping the provinces look after theirs.
Again, if that is not bad enough, as I said, the government gets into its social engineering plans using other people's money. The federal Minister of Transport right now is currently soliciting VIA Rail to reinstate its subsidized passenger rail service between Vancouver and Calgary. That was a disaster. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting that unprofitable line decades ago. Thank goodness it was finally canned when Rocky Mountaineer took over with a privately funded and run railway. It makes a profit. It attracts tourism to the provinces of Alberta and B.C. It is a spectacular success. Why on earth does the government want to spend other people's money creating another subsidized railroad to undermine the businesses that pay the taxes? It just does not make sense.
This budget is so full of examples like this that it is sickening. I could stand here for a whole day talking about things like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. One of my pet hates is its $120 million a year, pretty much unaccounted for, which is spent on all sorts of queer and strange projects. That is hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. It does not produce any wealth in the country at all. Most of what the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council hands out in grants appears to go to financing vacation time for academics to travel to other countries and take photographs. It is certainly not contributing to the running of the country.
Right now in B.C., as I mentioned, we are suffering from highway problems. We have the Minister of Transport trying to undermine our private rail service. We have the federal government refusing to talk about offshore oil exploration, which could help us tremendously in getting back on track and becoming a contributing province again. Why is it that we have to fight and battle our way for every single cent out of that budget while hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, are wasted on the gun registry? It is frustrating. It is about spending other people's money. It is a terribly bad budget. If we only could get our way, we would vote it down.
(1310)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. He mentioned Alberta and Ontario as excellent examples of good fiscal management. I would suggest that over the years the Province of Ontario has withdrawn over a billion dollars from colleges and universities, has cut back dramatically on spending in the social field and has used federal tax dollars to supplement health care.
Last year $2.2 billion was announced, of which $2.1 billion was federal transfers. He forgot to mention that. The fact is that Ontario's cap, because of deregulation, has been a disaster. It capped hydro rates. We have gone through a very severe winter and now it is estimated that it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars because of that mismanagement by the Ontario government. It is not exactly the best example.
I am surprised that the member does not mention our good fiscal management and the fact that in terms of paying off the national debt we are now down to our lowest in many years. We are down to 44.5% of GDP from 71.5% just five and a half years ago. There is also the fact that we are making strategic investments in infrastructure. We could talk about the strategic infrastructure fund, which communities across the country can support. We now have doubled that to over $4 billion.
There is municipal infrastructure, again, with a 10 year program, which is something that for many years municipal governments across the country have asked for.
The fact is that governing is about priorities. The priorities are clear. Health care was the number one issue. I did not hear the member mention the fact that although health care is administered by the provinces, the government, again meeting collectively with its provincial colleagues, worked collaboratively in that area. I would like to know if the member does not believe that this type of investment, which I am sure is critical to constituents in his community, will affect the appropriate delivery services in terms of the changes that are needed by his constituents and others across the country.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of withdrawing funding for various social programs, because there is ample evidence for anyone who cares to look. Around the world, the countries that have the highest standard of living, the best prospects for jobs and, in fact, the lowest unemployment rates are all countries that intelligently limit their social spending. They intelligently limit it so that they are not encouraging people to live off welfare or take advantage of generous handouts. They limit their social engineering. There is ample evidence to show that is the case. The provinces that are successful here in this country have in fact done that.
I remember when the minister of finance of British Columbia wanted to put a limit on the collection of welfare: that a person had to live in the province for three months first. We were getting droves of people coming into British Columbia, which had the most generous welfare collection scheme. The federal government threatened to reduce our transfers because we wanted to put some sort of intelligent limit on the abusers of the program.
There is a lot to answer for on that side of the House in terms of intelligently limiting social transfers.
In terms of the debt repayment the member mentioned, yes, the government has paid down a bit of the debt, but again, one of the most common criticisms of the budget I have received from my constituents is that the government has not paid down enough of the debt. Anybody knows that if one pays down one's debt one gets much more money to spend and does not waste it on interest. The government is still blowing away more than $35 billion a year on interest. That is enough to build 150 brand new Lions Gate bridges in Vancouver every year. It is a huge amount of money. If the government had concentrated on paying down the debt earlier, we would be in a much better position. It would still be able to blow money on social programs but would not be taking it away from highways and other important projects.
Finally, in terms of health care, if the member thinks that throwing more money at the problem is the solution, he has his head in the sand. Everybody who has studied the problem knows that is not the answer. There need to be structural reforms; that is a fact. We need to be having an intelligent debate about how to repair this. One of the things we could do is encourage the provinces to be creative and make a much greater use of the private sector in the delivery of health care as a way of reducing costs.
(1315)
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand with my colleagues today, on the fourth day of debate out of a possible six, and talk about the last budget, tabled in the House roughly a month ago.
The biggest thing I see in the budget is that anything to do with taxes went up immediately while anything to do with spending, where we get our tax money back in programs we may or may not want, is all done over the next two to ten years. There is a huge disparity here as the government takes in all this cash and then spends it out.
The problem with a lot of the budgetary process we have to grapple with in this place comes back later in the fall and in what we are dealing with now, which is what is called supplementary budgets.
Last fall the supplementary As were tabled. They addressed the shortfalls, let us say, in a lot of different government departments. Among them were a couple of contentious issues, such as more funding for the gun registry, which practically everybody has come to hate because of the costs involved. No one has a problem with safe gun handling and so on, and no one has a problem with registering gun owners, but the problem has arisen in registering all of the guns across the country. That is where the rubber met the road and the government found itself lacking. Programs like that are already in place, but the government has blamed a lot of it on a computer registry that would not work and so on.
I was in Ontario for the municipal convention two or three weeks ago. One fellow talked about the number of drivers and cars registered annually in Ontario. Those numbers were pretty much a correlation to the numbers of gun owners and firearms that the Liberal government says are in this country. The government has had a number of years to register the same numbers, using a computer program that totally failed, yet Ontario does that on an annual basis with car drivers. Serial numbers, people's ages and the same types of requirements are still being dealt with, so how can one province do it annually and yet the federal government cannot seem to get it right in the last seven or eight years? It has spent $1 billion and still does not have it right.
We see that type of thing come up in the supplementary budgets and I know that the government is going to take another stab at it in the next day or two in the supplementary B budgets. This time it is asking for $172 million or thereabouts for that failed gun registry, and that will keep this thing alive until the end of this fiscal year, the end of March.
The last time I looked at my calendar that is two weeks away, so the government needs another $172 million to pay off some debts that occurred because it could not cover them with supplementary As. The government withdrew that itself. In an unprecedented move in this place, the government actually pulled back that demand for cash. Now it is bringing it forward again, but it needs $172 million to run this thing for another two weeks. That does not make a whole lot of sense. Then it wants another $113 million for next year, according to this budget.
This is not just about the tabling of the budget. It comes down to performance reports. Did taxpayers get any bang for their buck or are they just buying a pig in a poke, as it were, and continuing on with somebody's legacy? It is a major question out there.
I looked at some of the specifications in this budget. Global government spending increased 7% in 2001 and 18% in 2002, well above the rate of inflation. We are going way beyond keeping up; somebody has a wish list here that they are trying to cover.
Last year an announcement was made on a major five year tax reduction package. Where is it? I have talked to people in my riding, and my constituents have phoned me telling me they have not seen that on their bottom line. I know that my paycheque as an MP does not reflect any tax savings and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure yours does not either. What happened to that? It has all been pushed off again. None of the major changes happen until 2004, and I guess that is an election year. What a coincidence. Imagine that. Imagine that the government would bring in tax reductions in an election year. How about that?
Program spending is another thing. Spending for the period 2002-03, which is ending in two weeks, will be almost $179 billion. That is how much money the government will take in. It will spend most of it on whatever is required, and a lot of it we question. Next year it is going up to $185 billion.
A lot of folks out there, as well as a lot of my constituents, are saying that we talk a lot of numbers. One million dollars used to be a big number, but now anybody can win that in a lottery. We can understand $1 million and we can get our heads around that, but as for $1 billion, which is where all the government numbers seem to float, people cannot get their minds around the disparity in these numbers. The government lost $1 billion here but is pledging $1 billion there, to official languages or whatever it is, and people cannot seem to get their minds around the disparity.
(1320)
I had a fellow at a meeting in Owen Sound explain it. He said that the best way to get it across to folks was to convert it to time. He said that if we converted a million seconds it worked out to 11 days rounded off. A billion seconds is 32 years. That is the disparity. That is the difference between a million and a billion. If we convert that back to dollars then people start to realize that the kind of money that is squeezing out between our fingers here in Ottawa is just huge.
With that spending of $178 billion, the new finance minister, the rookie, challenged all government departments to find $1 billion of savings out of that $178 billion, or half of one percent. That is chump change. That kind of money could be found laying around on the floors of most departments. Yet the Auditor General in her report said that the federal government last year misplaced, misappropriated or misspent $16 billion. Fifteen per cent of the spending went in the wrong pigeonholes. Programs could have been trimmed by that. That money could have gone to paying down the debt which would have brought our health care and infrastructure spending back online over the next few years. There is a huge disparity there.
The finance minister is looking for $1 billion in savings. The Auditor General had already told him earlier last year that there were $16 billion and she laid it out line by line. She said money could be saved here, here and here but that was not mentioned. None of that has been addressed, that type of money that could be found and reassessed.
It really flies in the face of so-called good fiscal management. If we had those kind of dollars coming through the federal coffers over the last decade--and there was one government in place for that last decade--where did the money for health care go? Where did the money for infrastructure go? Why are these programs in such disarray that we have to start addressing them again? If we had that type of cashflow in any business situation no one would lack for anything. Each department would have more than it needed. Where did the cash go?
We saw huge cuts in health care. We saw the EI surplus absconded and shoved into general revenue, some $40 billion. I guess some of it went to those great projects in Shawinigan and so on, but there were cuts to health care and transfers to provinces of $25 billion; $40 billion in the EI surplus disappeared; $25 billion out of the pension packages for all government employees got ripped out and put into something else, and we are still these kinds of dollars behind in infrastructure.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce calls the infrastructure deficit across the country somewhere in the neighbourhood of $57 billion. That is sewer, water, highways, bridges, and all those types of infrastructures. Every one of us in every riding across the country knows that it is very real. We started allocating money back to it, but the $3 billion here for infrastructure, added on to what we have seen in the last few budgets, is over 10 years. There is a $57 billion infrastructure deficit and the government is going to address it with $300 million a year. That will not even maintain it. That will not even fill in the potholes on the bad stretches of a road or repair a bridge, let alone build one. It certainly does not replace any water and sewer infrastructure.
I know we have had some major water and sewer problems in a city in my riding. It is trying to get some funding to address it but it cannot seem to trigger any money. It received a few hundred thousand dollars to address a couple of new wells but nothing of the magnitude it needs, the $20 million it is looking for.
A three year program just is not going to do it.
Here is another example that interests me from my riding. The Battlefords is the historic site of the Old Government House for the Northwest Territories. We governed from North Battleford probably three-quarters of Canada before the western provinces joined in, and right into northern Quebec. It was all governed from Battleford, Saskatchewan. We still have the physical structure of Old Government House sitting up there on government hill. As long as I have been an MP, and before that, for 10 years people have been trying to find the funding to restore that historical structure and cannot get five cents. I guess if we jacked that sucker up and moved it east we might find some money but we just cannot seem to tweak it now.
It is a budget that just does not go anywhere. It is based upon a lot of different issues but nothing that really crunches out.
The final couple of points I would make are these. The problem with a budget like this which tries to address a little bit for everybody really solves nothing. Another point that comes to mind is that with it being pro-rated out over the next number of years, it will be up to the next leader over there, not the current one, to deal with all the fallout. I think it is nothing more than another attempt by the Prime Minister to buy himself a legacy. Maybe he has alleviated a couple of problems, maybe not, but ultimately history will judge that these types of budgets have done so little for so few that they really were a waste of time.
(1325)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my colleague alluded to one of the big things where I come from and where he comes from, which is the billion dollars the government has wasted on the gun registry. I would like the member to understand what we are hearing now and that is that the gun registry is saving so many thousands of lives and is stopping people from having unregistered guns .
Why is it that every press release that ever came out from the gun registry since its inception until now was proven incorrect? Why should we believe the figures now when we have 200 press releases that were totally incorrect?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I guess the bottom line in a lot of what we have seen in the gun registry has not been practical policy. It has been political spin to try to handle a problem that happened in Montreal, of all places. It turns out that a lot of this direction is going in a totally wrong-headed way.
No one in the country, including me as a gun owner, a hunter and so on, has any problem with training, safe handling, safe storage or registration as a gun owner, but the government does not need to know what I have unless I mess up with it and then, by all means, it can throw the book at me, as should be done, but we are not seeing that now. We are seeing money redirected into a false sense of security.
My other colleague from Selkirk--Interlake said that he had 30 years of service in the RCMP and retired as a staff sergeant. He saw what was required in the country and part of what drove him to run in 1997 was the wrong-headedness of the registry. This will not address it.
