House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

Infrastructure
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I did not have enough time in 35 seconds to criticize all of those areas, but I want to focus on infrastructure.

The finance minister's plan will take 190 years to meet the real needs the communities face right now, communities like Walkerton, North Battleford, and communities all over Newfoundland and Labrador who are worried about the state of their drinking water. They do not have two centuries to wait, but if every penny of the minister's infrastructure plan were spent on clean water, we would maybe have 15 new plants across Canada.

I want to ask the minister, since we are all worried about privatized water and more Walkertons, with 15 plants--

Infrastructure
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I am afraid the 35 seconds are gone. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

Infrastructure
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really must read the budget because in it she will find $600 million specifically for the federal area of responsibility with respect to clean water. She will find $8 billion, the new $3 billion and the previous $5 billion, which is available for municipalities for water treatment plants, both for drinking water and for dealing with waste water.

She will find opportunities in the regional development budgets that encourage municipalities to spend the money in ways which are environmentally friendly. There is plenty there. All she has to do is look.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence confirmed what many have suspected, that he is looking at eliminating Canada's Leopard tanks after previously suggesting that such an idea was crazy.

How can the minister make arbitrary decisions on what capabilities the Canadian military will require before undertaking a full review of defence and foreign policy?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Don Valley East
Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there will be a review of defence policy, but that does not stop the minister from looking at the department and seeing where savings can be made. I should inform the hon. member that time does move on. The last time tanks were deployed by Canada was in the Korean war over a half century ago.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, in the budget the Minister of Finance committed to providing $950 million to the Canadian Forces, however it costs the Canadian Forces more than $32 million a day to function even at currently reduced levels. The money the minister provided is enough for the Canadian Forces to operate for 29 days.

Will the minister admit that he has shortchanged the military in this budget and commit to providing the funding the forces need to do its job? Or is he still hiding in the washroom?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Don Valley East
Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the Minister of Finance will admit no such thing because in consultations with the Minister of National Defence he realized that the military had to receive more money. Some $800 million dollars was given to the military on a sustaining basis and that will be more than adequate for its needs.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has been quoted as saying that we need a control group of four disinterested departments to be established to decide the spending of $1.7 billion allocated in Tuesday's budget for climate change.

My question is, where does the Minister of the Environment think he will find four Liberal ministers who are not interested in spending an extra $1.7 billion?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the contradiction in the hon. member's mind is that we intend to spend $1.7 billion, but we intend to do so with the best possible results.

This would be my quote, “To ensure that only the very best projects in terms of cost effectiveness to achieve climate change goals actually get funded. We do not fund pet projects which might have a marginal climate change impact but do not have the cost effective nature that we think is necessary”.

What we want on this side is cost effectiveness and maximum results for the dollars we spend.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will find he has a big lineup of people who know how to spend money, particularly on that side of the House.

What does he not understand about, “You cannot trust a Liberal with that money”? If he wants to keep that Kyoto slush fund all for himself, he should be afraid of the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Transport. Of course the finance minister keeps talking about how even the cities can get in on this money.

The environment minister has already wasted $1.7 billion on Kyoto and CO

2

has risen. How does he think this will lower--

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Alliance Party and its members actually understand that it was Liberal ministers who took this country from a $42 billion deficit into a surplus position and started to pay down the debt.

I wonder whether the hon. member understands that we have had six consecutive years of surplus while those Conservative governments and other countries have had continuously increasing debt and deficit. Does he understand that?

Canadian Television Fund
Oral Question Period

February 20th, 2003 / 2:45 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his budget the Minister of Finance announced the renewal of the Canadian television fund for two years, but for an annual sum of $75 million, while the minimum needed is $100 million.

How can the Minister of Justice, who is also the minister responsible for Quebec, say, according to The Gazette , that the Montreal economy will get a boost when the Canadian television fund was cut by 25%?

Canadian Television Fund
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Laval East
Québec

Liberal

Carole-Marie Allard Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian television fund was implemented in 1996 under an initiative by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Government of Canada is not the only contributor to this fund. The cable television and satellite broadcasting industries also contribute to it.

We are confident that the commitment by the Minister of Finance to renew the funding for two years will allow the fund to stay afloat, which is very good.

Canadian Television Fund
Oral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, Claire Samson, president and CEO of the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec said that she was extremely disappointed by the 25% cut. This represents a loss of roughly 200 hours of programming for Quebec and a few hundred direct and indirect jobs.

We are talking about 200 fewer hours of production. Is that a new way of stimulating Quebec's economy and production in Quebec and Canada?