House of Commons Hansard #2 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was iraq.

Topics

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, we have an interesting quote from the health minister. She said, “An awful lot of countries have ratified Kyoto without a plan and that to me is irresponsible and frightening”.

I found yesterday's ambiguous Kyoto reference in the throne speech rather frightening. The Prime Minister cannot convince his own cabinet to ratify without a plan. When will he drop this irresponsible and frightening scheme and give Canadians his exact plan for ratifying Kyoto?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has heard the Prime Minister this afternoon detailing exactly what he intends to do with respect to ratification and with respect to the vote in the House.

Certainly with respect to the remarks made there are many countries that have not done the analysis that Canada has done on this important issue. We intend to work with the provinces, territories and the committee established under the chairmanship of Peter Lougheed to ensure that we do in fact have a plan which is acceptable from coast to coast.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, what is frightening for Canadians is that the Prime Minister is not telling them how many jobs will be lost, how much gas will cost at the fuel pump or how much more their heating bills or lighting bills will go up.

When will the Prime Minister tell his cabinet and Canadians what Kyoto will cost them?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that there has been ongoing analysis for the past five years which has been done by the provinces and territories in consultation with industry. We have also had consultations with the general Canadian public.

It is very clear that we have done in fact, as has been said internationally time after time, more work on analysis than any other country that has been engaged in this process.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, during the summer, the Minister of Health said that she was opposed to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Yesterday, she again expressed strong reservations as to the position that she would take on this issue.

Will the Minister of the Environment admit that the lack of clarity and determination in his statements, his backtracking and the qualifications that he makes when discussing the Kyoto accord are the result of a deep split within cabinet itself, a split that jeopardizes the Kyoto accord?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps something was lost in the translation, because my colleague was on side with us and with the whole cabinet. The Liberal Party also wants the Kyoto protocol to be ratified.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, the positions of the Minister of Health on this issue are well known, but we have a Prime Minister who is on borrowed time.

The main contender for the job of Prime Minister has never committed himself on the issue of the Kyoto accord.

The Minister of Health has very serious reservations. The Minister of Industry supports the accord half-heartedly. In light of this situation, will the Kyoto accord not be the first casualty of the lack of leadership in this government?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, things are quite clear. The Prime Minister clearly indicated what the Government of Canada wants to do and will do.

As for my colleague, the hon. Minister of Health, she did mention that it is important to know the details. This is why it is so critical to have the cooperation of the provinces and territories in order to draft in Canada a plan that can achieve the desired goal.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of the government is the security of our nation and the safety of all Canadians. The government has failed to provide that security.

Yesterday, as our soldiers stood out in the rain standing guard, the government recognized almost every other group but them. It promised money for infrastructure, social programs and housing but it found nothing for our military, its first responsibility. There was nothing for new uniforms or new helicopters. Why?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, not only did the throne speech explicitly recognize the four who were killed in Afghanistan and the response of Canadians to that but it went on to say that by the end of the mandate we would ensure that the Canadian Forces were equipped to do whatever the government wanted them to do in the world.

Not only that, we are as we speak heavily engaged in consultations and in studies of sustainability of our Canadian Forces to ensure that we have the fittest, strongest Canadian Forces for the 21st century.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member said, “heavily engaged in consultations.” That is what the government has done for the military today. Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have already scuttled the Prime Minister's idea to conduct full-scale defence reviews.

The defence minister claims that the 1994 white paper is still solid but that white paper provided a commitment to the defence of our nation which the government has not honoured.

If the 1994 white paper is still the government's pledge to the Canadian people when it comes to security then why does the government refuse to provide the resources our troops need to meet those commitments?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, in the first place it is hardly in my power to scuttle any plans the Prime Minister might have. What we are in fact doing is carrying out our job in a serious manner.

Canadians want us to be serious at this time of global tensions and a possible war in Iraq. We are working very hard with stakeholders in studying the capabilities of our military, and hoping and planning to put in place armed forces for the future which will respond to the needs of all Canadians in the 21st century.

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute is hitting the forest industry and its workers hard. Yesterday, in the Speech from the Throne, the government passed up a wonderful opportunity to announce a series of specific measures to help the victims of this trade dispute. The industry is disappointed that there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne, and workers still need help.