I talk weekly with my own RCMP members in my riding about this. I talked to them at a banquet I was at the other night with a number of members. We were sitting at a table discussing the gun registry and I asked them how they would handle this now that it was back on their table. They asked me what I meant. I asked if they had not heard the announcement where the justice minister just handed it off to the Solicitor General, that it was now back under RCMP purview. These guys did not know anything about it. I guess they did not get the memo.
The RCMP want nothing to do with this. They do not even want to handle the firearms that are turned in. They do not want to because most of them are not registered to do it. An RCMP officer who does not verify, check or do something just right under this stupid legislation can face a one year prison sentence and a $2,000 fine. This is a peace officer who is caught in the middle of this bureaucratic bungle. It is just absolutely untenable that this situation go on.
I did the PAL finally because I wanted to purchase some more guns. I found out that the two handguns that I used to register had not been registered correctly from 30 years ago. Now they want to take them away. I am a criminal because someone else lost the records. I phoned the firearms officer and the staff sergeant at the RCMP and asked what to do with my prohibited handgun. The firearms officer told me to weld it shut and make a paper weight out of it if I wanted to keep it. The police told me not to bring it to them because they wanted nothing to do with it. They said that if I had it for 30 years I should keep it.
Who is right? I am getting caught in the middle of all this bureaucracy. I am trying to figure out what to do with the handgun. I do not want to give it away because it has some sentimental value and some monetary value. I have had it for 30 some years and have not accosted anyone with it and yet this stupid law says that I am now a criminal because someone else did not keep track of the records properly. It is just ridiculous.
(1330)
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.
With respect to the budget policies announced by the Minister of Finance, we know, when we return to our ridings, that this budget is good for Quebeckers.
We know that by investing to support Canadian priorities and values, our government will make our society one that is even more equitable and more supportive, while remaining the only G-7 country to maintain a balanced budget that will invest in the future of our families, regions and environment.
My riding is the largest federal riding in all of the ten Canadian provinces. It covers over 800,000 square kilometres and there are 63 mayors in the riding. Indeed, when we return to our ridings during the breaks, we have the opportunity to talk with people.
Last week, I was talking with Pita Aatami, the president of the Makivik Corporation and an economic leader in the community. Since he took office, he has shaken things up a great deal in Ottawa when it comes to economic and social issues. There have been a number of examples. Because of the pressure he exerted on our government, we invested in economic development in this budget.
Pita Aatami has been directly involved in a number of issues, including marine infrastructure, social housing and especially, of late, readjusting electoral boundaries. In April, a ruling will be handed down by the commission that is responsible for the boundaries.
I say this because some of the economic leaders in our region live in outlying areas. We know that the Inuit contribute to the economies of Quebec and Canada. They are the only ones in Canada to pay direct taxes to the federal and provincial governments. They pay taxes.
We know that the budget that has now been in effect for several days strengthens the health care system thanks to several measures, including an $34.8 billion investment over five years, the 2003 health care services accord that was just signed by first ministers.
It is important not to talk only about numbers, but also about what is happening in our hospitals, whether they are in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, outlying areas, or in large urban centres. We know that this reform is being carried out and will help all governments.
It was not just the Minister of Finance who was involved in the recent reform. We can thank the Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal member for Saint-Maurice, who negotiated and worked with the provinces. We know this was not easy but he stood firm to ensure that taxes were used to help the health sector.
Another truly important sector is the help given to municipalities. For instance, $3 billion is being invested in infrastructure and $2 billion will be invested in major projects. This leaves $1 billion for all Canadian communities and municipalities, including those in Quebec.
We know that $1 billion divided among several provinces and territories represents a few hundred million dollars for each province or territory. We know that with the infrastructure agreements, Quebec analyses and the federal government does its part.
We could also ask ourselves what could be done to help Quebec. People ask us questions such as: What about the federal transfers? I always tell people in my riding that the transfers are our taxes that are being returned to our municipalities and outlying regions in Quebec.
There will be a transfer of $2.5 billion to the provinces. Quebec will receive roughly $587 million, which will immediately be invested to ease the current pressures through the Canada health and social transfer supplements. This means that the provinces will have flexibility in using this money based on their needs until the end of 2005-06.
There is also the health reform fund. It is definitely important. Families and communities have not been forgotten. We know that in the budget there is an annual increase of $165 million for the national child benefit supplement until 2007. This measure is similar to the socio-economic measures that the Government of Quebec is using to fight child poverty.
Nonetheless, in terms of tax benefits, there is one thing that bothers me in Quebec: people know very little about these issues.
(1335)
People never ask, even when there is an election, where the Government of Quebec gets those $5. Not from taxes, I will tell you where. It takes them from the family allowances of Quebec families. It takes $5 directly off family allowances, which means that Clémence Côté of Val-d'Or, Abitibi, whose 10 children do not go to day care, loses $32. So she is helping out her neighbour, whose children do go. This is something I find regrettable.
Quebec will find a solution, regardless of what party is elected the next time, as to where that money can come from. I know they could go to Loto-Québec, and we all know how much they are making these days with the video poker machines. There is talk of $10 million a day, which certainly adds up, after several years.
Then there is the development of aboriginal businesses. Several million dollars is going into aboriginal communities, and particularly aboriginal businesses. The James Bay Cree, the Inuit of Nunavik, the Algonquin in the area and elsewhere in Quebec have been heavily involved in setting up new businesses. They are business people capable of finding solutions and to move forward.
We hear much talk in the regions of the price of gas. It is not an easy situation. I share the concerns of the people of my area and the Quebec City area. I have an aunt, Monique Lavigne, in Saint-Romuald, and she tells me, “Guy, gas is too expensive”. In June 2002, they were paying 69¢ or 70¢ a litre for regular, and now in Saint-Romuald they are paying 87.5¢. And what is located in Saint-Romuald? Refineries. People living next door to refineries are still paying the same high price for gas.
To give an example, the place in Quebec and perhaps in Canada where fuel is the most expensive is Kuujjuaq, in the territory of Nunavik. The Inuit pay taxes and they are paying $1.22 a litre. A solution must be found in order to move forward.
Locally, assistance must also be provided for manpower training. There is funding, and transfers have been made to Quebec for vocational training. These millions of dollars will help the workers. The universities will find ways of moving forward to innovate with research projects, but the tax system must also be improved. We know that this measure included in the budget will result in an increase in after-tax gains of up to $9,000 per year. which will help businesses to expand.
I have seen a number of budgets over the 15 years, or 14 years and several months, that I have been sitting in this House. Under this government, not to mention the previous one, many budgets were brought down, and I must say that this budget is one of the best I have seen as the member of Parliament for the vast riding I currently represent.
A number of improvements are required, however. For example, a solution must be found with respect to the cost of diesel fuel for forestry workers. It is very expensive. So is heating fuel; we have had a very cold winter, and households are paying very high prices for heating fuel.
Let me tell you that this is an excellent budget. Improvements can be made without going the budget route, through an order. The mining industry made a number of gains in this budget, but alternate solutions must be found in order to move forward.
(1340)
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the hon. member, whom I consider to be the champion for the Inuit, particularly those living in the province of Quebec.
[English]
I was very interested in what he had to say about the very high cost of fuel, heating and travel in the 14 Inuit communities of Nunavik. I know this is a matter of great concern to him.
I have always been struck that this is literally the part of the world which has the highest tides anywhere on the globe. I think the member will agree that this itself is an extraordinary thing. I am coming to the energy point in a moment, but this is something that could be promoted for tourism reasons. It is very unfortunate that other parts of the world are recognized for high tides when the highest tide in the world is in the area of Kuujjuaq that the member represents.
My question with respect to energy is this. I know the Inuit people are very interested in renewable energy and it seems to me the tides present an opportunity for that. I know that some years ago tidal energy was thought of in terms of building dams across estuaries. It destroyed the estuaries and these dams proved impossible to control the tides. I know now that there is a new turbine that can be hung in the ocean. I understand it is being hung from abandoned oil rigs. The turbine operates from whichever way the water comes. What is more important for us on the east coast of Canada is something that can operate under the ice.
Is my colleague interested in efforts to tap tidal power to help his Inuit constituents obtain a local source of renewable energy?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am taking good note of the question of the hon. member for Peterborough, but first I want to discuss the issue of tides. People often wonder which area has the highest tide in the world. I want to point out that the highest tide is not in the Bay of Fundy, but in Tasiujaq, which is located in Nunavik, a few kilometres north of Kuujjuaq. This is where they have the highest tide in the world.
As regards the issue of turbines, we know that the President of Makivik Corporation, Pita Aatami, has been around for a number of years. Mr. Aatami is a leader who finds all sorts of ways to get the government moving and also to get me moving.
It is with people like Pita Aatami and Johnny Adams, who are active in the area, that we will improve the hydro situation. It is not just the issue of dams in Nunavik. It is with leaders such as the ones we have right now in Nunavik that solutions will be found.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in today's debate on the most recent federal budget.
First, I would like to point out some of the strong points of this budget, and then elaborate on three aspects that I would call the general nature or thrusts of the budget. I will also discuss issues relating to science and express one minor reservation.
First, one of the strong points I support without any reservations, and which was mentioned by most of my colleagues since it is the fundamental and core issue of this budget is of course the renewal of health transfers to the provinces.
We are talking about a massive transfer of $34.8 billion over the next five years, in addition to existing transfers. There is also the transfer of tax points, which goes back to the late seventies. These transfers seek to ensure that we can maintain the health system that Canadians want, namely a publicly run health system that is accessible, portable from one province to another, quite comprehensive and, ultimately, a system that does not involve direct costs to users.
Everyone has noticed that there have been some failures over the past few years, to the point that we felt it necessary to address this situation, which is most definitely a priority for Canadians.
We received recommendations from many people, including the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow. As a result, all the provincial and territorial governments and the federal government were able to agree on the Accord for Health Care Renewal.
I think that everyone can already say that we want to keep this system and we will keep it with this additional $34 billion in transfer payments over the next five years.
There are also very important programs for families, including a significant increase of $965 million annually, hardly peanuts, in the National Child Benefit.
There is also money for daycare services. Furthermore, an agreement was announced last week. Once again, all the provincial and territorial governments reached an agreement. Improvements and upgrades can be made, in some cases, to daycare services. I think that this is very good news.
There are also new initiatives for families who have to take care of disabled children for instance. I think the budget has allowed for substantial progress in this area.
The same goes for housing. I am pleased to see that an additional $320 million will be added to the $680 million already set aside, for a total of $1 billion in funding over the next five years from the Government of Canada to obtain and build affordable housing. I think that is fair.
The envelope for the homeless has also been renewed. Once again, this announcement was made in the past two weeks. It involves $405 million over three years, which is a renewal of what existed before. I admit that as a member of parliament from one of Canada's large cities, namely Ottawa, we are not exempt from this type of problem. We also have homeless people.
I have seen in the past three years how well this program has been used in our community. Incredible work has been done by all the stakeholders, and hundreds of new shelters have been added. We are now able to help people who probably need it the most.
(1345)
[English]
I will refer to one particular project, the inner city health project, which has demonstrated that when we care about people and care about them actively, we not only make a difference in the lives of these individuals and improve their situations, but we reduce costs to our community and to the health system as well.
I would hope that the inner city health project in particular would be one that we would continue to fund through the mechanisms that have been established with the city of Ottawa and so-called SCPI federal money, if I can call it that.
[Translation]
All that to say that some good initiatives are under way.
[English]
When we are at the notion of initiatives that are continued, I would be remiss if I did not salute the government's decision to add a total of $3 billion over the next three years to our infrastructure programs; $2 billion to the strategic infrastructure program, which makes a total of four that will be spent starting next year and for the next 10 years, notwithstanding whatever else could be added to it in future years, as will be determined if we have surpluses in those years; and another $1 billion for municipal infrastructure, perhaps of a lesser level. In total $3 billion has been added to the municipal infrastructure program. I am very happy that has been done.
I was happy to be appointed to the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues and our core recommendation was indeed that we commit to this kind of infrastructure program on a longer timeframe. We had recommended at least 10 years, perhaps even as long as 15 years, to allow municipalities the time to plan and to have an integration of these two programs; this program and their own needs. The announcement made in the September throne speech and the confirmation in the budget of an additional $3 billion in overall infrastructure money bodes well for our capacity to renew the existing infrastructure.
(1350)
[Translation]
I would be remiss if I did not mention the environmental envelope, so to speak. The government has earmarked $2 billion to follow up on the ratification of Kyoto. That is an excellent initiative, and I hope progress will be made in advancing this whole issue.
I must admit that I am having difficulty understanding some things. For instance, I have learned that in the next month or two, in Europe, 10 municipalities will each receive three buses fuelled by Ballard cells, courtesy of Ballard Power Systems Inc. and DaimlerChrysler. Since this technology was developed in Canada, I wonder why no Canadian city will benefit from this program.
