House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Oral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

West Nova
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Robert Thibault Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his question. I agree completely with him.

At ACOA we are spending a lot of energy working with the industry in export development, new manufacturing and added value training.

Team Canada, which will include fisheries business people from his province, will be taking a mission to Atlanta. We are also working very closely with the aquaculture industry as a new and developing industry. We have had great success in the development of new technologies and new species in Newfoundland.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of fisheries who administers the great lucrative shrimp resource off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister has a whole lineup of people looking for quotas. Does the minister not think that it is about time his department, and the government generally, said to those who are looking to us for such quotas “I will give you the resource provided you show me how you will create jobs onshore”?

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Vancouver South—Burnaby
B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice on this question. He is absolutely right. The northern shrimp is extremely important for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the maritime provinces.

The hon. member knows that there has been a huge increase in the harvesting of that resource, from just 37,000 tonnes five years ago to 112,000 tonnes. There are always pressures to exploit more of that resource, but we must ensure that any decisions we make are sustainable and that the resource can be taken advantage of for many years ahead.

My decision will be based—

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Oral Question Period

May 11th, 2001 / 11:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, as Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC has a responsibility to be accessible to all Canadians. Why is the CBC withdrawing service from rural Canadians?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bourassa
Québec

Liberal

Denis Coderre Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has chosen to undertake a study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. It will work for the next 18 months. We will wait for its report and then pick it up from there.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, service in small or remote locations is poor and getting worse. Taxpayers in my riding, less than two hours away from Ottawa, cannot receive an over the air signal, as is the case in the rest of rural Canada from coast to coast.

Will the minister direct the CBC to use the $60 million in additional funding to maintain transmission infrastructure rather than fuel a fire sale of assets, which is the current plan?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bourassa
Québec

Liberal

Denis Coderre Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should call the hon. member the new member for flip-flop, because the Alliance was against funding CBC.

We will take on our responsibilities. We will wait for the committee report and then pick it up from there.

Urban Affairs
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, in June 2000, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services met a group of elected city officials from the Quebec City area, where recognition of constitutional status was raised as a possibility for municipalities.

Are the remarks of the minister an indication that the government intends to reopen the constitutional file and thus justify the infringement of areas of Quebec's jurisdiction?

Urban Affairs
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not the intention of the government to infringe on anything.

We always honour political jurisdictions. This is what the Government of Canada does, and the member opposite knows that for a fact.

Urban Affairs
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, the past is an indication of the future.

Can the recent remarks by the Minister of Transport and the creation of an urban affairs committee be interpreted as the first steps to constitutional reform, aimed once again at centralizing all powers in Ottawa, in defiance of Quebec's jurisdictions?

Urban Affairs
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member has a very fertile imagination, to say the least.

The Prime Minister's caucus task force on issues important to Canadians living in an urban context is entirely reasonable.

It is a good thing to do. It was even something that everyone wanted, including city dwellers, just like the equivalent committee looking into rural issues set up a few weeks earlier. It is the same thing.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, treasury board guidelines on sole source contracting are very simple: that there is a pressing emergency, that the contract is valued at less than $25,000, that it is not in the public interest to solicit bids, or that only one person or firm is capable of performing the work.

Therefore, there are only two possible reasons why the government gave a $615,000 sole source contract to Groupaction: Either it was not in the public interest to solicit bids, because the company was a major Liberal donor, or because the work was done by Groupaction in the first place it was the only one capable of evaluating. Either way it is questionable. Which is it?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Mississauga South
Ontario

Liberal

Paul Szabo Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the member is incorrect. The contract to Groupaction was not sole sourced. Groupaction was a qualified advertiser available to the department for utilization on specific contracts.

The work done by Groupaction was not in fact an evaluation of a past project. It was an identification of additional important opportunities for Canada to present Canadians with the services and programs available to all Canadians.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary maintains that this was not a sole source contract since the government picked from a source list of prequalified firms. I do not see the difference.

Would it not stand to reason then that Groupaction would have been disqualified from this list since it had done the original work in the first place? If it did not evaluate, what did it do? If there is really no problem with this contract why not release its findings? What is the government trying to hide?