House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transport.
Sébastien Gagnon Bloc Jonquière—Alma, QC
Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, in the midst of the election campaign, the Liberals announced a $500 million dollar aid package to support Ontario's automotive industry.
Since the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario, when will the government finally begin providing serious support to the aerospace industry in general and to Bombardier in particular?
David Emerson LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the government is working hard on automotive sector strategies that will benefit not just Ontario but all of Canada, and we are doing the same thing for the aerospace industry.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government's ineptitude in the public service issue is extraordinary.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Our employees of the federal public service are out of their jobs. They have been without a contract for a year and a half in many cases. The government's ineptitude here has been extraordinary. We did not need to be in this situation; we are awash in a surplus. Can we have an update on when this strike will end and what action the government is taking to bring it to an end?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, we are at the table and we have professionals at the table. The unions have professionals there. We are in the final stages of these discussions and I anticipate we will have a resolution soon, but I do not think we assist that process by bringing it to the floor of this chamber.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Social Development. Given the prominence of the mention of the child tax benefit as the federal government's major initiative to end child poverty, given the resolution of the member from Ottawa Centre, unanimously passed by the House in 1989, to end child poverty by the year 2000, and given the fact that poverty for children has actually doubled, will the minister ask the provinces to stop clawing back the child tax benefit supplement from the most at risk and marginalized of our children and families?
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)
Mr. Speaker, I think all parliamentarians are very much concerned if even one child in Canada lives in poverty, not the number that does exist. We unanimously passed that resolution in this House. The government is working with the provinces. There will be a federal-provincial conference on November 1 and 2. Some of these issues will be discussed at that table.
Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. If one is a Liberal, membership clearly has its privileges. I have in hand yesterday's testimony from the Gomery inquiry. We know the Gomery inquiry: that is where direct questions get direct answers.
Yesterday Madam Roy was asked whether political affiliation carried weight in funding decisions under the sponsorship program. She said yes. My direct question to the minister is, in addition to former hockey stars who hosted million dollar cocktail parties for the Prime Minister, what other friends of the Prime Minister received taxpayers' money?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our Prime Minister has throughout his time as Prime Minister committed to and delivered full transparency and openness.
Justice Gomery's work is important work. We are providing full cooperation to Justice Gomery. I would urge the hon. member not to comment on day to day testimony before Justice Gomery because we need to get to the full truth and only Justice Gomery's report will provide Canadians with that answer.
Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's testimony was damning. We heard evidence of “big Liberals” receiving taxpayers' money. Canadians now have confirmation that the corruption of the sponsorship program was tied directly to big Liberals.
We know that the hon. member himself is now a big Liberal, but this is the minister's chance to come clean and disclose to the House the names of other big Liberals who received sponsorship money because of their ties to the Prime Minister.
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I work out in the member's gym every day and I am still not a very big Liberal.
The fact is, the day to day testimony before Justice Gomery does not provide the full truth to Canadians. Today's testimony could be contradicted by next week's testimony. If the hon. member is really interested in the truth he would support Justice Gomery, not prejudge the work of Justice Gomery, and wait for the full report, which will provide Canadians with just what they want and that is the full truth about the sponsorship issue.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had a fine example of precisely what we are trying to achieve by allowing public servants to disclose intolerable situations they come across.
How much money does the minister think could have been saved from the Liberals' shenanigans if Ms. Tremblay had been free to disclose these fraudulent practices to an independent commissioner?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me to comment on events that were discussed before the Gomery commission, I do not intend to do so because I think Justice Gomery should deal with that.
If he wishes to comment on the structure of the whistleblowing legislation that we put forward, it is going forward at first reading. If he wishes to read it and try to understand it, he may find ways to help us put in place the most transparent regime we can.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, the minister denies a principle of independence by insisting that public servants report wrongdoing to management, who in turn report directly to a Liberal minister.
