Debates of March 10th, 2005

Sponsorship Program

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this question does indeed concern the government, since just today at the Gomery inquiry, Jacques Corriveau of Pluridesign was called to testify. Mr. Corriveau's company is strongly suspected of having been paid via Lafleur Communication in the sponsorship scandal.

We know full well that the Liberal Party owed money directly to Mr. Corriveau after the 1997 election campaign. Why did the minister not mention Jacques Corriveau's name in the Deloitte & Touche report, which was supposed to be used to track the dirty sponsorship money? That is my question.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate to discuss this testimony day after day here in the House of Commons.

However, one thing that is very clear, and to which this government is absolutely committed, is that if partisan funds were received from any of the parties implicated ultimately by Justice Gomery in his final report, those funds will be returned to the people of Canada. That is a promise made and, when Justice Gomery completes his work, that will be a promise kept.

However, we have to allow Justice Gomery to complete his work.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport did indicate, several times, that all the dirty money from the sponsorship scandal would be found and taken out of the Liberal Party coffers.

How can the Prime Minister claim that the dirty money will be paid back when the Deloitte & Touche report that was supposed to identify this money makes no mention of the nine employees at Lafleur Communication who were strongly urged to contribute $1,000 each to the Liberal Party? How can we shed any light with such an incomplete report?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Deloitte & Touche report was based directly on the list provided by the Auditor General of Canada. This should be the most credible and complete list available since it was created from the Auditor General's report.

We cannot prejudge the inquiry and the hon. members opposite should not either. Let us wait for the report. If the money was given improperly, every cent of it will be reimbursed.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 20, 2004, the Minister of Transport, former head of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, and now a member of this House, said in an interview with La Presse that Deloitte & Touche had been given “a very broad mandate” to track the sponsorship money.

How could the Minister of Transport make such a statement at that time when, in reality, the mandate was extremely narrow and there was no possibility whatsoever of identifying the bulk of the contributors involved in the sponsorship scandal?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member reaches his conclusions. We took the Auditor General of Canada's report, and used it to draw up a list of all the names mentioned, company names and all their directors. We took the most complete list we had and that list came from the Auditor General.

Moreover, we cannot be asked to take over the job of the Gomery Inquiry. It was put in place to find out the whole truth. Its list will become ours, and if there is any causal connection between donations and Liberal Party activities, every cent of it will be paid back. Nothing could be clearer than that.

Health

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has asked consistently why the Liberals have allowed credit card hospitals to open in Alberta, credit card surgery to expand in B.C. and Quebec, and credit card MRIs to expand in Nova Scotia. Every time the Liberals' response has been that they support the Canada Health Act.

Yesterday was different. Yesterday the minister admitted that the act did not stop privatization, just as we have been saying all along.

If the act does not stop credit card medicine, why have the Liberals pretended for so many years and to the public that it does?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we will be providing $41 billion to the provinces over the next 10 years to stem the tide of privatization. They can put that money into the public health care system.

I have said very clearly that we support the public health care system. We support public delivery of health care services across this country. Our preference is not privatization.

I also said that the practice of opting out has existed from the time of Tommy Douglas and that it is outside the ambit of the act.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona said that to the press some months ago. It is clearly on the record. I agree with--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Why has this minister been pretending to the Canadian public that the Canada Health Act does prevent privatization? Why is he allowing those funds to go out with no accountability and without stopping privatization?

Why is it that the Liberals pretend in an election that they are there to support public health care and yet in government they are prepared to stand by and watch people whip out their credit cards instead of their health care cards to pay for health care?

Does the minister just lack the gumption to enforce the act and stop privatization or is he just content to see another promise broken by his government?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have said it so many times that I guess it bears repeating. We stand for public health care and for public delivery, which is our preference, and we stand for enforcing the Canada Health Act.

My officials are in dialogue with the provinces. Yes, we absolutely do want to enforce the Canada Health Act.

