Debates of April 26th, 2002

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development recently boasted that 16,000 of 23,500 retired people who were sent a simplified form returned it, and will soon receive the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled.

Does the minister realize that the job is not yet done and that there are still hundreds of thousands of retired people who need to be contacted?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the department has taken all the necessary measures to inform the eligible clients. We have said this in the House on several occasions.

Allow me to provide two examples: the first is that more than 30,000 articles were sent to eligible seniors in Quebec to provide them with information on the guaranteed income supplement.

Also, the Conseil régional de l'âge d'or was a major partner in conferences held on the guaranteed income supplement, which means that people are well informed of this problem.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government members have been with us all the way. They supported the committee report, they simplified the forms and they adjusted government advertising. Now all that is left for them to do is recognize that all retired people deserve full retroactivity.

When will the minister take action?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, there was always a provision for retroactive payment of the guaranteed income supplement.

As I said last week, this 11 month retroactive payment is perfectly normal under the circumstances. Last week, I mentioned the fact that the government of Quebec makes no retroactive payments in its employment assistance program, nor in its rent subsidy program.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government might try to recover the cost of Kyoto on the backs of taxpayers, 10¢ at a time. The idea for the gasoline tax comes from the same Liberal government that has repeatedly promised there would be no carbon tax to implement Kyoto.

Will this broken promise be just another on the long Liberal list of broken promises?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, first, Alliance Party members for many have said that we should not worry about climate change, it is not a problem. They wanted to bury their heads in the sand. Their former leader stood in the House and said that there was no scientific proof of climate change. I am glad they have changed their minds now and feel that we should be taking action on climate change because it is a very serious problem.

I wish the hon. member would take this issue seriously instead of scaremongering and putting on the table what is not even there. Why do they not take climate change seriously and make sure--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Peace River.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I am worried about is the hot air coming from that side of the House today. The last time a government tried a gas tax like this, in 1979 to be exact, it brought down the government.

Premier Campbell and Premier Klein have both called for a first ministers conference on Kyoto. Will the government work in good faith with the provinces to develop a made in Canada solution that works and one that does not include a gas tax?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we have repeated in the House, not only myself but many other ministers, that we would never consider a carbon tax in the past, or the present or in the future. The hon. member and his party do not hear very well.

There is a process set up. The first ministers have asked for a joint meeting of federal-provincial-territorial ministers. That is happening. We are working with them. We have another meeting.

Why does the hon. member not let them work and do the job that they have been asked to do by the first ministers so we can assure Canadians that Canada is playing its role in ensuring--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

International Co-operation

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Washington there was a meeting that was attended by ministers of finance from around the world, including the Minister of Finance of Canada. They backed a plan that was proposed by the World Bank to help children in poor countries to have access to primary education.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation. Could she tell the House what her department's plan is to meet the aims and the commitment that we made in Washington.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians feel very strong about the value of education and of our role as a country helping the developing world achieve education for all. That is why the Minister for International Cooperation launched CIDA's basic education action plan last Wednesday, pledging a $555 million investment over a five year period. This signifies a quadrupling of Canada's investment for basic education in developing countries.

With the help of Canadians, developing countries and other donor partners the plan aims--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Palliser.

Agriculture

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, scant days after the release of the Prime Minister's caucus task force on future opportunities and farming concluded that the government was not doing enough to deal with the farm income crisis, the agriculture minister was yet again warning farmers that government's pockets were not as deep so farmers should not expect to see any bridge financing in the near future to offset the international subsidies. Yet the government itself is projecting a $10 billion surplus at least this year.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister please tell farmers what the agriculture minister's rationale is for saying that there is not sufficient funds?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to take my first opportunity here in the House to thank and congratulate the members of the Prime Minister's task force for their excellent work.

