House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

Speech from the Throne
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, if it is so clear, why not spell it out in the Speech from the Throne? It would be even clearer.

On September 16, the Prime Minister called a first ministers conference for October 26 to discuss, among other things, “financial pressures facing provinces and territories”. This is consistent with the amendment to an amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, asking “that the financial pressures the provinces are suffering as a consequence of the fiscal imbalance be alleviated”.

Since the Bloc's amendment to an amendment is along the same lines as his September 16 announcement, what is stopping the Prime Minister from voting in favour of the amendment to an amendment?

Speech from the Throne
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's amendment to an amendment is asking members of Parliament to vote in favour of Parliament's totally abdicating its responsibilities with respect to public finances. We are not prepared to do that. We are going to assume our responsibilities in this place.

Speech from the Throne
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is such a misinterpretation that it reeks of bad faith. Everyone agrees that Quebec and the provinces are faced with a serious lack of financial resources. Even the Prime Minister recognizes that. On June 3, he said, “Are the provinces facing financial pressures? Absolutely!”

If the Prime Minister agrees with the facts, why does he refuse to include them in the throne speech supporting the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois?

Speech from the Throne
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne and indeed the conduct of the government in the prior two or three months go a very long way to addressing the concerns of provinces, including the province of Quebec.

We are for example putting an incremental $41.3 billion into health care and an incremental $33 billion into equalization, not to mention things like child care and contributions to communities and cities.

The Government of Canada is behaving in the national interest on behalf of all Canadians.

Speech from the Throne
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, Quebec minister Benoît Pelletier identified not only the equalization program as posing a problem, but the whole issue of transfers to the provinces, which should also be discussed by Quebec, the provinces and Ottawa.

If the Prime Minister agrees that these issues must be examined, why is it unacceptable to support the Bloc Quebecois' amendment to the amendment, which, precisely, reaffirms the need to alleviate the financial pressures that the provinces are facing?

Speech from the Throne
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, on the money side of the question, the hon. gentleman might be interested to know that the total provincial revenues, their own source revenue plus federal cash transfers, have substantially exceeded federal revenues for more than two decades and they are expected to continue to do so.

Municipalities
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the government is about to say no to Canada's mayors. This is not very surprising because after all the Prime Minister did not even include the commitment to the fuel tax in the throne speech.

Mayor Miller told me today that the government is in the process of transferring the national debt on to the shoulders of the municipalities. This is unacceptable.

Will the Prime Minister honour his promise? Why can he not make that promise today and commit 5¢ per litre of the fuel tax?

Municipalities
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I had a very good meeting with a number of mayors and the FCM. I can assure the hon. leader of the NDP that it is the government's intention to fully live up to the commitments it made during the election campaign.

Municipalities
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister were intending to live up to his promises, he would have put it in the throne speech. The fact is that he did not.

Nothing prevents the Prime Minister from listening to the mayors right now and sharing more of the fuel tax. Nothing prevents him, except that he has decided to put far more money against the debt, while cities build up an $11 million per day debt.

Why will the Prime Minister not come through with his commitment that we all heard?

Municipalities
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Prime Minister

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the government fully intends to live up to its commitment made during the election campaign. I made that very clear. It is in the Speech from the Throne and it was in my speech.

I also fully expect that the government will be able to retire debt. I think that it is our responsibility to those who live in the cities of tomorrow not to be burdened with a huge national debt.

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

October 7th, 2004 / 2:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works told the House that 10 million documents have been turned over to the Gomery inquiry. That is 10 million documents conveniently after the election campaign. Before the election, the documents submitted by the government could fit on a single book shelf.

Where were these millions of documents before the election and why did the government hide the truth from Canadians?

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I draw the hon. member's attention to the statement by the Information Commissioner yesterday that lauded our Prime Minister and our government for its openness and transparency with information both for the public accounts committee and for the Gomery commission.

We have provided 10 million pages of documents to the Gomery commission and have in fact gone back to 1994 in a remarkable step for cabinet documents. We are cooperating because we want to get to the truth in this party and in this government.

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, they hid the documents because these documents show that the cabinet had concocted a strategy to dupe the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party. These revelations would surely have had a bearing on the outcome of the election.

How can we believe a government that hides the truth from Canadians? How can we believe you?

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, on a day to day basis over the next several months we will hear testimony at the Gomery commission and we will not prejudge Justice Gomery's work by commenting on that testimony. Today's testimony could be contradicted by next week's testimony.

We on this side of the House, in this party, want to see the full report from Justice Gomery which will lead us to the truth. We are not going to interfere with that. The hon. member is prejudging a lot of the important work that is being done by Justice Gomery and I would urge him not to do that.

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, we hear contradictions in testimony coming from the government every day. It was confirmed yesterday that the Prime Minister knew all along about the secret slush fund that fuelled the sponsorship program.

We also know that Treasury Board officials red flagged all kinds of problems in the sponsorship program at the same time as the Prime Minister was vice-chair of Treasury Board.

Does the Prime Minister really expect us to believe that he knew nothing at all about the problems in the sponsorship program until he read the Auditor General's report?