Jean Charest

[Employment, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government which is in denial on unemployment. It continues to spout numbers.

I do not think unemployed families today who are listening to this question period will be very impressed by the statistics. Rather, I would like to know why the government is not listening to the business community which repeatedly asks the government to reduce employment insurance premium rates so that we can create more jobs. Why does it not act on this basic, simple recommendation which would allow more Canadians to get back into the labour market?

[The Environment, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the minister is showing himself badly informed. In Rio, he will know because his colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the minister of the environment of the day were there, there were 7 governments out of the 12 possible governments that were represented in Rio.

I want to ask another question about an addendum to this letter that explains to the provinces the Japanese position but does not explain to the provinces the Canadian position.

I would like to know how the government expects provincial governments to buy in and implement a position that it will explain to them on November 12, only 19 days away from the summit. Does it realistically think the Canadian provinces can accept, comprehend and implement such a position only 19 days away from the summit?

[The Environment, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter signed by the federal Minister of the Environment dated October 28, written to her provincial colleagues that says this:

We can assume that there will be two or three provincial or territorial representatives included in the Kyoto delegation. This would include one representative of a provincial or territorial energy department and one representative of an environment department.

How does the government square this statement, written in a letter dated October 28, with what it said in the House of Commons about including the provinces in the Canadian delegation at Kyoto?

[Fisheries, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in question period referred to envoys Ruckelshaus and Strangway. Both envoys met with Premier Clark last week and his advisory committee. Both envoys said they were ready to submit an interim report when there is a bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister and the President during the APEC conference.

Will the government accept their offer and finally do something for the people on the west coast who want some action on this issue?

[Fisheries, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the west coast fishery. I see he has just stepped out of the House. I hope he will be able to join us again.

[The Environment, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when he was the environment critic in 1991, today's finance minister said “I unconditionally support the principle of the environmental assessment legislation in Canada”. I guess he just does not support the practice. He then went on to say “The environmental assessment process in this country must not be open to political manipulation”. If selling nuclear reactors to other countries without environmental assessment is not political manipulation of assessment laws, what is political manipulation?

[The Environment, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for the House to take the government seriously when the Minister of Natural Resources tells us that AECL is doing an environmental assessment on itself.

I would like to know from the Prime Minister, since he is ready to manipulate the courts and also circumvent the law by producing a secret shadow assessment on the Turkish deal, if a secret shadow assessment has been done on the China deal. If yes, will he take it out of the shadows, allow it to glow in the dark and take the credit that he wants but that he does not deserve?

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, genius is a rare commodity on the government benches.

The Minister of Finance said on the weekend in an interview that when he was Liberal environment critic he was tremendously “deceived” by Rio because governments did not live up to their commitments. I know this is a concept with which he is familiar, being the minister responsible for the GST.

The finance minister is part of a government that has held office for four of the five years since Rio. I would like to know what his government has done to live up to those commitments.

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last night at this fund-raising dinner the prime minister made the whopping statement that he wants Canada to get credit for selling nuclear reactors to China because he says that a country like Canada should get some recognition for helping a developing country reduce its emissions and get some credit for it.

Since the prime minister holds that position, could he table in the House of Commons today the environmental assessment on which he bases that statement?

[Privilege, October 31st, 1997]

No, it is not. The member is saying that that is another matter, but it is the crux of the matter.

Unanimous consent is being sought. On behalf of the members of my party, I offer that consent. That is the first question asked of the House, the question to which we must reply.

After what the minister has just told us, I can hardly see him objecting to tabling the letter after unanimous consent. That would be a complete contradiction.