House of Commons Hansard #54 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was about Wal-Mart.
I will repeat again that there is no way the Government of Canada will build a Kyoto plan that will put Canada in a situation to buy hot air. This will not happen. If we have to trade abroad, it will be for greening credits. This is very clear.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, finally we are starting to get at the truth. We have been poking at this one for a long time. It is interesting that Point Carbon, which is the world's foremost authority magazine, expert in this field, says that Canada is going to spend $1.4 billion buying air in other countries. That is not going to clean up the air here in Canada that people are choking on right now.
Why are we getting this information from a European magazine instead of the government?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where those members find their information. It is news to me, but I may tell the hon. member that I will be very pleased to discuss the Kyoto plan that we are reviewing, when we have it.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, today we have more evidence of kickbacks to the Liberal Party from ad scam. Liberal activist Alain Renaud brokered millions to Groupaction. Renaud profited handsomely from his Liberal connections. In 1998 he donated over $60,000 back to the Liberal Party, its seventh largest donor.
So the sponsorship program was really a revolving door for cash: taxes from working Canadians, contracts to Liberal donors and back around to the Liberal Party. Is that not the real truth?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the real truth is that the opposition continues to make errors by doing what the hon. member just did in the House of Commons, by commenting on selective testimony or evidence without the whole picture. The only way we are going to have the whole picture is to wait for Justice Gomery to report back.
As I said earlier, the commission chair submitted evidence earlier today correcting testimony that was presented on Tuesday, testimony that the Conservatives used on the floor of the House of Commons and presented as truth on Tuesday. They should withdraw, in fact, their assertions on that before they start making new ones.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, actually these facts did not come out at the Gomery inquiry. They are additional facts.
It is telling how often the word “Liberal” appears in this latest cash for contracts story: Liberal Party, Liberal volunteer, Liberal friendly ad agencies, Liberal ties, donation of $63,858 to the Liberals.
The sponsorship program has been exposed over and over as a Liberal shell game with the public's money. How can the Liberals continue to defend this betrayal of Canadians?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives continue their continued betrayal of Justice Gomery?
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the current Prime Minister was the finance minister and was campaigning very hard to be the leader of the Liberal Party.
According to a 1995 memo, the finance department directed half of a $600,000 advertising contract to an Earnscliffe company even though Earnscliffe actually lost the bid. Coincidentally, the finance minister's chief of staff, Terrie O'Leary, was also the common-law partner of David Hurle, one of the principals at Earnscliffe and a key leadership campaign adviser to the finance minister.
Is this not proof that changing prime ministers just meant changing the flavour of Liberal rot in the PMO?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, this is old news. I have answered the question before. The awarding of the contract in question was consistent with the rules that were in place. I understand that this matter was dealt with entirely by officials of finance and public works. There was a legitimate difference of opinion based on the principle of low price versus the principle of better value. Our government has made major changes in terms of advertising and public opinion research, but the fact is, the Auditor General has said that we are in fact managing public opinion research and advertising well.
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty shaky answer, I would say. The truth is that the inbreeding between Earnscliffe and finance was like something out of the Ozarks. The only thing missing was the straw hats.
It was clearly inappropriate to update Terrie O'Leary on the contract discussions that affected Earnscliffe. Even worse, can the government not see that it is a massive ethical breach to break the contracting rules just to reward the PM's friends at Earnscliffe?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again, let me remind the House of what the Auditor General said in her 2004 report. She stated that, overall, public opinion research was managed transparently, with roles and responsibilities clearly defined. She went on to state that her audit found that public opinion research was well managed by the government.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 enacts the agreements reached last September on health. We have realized, however, that in its current form, this bill does not respect the specific agreement reached with Quebec on September 15, which recognized Quebec's full jurisdiction and full control over health.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs prepared to commit to integrating this specific agreement with Quebec into all the clauses in Bill C-39, and not limiting its effect to the lone clause on parliamentary review?
