Debates of March 13th, 2002

Foreign Affairs

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, the UN Security Council adopted a historic resolution drafted by the United States, which affirms the existence of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.

Will the Prime Minister lend his full support to President Bush for this resolution, and does he plan on supporting him in his efforts to get negotiations underway?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Security Council's resolution, adopted yesterday, was excellent and Canada is fully behind it.

I hope that discussions will resume between the parties as soon as possible, and I am very pleased that the American government has decided at this time to send Vice-President Cheney to the region, and that General Zinni is expected there.

On Saturday I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Arafat on the telephone, and he was insistent that the United States get involved in this capacity. I am pleased that the Americans are there to help put an end to this unacceptable carnage.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, UN members have not hesitated to set up peacekeeping forces, such as in Cyprus, Suez, the Golan Heights and Kosovo, to prevent the slaughter of innocent populations.

Is it the Prime Minister's intention to promote a similar approach in the Middle East, by proposing the establishment of a security zone where peacekeepers could ensure the peaceful cohabitation of Israelis and Palestinians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a proposal was made several months ago, by Mr. Mitchell I believe, to have troops present over there.

I have told both parties, on several occasions, that if there was an agreement to have peacekeeping troops under the auspices of the United Nations or even otherwise, Canada would seriously consider taking part. I think that it would be our duty to be there.

Employment Insurance

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Minister of HRDC in the House yesterday.

--it is only in cases of fraud when EI claimants are required to pay back more than what they have taken.

This statement is not correct. In saying it, the minister called my constituent, Cher Kinamore, and thousands of other EI claimants over the last five years, fraud artists.

I would like to know if the minister would be willing to step outside this Chamber and call my constituent and thousands like her fraud artists, or perhaps she would like to have a good look in the mirror and put a better perspective on the issue.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. He is wrong either because he does not understand the process or because he is deliberately trying to confuse Canadians.

What we are talking about here are individuals who were in receipt of employment insurance benefits for which they were not eligible because they had earnings that they did not declare.

Let me further confirm that the only time that administrative penalties were assessed were in cases where fraud was determined.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is odd. Let us go to an audit of 65 overpayment files that has been completed in the Nanaimo HRDC office. It was found that under the 1996 rules 47 claimants would have wrongfully repaid a total of $81,000 in penalties over and above any amount legitimately owing to the government. I would like to table that little report for the minister's eyes.

When the cases in the minister's own department proved how bad section 19(3) of the EI Act was, why did she continue to rip off those workers?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, again I categorically reject the premise of the hon. member's question.

Let us be clear here. It is this government that has made administrative improvements to the undeclared earnings provision. If that party had its way, those changes would not have occurred. That party stood in the House and said that it categorically rejected our intention to make those changes.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the salaries paid to men and women working for the CBC in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada are higher than those paid to men and women working for the Société Radio-Canada, in Quebec. The gap is 11% for men and 20% for women, even though the French network has a much higher audience rating than the English network.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to remain passive much longer regarding the existing wage discrimination at the CBC, which adversely affects Quebec employees?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is all French language employees across Canada who are being discriminated against. Unfortunately this issue has never been raised by the union.

I am pleased to see that the union is now raising it for the first time. I hope this discrimination will be eliminated as quickly as possible.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a clear answer.

The gap between men and women earning $45,000 or more is 18% in Ontario and 27% in Quebec.

Does the minister intend to express her disagreement with the injustice that the CBC is doing to women?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that this is an issue involving Ontario and Quebec. That is not the case. I was in Alberta last week. There are CBC female employees who are being subjected to the same discrimination.

Unfortunately, the CBC never put forward pay equity at the negotiating table. Now, the union has done so for all female employees of the CBC across the country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia. These women deserve equal treatment.

Employment Insurance

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister said that the opposition had not complained about unfair EI rules. I will quote from my letter to the minister in 1999:

A large number of applicants now find themselves in receipt of letters accusing them of fraud. These same people have never before had problems with the EI program and they have not done anything different than past practice.

I asked the minister to fix the problem at that time and the minister said no.

Will the minister admit that the government created a huge problem and then tried to bury it?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wrote to me, I would have thought he might have talked to his own critic. A year ago in the House we talked specifically about making changes to the undeclared earnings provision. The critic at the time for that party said “it is hard to justify not penalizing someone who has misrepresented the facts”. She went on to say “It is hard to imagine that people would not be penalized for doing so”.

