Debates of March 18th, 2002

Public Works and Government Services Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, I can attest to the fact that what the member said the second time is similar to what he said the first time. It goes without saying that he said the same thing. Therefore, we do agree on that.

As to whether it is indeed the document in question, once again, I repeat for the member that I was promised an affidavit before the day is out.

If I have it prior to the hour set aside for the vote, I will table it today; otherwise, I will table it when I receive it, tomorrow, I presume. I will table it at that time.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that his friends will have to adjust their report to him in light of the questions we are asking him today?

Both reports, the one from 1999 and the one the minister introduced as being the 1998 report, refer to the same edition of the Skins Game.

Is this not a disgrace, and should the minister not call for an investigation immediately? There is something that smells very rotten in his department, in his administration and in this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, accusations are being made about my friends or something along those lines. I have never met these people.

The member knows very well this is not what this is about. It is a matter of tabling the documents and ensuring that all of the information that I receive is made available to the members of this House. This is what I promised to do, and this is what I will do.

Employment Insurance

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

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can fix what happened in the past. Let us review what has happened with section 19(3) of the EI Act. Thousands of innocent, part time, casual, laid off workers have had millions of dollars inappropriately taken from them, even garnisheed, because of a bad law.

The response from the minister has been that they are scammers and fraud artists. I would like to know, even though the minister's department agrees with the victims, even though the EI arbitrators agree with the victims, why can the minister not stand up in the House and say that they made a terrible mistake, that they will fix it and pay them back?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that it was a Liberal member of parliament who tried, through provisions, to ensure that the change was made through legislation.

It was that party that stood and that party critic who said with specific reference to this amendment:

—we come to an amendment that is trying to address what is considered to be an unfairness. The feeling seems to be that someone who has fraudulently misrepresented the facts should not be penalized and should be treated the same as any other claimant under the EI program. We have difficulty with that--

Let me repeat that anyone who makes an honest mistake will not be asked to repay more money than they did not declare.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is the point of this minister pointing fingers at everybody else but herself?

Let me give her another quote:

My name is Jean-Marc Truchon and I am writing to you today about the Cher Kinamore story. Her case is identical to mine right down to the penny, except that I have two children and that I recently had my Hydro cut this winter because EI would not reduce the percentage rate that they garnishee.

This is a typical example that we have been hearing about. Why does this minister not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in the House and get that money back to those people who deserve it?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said on a number of occasions, if individuals have new information that they would like us to review we would be happy to.

Let us talk again about this question of retroactivity. I suggest that the hon. member talk to his own finance critic who said:

—the practice of retroactive legislation in general is not a good one for parliament to pursue. When we consider fiscal matters...or any form of legislation, a principle of parliament ought to be that it ought not to try to go back and change history--

Softwood Lumber

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic provinces, which produce 7.5% of the softwood lumber in Canada, have had a long tradition of free trade in softwood lumber with the United States dating back to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842.

In my riding of Tobique--Mactaquac the forest industry accounts for thousands of jobs. For several small communities such as Plaster Rock, Juniper and Hainesville, their very existence depends on the survival of these sawmills.

Could the Minister for International Trade update the House on the status of softwood lumber negotiations, particularly as they relate to Atlantic Canada?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Tobique--Mactaquac for his question and for his work on this issue.

We are working hand in hand with Atlantic provincial governments and with Atlantic industry as well. Along with other provinces, Atlantic Canada is participating in the Canada-U.S. discussions in Washington this week.

Last Wednesday I met with the Maritime Lumber Bureau. I met with representatives of the Atlantic provinces as well. We discussed the progress made so far.

I can assure the member and the House that we are working diligently to ensure long term, open access for softwood--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

Middle East

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Many Canadians are appalled at the brutal violence of Israeli forces in the occupied territories, the destruction of homes and clinics, the degrading mass detentions and the killings.

While strongly condemning attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, will the Prime Minister assure the House that Canada will support resolutions at the upcoming session of the UN commission on human rights that call for full respect for international law and for an end to the illegal occupation of all territories seized by Israel in 1967?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is very well known on that. We are always arguing that violence should stop in Israel and in Palestine. We are very happy that Mr. Zinni is there at this moment. We supported a resolution proposed last week at the United Nations which recommended that there is a place for both a secure Palestine and a secure Israel. It is a position that Canada supports very strongly.