John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 references the communiqués that the hon. member is concerned about. By referencing the communiqués, it therefore incorporates those communiqués into the legislation itself. That in effect addresses the hon. member's concerns.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, greater clarity is needed here. The government had indicated to us that it would be prepared to accept an amendment to Bill C-39, so that the specific agreement with Quebec on health, reached last September, amends the entire bill and not just the clause on parliamentary review, as is currently the case.
Could the minister tell us clearly, simply and publicly if she intends to ensure that the agreement reached with Quebec on health is integrated, yes or no?
John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as we know, those communiqués were in fact tabled here in the House this week. As well, they are referenced in the bill itself. As I say, the concerns of the hon. member are ones that I think are ill-founded.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, this morning's papers hint that the federal government has finally decided not to participate in the American missile defence shield project.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in this matter, the government intends to take the same position it ultimately adopted with respect to the war in Iraq, and tell us there is no question of participating in the American missile defence shield project?
Keith Martin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the member that the government's decision said that we will, if asked by our partners, train Iraqi troops outside Iraq, but the government and the Prime Minister have made it very clear that we are not sending our troops into Iraq.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has given me the wrong answer, because I asked him a question about the missile defence shield. I will try again with another question. I hope this time he will give me an answer related to the missile defence shield.
This government has made a commitment to consult the House on this subject. The Prime Minister is going to meet President Bush at a NATO meeting in less than two weeks.
Can he promise that the House will vote on this issue and do so before he announces the Canadian position at his meeting with President Bush?
Keith Martin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear. We have said this time and time again. The Prime Minister has said this, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said this, and the Minister of Defence has said this too. All of them have said that in the House it will come to a vote on the issue of the ballistic defence shield, but we have also made it very clear that as a government we are not going to participate in the weaponization of space. I hope the member understands that very clearly, because we have repeated it in the House a hundred times.
Rahim Jaffer Conservative Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, Serge Savard, who raised a million dollars for the Prime Minister, received over $250,000 in sponsorships. Why? Because the finance minister's office called Mr. Gagliano and insisted that this money be given to him.
Why does the Prime Minister not rise and acknowledge his role with Serge Savard?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is commenting on items that fall within the mandate of the Gomery commission. The Conservative Party has status before the Gomery commission. If he wants through legal counsel to intervene that would be the appropriate place to do so.
It is not appropriate to try to operate a parallel public inquiry here on the floor of the House of Commons when in fact the effect of that is to make mistakes on an almost daily basis that end up actually compromising the work of Justice Gomery.
Rahim Jaffer Conservative Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is tough to take anything the minister says seriously. Let me quote something he said in the past: “Canada needs an alternative to tired, corrupt, intellectually bankrupt Liberal government...”. This is the minister who not even so long ago was saying that. Now he defends the same corruption that he used to attack.
Today at the inquiry the Prime Minister took no responsibility for his role in funnelling a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money to Serge Savard, his fundraiser friend. The Prime Minister is testifying that he saw no evil, heard no evil and did no evil. How can he claim ignorance when he was directly involved in awarding a quarter of a million dollar contract?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, that is pretty audacious for the hon. member to say. Let us talk about corruption. I can say one thing about the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party would not have, as its deputy leader, someone who cannot keep his word on a written agreement, somebody whose signature is not worth the paper it is written on. The Liberal Party would not tolerate that and I do not think the Liberal Party would tolerate somebody who would have a staff member impersonate them on a radio show while they were serving coffee in their coffee shop either.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, according to the former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Hal Jackman, the Liberal Party has as a minister a man who is “a disgrace to our political system” and “a sleaze of the worst order”.
The Prime Minister pretends in public that he was outraged with Liberal corruption, but yesterday in private he snickered about it, saying that he was proud of Jean Chrétien's contemptuous performance at the commission and that he agreed with virtually every single word. Why is it that the Prime Minister sings one tune of outrage about Liberal corruption in public but applauds it in the secrecy of the caucus room?
Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate this one more time. This Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about his commitment to transparency and accountability. He put the Gomery commission in place. He indicated he wanted that commission to do its work. That is why he is there today, answering questions in a candid, frank and straightforward fashion. I would ask that the hon. members of the opposition actually let Mr. Justice Gomery do his work.