Debates of Jan. 31st, 2005

Employment Insurance

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently conducting an in-depth review of each of the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee. If I am not mistaken, we have 150 days to respond to a report from a parliamentary committee. So, we will examine this issue.

In the short term, we are also taking a close look at the impact of seasonal work on the various economies of this country and on workers. We will try to make adjustments.

The Environment

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is Kyoto in a nutshell: too bureaucratic and we cannot reach our targets. Those are not my words; they are from the Prime Minister and the environment minister in recent weeks. They were the last ones to know what all of us have known since signing Kyoto in 1997, but they still wasted $3.7 billion with no results. Enough is enough.

When will the Prime Minister act like a leader, cut our losses on Kyoto, and develop a real plan to reduce real pollution in Canada?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government is working in order to improve the 2002 plan, to refine it. It was a commitment in the throne speech.

One thing I do not understand is why the hon. member is raising an issue about the environment when his neighbour the finance critic sent his requirements for the budget to the Minister of Finance for Canada and there was not a word about the environment. It is a shame.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister knows how to spend well enough without getting results without getting the message from us.

Liberal cabinet documents released to the media in the last couple of weeks really demonstrate the bungling on the Kyoto file. The Liberals have wasted $3.7 billion with no results. CO

2

emissions have steadily climbed. The Liberals are in no way ever going to reach their targets.

The Prime Minister was the environment critic in 1992 during the Rio conference. He and Maurice Strong have had 13 years to come up with a plan. When is the minister going to--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan and we will improve it. We will reach our target in a way that will be very impressive despite the opposition members who do not believe in the file and are unable to say a word about the environment when they are speaking about the next budget. This shows how much they do not care about the quality of life of Canadians.

World Aquatic Championships

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on one hand, our Minister of Canadian Heritage loves to travel. She wanted to go to Paris with the mayor of Montreal to prop up Serge Savard and Francis Fox. On the other, the Minister of Transport wants nothing to do with this rotten kettle of fish. Such quarrels are fatal to Quebec's interests.

Which of them is supposed to defend Quebec here in the House?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we are extremely proud of the efforts of the mayor of Montreal, who said yesterday at a press conference that he had the support of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Like the Prime Minister of Canada, I can say that supporting Montreal means supporting Quebec too.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the failure to organize the World Aquatic Championships is not due to a lack of know-how by Montrealers but rather to the total lack of credibility and integrity of people such as Serge Savard, Francis Fox and company.

What honest sponsor would want to be associated with such conspirators whose latest exploits are revealed each day by the Gomery Commission?

When will the minister demand the resignation of these Liberal imposters in order to save the World Aquatic Championships in Montreal?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I find it literally scandalous to pillory the efforts of the mayor of Montreal, since it is well known that FINA and the championships will bring over $70 million to Montreal. When you love Quebec, when you love Montreal, you defend it. That is why there are absolutely no Conservatives in Quebec.

Natural Resources

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

All Canadians were delighted last Friday to see an offshore resources agreement between the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, fulfilling completely the Prime Minister's commitment. This deal requires, however, that resource is discovered.

There are some challenges. The minister plays a key role in the Atlantic energy round table. Could the minister assure us he will examine all aspects of our offshore industry, including regulatory protocols and timelines, in order to maximize the economic benefit to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the agreement signed last weekend, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for keeping his word to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people of Nova Scotia. I would also like to recognize the Minister of Finance for his tireless efforts in this negotiation.

National Defence

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, despite Liberal denials, that when George Bush came to Canada he put serious pressure on us to sign on to star wars. Why would he do that? Because the Prime Minister continues to waffle. The Prime Minister wants to have it both ways and the government has not been clear on where it stands on missile defence.

With the resumption of Parliament will the Prime Minister cease his dithering and do as Canadians want and just say no to Bush's missile defence madness?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member's question on BMD is a very important one. We will have the opportunity to continue discussing the issue in the House.

