Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I honestly find that the most amazing question. It was this Prime Minister and it was this government that decided to cancel the sponsorship program and put in place the Gomery inquiry so that all Canadians could know what happened. It was this Prime Minister who determined that we should pursue civilly a large number of people to get back dollars that were taken from the Canadian taxpayer.

That is not a culture of entitlement. That is a culture of responsibility.

David Dingwall

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

Mr. Speaker, let us learn, then, from Justice Gomery's work. How about reading page 284? There the judge states that David Dingwall called Chuck Guité into his office, introduced him to Jacques Corriveau and stated “look after him”. Guité followed Dingwall's instructions and Corriveau went on to receive $35 million in sponsorship grants and delivered kickbacks to the Liberal Party.

Now that Justice Gomery has so clearly linked David Dingwall to Corriveau, does the Prime Minister still insist on paying him severance?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the case of Mr. Dingwall is in discussion with lawyers. It is a legal matter, with questions of possible legal obligations, and the Prime Minister has issued instructions that the government pay the minimum amount required by law.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly hard to take the erratic responses of the minister very seriously. After all, they come from a man who was confused enough not to know the difference between Vimy and Vichy, who believes that Saskatoon is a suburb of Portage la Prairie, and who believes that Dingwall should be rewarded and whistleblower Allan Cutler should be punished. He seems befuddled, Mr. Speaker.

Here is a friendly little question for the minister. Will he guarantee that the André Ouellet audit will be made public?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member's behaviour might be characterized as bizarre, I think that one at least has to have a grudging respect for his bulldog tenacity. I would suggest to him that he might apologize for his misinformation on the matter, for example, of Mr. Dingwall--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Minister of National Revenue has the floor. We must be able to hear his answer.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that if the hon. member is welcome over there, they are certainly welcome to him.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a horrific news story out of Winnipeg reports the discovery of a prostitution house involving 20 children as young as 12 years old.

While prostitution involving children is already illegal, is it any wonder that criminals feel free to engage in this activity when the Supreme Court of Canada last month upheld a sentence of house arrest for the rape of a 12 year old girl? What is the minister doing to ensure that a conviction for serious sexual assault never results in house arrest?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the legislation we introduced with regard to the reform of conditional sentences would preclude the application for instances of sexual assault.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, vulnerable children deserve the protection of the law and yet this minister continues to defend laws that provide for house arrest. It allows adults to escape conviction for having sex with a child between 12 and 13 years old when they think the person is 14 years old.

While prostitution with children is illegal, when will the minister finally understand that all young children should be protected from sexual predators and raise the age of sexual consent to 16?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member opposite that any practice with regard to sexual assault on the most vulnerable, young children, is the most pernicious and predatory practice, but I would ask him to read the Criminal Code, where he will find that the age of consent for child prostitution is 18 years of age and not, as he said, 12 years of age.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, Minister Mulcair pointed out that the harsh reality is that Ottawa will be allowing Alberta to increase its greenhouse gas emissions until 2010, and that Quebec will have to pay for Alberta by reducing its emissions even more, this for a province that has no deficit and no debt, and that will generate a net profit of some $8 billion to $10 billion in a year.

The plan proposed by the Minister of the Environment is unfair to Quebec. How can this minister, who is from Quebec, justify working against the interests of his own province?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am working to reconcile our lifestyle with our planet's capacity. Canada will do its part, and so will Quebec within Canada. This is what Quebeckers want.

Of course, Quebec's contribution will not be as noticeable as that of some of the other provinces, because Quebec needs to eliminate fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases. Indeed, only three of the regulated 45 megatonnes for large final emitters will have to be eliminated in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, the federal government committed $538 million for climate change in Ontario. Considering the past efforts made by Quebec, Minister Mulcair is demanding at least a fair share of the money that the federal government earmarked for climate change.

Why is the Minister of the Environment so uncompromising, and why does he refuse to give Quebec, in all fairness, a fair share that would take into account the past efforts made by our province?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first, the plan is fair to all provinces, and it will become even fairer.

Second, in order to achieve that fairness, I will not negotiate publicly through the media and, third, I will definitely not do so by using the Bloc Québécois as an intermediate, because the Bloc Québécois is a useless intermediate which always distorts the facts.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government's bogus consultation on Ottawa's Green Plan are going nowhere. This government committed to objectives without a clear plan in place.

As the former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of the Environment should have known that no plan can be imposed on the provinces without prior consultation. Why is he intent on dictating to the provinces the way to go and imposing unachievable objectives on them?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that we are working very closely with the provinces and that we will be able very shortly to announce excellent initiatives in the various provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I will remind him that climate change is a very important cause. It would be helpful that he speak to his own party and that they themselves agree that climate change is an urgent problem and that adhering to Kyoto is the right thing to do for Canada.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of our party not understanding that climate change is a problem, the Kyoto strategy is totally in shambles.

The environment minister is fighting with his counterparts in Quebec and Alberta about compliance. Mr. Tony Blair this week told him to his face that in fact he is very uneasy about the hard targets that have been set. Now he is going to host the world while our CO

2

emissions skyrocket and he fiddles without a workable plan.

When will the minister admit to Canadians that in fact it is impossible for Canada--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly possible because Canadians are able to do great things when they work together. Albertans, Quebeckers and other Canadians will work together to ensure that Canada does its share for the planet because Canadians are good citizens of the world and we will show it to this party.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today one of the daily newspapers is defending the prudent use of the CMHC surplus by the Minister of Labour and Housing, who is responsible for that corporation.

According to the editorial, the Bloc Québécois member “is barking up the wrong tree when he says he is worried that CMHC surplus funds may have been put to purposes other than housing. There is nothing that says the profits generated by CMHC activities have to be ploughed back into housing subsidies”.

Can the minister remind the House of CMHC's legitimate business mission?

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for her support in housing. Let me tell the House and I know it is shared by all Canadians that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a success story.

For over 60 years, it has made it possible, starting with veterans, to buy a home. Our program, which is not a subsidized program and operates on a commercial basis, has made it possible for over millions and millions of Canadians to own their first home.That in fact is at record highs.

Home ownership is an ideal that we want all people to attain. We are determined to do that. The Bloc never gets it. This is not a subsidized--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for York--Simcoe.

Airports

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the transport minister wants Toronto's airport to pay rent of $144 million, which is two-thirds of all the airport rent in Canada. In contrast, competing U.S. airports actually receive millions of dollars from the government.

This discriminatory stealth tax threatens to force airlines to move, flying out of New York, Detroit or as the minister said, he prefers Montreal instead of Toronto. The cost will be huge with higher ticket prices, less choice for Canadian travellers, lost tourism and trade, and harm to the economy.

When will the government stop its hidden airport tax shakedown and treat Toronto residents--