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.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Speaker, let me be a little more specific for the minister. Is the minister considering licence buyouts and the reopening of the southern gulf fishery?
Robert Thibault LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, just to orient the member a little bit, I think the concerns in Newfoundland are not for the southern gulf but for the northern gulf. As to the question of what elements should be in the long term, nothing is ruled out and no elements are ruled in. Those discussions are ongoing.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is still waiting for a resolution to this issue with our American counterparts. The parties have not met since February.
For tomorrow's meeting, the Americans have made it clear that they will not budge on some very critical issues: self-imposed border tax, return of the $1.2 billion in duty taxes already collected from Canadian companies, and whether Canada will be required to drop its lawsuits at the WTO and NAFTA. Which of these three issues is the minister going to compromise in order to strike a deal?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that the re-engagement is part of the continuous dialogue we have been having with the Americans. Whereas the Americans are putting out their conditions, I can tell the member quite clearly that what I am hearing on the Canadian side, after much consultation with the Canadian industry, is that we have no intention whatsoever to give up the 100, 200 billion dollars, which we consider should not have been collected by the Americans so far, so we will stand by the interests of Canadian industry in all of these three elements.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is $1.2 billion and some of that has been taken out of companies in my riding.
The softwood lumber industry all across Canada is concerned with the current state of affairs. Forest workers in my riding are out of work, bills are not being paid and many communities are suffering again. What assurance will the Minister for International Trade offer Canadians that a softwood lumber deal with the U.S. will this time give us long lasting peace and civility? Or will the government's inaction be responsible for putting us through this horror in the next five years?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
No, Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the other way around: this government's action, action for the last two and half years. I met on Monday again with Premier Campbell of British Columbia, who informed me of how much he continues to want this cooperation between the Government of Canada and that of his own province as much as that of the province of Quebec.
So we have been very active, precisely, and it takes more time because we have the objective of eliminating the problem in the future and having free trade in softwood lumber as well in North America. That is the long term objective we have.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells us that the purpose of Bill C-7 is to replace the infamous and racist Indian Act and improve the lot of native peoples, but this is not true. What this bill does is continue to treat native peoples like children and make his equally despicable 1969 white paper—issued when he was the Minister of Indian Affairs—into reality.
Faced with fierce opposition from the first nations and from his most likely successor, will the Prime Minister agree to drop Bill C-7 and let others start over on new foundations that will be more respectful of the native peoples?
Stephen Owen LiberalSecretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
Mr. Speaker, the first nations governance act is of great importance to all people in Canada, but it is not the only thing that is on the minds of Canadians and aboriginal people in the country. The government has committed over $2.2 billion additional dollars in this year's budget to deal with a whole range of issues, including clean drinking water, waste water systems, further education and health care for Inuit and first nations people. There is a whole range of initiatives as well as other legislation, the statistical and financial institutions act and the independent claims commission act.
The first nations governance act is only one piece in a whole comprehensive list of initiatives that the government is working on with aboriginal people to accomplish.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is a despicable piece of work and that will be made clear tomorrow in Kenora, where thousands of aboriginal people will show their opposition to this bill. No one in the aboriginal community wants this bill.
I ask the Prime Minister the following question: Is it not true that this stubborn insistence on pushing Bill C-7 through the House and shoving it down the throat of the first nations is a reflection of the Prime Minister's desire for vengeance against those who dared to challenge his policies as minister in 1969? He is saying to them, “I am going to stick it to you before I leave”.
Stephen Owen LiberalSecretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
Mr. Speaker, the first nations governance act is before the committee of the House of Commons at this time. Many people have expressed their concern about it, their support for it and their protests against it. This is normal in this process. Amendments will come forward. They will be considered by the House. Once the bill is passed in its final form, regulations will be considered and those will be discussed with the aboriginal community of this country as well as in this House and with other Canadians.
We are sure that in the long range this will work for the benefit and raise the quality of life of aboriginal people across the country, and it will be changed as it must be to ensure that.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister announced a $1.6 million subsidy for Bombardier, which apparently just could not avoid layoffs without some government help. On the same day, ironically, it announced that it had recently paid $7.5 million to two retired executives.