I urge the government to take money out of this $2 billion envelope so that we too can benefit from this technology and continue to develop it here, in Canada. I cannot understand why this program currently applies only to 10 European municipalities. I hope that some of the $2 billion will be used to take a similar initiative in Canada, so that our comfortable lead on the overall fuel cell industry is maintained.
I want to quickly move on to the issue of international aid. I applaud the initiative to double, by the year 2010, our international aid and, of course, the additional yearly amount of $800 million for the defence budget, on top of the $270 million earmarked for this year.
I want to congratulate the government regarding the general thrust of the budget. I notice that, over the past several years, we have reduced our deficit by $47.6 billion. This year we will probably reduce our debt by more than $50 billion. This achievement deserves to be praised and I hope that the government will properly point it out.
Let us compare this with what is going on south of the border. Over the past 18 months, the Americans have accumulated a debt that exceeds $600 billion. This is more than our cumulative national debt throughout our whole history. Therefore, I can only congratulate the government for the course and the thrust that it has chosen for our country. If we stay that course, we will see a continuous increase in the value of our dollar, in our economy, and we will be better off. Hats off to the government.
I also want to thank the Minister of Finance and all my colleagues who supported a project that is dear to me. I am referring to the long range plan of Canadian astronomy and astrophysics and, in particular, to a specific initiative.
[English]
The government has announced that it will support the Atacama Large Millimetre Array project, ALMA, which is part of the long range plan of Canadian astronomy and astrophysics. In the year 2000 the NRC and NSERC both set out a 10 year plan to maintain Canada's leadership position in astronomy and astrophysics, and with this commitment we will do so.
I am very happy that we have been able to carve out the money required for the National Research Council to commit to this project. It is a project that involves the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Japan, Chile and of course Canada. It consists of 64 antennae, each 12 metres in diameter, arranged on the 10 kilometre diameter circle at Chajnantor, the high plateau in the Chilean Andes, which is essentially the largest ground based project in the history of astronomy. Congratulations on that.
[Translation]
I now wish to express a minor concern. I fail to understand why the government reduced by $25 million the budget for the television production fund. To my knowledge, Canada is the world's second largest exporter for both English and French television productions. This industry is expanding in Canada. I find it hard to understand why, at a time when the government is generating surpluses, it feels the need to cut $25 million from this $100 million budget.
I am not saying that this will prevent me from supporting the budget. On the contrary, I will support it. However, I do hope that the full budget for this initiative will be restored as soon as possible. Our English and French television production capability and our export capability in this area deserve to be supported. I hope that we will succeed in convincing the government to restore this budget at the earliest opportunity.
(1355)
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the comments of the member for Ottawa—Vanier and what appears to be a fairly typical Liberal response to the budget, which is to make it into something that it is not in reality. Nowhere is this more apparent than when it comes to health care.
The member for Ottawa—Vanier, like his other colleagues, has failed to point out in the course of this debate that in real terms the government has failed to implement the Romanow commission recommendations. The budget leaves a $5.8 billion Romanow gap.
The member, like his other colleagues, fail to acknowledge that with this additional funding in the budget today, the federal government will still only at the end of it all be at an 18% share of federal financing in health care.
The member fails to point out that the new money available in this coming fiscal year for health care amounts to $2.5 billion, hardly the amount required to deal with the looming crisis in health care in Canada today.
I want to ask the member two things.
First, why did the government fail to do the right thing, which was to implement Romanow?
Second, why did the government choose, when it had a choice, to bring in a $1.2 billion tax break that benefits the rich in Canada and the large corporations? Why did it not choose to put that money into the priorities of Canadians: health care, housing, the environment, child care and so on?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the member. The budget addresses everything she has mentioned. By anyone's standards, $34.8 billion is quite a bit of money.
When she says that the Government of Canada's contribution to the health care system represents 18%, I have to disagree. That fails to take into consideration tax points. If the provinces want to give up those tax points, I would reckon this side of the House would welcome them back because 13 tax points, plus the commercial tax points, represent billions of dollars annually. I would hope that she would consult the provinces before willing the tax points back to the government because I do not think they are willing to transfer them back. However to fail to account for them demonstrates an unwillingness to see facts as they are and only wanting to see them as we hope they would be. The truth of the matter is these tax points represent an important sum of money and they should be accounted for in the public accounting of spending on health care in this country.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
International Women's Day
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to commemorate International Women's Day, on Thursday, March 6 I hosted the fifth annual breakfast in my riding to acknowledge the accomplishments of the women of Parkdale--High Park.
The event celebrated the success of local women including: Dr. Wendy Cukier, professor at Ryerson University and president of the Coalition for Gun Control; Judy Fong Bates, High Park writer; Janis Galway, developer of equity inclusion programs, Angela Gei, producer, actor and community activist; Sonia Potichnyj and Slava Iwasykiw, owners of Lemon Meringue; and Lisa Zbitnew, president of BMG Canada.
International Women's Day is an ideal opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality, to assess the challenges facing women in contemporary society, to consider future steps to enhance the status of women and, of course, to celebrate the gains made in these areas as well as an opportunity to honour all women in our communities.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for at least a decade the Liberal government has known that the MEK was raising funds in Canada to support the activities of the terrorist National Liberation Army in Iraq. Yet despite all of the evidence available to the Prime Minister and the fact that the MEK has long been branded as a terrorist organization in the United States, the MEK still does not appear on the latest Canadian list of banned organizations.
Why is it that the official opposition has to continually bring these groups to the attention of the Liberal government? Whose interests are the Liberals protecting by refusing to ban the MEK from fundraising for terrorism in Canada?
It is time that the members over there gave their heads a shake. They need to abandon their naive and dangerous multicultural endorsement of terrorist fundraisers. It is time to draw up a complete listing of all terror groups active in Canada so that we can put an end to their fundraising activities once and for all.
* * *
(1400)
Peace Scarf
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that on Saturday, March 8, 2003, almost 300 people gathered at Wilmot United Church in Fredericton for the afternoon to demonstrate their commitment to peace and to bring this commitment to life by working together knitting this scarf.
Folks from the New Brunswick College of Craft and Design, the Fredericton multicultural community, CISV, OXFAM, Freedom and others spent the afternoon knitting and supporting each other during these critical and fearful times.
This scarf, which was presented to me, represents the diversity of people opposed to a war in Iraq, those who do not want to see Canada involved in a war in any way, shape or form.
I join with my friends in the belief that the act of war must be the final resort, only to be waged when there are absolutely no alternatives. We are not there.
* * *
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada successfully passed a review by the World Trade Organization, which gave it an enviable grade for its trade policies. Canada's trade practices and policies are among the most transparent and liberal in the world.
All countries are regularly subject to a review of their trade policies. The resulting report takes stock of their policies and highlights certain shortcomings and progress achieved in terms of market openness.
The World Trade Organization, through its member countries, suggests, however, that Canada seek new trade opportunities rather than depend on its ties with the United States.
The Minister for International Trade replied that Canada is making great efforts in this regard, but that the proximity of the Americans makes the situation more complex.
* * *
[English]
Badger Flood
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in mid-February the community of Badger, Newfoundland was hit by terrible flooding, followed by freezing temperatures that left the town devastated and many homeless.
In my riding local businesses and organizations like Nemcor, Elite Vending, the Real Estate Board of Cambridge and the Newfoundland Club of Cambridge have raised money and relief to help the people of Badger.
My constituents, as well as local companies and organizations have always been there to help other regions of Canada when they have faced disasters.
I would like to congratulate the efforts of all those involved, especially the Newfoundland Club of Cambridge, for showing leadership in helping the people of Badger.
* * *
Zoran Djindjic
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the world has come to know the horrors of crime and terror once more as one of democracy's shining stars was brutally assassinated.
Zoran Djindjic became Prime Minister of Serbia following the end of President Milosevic's brutal reign.
Djindjic made it possible for the United Nations to indict and capture numerous war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. He re-established diplomatic ties with the west and it was under his watch that Canada dropped sanctions. He waged war against organized crime and pledged his country's support for democracy and for human rights.
For these actions he became a target of criminals and recently lost his life.
On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I would like to thank Mr. Djindjic for his sacrifice and wish his successor, Mr. Zoran Zivkovic, our full support in continuing on with these much needed reforms.
Most of all we would like to thank the Serbian people for their perseverance and for their commitment to peace and democracy.
* * *
St. Patrick's Day
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to wish all Canadians a very happy St. Patrick's Day. Today, all Canadians join those of us of Irish descent to celebrate in a spirit of comraderie and goodwill.
March 17 offers an opportunity to note the vital contribution that Irish Canadians have made to the history of this great country. It is no surprise that 14% of Canadians claim some Irish ancestry. During the famine of the 1840s millions of Irish left their homeland. Many travelled to Canada where they found a flourishing community of Irish people.
Some of Canada's most prominent leaders have Irish roots. Four of the first five Governors General of Canada were Irish, as were eight Fathers of Confederation, including of course D'Arcy McGee. Some of Canada's famous business leaders are Irish, including Hilary Weston and the late Timothy Eaton.
I wish all Canadians a very happy St. Patrick's Day. Caid Mille Failte.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although the Security Council did not authorize a war, it seems that there will be a war on Iraq. However, we still do not know if Canada will take part or not.
On one hand, the Prime Minister says that Canada will not participate in any war not backed by the UN; on the other hand, he says that the existing resolution already authorizes war and that Canada will take part in an authorized war. On one hand, he says that he does not approve of war aimed at a regime change; on the other, he submits a proposal authorizing, after a deadline, a war that, everyone knows, is aimed at a regime change.
In fact, the government says what the public wants to hear but does whatever Washington asks.
The 250,000 people assembled in Montreal the day before yesterday do not know what to make of this contradictory and ambiguous behaviour. They want their elected representatives to oppose Canada's participation, period.
Put an end to ambiguity and let parliamentarians decide by allowing them to vote here, in this House.
* * *
MetroStar Gala
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night the MetroStar awards gala once again showed Quebeckers' admiration for television artists. Sophie Lorain and Guy A. Lepage received the awards for female and male artist of the year respectively.
I would also like to note that for the first time a woman, Sophie Thibault, received the award for best news anchor.
Among the winners in other categories were: Sophie Lorain and Roy Dupuis for female and male leads in a television series, Élise Guilbault and Denis Bouchard for female and male leads in a television drama, Véronique Cloutier for variety show host, Benoît Gagnon for sports show host and Guy Mongrain for a game show.
I would also like to congratulate all the other winners and nominees. Thanks to them, the quality of our television programming is undeniable. Bravo to all.
* * *
[English]
Official Languages
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if someone sat down and tried to design as an experiment the most exclusionary system of public service hiring and promotion imaginable, it might look something like this.
First, select some skill that most Canadians do not have and declare it essential for many jobs where it serves no work related function. Second, keep tight limits on job training in this skill. Third, demote or transfer any public servant who does not meet the arbitrary and ever-changing goals. Quite frankly, that is exactly what the government is doing with the tough new bilingualism requirements announced last week.
Under these rules 24 million Canadians would be frozen out from all top public service jobs. Which Canadians are excluded? There would be the 57% of francophones who do not speak English, the 91% of anglophones who do not speak French, over 80% of immigrants, and 95% of aboriginal Canadians.
The new rules are unworthy of a country that cares about all of its citizens, including the ones who are not bilingual.
* * *
Meteorological Service of Canada
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 13 the Government of Canada announced an investment of $75 million over five years that will allow the Meteorological Service of Canada to improve the quality of its forecasts and service to Canadians in all regions.
As a result of this investment, Canadians will benefit from more accurate and timely weather information, day-to-day forecasts, longer term forecasting, and in the prediction of extreme weather events.
To produce an accurate forecast for any given area, it is not necessary for a meteorologist to be looking out a window at the area to which the forecast applies. That is observation. It tells us what the weather conditions are at that particular moment in time. Environment Canada has over 6,000 different kinds of observing sites across the country.
Producing a forecast requires a view that extends many thousands of kilometres in order to see how various weather systems and patterns are developing. Then it takes sophisticated knowledge and equipment to predict the conditions that these systems will produce.
This new funding will enable the staff of the Meteorological Service of Canada to expand their knowledge and use more sophisticated equipment. It will also allow them to strengthen their research capability and deliver better--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
Meteorological Service of Canada
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week the environment minister made a decision to cut Canada's 14 weather forecasting centres down to 5. In Winnipeg, public pressure forced him to keep a forecasting capability for now, but we will have to be vigilant to prevent closure down the road.
Over the last 10 years the Liberals have followed an erratic course opening offices and then closing them, cutting 59 weather offices, 3 forecast centres, and making massive cuts to the weather service amounting to 40% of its budget. How short-sighted.
The government's own reports show that our weather forecasting system is in such bad shape that it has put the safety and security of Canadians at risk. We know that forecasting accuracy has dropped, equipment is rusting out or obsolete, personnel are overworked, and staff morale is decreasing.
