Debates of June 5th, 2003

Sheila Copps Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I think the work of Status of Women Canada is actually to discourage hate against any person on the basis of gender.

I have to say that when I look at the literally thousands of women in Canada still working for 64¢ on a dollar earned by a man, the thousands of women in Canada working full time trying to raise a family on less than $20,000, and the fact that 7% of boards of directors across the country are women, I think we have a long way to go to achieve equality in this country. I hope Status of Women Canada continues its good work.

Betty Hinton Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC

Mr. Speaker, those are nice comments but they have nothing to do with the compiling of a hate list.

The minister spent 75,000 precious taxpayer dollars on a report filled with hate and inflammatory language that does nothing to raise the status of women but everything to denigrate men, families and parent organization volunteers.

We know Liberals have contempt for Canadians but never suspected they would subsidize groups to demonstrate that contempt.

Why did the minister spend $75,000 on a project that is a poorly disguised attack on men and the family unit?

Sheila Copps Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling that the member is referring to work done by three professors at Université Laval. If she does not agree with recognized work done by universities on the issue of gender equality, that is her prerogative. However, I think the Government of Canada has a duty to ensure equality between men and women.

Three professors from Université Laval have conducted a study; we should at least look at it.

Rose-Marie Ur Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the responsibility for dead stock removal is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. In Ontario, the legislation that deals specifically with this issue is the Dead Animal Disposal Act.

Although it is clearly stated in provincial legislation that dead stock removal is the responsibility of the provincial government, there have been increasing discussions in the Province of Ontario that the federal government does have a role to play in regard to this matter.

Could the Minister of Agriculture please tell the House and the residents in the Province of Ontario whether the federal government has a role in the removal of dead stock in Ontario?

Lyle Vanclief Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, dead stock removal comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The provinces are responsible, as well, for groundwater and waste management within their jurisdiction. They have guidelines and standards for that.

Canadian farmers are well-known and have a good reputation for obeying those standards and guidelines, as are waste and landfill sites. I expect and I know they will live up to both the guidelines and the standards.

Scott Reid Lanark—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, last week the president of the Liberal Party stated “I think [Bill C-24] fuels the cynical fires”.

If he thought Canadians felt cynical then, he can just imagine how they feel today upon discovering that, to placate his backbench, the Prime Minister has doubled Bill C-24's annual taxpayer gift to the Liberal Party to $9 million, year in and year out.

Why should taxpayers be on the hook just because the Liberals want to be the recipients of the gift that keeps on giving?

Don Boudria Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking all hon. members who worked tirelessly on the procedure and House affairs committee for their very diligent work in reviewing Bill C-24 which was reported to the House today. Apparently they will have additional recommendations to make to us. Given that they have not been tabled, I surely will not comment on them.

Scott Reid Lanark—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are unimpressed by the Prime Minister's decision to replace corporate donations with forced donations from taxpayers.

As the keystone of the Prime Minister's precious legacy, why does he not take the high road, eliminate corporate donations and require the Liberal Party of Canada to raise its money from individual donors who actually want to give money to the party, rather than picking the pockets of every taxpayer in this country?

Don Boudria Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is somewhat incorrect when he looks at his own party. He says that he is against contributions from the taxpayer. In the last election and the one before that, millions of dollars went to the Alliance Party through taxpayer subsidy. Millions of dollars went to individual Alliance candidates. Does anyone know how many of them are reported in the public accounts as having given the money back? Zero.

Francine Lalonde Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, leader of the Burmese opposition and symbol of democracy in her country, has again been detained without reason by the junta in power. Ms. Kyi has criticized Canada because, unlike the U.S., we have refused to ban investment in Burma.

When will the government decide to provide real help to bring democracy to this country by putting pressure on Canadian companies operating in Burma?

Bill Graham Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, Canada fully protested the action of the junta in Burma. We are still taking firm action vis-à-vis Burma. We support the re-establishment of democracy in Burma. We will continue to make efforts to ensure that democracy prevails in Burma and we are working with all of the opposition in Burma to ensure this outcome.

Julian Reed Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Why is the government taking a phased approach to implementing the Species at Risk Act? What are we doing in support of the stewardship provisions in that act?

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we are taking a phased approach to the act, most of which, by the way, came into force today, so we can have the assessment listing, recovery and stewardship programs moving forward as soon as possible.

We obviously have some important work to do to effectively synchronize with other legislation, for example, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Therefore the remaining provisions will come in one year from now.