Stephen Harper

[Natural Resources, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, I think people in Newfoundland and Labrador think that if CSL can get 98% of its offshore royalties, then Newfoundland and Labrador should get 100%.

Everyone heard the Prime Minister make a solemn promise on national television. The Prime Minister said, “I have made it very clear that the proposal that he“, Premier Williams, “has put forth is a proposal that we accept”. Now he wants to add terms and conditions.

Why do the Atlantic provinces have to negotiate? Why should anyone have to negotiate to get the Prime Minister to keep his solemn commitment?

[Natural Resources, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the anger that is sweeping over Newfoundland and Labrador over its treatment by the Prime Minister.

On June 5 the Prime Minister promised to give Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore royalties. He accepted the premier's deal. On June 10 the premier wrote him to specify the terms of that deal, three weeks before the election.

Why did the Prime Minister wait until October to say that he disagreed with the terms of the deal?

[Natural Resources, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we know that was done just before question period. The minister should have the courtesy to have both governments here today.

On June 5 the Prime Minister made a deal with Premier Williams. Now he is trying to get out of it. Premier Williams said the obvious which is that this thing with Nova Scotia is just an attempt to divide and conquer, which the minister found out is not going to work.

Rather than trying to divide and conquer, would it not be easier for the government to just implement its agreement and the Prime Minister to keep his word?

[Natural Resources, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister's spokesman threatened Newfoundland and Labrador because Premier Williams would not go along with the broken agreement on the offshore. Scott Reid said that Williams would pay for it.

Today the Prime Minister invited Nova Scotia to town to talk, but left Newfoundland and Labrador out in the cold. Is this not just an example of the government's threat coming true?

[Israel, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada has been very supportive of the state of Israel and its right to security.

We believe that Canada and Israel share common values of freedom and democracy, as well as common interests in defeating global terrorism.

Like all Canadians, Conservatives favour peaceful negotiations to resolve the issue of disputed territories, understanding that this can only be achieved by renouncing terrorism against Israel and dismantling the infrastructure that supports it.

In Parliament, Conservatives have been at the forefront of encouraging Canada to take a stronger position in the fight against global terrorism. It was only due to unrelenting pressure from this party that the Liberal government finally and reluctantly moved to outlaw Hezbollah and Hamas.

We will continue to ensure that Canada does not support terrorism or anti-Semitism with Canadian aid money. We will continue to stand with Israel as our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations and to push the government to ensure that Canada pulls its weight militarily, diplomatically and politically in the global war against terrorism.

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week we all heard the Prime Minister say that the reason he wrote a letter, which he wrote on behalf of Serge Savard, and the reason he was in touch on the sponsorship program was that he did this for constituents.

If he is not a constituent, he should answer this. Why was the Prime Minister trying to get a favourable quarter million dollar sponsorship decision for his friend, Serge Savard?

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the House will note the Prime Minister had a chance to correct the record, say the premiers were telling the truth, and he refused to do so.

The Prime Minister also continues to stonewall on the sponsorship scandal in the House, except that outside he is prepared to give answers that do not turn out to be true. Last week he admitted that his office helped in getting hundreds of thousands in sponsorship money for his Liberal fundraiser Serge Savard because he said that he was a constituent. We know that Savard was not a constituent. His company was not located in the Prime Minister's riding.

Why did the Prime Minister say Serge Savard was a constituent when he was not?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what becomes more and more evident is that that party distorts my words because it will not keep its own words.

The Prime Minister promised the same deal on offshore royalties to Nova Scotia during the election. He said, “If we do a deal with Newfoundland and Labrador, that same proposal ought to be made to Nova Scotia”. When the Prime Minister made that commitment, there was no mention of a time limit and the Premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador say no such agreement was made.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that on the time limit issue, Premier Hamm and Premier Williams are telling the truth?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make sure it happens.

On June 5 the Prime Minister said publicly that he had committed to a deal with Newfoundland and Labrador. He said the following, “I have made it very clear that the proposal that he has put forth is a proposal that we accept”. The premier said that the deal that he put forward did not include a cap on revenues.

Will the Prime Minister confirm, on the capping issue, that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is telling the truth?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, through his official spokesman, has accused the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador of lying. He said the following, “The problem that the premier will have eventually is that the truth will get out”.

Will the Prime Minister unequivocally retract these statements and confirm for the House that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is telling the truth?