Debates of Oct. 4th, 2005

Technology Partnerships Canada

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 11 companies have reportedly paid lobbyists commissions for grants obtained under the Technology Partnerships Canada program, a kickback for successfully securing grants, which is prohibited.

My question to the minister is very simple. Could he table before this House the list of companies at fault and the names of the lobbyists, registered or not, involved in this affair?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, if I were the hon. member I would not call it kickbacks outside the House.

The answer is that when we have completed the audits and we have satisfied the requirements of the privacy laws of this country, we will release the information. I promised to release it. I will release it. We will release it when we have the information to release.

In the meantime, we will not be putting companies out of business that are out there transforming our economy and investing in technology. That is not what this government is trying to do.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we refuse to allow the government to strike secret deals behind the scenes with companies at fault in the TPC program affair. We know the name of at least one of these companies: Bioniche. And the lobbyist was David Dingwall.

We want the names of the other 10 companies at fault and the names of the 10 lobbyists who illegally received kickbacks. Who are these people?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we will release the results of those audits when the results of those audits are complete and when we have satisfied the requirements of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

The hon. member knows that we have been very open and will be very open. We will be releasing that information.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the Kyoto protocol and the fuel crisis, the development of wind power is becoming increasingly important. The ceiling on subsidies per province penalizes Quebec, which intends to develop 3,500 mW in the near future.

Does the federal government agree that if it wants to be fair to Quebec, it needs to lift the provincial ceiling immediately and increase its aid per kWh produced?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government certainly does intend to strongly encourage wind power throughout Canada, including in Quebec. Measures will be implemented in order to prevent the problems the member just mentioned.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the green plan in front of me; it fails to mention eliminating this provincial ceiling. The minister knows this.

The federal government spent nearly its entire nuclear energy budget in Ontario. From 1970 to 2002, the federal government spent $72 billion on nuclear energy, coal, natural gas and oil, in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. But it failed to invest a single dime on hydroelectricity in Quebec.

In order not to repeat this injustice in the area of wind power, will the federal government recognize that it needs to amend its program to take into consideration Quebec's proven leadership in this field?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, if any government has shown leadership with regard to wind power, it is the Government of Canada.

However, I want to address the separatist comment we just heard. The Government of Canada has never penalized Quebec in any way whatsoever. I am prepared to debate this at any time.

As for the green plan that the member just referred to, we are going to work very closely with Quebec and all Quebeckers, who have much to offer other Canadians and much to receive from them.

Liberal Government

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the Liberals have been hiding the real cost of their flying limousines from Canadian taxpayers, claiming that the luxury jets cost only $2,000 an hour when in fact these jets cost $11,000 an hour to operate.

On top of that, Liberal ministers have abused their luxury jets dozens of times, spending over $1 million on unnecessary flights, rather than rubbing shoulders with average Canadians on much cheaper commercial aircraft.

Is all of this not just more proof of the culture of Liberal arrogance and waste?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House, let us be reasonable here. The very reason we are discussing this today is that the government is open and transparent about these flights. They are all posted and available to the public. We have nothing to hide whatsoever.

These flights are used for government purposes. There are very few planes available. They are strictly rationed in respect of our needs to get around our country and for our international travel.

When the hon. member suggests that there is something corrupt about the use of these flights, he demeans the House and all members on both sides of the House who have used those flights on many occasions.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are barely coping with higher gasoline prices, the Liberal ministers do not share such mundane concerns. They prefer going from Ottawa to Toronto aboard a luxury jet that costs $11,000 an hour to operate, rather than share a commercial flight with ordinary taxpayers. They also prefer to use their luxury jet to get to Montreal, rather than drive like ordinary folk.

How can the Prime Minister justify such a waste of public funds?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I take commercial flights between Toronto and Ottawa several times a week. Lots of ministers and MPs use commercial flights. We use these aircraft only in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary to do so for the smooth functioning of our government.

Furthermore, as hon. members are well aware, two of them are reserved, one for the Prime Minister and one for the Governor General, since they cannot take commercial aircraft. We ministers use them according to the rules and requirements of good government. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise, as the member is doing.

Justice

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week Ruby Thompson, an 83-year-old lady, was mugged in broad daylight in Toronto. She is a double amputee who was doing her Christmas shopping because it is too cold for her in the winter. She was knocked out of her wheelchair by a 16-year-old and received a broken arm and an injured hip.

Under the Liberal justice system there are no serious consequences for this type of crime. Why is the Prime Minister so out of touch that he will not close the loopholes on these horrific crimes?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. Members might want to restrain themselves so we can hear the answer from the parliamentary secretary.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, violent crime is totally unacceptable. This government has responded through the Youth Criminal Justice Act in ways in which it is capable of providing proportionality in the sentencing process. Those with the most violent crimes are also going to be subject to the most violent penalties. In fact, adult sentences can be applied to those most violent offenders.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government does everything it can for criminals and nothing to protect our law-abiding citizens. It has mobile units giving heroin addicts a free fix, and adult criminals who commit gun crimes can be back out the very next day only to terrorize their victims again.

Why do the Liberals continue to dither on violent crime and why is the government doing nothing to protect vulnerable Canadians like Ruby Thompson?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member had the benefit of hearing my answer. In fact if she had listened, she would have heard that we are very much interested in proportionality in sentencing so that those who do participate in the most violent crime will receive the most severe sentence that we can possibly have brought and deal with them in the appropriate manner.

Health

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto's public health officials are investigating the deaths of four people from a respiratory illness at a seniors residence.

Could the Minister of State for Public Health tell the House if the Public Health Agency of Canada is assisting the Ontario officials in finding an answer to this question?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of State (Public Health)]

Mr. Speaker, the members from Toronto take these infectious disease outbreaks very seriously.

The Ontario public health officials have been investigating it. They have ruled out SARS, avian flu and influenza. Dr. McKeown today feels that the outbreak is winding down. This weekend I was seriously impressed with the tremendous cooperation of Dr. David Butler-Jones, Dr. Sheila Basrur from the province, Dr. McKeown from Toronto, and Dr. Allison McGeer with regard to the infectious disease at Seven Oaks.

Technology Partnerships Canada

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the ethical standards of the government.

Today in the House the Minister of Industry continued to say it is up to the company to retrieve the illegal $350,000 payment that Mr. Dingwall got. The Minister of National Revenue continues to imply that Mr. Dingwall is entitled to some kind of severance pay, which according to the law he is not.

Will the Prime Minister clarify this ethical situation? Does he support these low ethical standards of his ministers, or does he support the people of Canada who believe Mr. Dingwall does not deserve another cent and should repay the $350,000?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, both members have spoken of the law as it is. Both members have spoken about their desire to make sure that the right thing is done. Both members are working very hard.

I take considerable exception to the reference by the hon. member to the low ethical standards of the ministers. I want the member to know that the ethical standards of this cabinet and the ethical standards of this government are the highest and they should not be called into doubt.

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a chance to deliver on his rhetoric now. Does he maintain the highest ethical standards? If so, will he get to his feet and demand publicly that Mr. Dingwall repay the $350,000?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!