House of Commons Hansard #236 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was employment.

Topics

Defence Industry Conversion
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In its red book, the government pledged to develop a defence industry conversion strategy. Two years later, we are still waiting for that strategy and for a review of the defence industry productivity program.

Are we to understand that the government did not follow through on its commitment because, instead of meeting the real needs of the industry, it is more concerned by the stand, on the referendum issue, taken by business leaders in that sector? This is shameful.

Defence Industry Conversion
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst
New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of conversion of various defence industries to peacetime purposes has been going on for some time.

The program the hon. member refers to is obviously a very important one in Quebec. Over the years a rather major defence industry has built up in that province and a lot of funds were invested in the defence sector.

The challenge that is facing the industries in Quebec is the same as that facing defence based industries anywhere else in Canada, which is to make that conversion. The Minister of Industry has indicated to my hon. friend on a number of occasions that we are always looking forward to opportunities to be able to assist industries in Quebec and elsewhere to make that conversion from defence production to civilian purposes.

Association Of Universities And Colleges Of Canada
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

John Williams St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, grants given to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada have risen sharply in recent years. In 1994-95 it was given $10,600, but suddenly this year it received $262,000, an increase of 2,300 per cent.

Given that the Treasury Board is responsible for overseeing millions of dollars worth of grants, can the minister explain the sudden increase in money given to the AUCC?

Association Of Universities And Colleges Of Canada
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, all grants are examined in the framework of providing funds that help in the education system in this case, or in whatever other areas, to help Canadians and to do it in the most efficient and effective manner. Each department takes on that responsibility. I am sure that was done in this case and was fully examined when these grants were made.

Agriculture
Oral Question Period

October 3rd, 1995 / 2:55 p.m.

NDP

Vic Althouse Mackenzie, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The 1995 budget proposed a $1.6 billion ex gratia payment to offset the decline in farmland prices that would result from cutting the Crow benefit. Later the minister made three basic changes to that budget policy by deleting land seeded to forage crops, by deciding to include renters, and by deciding that those renters would pay income tax on their payments.

What was the rationale for these changes and how are these decisions consistent with the original budget allocation?

Agriculture
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Regina—Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, the references the hon. member makes to later changes after the announcement in the budget are a bit misplaced. All of the items he referred to were covered in our budget documents and then covered very specifically in a series of consultations I conducted with farm leaders across western Canada in the months immediately following the budget.

We highlighted in the budget what the principal issues were but we wanted to leave a window for consultation with farm leaders and farm organizations to make sure we had the benefit of their best advice in program design. Virtually every design decision we have taken with respect to the $1.6 billion payment has been guided by the very valuable input and advice of the leadership of western farm organizations.

Great Lakes
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

My interest in Great Lakes pollution took a great leap forward when I discovered it was causing decreased sexuality in males. My question to the minister is simple. What is she doing to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem and future generations of Adams?

Great Lakes
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am not sure that relates to the specific functions of the Minister of the Environment but I will permit her to answer.

Great Lakes
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Hamilton East
Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to comment on the nefarious effects of Great Lakes pollution on male sexual reproduction. As a result of activities in the Great Lakes for the first time we did manage to spot another endangered species-

Great Lakes
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Great Lakes
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Copps Hamilton East, ON

I mean an endangered species. The peregrine falcon was found nesting in a couple of buildings in Toronto and Hamilton.

We have also been specific in being able to delist Collingwood as one of the 17 hot spots in Canada of the 43 areas of concern. We have restored about 8 per cent of the beneficial uses and we have been able to work on improvements at 17 sewage treatment plants. Nine plants are moving to improve their phosphorous removal capability.

I understand the hon. member's interest specifically in male sexuality but I will tell him that with the clean-up of the Great Lakes I think we start with herring gull eggs on up.

Great Lakes
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

This concludes question period.

I have been given written notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. I am prepared to hear that now.

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jag Bhaduria Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege regarding the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Elk Island.

Specifically the member was concerned that a lapel pin I was wearing in the House was inappropriate.

The pin in question was nothing more than an insignia encompassing the map of Canada, the Canadian flag and the provincial flag of Quebec. Additionally the words "One Canada-uni et indivisible" were on the pin.

Mr. Speaker, while I share your concern-

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Let me understand. The hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville is raising a point of privilege that arises out of a point of order. Is that correct?

Privilege
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jag Bhaduria Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.