House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aid.
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the government took immediate action and held cross-country consultations with the Chinese community. We heard many stories.
In fact, that member offered her support for the government in any action that it would take. As I have said, we will be fulfilling the commitment for an apology in the House with an appropriate acknowledgment.
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's question period, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that his government supported the supply management system at the WTO negotiations. However, he also said that when we defend supply management and lose the vote 148 to 1, Canada's position is untenable.
Can the minister tell us clearly how he intends to defend the supply management system at the WTO?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, our negotiators are at the WTO right now and the Geneva negotiations are ongoing. We are in constant contact with that team of negotiators to ensure that they represent the interests of the entire agricultural sector.
It is important that we are in the room to do that. We will be ensuring that when the decisions are being made that Canada is not on the outside looking in. We will be in there, scrapping on behalf of supply management and the rest of the agriculture sector.
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, there is no response.
On May 17, the western ministers of agriculture asked the government to reconsider its position on market access for sensitive products. Canadian producers prefer a balanced approach, in other words, negotiating access to international markets and defending supply management.
Is the government prepared to defend supply management, or will it drop this system, which successfully supports our Canadian communities, in favour of multinational interests?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, as I have said over the last couples of days, of course we support supply management. We have heard from the western premiers and many other groups that are more interested in the export side of the agricultural industry.
The hon. member is correct, it is a balancing act. We have to represent both. We have to go to Geneva and ensure that we come home with a deal that is in the best interests of the entire agricultural sector. We are not going to pit one sector against the other.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, that in fact is what is happening by statements from members opposite, one sector is being pitted against the other.
We will give the minister another opportunity to clear the confusion. Will he commit clearly today that he will put forward the balanced position, the Canadian position, that all producers can benefit?
Second, will he direct our negotiator to stand firm on achieving a sensitive products category, so that supply management is in fact maintained?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I think the member is talking about the right balance, the balance that we have taken to Geneva. While we are in the discussions right now, we are talking about sensitive line protections, trying to get enough sensitive lines in order to preserve and protect the supply managed system.
The hon. member is right, we must have a balance. We are doing that, seeking that at all times, getting market access, reducing foreign subsidies, and domestic support that distorts trade. We want a good deal at the WTO because a good deal there is a good deal for Canadian agriculture.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I noticed the minister did not mention protecting state trading enterprises.
The government is intent on destroying the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk selling agency for western wheat and barley. This is a system that maximizes returns back to primary producers rather than to the multinational grain trade.
Will the minister assure us that any proposed changes to the mandate of the board will be a decision of western grain farmers, by plebiscite, on a clear and honest question?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, there was a clear and honest question put forward. We said at the time that our party believed that there was a good future for the Canadian Wheat Board. It involves dual marketing, more Canadian farmers having a choice, and that is a decision that should be made here in Canada, not at the WTO.
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will debate a Bloc Québécois motion recommending that the government vote in favour of the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Can the minister confirm whether Canada intends to vote in favour of this United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, or whether it intends to join the United States, Australia and New Zealand and vote against it?
Rod Bruinooge ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people is an indepth document that is also a work in progress. We are giving it our focused attention and consideration.
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the first 100 days have passed and now it is time to deliver the goods. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities promised to support moving the Museum of Science and Technology to the Outaouais, but now he is trying to renege on that promise. During the last election campaign, he said over and over that the Outaouais would not be forgotten. He seems to have forgotten his first promise already.
Will the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities use his influence in Cabinet to support moving the Museum of Science and Technology to Gatineau as he promised? Yes or no?
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Obviously he was referring to our government's first 100 days.
It is too easy to say that we have resolved the UNESCO issue, which people had been demanding for many years. We also resolved the issue in the Quebec City region. We worked hard with the federalist government in Quebec City. We have an excellent working relationship with them. Not only did we resolve these matters, we also resolved the softwood issue, which that government chose to ignore.
The opposition will see us achieve even more over the next 100 days.
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party's campaign policy manual made a commitment to establish an independent judicial inquiry into problems surrounding B.C.'s Fraser River sockeye salmon stocks. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is very much aware that these stocks had great difficulties, which caused great concern in British Columbia.
I have a question for the minister. When can we expect the government to appoint the much anticipated judicial inquiry and will he tell the House what will be in included in the mandate of the inquiry?
Fisheries and OceansOral Questions
St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador
Conservative
Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member that any commitments we made during the election campaign, if he is using his checklist like the rest of those members, will be fulfilled, and that commitment, like all the others, will be fulfilled in time.
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party, as we know, is well known for using public funds for it's own party's benefit. However, we say taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and transparently for the public benefit.
My question--
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order. The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert has the floor. We will have a little order so we can all hear the hon. member's question.
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Telling the truth makes them a little testy, Mr. Speaker.
Does the President of the Treasury Board have any plans for the management of grants and contributions to ensure openness, transparency, accountability and proper supervision without endless red tape for the recipients?
John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for all of his work as chair of the public accounts committee.
This government intends to follow through on the work to ensure there is more transparency in terms of grants and contributions. The web of rules put in place by the previous Liberal government has had a crippling effect on non-profit organizations, a crippling effect on our hard-working public servants. Yesterday we appointed a blue ribbon panel to dismantle the terrible regimen put in place by the previous regime.
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, it was revealed earlier today that Health Canada officials sent a document supporting the use of 2,4-D, a dangerous pesticide, to an industry group that is currently lobbying the government to allow the use of this chemical in residential neighbourhoods. Health Canada is in the middle of a safety review of this product, a review that is supposed to be impartial.
My question for the Minister of Health is, how can Canadians have faith in the system meant to protect them from dangerous pesticides when the government's own officials appear to be collaborating with companies that use and distribute these harmful pesticides?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that certainly the initial investigation reveals that a document was inadvertently sent out. We continue the investigation.
Let me agree with the hon. member that it is unacceptable to send out documents that are not meant to be sent out and we will continue the investigation.
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, 2,4-D is banned in most major Canadian cities and in the province of Quebec. It has been linked to cancer, neurological damage and reproductive problems, but Health Canada did not even contact leading researchers before distributing this report and deciding whether the pesticide is safe.
What action will the Minister of Health take to ensure regulations regarding the health and well-being of Canadians are objectively based on scientific research and not biased by industry lobbyists given that they turned down the pesticide regulation put forward by the NDP?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, or should know, the document that was released was a series of talking points. It was not a scientific investigation. It was not a scientific document.
I will tell hon. members in this House, and I hope the hon. member agrees with me, that we should make the decision based on science, based on the advice of the best experts to protect the health and safety of Canadian citizens. That is what this side of the House agrees with. Certainly, we do not agree with rhetoric. We agree with action to protect the health and safety of Canadians.