Agriculture

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have once again shown their anti-American bias while the U.S. border remains closed to our Canadian cattle and livestock. This strategy is like poking someone in the eye and then asking them for a favour.

If the Prime Minister were truly serious about American border issues he would be more outraged about this than we are.

Could the Prime Minister explain how his government's policy of “embarrassing the hell out of the Americans” will help reopen the U.S. border to our Canadian livestock?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite were truly serious about getting the border open and working with the Minister of Agriculture they would not be standing in this House day after day criticizing what the government is doing.

This government is doing everything possible. The opposition would be better served if it took a proactive approach instead of a negative approach.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to embarrass the Americans, the Prime Minister should stop embarrassing himself and our country.

The Prime Minister's hand-picked personal representative for Canada-U.S. relations has once again shown the government's disrespect for our southern neighbours. This brazen disregard further jeopardizes the future of our already beleaguered livestock producers.

When will the Prime Minister repair the damage done, demonstrate that he is serious about Canada-U.S. relations and fire his parliamentary secretary?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the opposition calls far more the attention of Washington with that comment than the comment itself generated. The opposition is really not helping the beef producers in the west.

This government is working hard with the Americans to reopen the border to softwood lumber and to beef. We are working hard with them in building in Afghanistan and the reconstruction of Iraq. We are working together in Haiti. We are also working with the Mexicans in building a stronger North America, while those people just do not--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, I have news for the foreign affairs minister. The committee meeting, which the hand-picked Parliamentary Secretary for the Prime Minister attended, was a closely watched committee meeting in this place by the stakeholders in the softwood dispute between Canada and the U.S. She could not have picked a worse moment. What an embarrassment and what a liability for Canada.

Canadian cash deposits in the softwood lumber dispute are nearing $5 billion and her reckless anti-American comments represent a major setback.

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of International Trade may want to respond to the comment.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am totally incredulous that the hon. member talked about a major setback on the softwood lumber issue.

My goodness, just this week we were able to get the unanimous consent of all of the provinces and the three territories for an initial proposal on the softwood lumber dispute in order to bring it to a resolution. What is even better, preliminary indications from the U.S. are that this is constructive and could lead to a good outcome.

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

That is pretty shallow stuff, Mr. Speaker.

The U.S. Congress is looking for any excuse to erode the NAFTA dispute resolution process on softwood lumber. Experts warned about this at the very meeting where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister made her ill-advised comments. She has done great damage to Canada's national interest in a meeting closely watched.

When will the Prime Minister fire his hand-picked parliamentary secretary?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the dispute resolution provisions of the NAFTA, chapter 19.

Everyone on this side of the House, including the Prime Minister, recognizes that we have to bring finality to these disputes under the NAFTA. All of us are working constructively with the United States in order to look at new ways to achieve that. This was agreed to at the highest level. We will continue to be constructive.

CSL Shipping

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

Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace is protesting the fact that a ship belonging to the Prime Minister's family firm, Canada Steamship Lines, was headed for India to be demolished, without Canada having indicated that it contained hazardous materials, contrary to the requirements of the Basel Convention of which it is a signatory.

How can the Minister of the Environment explain that he did not fulfill his Basel Convention responsibilities in connection with this CSL ship?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I must point out that Transport Canada inspectors had indeed examined the vessel and all international standards, all international requirements, were met at the time of its departure.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to two sources, including one at the port of Montreal, that is incorrect.

CSL sold the ship to a shipowner and it went straight to demolition. However, this ship itself is highly contaminated and constitutes hazardous waste.

Why did the Canadian government not inform the Government of India, as it had the duty to do? Is the Government of Canada not giving the impression that it is helping Canada Steamship Lines, the company owned by the family of the Prime Minister, pull a fast one?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, if I were cheap, I would do what the hon. member is doing and try to make connections to the family like that. It takes someone cheap to do that.

The truth is we are all working together, the Government of Canada, Transport Canada and Environment Canada, to establish better international standards for decommissioned ships. Everyone is working for a better environment and we certainly have nothing to learn from the Bloc Québécois.