Debates of Oct. 27th, 2003

Transport

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed this question at the news conference on Friday and also in the House. The fact of the matter is that we have been working on this initiative for the last 18 months. Cabinet made a decision and that decision had to be communicated to the Canadian public. That decision, I might say, has been very well received by the travelling public who believe in the future of passenger rail.

Government of Canada

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if he thinks he has answered the question, he had better give the answer to his new leader.

This is another example of confusion. The Minister of Justice said that the new Liberal leader is paralyzing the government. The government can no longer function this way. The Bloc Quebecois motion is part of the Constitution; in other words, the new leader of the party in power must take his place as prime minister as soon as he is elected.

Is that not why the government should vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois motion?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that we have a government led by a Prime Minister. There will be a leadership convention at which the Liberal Party will change leaders and there will be a new prime minister who will swear in a new government. Until that time, this government has a duty to Canadians to act in their best interests.

Ethics

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says I should know. I have to say, like the rest of Canadians, I am really confused by what is going on.

Let me go to the ethics disarray in the government. Last week we had the industry minister's half-hearted apology. He has now gone to the ethics counsellor looking for retroactive permission for his actions.

The minister never reported the infamous fishing trip. His excuse was that he was health minister at the time. However, it turns out he was accompanied on the trip by a health lobbyist, who also happens to be an Irving family member.

Could the minister explain why he has broken every rule from A to Z?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear about this last week. It was 18 months ago that I reported to the ethics counsellor, took his advice, told him everything and followed his advice to the letter.

I have acknowledged openly that it was a mistake for me to have gone. I have apologized for it. I have also asked the ethics counsellor to tell me the most sound basis on which to pay for the trip by tendering payment to the Irving family. I have responded to these questions last week and again today.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The industry minister was appointed health minister on June 11, 1997. Liberal lobbyist Paul Zed invited the then health minister and his family to New Brunswick for an all expense paid fishing trip. During that period, Paul Zed lobbied the Department of Health on at least 10 occasions, most notably concerning the proposed new labelling for tobacco products.

How can the minister rise in this House and claim that accepting an all expense paid vacation from the very person who was lobbying him is not a conflict of interest?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member of the opposition is reaching beyond reason here. We are talking about an occasion on which I spent a weekend with my family, not talking health policy and in no way exposing myself to that kind of lobbying.

What we are talking about here is a situation in which I made full disclosure to the ethics counsellor of all the circumstances of the trip. I took the ethics counsellor's advice and I followed that advice.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, anybody who believes that believes in the tooth fairy. It is well known that Paul Zed lobbied the health minister successfully on many occasions on a whole host of matters. At the time, the current Minister of Industry served as the minister of health. From Paul Zed's point of view, the then minister of health was a very profitable friend to know.

Realizing he is in conflict from A to Z, will he do the right thing and resign?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong. The fact is my family and I spent a weekend as described. I made full disclosure to the ethics counsellor, took the ethic counsellor's advice and followed that advice.

I have openly acknowledged it was a mistake to have gone and I have apologized for it. I now have asked the ethics counsellor for a sound basis on which to tender payment for the hospitality.

That member is reaching far beyond that in a way which is just not reasonable, and I reject the allegation.

Health

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is paralyzed by the intrigues of the next Liberal leader. Therefore, Quebec and the provinces want assurances on health, not from the current Prime Minister but from his successor, whose intentions are far from clear.

Instead of attacking the Bloc Quebecois and its motion, could someone in this government ask the Prime Minister to let himself be guided by reasons of state and recognize as everyone does that his government is paralyzed, that his former finance minister is the one throwing sand in the gears, and that this has to stop?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is wrong, because it is obvious that we have a pretty full agenda, with many bills. Just last week, I made an announcement concerning VIA Rail. This goes to show that we are taking action on behalf of Canadians.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as soon as the minister made that announcement, the member for LaSalle—Émard said, “Wait a minute, there is no guarantee that we will do that”. On Friday, the Minister of Finance said, “I cannot do it all; I do not have control over everything. The next prime minister will decide”. This minister would have us believe that he is preparing his budget.

In a democracy, should not the person making the decisions, even if he is hiding behind the scenes, has a parallel cabinet and is holding parallel caucus meetings, be showing up in this place as soon as possible to answer our questions instead of hiding?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we made an announcement concerning the future of passenger transportation in Canada, and I think that it was well received by Canadians.

I must say, however, that obviously when a new prime minister is elected he will have the right to review all the projects and all the expenditures. He will have the right to do so when he is the prime minister.

