House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-17.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the government incurs no legal liability for work that was done before a contract is signed and issued. There appears to be nothing on the files of the Department of Public Works that deals with the matter of advanced work.
From the perspective of the Department of Public Works, the process begins when a requisition arrives, and that requisition was dated May 29.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works repeats incessantly that everything was done according to procedure in his department. However, we now know that at the Department of Canadian Heritage, things are far less clear than they seem. The departmental official's version contradicts that of the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.
If anyone should know what exactly happened in her department, it would be the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why is she refusing to answer? We want an answer.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, we would like to believe the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, but the only person who can clear up any doubt about it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself.
Will the minister acknowledge that by not discrediting the comments made by one of her officials at the time, she lent credence to the idea that it was the official who was giving us the straight goods, and not the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport?
Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, everything was done according to procedure.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, while the committee chairs controversy rips and the power struggle rages between the member for LaSalle—Émard and the Prime Minister, Parliament is losing track of even more serious democratic deficits. One of them is how the government camouflages its surpluses.
As the Auditor General explained yesterday, “There is no law that says you have to pay down the debt by the amount of the surplus”. The Prime Minister and the finance minister keep telling us the opposite.
Why is the government refusing to let Parliament decide how to use the hide and seek surpluses?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when March 31 comes, we cannot spend the money that is left, so we apply it against the debt. The law does not permit us to spend it when we arrive at the new fiscal year, so we pay the debt.
I do not think it is a big scandal that Canada is the only country in the western world that has managed to pay virtually 10% of its national debt.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, Enron executives are in big trouble for budgeting practices like that.
Since 1993 the government has persistently and deliberately miscalculated its budget projections to the tune of $80 billion. In 1997 only 2% of the non-projected surplus was allocated to social spending and the other 98% to debt reduction and tax cuts. These funds could have been used to reduce child poverty, to fight homelessness, to enhance our environment.
Why will the government not come clean with Canadians about the surplus funds that are really available to deal with--
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, in the annual financial report for 2001-02 as well as the economic fiscal update last week, we were very clear on exactly where the surplus for last year was allocated.
I agree that apparently the Auditor General has taken some issue with saying pay down the debt. However, the fact remains, and the Auditor General signs off on her statements, that the debt is the accumulated deficit less any surpluses that we accrue. It is as simple as that.
It is transparent in the documents. We never said that the $9 billion was used to pay down market debt. We said it was used to reduce total or net debt.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, conflicts and contradictions are rampant within the Liberal government. Proposed changes to the American immigration policy have placed two cabinet ministers at odds and the Prime Minister completely out of the loop.
In this confusing environment, Canadians should be alarmed by reports today that over 600 ministerial permits have been issued to individuals with serious criminal records, 11 with terrorist links, to immigrate to Canada.
How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain the fact that the Liberal government is not holding up its end of the bargain on the security threat to North America?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, this is the House of Commons, it is not the place to run one's own leadership campaign. The hon. member should be very careful.
Whenever a permit is issued, it is done with safety in mind. Occasionally, hon. members come and ask me to issue a ministerial permit, and I think we do it the way it should be done.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration is comparing the changes made in the United States to the definition of ethnic profiles.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that immigrants who hold Canadian citizenship should be subject to the new American rules. This is a huge contradiction.
Who is speaking for Canadians on this issue, which affects thousands of citizens travelling to the United States?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his French. He is doing well.
Second, I would say that we are protecting Canadian values. Whenever decisions have to be made, we are there to protect Canadian values. We, on the government side, all speak as one on these issues. We are there to protect Canadians. It is good, from time to time, to ask certain questions to get clarification.
Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, in connecting Canadian values and worrying about the American regulations at the border, the government allowed 600 people with criminal records to enter Canada on ministerial permits. Another 11 individuals, believed to have been engaged in terrorism, espionage and subversion by force, were welcomed with open arms by the government.
Will the minister stop allowing terrorists, spies and subversives into our country and alleviate the Americans' concern about legitimate residents of Canada?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to be very careful in phrasing her questions. Whenever members from both sides of the House come and ask me to issue a ministerial permit, there are specific reasons for doing so. Whenever such permits are issued, the safety of all Canadians is kept in mind.
Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, last month when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about the Americans' lack of trust in his government's commitment to security, he said that he had never heard an American official or politician raise any doubts about Canadian security. The only thing worse than the Deputy Prime Minister denying any concerns raised by the Americans would be the fact that they chose to leave him out of the loop before introducing these new measures.
If the Americans are not concerned about the government's commitment to security, why are they clamping down on Canadians at the border?
Denis Coderre LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, again and again the government and Canadian people should be aware that we are totally dedicated on security matters. The government believes that in immigration or any issue there should be a balanced approach between openness and vigilance.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is rather odd that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the only one who can give us the straight goods on what really went on in her department, is still refusing to support the position of the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who claims to have done nothing to impose the choice of Everest.
Is it not odd that the only person capable of exonerating the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, by confirming that his version is the right one, is not doing so?
Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
The information I have, Mr. Speaker, is that all procedures were followed.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledge that, by remaining silent, she is giving credence to the version of her departmental officials, who say that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport did intervene?
Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that everything was done according to the procedures. I accept what I have been told.
John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Vancouver the Canadian Alliance announced a softwood package including $278 million for laid-off softwood workers. The Liberal government announced a cynical byelection package that does nothing to specifically help softwood workers. The Canadian Alliance plan addresses real issues. The government plan does not.
When will the government announce a real softwood plan to help workers?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, we have announced a plan. The hon. member knows that we announced $240 million and prior to that, we announced $100 million. That is $340 million to help forestry workers and to help make sure that we diversify and look for new markets for the forestry sector.
We have also said, by the way, that if more needs to be done, if we do not get an agreement within the next four to five months, the government will do more to help forestry workers.
John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, he is the minister that does not deliver despite his promises.
The Canadian Alliance package also includes a softwood tariff management proposal of $1.475 billion. The Liberals continue to refuse to address this issue. In May the trade minister was optimistic this could be done without countervail from the U.S. The senior minister from British Columbia has been promising such a loan guarantee program since last spring.
The Canadian Alliance has a plan. Where is the government's plan?