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 #163 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pesticide.

Topics

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada for the good of the economy and the people of British Columbia is to get into a tripartite negotiation with the first nations communities in order to build modern treaties, to bring certainty to land tenure. This would allow, for example, in the last number of studies that we have done an increase in economic development of some billion dollars a year.

It has also been our position that we do not think referendums are helpful. We prefer to get to the table and negotiate.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just authorized the $100 million purchase of two new jets for his personal travel, yet he tells the Canadian armed forces to rent aircraft to move equipment and troops. The commanding officer of the squadron that flies the Prime Minister has said that the existing jets are in “excellent” condition.

Will the government listen to the auditor general and cancel the purchase of the luxurious new aircraft for the Prime Minister and put the money toward new planes or helicopters for our troops who really need them?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with the helicopter purchase. That has been said many times in the House. As I indicated just a few moments ago, there will be an announcement of what the new helicopter frame will be by the end of this year.

Meanwhile the two new Challengers are an upgrade from what presently exists. They will have a longer range. They will have greater fuel efficiency, better avionics. That will help to make sure the government is able to better do its job when it is required to travel.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can watch as the decrepit old cabinet flies around in new jets while proud professional armed forces fly around in old helicopters.

The report to the chief of the defence staff stated specifically:

Given that there are no identifiable trends or problems with this fleet and given the high dispatch reliability of the Challenger, it is recommended that remedial action such as fleet modernization or replacement is not warranted at this time.

Why is the Prime Minister's desire for imperial style travel defeating the interest of the Canadian taxpayer and defeating the interest of the Canadian armed forces?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the comments in the staff report are relevant to safety and reliability and that is not at question here. What is at question is providing for a significantly upgraded aircraft that will be able to go to Europe non-stop, that will be more fuel efficient, that will be able to go on to a greater number of runways.

All of the projects with respect to the military continue on. This will not detract one iota from any of the projects that the Canadian forces need.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Minister of the Environment claimed that compliance with the Kyoto protocol would only cost Canadians $5 billion. Last week the minister estimated that the Kyoto protocol could cost Canadians $10 billion. The numbers have just doubled, but the studies by industry, academics and government have been upward of $40 billion.

The Minister of the Environment is on his cross-country fearmongering tour allegedly consulting Canadians on Kyoto, so when is he going to fess up to the real cost of Kyoto?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should remember that there is substantial cost to not addressing the climate change problem.

He should think of his own area in southern Alberta. The impact of drought is seriously affecting farmers in every part of that area of Alberta. He should consider the impact on northern Alberta and indeed the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut. He should understand that there are major costs of doing nothing as that party would like to see.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, my response to that answer is where is the study to back up those allegations?

A few years ago in the House the Minister of Industry estimated that gun registration would cost $85 million. Today the cost of that gun registration is over $700 million.

Can we expect the same kind of accuracy in the minister's estimates of the cost of Kyoto?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member is mistaken in some of his statements with respect to what I have or have not said. Let me suggest that it is more I have not said than I have said.

The point is that I cannot provide the House with an estimate of the--

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue other than for the people laughing on the other side. For the rest of us may I suggest that we cannot provide a serious response to the question on costs until such time as a federal-provincial-territorial committee of officials has completed its work on analysis of the numbers. That will--

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Témiscamingue.

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, the U.S. Department of Commerce set countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties for Canadian softwood lumber at 29%. These measures are having a devastating impact on the Quebec and Canadian softwood lumber industries. After consultation, the Bloc Quebecois has introduced a plan that would help the industry through the current crisis.

Is the Minister for International Trade aware of the urgent need for such a plan of assistance, which the provinces, the industry and workers are all calling for?

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we have worked very closely with the Government of Quebec on the softwood lumber issue in order to help the workers in Quebec. We have also consulted closely with industry representatives. We are continuing to engage in extremely useful talks with them.

