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.
Public Works and Government ServicesOral Question Period
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the purchase of new aircraft, two of the existing planes in the fleet were replaced by new ones. They were some 19 years old.
Insofar as the Sea King process required, I am pleased to inform the House that the draft pre-qualification stage ended two weeks ago. We are now moving ahead very shortly with the formal pre-qualification stage and then bidding. None of it has been delayed.
Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, it took the Prime Minister about three microseconds to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract back in 1993.
I have a question for the government. How long will it take it to cancel this foolish VIP executive jet contract so that our military does not come up second best?
Public Works and Government ServicesOral Question Period
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, this does not delay the purchase of the helicopters for the military. The purchase of the helicopters for the military is on track. We just terminated the draft pre-qualification process. The next step is formal pre-qualification, as I said, and then of course the formal bidding.
Perhaps the hon. member could inquire of the former critic of public works and government services who was very well briefed on the issue.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, during a visit to Alberta last week, the Minister of Industry wondered publicly whether Canada could simultaneously maintain its standard of living and live up to its environmental responsibilities under the Kyoto protocol. He went on to say that any decision made would have to be based on the facts and not on ideology or theory.
Does the Minister of the Environment agree with the Minister of Industry, who apparently associates the requirements of the Kyoto protocol on climate change with theories and ideologies?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the government is in agreement with the idea put forward and with the statements by the Minister of Industry to the effect that government decisions must be based on facts. It is not a question of ideology. It is a question of facts, and that is what we are going to do.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the least that can be said is that the minister's answer is far from clear with respect to the statements made by the Minister of Industry.
For his part, the Minister of Natural Resources maintained that there was no point in complying with the Kyoto protocol if we were unable to meet its objectives.
Does the Minister of the Environment also agree with the Minister of Natural Resources, who is telling us in advance that Canada will not meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, all the ministers, and certainly the three mentioned by the hon. member, have the same position, which is the one taken by the Prime Minister: that the issue of ratification will be considered by the government after consultations have been held with the provinces, the territories, the industry affected and Canadians from coast to coast, and after the introduction of a plan which will be fair across the board and which will not be overly difficult for any one region of the country to implement. That is all that we are asking: to have the facts before us before taking a decision.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, sadly the government has chosen to put the comfort and convenience of its ministers ahead of the safety of our soldiers who are serving us so well in Afghanistan. That is shameful. It has spent more than $100 million on the new Challenger jet at a time when it will not even provide proper uniforms for our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Why is the government putting the convenience of the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers ahead of our soldiers in Afghanistan?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. I have just visited with our troops in Afghanistan. They are very proud of what they are doing. They are proud of their uniforms. They are doing a terrific job. And by the way, those Sea King helicopters are doing yeoman service as well.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is okay for our men and women to use 40 year old helicopters but it is not okay for the ministers to fly in 19 year old Challengers. The priorities are all wrong. The defence minister will not even provide proper uniforms for our soldiers in Afghanistan and our soldiers have to hitchhike everywhere with the Americans.
Does the minister not think that this money would be better spent on our soldiers instead of making him more comfortable when he travels with his colleagues?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the comfort, the well-being and the proper supplying and training of our troops is foremost to me as Minister of National Defence and to the government. We will continue to provide what our troops need.
By the way, when we provide transport, we are transporting Americans around in our aircraft as well. We provide some of the services and they provide some of the services. It is a team effort.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, recent statements by the Minister of Industy and the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the Kyoto protocol are an absolutely perfect illustration of how divided the government is on this matter.
Does this not provide us with proof of the Minister of the Environment's lack of leadership and loss of influence within cabinet, from which his colleagues in industry and natural resources have gained?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the leadership in this and many other areas is in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Naturally, all ministers of this government support him in his position, which is that there must be consultations with the provinces and territories, that there must be consultations with the industries affected, that there must be consultations with Canadians all over the country. At the same time, there must be a plan which shares the burden among the various regions of the country.
That is the position of the Prime Minister and each member of his cabinet.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, we find the debate on the Kyoto protocol taking on a number of different directions and moving away from the intentions this government has expressed in the past.
What we want to know now is whether the Minister of the Environment can confirm whether the government does or does not intend to respect its signature of the Kyoto protocol.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
But of course, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, the position of the government is very clear. Yes, we have signed the Kyoto agreement and yes, we want to see the protocol ratified.
Before we make the decision on ratification, however, there must be consultations with the provinces, the territories, the affected industries, with Canadians all over the country, and at the same time there must be a plan that shares the burden throughout the country, so that no region will have a heavier burden than another.
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2001 the Minister of Finance made no projections for debt repayment even though Canadians are paying $107 million a day on interest payments on the federal debt. Now that the economy is turning around and the surplus is expected to be larger than projected, will the Minister of Finance take this opportunity to send an early signal to Canadians as to how much he plans to pay down on the debt this year?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, before answering the question, perhaps I should be allowed to congratulate the member for Peace River on his appointment as finance critic. His question is a very good start.
Debt repayment is very important to the government and the Canadian people. That is why we have paid down over $35 billion worth of debt in the last four years. Given the improvement in our numbers, one would hope that the debt repayment when ultimately announced will be greater than that originally projected.
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is encouraging to hear. I thank the minister for his kind words.
I would also like to give the minister the opportunity today to clear up the working relationship between his department and Calgary Liberal fundraiser Jim Palmer.
How will the Minister of Finance assure Canadians that this was not a conflict of interest, or was Mr. Palmer really selling tax policy in order to raise money for the minister's leadership campaign?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that Mr. Palmer is an outstanding natural resource lawyer and an outstanding tax lawyer. He is a man of great reputation.
The ethics counsellor has been fully apprised of all the facts dealing with this matter. He has stated that it has been dealt with satisfactorily. He has made extensive comments on the matter.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Canadian navy Sea Kings have long made their home at the Canadian forces base in Shearwater.
Can the minister tell the House if the replacement for the Sea King will continue to be based in Shearwater?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, there has been a basing study done with respect to the maritime helicopter replacement for the Sea King which will be announced by the end of this year.
I am pleased to advise the hon. member that basing will continue in Shearwater, Nova Scotia for the east coast and in Pat's Bay, Victoria International Airport for the west coast.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, forestry workers in B.C. are wondering who the heck is in charge of the softwood lumber file.
On the one hand the Minister of Natural Resources is publicly suggesting that Canada reconsider support for U.S. demands on energy or even pay the cost of the tariff and provide assistance to the industry and the workers. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister has been silent. We heard his comments in B.C. on desperately needed assistance. He has clearly distanced himself from the minister.
While this charade goes on, communities and workers are suffering. We want to know today exactly what is the government's position, what assistance will be provided, what else is on the table and who speaks--
Softwood LumberOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, this cabinet speaks with one voice.
We on this side have been very preoccupied and concerned with the American punitive measures. We have denounced them and we have said this was not the way to go.
Of course every minister is responsible for his own department. There is the Minister of Natural Resources, and as far as I understand it, forestry is a natural resource. The Minister of Human Resources Development has certain tools and certain programs under her responsibility. I will continue to do my job as Minister for International Trade.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, well-meaning British Columbians are struggling over how to deal with the referendum on treaty negotiations and first nations land claims that arrived in their mailbox. Not only are the eight questions poorly crafted and difficult to understand, they seem deliberately designed to bind the government to positions that first nations can never accept and thus jeopardize all future land claims negotiations.
Will the minister of Indian affairs agree that putting minority rights to a majority vote is offensive, divisive and inflammatory? Will he tell Canadians that he too disagrees fundamentally with holding this B.C. referendum on sensitive land claims negotiations?