Do they not talk among themselves?

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is comparing apples with oranges here.

I will further quote from my 1999 letter to the HRDC minister. It reads:

Communicating and educating the public on the major changes to the EI system has been a disaster.

Again I asked the minister to fix these problems. Local departmental HRDC officials administering the problems were pleading for changes and quietly agreeing with my office and with me.

Why is the government so callous in its disregard for people?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, last summer we used regulations to improve the administration of the undeclared earnings provisions. There was a 30 day period of consultation, of talking specifically with and asking Canadians for their views on this. Did we hear from that member? Did we hear from that party? Not at all.

Public Works

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has announced that the recently acquired Royal Bank building on Sparks Street would be renamed in honour of the Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee. Could the minister elaborate on this very visible and concrete decision?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, Thomas D'Arcy McGee was without any doubt the greatest orator this country has ever had. He was a father of Confederation, the only one who gave his life and who died in service at the federal level.

Earlier today I had the opportunity to unveil a plaque to honour one of the finest buildings in Ottawa in his name. I am very proud of the contribution of Thomas D'Arcy McGee and I am pleased to honour him today.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, a detailed independent report prepared for the Dutch government demonstrates that the cost to Canada of reducing greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol would be $200 million to $700 million, not $40 billion as predicted by Alberta and the oil companies.

The report also finds that the concessions which have already been made to Canada allow us to meet 25% to 30% of our reductions with little or no impact on our economy.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, why is it that other governments are able to provide this type of scientific and economic analysis that would debunk the fearmongering of some provinces and big business but this government cannot?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the government is looking at having a clear plan. We are working with provincial and territorial governments. We want to make sure that all those factors are taken into consideration.

Of course this is a complex problem. Depending on what assumptions are made we come up with different costs, so we need to make sure we have the facts on the table. We need to make sure that we have all the information so we can make a sound decision on the ratification of Kyoto, but we will do this with the provinces, working with the territories, industry and Canadians. We are committed to doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could offer the minister the report. Maybe that would help him get some of the information.

Let me go to another point. Like many European countries and even the U.S., Canada has no requirement for gas companies to blend their products to make them burn cleaner and reduce harmful emissions.

Canada's Iogen Corporation, a world leader in alternative fuel development, touted by the Environment Canada department, has said that Canada is missing out on the potential of new clean energy technologies and that there is no future in Canada for this company or companies like this. When will the government get serious about the environment and introduce mandatory blended fuels?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, in fact if we examine the program and the $1.5 billion that this government has put forward to deal with climate change, many of those programs talk about alternative fuels, about renewable resources.

In fact, just in the wind energy area we are looking at $260 million to make sure that we take advantage of the opportunities in alternative fuels. We made commitments to the fuel cell as well.

The hon. member should take a closer look at the plan that we have put forward. He will be assured that we have taken action on alternative fuels and on renewable resources as well.

Grants and Contributions

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the ad agency Groupaction is a happy, proud, paid up Liberal donor: 70,000 bucks from 1998 to 2000, then, abracadabra, out come the patronage government appointments.

This public works magician has put out the all points bulletin to help him find this famous half million dollar missing report. His Liberal logic would try to dictate to us that these so-called supporting documents he keeps talking about ought to be enough and why is anyone worried or embarrassed about it.

The question is this: why and how does the government keep taxpayers' dollars just vanishing into thin air?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the hon. member for her question on this very solemn day for her, the anniversary of her election.

In terms of the answer to the hon. member's question, like the rest of her colleagues, particularly her colleague from the back row who was in committee yesterday, she is talking about the supporting documents which she has not read, has not asked to see. She did not come by my office, did not phone and did not otherwise inquire of them, other than making these accusations today.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about supporting documents. It is about an actual document that someone paid half a million dollars to see. The government just simply cannot continue its patronage trickery and get away with it. His answer is just nonsense.

Gagliano may be away in Denmark right now safely out of the way, but something sure still smells here in Ottawa. This Liberal logic that this minister keeps saying is ridiculous. This report that taxpayers paid half a million dollars for is either a figment of someone's imagination, is carelessly misplaced, has been deliberately destroyed or has yet to be created. Which is it?