House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.

Topics

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that it takes the government but three days to put through a bill on a pay raise for MPs, yet parts of this bill have been sitting around this place for better than two years.

I would like to know from the government just why it is that sexual predators are being put ahead of a pay raise for members of parliament.

Justice
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Edmonton West
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member concedes that much of this legislation has been before the House in earlier parliaments. It is unfortunate that the opposition has not been able to get its act together and work with us to pass Bill C-15.

How long does it take? We are ready to act this afternoon. We would call upon them to join with us to pass Bill C-15.

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

June 6th, 2001 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that we must review the committee report before passing the act and that it is complicated. In the case of family trusts, the issue was settled on a December 24, shortly before midnight. The issue was just as complex and $2 billion were at stake.

Could the minister tell us why she is unable to act quickly to help seasonal workers, since the government was able to do so at the time for a family of billionaires?

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Brant
Ontario

Liberal

Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, we have just introduced and passed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that support seasonal workers right across the country. The Bloc voted against that.

We introduced legislation that reduced the number of hours required to get special benefits. The Bloc voted against it.

We introduced legislation, which passed, to double parental benefits. The Bloc voted against it. There is absolutely no credibility from the Bloc on EI.

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that we could work together to improve the employment insurance program and help the public. We can do it immediately. I am telling the minister in all good faith that we should work together to pass the necessary amendments before the end of the session.

Will the minister agree, for the benefit of the unemployed and their families, to set aside party politics and to legislate immediately?

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Brant
Ontario

Liberal

Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, last fall we attempted to set aside all partisanship and asked members of the Bloc to join with us to speedily pass amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that would support seasonal workers. They said no.

We went to the polls and they lost seats as a result of it. They have a lot of explaining to do back home, where they say they support seasonal workers but then come to the House and vote against them.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, over $700 million to keep ancient Sea Kings flying until their replacement, over $500 million in cancellation fees, close to $2 billion before delivery, and we have not one new helicopter to show for that after a 25 year procurement nightmare.

Exactly where is the cost effectiveness the Prime Minister talked about yesterday? Where is it?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock
Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the government will not shy away from its responsibility to ensure the safety of the Sea Kings and those who fly them. The air force follows a very strict maintenance and inspection regime, including three rigorous flight inspections. We will not put anyone's life at risk, no matter what the opposition wants to push.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals simply do not get it. Defence document after defence document and senior officer after senior officer state that it is operationally essential that the helicopter have a minimum endurance of 3 hours plus 30 minutes of reserve at all temperatures.

In fact, lowering the endurance standards to less than 3 hours would make IFR flights from Shearwater to Sydney or Yarmouth illegal. There is no long term evidence within the military to support endurance requirements under 3 hours. Who asked for the specifications to be lowered and when?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock
Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, these are military specifications, written by the military, passed on to the Minister of Defence, passed on to cabinet and accepted exactly as they were written by the military. There is no political interference whatsoever in the requirement of the helicopters.

What the opposition does not understand is that there are two different helicopter projects plus the upgrade of the existing requirements. They just do not understand that they are trying to compare apples and oranges. There is no political interference whatsoever here.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has finally stated that the Americans' refusal to endorse the Kyoto protocol was a major political mistake.

As we know, the Prime Minister refused to criticize the American President's decision.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that his government is now on the side of the international community and will he condemn the decision by the American President to not ratify the Kyoto protocol?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government is clear. It has been repeated time after time by a number of ministers, including the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, myself and of course the Prime Minister.

We disagree with the United States on the decision that was taken with respect to the withdrawal from the Kyoto process. We think it was the wrong decision. We have said that time after time. We think the grounds given, namely the economic grounds and the grounds with respect to developing countries, are both incorrect. We would prefer to have the United States come back, but under the circumstances we also point out that there are certain problems with the European Union position as well.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is inconsistent.

This morning, he criticized the position of the United States and considered the European position too rigid. In addition, he announced measures to reduce greenhouse gases, but, at the same time, his government continues to subsidize the tar sands.

Does this not prove that this government's policy on greenhouse gas reduction is a failure and that, without Quebec's performance, the situation would be even more catastrophic?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly unaware of the negotiations that took place in the Hague. We will be having these negotiations resume in Bonn. I would invite him to come with the Canadian delegation so he can learn something about what takes place.

The fact is the Hague meeting collapsed because of a very rigid position taken by the Europeans which was not matched by the Americans, and therefore we had a division.

That said, the Canadian position is clear. We have signed the Kyoto agreement, we wish to continue under the Kyoto process and we will meet our Kyoto targets.

The Economy
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, the government has finally admitted what Canadians have long known: that our standard of living, vis-à-vis the United States, is dropping like a stone. Today figures are out showing that our per capita incomes are 30% lower than those in the United States. What is the Liberal solution? It is more Ottawa style big spending programs designed by those great champions of efficiency, the Ministers of Human Resources Development and Industry.

Instead of having the productivity file handed over to the cabinet's spenders, why does the Prime Minister not accept the recommendations of our finance committee to eliminate the $1.3 billion capital tax on innovation to increase productivity in this country?