As the House knows, they also said that the safety net programs needed to be financed on a long term basis with financing guaranteed for five years. That is exactly what our minister of agriculture is attempting to do, along with our other colleagues in the House. This follows the strong commitment by the Minister of Finance in the budget and also in the throne speech; to move past where we are today and move past crisis management.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Prime Minister's task force on this subject has stated that the Prime Minister's Office is advising ministers to read the report and decide what role each can play in its implementation. Instead of facilitating, the agriculture minister pours cold water on additional farm assistance saying there is not enough money. Farmers need water and plenty of it this spring, but they do not need cold water like they have been getting from this minister of agriculture. They continue to be the recipients of mixed messages. Why?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced in Saskatchewan this week money to fund all water projects that have been asked for and that are eligible, and also in Alberta. Already this year the federal government alone has committed $1.1 billion to our farmers that will help in short term programs.

Our minister continues to explore every avenue to find more money for our farmers.

Fisheries

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has recommended measures to protect Atlantic groundfish stocks. It says the growing seal herd in the gulf is taking cod at a rate that “cannot be allowed to continue”. The fishery is already threatened by foreign overfishing, which the government will not stop.

His own experts are telling the minister that the growth in the seal population is another fatal blow to the fishery.

Will the minister announce plans immediately to increase the total allowable catch for harp seals and will he tell us what other measures he intends to take to act on the warning of the scientists?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I have received the recommendations of the FRCC. I thank it for its great work, its services and its recommendations.

I have also received a report from the eminent panel on seal management. I have asked my staff and I will be discussing with the fisheries ministers from all provinces and territories a long term management plan for seals that would include an increase in quota.

Ethanol

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government is doing nothing for the fishery. It is unfortunate however that it is considering doing too little for the ethanol industry. The ethanol industry, as we know, is very important to agriculture, it is very important to western Canada and it is certainly very important to the environment.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources please tell me why the government would even consider removing the 3¢ per litre support for ethanol?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been a great promoter of renewable resources and ethanol has been a very important component.

If the member has any views as to how we can improve the use of ethanol, I certainly will look at that. This is something we are considering at this time. I know my predecessor, the government House leader, has done an incredible amount of work on ethanol and renewable resources. We will continue the good work we have been doing.

Softwood Lumber

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Weyerhaeuser Company, the world's leading lumber producer, is joining the NAFTA challenge to the U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber.

There is faulty methodology in the application of these duties. For example, there is discrimination against western red cedar, which has been hit by the duties even though it does not compete with U.S. lumber. Some U.S. companies claiming they are hurt by Canadian lumber are basing their arguments on flawed arithmetic.

Why is the government so inept at persuading the public and the U.S. legislators about these obvious flaws in the U.S. lumber lobby's arguments?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me be clear that the government welcomes the Weyerhaeuser decision to challenge the U.S. dumping determination. We all know that the U.S. actions are illegal and punitive.

The government will continue our two track policy of trying to engage the Americans in good faith negotiations while at the same time pursuing our legal avenues at NAFTA and the WTO.

As for the advocacy campaign the member refers to, he is sitting beside his trade critic and maybe the trade critic could tell him about the year long advocacy campaign in the United States of the government.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is what our government is doing on this issue in the United States.

Home Depot Incorporated, Weyerhaeuser Company and a group of U.S. lumber producers and retailers that operate in both Canada and the United States have launched a public appeal for lumber trade peace. In a newspaper ad campaign in Canadian and U.S. cities, six major players in the North American lumber market are calling for discussions between the Prime Minister and the United States president. These companies are trying to fill a vacuum created by the government.

Why has the government still not responded to the outrageous letters and opinion pieces written by a U.S. senator and the U.S. trade commission?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen the problem with the member asking a prepared second question, not having listened to the answer that was just given.

I indicated that for at least one year this government has been very strongly advocating in the United States with the U.S. Congress and with the American Senate and consumer groups. The trade critic for his party is sitting beside him. He knows that. He was part of those delegations.

He talks about a vacuum. The issue of softwood lumber has been raised by the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister of Canada repeatedly at the highest levels. It is time for the Americans to act.