Debates of Sept. 24th, 2003

Customs and Revenue Agency

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my original answer, he would know that what I said very clearly was that we send out millions of letters. In fact, over 100 million letters were sent out from CCRA last year and approximately one in one million was misdirected.

I said that from time to time mistakes and errors happen, and that is one of the reasons why we are doing a review of all of our national systems because the protection of privacy is so important to us. We want to review and ensure that whether it is fraud or break-ins or inappropriate access, we do the best we can to protect it.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to incompetence, this minister always takes the cake. In fact, she is absolutely wrong.

What the minister said the other day was that in one case out of 700,000 there was an error. Will the minister not confirm that there was more than one case, a story of which will be published in the media tomorrow? How can the minister claim that she properly informed the House when in fact there was more than one case? How many were there? Were there dozens? Were there hundreds?

How can taxpayers have confidence in what this minister has to say?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear. I was referring to the one tax centre where over 700,000 letters had gone out. In this case, one had been misdirected.

Overall nationally, across the country last year over 100 million pieces of mail went out. It was approximately one in a million or about 130 letters that were misdirected.

Even if there is one it is too many. I can tell the House that we are reviewing all of our national systems to ascertain whether it was inappropriate access, mechanical error, fraud or break-in. We are doing everything that we can to protect the information that people give us.

Agriculture

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even if the U.S. embargo on beef has been partially lifted, producers are continuing to lose money and are desperately calling for help. The assistance plan ended on August 31, and the Fédération des producteurs de bovins finds it totally unacceptable that the government is refusing to announce phase two.

What is keeping the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food from answering the appeal of the government and the cattle producers of Quebec, and from immediately implementing a second phase of the assistance plan for the cattle industry, which has been so hard hit by the mad cow crisis?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House and as I have said a number of times, we did. The federal government put $312 million into the BSE recovery program. The provincial governments added more money. I announced last week $600 million moving to farmers. There is still over $500 million available.

Let us sign up and use up that money first and then we will go from there.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps on telling us about his famous agricultural strategic framework, but what is needed is not that, but an assistance plan.

The Fédération des producteurs de bovins has made it clear: the strategic framework the minister is so anxious to sign does not meet the needs of producers. They want a specific assistance plan.

Why is the minister so insensitive to the drama that is going on in the various regions of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is still over $500 million left in money to move to Canadian farmers. Many of those who will trigger that will be beef farmers.

We will move that money to beef farmers and to other farmers out there that need that support. Then we will talk about where we go from there if that is not sufficient.

National Defence

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Commander Edmundson of the HMCS Calgary said, “The sailors are tired, the ships are tired, the navy is tired”. Some have worked 37 out of the last 52 weeks in the theatre fighting our war against terrorism. What has the government chosen to do? It has chosen to cut retroactively their pay supplements while they work in the Middle East.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why has she chosen to cut retroactively the foreign service deployment payments to our hard-working sailors?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the navy is tired. It is true that since September 11, 2001 the navy has been on a surge. The navy has been on a marathon with virtually every sailor and every ship on duty, on a marathon. They have completed that marathon successfully.

When someone completes a marathon, only a churlish member of the Canadian Alliance would say, “You are tired”. The rest of us would say “Congratulations navy, on a job well done. We are proud of you”.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question and it was not the minister.

I will ask the question one more time. Why is the minister and the government cutting between $750 to $1,000 from the pay of hard-working soldiers for what they are doing in defence of our nation, our country and our collective security? Why is he going to cut this retroactively while their families are here and suffering?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did point out or claim that the navy is tired. I simply pointed out that the successful completion of a marathon for a normal person should lead to congratulations, not a disparaging “You are tired”.

As for the question, I would point out that every effort is being made to ensure that the sailors currently serving on HMCS Calgary are not negatively affected by these administrative changes which are made in the light of a whole range of issues, including the risk of the mission and other elements.

Firearms Program

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Solicitor General misled the House. He said there was no new money for the gun registry, but the supplementary estimates show a new appropriation of $10 million.

