House of Commons Hansard #169 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was land.
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada, like all government departments, works very hard to ensure that we observe the contracting procedures set down by treasury board and public works. We are working very closely with the auditor general and her department to ensure that in the future Health Canada's standards are improved in this regard.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, this past week Canadian taxpayers have continued to hear a litany of excuses as to why these Liberal high flyers need new jets. They claim the present Challengers are out of date. They are 19 years old yet the government's own report says they are fine.
The Sea Kings are twice that age and continue to carry our military personnel into war zones. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that they have more than two or three urgent landings a week.
Does the Minister of Public Works and Government Services have a new excuse today or will he just cancel this unwarranted expense?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the hon. member on being the newly appointed critic for public works and government services. I hope he will be able to ask informed questions on this issue.
At the risk of repeating what I said before, the government has replaced two planes that are 19 years old with Canadian planes. Furthermore, this does not in any way delay the process of the acquisition of helicopters. That process is well underway as we speak.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, that process has been well underway for 21 years. Tomorrow is a long way off.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the government as a whole made the decision to blow $100 million on jets that we really do not need at this time. Somebody decided to trample sound accounting procedures and then plucked $100 million from the already stretched military budget. That was March madness at its finest.
We really would like to know which one of the high flyers over there actually signed off on this $100 million fiasco?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada did not blow anything. To replace two Canadian aircraft we purchased two new Canadian aircraft made by Canadian workers and of course, they are excellent worldwide technology.
If the hon. member does not believe the quality of these aircraft, perhaps he should discuss this with the member for Souris--Moose Mountain. He has been on board. The member for Vancouver Island North has also been on board. The members for Prince Edward--Hastings, Peace River, Selkirk--Interlake, Edmonton--Strathcona and Saanich--Gulf Islands all have been on the Challengers and they know better.
The EnvironmentOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. It is virtually impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor. It is important for everyone to be able to hear the hon. member for Roberval's question.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps hiding behind consultation with the provinces in order to justify the fact that his government has not yet moved on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
The Prime Minister knows very well that consultation with the provinces is not connected with the principle itself, because that was accepted in Rio in 1992, but with the implementation mechanisms, the cost breakdown and so on.
This is my question for the Prime Minister: because the decision was made in 1992, because the principle has been accepted by one and all, what is he waiting for before signing?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated clearly last year, and even before that, that the ratification of Kyoto depends on consultation with the provinces, with the territories and with other affected parties.
There has been no change in the position of the Prime Minister, which he has stated again this very day. I do not understand in the least why the hon. member indicates that consultations with the provinces must be abandoned, when energy is one of the things which come under provincial jurisdiction, at least certain aspects of it.
Why create problems with the provinces as the member is trying to do?
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment knows very well, as do all of us in this House, that the fundamental objective of Kyoto, that is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was accepted by everyone at Rio in 1992. Not just the other day, but in 1992.
Is the minister going to stop wasting our time? Is he going to sign the protocol, the principle of which has been accepted by everyone? If the principle is not generally accepted, let him stand up and say so. We will understand.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Of course, the principle has been accepted, Mr. Speaker. That is why we signed the Kyoto agreement in 1997.
Ratification, however, is quite another thing. Canada never ratifies anything without consultations with those affected. It never ratifies without having everything in place.
I must also point out that it is the Bloc Quebecois member who is calling for a change in the Government of Canada's policy, and the Prime Minister who is continuing with the same policy we have had for months. The policy they want is to have no consultation whatsoever with the provinces, but instead a unilateral decision to—
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he cannot take the media along on the Challengers because he would have no place to put them except the toilet. Well, with all the marble and gold, maybe the toilet would not be such a bad place to spend a little time. Meanwhile, our soldiers in Afghanistan have waited more than two months just to get porta-potties. That is unacceptable.
Where is the government's priorities when it comes to our soldiers?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, they are not luxurious interiors. They are the same as the existing Challengers which many of the members of that party have travelled on. There is no marble, there is no gold.
We do look after our troops. We are making sure that our troops in Afghanistan, in the Arabian Sea, have the equipment and the training they need to do the job.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister on one thing. The Challengers did not have to be replaced. They are fine. It is all about government priorities, luxury jets for the cabinet instead of supplies and equipment for our soldiers.
The Minister of National Defence will go to the wall for the Prime Minister but he will not for our troops. Does the minister know what this does for morale? Why should our soldiers fight for him when he will not fight for our soldiers?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I think the only marbles being lost are the ones over there.
We are providing our troops what they need to do their job. If one wants to talk about the Sea King helicopters, it does not detract one ounce of attention from that effort to replace the Sea Kings. Meanwhile, we have upgraded the Sea Kings and they are performing terrific service for us in Afghanistan.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
The Prime Minister can say what he likes, but it is clear that Canada is losing ground when it comes to the environment. The proof is that, since 1970, the federal government has spent $66 billion on oil development but only $350 million on green energy development.
Can the Prime Minister deny that these figures are evidence of the government's negligence and lack of vision with respect to the environment?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I have often explained to the House, in response to questions from the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties, that we are spending almost $2 billion on greenhouse gas emissions alone, not to mention other measures we are going to take in connection with energy and the environment.
The government House leader and myself are in the process of implementing action plan 2000. There are therefore billions of dollars for reducing greenhouse gases.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of the Environment truly believes in the environment, would he be prepared to take the same amounts which have been sunk into Newfoundland's Hibernia project and invest them in wind energy in the Gaspé, thus creating jobs in the region as well as developing a non-polluting form of energy?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the government House leader, when he was the Minister of Natural Resources, explained clearly that we included $260 million in tax benefits in the last budget for renewable energy. This is a fair amount of money set aside for renewable energy. If a company is looking for a benefit, there is no doubt about where it should focus its attention.
John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general said today that national defence paid $174 million in 1998 for a satellite communications system which it developed. The problem is the system is still in the box because before it was delivered, national defence bought a commercial one for less money and it does the job just fine. The system is still in storage today.
Can the Minister of National Defence explain how spending $174 million on a piece of junk is value for the Canadian taxpayers?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, at the time in 1991 it was considered to be the proper course to take. It was properly designed. In the interim while we were waiting for the product to be delivered, we purchased a commercial one on a temporary basis. It turned out at the end of the day that it worked quite fine. Now there is an attempt to utilize the other system which had been ordered. The department is looking at how it might do that.
John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty lame excuse. It is still just a piece of junk for $174 million. There was $100 million spent for a pair of jets that we do not need, $25 million dollars that Health Canada spent on a system no one knows how to work, and $1 million spent on a report that no one can find. It goes on and on. The auditor general points out that $7 million went to foundations without parliamentary approval.
When is the government going to clean up its act, or do we have to wait until the next election before we can kick those guys out of here?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for St. Albert is mistaking his dream for reality.
A look at how this government has managed things over the last few years, the way it has updated all of its management practices over the years, the efforts that have been made in all of the departments and the whole new policy on internal auditing that we have established, will assure Canadian taxpayers that they have a responsible government.