House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to seek details of the American proposals. Once we have them and we consider the matter, at the appropriate time I am sure the House will be consulted.
In the meantime, the hon. member might explain how this is supplementary to his original question. What happened to the epidemic of forgeries? They must have got stuck in the hon. member's brain.
Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, government spending is running out of control. In the last fiscal year program spending was up by over 7% and the government projects to see program spending increase by at least 5% a year, which is nearly twice the combined level of inflation plus population growth.
If we were simply to restrain spending at the rate of inflation and population growth there would be an additional $58 billion available for additional tax relief and debt reduction.
My question is for the finance minister. Why has he bowed to pressure from his big spending cabinet colleagues rather than doing the responsible thing, holding the line and providing Canadians with more of their own hard earned money?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's numbers simply do not hold water, but there is no doubt there has been increases in certain areas.
I would simply like to ask him: Given that the majority of those increases have taken place in the transfers to provinces for health, that they have taken place in terms of increases in elderly benefits and that they have taken place in the increase in equalization, perhaps the hon. member would tell me which of those three programs he would cut.
Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, there is a growing consensus that the government is headed for a planning deficit within four fiscal years. Even the member for Markham and the former ADM of finance have said that a planning deficit could occur in the year 2004-05. That would eat into the so-called contingency reserves which are supposed to be there to handle unexpected emergencies.
Will the finance minister commit to the House here and now that he will not delve into the contingency reserves except for emergencies? Will he commit that he will not finance regular government spending out of the prudence reserve?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well the contingency reserve has been in place ever since we formed the government. He knows exactly the conditions under which it is to be used, and it will continue to be used in that way.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, a senior federal official has admitted that Canada is preparing to give its support to the U.S. missile defence shield program. According to this person, the justification for this about-face is that it would spare Canada from losing jobs, from missing out on substantial contracts, and particularly from having to reopen the entire issue of NORAD.
Could the government confirm this statement and will it finally admit it is preparing to support the anti-missile project put forward by the Bush administration? Let it admit this.
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the government has not reached such a decision. The hon. member must wait. After we have reviewed the details of the Americans' plans, we will inform the House in due course of the outcome of our consultations.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has requested a meeting with the U.S. emissaries.
In order for there to be an informed debate on this subject, does the government intend to allow the opposition parties to benefit from this meeting, and can it commit to a debate and a vote in this House before Canada takes its official position on this project?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are going to consult the House in due course. There is, of course, the possibility of a debate at this time. It is premature to discuss a project on which we have not decided on a position.
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, Madam Tremblay, a close friend of the minister of public works, has been awarded millions of dollars worth of contracts by the Liberal government. She has a long history of Liberal connections.
Why does having Liberal connections seem to make a difference when it comes to receiving government contracts?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, all the contracts in question have been given according to treasury board guidelines and in a competitive process.
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, last month we asked about lucrative contracts to Madam Tremblay. Last week we asked about Groupaction. Now again it is Madam Tremblay receiving even more Canadian taxpayer money without proper tenders.
I ask the minister to open up all government contracting to competitive bidding and to take the politics out of the government's contracting process. When will he do it?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that all those contracts and the contract that the hon. member makes reference to are given in a competitive process. If the hon. member is ready, my officials are ready to give him a briefing on how we do procurement for communications contracts, which might be a little bit different from the others, but that is the system that everybody uses.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Newfoundland premier reaffirmed his desire to license private companies to export water in bulk. Such a precedent could encourage private companies wanting to take the government of Quebec to court under NAFTA, because, as hon. members will recall, the government of Quebec has imposed a moratorium on the bulk export of water.
Is the government aware that NAFTA could prevent Quebec from deciding itself what it will do with its water?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a moment ago, on the issue of bulk water exports there is need for co-operation between all jurisdictions in Canada. Certainly we respect and we applaud the decision taken by the province of Quebec with respect to water within its jurisdiction. As I indicated, the federal government's position is clear. We do not approve of transfers from one water basin to another.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that water is not a tradable item under NAFTA, because Canada signed a joint declaration with the U.S. and Mexico on this. However, the American authorities have said that the declaration changes absolutely nothing in NAFTA and does not preclude the bulk export of water in any way.
Will the government confirm that, under NAFTA, water is indeed a tradable item, a fact that would considerably undermine Quebec's ability to limit or prevent the bulk export of water?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, were that the case, it would certainly undermine the authority of the province of Quebec to take decisions with respect to water within its jurisdiction, which it is entitled to do by the constitution, but fortunately it is not the case.
Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, for the second time in a month officials of the Business Development Bank are claiming that an internal document obtained by the media is a forgery. Last month it was a financial record. This time it is a chronology relating to the recall of the $615,000 loan for which the Prime Minister had personally lobbied.
The accusation that forgeries are being either produced or leaked on a recurring basis is a serious charge. On what grounds is this accusation being made?
John Cannis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the document that was referred to in the Globe and Mail has been referred by the BDC to the RCMP for investigation. It has been concluded that the copy right now is of course not in conformity.
Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what that was about. Let me ask my supplementary question this way.
The Prime Minister has openly admitted that he pressured the Business Development Bank for a loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. We all know the auberge defaulted on the repayments, so it would be routine for a bank to call the loan. Yet the BDC said that the document recording the foreclosure was forged. What reason does the BDC have to believe that the document was forged?
John Cannis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member is confused. There is more confusion in his party than in the BDC.
Nevertheless, all I can say right now is that it is in the hands of the RCMP for investigation. We will leave it at that. It is not in conformity, and at the appropriate time they will know.
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, three years ago the international community agreed to dramatically reduce or even eliminate persistent organic pollutants. Known as the dirty dozen, POPs include PCBs, dioxins and DDT. They remain in the environment for decades. Particularly, they are harmful to Canada's northern peoples.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House what action Canada is taking domestically and internationally to reduce these substances?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that I will be signing, on behalf of Canada, the United Nations convention on persistent organic pollutants in Stockholm next week.
At the same time, I would like to point out to the House that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. John Buccini, who chaired the meetings in Johannesburg that led to this protocol. I think that as a result we have something of great interest and importance to Canadian northern peoples.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, for months now the NDP caucus has been calling on the Prime Minister to clearly state the government's opposition to the U.S. military defence proposal. The reply has always been that the government will talk to the Americans and then it will tell Canadians what was said.
Tomorrow President Bush's travelling salesmen are coming to Canada to find out if we will be part of this treacherous NMD scheme. What will the government tell the Americans when they come a-calling. Will it ignore the opposition from millions of Canadians, including members of its own caucus, or will the government say no to George Bush and refuse to allow Canada to be a part of this nuclear madness?
John O'Reilly LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, once again we repeat that the Americans have not made a decision on this. When they do, a full debate will probably take place in the House and everyone will have an opportunity to respond. However, until a detailed response from the Americans is received, it is pretty hard to give an answer.