At present, we are a government with a Prime Minister, and it is our responsibility to act in the best interests of Canadians.

Rail Infrastructure

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite incredible that the Minister of Transport cites as an example of good government the announcement of $700 million for railways he made last week. Immediately after that announcement, it was made known to him on behalf of the man behind the curtain, that is the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, that this was not on, and would need to be revised.

Will the government not bow to logic and admit that our motion is totally justified, and that the transition between the present PM and his successor cannot drag on for another four months?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, there is an inconsistency in the logic of my friend over there.

Members opposite are making the argument that because there will be a transition to a new government and a new prime minister, somehow the government is paralyzed. The fact is that we are here in the House of Commons with a full legislative agenda. As one minister, I made a very important announcement last week. That is not paralysis. The hon. members cannot have it both ways.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Liberal caucus, the member for Hamilton West, has been highly critical of the present government for its announcement of the Quebec City-Windsor train. The member in question is considered to be close to the future Liberal leader.

I am asking the government this: can it seriously continue for some time to operate as it is at present when even the president of the Liberal caucus is going against the Prime Minister and the government?

Does the member think this is a normal way of operating?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe in democratic debate. Members are free to have their own views.

The member for Hamilton West has expressed his views. I respect those views. I know that VIA Rail is very important for the Hamilton area and he knows that too, but he still has certain concerns. They are legitimate concerns and he should not be pilloried for making those concerns public. He should be congratulated for joining the democratic discourse.

Ethics

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry knows his actions were wrong on the Irving Shipbuilding file. He accepted a gift that clearly violated the conflict of interest guidelines. He repeatedly lobbied on behalf of the Irving interests at the cabinet table. He made government appointments that related to the shipbuilding file.

How can the minister possibly suggest that he was just doing his job when he violated the terms of the blackout over and over again?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the facts as recited by the member.

I have set the record very straight. I have said that I respected entirely the advice I got from the ethics counsellor in terms of what I should do and what I should disqualify myself from.

When issues were raised, even if I did not agree with the hon. members, in good faith referred them to the ethics counsellor for his opinion.

I believe I have followed completely the advice he gave me, but because the issue has been raised, in good faith I have sent it on to him to look at and he has been good enough to agree to give me his opinion.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister apologized after one of his colleagues did the same, but he still has not explained to the public why he did not step away from the Irving Shipbuilding file. After he was told to stay away, he clearly refused. On five separate occasions he acted in a way that would benefit the Irvings.

When will the Minister of Industry recognize that he can only do one thing and that is to step aside and resign?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the facts as laid out by the member. They are not the facts. That is not what happened.

The ethics counsellor told me to disqualify myself from the file in question, which I did. The Minister of Finance made clear in the House last week the decision in that regard was taken entirely without my involvement, which reflects the advice I got from the ethics counsellor. On every other count I respected his advice.

Because questions have been raised, and it is not that I agree with the points expressed but because I respect the process, I have referred them to the counsellor. The counsellor will let me have his advice when he is ready to do so.

Transport

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

We support the VIA investment to help meet Kyoto's targets and help unclog our highways. After a decade of doing nothing to meet Kyoto or help train travel, the new Liberal leader is fighting the needed investment, or more accurately his spin doctor is telling a crown corporation to expect a big don't pay a cent event.

My question for the minister is, who sets rail policy in Canada, him, a backbencher, or another person in the shadow government?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the cabinet deliberated on the particular proposal over a number of months. There was exhaustive debate and a consensus was reached and the government did what it should do. It made an announcement.

We are very committed to passenger rail policy in the country. We are very proud of the announcement. However, that does not stop any future government from looking at that policy or any other policy and reviewing it in the context of the financial climate or the priorities at the time.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to get railroaded or he is going to fight back and show he is the little engine that could.

The new Liberal leader was completely silent as every penny of the $7 billion surplus went to the debt. How can spending $700 million on rail tie his hands if spending $7 billion on the debt does not? A dollar is gone whether it is invested in our future or it is put against the debt.

Will the minister call the new Liberal leader's bluff and allocate 10% of last year's budget to make his project happen now?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the important point here is that the hon. member for Windsor West has congratulated the government on its announcement.

He knows full well coming from Windsor that this is good news for the people of Windsor. It is good news for London. It is good news for Hamilton. It is good news for Burlington. It is good news for Belleville. It is good news for Kingston. It is good news for Montreal. It is good news for Quebec City. But it is not just the corridor, this announcement covers the expenditures from coast to coast to coast. That is what is important.