Why has the minister failed to allow honest, dedicated and hard-working public servants to report wrongdoing directly to an independent commissioner?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, not only is the president of the Public Service Commission appointed in exactly the same way that the Privacy Commissioner, the Access to Information Commissioner and the Official Languages Commissioner are appointed, but also in the bill, if he reads it, he will find that there are two sections that specifically allow public servants to go directly to the commissioner.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that applications for sponsorship funding from powerful Liberals received special attention at Minister Gagliano's office. We also learned this week that the current Prime Minister, through a member of his staff, intervened in favour of close Liberal friends of his: André Ouellet and Serge Savard.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he was aware that his chances of reversing the officials' decision in the matter of the Internationaux du sport were pretty good, knowing that powerful Liberals received special treatment?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, it is very important to respect the independence of the Gomery commission. We must not prejudice its work. I am looking forward to the report, but we must wait.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that the real program guidelines were hidden and that the correspondence concerning this program was handled in secret.
Does this mean that yesterday's revelations confirm what everyone knew before the cat was let out of the bag: the sponsorship program was the exclusive preserve of close Liberal friends?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to those types of questions. The fact is that it does give me an opportunity to speak about some of the important work that the Department of Public Works and Government Services is doing on behalf of Canadians.
We have an ethics and integrity package that was introduced several months ago and has been recognized by the Conference Board of Canada as a best practice model for both the private sector and the public sector in Canada. We are working on a new procurement strategy, real property strategy, and a new approach for IT, which will demonstrate on a day to day basis respect for hard-earned tax dollars and the best possible services for Canadians.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, in his latest budget, the Minister of Finance anticipated a $4 billion surplus for the current year. However, yesterday the The Fiscal Monitor , which is the official publication of the Department of Finance, mentioned that, for the first five months of the current year alone, the budgetary surplus is already $4.7 billion. And the year is not over yet; there are seven months left.
Is this not once again the government's well worn strategem of hiding its budgetary surpluses from the public to avoid any debate on a use for them?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. What the hon. gentleman is referring to is a document called The Fiscal Monitor , which is published on a regular, monthly basis by the Department of Finance to tell parliamentarians and all Canadians the exact ebb and flow of expenses going out and revenues coming in so that everyone can know the status of the books as the year unfolds. I would point out that it is a snapshot in time. There will be another Fiscal Monitor next month, and the month after that. One has to see the whole year to see the full picture for the fiscal year.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the 2004-05 surpluses are not all used on the debt, will the Minister of Finance pledge to pass a bill before March 31, 2005, so that Quebec, the provinces and their citizens can benefit from a good portion of the future surplus?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we have passed a number of bills in previous parliaments and I have no doubt that we will pass bills in this Parliament which will make major transfers from the Government of Canada to assist the provinces. We are doing so in health and in equalization. We have done the same with respect to infrastructure, housing and immigration.
There are many examples of that very kind of thing. Obviously, we want to provide the greatest possible certainty, both for this Parliament and for the provinces before the end of the fiscal year.
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, two days ago the health minister hinted that he may expand the hepatitis C compensation to victims outside the 1986 to 1990 group because there may be a surplus. These words are coming six years too late for a lot of victims.
The minister now says that he is examining the issue, but the next actuarial report is not due until June 2005. Victims cannot wait that long. They are demanding action now.
Will the minister confirm today that he will act immediately and not wait until next year?
Robert Thibault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the government has acted very responsibly. It has given service to those people suffering from this disease. It has made sure that we have care for them and have given the provinces the additional money that they would require. Over $1.4 billion has been invested so far to care for those people.
The minister has said that he would look at this with the other partners, and if there is an actuarial surplus, this may be one of the areas it could be put to good use.
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, the government used scare tactics when it devised this scheme. It said that there would be tens of thousands of victims and that the funds would run out. Now we find out different. A recently released audit shows that the fund made $50 million last year. There is still over $1 billion in the fund. The fund is growing while the victims are dying.
Why will the government not do the right thing and compensate all victims who were poisoned with tainted blood?