House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.

Topics

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I invite the leader of the NDP to calm down a bit and to slow down.

First, we will never buy hot air from Russia. He does not have to worry about that. Second, the Minister of Natural Resources believes in Kyoto and has said very clearly that he wants to develop the economy but not at the expense of the environment. We must respect what the Minister of Natural Resources said. He is a green minister himself too.

Parental Leave
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB

Mr. Speaker, in January 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the Government of Canada did not have the constitutional right to prevent Quebec from implementing a maternity leave program. at the time of the election, the Prime Minister even promised to reach an agreement. Yet, after the election, he appealed to the Supreme Court and is now blocking any agreement. The government has been dragging this out for eight years now.

When will the Prime Minister realize that he cannot obstruct Quebec's rights and finally make a reasonable proposal for women and families?

Parental Leave
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Mr. Speaker, to make a distinction between the two issues, the Prime Minister said very clearly that the appeal to the Supreme Court was done in an entirely different context, since the impact is much broader on government programs as a whole.

He also said that with respect to parental leave, regardless of the outcome at the Supreme Court, we were determined to negotiate the transfer of authority over parental leave with Quebec. That is what we are in the process of doing right now.

Parental Leave
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB

Mr. Speaker, the federal government should drop its appeal before the Supreme Court immediately and offer all the provinces the opportunity to implement a parental leave program funded by a transfer to the provinces from the employment insurance fund. While the Prime Minister is trying to have it both ways, the Government of Quebec and working women are being penalized.

If the Prime Minister is so interested in reaching an agreement, then why is he dragging Quebec into the Supreme Court? Why is he being dishonest with Quebeckers?

Parental Leave
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Speaker

The language used in this question in unacceptable. It is inappropriate to describe a member as dishonest. All members in this House are honest.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Parental Leave
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie
Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Mr. Speaker, I think the statement by my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party is totally unfounded.

Once again she is confusing the two issues. Just because we are before the Supreme Court does not prevent us from reaching an agreement with Quebec on parental leave. We are negotiating with Quebec as we speak. We have agreed on most issues. We still have to settle the first year of the system and that is what we are working on today.

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

February 1st, 2005 / 2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the Liberal government granted Canada Post $275,000 to sponsor a stamp launch. Canada Post has no record of ever receiving the money. Liberal friendly Lafleur Communications was hired to transfer the money but it appears that never happened. Liberal incompetence may have paid Lafleur a 100% commission for doing little or no work.

How many other Liberal friends forgot to forward their funds?

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Markham—Unionville
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should be aware, there has been a very extensive audit of Canada Post under those conditions. All these matters are now before the Gomery commission. He should leave it to the Gomery commission to investigate those matters.

Sponsorship Program
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, former Liberal cabinet minister André Ouellet hired himself to the best paying patronage position in the country and then he took $2 million in non-receipted expenses. All the while it turns out he was receiving gifts, luxury box tickets and invites to the home of his good friend, Jean Lafleur. Like his Liberal colleagues, he was so busy spending taxpayer money, he forget to protect taxpayer money.

How many other contracts did Lafleur receive from the government following the $275,000 which went missing?

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, I am certain the hon. member realizes that some of what he is describing does result from testimony before the Gomery inquiry. We are not going to comment on day to day testimony before the Gomery inquiry because we respect the independence of a judicial inquiry. The government supports Justice Gomery in his work. In fact, all members of Parliament within the Liberal Party support Justice Gomery's work. We look forward to receiving his report.

I would urge some patience over there. I would also urge the hon. member not to interfere in Justice Gomery's work by commenting on it.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, as regards the missile defence shield, the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he would have to receive guarantees that this initiative would not lead to the militarization of space, otherwise Canada would not participate in it. Today, the Prime Minister received his answer from the U.S. government: there will be no guarantee.

Now that he has his answer, what is the Prime Minister waiting for to make a decision and state clearly that Canada will not participate in this missile defence project?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Papineau
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I too read the Journal de Montréal this morning and I do not believe that the U.S. government commented on the issue raised by the hon. member, except through an interview that the Journal de Montréal apparently obtained with an individual in the U.S. government.

That said, I can assure the House that, as far as our government is concerned, there is no question of participating in an effort that would contribute or lead to the militarization or the weaponization of space.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Journal de Montréal that talks about it, the Prime Minister said it to a number of media. They reported “The Prime Minister made it a pre-condition for Canada's participation in the missile defence shield that this project must not lead to the weaponization of space”.

Why does he continue to remain so vague on this issue today? After all, this is not just anybody, it is Stephen Rademaker, the assistant to the U.S. Secretary of State for arms control, who just confirmed that he would not get the guarantees that were demanded. Therefore, what is the Prime Minister waiting for to finally make up his mind?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Papineau
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the same spokesperson for the U.S. government also said that the militarization or weaponization of space was not part of the anti-missile shield program in its current form. Therefore, he was very clear. There is no contradiction between the U.S. government saying that the program will not lead to the militarization of space, that it will not include the weaponization of space, and the commitment made by the Prime Minister, a commitment that he will honour, namely that his government has no intention of getting the country involved in an initiative that would lead to the weaponization of space.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20% since 1990. Yesterday, we learned that subsidies to the oil and gas industry increased by 33% between 1996 and 2002.

Can the Minister of Finance commit today to presenting a budget that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by applying the polluter pay principle instead of the polluter paid principle, as the government has done in recent years?