Debates of Oct. 26th, 2005

Public Safety

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the real question is whether the Prime Minister will actually do something about it.

The Prime Minister apparently told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States has an obligation to get tough on gun smuggling but last August, along with stating that blaming the United States was simplistic, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister supposedly responsible for public safety said, “we have no evidence that there are more guns being smuggled into Canada”. More dithering and confusion.

Why did the Prime Minister publicly contradict and undermine the public safety minister and which position was advanced to the secretary of state, his or hers?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, not only did I not contradict the Deputy Prime Minister but I supported the position she took. I supported the position she took at the dinner in the discussion we had on the importance of stopping gun smuggling and the importance of governments on both sides of the border working to ensure smuggled guns do not come into this country and are not part of these kinds of problems. I have to say that the Deputy Prime Minister argued the case very forcefully and successfully.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the Deputy Prime Minister called the Prime Minister's position simplistic.

In spite of the fact that it is hard for customs officers to stop illegal firearms at the borders with flashlights, the Prime Minister says “there are things that come from the United States that we don't like” and “Americans have a responsibility to stop the flow of guns into Canada”.

However on August 25 the Deputy Prime Minister again said, “Americans have taken a very, very tough line, one of the toughest lines in the world in relation to guns being smuggled in or out of their country”, which is a direct contradiction.

Just who did the Prime Minister get his talking points from, the Liberal spin room, his internal polling? He does not listen to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no contradiction between the Prime Minister and myself, nor the Prime Minister and myself and Condoleezza Rice. We all agree that gun smuggling is a problem and that it is a shared problem, which is what I have said.

In response to the hon. member's question, I would hope we all know that gun crime on the streets of cities like Toronto is about more than the smuggling of guns. We have to look at the root causes of crimes. We have to look at whether we have the right laws in place.

Softwood Lumber

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry stated that granting loan guarantees to softwood lumber companies, as the Bloc Québécois wants, could be interpreted as a form of protectionism by the Americans. However, loan guarantees are allowed under WTO and NAFTA rules.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is, in fact, perfectly legal to grant loan guarantees to companies affected by the softwood lumber crisis?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the government is currently examining all its options. We are in the midst of tough negotiations with the Americans. The government certainly intends to support our communities. We already have. The government, along with the Canadian industry, has already taken action in this fight with the Americans, made necessary by their completely unacceptable refusal to comply with the NAFTA rulings.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Prime Minister clearly. However, I am asking him to confirm that loan guarantees are legal in order to silence some of his ministers, including the Minister of Industry, who made some comments yesterday, and the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who is implying that it would be illegal. But it is legal since Export Development Canada operates on the basis of loan guarantees. That is how we support Bombardier.

Could we also support the softwood lumber companies? My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree that it is legal, yes or no? Because it is.

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the hon. member has been for the last five years because there are no subsidies in Canada and there is no dumping. We have legally won that case and yet we still see case after case of anti-Canadian protectionist acts taking place.

Whether it is legal or not, we can still expect an American protectionist response.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the minister and the Prime Minister, we do not get the feeling that the softwood lumber dispute has been going on for more than 40 months.

The government's strategy on the softwood lumber issue is puzzling to say the least. This is further proof. While it has a legal tool at its disposal to support the softwood lumber industry, the government refuses to support this industry with loan guarantees.

Could the government tell us why it is forgoing using such a tool, when it is allowed under NAFTA and WTO rules?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the arduous work of the Prime Minister, Canada has made enormous headway on this issue, in fact, more headway than ever in recent decades. We must now focus on having a united Canadian industry. As usual, the Bloc is being divisive and a source of problem, not solution.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the industry is united. The three opposition parties agree that it is the government's strategy that is weak and poorly articulated. The House can feel it, and the Americans can feel it very well too. The government has to show more determination. Its refusal to give the companies loan guarantees is totally incomprehensible.

Will the Minister of International Trade agree that giving loan guarantees would show the Americans that we are determined to support our industry and to fight for it to the very end?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we have been following this issue closely. We have had discussions and held consultations. As the Minister of Industry indicated, we are in the process of developing a program to help workers, communities and the industry.