The Liberal's plan of consolidation is not a solution to any of these problems. In fact, the plan puts Canadian safety in jeopardy, and threatens our economy and the environment. There has been no cost benefit analysis done. There is no recognition that technology and remote forecasting cannot replace the accuracy of human observation and regional experience. There has been no consultation with the employees, their representatives or the public.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Iraq
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, along with millions of people around the world, Quebec has proclaimed loud and clear its opposition to a declaration of war against Iraq.
In Quebec, the demonstrations have been impressive. This solidarity shows once again that Quebec is distinct. It is a clear message to renounce war and let the negotiation process and the UN inspections play out unimpeded.
I participated in the march in Quebec City, which drew 18,000 people, and several of my colleagues did the same elsewhere: in Montreal more than 250,000 people took to the streets; in Trois-Rivières there were 3,000 people; in Alma and Rimouski 5,000 people came out; and in Gatineau 5,200 people took part.
Aware of the imminent possibility of a unilateral declaration of war, people want to send a clear message to the Prime Minister.
By all accounts, the Prime Minister does not seem very receptive, since he refused to meet with the Échec à la guerre Collective to discuss Canada's role and the importance of finding a peaceful solution to this conflict.
* * *
[English]
Acts of Bravery
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate John Dean of Little Heart's Ease, Newfoundland, who nearly four years after he saved the life of his friend and shipmate Levi Avery has been recognized by the Governor General of Canada for his act of bravery.
Mr. Dean and Mr. Avery were fishing from the Sandra L. Dean about 130 miles southeast of Catalina on May 29, 1999. They were setting crab pots when Mr. Avery became entangled in the rope that was tied to the pots and dragged overboard into the frigid waters of the North Atlantic. Crew member Randell Smith reacted quickly as he operated the engine controls. Mr. Dean made the decision to go into the water after his friend. The recipient showed exceptional courage in the face of this near fatality.
I would like to ask the House to join me in sending out congratulations and our thanks to this brave individual and all others like him.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the latest Angus Reid survey on the views of Canadians confirms what members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been saying for years: our military requires solid support from the government. In fact, three out of every four Canadians now feel that the defence budget needs to be increased. An even greater majority believes we are not even equipped to defend ourselves any more.
Recently, Canadians saw the Iroquois limp home with a broken Sea King aboard. Now the Iroquois is headed back to the gulf in the midst of a war minus a helicopter. What will it take for the government to wake up and supply and support our Canadian Forces? When asked how they felt about our military, less than half of Canadians said they felt proud. This is a shame and this is the real legacy of the Prime Minister.
* * *
Canadian Learning Institute
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget provides $100 million for the Canadian learning institute. This will be an organization that will help give a national overview of education and training in Canada. It is my hope that it will help us capture the best practices of education and training developed in the wonderful diverse regions of this country.
It is also my hope that it will help identify and deal with problems in education and access to education wherever they occur. I urge that, among other things, the new institute make a particular effort to focus on community college issues and on the special challenges aboriginal people face in education and training across Canada.
The Canadian learning institute will further strengthen Canada, which already has the best educated population in the world.
* * *
Amber Alert Program
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week Elizabeth Smart was rescued after nine months in the hands of kidnappers. Her father is pleading for the U.S. Congress to institute the amber alert program nationally.
Amber alert uses radio, TV, electronic billboards and emergency broadcast systems to immediately alert the public about abducted children whose lives are in peril. Over 70 amber alert programs have been established in the United States since the first one appeared in Texas in 1997. About 40 children have been rescued to date.
About a year ago, Toronto became the first Canadian city to introduce amber alert. Alberta, the first province to adopt the program, has committed resources. Earlier this year, Ontario adopted amber alert. Manitoba and my home province of British Columbia are about to follow suit. Unfortunately, however, provincial programs stop at provincial borders.
A truly effective program must be national. Canadians want the federal government to show leadership by instituting a nationwide amber alert program for the sake of our children.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
International Women's Day
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to draw attention to International Women's Day, which was March 8.
Canadian women have, through sustained efforts, taken charge of their futures and have brought our society to where it is today, and will help it continue to advance.
This day offers us an opportunity to focus public attention on women who have influenced others, among them Parasketi Hatzis and Demitra Thomakou. These two Canadians of Greek origin have been involved for more than 30 years in the educational field and have left an indelible mark on their families, their community of origin and the Canadian community as a whole.
We all know one or more such remarkable women who have left their mark on their communities. I join with all my colleagues in this House in paying tribute to all these remarkable women.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Iraq
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the situation in Iraq is moving toward imminent crisis and military action. Canadian Forces have been on the ground there for some time. In fact, 150 military personnel are involved in joint command arrangements with British and American troops on the ground. Is this deployment continuing? Will these personnel remain in the event of war with Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to set out the position of the Government of Canada. We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolution of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign.
Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately, we were not successful. If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate.
We have ships in the area as part of our participation in the struggle against terrorism. Our ships will continue to perform their important mission against terrorism.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the past we have seen nations support a military action without sending forces, but this is the first time we have ever seen a country not support a military action and send forces anyway. What a bizarre position.
Let me get the Prime Minister to answer my first question. We have troops on the ground in the Iraq theatre, with British and American soldiers, being deployed. Are they going to stay there or not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a certain number of people who are in exchange with the British and the American troops and they are doing some activities there. It is not in a combat situation. I think that they should respect the undertakings they have made to the other governments as their troops are doing that. The number is quite limited. Some are involved in surveillance in planes and so on, and they will carry on their duty that they started some months ago.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess we have a government here that is indeed half-pregnant.
The government says it will only support military action if there is a second United Nations resolution, but I will quote from the January 31 edition of the Charlottetown Guardian. The Prime Minister said, “...Resolution 1441 will authorize action”.
Is he saying today that it does not authorize action or is this yet another flip-flop in the Canadian government's position?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week there was a very important development. The Americans, the British and the Spanish introduced a resolution in the Security Council to authorize action, and it was not voted in, so they have superposed this resolution over 1441, and they did not get the authorization from the Security Council.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it appears that an allied coalition of some 30 countries is about to intervene in Iraq to enforce resolution 1441. A coalition of nations and exiled Iraqis has also been hard at work on plans to build democratic institutions in Iraq, but Canada has largely been left out of these planning groups that are working towards freedom for the Iraqi people. Why has Canada been left out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a year ago I said to the President of the United States that Canada would intervene in a conflict with Iraq only if we were to have a resolution authorizing intervention by the Security Council. They have known my position and the position of the government since the first day. We have always stuck with that position. Today we have the conclusion that the Security Council does not have a resolution to authorize action, so we are not participating.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): He was not paying attention, Mr. Speaker. That was not the question.
It is very clear that Canada has lost influence and is not vitally included in the planning discussions to liberate the people of Iraq, post-Saddam. We are not there because our allies know we have underfunded our military, we are dragging our feet on banning terrorist groups that our allies banned a long time ago, and we have troops over there but we are not going to commit them.
When will the federal government address these unacceptable deficiencies in our foreign policy commitments so that we can restore the international confidence that we once enjoyed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment to fight terrorism is very well known. We have agreed to send troops, thousands of them, next summer, to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. We will keep our duty to do that.
On the question of Iraq and military intervention in Iraq, we said that we could not participate if it was not approved by a resolution of the Security Council. It is what I said a year ago and am repeating today.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased and supportive of the fact Canada will not take part in this coalition that is not backed by the UN.
However, the presence of Canadian ships in the Persian Gulf or Canadian soldiers as part of American or British battalions, or even Canadian officers as part of the joint command means that Canada might end up doing indirectly what it does not want to do directly.
It is hard to believe that Canadian soldiers or materiel will not be used in the conflict against Iraq, even if they are there as part of the fight against terrorism.
Would it not be more consistent to withdraw all of the materiel and soldiers from the Persian Gulf and the region?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we still have many soldiers in Afghanistan and we will have thousands there this summer. It is our duty to maintain our presence in the gulf to protect them and to provide them with the materiel they need to carry out their job, to keep the peace in Afghanistan and to try to help rebuild the country.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the joint command in Qatar, which used to be in Tampa, does the Prime Minister seriously think that it will only be involved in what is happening in Afghanistan and ignore the British and American offensive in Iraq?
We know quite well that the joint command will be involved in the intervention in Iraq. It does not take a military genius to figure that out.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: would it not be more consistent and logical to withdraw from the joint command, maintain our troops in Afghanistan, but not allow our ships to be used for purposes other than the operation in Afghanistan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Canadian military in the region is to take part in activities in Afghanistan only.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the international community as a whole is massively opposed to the use of force in Iraq at this time.
Given that such an aggression, if it took place, would be illegal and illegitimate, does the Prime Minister intend to go further and go to the UN and to the U.S to demonstrate that it would be illegitimate and illegal, and to protest with all his might?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while not sitting on the Security Council, Canada has been more active than any other country in the world in trying to bridge the gap between Security Council members. We have maintained a clear position over the past year, and that has been our contribution to efforts to avert war.
In fact, I myself stated on American television eight days ago that war is not warranted at this time because, to all intents and purposes, Saddam Hussein is completely surrounded; he cannot cause much trouble with 250,000 troops surrounding him. And we must thank—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether he intends to go any further? I mean, he has some credibility with the United States; he has always stood very close to the American position.
Does the Prime Minister intend to use Canada's status as a neighbour, to now condemn an illegitimate and illegal intervention that is tantamount to an aggression? Will Canada take steps to condemn such a thing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I clearly stated our position when I set out the government's policy, in response to the first question in oral question period today.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the initial clarity of the Prime Minister's responses this afternoon to questions about the possibility of a war in Iraq, but I wonder and I ask if the Prime Minister does not see that the clarity of his position is put at risk by his willingness to leave Canadian forces participating with American units that are participating in the war in Iraq. So I ask the Prime Minister, will he not commit today to withdrawing Canadian troops that are on these particular exchanges in the event of an outbreak of a war with Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very clear. The troops that are in that area at this time are helping the Canadian soldiers who are working and will be working next summer on the mission we have accepted to help in the situation in Afghanistan. All the soldiers that are there participate in that. They are not participating in the war against Iraq, if there is a war.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many times in the House we have asked for a vote, and we always thought we would probably end up voting against the government, but I wonder, given what the government has said today and what the Prime Minister has said today, would he be willing to put down a motion outlining the government's position on the insufficiency of 1441 and the illegitimacy of an attack on Iraq without a second resolution? Put down a motion, let us have a debate and let Parliament express itself on this. Would the Prime Minister not like to have the support of Parliament in his position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not usually put a motion in support of the government. The government has stated a very clear position that all this side of the House is supporting.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister. He said that Canada would support action only if it was justified by a Security Council resolution. He would know that some in Britain and elsewhere argue that that authority exists in both 1441 or earlier resolutions.
Canada would have secured a legal opinion as to whether such an attack is justified in international law. Has the government secured such a legal opinion and does the government believe that such an attack would be justified in international law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the Conservative Party is always very preoccupied about process. He should just listen to what we said. Our position is very clear.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): So, Mr. Speaker, international law does not matter. That is consistent with this government.
Today the Wall Street Journal has outlined a United States plan for rebuilding Iraq after a conflict. The American plan would sideline United Nations agencies and rely heavily on U.S. companies. The Prime Minister would know that any initiative by the United Nations to reconstruct Iraq would require a new Security Council resolution. Is it the position of the Government of Canada that a reconstruction of Iraq after any conflict should be left to the United States? Is the Government of Canada proposing any alternative plan and would the Prime Minister tell us what that plan is?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before reconstruction, we should see if there is a war, but if there is a war of course Canada would participate in reconstruction. It is something we have always done, and we will do it if there is a war, but we still hope that there will be no war. I am not very optimistic, but if there is a war of course Canada will be there to help the victims of the war.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 1996, Brian Tobin, then premier of Newfoundland, wrote to the Prime Minister concerning Hibernia. A month later, the Prime Minister wrote back to the premier indicating that the Hibernia matter had been referred to the former finance minister. By that time, Canada Steamship Lines had already received a major contract to work on the Hibernia project. Could the Prime Minister tell the House why the former finance minister was involved in Hibernia decisions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said that the former minister of finance followed the guidelines that existed for conflict of interest when he was minister of finance, and never did I receive any information to the contrary. I have said, and I repeat, that he made sure he did his best to follow all the guidelines, and I have never heard any complaints from anybody about it.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here that seems to suggest that the former finance minister was regularly involved in decisions that could have benefited him financially. We now know that on at least 12 occasions the former finance minister was consulted, through the ethics counsellor, on matters concerning the health and well-being of Canada Steamship Lines.
Could the Prime Minister confirm today whether any of those meetings pertained to CSL's relationship with Hibernia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have replied and I will say the same thing. When he was the minister of finance in 1993 he did like the other ministers, he conformed to the regulations that existed at that time. He reported and organized his finances with the registrar general so that he would follow all the guidelines that existed for all the ministers. I never heard any complaint from the registrar general or anybody else about the former minister of finance.
