Debates of Feb. 9th, 2001

Trade

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that this has nothing to do with trade. This has everything to do with the safety of the Canadian food supply.

Scientists will be reviewing the information when Brazil provides that information to us. When it completes that, and even before it has provided all of that, our scientists are reviewing it and will be in Brazil to review it with Brazilian officials as well.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if this has nothing to do with trade, does the government realize that Canada's decision could not only intensify a trade war between our country and Brazil, but could also jeopardize current negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Is it his position that we let this product into Canada before the scientists review it? If that is the case, it is not our position.

We will do whatever is necessary, with our scientists and with our review, to maintain food safety of Canada.

Agriculture

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, still on the subject of agriculture, provincial agriculture ministers are meeting today in Regina. For the first time ever they have chosen to meet alone and not extend an invitation to the federal minister.

With agenda items including the crying need for additional federal assistance and even questioning the role of the federal government in agriculture, it is obvious that provincial ministers decided to exclude Ottawa because of the enormous frustration they feel.

Could the minister inform the House when he will be announcing a long term safety net package that will finally provide some solid assistance to farm families right across Canada?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a debate with the hon. member, but I think provincial ministers of agriculture have met before without the federal minister present. They have every right to do so. I am looking forward to the comments they send to me after the meeting they are having today.

The government has clearly indicated that it recognizes the support that agriculture needs. As we have found resources we have added considerably in the last three and a half years. There is 85% more in the safety net envelope than there was three and a half years ago.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think that farmers, provincial ministers of agriculture and even members of the House are frustrated and embarrassed that the minister and the Prime Minister's only solution to our agricultural crisis is to go hectoring and lecturing across the world about the level of subsidies offered to farmers in other countries. That may be a strategy, but it certainly is not a solution to the farm crisis we have at home.

Is the minister prepared to offer at least an immediate federal cash injection so that farmers will be able to plant crops this spring?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we have been there to assist farmers before and we will be there to assist farmers as we find resources to do so.

I do not know whether the hon. member has personally or not, but I know some of his colleagues and many of our colleagues across the way have asked me and my colleagues why we were not having discussions with those in the European Union and in the United States, such as the one the Prime Minister had.

The first issue he discussed with President Bush when they met earlier this week was what the high level of subsidies in the United States was doing to harm Canadian farmers.

Natural Resources

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Premier John Hamm was in Ottawa for several days this week lobbying several ministers to get a change in the royalty formula because the federal government takes the vast majority of gas and oil royalties from offshore resources.

The industry now has come onside and agrees with the province of Nova Scotia that Nova Scotia should get a higher ratio of these royalties because it would allow it to increase productivity and efficiency.

Will the government start negotiations now with the province of Nova Scotia to amend this formula to give Nova Scotia a fair share of the royalties?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, under the pertinent legislation pertaining to offshore accords there is a provision that requires the Government of Canada to pay to the offshore provinces the amount of royalty that accrues to the Government of Canada, just as if those resources were onshore in some other provinces.

In fact we have done that with $50 million dollars over the last number of years. Plus there is a special arrangement with respect to equalization offset which has totalled $32 million over the last number of years. That money has indeed been paid to Nova Scotia.

Equalization Program

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to say that the equalization formula cannot be changed or adjusted unless the provinces agree.

The federal government has already adjusted the clawback provision for Newfoundland's Hibernia project. The Minister of Finance gave every indication during the St. John's West byelection that an adjustment could be made to the equalization formulas.

Will the Minister of Finance be clear as to whether the former premier of Newfoundland, now Canada's Minister of Industry, raised our hopes in vain on this issue?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first I would remind the hon. member that even at the time of the cutbacks by the federal government in 1995, the equalization program was one of the very few that was not cut. In fact equalization today is at an historic high.

The fact is that the equalization program has always been under review. We sign five year agreements and immediately upon signing, the officials begin to take a look at where they are going. That is a process that is ongoing.

Employment Insurance

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has confirmed that for the past two decades the federal government has permitted massive employment insurance fraud by farm workers and their employers in B.C.'s Fraser Valley.

