House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was development.
Belinda Stronach Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, if truth be told, the Americans are ignoring their own laws and NAFTA rules. The trade priority of the government must be to resolve the irritants because the rest is just two-stepping around the problem.
Does the minister's absence and the Prime Minister's failure to discuss BSE and softwood not prove that the minister has no influence with President Bush?
Jim Peterson LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member could not be further from the truth. In every single meeting that the Prime Minister has had with the President over the past year and couple of months, the issue of BSE and the issue of softwood lumber have been at the top of the agenda.
Yes, we have these ongoing disputes, but we are doing something about them. The opposition has not given one constructive suggestion.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC
Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 2004, the Minister of Transport stated, and I quote, “We have no intention of campaigning with tainted money”. However, the Liberal Party did exactly that. In fact, even though the Gomery commission's revelations are disturbing, as that same minister admits, to date, not one cent has been repaid.
To prevent the Liberal Party from running a fourth campaign with dirty money, could the Liberal government at least have the foresight to ask its party to establish a dirty money trust fund?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, as have the minister, the government and the party: if the party received funds from agencies or individuals your found guilty, the party has volunteered to repay taxpayers.
However, this is not possible until all the facts are known. Therefore, we must wait for Justice Gomery's report.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that they continue to live with this dirty money. Agencies stuffed their pockets with it; there is ample evidence of this. In fact, the government is taking them to court. The Liberal Party lined its coffers with it. There is just as much evidence of this too, but the Liberal government is protecting its party.
Could the government at least have the decency to ask the Liberal Party to put the dirty money into a special account, as the Minister of Transport said in March 2004. Instead of doing nothing, could it not create a trust fund to ensure that the money is there and that another campaign will not be run using dirty money?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, civil proceedings have already been launched to recover funds. However, the courts have not yet ruled, and Justice Gomery has not yet tabled his report. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the party will act, but only in full knowledge of all the facts.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, the matter of the numerous individuals who received cheques from Commando Communication Marketing is so serious that one of these individuals had to resign from the cabinet of Jean Charest, in Quebec City, and others did not deny anything. That does not appear to be enough for the Liberal Party.
If these revelations are troubling, as he said, what is the Minister of Transport waiting for to put the sponsorship money received by the Liberal Party of Canada into a trust?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again the transport minister has been clear, the Prime Minister has been clear, the government has been clear, and the party has been clear that in fact, any funds will be returned to the treasury, if they are proven to have been received inappropriately. However, we cannot do that unless we have all the facts.
The fact is that the Prime Minister deserves tremendous credit for having established Justice Gomery's inquiry to do exactly that, to get the facts and to make a difference so that we can make the proper decisions on a go forward basis.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us look at some cold, hard numbers. The Liberal Party of Canada received $270,000 from Groupaction and Gosselin Communication, plus $100,000 from Lafleur, $43,000 from Jacques Corriveau, $173,000 from IDA-Everest and $30,000 from Coffin. To date, in excess of $600,000 has been identified and has ended up in the coffers of the Liberal Party.
Does the minister not find this troubling enough—troubling was his word—to put this money into a trust?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from today's National Post editorial in reference to the party paying the treasury funds deemed inappropriate:
That may not require a separate lawsuit, as the opposition called for this week, if the party willingly returns however much money it obtained inappropriately.
That is exactly what we have been saying all along. The party has said clearly that it will voluntarily return any funds deemed inappropriate, once we have all the facts and once Justice Gomery has submitted his report.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of the hidden agenda of the Liberal government vis-à-vis deep integration with the United States.
We learned virtually nothing from the press conference today by the Prime Minister. Everything is just as hidden as it was going in.
The fact of the matter is that Canadians do not want deep integration. They do not want to race to the bottom along the Wal-Mart way of George Bush with lower wages and lower environmental standards.
Why will the Liberals not tell the Canadian people what their agenda is: cheap labour from Mexico, Canadian oil and sovereignty be damned? Explain that one.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of explaining it because the hon. gentleman is just flat wrong.
What the countries of North America are seeking to achieve is greater security for the continent, greater prosperity for all of our citizens, a better quality of life for Canadians, and the bottom line for Canada is absolute Canadian sovereignty.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is funny because that is exactly what the Liberals said about star wars missile defence. The NDP was right that time and we are right again.
Canadians do not want George Bush's deep integration plan. The Liberals are signing deals now with George Bush, a free ride for the auto sector.
