House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the federal government make a commitment that, should there be any transfers for post-secondary education, Quebec will be able to use this money for education as its priorities dictate and with no strings attached?
John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada transfers something in the order of about $7 billion in post-secondary education to students and to provinces. There is a division there. There is a significant sum that is transferred directly to the students and therefore does not go through the provinces. The other component is transferred to the provinces. Therefore, I do not see the concern that the hon. member expresses.
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, over the last 13 months Revenue Canada has completed over 330,000 audits on ordinary Canadians, but on André Ouellet, none. Today the revenue minister trumpeted a taxpayer alert initiative to ensure “a level playing field for all taxpayers”. How ironic.
How level is the field when former Liberal pork master general Ouellet pays himself $2 million in lavish expenses, does not provide receipts and after 13 months still has not been audited? I would like the minister to tell the House and Canadians what other non-Liberal Canadian gets a deal like that.
John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the hon. member persists in asking me to break the law when it is clearly against the law for me to comment on the audit of Mr. Ouellet. As I have told him before, to do so I would be breaking the law and may end up in jail. Now--
Canada PostOral Questions
The Speaker
No, the minister will not be alone; I can tell there is a lot of enthusiasm. The hon. Minister of National Revenue has the floor and we will want to hear the rest of his response.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, other than the obvious possibility that they are so desperate to have one less vote on this side, and they would like that outcome, my preferred explanation is that they are clearly disdainful of the charter of rights, and that extends to the rule of law in general.
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is public money and it should be a public audit. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister seems to agree that Liberals are entitled to their entitlements, including Ouellet. He continues to reward Liberals by appointing old cronies to the Senate or ambassadorial positions.
Now he wants to reward David Dingwall with a severance package. It is unbelievable. In the wake of the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister pretends to punish Liberals by revoking their party memberships. That is actually a reward, I think, to most Canadians. Will the Prime Minister finally drop the idea of cutting a severance cheque to David Dingwall?
John McCallum LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, having answered that question many times, I will return to the first question about the new Canada Revenue Agency taxpayer alert. I was glad to have the opportunity to explain this to Canadians this morning. One example is that there are many scams out there for RRSPs and if people are told they can get out of their RRSPs tax free, they should look into it. If people think it is too good to be true, it probably is. This is the kind of information the government is providing to the Canadian taxpayer.
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB
Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Quebec wing of the federal Liberals endorsed private health care. The motion states that “prohibiting private health insurance has not proven to be an infallible means of protecting public health” and that private health insurance for core services should be allowed.
The federal Liberals are the first and only party to endorse such a measure. This demonstrates Liberal hypocrisy. Will the minister agree that the Liberals are promoting a hidden health care agenda?
Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we stand for strengthened public health care. We want to make sure that we end double-dipping by doctors. We want to make sure that we actually put a stop to privatization. In fact, it is ironic that this is coming from the privatizers on the other side, whose current leader has always wanted to gut the Canada Health Act and end the role of Health Canada in health care in Canada.
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party passed a resolution to allow more room for the private sector in the health system.
Will the Minister of Health attack and condemn the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, or will he finally admit that the Liberal party has a hidden agenda in favour of private health care, like the Prime Minister uses?
Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, that is certainly not the policy of the government. The fact is that it is the policy of the opposition, on the other hand, and its members have been saying for years that they want to end the role of the Canada Health Act in health care. They want to end the federal role in health care. They actually want to have nothing to do with public health care and privatize it all.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Constituents of Etobicoke Centre are extremely concerned about escalating gun violence. In meetings with youth in at risk neighbourhoods, I have learned that many young men on the edge scoff at the existing penalties. Their neighbours fear cooperating with authorities because, even if caught, these young men with guns are back in their midst in no time.
The minister met with his provincial counterparts. Could he tell us what he is doing to increase penalties for gun crimes, including mandatory minimum sentences?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I met with my provincial and territorial counterparts and we agreed upon a three pronged package: first, a set of legislative measures that would include new offences, as well as enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for existing offences; second, more effective law enforcement through coordinated prosecutorial and investigative approaches with provincial and territorial attorneys general; and, third, a set of preventative and community initiatives to address the root causes of crime, as well as crime itself.
Bill Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why, contrary to what he said outside the House just before question period began, he is deliberately endangering everything that this Parliament could do between now and the Christmas break by insisting that the only choices available are either a non-confidence motion or his own timetable, that is to say, the timetable of the Liberal Party?
Why is he not prepared to accept a compromise that would enable this Parliament to do what it needs to do?
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear and consistent since he made his commitment to Canadians last spring. He committed to an election call within 30 days of Mr. Justice Gomery's second report. Canadians deserve all the facts and they deserve to have their say on the basis of those facts.
What the opposition is suggesting is not a compromise. What they are suggesting is that they should be able to vote non-confidence in the government today and only have the consequences of that vote in January. All hon. members know we are operating in a parliamentary democracy that operates on a principle that a government must have the confidence of Parliament.
Bill Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, one of the other principles of Parliament is that the government should respect the will of Parliament, especially in a minority situation.
If the Prime Minister has the right to say when the election should be, Parliament has the right to say when the election should be and we all have the right to say when the election should be by mutual consent.
There is somebody who says that he is against the democratic deficit. Have him stand and say why he would reject the will of Parliament and put the interest of his own party first.
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is the opposition parties that are operating according to their own partisan interest. They are not operating in the public interest.
Two-thirds of Canadians have said that they want to wait for Justice Gomery's second report. If the opposition parties decide to put a confidence motion on the floor of this House of Commons and that confidence motion passes, we would have an election call and it would be the opposition parties that would shoulder 100% of that responsibility.
James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that energy payments for low income Canadians have not been a priority for this government. In fact, the government has postponed debate on the bill that would authorize these payments, Bill C-66, three times over the past month. This is a bill that has had majority support of the House since it was introduced.
Will the Prime Minister admit today that he did not give a second thought to low income Canadians in their struggle to pay their bills until he was threatened with an election?
John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 has been on the order paper for a number of weeks now and has been debated in the normal course. The only thing that has changed in the payments to the guaranteed income supplement, the national child benefit and money for public transit is that in the break week the opposition parties decided to get together and postpone the orderly passage of legislation.
James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that not one cabinet minister has made a speech in this House on the issue of energy payments to low income Canadians. In addition, the three opposition parties are willing to pass the bill. The bill being put forward by the government has been pulled again today to put forward legislation dealing with animals, an issue we have debated thousands of times already.
The fact is that a majority of MPs have supported the legislation from the beginning and it has been pulled by the government not by the opposition. Why is the Prime Minister using that as a false excuse to not have an election?
John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, this bill is debated in an ordinary course in the time that has been allotted to it and available to us.
It is my recollection that when I left the House just before the break week, the House was being filibustered by that party over there. When I turned on the television this morning it was still being filibustered. We cannot proceed with government business, including Bill C-66 and the payments that would flow from Bill C-66, as long as the opposition parties decide to filibuster this Parliament.