Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2004

Chantal Petitclerc

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, at the volunteer recognition gala, Saint-Marc-des-Carrières will honour Paralympic champion Chantal Petitclerc and the extraordinary example of perseverance she embodies for everyone in her hometown.

Over the past decade, the civil, political and the athletic community has recognized, on numerous occasions, the achievements of this unique athlete.

She has an incredible collection of eleven Paralympic medals and holds two world records. But it is the enthusiasm and determination of this young woman, stricken by tragedy at age thirteen, which everyone admires.

A spokesperson since 1995 for Défi sportif for athletes with a disability, she also collaborates with a number of organizations including England`s national Mobility program and Relais Synergie for the Quebec lung association. Recently, she took part in the Portneuf Rotary Club fundraiser.

I thank Ms. Petitclerc for being who she is. She embodies the best qualities: honesty, determination and enthusiasm.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this week we had the great honour of a visit from the President of the United States. The United States has been our greatest ally in times of need and until recently we were viewed in the same light by our neighbours to the south.

The dinner held for President Bush on Tuesday night was a polite event, with many restrictions and careful orchestration to avoid any embarrassing situations. Unfortunately, beyond President Bush's acknowledgement that Alberta beef was on the menu, there was little else to chew on.

The government has chosen to indulge in petty and juvenile attacks on our greatest ally and trading partner, and ranchers in Manitoba, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and countless other Canadians are now paying the price.

Pierre Berton

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a giant in Canadian cultural identity, Mr. Pierre Berton, who just passed away.

I do not think it is possible for people of my generation to even put into context the impact that Pierre Berton had on our consciousness in terms of creating an identity, of popularizing Canadian history and teaching a generation such as myself about who our real heroes are.

We have lost a giant. I know I am not doing nearly the justice that is deserved of the man who put such a great sense of who we are as a nation before us.

I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Berton and the great works he did. He spoke about average Canadians. He spoke about the farmers. He spoke about the miners. He spoke about average Canadians who built a great nation. I would like to pay tribute to him today.

Roy Overfors

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize the passing of Roy Overfors, sergeant with the House of Commons Protective Services.

Mr. Overfors spent over 20 years of his life working here to ensure that we could go about our business freely. Unfortunately, there are thousands of people like him on the Hill who work in the shadows and who, too often, go unrecognized.

Mr. Overfors was a husband, father, son and friend. He performed his duties with professionalism and generosity. Every time I ran into him, he was smiling and friendly.

He was only 47 years old. When death strikes one so young, it is hard for our loved ones to accept. I wish his family and friends the strength and courage to find peace during this difficult time. We offer our sincerest condolences.

National Defence

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if you and the House would bear with me for a moment, I would like to begin by acknowledging the passing of David Vienneau, who was a very good guy and a fair and professional reporter. I want to express on behalf of all of us, and I know the Prime Minister did earlier, our sadness at his passing and our condolences to his family.

Mr. Speaker, after weeks of being told that missile defence would not be on the agenda of this week's Canada-U.S. talks, it turned out that it was at the top of the agenda. It is obvious we can assume that by now the United States government has provided the Liberal government with a specific proposal on missile defence. When will the Prime Minister be informing us of the specifics of this proposal?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to add my words to those of the Leader of the Opposition. I spoke about David Vienneau earlier. This is a small town that we all live in here on the Hill. David Vienneau was one of those people who was able to transcend all sides. I certainly would like to add my voice to that of the Leader of the Opposition and I am sure all other members of the House.

We had a wide-ranging discussion with the President and with the members of his administration who were here. There were no surprises. The fact is that the United States government has not provided us with a specific proposal, but we certainly did discuss the issue.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to tell the Prime Minister that that is rather hard to believe. The government has been hinting at this for months, and the former defence minister announced that discussions were starting with the Americans on May 29, 2003. That is over 18 months ago. It is hard to believe there is absolutely nothing on the table after all of this time.

I ask the Prime Minister, when is the Liberal caucus actually planning to bring these discussions to a conclusion and take a decision on this matter?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I do find it rather ironic that the Leader of the Opposition is raising this issue. The fact is that since he has originally stated his position, he has flip-flopped. First he is for it, then he is against it, then he is thinking about it, then he does not know what he thinks.

The fact is we have been quite consistent. We continue to study it and we will make a decision when it is in Canada's interest.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody but the Prime Minister knows what he is talking about.

Canadians want to know about the government's position on what is obviously an important bilateral issue. What we want to know is the nature of our proposed involvement, the costs of any obligations we would incur, and the nature and value of any benefits.

When does the Prime Minister plan to tell Parliament and tell Canadians about these things and about where the government is at on this program?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, discussions are ongoing. Discussions were held over the last couple of days. The answer to the question is when it is in the Canadian interest to do so, we will in fact make a decision.

Sponsorship Program

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government has gone back on its promise of transparency by touching up the documents at the Gomery commission. The lawyer for the commission, Bernard Roy himself, has revealed that this has happened to key documents.

Can the Prime Minister tell us who was authorized to censor the documents and on what kinds of subjects?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as members of the House are aware, the government has in fact been extraordinarily transparent and open with the Gomery commission, providing tens of millions of pages of documents, in fact cabinet documents back to 1994.