We on the government side are well aware that each of my colleagues, with the programs for which we are responsible, has made considerable efforts to ensure that workers, communities and industry are able to cope with the situation imposed on us by the Americans as acceptably as possible.

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber situation has a direct impact on thousands of workers throughout Quebec and Canada.

Does the minister realize that his responsibilities require him to come up with meaningful proposals, such as those put forward by the Bloc Quebecois to help the three groups directly affected by the crisis—large companies, small companies, and workers?

Softwood LumberOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have a large number of programs throughout government, whether they be in the Department of Industry, the Department of Human Resources Development, or the Department of Natural Resources. Right now, we are obviously engaged in considering these various Government of Canada programs.

We are prepared to work with the provinces, as we did last year, with the workers and the communities affected by these American measures.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, there are cracks in cabinet over Kyoto. The environment minister says that without Kyoto the sky will fall, and the industry minister says that if we sign Kyoto the economy will fall.

If the environment minister cannot provide enough evidence to convince his colleague, the industry minister, that Kyoto is more helpful than harmful, then how in the world will he ever convince Canadians?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I have already provided four or five times today the information that the member is seeking.

The government will consider the question of ratification of Kyoto after we have had full consultation with the provinces, the territories, interested industry groups and Canadians from coast to coast. In addition, we will have in place a plan that will not unduly or unfairly penalize any area. That is the position of the Canadian government and that seems a perfectly reasonable position to the Canadian people.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that his colleague, the industry minister, has already taken a position. He is saying that Kyoto will not work because it will hurt the economy too much.

If the minister cannot convince his colleague, the industry minister, based on all the evidence that he has to date, that Kyoto is a good thing, then how in the world can he convince Canadians?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Victoria B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I once more suggest to the Alliance Party that it waits until the federal-provincial-territorial committee, which is currently number crunching in the area of the compliance costs for Kyoto, reports. It is expected at the end of this month or early next month. It seems appropriate that these officials, who are working on the Kyoto agreement as it was modified by the Marrakesh agreement of November of last year, complete their work before getting involved in the scare tactics that the hon. member is currently undertaking.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, most of us are familiar with Taiwan's transformation into an economic powerhouse. Taiwan has also transformed itself from an oppressive dictatorship into a robust democracy. It is a model to the world and one Canada should support.

Canada has a take note position on the PRC's claim to Taiwan. That means that we take note of the PRC claim, not adopt it as our own policy.

Will the Secretary of State for Asia--Pacific tell the House how, under his watch, this one China policy will change?

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton Southeast Alberta

Liberal

David Kilgour LiberalSecretary of State (Asia-Pacific)

Mr. Speaker, the policy has given us the flexibility to maintain growing cultural, economic and people to people contacts with Taiwan, which, as the member knows, is our fourth largest trading partner in Asia.

As we urge Beijing and Taipei to resolve their differences, we will continue to support the efforts of the Canadian trade offices in Taipei and readily approve visits of all persons applying within the terms of the relationship.

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

April 8th, 2002 / 2:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, quite obviously this Liberal government has not heard the phrase that crime does not pay.

Federal inmates get necessary provisions such as free food, clothing and shelter, and rightly so, but with this government at the helm they also receive free porno films and pizza, cottage like quarters, college degrees, drugs and now $700 a week incentive pay. No wonder there is so much overcrowding in our prisons.

Will the solicitor general confirm or deny that federal inmates are being paid incentive bonuses of up to $600 or $700 per week?

Correctional Service CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to my hon. colleague that what happened in this one case in this one institution was inappropriate. I can assure my hon. colleague and the people of the House that Correctional Service Canada has indicated to me it will not happen again.

AidsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC

Mr. Speaker, while visiting South Africa, the Prime Minister refused to comment on how money contributed by Canada for the fight against AIDS should be spent, stating that he had no comment to make on how programs are set up in any given country.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain such an unconcerned statement by the Prime Minister, when AIDS has wreaked such havoc in South Africa?