House of Commons Hansard #95 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

MicrobreweriesOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, in light of what has happened with oil and gas prices and what is happening with the breweries, will the minister not agree that it is time to review the Competition Bureau's mandate, its evaluation criteria, its processes, even its composition? Perhaps it is time to make some changes.

MicrobreweriesOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Beauharnois—Salaberry Québec

Liberal

Serge Marcil LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions, the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology has an opportunity to consider how the Competition Bureau operates.

Recently, the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology considered in part this problem in connection with Bill C-249, which deals strictly with certain aspects of the Competition Bureau.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the Mulroney Conservatives introduced a goods and services tax. The Liberals promised to scrap the GST, but the most hated tax in Canadian history is still with us.

The GST is regressive because it weighs heaviest on Canadian families with modest incomes.

At the very least, will the Minister of Finance lessen the tax burden on hard pressed Canadian families by reducing the GST?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that we are still in the third year of a five year tax reduction plan, which is reducing the total tax burden by about $100 billion.

Even by the amount of spending that the Alliance Party seems to now be advocating, that is a lot of money. Canadians welcome the tax relief they have been getting.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, what the minister has failed to tell the House is that the $100 billion tax cut largely has been eaten up by tax increases that his own department has introduced in the last two years.

During the first full year, the GST took in $15 billion. Ten years later, GST revenue had climbed to $25 billion. For the last fiscal year that just ended March 31, it is expected to generate over $30 billion.

Why will the Minister of Finance not give Canadians a break by reducing the GST?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain this slowly. The economy has done extremely well in the last few years, so much so that we have had the best economic performance of the G-7. When the economy grows, surprisingly, government revenues grow.

A $100 billion tax reduction is a real tax reduction. The government is getting more revenues because more Canadians are working and the economy is doing so much better.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister tell the House if there have been any recent developments in regard to Canada's decision to deploy 1,800 troops to Afghanistan in August of this year.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Markham Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and the timing happens to be quite good. Later today I will be meeting my German counterpart. We are very pleased to be partnering with Germany in this important mission.

I am also pleased to announce to the House that, while the final decision is NATO's, Canada is pleased to be in command of the mission for the second six month period of the year.

Canadian Wheat BoardOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. As the minister knows, the American government has once again attacked the Canadian Wheat Board by slapping a duty of some 12% and 10% on Canadian durum and spring wheat. The Americans have also been dumping wheat on the world market at an average of 29% less than the cost of production, hurting Canadian farmers and hurting third world producers.

In light of that, I want to know what specific action the minister is taking to stand up for our farmers, to stand up for orderly marketing and to stand up for the Canadian Wheat Board, which is so important to Canadian farmers.

Canadian Wheat BoardOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, it has been clear for some years that the American administration has been harassing Canadian wheat producers. We will continue to defend them in this Doha development round. Even though it was not part of the negotiating mandate, the Americans are pursuing the Canadian Wheat Board, and we will continue to stand up for it because we believe it is doing a great job on behalf of Canadian farmers.

The Alliance should remember that the Canadian Wheat Board elects two-thirds of its board members. We are going to stand by our Canadian farmers.

HealthOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Defence Canada group just released a report proving that Canadians are eating food with high levels of lead, cadmium and other heavy metals. This report, based on Health Canada's own data, was only made public through an access to information request. It highlights the absence of an online food contamination data registry and that the standards for toxic residue levels in food in Canada are below acceptable levels.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Will she commit to creating enforceable toxic food residue standards for all heavy metals that will protect the health of all Canadians?

HealthOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree that continuing vigilance is required in this area. Obviously we are aware of the study entitled, “Metallic Lunch: An Analysis of Heavy Metals in the Canadian Diet” by Environmental Defence Canada. Much of the basis for the report comes from work done by Health Canada's total diet studies. Based on Health Canada's analysis of data generated in that study, we have concluded that the levels of heavy metals in foods in Canada do not represent a health risk to Canadians. Obviously we will continue to monitor this area very closely.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, when asked about missile defence on June 13, 2001 the then minister of defence told the House that, “Until answers are clear, the government will not make a decision. We want to know exactly what the Americans want to do”.

