Debates of May 15th, 2003

Softwood Lumber

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in October of last year the government announced a softwood lumber aid package, part of which included money for a so-called community adjustment fund. In B.C. that amount was $110 million: $55 million for the north and $55 million for the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

That was over seven months ago.

Assistance was badly needed during the winter months, yet no money has ever been allocated. How much longer must British Columbian communities wait or will this be another failed Liberal promise?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)]

Mr. Speaker, the community adjustment fund to deal with the softwood lumber pressures on resource communities in British Columbia and across the country has been established in British Columbia. The calls for proposals have been out and many are being received from resource towns all over British Columbia. These will be dealt with very quickly over the next two months.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, saying they will do something and actually doing it are certainly two different things and the Liberals have proven to be just big talkers. Two committees have been formed to accept proposals for how the money should be allocated, yet no decision on funding will be made until probably this fall. That is one year from the original promise of assistance by the federal Liberals.

Is this community fund really just a shell game? Or, given the timing, maybe it is just another election ploy to buy votes from financially hard hit British Columbians. Why the delay?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of taking care to review through community future development bodies in resource based communities is to ensure that the proposals are realistic, that they are tested with due diligence, and that they are committed to by the people who will have to implement them and benefit from the adjustments that are made.

Natural Resources

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our future as a healthy, prosperous and sustainable society depends upon using all of our natural resources wisely. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

What is the Government of Canada doing to ensure that Canadians will continue to benefit from our valuable mineral resources which provide us with so much?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay--Atikokan because he has taken a tremendous amount of interest in this area.

As members know, Canada is one of the world's foremost mineral producer and exporter, producing some 60 mineral commodities. We are also a world leader in the development and export of mining equipment, expertise and innovation. Our mineral exports earn approximately $46 billion a year, and accounted for more than 12% of Canada's total domestic exports in 2001.

In the last budget, we put in more incentives to ensure that we continued to be a leader in the mining area. In fact we have more mining interests now than ever before. We will continue to be a leader in the world in the--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst.

Fisheries

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to meet with the representatives of the fish plants affected by the fisheries crisis, she refused. This region in crisis should be declared a disaster area.

When the President of Bombardier wants to meet with the minister, the answer is yes. When the managers of Auberge Grand-Mère want to meet with the Prime Minister, the answer is yes. But for the fish plant workers, the answer is no.

My question to the minister is this: is she going to meet with the representatives of the fish plants or do they have to contribute to the Liberals' campaign fund to get any service?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I have not refused to meet with these important Canadians and I would hope the hon. member would see from my own track record that I do not shy away from meeting with Canadians wherever they live.

I would just point out to him yet again that every year this government transfers $90 million to the province of New Brunswick for circumstances just like this to use in targeted wage subsidies, job creation partnerships, and skills development programs.

I would ask the hon. member to work closely with his provincial counterparts in his area to ensure that those moneys come to his constituents.

Justice

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In November of 2001, days after a gay Vancouver man, Aaron Webster, was brutally beaten to death, every attorney general in Canada, including the minister's seatmate, who was then the minister of justice, agreed to support the inclusion of sexual orientation in Canada's hate propaganda laws.

Since gays and lesbians are the only major group that is targeted for violence and hate crimes that are excluded from these laws, and there was another apparent vicious gay bashing in Saint John just this week, does the minister support the inclusion of sexual orientation in Canada's hate propaganda laws? Yes or no.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the bill is consistent with the government's position on sexual orientation. Having said that, there is a parliamentary process in place. The standing committee is seized with the bill, so let us see what its recommendations will be. It will report back to the House with its recommendations as well.

Auberge Grand-Mère

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry told the House that the relevant facts in the Auberge Grand-Mère case have long since been disclosed and discussed. One relevant fact is that the page which disappeared from the bank files was the page on which the name of the Prime Minister's private company may have been recorded. This has been neither disclosed nor discussed in the House.

