Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2002

Government Contracts

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again with the Solicitor General. This man is responsible for important security matters. We expect a half answer to an intelligent question

He said earlier that he was aware of this contract. We can get the details later and we will get them. Why does he not just come clear with us and tell us when he became aware of this contract?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is tell my hon. colleague what I have told his other colleagues. I will get the details and I will make the members aware of the details when I receive the details.

Regulatory Framework

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this past August 12, in London, Ontario, the Minister of Justice said that there has never been an Enron-style scandal in Canada. He went on to say that the government must be prepared to act should this become necessary.

How can the present Minister of Justice say such a thing when, during his time as Minister of National Revenue, he himself refused to cooperate with the RCMP in the Cinar affair, thus enabling the Cinar officials to escape any criminal charges?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to make such insinuations when under the protection of parliamentary immunity. I also said in London—which essentially repeated in the throne speech—that, in light of what happened in the United States, we in Canada are currently engaged in reviewing the entire regulatory framework.

Naturally, this involves all of the provinces and the various bodies concerned by this regulatory framework, as well as the Canadian government. We are revisiting the Canada Business Corporations Act and also looking into whether the criminal code provides sufficient coverage for a situation of this kind.

Consultations are under way at this time. If something needs to be done, as a responsible government, we will take action.

National Revenue

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government's legacy will be that it took money away from the most vulnerable in our society and turned it into corporate jets for the Prime Minister's luxury.

Last March the committee studying this issue and backbench Liberals were all saying that the proposed changes to the disability tax credit were reprehensible and very regressive.

Why is the government picking on the most vulnerable in our society? Will the Prime Minister stop these changes and give the money back to these people who so rightly deserve it?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona asked the same question earlier and the answer remains the same.

Government Contracts

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. He surely does not need his department's help to tell him when he was first personally made aware of the contract with his former official agent, and he does not need anybody else's help to tell him when he was first personally made aware that no work was delivered for the contract.

Why does he not stand now and tell us when he knew about the contract, when he knew it had not been honoured and why the contract was given?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague expect me to know all the details of a contract? What I have said and what I will continue to say is that I will get the information and the information will be made available.

Finance

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are not going to get any answer today out of the Solicitor General. I wonder if he realizes how weaselly this sounds.

I have a question for the finance minister. Instead of clearing the air yesterday, the Minister of Finance evaded my questions about whether he was going to hike the GST or raise some other tax to pay for misplaced Liberal priorities contained in Monday's throne speech. I want to give him one more chance to clear the air. Will he rule out tax increases, yes or no?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear enough. We are not planning an increase in the GST. We are not planning an increase in taxes. We are planning a decrease in taxes; this year alone, $20 billion. That is the tax plan.

Government Contracts

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know from the Minister of Canadian Heritage is whether, in March of 2000, the Everest Group was on the list of companies to which his department could award contracts.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, questions were asked earlier about the qualifications of this particular group and the standing offer list upon which they appeared by way of a competitive process. I have undertaken to get the details of that and I will report back to the House.

Business of the House

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday it is my duty at this time to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business he has for this afternoon, tomorrow and the following week?

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the address debate. This evening pursuant to the all party agreement, as amended yesterday, we will continue with any uncompleted portion of the debate involving Iraq.

Tomorrow, barring anything else and I will get back to that in a minute, we will begin discussing the motion in my name respecting the resumption of unfinished business from the previous session. If this is completed tomorrow or when it is completed we will then turn to the nuclear safety bill.

We are at the beginning of a session so the numbers were only introduced today but I do believe that bill is Bill C-4. This will be followed by the bill respecting Yukon. Both bills were introduced today. We will continue with this business early next week.

On Tuesday we will return to the address debate which we will also consider on Wednesday and Thursday of next week.

Should there be successful negotiations later this day on the issue of the motion for resumption of unfinished business from the previous session I will obviously at that point rise in my place and modify the business statement that I have just announced because it would need to be modified.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the reply to the Speech from the Throne. You will agree with me that it would be generous to say that this was not a very substantial Speech from the Throne. As for all of the speculation in the media during the weeks leading up to the Speech from the Throne, there were many disappointments.