Canadian Grain Commission

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, farmers believe that today's grain commission is more interested in protecting companies over producers as it considers forcing producer car loading facilities to be licensed as primary elevators. Instead of a watchdog to protect what producers have had for 100 years, this commission has become a lapdog for the elevator companies.

The five year appointment of the current commissioner expires in just 13 days and opposition is growing. Western farmers want confirmation from the agriculture minister that unless their historic rights are respected fully the chief commissioner will be replaced immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that there has been a full debate and discussion going on regarding the issue of producer car loading facilities in western Canada. The Canadian Grain Commission has been having consultation meetings with the industry. It has not concluded them at the present time, but I certainly think that the hon. member will support the fact that we need to talk to producers when there is a controversial issue like this. That is exactly what we and the grain commission have been doing.

Airport Security

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in two weeks the government will implement one of its newest tax grabs, but everybody connected to the aviation industry knows that the $12 one way tax in Canada is a bad idea. It is only $2.50 in the United States. It is bad for consumers, it is bad for a struggling airline industry and it provides no immediate increase in security.

Will the government listen to industry and Canadians and scale back this tax until it is at a reasonable amount that the industry can afford?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first, the comparison with the United States as enunciated by the hon. member is simply not apt. The United States in fact has a series of changes that are built into its cost. In fact, the two costs are comparable.

Second, the fact is that there are extensive measures that have already been put in place and will be in place at the time the tax is implemented.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the government knows everything possible about tax grabs but knows nothing about transportation security.

A recent Senate report was extremely critical of security at Canada's seaports, yet the only contribution the government has ever made to ports security was to make it worse by disbanding the ports police.

When will the government put transportation security policies ahead of its tax grabbing policies?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the hon. member is thrashing the old debate about the ports police. The ports police were there to defend the bylaws of the ports and deal with basic security. That is now done by security companies, but always the RCMP was there for the various criminal aspects of prosecution, as well as local police, of course.

The fact of the matter is that we announced $60 million in the budget explicitly for ports security, and other enhancements have been made. Much of the focus has been on airlines and airports since September 11, but we have done quite a lot for ports.

The Environment

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have economic cost figures that range from $300 million to $40 billion if we ratify Kyoto. We have a Minister of the Environment saying we will ratify Kyoto. We have a Minister of Natural Resources saying we may or may not ratify Kyoto depending on studies and consultations.

The government has had since 1997 to study the issue. The Minister of the Environment says we can expect an implementation plan within a few weeks. Will the government release these studies now so that true consultation and evaluation can occur?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions, there is currently a group of federal, provincial and territorial officials working on the costs of implementing Kyoto in light of the agreement of Marrakesh of last November.

When this work is completed, this joint federal, provincial and territorial group will report and I of course will make it available to the hon. member and other members of the House.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, most of us would agree that we can reduce CO

2

emissions, but we have to know what the facts are. The government already has these studies done. Is it not releasing them because it does not like what it is told about the true economic cost?

Will the new studies of which the Minister of the Environment speaks be the true figures or the doctored version of Liberal propaganda material?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the work is being done by the federal-provincial-territorial group of officials, which by the way is chaired by Canada and Alberta. That information will be made available as I indicated in my response to the previous question.

However, if the hon. member is interested in some previous studies that have been done internationally, I will be happy to table a document following the conclusion of question period, which outlines some of the international studies that have been done and the figures that they have come up with. This is not official information of the Government of Canada; it is simply a survey of various think tanks and the views of other research institutes.

Public Works and Government Services Canada

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learn something new every minute regarding Groupaction and the report—the so-called report—that the minister tabled in the House. Item No. 3, under the project “Attractions Canada”, reads as follows, “Groupaction's analysis and comment: the partnership project can begin at any time; the promotion is done by Everest and our friend, Roger Tremblay”.

Could the minister tell us who this friend, this Roger Tremblay, whom no one knows, is?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that I do not know him either.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seriously, for the benefit of those who are listening to us and who paid $500,000 twice for reports submitted to Public Works, could the minister tell us if it is common practice on the part of the government to order, in its reports, assessments that include comments such as “Our friend Roger Tremblay will do the promotional work”?

We are talking about a half a million dollar report to the government, and the minister wants us to believe that he does not know that person?

Let him ask the Prime Minister and his predecessor, Alfonso Gagliano, who this Roger Tremblay is.