Debates of Feb. 7th, 2001

International Loans

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recently announced that it would fight Brazil's subsidies to its aerospace sector by using Canada's good credit rating to provide low interest loans to Bombardier's customers.

However, even that low interest loan did not compare to the one Canada provided to Brazil in 1999: $500 million at an interest rate of 4.3%. How does the Minister of Industry know that the low interest loan to Brazil did not go directly to subsidize its aerospace industry, which is in fierce competition with Bombardier?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, at a time of financial contagion following the Russian default it was very important that the nations of the world pulled together to make sure the Latin American crisis and the Asian crisis did not continue.

As a result, all of the G7 nations participated in the particular loan, Canada among them, and I am very proud that we did.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was the same time in those four or five years that there was a fierce fight over aerospace subsidies going on between Brazil and Canada.

I think it is an awful strange signal that the Liberal government is sending to Brazil. It talks tough about Brazil's subsidized financing of its aerospace industry, but it turns around and gives sweetheart loans to the same government. What kind of priorities does the government have? How will it deal with Brazil in the next dispute that comes up?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously ought to understand that Canada as a G7 country has responsibilities internationally and that we have exercised them responsibly, as indeed have other countries.

The hon. member also perhaps ought to know that the loan was not exercised by Brazil.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We were making good progress in question period. Hon. members know that however much enthusiasm questions and answers generate, we need to have some order so that we can hear the next question.

Food Inspection

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the auditor general's report, the inspection of meat destined for Canadian consumers is less rigorous than that done for meat sold to Americans.

Does the minister, who said yesterday that consumers had nothing to fear because the system in place was naturally the best in the world, intend to correct this situation?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, all the food in Canada is inspected according to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations of Canada.

We sell meat products to some 40 to 50 countries outside Canada. Some of them ask us to do the inspection in a certain way that satisfies their method of doing it.

We have a method in Canada that gets to exactly the same result at the other end. The equivalency is there and no meat is sold to anyone unless it meets those high standards.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are Canadians not right to be worried when the auditor general himself raises serious questions about the quality of the inspection of meat sold in Canada?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the food system is concerned about the safety of our food.

We have one of the best food safety systems in the world that has equivalency with those in the rest of the world. It is better than some in other parts of the world. I can assure consumers, whether they are in Canada, in the United States or in any of the other dozens and dozens of countries to which we sell food, that our system inspects it to ensure it is safe.

Health

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

Editor's Note: Members rose and applauded

[Preston Manning, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that makes it difficult to ask a nasty question.

It has been eight years since a royal commission recommended that the government develop a framework for the regulation of reproductive and genetic technology.

As we all know, these technologies have an enormous impact on human health, both for good and for bad, and yet Canada lacks a regulatory framework or lags behind a number of other countries in providing that regulatory framework.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Does the Minister of Health intend to bring forward a bill to provide that regulatory framework and if so, when?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can tell from the response that we missed him in more ways than one, I might say.

Apart from welcoming the hon. member back to the House, let me say that he has raised a matter which has to be dealt with by legislation. Right now in government caucus we are discussing and deciding how it is best dealt with.

One of the approaches we have in mind is the possibility of preparing draft legislation which sets out the way forward and then putting it before the health committee where all parties can sit, have hearings, look into the matter and have some public discussion. I will let the hon. member know as soon as possible what—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

[Preston Manning, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we await the draft legislation with interest, but as the minister knows our constitution assigns primary responsibility for health to the provinces.

In order for any regulatory framework dealing with a subject as important as this one to have the right kind of foundation, it is important that there not only be consultation with the provinces but that there be support for the framework. Has the minister obtained the support of the provinces for the regulatory framework he proposes in that legislation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, not entirely. It is important that we do that. We are looking at various mechanisms, including potentially some equivalency clauses. That too may be something for the committee to look at.

I think, after we as a caucus decide on the best approach in our view, we will consult with the House leaders of other parties to see how the committee could be engaged on issues such as this one.

This is not a partisan matter. All parties want to get this right. We will find the best approach and we will communicate with the parties opposite at the appropriate time.

Research And Development

[Gérard Binet, Liberal, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government announced in the throne speech that it would double investment in research and development by 2010.

Can the secretary of state tell us what impact this investment will have in Canada?

[Gilbert Normand, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, our government has invested more than $3 billion in new money in research and development.

We have created the Canada Foundation for Innovation, health research institutes, Genome Canada, and over 2,000 university chairs, and we are going to double this amount by 2010 in order to improve the quality of life and standard of living of Canadians.

The federal government cannot do this alone and that is why we are asking the private sector and provincial governments to do likewise. We are also prepared to adjust our science policy in order to allow the new investments that could bring about—

[The Speaker]

The member for Portage—Lisgar.

The Economy

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members of all opposition parties in the House agree that the current system of equalization payments is unfair and counterproductive to provinces that are struggling to develop their economies.

Many of the industry minister's Atlantic caucus colleagues have spoken out in favour of revisiting the equalization formula, as has he. However the finance minister and the intergovernmental affairs minister oppose any changes to the current system. They are clearly divided on the issue. Will the Prime Minister please tell us what his government's position is on the issue?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that equalization is an essential foundation of the Canadian economy. It is the one of a very few programs that was not cut when the country had its back to the wall. At the present time it is at an all time high.

I am delighted to hear that members of the opposition support the equalization program, but I must say that is a complete reversal of position. They spoke out against equalization in the previous parliament and said that it should be cut.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, besides the basic inaccuracy of the response, its insipidness is just what we would expect from a government that pays no attention and has no plan to face up to the regional diversities that exist and to deal with them.

The industry minister knows from his experience as the premier of Newfoundland the problems that exist in the system. So do members of that backbench. So do members of this party and those parties. When will the government face up to the challenges of dealing with this issue? When will the industry minister stand and keep—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member opposite stands in the House and makes accusations, what he ought to do is take a look at what the members of his party said when he was not here.

They opposed equalization. They opposed regional development. They opposed every measure that the government brought forward to help the people of Atlantic Canada, and he is not going to turn that around.

Assistance For Victims Of Pyrite Damage

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party committed to financial participation in the program to help the victims of pyrite damage introduced by the Government of Quebec in July 2000.

Pyrite is a mineral found in the broken stone used as fill under buildings; it swells and has caused considerable damage to a number of buildings.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Can he tell us today whether he plans to meet that commitment, and if so, when?