House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gst.
Reproductive TechnologiesOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, coming from a party whose belief and creation is akin to the making of the movie Jurassic Park , this line of questioning is indeed frightening.
Canada is providing a proper regulatory framework. Canada is mindful of community standards and the concerns of Canadians. The Canadian scientific community is a responsible community. We should be proud of that community and the fact that we have the ability to participate in this important worldwide scientific endeavour.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, it will soon be a week since the Minister for International Trade met with his U.S. counterpart about the illegal and unfair trade action against P.E.I. potatoes.
Could the minister or his parliamentary secretary inform us what, if any, progress is being made to open the border? Or, is it time to show the U.S. that enough is enough and start turning back some truckloads of its agricultural exports at the border on an equivalency basis as it has done to us?
Pat O'Brien LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been very persistent on this important file, for his question.
I want to inform the House that the Prime Minister raised this important file in his meeting with the president. It was one of the first issues raised by the Minister for International Trade last Monday with U.S. trade representative Zoellick.
Mr. Zoellick undertook to speak with the secretary of agriculture Veneman this week and ask her to deal with this issue expeditiously. Mr. Zoellick also agreed that any action has to be based on better science. We are pursuing this as a priority item.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister. According to the auditor general, the Liberal government is hoarding $35 billion in the employment insurance fund. Hardworking Canadians pay into EI expecting it to be there when they need it, but because the Liberal government has taken $35 billion from the fund most unemployed Canadians who paid into EI while they were working now cannot get a dime of it back.
In the real world this would be called an insurance scam. What does the finance minister call it?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister calls it a very important program to sustain Canadians through downturns in the economy. It has in fact done that.
We have substantially improved its benefits. Parental benefits, as an example, are only the most recent indication of what the government has done. The bill before the House is another. I would also say that the accounting treatment of the employment insurance fund is exactly that recommended by the auditor general in 1986.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not fooling anyone. Some $35 billion were grabbed from the EI fund to make the finance minister's surplus look good. One million unemployed Canadians who paid into EI cannot get benefits. Many who do qualify still cannot make ends meet because the benefits are so low. Bill C-2 will not address this issue.
The finance minister is like the princess with the pea. No matter how thick his cushion is he wants more, more, more. The auditor general says this sort of financial mismanagement causes waste and inefficiency. How much more does the finance minister plan to take from the EI fund. If $35 billion is not enough, how much is?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to simply take a look at the treatment of the fund. We treat it the way the auditor general recommended in 1986. There has never been a separate fund of cash since its beginning. The hon. member ought to know that.
If the hon. member wants to know what has happened as a result of our treatment of the fund, she should look at the fact there have been two million jobs created since we took office. The unemployment rate has dropped from 11.5% to 6.8%. That is what is happening with the Canadian economy.
If the hon. member is sincere in her wishes, I hope she will support the government and the changes to the Employment Insurance Act.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Akimbo deal fell through. The Prime Minister asked his trustee to negotiate a settlement. That settlement involved a further sale of the shares to Louis Michaud.
Is the government really asking Canadians to believe that a loan which increased the value of the golf course had no impact on the negotiations being pursued on the Prime Minister's behalf to sell shares in that very golf course?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor testified before the standing committee of industry of the House of Commons as follows:
—the Prime Minister doesn't own the shares and has not owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which—is the only important issue.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance recently rejected requests from Atlantic Canada to revisit the equalization process. One of the contributing partners to the equalization process is Alberta.
Alberta in the thirties began its economic transformation because it was allowed to hold on to a lot of its royalties while receiving equalization.
Will the minister follow that already established precedent and let Newfoundland and Nova Scotia hold on to more of their royalties while receiving equalization until they also can be contributing partners in this great confederation?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correct. What I said when I met with the Atlantic finance ministers is that equalization is under review. Our officials are meeting and it is continuously under review. We are very open, as we always have been, to looking at equalization. I would point out to him that equalization has reached an all time high under this government.
