Debates of May 7th, 2002

Softwood Lumber

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the timing is good because, just today, unions launched an urgent appeal to the government to assume its responsibilities and come to the assistance of the softwood lumber industry.

How can the government sit back and do so little, when its primary responsibility is to help companies and workers who are in immediate need of an assistance program to help them get through this trade dispute, which might go on for a long time and which might be extremely costly to the regions, particularly in Quebec?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we have already taken action, and we intend to continue to do so in order to protect Canadians' interests.

The Minister for International Trade has worked closely with his provincial counterparts. We have presented an entire coalition of unified Canadians to protect our interests and we will continue to oppose these unfair duties imposed by the Americans.

The Environment

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed refreshing to see the Minister of Industry calling for a made in Canada plan to address climate change. Of course we in the Canadian Alliance have been asking for that all along.

As the minister said, now is the time to get going on a realistic plan that takes into account the unique position we hold in North America. Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally tell Canadians that the Kyoto fantasy is dead?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be well aware that we are currently embarking on discussions with a number of other parties, the provinces and territories, industry groups, NGOs and of course Canadians generally. The purpose is to develop a plan to meet our target with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously it is a made in Canada plan because we are making it, this government, the others I have described and of course the other industry players. It is quite straightforward.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most ridiculous answer I have ever heard. How can the government keep this charade going on? The treaty will do nothing for the environment. Carbon credit trading simply moves enormous quantities of emissions from one location to another. It will cost billions of dollars. It will lead to massive job losses and it is already damaging our investment economy.

If the Prime Minister really wants to leave an environmental legacy, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not get the Kyoto albatross off from around his neck?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed many complaints that he has against the Kyoto agreement. Maybe they can be discussed tomorrow in the House when we have a debate on it.

All I can suggest to him is if we do not stay under the Kyoto process, we will not be able to use some of the Kyoto mechanisms. These are opportunities overseas to reduce the cost to Canadian industry of meeting our target. These may turn out to be valuable to us. We should not exclude that possibility simply on a rant by the hon. member.

Africa

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Montreal the Minister for International Cooperation hosted a forum on African development.

Could the minister inform us about what was discussed at the conference? What is Canada doing to ensure that all parties are given the opportunity to participate in the important development process of the new partnership for African development?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, 500 African and Canadian partners met in Montreal to discuss critical issues regarding the new partnership for African development, or NEPAD. They discussed issues such as eradication of poverty in Africa, equal rights and status for women and men, health care, security, good governance and active participation in the world economy.

We all have roles and responsibilities to play within this new partnership. If we fail to take advantage of this at this moment in time and with this momentum, history will never forgive us.

The Environment

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the recent revelation about the industry minister's views on the Kyoto accord follow statements he actually made in Alberta recently expressing serious reservations about ratifying the accord. He was concerned about the impacts on productivity, on investment and on our standard of living. He vowed to serve as industry's advocate in cabinet and publicly favoured an approach based on innovation and technological advances.

Will the Minister of Industry stand in the House today, express his reservations and state his official position on the Kyoto accord?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, advances in technology and innovation are very much what the climate change measures are all about. Efforts to increase energy efficiency, which have been done by many companies worldwide, particularly the United States, have resulted in substantial savings and substantial improvements in their position in the technological sense. They have greatly improved their chances for success in competition in the future.

The hon. member should pay a little more attention to what he is talking about.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister has written a secret letter to his cabinet colleagues to lobby on this issue. He stated reservations in Alberta on this issue. It is incumbent upon him as industry's advocate to stand up in the House and state exactly where he stands on Kyoto.

The fact is the cabinet is divided on this issue between the environment minister and the industry minister. We need to know where the Government of Canada stands on the issue.

Will the industry minister, as the advocate for industry, as a potential prime minister, stand and state where he is on this issue?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was absent or preoccupied at the time but the first question I answered today was exactly the government's position, which is the position of the Minister of Industry and every other minister that surrounds me here on the floor of the House. It is the position of the Prime Minister.

