House of Commons Hansard #102 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to the government that 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions, including all Canadians, stand firmly behind the first ministers accord.
In fact, 34.8 billion new dollars will help insure that provinces and territories are able to deliver a publicly financed, high quality health care system that is based upon the fundamental values shared by all Canadians. There is no question or doubt about that.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the softwood lumber crisis, the Minister for International Trade has been repeating that Canada's case before the international tribunals is a strong one and that this is how we are going to “find a long term solution to the softwood lumber issue”.
We agree with that, but now that the goal is in sight and the WTO is about to bring down its decision, the minister is changing his tactics. This is cause for concern.
Will the minister admit that definitive settlement of the softwood lumber issue requires victories at the WTO and NAFTA, not an agreement where we would be kowtowing to the United States?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, we absolutely have not changed our strategy. The strategy adopted by the Government of Canada was supported by all the provinces. This past Monday I met again with B.C. Premier Campbell. I have met with the new Quebec government, among others with ministers Hamad and Audet, who are responsible for this issue, and all of them are on the same wavelength as we are.
We are going to win at the tribunals—the next decision is May 20—and at the same time we will engage in a dialogue with the Americans to ensure that we never have this kind of difficulty again in connection with softwood lumber.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if we do not want to have the same kind of problem again, we need a decision, not an agreement with the United States that would leave this issue open for debate, that would see us doing as we did in the past and leave us back where we were to begin with. Worse yet, when it comes to the temporary export tax, the industry tells us this is unacceptable. Things are even worse than when there were quotas.
How can the minister talk of settling the issue before the WTO and NAFTA—which is what must be done—when he is still prepared to make proposals the industry does not even want?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, no government has worked in such close conjunction with the industry throughout the entire country as our government has done on the softwood lumber issue over the past two and a half years.
We have never kowtowed to Washington, never agreed to their terms for the industry. I can assure you that the industry in Quebec, in British Columbia, and in other parts of Canada, will continue to be consulted on this matter and that it is solidly behind us, as are the provincial governments. It is thanks to that solidarity that we are making progress with the U.S.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, for a government that has collaborated better than any other, yesterday, the spokesperson for the Quebec industry, Manon Gagnon, said that she was still waiting for the text of the American proposal regarding the Quebec softwood lumber industry.
How is it that, last week, the Minister for International Trade could tell us he was close to a settlement in the softwood lumber dispute, while five days after his statement, the Quebec industry had not even seen the American proposal concerning Quebec?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, this government respects the sovereignty of the Government of Quebec in forestry management. Since the management of forests is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, when approaches are made by Washington and the American trade department relative to forestry management, we share them with the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Quebec, I am sure, consults with its industry. That is the way it works.
Certainly, the hon. members of the Bloc would not object to us respecting the Quebec government's responsibility in forestry management.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the minister confirms that he did not consult anyone before taking a position last week.
The softwood lumber industry sees the American proposal of a tax based on market share as a throwback to the former quota system, as it existed from 1996 to 2001.
How could the minister speak so enthusiastically on Friday about the imminent settlement of the softwood lumber dispute, when the American position is not in any way an interesting compromise, just one week before a new WTO decision that is expected to be completely in our favour?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the excitement of the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and I totally share his enthusiasm and confidence in the WTO's decision coming on May 20.
Since the WTO decided in our favour in the preliminary determinations last year and since the final determination was based on the same calculations, I have complete confidence that the World Trade Organization will continue to respect the Canadian government's point of view, and that of the entire country, on the softwood lumber issue.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Apparently the cabinet is unhappy with the Minister of Canadian Heritage using the words star wars. I am wondering whether they are afraid that she is trying to recruit the 20,000 people who have identified themselves as Jedis into her leadership campaign.
The real mystery is how the cabinet can be sure that NMD does not include star wars and the weaponization of space that Donald Rumsfeld has been advocating for years if there have not been any talks.
