House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the government understands the challenges that young families face while they work to try to ensure that they are self-sufficient and caring for their children.
We have taken dramatic action by doubling parental benefits for all Canadians. As we said earlier, if the province of Quebec wishes to do more, we encourage it to do so.
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry says he needs more information on the particular subject so let me tell him a little.
In order to qualify for the Canada community investment program, one-third of the money must come from the private sector. That was not so in the case of A-R-C of Shawinigan that qualified for a $600,000 grant.
In fact, an audit last April revealed that one-third of the private sector contribution actually came from the LaPrade fund, another federally funded agency.
Industry Canada's contribution was found to be a 99% overpayment. How much money did Industry Canada put into this and how much has been recovered?
Government GrantsOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the specific question, more specific information versus the allegations we heard earlier.
As I understand it, there is now an agreement to recover all the funds in question.
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is very good news. I am glad the minister found his briefing on it.
It begs the question how did this happen. In 1998 the Canada Economic Development Agency for the regions of Quebec wrote the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, notifying him that the federal controls over the LaPrade fund in Shawinigan were being relaxed. Shortly after, A-R-C of Shawinigan used LaPrade's money improperly to leverage a $600,000 grant from Industry Canada.
What levers did the Prime Minister pull to get the grant in his riding just prior to the 1997 election? What was the role of the Prime Minister in his part of the leverage of this grant?
Government GrantsOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I have to say again that what we are seeing is a series of questions that are not designed to elicit information. They are designed to be part of a continuing program of allegation by members of the Alliance.
This kind of smear was attempted during the last election campaign. This kind of smear was judged during the last election campaign. It did not work then. It will not work now. I would suggest members get on the real issues that are of concern to real Canadians, not just smear tactics in the House of Commons.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, a report by experts on the approval of GMOs, commissioned by the government and presented today, sounds an alarm on, and I quote: “the conflict of interest created by giving to regulatory agencies the mandates both to promote the development of agricultural biotechnologies and to regulate it”.
Is the minister aware that the Canadian food inspection system lost all credibility with the presentation of this report and that it is putting the health of the people of Quebec and Canada at risk?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank the Royal Society of Canada for this important report. I note that it raised no concerns about genetically modified foods already on the market.
Naturally, the safety of our food and of the public is of the highest priority for this government. We will examine this report carefully in the process intended to strengthen the system.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will quote from this report:
The precaution principle the government adheres to must be better applied...new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them safe.
Could the minister tell this House whether he intends now to apply this principle and confirm that no product will be authorized until the government is satisfied it represents no danger to the health of consumers?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, public safety must remain the top priority of all the ministers of the government.
Last year, we spent $90 million on consolidating the food regulatory system. My colleagues and I will study the report closely. I hope to have the opportunity to meet some of the members of the panel of experts. We will continue to protect public safety.
Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Liberals promised to overhaul the Young Offenders Act and did nothing. Upon retaining power in 1997, the minister said that youth justice was her top priority, and again nothing. Now we hear her in 2001, and as usual the media was informed before parliament.
We anticipate that the minister will introduce legislation today. Does she intend to merely rehash her previous attempt or will she get it right this time?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we consulted widely with interested Canadians, with provincial and territorial governments, and in fact with all those interested in this subject in the opposition.
When the hon. member sees our new youth justice legislation this afternoon, I hope he will be able to support it as the vast majority of Canadians do.
Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice admit that her youth criminal justice act in the last parliament was a fatally flawed piece of legislation from its inception? It tried to be all things to all people and wound up a hopelessly complicated failure.
Will her next attempt truly reflect the wishes of most citizens? Will she lower the age of application from 18 to 16? Will she guarantee that all killers and rapists go to the adult system, or will she just ignore Canadians once again?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, our youth justice legislation is based on three fundamental values of paramount importance to Canadians. Those values are: first, that one prevents crime before it happens; we do not need more victims; second, that when crime happens there are meaningful consequences for those who hurt others; and, third, a strong commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders back into the society and communities from which they came.
