This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #173 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mace.

Topics

TradeOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Americans who claim to be free traders are rolling out the biggest farm subsidy in history. Our government ministers here on this side cluck their tongues and say that our pockets simply are not as deep. Our federal government surpluses are running at a record high, a much higher rate than was anticipated after September 11.

Farm leaders are asking for $1.2 billion to counteract the effect of these subsidies. Will the finance minister warm his cold, cold heart and agree immediately to provide the $1.2 billion that is so desperately required?

TradeOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Prince Edward—Hastings Ontario

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accompanied me to Washington a couple of weeks ago. I was pleased to have him there to send the message to American politicians and industry on the effects of their subsidies.

As I said in the House on Friday, this government has shown consistently and effectively that we look at every way we possibly can to seek out resources and use them as best we can to assist Canadian farmers.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canadian fatalities in Afghanistan, the terms of reference for the board of inquiry limits testimony to only those Canadians involved. It will not include either the American pilot or his commanding officers, who really have all the answers.

If we are good enough to be partners in the conflict, why are we not good enough to have them testify as to how our soldiers were killed? Will the minister request that the Americans testify at the Canadian board of inquiry?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the board of inquiry has been given all the terms of reference, very extensive terms of reference, to do an effective job in finding the information necessary.

The United States has indicated full co-operation. It will also have a board. We will have very substantial involvement in that board as well. I believe we will get the information that is necessary to find out what happened and to try to do something to reduce the risks of it happening again.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that they believe they will get the information, but that is not good enough. The Americans themselves have identified the main question as to whether the pilot had permission to drop the bomb or not. The Canadian board of inquiry will not have direct access to anyone who can answer that most important question.

Again, will the minister request that the pilot and superiors testify at the Canadian board of inquiry?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the board of inquiry will work it out and it will work it out with its American counterparts.

Mr. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, just said within the last hour that there would be full co-operation on all these matters. I do not anticipate that we will have any difficulty getting the information that is necessary to determine what happened and what steps can be taken to reduce the risks in future.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment promised to make consultation on Kyoto equal and fair, and yet the Sierra Club of Canada boasts on its website that it is “working behind the scenes with (government) officials trying to produce a real economic forecast”. It also says that it has been asked to contribute to the design of the consultation process and is advising on media relations and which experts will be allowed to speak.

Why are these groups getting such preferential treatment?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the system is wide open. Anyone can come forward with proposals on how these discussions could take place and how these consultations should proceed. I am not responsible, as a minister of the crown, for the website of the Sierra Club of Canada.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, the real question is has his department lost control of this whole process? The Minister of the Environment has always said that it is important to consult on Kyoto.

How can he now pretend that consultation is fair and impartial when a special interest group has been asked to help design the process? It seems like the whole deck is stacked.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should tell that to the Albertans who I have met over the last few weeks and the last few days.

The fact is we have consultations with a large number of people. This is a matter that affects the whole country, not just a particular region or not just a particular sector. I simply want to have the best consultations we can so that we come up with a genuine Canadian consensus as to what we should do and how we should proceed.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of the Environment, the government is continuing its consultations leading up to ratification of the Kyoto protocol. The main issue to be settled is whether the distribution of Canadian efforts in compliance with the protocol will be geographical or sectorial.

Since the government is in consultation with the provinces with a view to applying Kyoto, can the minister tell us the basis of these consultations? On a territorial or sectorial basis? What is his position?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we have held a number of consultations with the provinces on this matter of territorial vs sectoral approach.

Since September, I have held three meetings with the provincial and territorial ministers of energy and the environment. Another is scheduled for next month.

We have often discussed the best approach to achieving the goal we are pursuing with the Kyoto protocol. I am awaiting information from the provinces and territories. There is nothing very complicated about this.

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government explain that other countries, for instance the countries of the European Union, have made far more progress than we have in implementing the Kyoto protocol, although a number of different countries were involved? Do we in Canada not have a real lack of political leadership and will?

Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the situation with the European Union is far different from ours in Canada.

We know, for example, that the United States withdrew from the Kyoto protocol a year ago. We had access to the details of their plan only this past February.

The Europeans do not have the same trade links as we in Canada do with the U.S. The Canadian and European situations are totally different.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, we see today that 69% of Canadians do not buy the excuses made by the Liberal jet setters over there. No one questions that the Challenger 604 is a better aircraft, after all it is 19 years newer, has better technology and we are pre-buying $8 million worth of spare parts. That goes a long way toward warranty claims.

What Canadians really want to know is who over there ordered the immediate replacement of the Challengers instead of the heavy lift aircraft and Sea King replacements our armed forces really need?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, this does not in any way detract from any of these other projects.

The Sea King project is moving ahead. There will be an announcement as to the replacement for the Sea Kings before the year is out. Meanwhile, the Sea Kings which have been given upgrades are doing terrific service in the Arabian gulf.

The Challengers are replacements for two older Challengers. They are not luxury Challengers. They will have a longer range and will be more fuel efficient. They do make sense and they have been purchased for those reasons.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, according to the contract breakdown the minister tabled on Friday, the two new jets are budgeted for almost $10 million in special military instrumentation. According to DND's own reports, the existing Challengers have been kept up to date with this hardware.

Would Canadian taxpayers not be better served by transferring the existing instrumentation, or does the Liberal government intend to shelve it beside the $174 million satellite system it never used?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, all of this equipment is equipment that is not available in any other way. It needs to be installed to bring the Challengers up to the same level as the other ones we have in the inventory.

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

April 22nd, 2002 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean paper, Le Quotidien , published an article by Denis Bouchard, in which he stated “The federal government wanted Quebec to commit to covering half of the costs for making highway 175 into a four lane highway, and it did. It also wanted Quebec to undertake environmental impact studies, and it did. Now the province is asking Ottawa to respect the promise that it made ten times, not once”.

What is the Minister of Transport waiting for to make good on the federal government commitment and announce its financial support as soon as possible, as promised during the election campaign?

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we have not signed the agreement with the province of Quebec on highways. The highway in the member's riding and in that of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who has done much for the interests of Quebecers in the House, is a priority for the government of Quebec and also for us.

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, we know that the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has not done a thing since the last election. The time for making excuses and ducking the issue is over. The people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean want Ottawa to live up to the promises made by the ministers and by the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord before the election.

When will the Minister of Transport make good on his promise and announce the federal government's contribution to the project? All we are waiting on is him.

Highway InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I must inform the hon. member that she made no comment on this highway before my colleague, the parliamentary secretary's speech. He is the one who raised this issue in the House of Commons.

Government ProcurementOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation with a small population. Therefore it has a vested interest in international rules based trade.

Under NAFTA, government procurement over $37,500 requires a request for tenders, unless the government invokes an exception. The government did not have to break the rules to get the two Challengers as cabinet jets. They would probably have won in a fair and open competition.

Why did the government sacrifice our international moral authority for cushy cabinet convenience?

Government ProcurementOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, rules were not broken.

The hon. member will know of course that there is only one company that makes Canadian jets. There is only one company that makes Challenger jets. There are only four jets. We certainly were not going to have five different kinds of them. We ordered the Canadian supply. It was permitted. It is world class technology. We are proud of the workers who make this excellent product.

Government ProcurementOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, these things may be true but public works cannot go around breaking the rules of procurement. Canada cannot argue that it does not like unilateral actions that break international treaties by other governments and then damage its own reputation by doing the same thing.

The government bent the rules on Cipro and on the Challengers. Which cabinet member authorized this exception to the rule?