Geoff Regan

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion for which I seek the unanimous consent of the House is as follows:

That as part of its consideration of the government's future role in agriculture, eleven (11) members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food (six (6) government members and five (5) opposition members from the various opposition parties) be authorized to travel in Canada from February 18 to February 22, 2002, from March 11 to March 15, 2002, and from March 18 to March 22, 2002, to meet with Canadian farmers and other stakeholders in the agrifood sector, and that the required staff accompany the Committee.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following discussions among the parties I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel from February 9 to February 16, 2002, to Colombia in relation to its study of human rights, development and other matters in Colombia, and that the said Committee be composed of 1 Alliance member, 1 Bloc Quebecois member, 1 NDP member, 1 PC/DR Coalition member and 5 Liberals, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member. I noted particularly his comments about the reduction in debt over the past few years and his view that this was a very small, modest paying down of the debt.

It strikes me that we should consider the fact that the government has paid down the debt by $37 billion. It has reduced the debt by that much. In 1993 who in the country would have believed it? If the Liberal Party in its campaign had said it would not only balance the books, reduce the deficit and eliminate it but it would also pay down the debt by $37 billion over the next seven or eight years, people would have laughed. They would have laughed uproariously, but in fact what has happened is exactly that.

The hon. member fails to recognize the achievement of the government in reducing the debt by that much, which is a remarkable achievement in view of the fact that to start with the government was faced with a situation of near bankruptcy, a incredibly terrible situation. It seems to me that the member is ignoring that reality.

What really interests me is the question of how the Alliance has lost its priorities. I realize that the view of Alliance members is that they should represent only their own ridings. The question is, how does a party broaden its support base if it does not reconcile the views of the rest of the country? I am not suggesting I am confident that the member is absolutely certain of what his riding's view is, but I will give him that for the moment. How does the member broaden that base if he does not reconcile the views of the rest of the country?

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member, as well as the member before him. As I listened, it was rather entertaining and amusing to see the limits that that party would go to try to find some glimmer of political hope in what has been for it a very dim period, particularly when it went to the length of saying that we were in a Liberal recession. I did not hear the Alliance members say that it was a republican recession in the U.S. or that some other party was causing a global slowdown.

In trying to gain some political advantage for themselves, the Alliance members are trying to suggest that this global slowdown is somehow connected to the government party. That is really stretching it. That clearly shows they are not listening to people, the way the government is. In fact, that is the way the budget is being prepared, by listening to Canadians, by consulting them and by hearing from them.

Over the past few weeks we have heard endless questions and statements from the Alliance in the House calling for tax cuts and spending, the kind of things that would put us into a deep deficit. However, I would ask the hon. member this. If he calls it a Liberal recession here, what does he call it in the U.S. and in the rest of the world?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Question No. 79, November 30th, 2001]

I am informed by Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation as follows:

Environment Canada and Health Canada

Environment Canada and Health Canada are the federal departments that have contributed funding toward the Sydney tar ponds and former coke ovens cleanup. The answers below pertain to both departments.

(a) Environment Canada and Health Canada contributed jointly to a cabinet submission to secure $37.9 million in federal funds, part of a three year $62 million cost share agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Environment Canada is the custodian of these funds.

(b) The funding, announced in May 1999, was to be spread over the three years of the cost share agreement.

(c) Recipients of the funding were the Nova Scotia department of transportation and public works, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality CBRM, and the joint action group JAG, through the CBRM.

(d) The purpose of the funding was to support the administration and operation of JAG through the JAG secretariat to complete the required environmental and health evaluation and assessment work on issues associated with the Muggah Creek watershed and to undertake initial remediation projects, all through contracts with private sector companies.

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

In 1997 Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation provided $522,180.22 under the Canada--Nova Scotia infrastructure works program to the Cape Breton regional municipality for the construction of an interceptor sewer, phase I, in the Muggah Creek, the Sydney tar ponds.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Motions for Papers, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Question No. 54, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 54 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.