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As of today 71 countries have signed the United Nations biosafety protocol emanating from the convention on biological diversity, but not Canada.
Could the minister indicate to the House whether Canada will sign the protocol on biosafety before the deadline of June 2001?
Karen Redman LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to the aims of the Cartagena protocol which sets international framework for the protection of biodiversity and biosafety. It is a complex and demanding instrument.
Currently affected Canadians, provincial and territorial governments, as well as industry, are being consulted. The minister recognizes the significance of the signing on June 4 and will be taking these consultations under consideration and meeting with his caucus colleagues.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Health on the issue of GM foods and a study released today by the Royal Society of Canada.
I hope the minister will reread the report because it is a scathing condemnation of the practices of the government on the question of food safety. The report says that Canadians do not know if genetically modified foods are safe because the process of approvals by the government is so flawed and problematic.
Given the concerns identified, will the minister at least do what we in the House and Canadians have been asking for many months and put in place a process of mandatory labelling of all genetically modified food so at least Canadians will know what they are eating?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat how grateful we are to the Royal Society of Canada for its very complete report that was received today. Let us remember that the government, the ministers of the environment and agriculture and I as Minister of Health asked the royal society to undertake this work.
Canadians have the safest food system in the world. We want to keep it that way and we want to make it even better. I am happy to see that the royal society raised no question about the safety of GM foods already on the market. I am happy to see that it has added to many of the recommendations made in other countries.
We will be looking carefully at the recommendations. We have set aside $90 million to strengthen the regulatory system. We will look closely at this report as we do that work.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, the report calls for government action, not just more fuzzy words from the Minister of Health. The report actually says that the government approval process seriously compromises the confidence society can have in knowing whether or not genetically modified foods are safe.
Will the Minister of Health do a couple of things that Canadians want and deserve? Will he put in place a process of mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods, and will he put a moratorium on the approval process for any new genetically modified foods until this mess is sorted through?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member and her colleagues want the government to do the responsible thing, which is to go out to a body of experts at arm's length, independent of government, show them what we are doing and ask them if they have any recommendations on how it can be done better. That is exactly what the government did.
We have now received the report, and I am here to tell the House that as my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of the Environment and I set about making our system better, we will carefully take this report into account. I look forward to an opportunity to meet with representatives of this special expert panel.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Departmental officials at foreign affairs were highly criticized about the recent letter of apology to Russia. When Canada apologizes to a country like Russia, does it not require the approval of a minister, or can just anybody apologize? Did the minister approve this apology specifically?
Denis Paradis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, our primary concern is the safety of Canadians. As soon as the Minister of Foreign Affairs returns from Washington, the deputy minister will be making a full report to him on the circumstances leading up to the tragic events of January 27 of this year, including recommendations and positions in principle.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, surely the minister does not need a briefing on whether or not he authorized a letter. Who authorizes letters of apology on behalf of the Canadian government?
Denis Paradis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I just said. The deputy minister has been asked to look into the matter and make a report, and as soon as the minister returns from Washington, he will receive that report so that we can begin implementing its recommendations.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is responsible for negotiating the work of the House of Commons, including things like parliamentary budgets, standing committees and the day to day business in the House.
The House leader of the fifth party claims that our budgets may be affected by questions we ask in the House. He claims that the government House leader has said “If you lay off the Prime Minister, I could make things a little easier for you”. In all the years I have worked with the government House leader I have never ever heard him use language like that in my presence.
Could the government House leader confirm if he did or did not say the words that were attributed to him? Will he confirm that questions in the House do not affect resources to members of parliament?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think those who know me know that I do not usually operate in a manner that could be considered threatening. I do not work that way. Actually I do not think if I did it would be very successful.
In terms of benefits afforded to members, since the last election there have been improvements in our constituency office budgets and other initiatives like that. I am also pleased to announce that in the throne speech there was a commitment from our government to increasing research budgets.
To the extent that I can work together with my colleagues to increase other benefits to members, I will always do so because I think members around here work very hard and are deserving of services so they can do their job better.