Can the Solicitor General explain why he misled the House yesterday?

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is treading very close to the line and he knows that is contrary to our practice. If he wants to ask a question for clarification, he can ask it. But to suggest that members are misleading the House I think is unnecessary during question period.

The hon. Solicitor General.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite with that kind of remark is trying to mislead Canadians on what the gun control program cost. That is what he is trying to do.

I quoted to the Leader of the Opposition earlier from the estimates that on page 88 the amount represents the operating budget carried forward for justice designated to the Canadian Firearms Centre. That is what it represents. There is not a cent of new money mentioned in this document because we established the targets and we are going to meet them.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all Canadians to read page 22 and then find out who is telling the truth.

Eight provinces refused to prosecute for gun registry offences. Two-thirds of Canadians do not support this billion dollar boondoggle. Even the justice department found 90 major problems in its most recent evaluation.

Last week the government refused to answer this question, so I will ask the minister once again, how much will it cost to fully implement the gun registry, including fixing all of those 90 problems, and how much will it cost to maintain it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to go back to the beginning of my response to his first question. Those remarks still stand.

If he would read the most recent evaluation, and read it appropriately, he would see that the evaluation was done back last spring. We announced an action plan after that. We are on target in terms of the announcement in the action plan. We brought efficiencies into the system and we will continue to bring efficiencies into the system. We are continuing to register firearms every day.

The Environment

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the Bennett company in Belledune, the government is closing its eyes and trying to avoid the issue. Confronted with the Fisheries Act, the government counters with the Environmental Protection Act to justify its inaction. But, in the company's own words, the raw material—highly toxic materials—will be transported by truck, rail or ship.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not concerned when the company itself admits it is going to move its highly toxic materials to Belledune by water?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the department and myself, in my role as minister, are applying the act fairly and for the benefit of all, for the benefit of the environment and for the benefit of the fish. It is not up to us to make municipal bylaws.

What he is asking me to do is to use the act to stop a project because it has its backers or its detractors. We are enforcing the regulations. When a project is not acceptable from an environmental point of view, under our regulations, we take action.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's announcement that the government slashed CBC funding by $10 million, staff are already preparing for layoffs and cuts to programming, especially on top of earlier cuts this year to the CTF.

In February the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that new funding for the CBC was in the budget, but maybe that was used to cover lunches at fancy restaurants.

When will the government follow the call of the heritage committee's broadcasting report and implement secure multi-year funding for the CBC?

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC has always been well looked after by this government. It receives a billion dollars in public funds which it shares among its component parts. For the past two years, the government has made a special effort and has voted a supplementary budget of $60 million.

The Government of Canada is now in the process of reallocating funds and has decided that the CBC, like a number of other agencies, will have to do its share.

Veterans Affairs

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, every day Canadians learn what again and again are examples of government wasteful spending. We heard it today from the member for Yorkton—Melville.

Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs agree that providing 23,000 veterans' widows with a pension is a much better way of spending government money?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, before the House is Bill C-50 wherein we have introduced amendments precisely to address the urgent needs of veterans. I would like the member, instead of speaking away from the issue, to support the bill.

The government can take pride that it is taking care of veterans and their families.

Atomic Energy of Canada

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the $132 million that Atomic Energy of Canada received this year, we learn that the government is getting ready to provide another $46 million to allow the agency to develop new nuclear reactor technology.

How does the government explain this additional subsidy, when it knows that under the cover of nuclear technology research, most of Atomic Energy of Canada's work consists in subsidizing the generation of electrical power for Ontario?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada supports the nuclear industry. It is surprising to hear the member opposite express such views, especially considering how important this industry is in Quebec with all the material produced in that province for this industry.

On this side of the House, we support the industry. It is important for Canada and for exporting our products.

Firearms Program

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, an access to information request revealed that between April 14 and June 30 no full time and no part time employees of the Department of Justice were working on the Canadian firearms program. The same applies to the Solicitor General.

If no one in either the justice department or the Solicitor General's office is paying attention to the gun registry, who exactly is in charge of this bottomless money pit?