There is a discussion between lawyers at the Gomery commission about the issue of pertinence in terms of specific documents. Those discussions will occur from time to time and those will be resolved within the auspices of the Gomery commission. I would urge the hon. member and all members of the House to let Justice Gomery do his work.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about the documents. We are talking about the Prime Minister's commitment last February to lay everything on the table with respect to the sponsorship scandal of the government. We know the documents on the table have been edited and the chief counsel for the Gomery commission says the Liberal government is going back on that commitment.

This is not a procedural question. This is about openness, transparency, promises. Justice Gomery says they want to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. The minister has said it. The Prime Minister has said it.

Who edited these files? Why were they sanitized? Who did that?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that cabinet documents back to 1994 have been provided to the Gomery commission speaks volumes to the openness and transparency of the government and its complete commitment to cooperating with Justice Gomery.

I would urge the hon. member to listen to his House leader who said a couple of weeks ago that he wanted Justice Gomery to look at this. He said that he did not want politicians to be looking at this, that we had a commissioner out there who he and the public respected and that we should let him get to the bottom of the issues, and stop playing politics.

I would urge him to listen to the leadership of his House leader who demonstrated some pretty good judgment in this case.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Bernard Roy, the government is deliberately hampering the Gomery commission by heavily censoring or totally withholding certain documents on the secret Canadian unity fund, the $800 million fund that financed the sponsorship scandal.

Can the Prime Minister, who claimed to want to lay everything on the table, explain exactly why his own government has chosen to obstruct the work of the Gomery commission?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the document being referred to is a cabinet document. The commitment made was that specific documents and evidence that were relevant to the sponsorship issue would be provided to Justice Gomery. In the opinion of the government that has been done.

These discussions will occur from time to time between lawyers at the Gomery commission in terms of the issue of pertinence. We are completely committed to openness and transparency. That is exactly what we are doing. We are proud of the degree of cooperation we are providing to Justice Gomery in his work.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on some of the documents provided so much was blacked out that it looked as if they were providing the commission with a crossword puzzle.

I would like to hear from the Prime Minister, who promised total transparency, just what oath of secrecy the Liberals are under that prevents them from saying what they did with the taxpayers' money to serve their own cause, supposedly, and particularly to help out their friends.

That is what needs to be laid on the table. We are not asking them to bring down decision in place of Justice Gomery. We are asking them to live up to their promise made a few months ago, before their election disaster.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again, providing over 10 million pages of documents to the Gomery commission, providing cabinet documents back to 1994 and providing that level of cooperation, openness and transparency is one reason why the Information Commissioner has lauded the government, and lauded and praised the Prime Minister for his openness, transparency and commitment to transparent government.

We are proud of what we are doing in the government to defend the interests of Canadians taxpayers, and to let Justice Gomery do his work.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister may say that he provided thousands of pages of documentation to the Gomery commission, counsel Bernard Roy's opinion is very clear: the best part of the documents was left out. We know what he means, because each time we obtain documents through access to information, it is the same thing: all that is left on a page is the date and signature. With 10,000 pages like that, there is not much one can do.

I would like the government to tell me: what is so out of the ordinary about the Canadian unity fund that it is treated as if it were a state secret?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, again, the commitment has been kept by the government to provide documents that are relevant to the sponsorship issue to Justice Gomery.

We have remained completely true to that commitment and will continue to do so. The fact that we have done that is one reason why we are being recognized for our openness and transparency in providing cabinet documents back to 1994.

The hon. member, as someone who has never been part of a federal cabinet and never will be, perhaps does not understand the importance of cabinet confidences.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, God forbid I ever be part of a government like this one. I pray and hope I never see that day.

It was brought to light that the CIO had a record of violations of TB rules and that contracts under $150,000 could be awarded to anyone; there were no guidelines.

Here is my question to the Prime Minister. Is his government not hiding the information concerning the CIO precisely because it was some kind of nirvana for his bunch of cronies?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again, opposition members called for an independent inquiry 178 times in the months leading up to this, and the government delivered.

The opposition cannot take yes for an answer. There is an independent Gomery commission. Justice Gomery is doing his work. We respect the independence of a judicial inquiry and we will continue to cooperate fully.

I would urge the hon. member opposite that if he wants to embrace federalism, perhaps he could consider being part of the government. Otherwise, he can stay where he is.

National Defence

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is quoted in the media today saying that he talked about the weaponization of space with President Bush and that the President assured him weaponization of space was not implied in the missile defence system. I am tempted to ask whether he also sold him some swamp land in Florida at the same time, but I do not want to be provocative

In his discussions, given that he has said he is very much against the weaponization of space, did the right hon. Prime Minister try to prevail upon President Bush to have the United States adopt the same position and be actively opposed to the weaponization of space?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have said in the past, and I repeat here again, I have stated unequivocally that Canada is opposed to the weaponization of space. I stated that to the President of the United States.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he tried to prevail on the President of the United States to have the Americans adopt the same position. He did not answer that question.

I also want to say to the Prime Minister that it is not just about the weaponization of space. It is also about the prospect for a new arms race. This can happen with or without the weaponization of space.

Is the Prime Minister not concerned that by entering into missile defence, if that is the ultimate position of his government, that Canada will be legitimizing a new arms race, something which is hardly in the interest of Canada or consistent with the values of Canada?