Bombardier clearly has the cash. Why the corporate welfare?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the program to which the hon. member makes reference is a work sharing program. In these circumstances, employees and employers must agree to reduce the work terms of those working at the plant, and the Government of Canada, through the employment insurance program, provides some benefits.
This is an appropriate way of helping an industry move through a difficult path. We have used it here and we have used it with Air Canada. We have used it with small and medium sized businesses. It is a program that works and works very well.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
It obviously works for Bombardier, Mr. Speaker. Bombardier really likes it.
Here is what I would like to know. Canadians making as little as $8,500 a year pay taxes so this minister can then turn around and give that money to big business. I wonder if that is truly appropriate.
Here is my question again. I would like an answer this time. If Bombardier can pay $7.5 million to lay off two retired executives, why can it not come up with $1.6 million to save 900 jobs of workers on the floor at Bombardier? Why the corporate welfare?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, this program is essentially to do exactly that. The hon. member is mistaken if he thinks that the money goes to the company. These moneys go to the individual employees, who are working very hard to ensure that they have continued employment at what has traditionally been and will continue to be a great employer here in Canada.
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Speaker, because of the tireless efforts of our front line health care workers and the tremendous sacrifice of our citizens, Toronto was able to turn the corner on SARS over a month ago.
Could the Minister of Health update us on her department's efforts to remove us from the World Health Organization list of SARS affected areas?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated earlier during question period, after a conference call today with Health Canada officials and health officials from Ontario, the WHO agreed to remove Toronto from its list of SARS affected regions.
This is yet another vote of confidence in Canada, showing that SARS has been controlled and that it is safe to travel to Toronto. It reflects the positive outcome of cooperation among health officials and authorities at all levels of government.
I too want to recognize the work of front line nurses, doctors and health authorities in Toronto, as well as the many Health Canada officials who worked around the clock to battle--
Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, last night at the round table discussion on the political financing act, a number of Liberal MPs said that they were strongly opposed to the fleecing of taxpayers in order to fund political parties. They even threatened to vote against the bill, regardless of the consequences, if the House leader tried to ram it through before the summer break.
I would like to ask the government House leader this. Bill C-24 is so badly flawed and has so much opposition even from his own caucus, why the rush to push it through?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member thinks that dealing with something in six months is a rush. Perhaps this is proportional to the number of days that he spends around this place.
For those of us who work very hard around Parliament, this issue has been debated extensively in the House of Commons, for countless days. Liberal MPs and others are working tirelessly in this committee on the bill. They are working very hard to make good and proper legislation. I hope the hon. member would join them every now and then.
Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister did not have a decent answer and has to make personal attacks, but his blustering cannot change the fact that large numbers of Liberal MPs are strongly opposed to Bill C-24, and his self-serving contempt for taxpayers on Bill C-24 is completely unacceptable.
What is the story behind the story? Could it be that the House leader's appointment to the Senate is contingent on passing the bill before the June break?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am the glad the hon. member is not making it personal. That is very relieving.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I think it is just fine, Mr. Speaker, to be the member of Parliament duly elected for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I do not apologize for that, and I am running again.
Now, dealing with the bill, the initial measures were announced in May 2002. In June 2002 the Prime Minister followed up with details. I held consultations last summer. In the fall of 2002, I held consultations with parliamentarians. The bill was introduced on January 29. The bill was debated 14 hours and 40 minutes at second reading.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, after imposing a lockout that has been going on for 38 months and at a time when everyone thought the labour dispute at the Cargill plant in Baie-Comeau was over, at the last minute, the employer refused to sign the collective agreement.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that, if this grain company had not been authorized under the Canada Labour Code to use strikebreakers, both parties in the dispute would have had real leverage, which would have prevented the conflict from dragging on?
Claudette Bradshaw LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, our mediators are working very closely with Cargill. We are still working with the company and are expecting to get an answer soon.