The hon. member is also wrong in his assessment of what happened historically. When equalization was brought in and then amended in 1962, 1963 and 1964, it was at that point that Alberta no longer—
FinanceOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister had a weak response to Canadians' concerns about emissions from the proposed Washington State Sumas 2 power plant near Abbotsford, B.C.
To deflect attention the minister criticized the province of British Columbia for proposed emissions from the newly completed, much smaller and environmentally sound co-generation plant in Campbell River.
Why did the minister criticize the province when as part of a thorough environmental review his officials were part of the project approval for the Campbell River project?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot give a detailed answer to the hon. member today. I will take it as notice and give it to my colleague when he returns on Monday.
John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a habit with the government on Friday. The $220 million Campbell River plant was approved in 1998, construction is now complete, and it is scheduled to go operational this month. Now the minister is criticizing it.
The plant is important for power sufficiency, for business confidence and for reducing pulp mill emissions. The minister is unfairly smearing it as a dirty plant when his officials clearly see the overall benefits and emission reductions. Why?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that the Minister of the Environment and his officials are certainly working hard on all these environmental questions. They certainly sing from the same page, unlike the member from the Alliance Party.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, since 1983, Revenue Canada's address in Laval has been 3131 Saint-Martin Blvd. It seems that this address is soon going to change.
Further to a call for tenders concerning the lease for these offices, will the Minister for Public Works and Government Services confirm that the lowest bidder, the present landlord of the building, the Fiducie des chauffeurs d'autobus et de retraités of the Société de Transport de Laval, was not selected?
Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the government wants to collocate all Quebec based Canada Customs and Revenue Agency activities in Montreal to one location to better serve Canadians. In the end we will be able to deliver better services more efficiently and at less cost.
Bids are currently being evaluated and a decision will be announced in due course.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, the apparently successful bid from Garadex Inc. and First National Funding Corp. is $7 million higher, and does not include the major investment of $1 million for computer wiring done by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the present building and the major costs associated with a move to a virtual building in the middle of an industrial park.
What were the reasons for the minister's decision? Is this another brilliant example of this government's management skill?
Government ContractsOral Question Period
Mississauga South Ontario
Liberal
Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member, the bids are currently being evaluated and a decision will be coming shortly.
The federal government is committed to ensuring the best value for Canadian taxpayer dollars through a contractual process based on open and fair competition.
Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, three years ago the auditor general reported that the multicultural minister's spending on grants and contributions had unclear objectives, lacked due diligence in assessments and approval, and lacked sufficient information on budgets.
Three weeks ago he said that the minister still did not meet the minimum standard of due diligence. Why has this boondoggle been increased by 13% in the estimates this week when there is already absolutely no accountability?
Sarmite Bulte LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the programs offered and administered by the multiculturalism department are programs that Canadians want to reflect our multiculturalism and diversity.
With respect to the member's direct question, the minister has implemented the auditor general's report. Actually the auditor general has found that she has been exceeding the expectations of her department.
Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a boondoggle. Before 1999 the Liberals published a list of recipients and the amounts, but for the last three years they have been hiding these grants and contributions.
Canadians know that these grants and contributions are being used as a Liberal slush fund. Why will this weak, arrogant and unscrupulous government not at least come clean by publishing these numbers?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is now on the record that the Alliance Party thinks that multiculturalism and support for it by the government is a boondoggle. That is a shameful attack on one of the foundations of Canadian society. It is enshrined in our constitution.
This is on the record and members of the Alliance Party have been unmasked and exposed. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They ought to get up and apologize.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, recently Canadians had the pleasure to learn that the government will inject an additional $624 million into the defence budget. We on this side of the House know just how much this infusion of new money is welcome.
Could the Minister of National Defence or his parliamentary secretary explain to the House and to Canadians just how this money will be used and will further improve the lives of men and women in our military?