Today I cannot comment more. I never had any complaint from anybody so I cannot today go back to that day. According to what I know, every guideline--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Minister of National Defence said that the ships that were en route to the Persian Gulf could head for Iraq if there were a conflict.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister told us that the ships will just do their job, which is to monitor terrorists in the Persian Gulf. However, Commodore Girouard will lead a flagship, the Iroquois, and a tactical group of 20 ships. These 20 ships will surely have to get involved in the theatre of operations in Iraq.
Will the Prime Minister agree that, in order to avoid any confusion, what should be done this afternoon is—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member should know that this is a multinational operation. It is not just Canada that is there, but France, New Zealand, Greece and the Netherlands are also there.
I am in contact with my counterparts from each of these countries. We are discussing the situation and I have had no indication that these countries will withdraw. For Canada, the war against terrorism is very important. We are fully involved in this respect.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply is far from reassuring. Basically, if we send a Canadian flagship in charge of a tactical group of 20 ships, it is not true that this is justified by an increased terrorist presence in the Persian Gulf.
What I am saying is that any ambiguity must be avoided. As for the unified command, it is the same thing. We currently have at least 25 Canadian officers working with the Americans on war scenarios in Iraq. To allow these officers to stay there would be completely inconsistent with the statement made today by the Prime Minister. The officers at the unified command should also be called back.
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not at all inconsistent with the Prime Minister's position. It is precisely the Prime Minister's position. Canada is not the only country involved. As I said, France, New Zealand, Greece and the Netherlands are involved with us in the war against terrorism.
Because of the very sad possibility of a war, the threat of terrorism is greater than before. Would the hon. member want the other countries and Canada to renege on their commitment to fight terrorism when the risk is very high? The answer is no.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Member for LaSalle--Émard
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister's company, Canada Steamship Lines, received at least one multi-million dollar contract relating to Hibernia at the same time as the former finance minister was the cabinet's point person on the project; a clear conflict of interest.
Could the Prime Minister tell Canadians how many times the former finance minister excused himself from the cabinet table to avoid these kinds of clear conflicts of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to reply to all these questions. I know that in some circumstances, rather than handle the file himself he would give the file to the minister for financial institutions to handle the file. I did not keep account of all that. I knew the registrar general was dealing with the problem, there were no complaints and I had confidence in the integrity of the former minister of finance. I did not keep tab of when he was coming in and out of the cabinet and for what reasons.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when there are projects that are in a clear conflict of interest perhaps the Prime Minister could put the interests of Canadians first and maybe pay attention when there are these absolute conflicts of interest.
From 1994 to 1997 three Canada Steamship Lines ships were involved in Hibernia's construction. At the same time the former minister of finance was in charge of the federal interest in Hibernia.
Could the Prime Minister tell Canadians whether this conflict of interest was ever investigated at all and, if it were not, why not? Do Canadian taxpayers not deserve better?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said this before and I will repeat that the former minister of finance always respected the guidelines. No one ever mentioned any problems with that to me, either himself, other ministers or the press. Nobody ever mentioned any conflict of interest in these circumstances.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the people want peace. This past Saturday's demonstrations have shown that clearly. In Quebec City, 18,000 people assembled, another 250,000 in Montreal, and another 5,000 in Alma. They also want their elected federal representatives to be able to voice their opposition to war through a vote in Parliament.
My question is for the Prime Minister. is this: When are we going to vote?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in French what I have already said in answer to the hon. member's question.
I wish to make the Government of Canada's position clear. We believe that Iraq must comply fully with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We have always made it clear that Canada would require Security Council approval as a condition of any participation in a military campaign.
In recent weeks, the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada has expended every effort in seeking a compromise solution which would close the gap between the various members of the Security Council. This initiative has, unfortunately, not been successful. If military action is launched without a new resolution, Canada will not be part of it. Our ships—
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order please. Not during oral questions. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister not agree with us that the government's position would be a great deal more solid if there were a vote by all members of this House, who have been duly and democratically elected by the population?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that any action by the government is deemed to have the support of the House of Commons. If the opposition wishes to vote for or against, it has opposition days. But when Parliament announces a policy such as this one, the Prime Minister is entitled to assume he has the support of the House of Commons.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the industry minister was in charge of the health portfolio he allowed an untendered contract to go to a Winnipeg Ferrari restoration company for work relating to aboriginal health. The work was actually done by Joanne Meyer, someone well-known to the minister. Why was this untendered contract not given directly to JM Enterprises?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify that the person named Joanne Meyer no longer works in the Department of Health. In fact, her relationship with the department ended in January 2002. It is my understanding that health officials are reviewing at this time contractual arrangements and they will let me know what their review highlights in the coming weeks.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I notice that minister stands up but there is another minister over there who will end up answering these questions, whether in here or outside.
I would like to go through this. JM Enterprises had a contract. That contract was suddenly terminated and given to, get this, a Ferrari restoration company in Winnipeg.
The question stands: Why did that contract not go directly to JM Enterprises? What is the minister trying to hide?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Health Canada officials are reviewing this matter and they will be informing me of the outcome of their review in the days ahead.
At this point it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further other than to confirm that the person in question is no longer employed by the Department of Health.
* * *
Foreign Aid
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the past Canada has been a strong supporter of emergency relief and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
Given the current focus in Iraq, could the Minister for International Cooperation inform the House if the government plans to continue to support the people of Afghanistan?
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I am pleased to announce that Canada has pledged today $250 million in new money over the next two years.
This commitment is the largest single country pledge ever made by CIDA and the funding will go to priority areas that are identified by the Afghan government, including humanitarian assistance, security, agriculture and the government itself.
* * *
Iraq
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have expressed strong opposition to Bush's illegal war, and the Prime Minister is to be congratulated today for respecting that Canadian position.
Would it not strengthen the message from Canada to have the benefit of the full vote of Parliament? Could the Prime Minister advise us whether he has indicated to George Bush that the position the government has clearly now assumed is that Canada will not support the illegal war on Iraq?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the opposition really wants to vote it has two opposition days coming this week. It can decide to take one if this is very important.
The government has spoken and when the government speaks it is because it is confident that it has the confidence of the House. I know I have the support of my party on that.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not indicate whether he has clearly communicated the position to the U.S. president that Canada will not support his illegal war.
In addition to addressing that question, will the Prime Minister also send a clear message to George Bush that the problem of depleted uranium is one that is killing Iraqi citizens today and that it cannot be permitted for the U.S. to inflict further damage by way of depleted uranium on the innocent people of Iraq?
(1445)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was my obligation to inform the House of Commons first and the Canadian public. Of course communications were ready to inform the British and the American administrations about our decision.
* * *
Government Contracts
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I come from Manitoba. I own a 1957 GMC. I have been to a doctor within the last 12 months. Therefore I would have to assume that I meet all the criteria for an untendered health department contract.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Other than oil changes and political grease jobs, what qualifications did Continental Custom Carriage Ltd, an auto restorer, have to be awarded a $200,000 untendered health department contract? Can we see the terms of reference and can we see the report?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, my department is looking into this matter. I obviously await its report in relation to this contractual situation.
I can only underscore again for the hon. member that the named individual involved is no longer employed by the Department of Health.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, today the all party committee from Newfoundland and Labrador presented the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with a report containing a list of recommendations on how to achieve stability and sustainability in the cod fishery, a provincial solution for the people of the province presented by the people of the province.
Will the minister assure the House and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that in dealing with this crisis he will use the all encompassing approach recommended by the committee?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member as well as all other members from Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the MLAs and the people from the three parties and senators for the excellent work they have done in having a non-partisan discussion on a matter that is of great importance to Canada and to those communities. I can assure them that I will study their document very carefully and work with them in all areas where we can find agreement and hopefully it will be in the majority of the areas.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in February the Federal Court found that the immigration minister misled Parliament. When questioned, he told this House that the decision was only a draft. This month the presiding judge chastised the minister in a rare public statement saying the judgment was final and “not considered a draft”.
Why is the minister still handling critical issues when his word cannot be trusted?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, so I will not personalize it as the member is doing.
What I am saying is this. First of all when the decision was made, we had already applied the mandamus, so we applied that mandamus for those 102 cases. At the same time we felt that there was room for an appeal based on the content and on the form, so we are going to an appeal.
As a matter of fact I have said since the beginning that under section 74(d) our role is to protect the process. We protect the process. As a matter of fact the same judge certified the question just like we have said. We protect the process but we are respectful of the judicial process too.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the minister did not answer the question at all.
Also, in February the minister was questioned about proven security threat Ernst Zundel. He told this House that he would not allow our refugee system to be abused, “Just watch me”. Zundel's country of citizenship has said officials would travel to Canada at a moment's notice to fetch Zundel, but the minister's word has proven suspect once again.
Why has he not used his legal authority to put Zundel on a plane out of Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it may be in the interests of some people to indulge in this kind of publicity, but that is not the case for us here. We respect the process and have said right from the start that not only is the individual in question in Canada, but in detention. Let us allow the process to work; we have confidence in it and it will have a positive outcome.
* * *
(1450)
Iraq
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. administration today served an ultimatum to the Security Council. The Security Council is no longer able to support peaceful disarmament or to try to reach a compromise.
Does the Prime Minister plan on letting the U.S. administration know that he disagrees with the situation in which the United States has placed the Security Council? Either the Security Council says it agrees the U.S. and there is a war, or it disagrees and there is a war anyway.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister made Canada's position very clear today in the House. We will not go to war without the support of the United Nations. We will let the American authorities know this and they will draw their own conclusions. I believe that our position is clear and consistent with Canada's longstanding position. That has been the Prime Minister's position from the outset.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, of course we are happy with the position that Canada has just taken. However, as an advocate for multilateral institutions, Canada cannot accept having the Security Council lose all of its strength, being forced to kowtow to the United States, or become a meaningless body.
What does the Minister of Foreign Affairs plan to do in response to this situation that is threatening world peace?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do what we have done since the outset. We will work with all of the other countries in the world to build consensus where possible at the Security Council and come up a solution. Obviously, as the Prime Minister said today, it is very difficult to be optimistic, but that does not mean that we will cease our efforts to find peace through the Security Council.
* * *
[English]
Firearms Registry
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General in her report found that the Canadian firearms program was a major crown project and that the Treasury Board reporting requirements for major crown projects were not followed. Now the minister wants $172 million more in funding for a program that continues to keep Parliament in the dark on its costs.
Why were the reporting requirements for major crown corporations not followed in the case of the $1 billion Canadian firearms program?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that according to department officials, the program was never officially designated as such. If that were the case, a decision would have to be made by the Treasury Board. However, it was never officially designated as a major crown project.
That said, I believe that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat agree that more information should be reported to Parliament.
[English]
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just being told to bite the billion dollar bullet is not good enough for Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I hear hon. members saying they cannot hear. I am not surprised; I cannot. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor and we will want to hear her question.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, since I am unable to get a satisfactory answer from the minister, I will ask the chair of the public accounts committee what the committee is doing to ensure that Parliament is being properly informed on the management of this program.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the President of the Treasury Board will be at the committee this very afternoon. We fully expect that we are going to get much better answers than we just had from her right now.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official opening of the Juno Beach Centre in Normandy, France will be on June 6 this year.
The centre, which was developed by a group of World War II veterans who participated in the D-Day landings, will be the first Canadian second world war interactive centre in Europe.
Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on the involvement of the Government of Canada in this particular project?
(1455)
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce in Winnipeg last Friday that the Government of Canada has decided to provide an additional $1.775 million toward the Juno Beach Centre project, bringing Canada's contribution to a total of a little over $3 million.
The funding will help in the completion of the project, in the official opening event and as well, in the creation of an interpretive program.
The Juno Beach Centre project will recognize Canada's overall contribution and achievements during the second world war.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, negotiations to settle the softwood lumber dispute have ground to a halt. Fourteen months ago I asked the minister to initiate a cost analysis of the dispute to provide Canadian stakeholders with a framework for negotiations. The government has not done this. Why?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we continue to work very closely with Canadian industry from east to west. We are continuing to work with the provinces. The channels are wide open with the Americans at this moment.
We continue to have a very strong dialogue. However, two weeks ago we came to the decision that negotiations per se were difficult on the interim measures because the gap was too wide between the two of us. We made great progress in January and February on the substance of the issue and the forestry management programs in our country.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there has been no progress at all. The American lumber lobby is in the same place today that it was 12 months ago.
How does the minister expect to get to second base when he refuses to tag first? You are not displaying leadership by sitting in the dugout or cheering from the sidelines--
The Speaker: Order please. I am sure the hon. member is addressing his remarks to the Chair when he says those things.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I was not talking to the minister. I was referring to somebody in an analogy in a baseball game.
Why is the minister so resistant to completing a cost analysis to provide strong Canadian leadership on negotiations?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is only the member who is saying that the government has not been providing the leadership to the Canadian industry.