How can the Liberals be so sure that it does not include the weaponization of space if there have not been talks, and if there have been talks, how come Parliament is not in on it?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there will be a debate in the House tomorrow and the minister will be discussing that.
Perhaps I can use the occasion while I have the floor to inform the House that the WHO advisory on Canada on SARS has been lifted at 2:30 this afternoon.
On behalf of all the members of the House of Commons I would like to thank the people of the federal and provincial governments who have worked--
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, no one likes to be a prop for the Prime Minister, but I was talking about star wars not SARS wars, and I want to ask a question.
After that brief shining moment of independence we have seen nothing but supine acquiescence on the part of the Prime Minister when it comes to star wars, vetting our marijuana laws in Washington, and now we have the Canadian government joining with the American government in opposing the ban on GMOs in Europe.
I wonder if this is a sign that someday GM wheat will be imposed on western Canadians whether--
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we have one of the best systems in the world to analyze whether a genetically modified crop is either registered or grown. It is examined by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a number of reasons. That process is taking place at the present time. We do not know what the results of that will be.
As a government we also know that there are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration in addition to that and we are looking at ways in which that can be considered as well.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government insists that there have been no new developments in the Auberge Grand-Mère case. In fact, court proceedings have revealed that critical information is missing from the Auberge Grand-Mère file. That is new.
It is evident that the government is stonewalling Parliament, but has there been an internal investigation to determine why key documents are missing from the Auberge Grand-Mère file? Do documents disappear routinely from BDC files or does this only happen when the Prime Minister is involved?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand this member's fixation on this case where the relevant facts have long since been disclosed and discussed, and the view of the ethics counsellor has been solicited and delivered in writing. All the concerns that this member wants to raise again have been examined and put to rest. I urge the member to accept the reality of the situation and move on.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the minister is not telling the truth.
Auberge Grand-MèreOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. The right hon. member knows that such statements are out of order. All hon. members always tell the truth in this House and I know he will want to withdraw that remark at once.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, let me withdraw that remark and say that the minister is fabricating facts to suit himself.
The Prime Minister claims he received $40,000 in 1997 as partial payment for the alleged sale of his golf club shares. The RCMP inspected the books of the Prime Minister's private company and found no record of that payment, but a senior official in the Prime Minister's Office phoned the National Post to say the money in question did come in.
If the money went to the Prime Minister's private company, why could the RCMP find no record?
Auberge Grand-MèreOral Question Period
The Speaker
The right hon. member will not want to suggest that the minister was fabricating facts either. I know he will want to withdraw that remark, but I will permit the minister to speak, and we will hear from the right hon. member at the end of question period. The Minister of Industry. No. Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, here is a fact. Yesterday the former owner of a hotel in the Prime Minister's riding was convicted of income tax evasion. It turns out that Pierre Thibault failed to pay tax on $960,000 but not to worry, while he was under investigation for this tax fraud, the Prime Minister intervened to get him an HRDC grant and the Business Development Bank loan.
The question for the industry minister is this. Will he now launch an investigation into the goings on at the Business Development Bank and will he specifically ask why is it that when the Prime Minister intervenes, the pennies simply fall from heaven?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, again members of that party seek to raise facts long in the public record, make accusations that have been answered in the past, and once again try to demonstrate their irrelevance to Canadian public life.
Are they dealing with the issues of the day? Are they dealing with social and economic issues? Of course not. They are dwelling on the irrelevant, demonstrating once again they have nothing to offer the Canadian people.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always relevant when there are Canadian tax dollars at risk. They certainly have been at risk throughout this entire affair.
On top of that, Pierre Thibault is under investigation for defrauding his business partners in Belgium while the Prime Minister was arranging for loans and HRDC grants in that riding. Furthermore he was under investigation for tax evasion and at the same time the Prime Minister continued to arrange for loans and HRDC grants, and improperly intervened in the BDC.
Will the minister do the right thing and call an investigation to find out why the Business Development Bank seems to jump whenever the Prime Minister snaps his fingers?