Today, the Prime Minister said that Canada was changing its position because China and Russia had changed theirs. Now there is Canadian leadership.

What new information does the Prime Minister have about the effect of the missile defence system on Canada? Will he present that information to Parliament before cabinet authorizes any formal discussions with the U.S.?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, if everybody seems to be changing their views, it is because the system is changing. At the time the star wars program was initiated under President Reagan. It is not the same any more. It is much more limited. We are looking at what position Canada should take within Norad and other organizations because they are our neighbours. Defence sometimes, especially in the air, in the past has been in common.

We have not made any decisions. We are looking at whether we have to make a decision and getting information about the changes that have come about since two years ago.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, in other words, it is usual that the Prime Minister does not have the foggiest idea what he is doing.

I have another question. The first nations governance act has been under consideration by cabinet for at least 15 months. It proposes a major change to first nations policy in Canada, so it would have been the subject of extensive discussions in cabinet.

I know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot disclose the content of cabinet discussions but can he tell the House whether he was surprised by the opposition to this government initiative expressed by the member for LaSalle--Émard?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say in the House everyone believes that the importance of changing an old archaic act called the Indian Act, which is 127 years old, is one of the most important pieces of business in the House of Commons.

Besides that, this legislation is in committee before a second reading, which is the only piece of legislation before a committee before second reading, with one obvious interest by the minister and the government; that is to ensure we have the best piece of legislation we possibly can have to improve the lives of first nations people.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, only a month after the Youth Criminal Justice Act replaced the Young Offenders Act there was a major problem. The Quebec courts have struck down parts of the act and the minister has decided not to appeal but, surprise, to consult. What has the government been doing for the last 10 years?

Why did the minister choose to let the Quebec court of appeal water down his legislation without so much as a whimper?

JusticeOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, this is not a watering down of the legislation. What is happening is there are some procedural differences in terms of presumption that have been raised by the Quebec court of appeal that we will be examining. Clearly, it does not change the policy objectives of our legislation.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on this. This minister and his predecessors promised Canadians that they would crack down on violent youth crime. Now he has allowed the courts to strike down the very laws designed to do just that. This ruling will be cited by defence lawyers across Canada.

Why did he betray Canadians by failing to appeal this decision?

JusticeOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I think I have to go through it slowly. The fact is the law is in effect right across the nation. The only question that was raised on the reference at the Quebec court of appeal was a question relating to a presumption. The presumption has been, in its opinion, contrary to section 7 of the Charter. However there are other ways to achieve the same goal and we will do so.

First NationsOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the member for LaSalle—Émard and Liberal leadership candidate declared that he would vote for the bill on aboriginal governance in order to avoid the present Prime Minister's calling an early election, but went on to say that he would not implement it once he was elected.

Given the hullabaloo over his bill, not only in his own caucus but also among the aboriginal people themselves, could the Prime Minister not come to his senses and do the only thing possible under the circumstances: withdraw his bill?

First NationsOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just given a very good explanation. The bill is with the House of Commons committee prior to second reading, which gives maximum flexibility to all members of the five parties in the House of Commons to make the necessary suggestions. There is a very broad consensus in Canada that changes must be made to an act that is 127 years old.

First NationsOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is no consensus; instead, there is widespread opposition to this bill, from the first nations in particular. The amendments to the bill proposed in committee were all rejected by the Liberal majority, although they would have improved it.

What kind of government do we have here? On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister stubbornly pushing a bill no one wants, and on the other, we have an aspiring Prime Minister who has already announced that he will not implement the bill he will have voted for. Will the Prime Minister put an end to this farce and withdraw this bill immediately?

First NationsOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the committee members have a mandate to examine proposals. What the hon. member has just said is that there is a real debate going on, with some changes accepted and others rejected. Knowing the hon. member, I am not surprised that we may be forced to reject some of his suggestions, because they are not very practical.

Employment InsuranceOral Question Period

May 5th, 2003 / 2:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, in this year's estimates the government is forecasting a $2.4 billion EI rip-off. There must be a lot of planning that goes into a heist that big. It even has someone to drive the getaway car.

How does the minister justify his planned $2.4 billion shakedown of Canada's working people?