Debates of May 19th, 2005

Agriculture

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a full two years since the U.S. border closed to Canadian beef, cattle and other livestock. Injunctions were demanded by the special interest group, R-CALF. Judge Cebull, who was sympathetic to their cause, has added insult to injury by granting them.

Farmers and ranchers across the country are waiting for the other shoe to drop. On May 9, R-CALF filed for another injunction to ban Canadian beef.

Why has the agriculture minister never aggressively tried to fight these injunctions that are strangling Canadian farmers and ranchers?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we have been working with the USDA and in the U.S. court system to ensure that the Canadian position is made clear.

I have had three meetings by phone with the agriculture secretary, including as recently as two hours ago. We are determined to work with the Americans to fight these injunctions. We are determined to work with them whatever the outcome may be.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have wasted two years under three agriculture ministers who should have been aggressive on this file and taken action under NAFTA and WTO.

While the current agriculture minister stalls on taking the appropriate trade and legal action, farmers and ranchers are drowning in red ink. Producers are worried about their future if Judge Cebull and R-CALF close the border to boxed beef.

Where is the agriculture minister's plan to farmers and ranchers and to open markets if R-CALF closes the border again?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we want to see regularization of trade with the United States, but the hon. member misses some important facts. We have moved the United States from being in opposition to a border opening to being our allies in getting the border open.

In 2004 we have been able to achieve 90% of the trade in beef and beef products with the United States that we had in 2002. We have been able to increase our slaughter capacity by 30%. We have provided assistance to the producers to the tune of $2 billion.

Infrastructure

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's gas tax agreement with the nation's cities has been very carefully camouflaged.

Winnipeg had planned to direct gas tax money to its crumbling roads and bridges, but now the government says that it cannot use gas tax revenues for roads and bridges, another Ottawa knows best plan.

Will the minister for infrastructure remove the restrictions on gas tax transfers and let Canada's cities address the priorities of its residents?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the gas tax is to invest in environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure. There are many categories in which a large city like Winnipeg can invest. It could be public transit, waste, waste water, waste management or community energy systems.

We are working with the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba and the President of the Treasury Board to come up with the solution which will work best for Winnipeg.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that in February the minister for infrastructure, that minister, clearly stated that federally transferred gas tax revenues could be directed toward roads and bridges. Clearly now he has fallen back on that commitment.

Why has the government not lived up to its commitment to municipalities across the country to address their infrastructure needs for their cities by rebuilding roads and bridges?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, we included the rehabilitation of roads and bridges as a category for smaller communities. We wanted to direct the bulk of our money toward public transit and water projects so that when we had made our investments, we would be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up water and air. We will do so.

National Defence

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2005 makes very substantial new commitments to our armed forces and is important to communities like Oromocto, New Brunswick, North Bay, Ontario, Val-Cartier, Quebec and Cold Lake, Alberta.

I understand now that the Conservatives are planning to vote for one part of the budget and then shortly thereafter, in partnership with our friends the separatists, attempt to bring down the government.

Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what would happen to planned defence spending if the House does not pass all budget votes today?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The defeat of this government in the House tonight would mean the defeat of the most important contribution to the armed forces of Canada in 20 years. Our colleagues across the floor are threatening to deny our men and women in uniform the resources they need to serve our country.

Let us not destroy the faith of the men and women courageously serving our forces today. Let us give hope to the future, which he and I will speak to tomorrow when we are in his riding in RMC. Let us pass the budget. Let us give them that sense of confidence in the future that we also want for our cities, for our housing, for our aboriginal community, for our--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented its second and third reports on employment insurance, which contained 28 recommendations.

One of those recommendations was to repeal the divisor rule and use a new calculation period based on the best 12 weeks of insurable employment.

Will the minister do the honourable thing, listen to the workers and the committee members, and adopt the best 12 weeks in order to resolve, once and for all, one of the problems with seasonal employment?

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to reviewing the report, to having the member's input and to doing what is best for Canadian workers.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister thought it was complex file, but it is not a complex file. This is a file in which the Liberal government has taken $46 billion out of the pockets of the working people.

Will the minister bring back the best 12 weeks for our citizens, the working people?

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, I am looking forward to having an opportunity to review the report and to doing what is in the best interests of Canadian workers to make improvements to the system.

Child Care

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, almost 100% of working moms and dads have said that they want choice in child care. The premier of New Brunswick has also asked for choice in child care. Yet the Liberals refuse to offer choice.

Make no mistake that the Liberals have created a two tier child care system, one tier for the Liberal plan, and a tier for the rest who are forced to fend for themselves, money for some and nothing for most.

Could the minister explain why he is creating a two tier system?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, 12 months ago, before the election campaign, child care in the country was flat and going nowhere, despite great work by child care workers across the country. Then we had the election campaign, then the Speech from the Throne and then $5 billion over five years, $700 million this year in the February budget. All those things are at risk. Five agreements have been signed and there are others to go. This is not $320 for low income which the party opposite has promised.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' two tier child care system does not respect the needs of the majority of parents. The Conservative Party program is truly universal. Cash would go to every child and we would financially empower every family.

Would the minister explain why he is unwilling to support every child and every family in our country?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as members of the House will recall, for the last seven or eight months from that side of the House there have been only discouraging words in terms of early learning and child care, nothing but discouraging words all the way along.

Now there is a technical phrase that has been used about making a commitment to the government's commitment. That is not a commitment. All of us will wait anxiously for what is said by the party opposite.

National Defence

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that the members of the armed forces know that the Conservatives will stand behind them and they will not slash and burn like the Liberals did--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

We will have a little order, please. The hon. member for Carleton--Mississippi Mills has the floor.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1966 the Liberal government authorized the spraying of agent orange on forests in CFB Gagetown. At or about that time, thousands of troops were serving in Gagetown, including me.

Recently it has been confirmed that agent orange can cause cancer and other medical problems. Will the minister detail what action the government is taking to address this serious and tragic health problem?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has said that his party will be standing behind our armed forces. I lay out the challenge to him again to support the budget tonight and support the armed forces of Canada and where we are going in the future of our country. That is the way he can do it rather than with this empty rhetoric.

I can tell members that when it comes to agent orange, which happened in 1966 as he said, it was a defoliation program that took place in Gagetown. We are working to trace every member of the armed forces who was there.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made it clear. We have made awards to veterans who have made claims. Claims can be made. We urge people to come forward. We will support anyone who was affected by that program.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the military will know who is telling the truth. The government has known about this serious problem for some time, yet chose to hide it. There are at least 20 open files seeking resolution.

Now the media, through access to information, has informed the public of the use of agent orange and the consequences to soldiers' health, yet the government is only starting to respond. Why does the government have to be spurred by public opinion before taking responsibility for the health consequences of putting the military in harm's way?