Debates of May 16th, 2003

Taxation

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again the budget implementation bill is before the House today. If the member is really that serious about this issue, he will get behind us and get the bill passed. Very needed moneys are in there for the province of Quebec and other provinces, but this member would rather stall than deal with the issue. Do not talk the line, act it.

Again, the Minister of Finance is prepared to work cooperatively with all ministers of finance in the provinces and territories, and we look forward to future discussions.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime has asked for modest financial support to help it with providing services to victims. It has been turned down by the government. The government continues to favour convicted criminals over their victims.

I would like to ask the Solicitor General why he gives over $1 million per year in funding to criminal focus groups, such as prisoners' art foundation, but does not give a single penny to victims' focus groups.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Solicitor General gives funding to basically 14 organizations to ensure that both victims and offenders have the organizations to assist them, to improve their lives and, indeed, to put some pressure on myself as Solicitor General and the government in general in terms of ensuring that the justice system and the correctional services system work well. That is what we continue to do. I believe we are doing a good job in terms of funding organizations so that we have input from the community.

Firearms Registry

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee heard yesterday that the Liberals have spent more than $29 million to advertise their gun registry fiasco. Yet the government could not see fit to renew a $65,000 funding agreement with the Saskatchewan Association for Firearm Education.

Could the Solicitor General please explain why safety falls so far below advertising on his list of priorities?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at this question in which she asks why safety falls so far below the horizon with the government.

First, on the money to Saskatchewan, that was a three year contract. The contract ended. As the commissioner for firearms answered yesterday at committee, it was explained how there were 500 firearms people in Saskatchewan working on training with communities, and that is going well.

On safety, the purpose of the Firearms Act is to make our communities safer and members opposite--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.

Political Party Financing

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24, the election financing act, has been reported in the media with very contradictory statements. The claim that small franchises have more clout than large banks is one of the comments.

Could the House leader clarify the intent of Bill C-24 and give the House a clearer picture of the effect of Bill C-24?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

Everyone knows, or should know, that corporate contributions to political parties, in Bill C-24, are not permitted. The only exception is an overall $1,000 per year limit for the local candidates and party association.

A corporation or a union that has several branches, locals, addresses, outlets, wickets or even roadside stands, cannot do it more than once. It is $1,000 for the total company period, no matter how many addresses the company or union has.

Transportation

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something wrong when a train bridge passes an inspection on Monday and collapses on Wednesday. This is what we get when the government relies on companies like CN, in this case, to inspect themselves rather than use independent government inspectors.

How many more Canadians have to be killed before the Liberal government will admit that self-regulation in transport safety is a failed policy? When will it quit cutting corners and stop relying on companies that are in conflicts of interest to do the government's job?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, the Government of Canada wishes to convey its prayers and thoughts for the families of those crew members missing in this tragic accident.

The Transportation Safety Board is the primary agency for investigation into railway accidents. Any safety deficiencies uncovered through the Transportation Safety Board's investigation to the department's compliance activities will of course be addressed immediately.

Agriculture

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have given their support to a trade challenge that would force the nations of Europe to accept GMOs. Europe does not want GMOs. That is also true of many Canadians, since the Liberals torpedoed a bill that would have made GMO labelling mandatory.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. Why is his government continuing to deny families the right to know what they are eating?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me to be very clear about what Canada is seeking. It is not what the hon. member has said. What Canada wants is very clear, and that is for the European Union to enforce its own laws on authorization of GMOs; we want the European mechanisms to allow approval or rejection of applications based on scientific evaluation establishing the safety of the products for humans, animals and the environment. We simply want them to enforce their own laws.

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whether the government considered itself bound by the Supreme Court opinion that when “one participant in Confederation...seek[s] an amendment to the Constitution” there is “an obligation on all parties to come to the negotiating table”.

My question related of course to a resolution passed by the house of assembly, which mandates Newfoundland and Labrador to renegotiate the terms of union with Canada.

The minister evaded the question by talking about discussions. I ask him again. Does the government accept the Supreme Court's opinion that it has an obligation to come to the negotiating table on the resolution of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that there is no obligation to agree. There is an obligation to discuss obviously. We already have done that, and we will do that.

Let us say, for instance, that the Government of Canada decided that it would be good if education would be a federal jurisdiction. Is the hon. member suggesting that the provinces would be obliged to agree?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not a professor any more. This is not an academic question. It is a real and growing issue.

Yesterday, a resolution was presented in Alberta to mandate that province to negotiate Senate reforms. Therefore, two different provinces on two different constitutional issues are following the court's advice.

The federal government actively sought the Supreme Court opinion in its reference. The court said, negotiate. It did not say, discuss. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, a formal resolution has been passed.

In this case, does the minister accept that Canada has a binding obligation, as the court says, to go to the negotiating table?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the point of view of the Government of Canada, supported today by the minister of fisheries of Prince Edward Island, is that it would be unfair and unproductive to have co-management with veto powers for provinces in Atlantic Canada for fisheries.

What is the point of view of the hon. member? Is he able once in his life not to be ambiguous?

Aviation Industry

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Industry knows that there have been discussions with representatives of the aviation industry and others regarding the development of the aviation sector in British Columbia.

Could the Minister of Industry tell the House today how the federal government will participate in the training, research and development of the aviation sector in British Columbia and in Kelowna in particular?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member drawing attention to the involvement of Industry Canada in developing aerospace not only in British Columbia but across the country.

Canada is well known internationally as being among the top three or four countries in the world for the strength of our aerospace sector, not only in terms of the sale of our airplanes, but the development of technology and the training of people. We are among the world's leaders.

We have been looking at ways in which we can support aerospace in British Columbia, both in terms of technology partnerships Canada investments which that party has criticized so harshly and wrongly in the past, and also through regional development--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Lakeland.

Canadian Forces

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Defence insisted that sending Canadian soldiers into wartorn Afghanistan with no weapons to defend themselves was a non-issue. He said that he would do the paperwork necessary to arm our troops by August.

This week his office announced that the minister himself was going to Afghanistan with military bodyguards and lo and behold, the paperwork was done overnight. Why does this suddenly change from a non-issue when it comes to protecting our troops to an urgent issue when it comes to protecting the minister?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman continues to travel old ground. The Minister of National Defence advised the House earlier this week that that matter has been entirely resolved.

The Environment

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the Minister of National Defence granted a $15 million contract to Bennett Environmental so that 40,000 tonnes of contaminated waste and soil from the former radar station in Saglek could be processed at the Saint-Ambroise incinerator in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

Given that this company was found guilty of non-compliance with Quebec's environmental legislation, what process did the minister follow in granting this substantial contract? Did he communicate with Quebec's minister of the environment and inform the residents of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that work is under way with respect to this matter. Quite frankly, I will need to pursue further facts and get back to the hon. member just as rapidly as possible. I appreciate her interest. We will respond conscientiously.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the regional health board confirmed that the incinerator represented a significant source of toxic fumes.

When does the minister intend to provide, as demanded by the community, full and complete details on the composition of the contaminated products to be transported?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the further elaboration. I will take the hon. member's question as a very strong representation. The government will reply at the earliest possible moment.