For the first time, Canada has not blinked before the Americans. For the first time, we have made progress with the Americans on the softwood lumber issue. It has been two years that Canada has been fighting these duties. It has been two years that we have been working with the secretary of commerce, who has now come to terms with our position and is trying to help. There are senators in the United States on our side asking the American administration to pull with us. That is leadership and progress.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada's decision to maintain officers within the unified command in Qatar flagrantly contradicts our position to not intervene alongside the United States, Britain and Spain.
Therefore, I am asking the Prime Minister: would it not be wiser and more consistent to recall the Canadian officers in this unified command, because we cannot pretend that they are going to deal solely with Afghanistan when there is an intervention in Iraq, and Canada risks losing its credibility by wanting to play both sides of the fence?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can remind the hon. member that, with regard to this group of ships, Canada is not the only country present; there are four other countries, including France.
The American authorities in charge of these ships are concerned not only with Iraq, in the event of war, but also with the war against terrorism. If we are to know what is happening in the war against terrorism, we must be informed. That is our objective.
* * *
[English]
Trade
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The WTO from time to time reviews the trading policies of its members. I want to ask the minister what the WTO has found in its latest review of Canada's trading policies, considering Canada is one of the four largest trading partners in the world. Could the minister tell us what it has found in its review?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the WTO has very good news.
[Translation]
Canada has been recognized by the WTO as one of the most transparent and liberal traders in the world.
(1500)
[English]
Canada has been recognized by the WTO as one of the world's most transparent and liberal traders. The WTO recognizes that sound economic policies and an outward looking trade regime have allowed Canada to maintain economic growth in the face of a global economic slowdown. We are on the right track thanks to our international policies.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Internal documents from the department tell us very clearly that failure to properly fund Canada's weather stations is putting at risk the safety and security of Canadians because of the lack of access to warning information. The $75 million announced by the minister last week will not even restore the critical infrastructure requirement.
Will the minister admit that the continual underfunding by his government is causing the consolidation of the weather stations like Kelowna?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has already pointed out, last week we announced $75 million more for the Meteorological Service of Canada. In addition, we are carrying out certain reorganization which will increase the efficiency of the service and therefore continue to have our primary objective, the safety of Canadians, paramount and successfully protected in the future.
This is an important reorganization, an important addition of new money. I think the hon. member and other members of the Alliance Party should welcome it.
* * *
[Translation]
Iraq
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Kofi Annan has stated that the legitimacy of any unilateral intervention conducted without the authority of the Security Council would be seriously compromised.
Does the Prime Minister intend to advise the President of the United States that he agrees with Kofi Annan and that Canada condemns the American and British intervention?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take this opportunity to read the rest of my statement, and answer the question at the same time.
Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately we were not successful.If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate.
We have ships in the area as part of our participation in the struggle against terrorism. Our ships will continue to perform their important mission against terrorism.
This answers the question pretty well. The remarks I have made were along the same line as those—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister, but this is all the time we had for oral question period. The hon. member for Calgary Centre, on a point of order.
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister might delay his retreat for just a moment.
The House welcomed, finally, some clarity from the Prime Minister on the government's attitude toward Iraq, but surely, Sir, a statement of that importance should have been given by the Prime Minister on motions or in a formal statement to this House rather than being smuggled into question period in the way that he did it.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think most members would agree that this intervention has nothing to do with a point of order. Obviously the Prime Minister not only has a right but a duty, which he manifests all the time, of responding very forthrightly to questions from hon. members. Had he not done that today, the same right hon. member would probably have been up asking the Prime Minister why he failed to do exactly what he just did.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the point of order from the right hon. member. While we welcomed the Prime Minister's willingness to make a statement in the House, we have a procedure for that in our Standing Orders. It is called Statements by Ministers. The Prime Minister, instead of trying to smuggle something into question period that would have been properly done elsewhere, should have made a statement under Statements by Ministers, or he could have sought unanimous consent of the House to make a statement before question period or after, all of which would have provided a much better opportunity for the House to deal with this issue.
(1505)
The Speaker: While I appreciate the points of order that have been raised in the intervention of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the government House leader, hon. members know that all kinds of things can get smuggled into question period, whether it is in the answers or whether it is in the questions. Perhaps I should say the responses and the questions. I do not want to cause offence.
For this to happen is not an unusual occurrence. While members may have preferred to have a statement instead so there was an opportunity to respond or to suggest that it be done during debates so that there could be a more lengthy presentation of questions and comments and so on, these things are all possibilities, and I am glad they have been mentioned, but unfortunately I do not think they constitute a point of order or a question of privilege at this point in time. Accordingly, we will move on.
* * *
Privilege
Letter from Member for Calgary West--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Mississauga West on February 25, 2003, concerning a letter sent to him by the hon. member for Calgary West.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga West for having raised this issue as well as the hon. opposition House leader and the hon. member for Calgary West for their comments on the matter.
The hon. member for Mississauga West, in presenting his case, stated that he had received a request from the hon. member for Calgary West to write to the Prime Minister concerning the Falun Gong. The request was accompanied by a draft letter addressed to the Prime Minister from the hon. member for Mississauga West, ready to be signed by him should he decide to do so.
[Translation]
The objection raised by the hon. member for Mississauga West focuses on the fact that this letter was written on House of Commons letterhead. He has expressed disagreement with this approach because, among other things, it seems to give an official seal of approval to what is really only an MP's personal initiative.
[English]
The hon. member for Mississauga West protested that the draft letter, printed as it was on House letterhead, made it more likely that his own position might be misrepresented or taken out of context. All hon. members are acutely aware of the difficulties that may arise when this happens and the Chair agrees that every member of this House has an obligation to ensure that they are not the source of such a misrepresentation, even if done unintentionally or inadvertently.
In the present case, however, I fail to see that any such misrepresentation has occurred, let alone that any aspect of parliamentary privilege is involved. The use of generic House of Commons letterhead on a document submitted to another member for his or her consideration and possible signature hardly seems to involve misrepresentation or an attempt to interfere with the right of hon. members to conduct the business of Parliament without obstruction.
In past rulings, the Chair has tried to assist hon. members by indicating the limits of parliamentary privilege as it applies to them as individuals. Members who have an interest in this aspect of our rules will find it discussed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at pages 71 to 95, and I invite hon. members to revisit those pages for a comprehensive explanation of this issue.
Meanwhile, I can see no infraction of any of our rules in the case now before us and I therefore find that no prima facie breach of privilege or of contempt has occurred in this situation.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission
The Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to lay upon the table a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 21 petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
Parliament of Canada Act
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill that would modify the oath of allegiance sworn by members of Parliament when they are elected.
At the present time, we swear allegiance to the Queen. I have no intention whatsoever of calling for the reference to the Queen to be taken out. What I am asking instead is for an addition, a proof of our pride and responsibility toward our constituents, the people of Canada. I therefore wish to add loyalty to Canada to the oath.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1510)
[English]
Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency Act
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-409, an act to establish the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House an act to establish the Canadian foreign intelligence agency. As the only G-8 country without a foreign intelligence agency, Canada has been a net consumer of intelligence rather than a net producer. Today's strategic environment demands that we have our own sources of foreign intelligence to safeguard our own interests and to assist our allies in the war against terrorism.
The introduction of this bill would not have been possible without the hard work of Miss Clare McIntyre, a parliamentary intern in my office, and Mr. Alistair Hensler, a constituent and a former assistant director of CSIS.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Freedom of Religion
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one has to do with the matter of sexual orientation. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the current provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada can be effective in preventing true threats against individuals or groups without changes to sections 318 and 319 of the code. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the issue of the definition of marriage. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament, not by the unelected judiciary. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invoking of section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the final petition is with regard to stem cells. This petition is signed by a number of Canadians, including a number from my own riding of Mississauga South, who understand, as I do, that life begins at conception. They would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that they support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for Canadians. They also point out that non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. They therefore call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary for what ails Canadians.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, both dealing with the potential war in Iraq. My constituents point out their concerns about this war and ask Parliament to support a negotiated peaceful resolution to the crisis, to ensure that the crisis is resolved under the auspices of the United Nations organization, to work for an end to the current sanctions against the people of Iraq, and to pursue the establishment of a comprehensive disarmament regime for the region, under strict international control.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition with over 500 signatures from constituents in my riding of Cambridge and from citizens of the riding of Brant. The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the majority of Canadians condemns the creation and use of child pornography and that the courts have not applied current law in a swift and decisive manner. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to take the necessary steps to outlaw all materials that promote or glorify child pornography.
* * *
Canadian Emergency Preparedness College
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of eastern Ontario and people on the Quebec side requesting that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, especially now, more than ever, that the facility should stay in Arnprior, and that the government should upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians.
* * *
(1515)
Iraq
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as foreign affairs critic and peace advocacy team leader for the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to table a petition signed by many of my constituents and thousands of other Canadians urging Parliament to uphold international law and say no to any Canadian participation in Bush's illegal war. I think today's welcome announcement shows the importance of citizens mobilizing around something as fundamental as the government making a decision to enter a war.
I hope the government will respect this petition and allow Parliament to strengthen its hands and its voice and allow the government to play an even more important role in yet preventing an illegal, avoidable war against Iraq in the days and months ahead.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 104, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127 and 141.
[Text]
Question No. 104--Mr. Rob Merrifield:
With regard to the health impacts on Canadians of
breast implants: (a) will the government offer financial compensation
for victims of faulty breast implants and, if yes, when will this be available;
(b) when will Health Canada release the results of its breast implant
cohort study launched in 1996 and promised by the end of 2000; (c) why
has this study not yet been released; (d) will the government consider
establishing a national registry to track the health status, including adverse
effects, of recipients of breast implants; (e) will the government
consider establishing a national breast implant user registry to tally the
health care costs associated with breast implant users; (f) is Health
Canada in possession of information estimating the health care costs associated
with breast implant recipients; (g) what is Health Canada currently
doing to ensure the safety and efficacy of both silicone and saline implants;
(h) is Health Canada assured that women receiving silicone implants
through the special access program are properly apprised of the associated
risks; and (i) what was Health Canada's reaction to warnings over the
years from its Health Protection Branch that breast implants were potentially
dangerous?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
(a) The government is not offering financial compensation to victims of alleged faulty breast implants.
(b) Results from this study will be released as soon as possible following the analysis of the data.
(c) The study in question was very large and complicated, involving many different organizations. It took approximately four years to reach the stage where the provinces, Ontario and Quebec, had collected the data and assembled the cohort required. This data was submitted to Statistics Canada for approval of the cohort/mortality/cancer incidence linkage process. In August 2002, Statistics Canada released the linked data to Ontario and Quebec so that the cancer staging information could be added to the linked records.
The analysis team, involving representatives from Ontario, Quebec and Health Canada, met on February 17, 2003. An analysis plan was drawn up and agreed to by all parties. A report will be prepared for public release following the completion of the data analysis.
(d) Health Canada is assessing the feasibility of a national breast implant registry.
(e) Health care costs are tracked by the provincial ministries.
(f) No.
(g) Breast implants are medical devices and must meet the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the medical devices regulations before being offered for sale. Under this act and the regulations, the responsibility of selling safe and effective medical devices resides with the manufacturer. Breast implants have been placed in the highest risk class of medical devices. These devices undergo the highest degree of premarket review prior to sale.
No medical device sold in Canada is without risk. The degree of remaining risk for any medical device must be balanced with potential benefit for the patient. The discussion of risk and benefit for any medical treatment is held between patients and their health care provider. The decision is made by the patient in consultation with her physician. Physicians are urged by their professional associations to obtain a signed informed consent before treatment.
(h) The sale of a medical device under part 2 of the regulations, i.e. special access, requires health care professionals to sign a declaration that they have provided the patient with details of the risks and potential benefits of the device. Physicians must also inform patients that the device is being obtained under the special access program.
For each patient receiving a saline or silicone gel-filled breast implant or tissue expander through the special access program, Health Canada has a signed attestation from surgeons involved, as required by section 71(1) of the Medical Devices Regulations, that they have informed the patient of the risks and benefits associated with the device to be used.
Health Canada has requested, obtained and reviewed basic safety data from manufacturers whose breast implants are requested by health care professionals through the special access program.
(i) The department has investigated the potential risks brought to its attention, requesting and evaluating additional information regarding breast implants from their manufacturers. Independent studies and research were conducted into these potential risks and several internal and external advisory committees were struck to investigate the concerns.
A voluntary moratorium on the sale of silicone gel-filled breast implants was put in place in 1992. In 1993 the then Minister of Health announced that these devices could not be sold in Canada until manufacturers were able to address the outstanding safety and effectiveness concerns.
Health Canada has increased the amount of information provided by the manufacturers, through their product monographs, to women considering breast surgery. Additional information has also been provided to Canadian women via the “It’s Your Health” publications discussing breast implants and medical devices in general.
Question No. 107--Mr. John Duncan:
How many federal government departments have access to
the firearms registry and what level of personnel within the departments are
allowed this direct access or are allowed to request specific information as to
whether or not individuals have ownership of firearms listed on the
registry?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Only two federal government departments/entities have direct access to the Canadian Firearms Registration System, CFRS, the Department of Justice and the RCMP, which is an agency of the Solicitor General.
