Debates of June 7th, 2006

Agriculture

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said, and I quote: “Mr. Lamy sees no problems with maintaining the Canadian supply management system within the WTO framework”. But the Director-General of the WTO said exactly the opposite.

Is it not worrisome to see the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food so blatantly ignore what Pascal Lamy really thinks of the supply management system?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Mr. Lamy last Sunday and I had a good frank discussion with him. I presented Canada's case to him and reiterated our support for supply management and for a very robust deal at the WTO that is in the best interests of the whole agricultural sector.

At his presentation at the UPA, Mr. Lamy was very clear that he believes a supply management system within the rules of the WTO is possible. I agree.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, someone should send the minister a copy of the speech Mr. Lamy gave in Montreal because he seems to have misunderstood it. Pascal Lamy came here to tell us publicly that the supply management system is interfering with WTO negotiations.

Is it not the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's duty to tell Pascal Lamy publicly that he supports maintaining supply management and will not budge an inch?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure. I thought I just said exactly that. We are supportive of supply management. We have been in the past and we will be in the future. If our support for supply management slows things down at the WTO it will slow things down at the WTO. We are not backing away from our support for the agricultural sector in this country.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' at-sea observer program, fishing boats in Canadian waters are required to take on board an observer who monitors catch quotas and regulatory compliance. The industry pays two thirds of the salary of these observers, and the department pays one third. Now, the industry could pay the full salary, and fishers will have the right to choose the observer.

Does the minister realize that with this reform, the observer could be in conflict of interest because he will be not only fully paid by the fisher he must monitor, but also hired by that person?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, this program was initiated by the former government. We put the brakes on it because I believe, as the member believes, that observers on the boat should be independent. If they are controlled by the boat owner it is quite often who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed new system runs completely counter to the recommendations made by an independent, impartial expert mandated by the department to assess various options for revamping this program.

Is the minister prepared to announce publicly that he will abandon the integrity of the observer system simply to save a few dollars?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I think I just did that. I agree with the member that the integrity of the program must be protected. The only thing that really bothers me is that we need to have observers and monitors in the first place which brings an added cost down to the fisherman. The only reason we have that is to ensure our fishermen live by the rules. If we can ever get to the day when people will fish according to the rules we will not want any of these.

International Aid

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government may announce this afternoon a multi-million dollar investment to improve the quality and strengthen the capacity of an early learning and child care education system in Egypt. We have no objection to this CIDA initiative. As a matter of fact, we support it.

If the government can properly support early learning and child care in Egypt, why has it cut $5 billion for such services here in Canada, tearing up good and valid agreements with 10 provinces? Why is federal funding for childhood development rights in Egypt good for Egypt but wrong in Canada?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has asked a question and she is clearly waiting to hear the reply. With all this noise, nobody can hear a thing. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government has increased money that is being put in by the federal government toward child care in this country.

Besides the quantity, there is also a qualitative difference. The government believes that it should support the children of this country. Watching the Liberal leadership race, the Liberals think the children should be supporting the politicians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I know it is Wednesday, but we must have some order. This is question period; it is not a hockey game.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has the floor.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the government is offering Canadians is bus fare, not child care.

The initiative in Egypt aims to increase access, improve the quality, and strengthen the capacity of early childhood development in that country. Some 300,000 children could benefit and that is wonderful news.

However, these were the same objectives espoused by the former Liberal government in its child care agreements with our provinces.

Will the government now follow the very good example that it has now set in Egypt, reverse the notices of cancellation, and reinstate Canada's intergovernmental agreements with the provinces?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what distinguishes the government's plans is that under our child care plan, every single child and every single family benefits. By the way, that is $1,200 for every child, not $5,400 from every child.

Natural Resources

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what does the Prime Minister have against downtown Toronto?

Canada's potential as a world leader in green technologies seemed limitless. However, thanks to the government's failure to invest in these technologies any illusion of environmental leadership quickly evaporated.

Incentives for wind power production more than quadrupled Canada's capacity since 2004. It also encouraged provinces to come forward with plans to see production increase another 10 times.

This initiative has now been scrapped along with hundreds of millions in provincial funding to promote a greener economy. My question is simple, why?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the Liberal environmental record over the last 13 years was abysmal on every single facet. The government has not cancelled the program as the hon. member has suggested.

[Belinda Stronach, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a tax credit for bus passes is not enough to reduce emissions, neither is setting biofuel targets without any federal support for research and development. The minister should know this. If the minister does not know it, the Prime Minister certainly should.

On May 29 economists wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to ensure that Canada benefited from the economic, environmental and health advantages of Kyoto.

Why has the government not put any incentives in place to secure Canada's environmental and economic success in the new economy?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done a lot.

In fact, earlier last month, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of the Environment, and I met with provincial members from all 10 provinces. Every single province was very supportive of our biofuel initiative.

The government is moving forward with projects that will actually have an impact on the environment and help every single Canadian, unlike the record of the old Liberal government.

Afghanistan

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are working to safeguard Afghans' security. The Bloc voted against this mission a few weeks ago. Yet the member for Saint-Jean commended Canada's contribution in Afghanistan.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain to the Bloc members why our Canadian armed forces are in Afghanistan?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Jean knows what Canada has accomplished in Afghanistan because he recently travelled there. As he himself said, we must prolong our mission there because, despite the progress that has been made so far, there is still a lot to do.

Like him, I think that it is vital to stabilize this country and that we cannot let the Taliban re-establish their training camps. I hope that his colleagues will adopt the same point of view as him: that we must support the important objectives Canada is working toward in Afghanistan.

Chinese Canadians

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Chinese Canadian workers helped build the railroad that united Canada. Their only reward was a racist head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. For decades families were separated. There was a lot of hardship and suffering.

In 1984 former MPs Margaret Mitchell and Dan Heap, New Democrats by the way, asked Parliament for an apology and redress.

Many head tax payers are old or have died since then. How much longer will surviving families have to wait for justice and reconciliation?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the Prime Minister and the government have committed to apologizing to the Chinese community. That commitment will be fulfilled as soon as possible.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that most of the original head tax payers have died waiting for justice. She must also know that many families faced the great pain of separation. In fact, some of the wives committed suicide because of loneliness and despair. Many children never got to know their fathers.

Will widows be treated the same as head tax payers? Will surviving family members see their fair compensation so healing can finally take place?