The Liberals are refusing to take action on Devils Lake. Why has the Prime Minister come back empty-handed from discussions in the U.S. when it comes to the Devils Lake program polluting Manitoba ecosystems?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we have raised this issue many times and will raise it again. Devils Lake is a very important issue, not only for Manitoba but for the country and for many states in the United States.
I wish that the leader of the NDP would work with us on this national issue that should be above partisan posturing.
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, due to mismanagement by the Liberal government the BSE crisis is approaching its second anniversary.
Canadians devastated by the U.S. border closure have been looking for leadership and positive action from the government. What they are getting instead is a prolonged crisis due to the government's choice of arrogance over statesmanship.
Canada's weakened position with our closest and largest trading partner is creating an ever expanding circle of hardship. How can Canadians possibly expect to see an end to trade irritants when the government's own actions have eroded its ability to effect change?
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, that would be an interesting observation if it did not totally forget about the facts.
The reality is on the issue of BSE, Canada and the United States have exactly the same position, that the border should be opened, that it should be opened based on science, and that the Canadian regulatory regime protects animal and public health. Both the American government and the Canadian government agree that the border should be open. We are working collectively to deal with the legal impediments that were put forward by one judge in one state.
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, if BSE were a priority to the government, that minister would have been in Texas today.
Canadians are tired of empty promises. They have heard far too much talk while deadline after deadline for an open border expires.
While the Prime Minister stated there would be ample opportunity to discuss the BSE crisis with President Bush today, cattle were not even on the agenda.
When is the government going to realize that it is not embarrassing the hell out of the Americans, it is scaring the hell out of Canadian producers?
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, maybe it is left over from the Conservatives' convention on the weekend when they were busily on TV, but on this side of the House we are far more interested in making substantive progress than in having photo ops somewhere.
Quite frankly, the work we have done with the United States government has assisted us in having both countries look at this item in the same way.
More important, the government has provided $1.9 billion of support for the beef and cattle industry. We will continue to stand behind that industry as we move forward.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, in 2004 thousands of vehicles entered Canada without reporting to customs. In one three-week period, 17 vehicles blew through a major border crossing in Quebec. Quite obviously, law-abiding citizens were not behind the wheels of those vehicles.
Despite these statistics the Liberal government insists on shutting down border RCMP detachments in Quebec. My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Why?
Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP said again very clearly at committee that this will improve and enhance the safety and security of Quebeckers and Canadians.
The reason is that the RCMP is able to get a critical mass of its officers so it can target terrorism and the enforcement of drug violations. This is an operational decision of the RCMP. It is a very wise one, we were told again yesterday.
Our government is investing in our borders. We are going to build capacity as we go forward.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, concerned front line RCMP officers, in direct contradiction of the commissioner of the RCMP, insist that the closure of these detachments will result in more criminals crossing the border into Canada illegally.
Will the minister prevent the closure of the nine RCMP detachments along the U.S. border in Quebec as recommended by the justice committee and front line officers and allow the RCMP to simply do its job?
Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must have been at a different committee meeting than I was yesterday. The commissioner of the RCMP, Commissioner Zaccardelli, said very clearly that this consolidation of RCMP resources in the province of Quebec is going to increase the security and safety of Canadians and Quebeckers.
I should point out that the commissioner is obliged under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act for the effective and efficient enforcement of the laws and the administration of the force. This is an operational decision of the RCMP that will enhance the security of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic to learn that the Canadian border has become a real sieve, as the Prime Minister is this very day meeting with presidents Bush and Fox and this matter will be at the heart of their discussions.
How will the Prime Minister be able to justify to his counterparts that the best decision to ensure a safe border is to cut manpower by closing down nine RCMP detachments?
Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I have already said this on a number of occasions in this House.
This is not a reduction of the capability of the RCMP in Quebec. In fact, there is no reduction in the head count whatsoever. To put it in context, 71 million people were processed by the Canada Border Services Agency at land border ports of entry last year.
Since 9/11 this government has invested $9 billion for the security and safety of Canadians. As I said earlier, in budget 2005 close to half a billion dollars has been invested in the Canada Border Services Agency.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, not only have they closed down nine detachments, but the customs officers themselves are saying that they lack the resources to do their job and as a result thousands of cars cross the border illegally and unquestioned.
How will the Prime Minister justify to his counterparts the contribution these decisions have made to turning the border into a veritable sieve?