In addition, police agencies and a number of investigative and enforcement branches of federal and provincial government departments have access to Canadian Firearms Registry Online, CFRO, through the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. CPIC is a national police service administered by the RCMP where restricted access is maintained.
The level of personnel with access varies from data entry clerks to the operational managerial level. All personnel with direct access are cleared to a minimum of enhanced reliability. They are governed by federal or provincial privacy legislation. Their ability to enter, change or view data is governed by the system access accorded to them in keeping with their respective duties.
Question No. 108--Mr. Peter Stoffer:
What costs has the government incurred for the
strategic sea and airlift involved in deploying Canadian Forces personnel and
equipment to operations in Kosovo, including the air campaign, to United
Nations operations in East Timor, and to Operation APOLLO and other activities
in Afghanistan, specifically: (a) what were the sealift charter costs
for all three operations; (b) what were the costs incurred in rental of
airlift resources for the three operations; (c) what were the costs for
the interception and return of equipment caused by the MV Katie’s refusal to
return to Canada until payments were received; (d) how much money was
spent acquiring precision-guided munitions from Australia for the Kosovo
bombing campaign in terms of transportation and what will the return costs be
once the weapons are replaced; (e) how much money was spent on strategic
air-to-air refuelling to deploy the CF-18 fleet to Aviano, Italy, and to return
it to Canada; and (f) how do the costs of leasing or purchasing C-17 or
C-130J aircraft compare to the costs of maintaining the CC-130 fleet and of
renting United States Air Force, Ukrainian air force and other airlift
resources?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
(a) The total cost of chartering strategic sealift incurred by the Department of National Defence in the following missions were: (a) Kosovo, $5,140,000.00; (b) East Timor, $643,500.00; and (c) Op Apollo, $1,437,015.00.
(b) The total cost of chartering strategic airlift incurred by the Department of National Defence in the following missions were: (a) Kosovo, $9,481,236.00; (b) East Timor, $3,645,600.00; and (c) Op Apollo, $53,474,006.00.
(c) The total incremental cost* was $2,660,367 and the full cost** was $6,956,086.
(d) The Department of National Defence did not acquire precision guided munitions from Australia.
(e) The total incremental cost of strategic air-to-air refueling to deploy the CF-18 fleet to Aviano, Italy, was $61,923.52. The incremental cost to return the aircraft to Canada was $52,674.79.
(f) A direct comparative cost analysis cannot be made. For fiscal year 2002-03, the incremental cost of maintaining the C-130 fleet is $4,656 per hour, while the full cost to maintain and operate the aircraft is $14,478 per hour. In the past the costs to charter the Antonov 124 and the Ilyushin 76 have been $23,000 per hour and $10,700 per hour, respectively. The Canadian Forces have had access to C-17s and C-5s under a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Defense. In these instances the Department of National Defence is charged a rate of $7,283 per hour to utilize the C-17 Globemaster, and $16,000 per hour to utilize the C-5 Galaxy.
* Incremental DND cost is the cost to DND, which is over and above the amount that would have been spent for personnel and equipment if they had not been deployed on the task. It is derived from “Full DND Cost” by subtracting wages, equipment depreciation and attrition, and other costs that otherwise would have been spent on exercises or absorbed as part of normal activities.
** Full DND cost is the cost to DND for the operation. Included in this cost are civilian and military wages/overtime/allowances, full costs for petrol, oil and lubricants, spares, contracted repair and overhaul as well as depreciation and attrition for all equipment involved.
Question No. 109--Mr. Peter Stoffer:
Of the approximately 7000 individuals who have been
refused gun licenses: (a) how many are due to errors in license form
processing; (b) how many are due to multiple, failed attempts by the
same person; (c) how many are due to the false flagging of individuals
through mistaken identity or improper entry in the Firearms Interest Police
database; (d) how many refusals subsequently resulted in the issue of a
license; (e) how many individuals have been legitimately refused and how
many of these lied on their application in order to apply; and (f) how
many of those who have been denied a license have been prosecuted for making
false statements on their applications?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
With extensive and continuous background checks on applicants and licence holders, about 9,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked by public safety officials. That is over 70 times more revocations from potentially dangerous individuals since December 1, 1998, compared to the total for the last five years under the old program.
(a) There are no statistics available for this type of scenario;
(b) This would constitute an administrative rejection which is not included in the 9,000 refusals or revocations;
(c) There are no statistics available for this type of inquiry;
(d) 177 firearms applications within the refusal process subsequently resulted in the issuance of a licence;
(e) 9,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked. There are no statistics available that indicate how many people have lied on their application form;
(f) The Canadian firearms centre does not have any statistics available on false declarations.
Even though there are no statistics compiled on the accusations or situations of false declarations, it is clearly stipulated in section 106(1) of the Firearms Act:
|
It is an offence to knowingly make a false or misleading statement, either orally or in writing, or to knowingly fail to disclose relevant information, for the purpose of obtaining a permit, a registration certificate or an authorization. |
|
Every person who commits an offence under Section 106:
|
|
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or |
|
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction |
Question No. 112--Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
With respect to the May, 1976 Peace and Security paper
distributed by Justice Minister Ron Basford and with reference to the statement
on page 41: “At the same time, there has been a steady increase in the number
of firearms in Canada. Estimates place the number at over ten million in 1974,
with almost one-quarter million added to the stock every year. Most of these
firearms are long guns (rifles and shotguns)”, what evidence did the department
use to produce these estimates, and based on this evidence, how many firearms
are there in Canada today?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
The estimate of the number of firearms in Canada
referred to in the department’s 1976 peace and security paper was produced by
Statistics Canada.
With respect to current estimates, the Canadian
firearms centre commissioned a third party organization to conduct a survey
into this issue and obtained an updated estimate of the number of firearms in
Canada in August 2002. A respected market research firm, GPC Research,
conducted this survey and the non-partisan public policy forum oversaw and
rigorously reviewed its methodology.
In the fall of 2001, GPC Research contacted 21,650
Canadians, achieving a sample size of over 3,000 firearm owners. Based on the
results of this study, the number of firearms in Canada was estimated at 7.9
million. The study also confirms that there has been a consolidation in firearm
ownership. It shows that the top 3% of firearm owners hold more than one third
of all handguns in the country and approximately 15% of all firearms or, on
average, 15.5 firearms per owner. For the remainder of the firearm-owning
population, the mean number of firearms owned is 2.74.
This survey has a margin of error of ±2.06% at the
national level, with a 95% confidence level.
Question No. 113--Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
With respect to a Statistics Canada survey published
in May of 1977 that questioned approximately 65,000 Canadians over the age of
14, living in 31,000 different households, about their ownership and use of
firearms and considering the number of firearms manufactured in Canada and
firearms import and export records since that date, how many firearms does
Statistics Canada estimate are in Canada today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Statistics Canada does not have the data to support the
calculation of a reliable estimate of the number of firearms in Canada today.
In particular, business and trade statistics on imports and exports and
manufacturing from Statistics Canada cannot be used to produce a reliable
estimate of the current stock of firearms in Canada.
In August 1976, Statistics Canada conducted a survey of
Canadians regarding their ownership and use of firearms. This survey was
sponsored by the federal ministry of the solicitor general. Results indicated
that there were almost 2.5 million gun owners aged 15 and over and more than 5
million guns owned by individuals in 1976 (Statistics of Estimated Gun
Ownership and Use in Canada, Special Bulletin, Justice Statistics Division,
Statistics Canada, May 1977).
The report notes that the results underestimated the
total number of firearms in Canada due to the exclusion of guns owned or held
by police and military personnel, prisons and penitentiaries, firearm importers
and exporters, and manufacturers and retailers. Also excluded were residents of
the territories and persons living on Indian reserves. The report notes that
the estimate of firearms could have ranged between 6 and 10 million in 1976.
The survey was not repeated.
Question No. 114--Mr. Jason Kenney:
Do the health warnings and health information mandated
by the Minister of Health pursuant to subsection 3(2) of the Tobacco Products
Information Regulations of June 2000 (JUS-601413) constitute the official view
of the government?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
The information contained in the tobacco products
information regulations represents the official view of the government. In
fact, section 42.1(1) of the Tobacco Act requires that all proposed regulations
must first be laid before the House of Commons.
Subsection 3(2) of the tobacco products information
regulations includes the health warning messages and health information
messages contained in the health warnings and information for tobacco
products.
The health warning messages help ensure that Canadians
are much better informed about the many serious health hazards associated with
tobacco products. The regulations also require that smokers receive cessation
information or information on tobacco-related diseases on the inside of the
tobacco package.
The current labels are the result of approximately two
years of intensive study and evaluation. Each health warning and health
information message has been reviewed and approved by a scientific
panel.
Question No. 116--Mr. Bill Casey:
Since 1993, what is the value in dollars of all
Canadian aid and assistance (money, services, personnel) to St.
Lucia?
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Canadian official development assistance disbursements
to St. Lucia from fiscal year 1993-94 to fiscal year 2001-02 were approximately
$36.3 million.
Question No. 117--Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Can the Minister responsible for Agriculture and
Agri-Food provide an estimate of the impact on net farm income of the Country
of Origin labelling regime contained within the U.S. Farm Bill on: (a)
the beef industry; (b) the pork industry; (c) the lamb industry;
(d) the seafood and shellfish industry; (e) the poultry industry;
(f) vegetable growers; (g) fruit growers; and (h) peanut
producers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
The answer is as follows:
|
(i) The comment
period provided in the official U.S. federal register notice for the interim
voluntary country-of-origin labelling, COL, program ends on April 9, 2003. Upon
completion of the comment period, drafting of mandatory regulations will begin
through the normal U.S. rule-making process, which will include a proposal and
an opportunity for public comment. Mandatory COL is scheduled to be implemented
by September 30, 2004. Until this date, COL is a voluntary program in the U.S.
As a result of the complexity of the provision and U.S. industry opposition to
the measure, widespread implementation of the interim voluntary COL guidelines
is not anticipated. |
|
(ii) Poultry is not
a covered commodity under the COL law. |
|
(iii) Preliminary
analysis of the COL provision indicated that it would have a serious adverse
trade effect on Canadian exports of covered commodities to the U.S., for those
items that are currently co-mingled at retail with U.S. product, and which now
carry no distinction as to country-of-origin. While attempts have been made, it
is very difficult to accurately measure the impact on farm income because of
the complexity and sheer size of the U.S. agri-food industry, a great deal of
uncertainty as to the possible response of the U.S. industry to mandatory COL,
the high level of market integration among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, as well
as the fact that the U.S. has not yet published regulations for the mandatory
implementation of COL. Attempts that have been made to assess the impact of
mandatory COL implementation, such as a congressionally mandated USDA study, as
well as a study published by the George Morris Center, and most recently a
report commissioned by the U.S. national pork producers council, confirm our
decision to oppose mandatory COL. |
Prior to U.S. farm bill being passed into law, Canada's
opposition to COL was articulated at the highest levels. The Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food raised the issue with cabinet-level officials
(Agriculture Secretary Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick) as early
as September 2001. Deputy Prime Minister Manley raised farm bill issues with
Vice-President Cheney during their meeting on March 8, 2002, and the Prime
Minister raised these same issues with President Bush during their meeting on
March 14, 2002.
On February 7, 2002, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food again raised Canadian concerns about COL with Secretary Veneman, and
on February 12, 2002, he raised the matter with Mr. Paul Cellucci, the U.S
Ambassador to Canada. On March 18, 2002, Canada's ambassador in turn wrote to
the congressional conference directors, who were responsible at the time with
reconciling the house and senate versions of the farm bill. He detailed our
specific concerns with the proposed legislation and insured that copies of
these views were also distributed to other influential voices in Washington in
order to re-emphasize these same concerns. During an April 2002 trip to
Washington with Canadian industry representatives, and in a bilateral meeting
with Secretary Veneman on May 3, 2002, held in Ottawa, the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food again expressed Canadian concerns that this
legislation would disrupt bilateral trade. COL remains a priority issue for the
Government of Canada, GOC.
Canada is currently focussing its efforts on marshaling
the best-possible case for why U.S. stakeholders should demand the repeal of
the COL law, including participation in a private U.S.-based consortium that is
anticipated to produce analysis critical of COL from within the U.S. The
government of Canada has been working with industry and the provinces to share
information and to develop and implement a cooperative, strategic response to
have the entire U.S. COL provision repealed before it becomes
mandatory.