At issue is really what was not found in the Speech from the Throne. For example, we might have expected that the Minister of Justice, who spoke earlier, would be tabling a bill to reform the Canadian Human Rights Act. We will recall that a reform of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been promised ever since June 2000. Let us not forget that in these times when we all want to address poverty, there is something that the federal government can do, something that would not require huge spending commitments. I am talking about amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Eight provinces have included a prohibited ground known as social condition in their human rights codes, Quebec having led the way in 1997. This truly ensures that no person is discriminated against based on their status as an individual.

We were expecting reforms to employment insurance, obviously. We know that when most of us were elected, in 1993, UI was an insurance program that allowed half of the workforce to qualify for protection between two jobs.

Today, nearly one third of the workforce does not qualify for employment insurance. And yet, there were a bunch of Liberals who said that they would work to improve the program during the 2000 election campaign.

Which of them managed to capture the ear of the government? Which of them was the voice of workers? None of them, because there are no measures in the Speech from the Throne to improve the lot of people who depend on seasonal jobs, the lot of those who fail to qualify for employment insurance. Let us tell it like it is, this is definitely not a concern for this government.

Of course, we would also have expected more concrete action in terms of health care. Members all know how things stand right now, and I have talked about it in the House a few times.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated to you that I wish to split my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. I am sure the House will have no objection. I would be grateful if you could let me know when my 10 minutes are up, so that my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, with his usual eloquence, can take over and talk about the environmental assessment and decontamination legislation. However, the topic he will address is entirely up to him.

If the Quebec government wanted to provide the exact same health services it was providing in 2001 and 2002, it would need to invest 5% more in the health care and social services system. This would have to be a cumulative increase. This is why, at the first ministers meeting in September 2000, delegates went over what would be needed to keep up with the increase in health care expenditures.

The Prime Minister and all of the first ministers of Canada, whether they represent a Conservative, NDP or, like Bernard Landry, a PQ government, agreed that there was just one way for the health care services the provinces must provide to be maintained, and that would be for the federal government to reinvest in the integrity of our health care system.

As members know, since the government took office in 1993-94, more than $42 billion were slashed from the transfer payments to the provinces.

If this government cares about social justice, if it cares about the major challenge which consists in maintaining people, particularly the elderly, in their natural community as long as possible, the least it can do is invest in health.

As members know, we no longer talk about the old. Those who look after their health, as does the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who does not smoke or drink and is in good health, have a very good chance of living to be 80, 85 or 90. I wish him a long life and I hope that his fellow citizens will keep him in office the whole time.

That is why we must invest in health and prevention. We must reorganize the health system so that services are not provided in institutions but in the individual's natural community. This is what home support is all about.

So, there is very little for the health system, but there is the federal government's will to develop new programs. What a surprise it was to hear about the federal government's plans to implement a national day care program.

The government wants to interfere in an area over which it has no jurisdiction at all, with its early childhood initiative for children aged zero to five years. This is not incumbent on the federal government. Early action is indeed necessary. The major factors that influence health come into play between the ages of zero and three years. If we succeed in providing early stimulation and ensure the development of healthy nutritional habits, if there is intellectual stimulation, if a healthy lifestyle is promoted in early childhood, when infants are still nursing, these children will grow up to live longer and healthier lives.

We are also surprised to see that in spite of the agreement signed with Minister Harel, a great lady in Quebec politics, as everyone knows, in spite of the devolution of powers and the manpower agreement that was signed, the federal government is about to get step in the whole area of apprenticeships and also wants to interfere in the manpower training sector.

What would we have expected from the hon. member for Laval East? We would have expected her to be, within the Liberal caucus, the voice to say that the government has no business meddling with manpower training. We would have expected her to represent the Quebec consensus and call for the transfer of the Canada Youth Strategy.

The federal government having tools to interfere in the Canada Youth Strategy does not make much sense. The greatest challenge that I am putting to the Minister of Justice is to make the commitment, before 3.30 today if possible, to table the reform to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Would it not be great if the justice committee could follow up on the La Forest report, after the former judge, recommending that social condition be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act and that mechanisms be put in place--

[An hon. member]

He is a former justice of the Supreme Court.

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

That is right. He is a former justice of the Supreme Court.

The report was released in 2000. It has been in the hands of the government for two years.

Several parliamentarians, including myself—and I am sure the hon. member for Laval East will add her voice to mine—will say that human rights are extremely important in Canada. We must facilitate the establishment of more efficient mechanisms to accelerate the process and to ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has more resources.