That is, we will make our decision on ratification following extensive consultations with the provinces and territories, following discussions with industry, following discussions with environmental organizations and the general public. We will do it in a way that does not disadvantage any region of the country.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter to his cabinet colleagues in April, the Minister of Industry proposed abandoning the Kyoto Protocol for the immediate future, proposing instead a made-in-Canada approach that is more and more in line with the position recommended by the United States.

Is this letter from the Minister of Industry not just one more sign that the government's real intentions are, in the end, not to ratify Kyoto in 2002, despite the Prime Minister's personal commitment to do so?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's intention is very clear. It is well known and has been stated by the Prime Minister.

We want to have effective consultations to thoroughly examine issues with the provinces, territories, affected industries and the general public. We must have a plan whereby no region of the country is going to be more affected than others. This is very clear, this is the government's position. The Minister of Industry and all the other ministers subscribe to it.

National Defence

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the health of people residing on the Rockcliffe air base.

In recent days the matter of lead contamination was discovered. I would like to know what the department is doing to allay the concerns of the people living on the base and whether or not this is a problem that is common to other bases or is unique to the Rockcliffe air base.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, in February during a routine inspection at the ammunition compound at Uplands, lead dust was found. That led to a program involving both Uplands and Rockcliffe properties. The city of Ottawa health department and our own department joined to check the matter out thoroughly.

Some of the individuals who worked near or at the compound and their families were tested. Thank goodness the tests came back negative. They were found to be okay. Nevertheless there have been consultations with the community. The department wants to be open with the community. It has offered free testing and continues to keep people well informed of what is going on. We are also checking out other facilities.

Agriculture

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns the $180 billion American trade bill which is really devastating our farmers.

The minister should know that our farmers are doing their part. They have diversified into livestock and speciality crops. The American government has actually gone into a deficit in order to support its farmers and our government is sitting on a multibillion dollar surplus.

Will the Minister of Finance give the farmers any hope and announce today a package to relieve farmers who will suffer because of the trade deal in the United States?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member and the House that a couple of hours ago I completed a federal-provincial ministers meeting. There was unanimous agreement that we move forward with an agriculture policy framework and that the government be there with the federal share to fulfill that commitment and at the same time to seek ways to counter and mitigate the affects of the U.S. farm bill.

National Defence

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of corruption, thanks to former minister Gagliano, the Government of Canada entered into a contract that resulted in military and aviation spare parts being stored and marketed out of a warehouse in Florida owned and operated by a convicted international money launderer and drug smuggler, Henry McFliker.

Why has the government not asked the RCMP to investigate the matter, this shady deal? How much has the deal cost Canadian taxpayers or was the money in small unmarked bills?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, one of the responsibilities of public works is the disposition of assets. In this particular case, defence assets that were for sale had been positioned in the warehouse to which the member refers. That is where the marketplace is. Those assets are still owned by the Government of Canada.

Foreign Affairs

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was categorical: the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States will be finalized before the G-8 Summit on June 26 and 27.

Given that there could still be a coup d'état supported by a foreign country, such as the 1973 coup in Chile, what hope would such an agreement leave for refugee applicants who have fled their country after their government was overthrown by the United States, and who had the misfortune of travelling via the United States?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand what a safe third country is. It is not automatic. Unlike the official opposition, we do not want to close the borders.

We want to give ourselves options. Under our own legislation, as signatories to the Geneva convention, we are required to comply with this.

With a safe third party agreement, we could also consider other options. This does not mean that we would not take seriously situations like the one the hon. member described.

Criminal Code

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice explain to us how the head of the Hell's Angels, Maurice “Mom” Boucher, a killer, could have managed to obtain a gun permit? With it, he was authorized to obtain a 9mm handgun and three pump-action rifles.

Does the Minister of Justice consider this a good situation? I thought the mandate of the Minister of Justice was to protect the people of Canada and of Quebec. Why has this not been done?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in asking this type of question, the member could just as easily be asking it about any number of people anywhere in Canada.

He asks it knowing full well that the information to which he refers is confidential and I cannot comment on it in compliance with the Privacy Act.

Secondly, if there were any knowledge over on that side of how the firearm registration system operated, they would go and ask their question of the Quebec civil servant who was responsible, because under the agreement with the government of Quebec, all this is administered by a special section of the Sûreté du Québec.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John van Dongen, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for the province of British Columbia.