Office of the Prime Minister

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had the sponsorship scandal, which hurt the taxpayers. We know that Jean Chrétien's lawyers cost the taxpayers over $400,000. Now we learn that the former PM is using the offices of the present PM for personal gain.

Why does the Prime Minister not carry out a proper cleanup of all the questionable practices of his Liberal cronies?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a support system for former prime ministers has been made available for a very long time. That system is what was used in this instance.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

So, Mr. Speaker, former prime ministers are entitled, I guess must be the concept, to continue to use the offices provided by the taxpayers when they are out making money. I do not think Canadians find that acceptable.

What about the so-called ethics plan that was just released? Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the unanimous multi-party recommendations for change? They called for a real cleanup in politics, not just guidelines, which is what we hear in this new plan. We need a real plan with proportional representation and lobbying controls. Where is the real plan?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, here it is and I would be happy to send a copy down to the member.

The reality is that the report he mentioned references three simple recommendations that were drawn from the British Parliament. We have a much stronger and broader model that will lead the world, not follow it.

Forest Industry

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for three and a half years the Canadian forest industry has asked the Liberal government to approve its proposal to allow Export Development Canada to back U.S. imposed softwood lumber tariff payments.

Now the government is saying that it needs more time, as if this is a brand new proposal. If the government really wants to backstop the industry, why does it not approve the proposal?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have said many times, the government is hard at work with its partners to find a durable solution to this matter. The Prime Minister has advanced the cause far further than has been the case in years or even decades.

A number of options are on the table and we are considering them very closely. I can assure the House that we are working very hard on this extremely important issue.

Softwood Lumber

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago it was proposed that EDC guarantee as a receivable the cash deposits that Canadian softwood lumber export companies had to pay to the United States in tariffs.

Is there any explanation as to why the government is now refusing to grant these loan guarantees to the softwood lumber companies that have to unfairly pay the American tariffs?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we know full well that the softwood lumber dispute is causing many problems for the communities. That is why we have already given them over $350 million in aid.

That being said, we promised to look into a few proposals and we are currently doing so. We will have more to report in the very near future.

David Dingwall

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from the introductory comments in the dingwash audit today from the auditor. It states, “We have assumed that the policy reflects the best practices”.

Would these be the best practices that allow the Liberal government to pay David Dingwall over $50,000 in car allowances, to claim for chocolate bars, chips and cokes while being paid over $300,000 in salary and benefits, and to break Treasury Board hospitality guidelines 76% of the time?

Will the Prime Minister admit that only in the Liberal government would this be considered best practices?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member introduced this report because in his recent press conference he said that he had not gone over the audit in great detail, which must be code for the fact that he has not read it beyond the introduction.

Not only does the member opposite make accusations without the information but even when he has the information he does not read it and he continues to make those accusations.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they still have not released over $100,000 worth of Dingwall's receipts.

The question is: what is the government hiding? Why is the Prime Minister always hiding? Today he is hiding behind accountants. Yesterday he was hiding behind lawyers when it came to Dingwall's severance.

For more than a year we have been asking about André Ouellet and he has been hiding behind tax auditors.

What today's audit reveals is one thing and one thing only. The Prime Minister has no control over crony spending in his government.

If the Prime Minister really believes David Dingwall's spending is legitimate, I invite him to finally come out of hiding, stand up and say so.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bogged down in misinformation. Contrary to his statements, all of the information requested was provided to the committee and the government provided more information than was requested.

Contrary to his statement that the terms of reference were not available, it was posted on the Mint site on October 11.

Contrary to his other statements, the firm of Osler confirmed that the processes governing CEO expenses went well beyond what one would expect to find in most private sector corporations. The member should read the facts.

Older Workers

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many businesses have closed their doors in the past few years. What the Bloc Québécois feared and this government would not recognize has happened: thousands of jobs were lost as a result of these closures. Older workers are among those hardest hit because it is difficult for them to find new jobs.

After all the promises made in recent months, is the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in a position today to announce that she is finally going to implement an income support program for older workers?