Since my time has expired, I will gladly turn the floor over to my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. Members must listen carefully to what he will tell us with regard to the environment.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my colleague. I read eloquent articles in Le Devoir concerning his position on the drug addiction issue and, particularly, on the decriminalization or rather the legalization of marijuana.

Could my colleague clarify somewhat his thoughts on what the throne speech says on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of decriminalization very early on. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who tabled a motion on this in the House, and I think that it is undesirable and unacceptable that, in 2000, there are young people, and not so young people, who get a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. Indeed, we applaud the government initiative and we will see what will come of it.

However, in the throne speech, it seemed to me that the government was committed to proceed with decriminalization. I am sure that all members will remember that the person who took the lead, who acted early on, who was the instigator on this issue, is the one and only member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. In 1997-98, he tabled a motion in the House, following representations made by one of his fellow citizens. He was a leader on this, and we will continue to follow his lead.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as usual with great interest to what my colleague opposite had to say. He stressed the importance of the early years of life very appropriately and the importance of young people and the stress on young people.

In the English version of the throne speech on page 12 there is a statement which says the government “will create more opportunities for young Canadians to help clean up our environment and assist in achieving Canada's global priorities, particularly in Africa”.

I wonder if the member has given any thought to this. Does he think that this is an opportunity to strengthen Katimavik nationally and to revive it also as an international organization so that young people can gain experience by doing even more useful work here in Canada and as the Speech from the Throne says, overseas and particularly in Africa?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to remind our colleague that something extremely shameful and sad overcame this Parliament when we had the opportunity to read Canada's position three weeks ago. Concerning foreign aid, Canada ranks 19

th

among 22 countries. Despite the fact that this government had been managing the nation's affairs since 1993, very little has been done on this issue.

This is sad because we would have the means, as a society, to do more. This does not prevent me from valuing the new initiative for a partnership in Africa. All Bloc Quebecois members understand quite well the importance of a concerted action and on a larger scale for Africa. But concerning Canada's small contribution to foreign aid, I hope that Liberal members will have a little more spine on this.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for his excellent speech.

I have a question concerning the response of the Bloc Quebecois and the member to the throne speech on the government's promises to change the legislation on party financing. I was quite surprised to see that, in the list of contributions to political parties, many contributions to the Bloc Quebecois were made by large businesses, including Groupaction. The Bloc Quebecois received a very generous donation from Groupaction.

I would like to ask a question to my friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Would he agree to a change in federal laws that would eliminate the possibility for large businesses like Groupaction, which makes generous contributions to the Bloc Quebecois, to make donations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who has been a friend of mine for many years, knows that the main difference between the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP is that we do not receive thousands of dollars in contributions from the banks the way they do.

Second, we are not paralysed at our conventions by the completely outdated control the unions exercise over the NDP.

We have long been in favour of public financing. What public financing means is that in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve or Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, our riding associations receive contributions in the five dollar range. I hope that the NDP member will take a page from our book.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak today. It is the first time I have done so since the Speech from the Throne was read. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his presentation, but also on the answers he gave certain government members about international assistance.

He reminded them that Canada's international assistance is on a very small scale compared with the average contribution of OECD member countries. We are very far from the 0.7% that Canada would need to give to at least keep up with the OECD average. Only 0.4% of our gross domestic product goes towards international assistance. We have a long way to go.

It is unfortunate that when Canada attends meetings such as the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the government and the Prime Minister do not make a stronger commitment to international assistance. That was the first comment I wished to make further to the speech by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve

Before getting to the issue in the throne speech of particular concern to me, which is one paragraph starting on page 6, which mentions among other things the issue of ratifying the Kyoto protocol, I would like to express my disappointment with this throne speech, particularly from a legislative point of view.

A careful reading of the Speech from the Throne indicates that all of the legislative measures it announces in connection with the environment are defunct bills, ones that died on the order paper in the past two years of this Parliament.

It makes no sense that we, having been elected in the year 2000, that is nearly two years ago, have spent time examining first the endangered species legislation, then the environmental assessment legislation and finally the legislation on pesticides, only to find at the end of those two years that all of these bills have died on the order paper. The only thing the government is announcing to us today is that it plans, to quote the throne speech, “to reintroduce legislation”.

It is as if this Parliament had not sat these past two years. It is as if the parliamentary committees, the Standing Committee on the Environment in particular, had not examined any bills.