Consultations are ongoing with industry and the
federal-provincial agriculture trade policy committee to share information and
to gather input into strategy development. The Manitoba Pork Board, Canadian
Pork Council, Canadian Meat Council, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Canadian
Sheep Federation, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Fisheries Council of
Canada and the Canadian Horticultural Council are among the participants in
these consultations. Organized under the agricultural policy framework, the
agenda of the recent beef value-chain round table that took place on January 27
and 28 in Calgary focussed on coordinating the beef industry's strategy on COL
with that of the GOC. In outreach activities, government officials have made
presentations on COL at a number of national industry association meetings as
well as to the seafood sectorial advisory group on international trade, SAGIT,
C-Trade (i.e. a federal-provincial committee of trade ministries and
departments), and broader stakeholder meetings in Mississauga, Moncton and
Fredericton and at a meeting in Chicago on COL.
Canada is active in the U.S. domestic debate through
trade-advocacy initiatives targeted at provoking the repeal of the U.S. COL
legislation. On July 9, 2002, the GOC, in consultation with industry and the
provinces, submitted comments to USDA that were influential in shaping
discussion in the U.S. in advance of the release of the interim voluntary COL
guidelines. Similarly, on January 17, 2003, comments on the interim-voluntary
guidelines were submitted to USDA on the “utility” of the measure and on
January 21, 2003, comments were submitted on a USDA proposal for
information-gathering related to the drafting of the mandatory
regulations.
Other targeted advocacy activities in the U.S. have
included Assistant Deputy Minister Mark Corey's participation in the
tri-national accord meeting in May 14-17, 2002, in Nogales, Arizona, and a
meeting in Chicago organized by the province-state advisory group in July 2002,
which was dedicated specifically to COL. This meeting brought together U.S.
states, provinces and federal government officials from both sides of the
border. Canadian embassy and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, officials
presented Canada's position on COL on the margins of the U.S. farm bureau
convention in Tampa, Florida, January 17-19, 2003 and at “Canada Day on Capitol
Hill” in Washington on February 5, 2003. Embassy officials are also
participating in a U.S. industry-led coalition in Washington and are engaged in
other ongoing efforts to have COL repealed.
Bilaterally, Canada made strong interventions opposing
COL at the November 15, 2002, meeting of the Canada-U.S. consultative committee
on agriculture, CCA. COL is a priority item on the agenda of the next meeting
of the committee scheduled for April, 2003. Interventions have been made by
Canada on the U.S. notification of COL in the World Trade Organization's
technical barriers to trade committee, and will be pursued in future meetings
of the Committee and other international forums where appropriate. Development
of a formal trade challenge is ongoing as information is made available and
milestones are reached on the way to the scheduled mandatory implementation of
COL in 2004.
Question No. 120--Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What were the total costs incurred by the Department
of Foreign Affairs for the distribution, including Federal Express postal
charges, of “A Dialogue on Foreign Affairs”?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
The total cost of mailing the discussion paper “A
Dialogue on Foreign Policy” was $4,323.33, including Federal Express postal
charges
Question No. 121--Mr. Mark Assad:
Pertaining to the sale of land by the National Capital
Commission: (a) for what purpose and according to what process did the
National Capital Commission determine that the sale of land to the Vorlage Ski
Club, between September 2, 1992 and September 2, 2002, was necessary;
(b) on what date, or dates, in parcels of how many hectares/acres, and
for what price per parcel, did the National Capital Commission sell this land
to the Vorlage Ski Club; (c) did the National Capital Commission subject
this sale to a public consultation; If not, why not; and (d) did the
National Capital Commission inform the public about this sale; If so, on what
date and by what means; If not, why not?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
The National Capital Commission informs me as
follows:
|
(a) The 1990
Gatineau Park master plan identified the need for the NCC to rationalize the
legal boundary of the park to make it compatible with the various natural or
geographic realities and to simplify daily management and park administration.
As a result, several land parcels were severed from the park that no longer had
a role in achieving the NCC’s mandate and were not essential within the context
of the federal land use plan. |
Following the 1993 construction of the Wakefield
by-pass portion of autoroute 5, three (3) parcels of vacant land, totalling an
area of approximately 50.35ha and also an improved parcel of approximately
62.5ha, which was being leased to Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited, were
severed from Gatineau Park. Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited purchased
the lands for the purposes of continuing the ski centre’s operations and
activities.
The proposed disposals were consistent with the
environmental impact assessment performed for the transaction and approval was
given under the federal land use process.
The NCC has legislative authority for the disposal
pursuant to subsection 15(2) of the National Capital Act and subsection 99(2)
of the Financial Administration Act.
|
(b) On November 17,
1994, the NCC sold approximately 112.85 ha of land to the Vorlage Ski and
Recreation Area Limited at a price of $296,616. This land sale comprised three
parcels of vacant land, totaling approximately 50.35 ha, and of an improved
parcel of leased land to the club totaling approximately 62.5 ha. |
During the original transfer in 1994, an inadvertent
omission of a part of the Vorlage Ski Club property occurred in the legal
description. As a result, on November 8, 1995, the NCC completed the sale by
transferring a parcel of vacant land having an area of approximately 0.3876 ha.
It was sold for a nominal consideration to the Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area
Limited since it was part and parcel of the original land description and the
NCC had already been paid for the land.
|
(c) and (d) The NCC
did not submit this sale to public consultation and did not inform the public
about the sale since Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Limited was the adjacent
owner, it was already leasing over 55 % of the Vorlage Ski Club property and it
owned the improvements situated on the leased parcel. These improvements were
built by different tenants for purposes of operating the ski club, as early as
1963 and with NCC approval. However, the 1990 Gatineau Park master plan, which
recommended a review of the park legal boundary in the context of a
rationalization of park properties, was submitted to public
consultations |
Question No. 123--Mr. Mark Assad:
What are the full terms and conditions of the
development agreement between the National Capital Commission and the Grand
Beach Ski Corporation concerning the Camp Fortune ski facility?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
The National Capital Commission informs me as
follows:
The terms and conditions for the development of the
facility are as follows:
The agreement provides for an emphyteutic deed
(whereby 3133591 Manitoba Ltd, o/a Ski Fortune, owns the facility for a fixed
period and returns it the NCC upon expiry) for a term of 25 years commencing
July 1, 1994 to June 30, 2019. An audit will be conducted by both Ski Fortune
and the NCC in year 20 of the deed, and Ski Fortune must return all
improvements to the NCC in the same condition as evidenced by the
audit
Ski Fortune is to assume all risk and expense
related to its project to construct a new chalet, an addition to the Skyline
Lodge, renovations to the Alexander Lodge, maintenance of Fortune Lodge for
user groups, demolition for various structures on the lands, site clean-up of
old equipment and machinery, trail improvements to the Skyline, Fortune,
Alexander and Meech areas, uphill lift capacity improvements as well as
snowmaking system improvements, and any other improvements to the
lands.
Ski Fortune shall submit an annual business plan each
June 30th over the agreement period, detailing any proposed additional
improvements and operation of the project for the next following deed year. Any
improvements will be subject to an environmental assessment and federal land
use approval, and must be in conformance to the Gatineau Park master plan, all
applicable municipal, provincial and federal laws, by-laws and regulations and
applicable municipal zoning. As well, any existing and additional improvements
must not diminish the value of the lands. The NCC will have 45 days from
receipt of the annual business plan to complete its review.
All and any improvements done to the Camp Fortune ski
facility must be submitted to the NCC for approval before any work can commence
and must abide by the schedule as detailed in the annual business
plan.
These improvements will become the property of the
NCC upon expiration of the agreement and Ski Fortune will not be entitled to
any compensation as such.
Ski Fortune must obtain and pay for all of the
permits required for the construction, reconstruction, modification and
operation of any existing and additional improvements to the lands.
Ski Fortune must also post a performance security of
$250,000 to secure the construction of the new chalet. This security will
remain in place until substantial completion of the chalet. A performance
security, in the amount of 25% of the value of the work, must also be posted
for any construction, replacement, reconstruction, installation or modification
of other additional or existing improvements to the lands approved by the NCC.
The NCC may waive any performance security at its discretion.
Question No. 124--Mr. Mark Assad:
Concerning the July 15, 2001 fire at the former
residence of Roderick Percy Sparks at 420 Meech Lake Road, why did the National
Capital Commission not press the authorities to conduct an
investigation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
The National Capital Commission informs me as
follows:
Under the conditions of the original lease to Roderick
Sparks dated 1971, and the renewals thereof, and the conditions of the lease to
Robert Sparks dated April 1989, and the renewals thereof, the tenant was
responsible for all maintenance and repairs.
At the request of Robert Sparks, the lease was
terminated at the end of November 2000. The property remained unoccupied after
November 30, 2000. Mr. Sparks remained responsible until April 15, 2001, to
thoroughly clean and remove all chattels and personal property of every kind
and description from the lands and premises, including all accumulated refuse,
garbage or other waste material.
The property remained unoccupied after November 30,
2000, since the structures had deteriorated beyond economical repair. Given the
condition of the buildings, the NCC intended to demolish these buildings and
renaturalize the site. In January 2001, Minto Properties Ltd., as agent for the
NCC, applied for federal land use approval, FLUA, for the demolition of all
structures and renaturalization of the site. This property was reviewed by
FHBRO (1989) and classified as non-heritage.
Unfortunately, the buildings were destroyed by fire on
July 15, 2001. The NCC then proceeded with the necessary site clean up,
restored the site to a natural setting and integrated the lands with the
conservation lands of the Gatineau Park portfolio.
In cases where derelict buildings are destroyed by
fire, especially when the fire is an isolated event, the NCC does not pursue
investigations as to the cause of the fire. The NCC understands that both the
fire and police services of the local municipality filed a report on the
incident. The NCC has given permission to the municipality, upon receiving an
official request, to release the police report to the requestor.
Question No. 127--Mr. Loyola Hearn:
How much does the government receive annually in civil
aviation and airspace charges for the use of airspace over the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
The setting and collection of aviation enroute terminal
and overflight fees is the sole responsibility of NavCanada, the not-for-profit
provider of air navigation services in Canada. The federal government is not a
party to these fees, and as such, receives none of the fee revenue for use of
airspace over the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Question No. 141--Mr. Gerry Ritz:
For all polling by Ekos Research or any of its
affilliates and paid for by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in calendar
years 2000, 2001 and 2002: (a) what specific questions were asked;
(b) what was the total contract amount paid for each respective poll;
(c) what written analysis was provided following the results of each
poll and (d) what was the total number of people contacted for each
poll?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation informs me as
follows:
|
(a) Questions
included in polls conducted by EKOS Research under contract with
CBC/Radio-Canada (usually in partnership with other media organizations) and
published via CBC/Radio-Canada’s services are posted on its websites or through
links to the EKOS websites and are therefore readily available for scrutiny by
the public. |
|
(b)
CBC/Radio-Canada is unable to release this information as prescribed by the
confidentiality clauses contained in the contracts with the supplier, EKOS
Research, and by confidentiality agreements with other media
partners. |
|
(c) The written
analysis available to the public under the terms of contract with EKOS Research
is posted on the websites of CBC/Radio-Canada and/or EKOS Research as per
answer (a) above. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the
supplier, EKOS Research, directly. |
|
(d) Samples sizes
for polls conducted by EKOS Research under contract to CBC/Radio-Canada vary in
accordance with the parameters of each poll, but are never lower than 1000
people for national samples. |
* * *
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 110, 111 and 122 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed that Questions Nos. 110, 111 and 122 be made orders for return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 110--Mr. Gilles Duceppe:
With respect to each of the grants and contributions
made by the Canada Economic Development for Quebec since 2000-2001, can the
government: (a) provide the name of the recipient organization;
(b) indicate the date; (c) specify the amount of the grant or
contribution; (d) indicate whether or not it was repayable; (e)
specify the name of the program in question; (f) give the name of the
federal constituency in which the recipient organization is located; and
(g) provide a brief description of the purpose of the contribution or
grant?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 111--Mr. John Williams:
With regard to performance pay for public servants in
the Executive (EX) category and the Deputy Minister (DM) category in fiscal
year 2001-2002: (a) for each department, agency or Crown corporation,
how many employees received performance pay, broken down by EX category (e.g.
EX-1, EX-2, etc.); (b) for each department, agency or Crown corporation,
how many employees are there in each EX category; (c) for each
department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees received
performance pay, broken down by DM category (i.e. DM-1, DM-2, etc.); (d)
for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees are there
in each DM category; and (e) for each department, agency or Crown
corporation, what was the total amount paid out in performance pay?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 122--Mr. Mark Assad:
Besides the land sold to the Vorlage Ski Club, the
National Capital Commission sold a number of lots within Gatineau Park between
September 2, 1992 and September 2, 2002: (a) for what purpose and
according to what process did the National Capital Commission determine that
the sale of that land was necessary; (b) on what date, or dates, in
parcels of how many hectares/acres, for what price per parcel and to whom did
the National Capital Commission sell this land; (c) did the National
Capital Commission subject this sale to a public consultation; If not, why not;
and (d) did the National Capital Commission inform the public about this
sale; If so, on what date and by what means; If not, why not?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
Request for Emergency Debate
Situation in Iraq
[Standing Order 52]
The Speaker: I have received a notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Mercier.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these are extremely tense times internationally. What is more, this morning we learned that the