Debates of Sept. 25th, 2003

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, the beef roundtable and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association made a presentation to myself and all the provincial ministers Monday morning of this week. The hon. member knows full well that after that meeting we all said that it was the desire of everyone to use the over $500 million that was left first to help address this situation and then we would go from there.

It was very clear and it was a decision made by the federal government and the provincial governments at a federal-provincial meeting, and the ministers from all the provinces agreed to it.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if that line were actually true and if he really were telling us the truth here, he would have no problem getting the last signatures on his APF.

The livestock industry is only the latest victim of the Liberal government's inability to deal with international trade issues. Nobody can wait another six months to see if they can trigger any--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I encourage the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster to be judicious in his words.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that no producers can wait another six months to see if they can trigger any payout from the minister's Russian roulette support programs.

When will the minister table a national plan that will actually address the health of our livestock industry? When is he will he do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I announced on September 19 $600 million to flow to Canadian farmers. A number of provinces have already signed bilateral agreements which will allow producers to apply for interim agreements.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I told the truth earlier as well.

Labour Market

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from my hon. colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, the Prime Minister said that there was no labour market agreement between Ontario and Ottawa. We knew that.

That was not the question. The question is whether the Prime Minister told the premier of Ontario that there would be no such agreement, even if Ontario wanted one, because the federal government is planning to withdraw from labour market agreements with the provinces.

Did the Prime Minister say that to Premier Eves of Ontario, yes or no? And let us not play with words. The question is very clear, and I would like the answer to be every bit as clear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear on this subject. I discussed the matter with Ontario, saying that we would not be negotiating an agreement. I said we had agreements with the other provinces, which are renewable every five years. I cannot predict at this point whether or not they will be renewed. In certain provinces, the agreements have worked very well. If they did not work very well in some cases, we will try to negotiate better ones.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unless Mr. Eves lied in the leaders' debate, an important debate for the province with the largest population, the Prime Minister told him very clearly that the reason there would be no agreement was that the government was planning to withdraw from labour market agreements.

The Prime Minister understands the question perfectly well. He has been beating around the bush four or five times to avoid answering. I am asking him clearly: Did he say that, yes or no? And if he did not, is he saying that the premier of Ontario is a liar? I would like to have a clear answer; he heard me clearly.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just answered the question. I said that there were agreements, that we would be renegotiating them and that those that are not negotiated to our satisfaction would not be renewed.

I did not say there would not be agreements. I never said that. I said that we would be renegotiating because, in some cases, the provincial governments were not abiding by the agreements. It is the government's intention, at least I hope it is, to make sure that all parties abide by the agreements they signed.

Softwood Lumber

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government promised to help laid off softwood lumber workers with real financial help, so it made a big deal in announcing the community economic adjustment initiative. Almost two years later, no laid off worker in my riding has seen one single dollar of help from this fund.

I want to ask the minister responsible this. Why has the government not kept its word to help workers in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been following this issue closely, he would realize that we in fact just announced $3.5 million for community adjustment which would leverage $50 million across the province of British Columbia. He should be standing up and applauding the announcements that we made today for excellent projects across the province of British Columbia.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that minister can say what he wants, but I have looked at the government's own guidelines for anyone who wants to access these funds. Nowhere does it say that any of this money has to go into any project which will support any displaced forestry worker. This kind of help is all smoke and mirrors.

I ask the minister again: Why has the government failed to help workers in my riding?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the $110 million which we announced to help communities that are affected is the very reason to look at the communities that are hurt by the softwood lumber duties. The hon. member should stand up and tell us which projects that we have funded he is against and does not support.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for ACAO told the House that a $2.7 million grant to Liberal-connected Techlink had been vetted by an advisory board. Yes, but that is part of the problem because two members of ACOA's advisory board are former Liberal members of Parliament and a third one is a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister.

Could the minister explain why this company, above all others in Nova Scotia, should receive millions of taxpayer dollars with its criminal allegations and its clear corrupting ties to the Liberal Party?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, this company is not under investigation and there have been no charges made against it.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this company is under RCMP investigation. It is the job of the minister, not advisory boards, to avoid conflicts of interest.

The Techlink grant was green-lit despite Liberal connections, criminal investigations and patronage. Why has the Liberal government learned nothing from all its scandals and why does it keep giving corporate welfare to a company under criminal investigation for influence peddling?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is why, every time the government attempts to work with the community, attempts to work with people in the community to create wealth and create jobs in Atlantic Canada, the members of that party across the way oppose it every time. The government is committed to Atlantic Canada, to the people of Atlantic Canada, to create wealth in Atlantic Canada and to create jobs. They are against it.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act permits the minister to intervene when there is a risk that a project will harm the fish. The Belledune project involves the transportation of highly toxic substances by ship. However, ships travel on water and, according to our most recent information, fish still live in water. If a disaster should occur, the fish would be the first victims.

So, what is keeping the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from intervening to stop the Belledune project, as he has the authority to do under section 35 of the Fisheries Act?

[Georges Farrah, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we did our duty with regard to ocean deposits. As for the ships, oil tankers and all ships transporting dangerous goods must comply with the restrictions and standards set by Transport Canada. What I find surprising from the Bloc, given that this is a delicate environmental matter which should be treated carefully, is that the Bloc members want us to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction, when there were three questions just now to say that we should not interfere. They should make up their minds, because they are being inconsistent.

Canada Elections Act

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Next Tuesday Liberal MPs will vote on a motion to call a referendum on changing our voting system. This will be the first vote on proportional representation since 1923, some 80 years. The Liberals will use this system to choose their leader but they will not ask the Canadian people if they want to use it as well. This is just elitist.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will now decide to support this motion on Tuesday so we can have a national referendum on whether the Canadian people want to use proportional representation to elect their Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting ahead of himself a little. The motion will only be, by his own admission, before the House next week. However in any case, I hope he puts forthwith the argument that he thinks he has, whereby he will convince Canadians that MPS who do not have constituencies are better than those of us who were elected to represent Canadians. I look forward to hearing that argument.

The Environment

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week the University of Alberta released a study in which it said that Kyoto would dramatically increase the price of electricity and transportation, drive away billions of dollars in investment in the oil patch, cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars and we would be unable to reach our Kyoto targets.

Will the government replace the failed Kyoto plan with a made in Canada plan that will ensure Canadians have clean air and clean water?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question he should have asked last year. We have voted on that. It has been approved by the House of Commons. It is approved by the Canadian people, and it is even approved by the Premier of Alberta.

Labour Market

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to my question about the labour market, the Prime Minister began to change his version of the discussion he had had with Mr. Eves, and I know why. Nevertheless, his version still does not match what Mr. Eves said. What Mr. Eves said was not that they had talked about negotiations, but that the Prime Minister told him that there would be no agreement with Ontario because the federal government wants to withdraw from labour force agreements.

Did Mr. Eves say that or is he a liar?