Here we are again with a throne speech that announces bills that will be examined, when they have already been through the entire legislative process of the House of Commons and committees. The bottom line is that they will not take effect and thus that their provisions will not be enforced.

It is rather a disappointment that the vision set out in this throne speech, as far as environmental legislation, is concerned is nothing but an announcement of old legislative measures that will be rehashed.

As I said, the second part of my presentation will address this government's commitments and vision relating to ratification of the Kyoto protocol, as found at the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7. This government's vision is summarized in a single paragraph.

This short paragraph contains three points in its nine or so lines. First of all, the paragraph starts with:

As part of the Kyoto protocol, Canada agreed to obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

This is rather ironic for a government that decided, through the Minister of the Environment of the day, to sign the Kyoto protocol back in 1997. This was at an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, which I attended. Yet, five years later, we learn from this government that it has no intention of respecting its commitments as far as greenhouse gas reductions are concerned, but will rather meet just certain obligations.

This speaks volumes about how the Kyoto protocol will be enforced in Canada. It seem quite clear to us, on this side of the House, that the government has no intention of respecting its commitments, and that the government and the Minister of the Environment have already given up on a commitment that has already been made and for which the Prime Minister was supposed to reaffirm his commitment to respect the accord.

Take the minister's statement on September 30. In an article that appeared in La Presse , he is reported as saying:

We need to find 240 megatons. It is possible that in the end, the reduction may not be that big. Some countries are not expected to reach their desired levels. That is why Kyoto contains penalties.

It seems clear to me that not only is there no firm and determined political will to enforce the Kyoto protocol, but the same can be said when it comes to respecting all international environmental obligations as regards climate change.

The second part of the Speech from the Throne on this subject, a few lines further, emphasizes that, and I quote:

The government is now intensifying consultations with Canadians, industry and provinces to develop an implementation strategy to meet Canada’s obligations over the next ten years.

This is indeed cause for concern regarding the development of this policy and this strategy to implement the Kyoto protocol. Allow me to explain.

Two weeks ago, during a cabinet meeting, it was learned that the Minister of the Environment was planning on tabling the implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol to cabinet a few days later. The day before that meeting, it was learned that that was no longer the case, that the minister would no longer be tabling his implementation plan, but that instead, there would be consultations.

Clearly the government has the Kyoto protocol implementation plan in hand, not on the officials' table, but at the political level. This week, the government laid out its will and its political vision on the issue, but it refuses to demonstrate transparency by sharing the elements of the implementation plan. This is cause for concern.

Last week, in Calgary, the Prime Minister indicated that, in terms of sharing the Kyoto objective, the government had made up its mind. It had decided to share the Kyoto objective not by territory, as Quebec is asking, and on the basis of models developed in Europe—where 15 sovereign states agreed within a year to arrive at a fair and just sharing of the effort required under Kyoto—but had already decided to share this objective by sector and to establish quotas by industry, which all economic activity sectors would have to meet.

For example, the Prime Minister indicated that the energy sector should take on 20% of the reductions set out in the Kyoto objective. A 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for energy, for policy and for the energy sector in Alberta is feasible. But for a province such as Quebec, where 95% of the electricity is hydro power, and where the green revolution and the development of renewable energies have already started, it seems to me that, when the government asks the Quebec energy sector to contribute an effort of 20%, one does not have to be an economist to understand that this effort and the related marginal cost are totally impossible.

I will repeat that what we want is a fair and equitable model that respects the efforts that Quebec has made in the past. We also want the polluter pay principle to be part of that implementation plan.

The last point that I want to discuss with regard to this Speech from the Throne as it deals with the environment relates to this sentence, on page 6, which states:

Before the end of this year, the government will bring forward a resolution to Parliament on the issue of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

My first criticism is that the government is making the commitment to bring forward a resolution even though the Prime Minister had said in Johannesburg, at the beginning of September, that the government would vote on that before the end of the year. There is a difference between bringing forward a resolution and voting on a resolution.

We would have liked to see in the Speech from the Throne the same commitment, a reaffirmation of the intentions expressed by the Prime Minister in Johannesburg. To be consistent in politics, one cannot say one thing on the international scene and another thing here in the House of Commons.

I will say in closing that we will keep a close eye on three things: first, there must be full compliance with the Kyoto protocol; second, the implementation of the Kyoto protocol must respect Quebec's efforts; and, third, not only do we want a resolution on Kyoto, but we want a vote on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol before December 2002.