Debates of April 24th, 2001

Justice

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, these are complex and difficult issues. What I find very strange is that the Alliance Party does not want federal and provincial governments to consult with Canadians on what they want to see in any changes to our family law system. I will not act without hearing from those Canadians.

The Environment

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the concerns about international treaties and their possible affects on the environment, could the Minister of the Environment tell the House of Commons what is Canada's progress with regard to the Cartagena protocol on biosafety?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that on last Thursday in New York I signed the Cartagena protocol on biosafety on Canada's behalf.

As members know, this protocol was concluded in Montreal last year. Then Canada played a key role in bridging the differences between the various groups. This protocol is a clear reflection of the government's commitment to reconcile economic policies and trade policies with strong protection of the environment and its concerns.

Natural Resources

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after making a commitment on the weekend to give the Americans unconditional access to as much oil and gas as they want, the Prime Minister is now saying that Canada will meet its needs first before meeting U.S. energy demands.

Is the Prime Minister unaware that the trade agreements he has already negotiated would prohibit us from ensuring that Canadian energy needs are met first? Why do we get this doublespeak from the Prime Minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously belongs to a party that believes it is impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The opportunities for Canadians in dealing with the energy supply situation in North America are wonderful. While we pursue those opportunities we will make sure that Canadian needs and priorities are met, that our concerns about jurisdictional prerogatives are satisfied, and that sustainable development will be the principle upon which our resources are developed for the advantage of Canadians.

Trade

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians spoke loud and clear in Quebec City in opposition to the FTAA and the corporate power it represents. However it is not just the FTAA that people are worried about. It is also GATS.

The B.C. government has done a critical analysis of GATS showing the very real threat to our public services like health, education, water treatment and electricity. Where is the federal trade minister on this issue? There is no public disclosure and no protection.

Why is the minister not upholding the public interest instead of the interest of his corporate buddies?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this issue very seriously time and again in the House. We also discussed it at the parliamentary committee.

I have been as clear as I can possibly be that the government will not negotiate our health system or our public education system. We stand for our culture and will continue to promote cultural diversity and the right of government to actually help cultural development.

I hope the NDP can get the message—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Agriculture

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in less than a week Prince Edward Island potato farmers have to decide whether or not to put in a crop. Last weekend the minister of agriculture had an opportunity to discuss this with Secretary Veneman but it was a glorious opportunity lost.

He says he is working on the file. Will he stand today and assure P.E.I. producers that this year's crop will be allowed to be sold in the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I discussed it with Secretary Veneman. As I said yesterday, officials were in Washington yesterday and are engaged in very serious discussions today, which I hope will solve the problem and make a very clear indication to producers in Prince Edward Island.

Trade

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not only selling out P.E.I. potato farmers. It is also selling out Canadian dairy farmers. The government freely allows the United States to circumvent Canada's tariff rate quotas by issuing supplemental dairy import permits, losses that equate to 70 Canadian dairy farms.

Why were supplemental permits issued to allow U.S. producers to export cheese sticks into Canada at the expense of Canada's producers? Will the Minister for International Trade take immediate action and restore the integrity of the tariff rate quota regime?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this important question which is of much interest to many of our producers. When we give supplementary quotas, it is very often because there are consumers in Canada who ask for a specific product that they need. I will review the situation and review the way we allocate them.

The reclassification the United States has done is for cheese sticks. We have been reviewing the situation. We have raised it in the Canada-United States consultative group on agriculture. We are pursuing the issue with them because we agree that we should restore trade.

The Environment

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a leading environmental group has called the harbour in St. John's, Newfoundland, the most polluted in Canada and a national disgrace.

At the recent meeting of the big city mayors in Ottawa, the environment minister told the mayor of St. John's that there was no funding available for harbour clean up. Then in a surprise reversal on April 11 he announced millions of dollars in additional funding to clean up, not the harbour in St. John's but the harbour in his riding.

How could the minister explain the availability of funding for his own riding but not for the most polluted harbour in Canada?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is completely false. I did not tell the mayor of St. John's there was no funding. I in fact told him what funding there was and how to access it.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Not true, Mr. Speaker. Today the mayor of St. John's—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar has the floor for a supplementary question. We all want to hear it.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today at a press conference the mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland, released a letter to the industry minister declaring the mistruth of what the member opposite just said and asking for the support of the industry minister, something that has not been forthcoming.

The issue of dealing fairly with taxpayer money has to be addressed by members opposite. The issue of patronage and the excessive use of patronage in defiance of the fairness Canadians want has to be addressed by members opposite.

The industry minister went to St. John's, Newfoundland, during the election and claimed that they would get help if they voted Liberal. They did not. They elected PC—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we see many things in the House but to see the hon. member launch his leadership campaign before the seat is even cold and to launch it on the basis of sewage are two extraordinary—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that in early April the U.S. secretary of state sent a memo to U.S. embassies indicating that the United States would oppose the Kyoto protocol, regardless of the circumstances.

Moreover, the Minister of the Environment stated last week that it will be impossible for Canada to ignore American positions.

Is the minister's decision to align Canada's position with that of the Americans not an illustration of the federal government's refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my day for getting misinformed members.

What I said was that if the United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's economy and one-quarter of the emission of greenhouse gases, one cannot ignore the United States when attempting to put together international agreements to reduce greenhouse gases and the effect of global warming.

If he believes one can ignore the world's largest economy in such an exercise, I differ with him.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 12, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution asking the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Does the federal government realize that it is alienating all the other countries by copying the Americans' position? Under what conditions would the minister be prepared to sign the Kyoto protocol?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, one thing a federal government must do when considering the ratification of treaties is to make sure that it knows what it is signing and what the effects will be, particularly when part of the responsibility for the environment and natural resources is in large part in provincial hands.

Is that party and that member suggesting we go ahead and ratify agreements when we do not know how the agreement will be put into effect, even if it adversely affects the interests of provinces? If he is, then perhaps he should leave the party he happens to be sitting with.