How does the Prime Minister explain that he did not feel it essential to take a stand on this important issue in the Speech from the Throne?

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, good progress continues to be made in discussions with the Americans on the issue of softwood lumber. The Department of Commerce has indicated a willingness to take another look at the file with a view to coming up with a long term policy to resolve the softwood lumber dispute permanently.

Mr. Aldonas visited the provinces. He toured the country. We are all working together on this. I must say that I think we have definitely made some progress, and that more time may be needed, but we must continue our efforts.

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the United States is going to lose this dispute with us. The Americans think so too, but their strategy is to play for time in order to deal a fatal blow to many forestry operations.

Does the government not understand that it is already way behind in implementing a plan of assistance for forestry companies and workers and that any action that comes too late will be of no use in many cases?

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the Bloc Quebecois member support our government's strategy and express his confidence in the case we have before the international tribunals. It is true that we are ultimately going to win this dispute, and find a long term solution to the softwood lumber issue.

We have already announced $75 million in assistance to the industry for market development and R and D, as well as $20 million with the industry to promote our case in the United States. My colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources are working to come up with new measures for our industry during—

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Edmonton North.

National DefenceOral Question Period

October 1st, 2002 / 2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and our Sea King helicopters have something in common. They both arrived in 1963 and they both should have been retired long ago.

The Prime Minister said in 1993, “I'll take one piece of paper, I'll take my pen, I will write zero helicopters”. Sadly that is one promise that he has kept for far too long.

Now team Cormorant is saying that it will forgive the $500 million in penalties that the taxpayers of Canada paid when he cancelled the EH-101. Our first class military personnel deserve first class equipment.

When will he take that paper and pen and replace this aging fleet?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that helicopters are not a simple matter. We have had more than a thousand technical suggestions by industry on this matter and the fact remains the same. The bottom line is that we are doing our best to get the right helicopter at the right price as soon as possible.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, they may not be a simple matter, but they are surely old.

In 1994 the former defence minister said, “When we cancelled the EH-101 we did so with the full knowledge that the Sea Kings could last until the year 2000”. But incredibly a May 2001 DND memo said, “there is a strong potential that we will be conducting (Sea King) operations until 2015”.

We need to be concerned about the military. The government was awfully quick to buy executive jets for cabinet. It still has not even asked for bids for helicopter replacements.

Why is it so quick for cabinet and so slow for our troops?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two quite different transactions. In the case of the Challengers, it involved two planes. The value was $100 million or less and there was one possible supplier.

In the case of the maritime helicopter, it is a fleet of 28 helicopters at a price of some billions, not millions, and the involvement of several multinational consortia. The two are quite different transactions.

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

We are all aware of the importance highway 30 holds for the Montérégie and the greater Montreal region, not only for transportation, but also for the environment and for economic development. We have made commitment after commitment in connection with highway 30, which has been declared a priority, but to date all of us in the Montérégie are still waiting, with growing impatience, for the long awaited announcement.

What we in the Montérégie are waiting for is the signature of a federal-provincial-private sector agreement which will sanction this project. When will this be forthcoming and what is holding it up?

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, to reassure the hon. member, the Government of Canada is working on the extension of highway 30 in partnership with the private sector and the provincial government.

We have begun the environmental and the traffic studies. I have no doubt that this highway will be extended shortly.

National RevenueOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, even as yesterday's throne speech tried to paint a progressive face on the government, the finance department is further tightening the screws on Canadians with disabilities.

The Federal Court called for a more humane and compassionate interpretation of disabilities, yet the government is bringing in new regulations to cut even more people off the disability tax credit.

Why is the government defying the advice of the courts, advocacy groups, the medical profession and the disability subcommittee to provide humane and compassionate tax relief to our most vulnerable citizens?

National RevenueOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, we consider this matter very much a serious one. I am reviewing what the government has done with respect to deepening and broadening the disability tax credit. That is in fact the way to deal with these issues.

The hon. member will know that there are disability provisions in the Speech from the Throne. It is appropriate that we should decide the breadth and depth of the disability tax credit rather than the courts making decisions that are not the same as a policy that we would adopt in Parliament.