As members know, the government is engaged in a dialogue with the United States. We will continue to have that dialogue with the Americans to make sure that the best interest of Canada is well taken care of when we look at the future defence of the North American continent.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a one-way conversation is no kind of dialogue. What we have here is another non-answer. What we have is more dithering. In fact, we have had a whole year of non-answers from the Prime Minister. Canadians do not call him Mr. Dithers for nothing. Not only that, there is utter disregard for the excellent testimony before the foreign affairs committee that has documented the dangers in failures of missile defence.

Where is the backbone to say no to missile defence madness?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member has reiterated very clearly her position and we have known it for a long time.

Our interest is the interest of Canada. We will always have at heart the defence of our country and the defence of our continent, in which we have been very involved for many years with Norad. We will continue to do that. We are looking at all the options.

Foreign Affairs

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Beijing I expressed my condolences at the home of Zhao Ziyang, the Chinese reform leader deposed for the crime of standing by the students massacred in Tiananmen Square.

I was surprised that the Prime Minister attacked me falsely, claiming that I had violated the Zhao family's request for privacy. As the media reported, I was clearly welcomed and thanked for paying respects, as were hundreds of visitors who could get through the cordon of secret police.

Why did the Prime Minister attack rather than support this gesture of solidarity with the victims of Tiananmen Square? Could it be that he was afraid of offending the butchers of Beijing?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the family members had expressed their request to the ambassador that in fact their grief be honoured and that this not be turned into a media event.

The hon. member has missed the point. While he wanted to go there with the media, the fundamental issue is on that day there were meetings held between parliamentarians on our side and parliamentarians on the Chinese side, during which questions of human rights were discussed and the hon. member refused to go. He did not go and sit down with the parliamentarians where he could have made his point. Then he took a plane and cut loose. He skipped town.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, shame on the Prime Minister. The record will show, as my colleague will testify, that Liberal parliamentarians did not once raise a question of human rights with those Chinese parliamentarians.

The Prime Minister in a bizarre fashion equated the traditional definition of marriage with the systematic violation of human rights in China, with a system that has hundreds of thousands of people in forced labour camps, where freedom of religion results in imprisonment and arrest.

How could the Prime Minister possibly equate a position held by millions of Canadians, including himself five years ago, with the violent oppression of human rights?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the fight for human rights must take place at all levels.

The fact is that there was a meeting of parliamentarians from both sides, the Chinese side and our side. Those meetings took place and the hon. member was not there.

I was there for part of it. In fact the question of human rights was raised. The fact is that the hon. member was not there. When he should have been fighting for human rights in China, he was in the Maple Leaf Lounge in Hong Kong.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

We seem to have hit a noisy time in question period. Perhaps we could calm down a little. I know the member for Calgary Southeast would want to help the Chair in that regard with his question.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record I have never been to Hong Kong, but I was at the household of Zhao Ziyang, whose family clearly was grateful for the expression of condolence on my part.

How could the Prime Minister be taken seriously on this matter when he said in China that he was pleased to sit next to an important leader of the opposition in the Chinese parliament? News flash: there is no political opposition in China. The only Chinese opposition leaders live in forced labour camps.

How could the Prime Minister of this country embarrass himself and us by suggesting that a parliamentary opposition exists in that authoritarian society?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member ought to do is take a look at the amendments that were brought in some six months ago and some of the nominations that were made. Is it an opposition such as ours that we have in our parliamentary system? No, but it is the beginning of an opposition.

I want to go back to the fundamental issue. There is an opportunity around the world for parliamentarians to debate with other parliamentarians, to make the views of Canadians felt. The hon. member took a trip halfway around the world and when it came time for him on behalf of the Canadian people along with other parliamentarians to defend human rights, he skipped town. That is what he did.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is unadulterated nonsense. If the Prime Minister had seen me getting pushed around by the Chinese secret police when trying to express condolences to the family of the man who defended the victims of the butchers of Beijing, maybe he would change his tune.

The Prime Minister says that things have improved. On January 17 a 34-year-old woman was beaten to death for the crime of distributing Bibles in China. What I want to know is did the Prime Minister raise this case? Did he specifically raise the continued cultural genocide in Tibet? Did he specifically raise the hundreds of thousands of people in forced labour camps? I do not think so because he was defending the interests of--