House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Health
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

St. Paul's
Ontario

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Minister of State (Public Health)

Mr. Speaker, together with Theresa Oswald, the minister of healthy living in Manitoba, we have launched a completely non-partisan program across the country to hear from Canadians as to their dreams and visions on what it takes to keep as many Canadians healthy for as long as possible. Poverty, violence, the environment, shelter, equity, education, dignity, a sense of belonging, we know these things matter to Canadians and we want to hear from them at www.healthycanadians.ca.

Liberal Party of Canada
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When a woman attacks George Bush, she is out. When a man attacks women and equality, he gets to stay.

What kind of double standard Liberal Party is this? Attack George Bush and members are out. Call a woman, an MP, “dumb blonde bimbo” and advocate for charter rights to be taken away and members are in.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why attacking George Bush is bad and attacking women and equality is okay?

Liberal Party of Canada
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

Edmonton Centre
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, first, the comments that were made were completely unacceptable. That point was made plain by the Prime Minister. No one on this side of the House supports or condones the making of those comments.

The hon. member in question did apologize for the making of those comments. However, let there be no misunderstanding, no one condones or accepts those comments on this side of the House.

Liberal Party of Canada
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Liberals to take responsibility. The MP who attacked George Bush apologized, but she was kicked out anyway. The MP who attacked women and who openly advocated charter rights being stripped away is still there. Worse, the Prime Minister has cut a deal with him that delays the very equality that Liberals pretend to want.

Again, what kind of Liberal Party is this? Why is it when Liberals attack Bush, they are kicked out, but when they attack women and equality, they get to stay?

Liberal Party of Canada
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

Edmonton Centre
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the hon. member does not understand about what I just said, which is the following.

The Prime Minister, no one on this side of the House accepts or condones the comments made by the hon. member in question. The Prime Minister made that plain yesterday. The hon. member apologized.

I think that is the end of the matter. The case is closed.

Grain Transportation
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, the government screws up everything it touches. It owns 13,000 hopper cars which it has decided to dispose of, but it will not hold an open procurement process. Originally, the Liberals said that they would only deal with one group. Now a second Liberal friendly organization has the opportunity to buy cars. All the other producer groups are completely frozen out.

What is going on here? What is the minister trying to hide as he disposes of a $200 million asset?

Grain Transportation
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Jean Lapierre Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we have been very open and transparent on this deal. We said that we would start negotiations and discussions with the FRCC. We said that we were biased toward the farmers and we would start negotiations to see if we could make a deal for the betterment of Canada and for the betterment of the farming community and that of the transportation system. This is how we will deal with it.

Forestry
Oral Question Period

April 15th, 2005 / 11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia asked the government for $1 billion to $1.5 billion over 10 to 15 years to help mitigate its pine beetle disaster. Knowing full well the magnitude of the beetle crisis in B.C., the Liberals have offered B.C. less than 10% of the money that is needed with no guarantees to the future.

I want to ask the Minister of Industry, British Columbia's senior minister, why is the government so intent on shortchanging British Columbia over and over again?

Forestry
Oral Question Period

11:45 a.m.

Edmonton Centre
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, it is far from shortchanging the province of British Columbia as it relates to the challenge of the mountain pine beetle. The government has provided some $100 million to the province of British Columbia to help deal with the challenge of the mountain pine beetle.

Nobody on this side of the House needs to take lessons from those guys in relation to the challenge of the mountain pine beetle. The Department of Natural Resources has been working with its counterparts in British Columbia for years on this challenge and we have come to the table--

Forestry
Oral Question Period

11:50 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Leeds--Grenville.

Justice
Oral Question Period

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, anyone familiar with justice in Canada, including violent crime victims, must have been shocked yesterday to hear the justice minister say that mandatory minimum sentences did not deter crime. I understand Liberal nervousness about crimes with mandatory jail sentences. I was asking about crimes with knives, not cash envelopes and chequebooks.

Could the minister explain his outrageous view, which is an insult to crime victims, police and law-abiding Canadians who demand protection?

Justice
Oral Question Period

11:50 a.m.

Northumberland—Quinte West
Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really should do a little research. If he did the research, he would find that mandatory minimum penalties do not generally work.

If we look at the experience in the United States, we will see that it now is removing so many of its mandatory minimum sentences simply because the courts and the lawyers in the system have found ways around them and they really have not become effective as deterrents.

Justice
Oral Question Period

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the minister's academic banter may sound enlightened in the we know best taxpayer subsidized limousine lecture hall, but it rings hollow to people victimized by knife crimes and the police who fight crime on our streets each and every day.

Could the minister explain yesterday's answer in light of existing mandatory minimum sentences for firearm homicide, drunk driving and other crimes? Is he perhaps looking at a Liberal knife registry?

Justice
Oral Question Period

11:50 a.m.

Northumberland—Quinte West
Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the record, he will find that we have more mandatory minimum sentences relating to gun use and gun crime than any other area within our law. That is already in place. We have to work with many tools within our arsenal in order to deal with crime. Mandatory minimums are there, but we also need to put resources with our police. We need to ensure the police have all the tools necessary to meet the needs of our communities.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, to justify Quebec's treatment in the Kyoto implementation plan, the Minister of the Environment said that there was no target for hydro electricity because it does not produce greenhouse gases. What a thing for a minister from Quebec to say.

Is the Minister of the Environment's reductio ad absurdum reasoning not proof that with his plan, Quebec is a victim of its own success since its past efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are being completely ignored?