For 20 years, Canadian taxpayers have seen their hard earned tax dollars being illegally pocketed by a small group of criminals. Despite all the resources that the government has, it continues to allow that to occur.

Will the government please explain to Canadians why it continues to allow their hard earned tax dollars to be used illegally?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this government does not let anyone act illegally in this country.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is being used illegally. The government has been aware over its duration that the abuse of EI is occurring and it has done very little to stop it.

As a matter of fact two years ago the Liberal member for Brampton West—Mississauga travelled to British Columbia to accuse the EI investigators of harassing and intimidating farm workers. She actually interfered in the EI investigation that was going on.

Why is the Liberal government allowing the criminal use of EI money, Canadian taxpayer money, to continue?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the government does not allow illegal use, but if there is a problem, employment insurance is investigated and can be handed to Revenue Canada if there is a problem.

Trade

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning two top level scientists from Health Canada said that the decision to ban imports of Brazilian beef had more to do with politics than with scientific facts. If the issue had been food safety, we would have supported that measure without any reservations.

Could the minister assure us that what is going on with Brazilian beef is not the beginning of a trade war against Brazil and Latin America in general, a war that could jeopardize the efforts of Quebec, of businesses in Quebec and in the rest of Canada to penetrate Latin America's export market?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first, as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already said, Canada's position is very clear. There is absolutely no link whatsoever between the beef ban and the dispute over airplanes with Brazil.

May I remind the House that the WTO found that Brazil had failed to live up to the WTO rules.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the WTO issued a ruling that is favourable to Canada. Why did the government opt for such a political solution on imports of Brazilian beef, thus jeopardizing the efforts of businesses in Quebec and Canada to penetrate that market?

I am asking the minister responsible and the government to sit down immediately with Brazilian authorities, not next week, right now, to settle this dispute which could degenerate into something major.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that this has anything to do with trade and everything to do with the safety of the food system and the food coming into Canada.

If the hon. member is interested in getting the facts, rather than what somebody puts in the paper, he should go down to room 130-S at 12.30 today and listen to the true facts from the scientists from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada.

Heating Fuel Rebate

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government just spent $1.3 billion to cushion the high cost of heating fuel for low income Canadians. The problem is that a large portion of that money has gone to people who do not pay heating bills because they are renters and tenants and it is the landlord who pays the heating bill.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he stand up and apologize to Canadians for blowing $1.3 billion of taxpayer money by giving it to people who do not pay the heating bills, or was it just another election ploy to buy votes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the hon. member's question, he is asking the government to apologize, at a time of rising fuel prices, for giving $1.3 billion to 11 million Canadians, giving this money to low income Canadians, Canadians who have to pay rising fuel prices. The answer is that we will not apologize.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have no problem seeing through the Liberal government's vote buying schemes. Unfortunately, they are now forced to choose between heating or eating.

The heating fuel rebates have gone to everyone but the people who actually pay the bills. When will the government offer a program that is about heating cost relief and not politics?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan are following the federal government's lead.

The question really is, since federal governments and provincial governments understand the necessity of helping low income Canadians at a time of need, why cannot the Alliance.

Ethics Counsellor

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of yesterday's debate on the promise in the Liberal Party's red book to create a position of ethics counsellor accountable to the House, the government House leader said, “honesty and integrity must be maintained in our political institution”.

Could the government House leader explain how, despite the creation of the position of ethics counsellor, with the Prime Minister appointing the counsellor to oversee the application of the code of ethics established by the Prime Minister and to report to the Prime Minister, this government is the focus of no fewer than 20 police investigations? It is an utterly shameful state of affairs.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the shameful part is the gratuitous allegation by the hon. member opposite.

He must know that it is the Prime Minister who has raised this whole issue of public integrity. It was he who contributed so much to improving things, who appointed the first ethics counsellor, who improved the Lobbyists Registration Act. It was he who tightened the rules, continues to head a government of integrity and is a man of integrity himself.