House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

Agriculture
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Regina—Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of this issue to the province of Saskatchewan. It is also an important issue generally because of course the principle of equity with respect to action taken in Saskatchewan must fit with the overall programming of safety nets across the country.

I would hasten to point out to the hon. gentleman, who I think already knows, that I did not cause the problem with the GRIP in Saskatchewan. This government did not cause the problem with the GRIP in Saskatchewan. That dubious responsibility rests with previous federal and provincial governments. We are trying to solve the problem with respect to Saskatchewan and we intend to do it as rapidly as possible.

Agriculture
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, regardless of who caused the problem or whose problem it addressed, the details of this program were promised by the end of July. It is now October.

Why will the minister not stand up for farmers in his home province? Will the minister give this House today a real date for the release of this program?

Agriculture
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Regina—Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will know that in the past with respect to safety net programs in agriculture part of the problem has been a failure in the preparation and thought process that has gone into these programs to make sure that we get them right in the first place.

In this program that we are responsible for, we are making sure that we do it right in the first instance so it does not have to be fixed time and time again after the fact.

United Nations
Oral Question Period

October 5th, 1994 / 2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Jordan Leeds—Grenville, ON

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

I thought the minister's idea of a permanent United Nations army for rapid deployment to trouble spots around the world had a great deal of merit. Other member nations at the UN apparently did not agree with Canada's proposal.

Does the minister have any plans to modify or amend his proposal to try again to get it accepted or have we heard the last of this good idea from Canada?

United Nations
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Michel
Québec

Liberal

André Ouellet Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we do not intend to capitulate at this moment. Obviously this is an idea that would give the United Nations a very effective instrument which could be used to enhance substantially its efficiencies.

There are a number of countries that are supporting this idea. Some superpowers have some hesitation in supporting it because it is quite clear their influence would be diminished through this initiative. Nevertheless we will carry on the study and invite as many members of the United Nations as possible to participate in the study and come forward with a resolution that will enhance immensely the efficiency of the United Nations.

Community Action Program For Children
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. On May 13, 1993, the Government of Canada and the province of Quebec signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the implementation of the Community Action Program for Children. Under the terms of the MOU, grants were supposed to be paid no later than the end of August or the beginning of September. Unfortunately, for the most part, this has not been the case.

My question is this: Could the minister, who belongs to a government which seems to be suddenly very concerned about child poverty, explain why she waited until yesterday, Tuesday, October 4, to approve grant applications presented by community agencies working among these client groups?

Community Action Program For Children
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Sudbury
Ontario

Liberal

Diane Marleau Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the Bloc member is concerned about the welfare of Canadian children. However, I wonder where her party, which has a good research service, gets its information. Yesterday, I was in Quebec and every day, across Canada, I sign projects of this kind. As a matter of fact, we approved quite a few recently, including one in the member's riding.

Community Action Program For Children
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, as she is very much aware, the delays caused by the minister are unwarranted and unacceptable.

Could the minister explain why her office refuses to give the Official Opposition the list of projects which were submitted and of those which were approved? What is she trying to hide?

Community Action Program For Children
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Sudbury
Ontario

Liberal

Diane Marleau Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the separatists so interested in federal programs. I applaud them. Of course I will give them all the information they wish to have. All they have to do is contact me and I will give them the information they request.

Community Action Program For Children
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, perhaps when we address each other we could address each other as parties. It might facilitate things.

Pearson International Airport
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport made light of my statement that without a public inquiry we will not know if the Pearson deal really was good or not. Obviously he believes it to be a bad deal.

Will the minister advise this House what proof of wrongdoing by the Pearson group led him to this position? What proof does he have?

Pearson International Airport
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

London East
Ontario

Liberal

Joe Fontana Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the critic for the Reform Party and the Reform Party, the so-called defender of the public purse, would stand here today and support paying the developers $445 million for the Pearson deal.

Before the election this Prime Minister gave notice that we were going to review the bill and if it was not in the public interest, we would cancel the bill. Everyone involved in that deal decided to sign it. We and all Canadians believe that the deal was bad. We cancelled it. The Reform Party is wrong.

Pearson International Airport
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, the minister offers no proof because there is no proof to offer. Yet he continues to refuse to hold a public inquiry to determine what, if any proof exists. Will the minister admit to this House

that his position is nothing more than a cover-up of a Liberal election strategy gone bad?

Pearson International Airport
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, the use of the word cover-up sometimes is a little bit strong. I would hope that other terms might be considered when posing questions or answering questions.

Pearson International Airport
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

London East
Ontario

Liberal

Joe Fontana Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I even find it more incredible that the Reform Party would be supporting the position of a previous government of Brian Mulroney with respect to the Pearson deal.

The Reform Party seems to forget that there have been public hearings on the bill. The public has been heard, the facts have come out and we have reports that indicated the deal was not in the public interest.

We believe we are on the right side of this. The people of Canada believe that we need to cancel the deal. We have and we intend to get on with building Pearson the way it should be, in the public interest.