Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2004

Natural Resources

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the preamble to the Leader of the Opposition's question. The fact is that we are not anti-American. Canadians are not anti-American. We are pro-Canadian.

I will tell the House what being pro-Canadian means. It means that we would not go down to the United States and use an American television network to slam Canada. It means that we would not write articles in the Wall Street Journal criticizing our country. We will have our debates within Canada.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should address that lecture to his own caucus, not to the official opposition.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to live up to his agreement, the undertaking that he gave to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, yet Nova Scotia officials tell us that the Prime Minister must give clear direction to his officials in order to get on with this deal, that is 100% of the royalties, 100% of the time.

The premiers are in sync. When will the Prime Minister provide that clear direction to his officials to live up to and fulfill that promise he gave to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the work between the Government of Canada and the respective provinces continues to be ongoing.

I would like to point out to the gentleman that offshore resource revenues are today owned and received 100% by the relevant provincial governments. Equalization comes on top of that. On top of all that, the Government of Canada adds at least a further 30% bonus in offset reductions, and we are proposing to add a further 70% on top of that, for a total of not 100% but 200%.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, clearly that is not the commitment the Prime Minister gave Premier Williams and Premier Hamm.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has said that he will take it on the road if the Prime Minister does not fulfill that commitment. The premier is prepared to tell ordinary Canadians first-hand what will happen to them if they take the Prime Minister at his word.

Could the Prime Minister explain why it would be necessary for a premier in this country to embark on a cross-country campaign just to get the Prime Minister to keep his word?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very confident that we will ultimately arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

I would point out to the hon. gentleman that what we are dealing with, at least in part, are the offshore accords that were signed by a previous Conservative government. Both of them were specifically limited in terms of time and in terms of dollar values. We are trying to improve on the previously flawed Conservative record.

Child Care

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to give Quebec its fair share of federal funding for child care, with no strings attached. Now the election is over, the ministers are having a meeting. Quebec simply wants the Prime Minister to keep his promise, but still there is no agreement. Why not? Because Ottawa wants to impose conditions on Quebec.

Because he made this promise during the recent election campaign, is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm that, in the matter of child care, Quebec will have the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the minister and the provincial ministers who have been working for the past two days on this issue.

I must also say that Quebec's Minister Béchard said that this was a start. It is very important to truly understand the goals we want to reach.

I would also like to tell the leader of the Bloc Québécois that the model we will be using is the Quebec model.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they say they will be using the Quebec model. They said that about the young offenders, too, and then, in the end, they did the opposite. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said there would be a specific agreement with Quebec, but that there would be some conditions. Mr. Béchard was very clear; Quebec wants nothing to do with conditions. So, although he says it is a very good start, I think it is a poor one.

Does the asymmetrical model he is proposing mean an agreement for all the provinces and no agreement for Quebec? Is that what he calls asymmetry?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois need not worry. We are going to reach an agreement with the federalist government in Quebec City. It is very clear; we have said so. The minister, Mr. Béchard, said yesterday that the federal government has not said no and that is a start. It is very clear that we are going to respect Quebec's experience in this matter.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Social Development kept referring to a national agreement on child care, while his Quebec counterpart confirmed that he attended the ministers' meeting to reaffirm the position of Quebec, which does not want Ottawa to impose conditions on child care funding.

Considering that the minister claims to want to follow Quebec's example on the child care issue, how does he explain that he did not come to an agreement with Quebec's officials yesterday? It should be easy to come to an agreement with the government that paved the way and which is an inspiration to the minister. How does he explain his silence on Quebec's representations?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member a short time ago, we did not come to an agreement. We agreed on some very important principles in terms of a national child care system. We agreed collectively to go ahead with a national child care system. We agreed on the principles of quality, universally inclusive, accessibility and development. We agreed to work together to develop a 10 year plan. We agreed on those things.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister announced that the January meeting would deal with the money that will be invested by Ottawa in the child care system. Yesterday, he talked about principles, but was unable to come to an agreement with Quebec.

How can the minister think that, in January, he will come to an agreement with Quebec on the monetary issue, when yesterday he did not even agree on the principles?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, we agreed on the principles of the program. In terms of the funding, that is something we did not discuss. That will be for a later discussion and the meeting is in January.

National Defence

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning sharing a deep concern that many of us feel about the future. The American people have an absolute right to make their choices, but Canadians have a right to ensure that our values are protected.

The star wars missile defence program is the next initiative of George Bush's values, and is based upon them. Will the Prime Minister seek guidance from Canadian values or George Bush's values? Will he say no to missile defence right now today?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the American people have chosen their president. We on this side of the House, we as the government will work with the administration as we have worked with it in the past.

If I could just take this occasion, I would like to say to the member for Elmwood—Transcona that I congratulate him on his 25 years of parliamentary endeavour. He is known in this House as the member for Elmwood—Transcona. In my family he is known as the father of the very dynamic NDP candidate who ran in the riding of LaSalle—Émard.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister understands the fear that Canadians are feeling right now. Canadians want the face of Canadians to be their own face--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We will have no booing in the House. I said this last week. I hope I do not have to say it again. Three times and you are out. The hon. member for Toronto--Danforth has the floor. We will hear his question.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want our face to the world to be based on our values. The question of star wars missile defence will be the test of whether this government presents the face of Canadians to the world.

Again, will the Prime Minister say today that he will respect the values of Canadians and say no to missile defence?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will work with the U.S. administration on a vast multitude of files. We will certainly reflect our values; our values which are being reflected in Haiti at this very moment; our values which are being reflected in Afghanistan at this moment; our values which are being reflected in Africa; and our values on a multitude of files as we work to alleviate poverty.

Those are Canadian values and we will continue to push our value system wherever we are.

Sponsorship Program

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister was fired from Jean Chrétien's cabinet, he said that he would do government differently, that he would clean things up and he would act in a more responsible way. However the facts of how he acted when he was the finance minister show something a little different.

There is a comment here from public works documents. In February 1995 justice requested and received a proposal from Pierre Bélisle for a soul source contract. Finance requested that it use Earnscliffe instead, and soul sourced a contract for over $28,000 to the Prime Minister's friends in Earnscliffe.

Why did the Prime Minister break the rules for his friends?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is wrong. The contracts were selected for the provision of information and polling information from a broad range of firms, consistent with government practice.

Again, I would urge the hon. member to allow Justice Gomery to do his work, not to prejudge that work by commenting on documents presented at Gomery or by commenting on day to day testimony. We are interested in getting to the full truth, not in dribs and drabs of documents that may or may not represent the ultimate truth that Canadians desire.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing whatever to do with Gomery. This has to do with the public works department being interfered with by the finance minister to get money for his friends. He did it at a time when that public works minister was on this side of the House saying that Brian Mulroney was the best prime minister we had in the last 50 years. That minister has no grounds whatsoever to now be standing and taking bullets for the Liberals.

I want to know this from the Prime Minister himself. Why did the Prime Minister interfere to get $28,000 for his friends at Earnscliffe? Why did he break the rules?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member said 1995. In 1995 I had a far less hectic life in the private sector.

The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster stated in July 2002 that we should have a fully independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this. On September 8 the Leader of the Opposition said, “I think [Gomery] is the best chance of getting some answers”. The Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery to do exactly that, get some answers.

Why is the opposition attacking the independence of a judicial inquiry that it actually sought?

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's approach to dealing with strategic Canadian interests is to allow his MPs to continue this volley of toxic verbal missiles across the border to Americans.

Would he make a commitment today that in the future he will change his strategy and publicly discipline or reprimand his ministers or his MPs when they damage Canadian interests? Would he be willing to do that?