Is the minister then saying that this mysterious disappearance of key records had been discussed among ministers? Would he tell us whether that discussion included the role in the disappearance in the papers of Mr. Jean Carle?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member is again suggesting, based on facts that have been in the record for some time, allegations that are based only on speculation. I can tell the House that the relevant facts of this matter have been gone into, as I mentioned, time and again and are on the record.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the minister also said, “All the concerns have been examined and put to rest”. He just reiterated that. The House now knows that the affidavit sworn by the RCMP in the National Post case contained only half the testimony of the bank official responsible for the Auberge loan. It left out the categoric testimony that the only reason the loan was approved was because the Prime Minister intervened.

If everything had been examined, would the minister tell the House why the RCMP affidavit contained only half the evidence?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered this question twice already. The RCMP did an investigation. It handled the investigation appropriately, and that is where the matter should stay.

Infrastructure

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, taxes are 50% of the cost of a litre of gasoline. That is the equivalent of every second fill-up at the pump for travellers of all that money going straight to the taxman. Some 92% of provincial gas tax revenues are reinvested into roads but this Liberal government only reinvests 2.5% of all gas tax revenues back into roads.

How can the Liberals defend ripping off Canadians so badly at the pumps when they return virtually nothing back in terms of infrastructure?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is this government that brought in the national infrastructure program in 1994 and has had two since. Second, in the year 2000 this government wrote to the provincial premiers saying that we would suspend the GST if the provinces would do the same. Only one province replied.

I would say to the hon. member we are reinvesting. When we talk infrastructure, we act. The opposition never talked infrastructure until the last couple of years when it became fashionable.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals talk reinvestment, they talk reinvestment but they do not in fact do it. They have gone from 2% to 2.5% which is a complete rip-off, when we consider the fact that over 90% of all provincial gas tax dollars that are raised across Canada goes back into roads. The federal government in the U.S. puts 84% back into roads. This government puts 2.4% back into roads.

If the government is opposed to fixing gas tax dollars going straight into revenues, then why does the government not eliminate the one and a half cent a litre tax that was imposed to reduce the deficit? The deficit is gone but the tax is still there. We want to know why?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious. The money goes into consolidated revenue. We know that goes to things such as health care. It goes into social programs. However we do not need any lessons from the opposition. When it comes to investing in urban communities and in rural communities, the government has stepped to the plate and has hit a home run every time.

Excise Tax

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Bloc Quebecois' attempts to amend Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill, the federal government is going ahead with its plan to retroactively amend the provisions of the Excise Tax Act as it relates to school bus transportation.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell us why, when his government brought in legislation regarding the transfer of family trusts abroad, it was content to legislate for the future, without retroactively reversing the decision made earlier by public servants, but in the case of school boards, it overturns court judgments in favour of the other side?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that when the Minister of Finance on December 21, 2001 issued a press release with regard to this issue, it said that we would be bringing in legislation which we have in Bill C-28. The member also knows that the 29 cases in Quebec are not affected prior to December 21, 2001.

The solicitors for those school boards have a letter dated December 16, 2002, knowing, notwithstanding any decisions by the court, that retroactive legislation would come in. The member knows that. I have repeated it umpteen times.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that did not prevent the government's attorneys from making agreements with the school boards in January and in April.

Having received a letter from the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association denouncing this retroactive measure, which seriously erodes the principle of the authority of a final judgment, is the Minister of Justice finally going to assume his responsibilities and stop his hon. colleague from finance before he causes irreparable harm?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again I point out to the hon. member that the letter of December 16, 2002 clearly says, notwithstanding those decisions, that retroactive legislation would come in. We know that the courts have upheld that. Parliament has the right to do that. The member knows that. We have debated that.

The fact that the member has not won the debate has obviously not stopped him from raising the question, which is fine, but the answer remains the same. We are moving ahead with Bill C-28 and that provision is in the bill.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has announced that it will soon begin funding embryonic stem cell research. This announcement comes even as legislation on the issue is before Parliament. It should be the Parliament of Canada that sets the rules for embryonic research.

Will the minister demand that the institute cease and desist until Parliament has spoken?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, we have been debating Bill C-13 in the House for some time now and that deals with, among other things, embryonic stem cell research. I would encourage all parliamentarians to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

The CIHR is a body that operates at arm's length from the government. Last April it indicated it would not proceed with stem cell research for a one year, or 12 month period, whereupon it would put in place a steering committee which would then, at some time in the future, receive applications that would potentially deal with embryonic stem cell research.

As I understand it, it is in the process of putting that-