Debates of April 13th, 2005

Liberal Party of Canada

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, then why will he not denounce those comments of that special counsel?

This week a senior Liberal organizer in Manitoba, Chief Terrance Nelson of the Roseau River Indian reserve stated that the David Ahenakew hate trial in Saskatoon was the fault of “Jewish controlled media”, naming specifically the Asper family of Winnipeg. Days have passed and the Prime Minister has said nothing to denounce these racist, anti-Semitic remarks by a member, worker and organizer in his party.

Why does the Prime Minister remain silent when a senior Liberal makes these comments about--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the situation the hon. member refers to is a tragic one, one which is before the courts and it should not be exploited by the hon. member.

Health

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, health care is the number one issue for many Canadians from coast to coast. It is the number one priority for the Liberal government and the Prime Minister.

However, it seems that the Conservative Party cannot get it straight. Just this morning Canadians heard the Harris-Manning proposal to eliminate the federal role in health care management and financing, thus opening up the doors to private delivery across the country.

Could the Minister of Health please tell the House about this very dangerous proposal?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Harris-Manning proposal for health care would kill the Canada Health Act, would check people's wallets before checking their pulses, and would force people into credit card medicine. The Leader of the Opposition remains silent while icons of his party call the Canada Health Act the dusty old rule book and ask for privatization of health care, which we would never let happen in Canada.

The Environment

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he has the moral authority to speak out on issues. I want to say to him that when the Leader of the Opposition asks a question about corruption and he replies with a question to the Leader of the Opposition about health care, he completely undermines the office of the Prime Minister. He should check the moral authority.

When I left politics 15 years ago, the Prime Minister was talking about the need to deal with climate change. When I returned a year ago, he was still talking about the need to deal with climate change. Today we have a program that ignores the promise.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised. I would expect the member, who is a parliamentarian of great experience and a member who has defended the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act, to understand that I will miss no occasion to defend the Canada Health Act. I will defend it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. I will certainly not stand here and listen to the Leader of the Opposition while he refuses to accept his responsibilities and delegates the pillars of his party to attack the Canada Health Act.

Government Policies

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is making a complete mockery of his moral responsibility to deal with issues in the House of Commons.

Considering that the Liberals have broken promises on health care, day care, child poverty and post-secondary education, when is the government going to understand that broken promises undermine moral authority also?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, before this House at this very moment there is: $5 billion for cities and communities, $5 billion for children and early learning, $2.7 billion for senior citizens, $3 billion for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, $5 billion for the environment, $3.4 billion for foreign aid, $13 billion for national defence, and $12 billion for tax relief.

That is a demonstration of moral authority and moral responsibility: delivering the goods.

Sponsorship Program

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the Gomery commission, counsel Finkelstein asked the Prime Minister, “Do you recall...any meeting or get-together of any significance beyond a possible casual 'How do you do?'” The Prime Minister responded, “No, no”.

There is now testimony that the Prime Minister may, frankly, have perjured himself, that he may have had lunch with Mr. Boulay, one of the principal scamsters in the ad scam. Would--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast is using legalistic language to dodge around words that he knows are unparliamentary. I would invite him to rephrase his question. We will not have any suggestion that any member has committed perjury in this House. He knows what that means. I would invite him to put his question directly.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Prime Minister one more opportunity to set the record straight between this conflicting testimony. Without any evasion, without any games, did he or did he not sit down and discuss government business over lunch with ad scam kingpin Claude Boulay, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Prime Minister at no time intervened to direct contracts. The Leader of the Opposition last night said that there are honest decent people in the Liberal Party. He is absolutely right, and our Prime Minister is one of them. He has demonstrated remarkable courage and determination to get to the bottom of this important issue.

The fact is that today's Toronto Star said that the Prime Minister has “acted honestly. No other federal party chief has faced such a leadership test so openly. Fairness demands this be recognized”. I would urge the hon. member to recognize that and to stop playing partisan games with an important issue like this.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is being honest with Canadians he can demonstrate it now by standing up in his place and clarifying this very grave conflict in sworn evidence before a judicial commission. This is serious business.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and discharge the moral responsibility that he claims by clarifying whether or not he had lunch to discuss government business with the ad scam kingpin, Mr. Boulay? Did he or did he not? We want the Prime Minister to stand up and tell the truth, even if it is hurtful.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This Prime Minister has consistently told the truth to Canadians because this Prime Minister is not afraid of the truth. That is why he established Justice Gomery. That is why he supports Justice Gomery. That is why he is not afraid of Justice Gomery's report: because he is ready for the truth and because he knows Canadians deserve the truth.

The only people who are afraid of the truth, who are afraid of Justice Gomery presenting his report, are sitting right over there. We are not afraid of the truth in this part of the House.

Equalization Program

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario are proud of the role they play in helping to build an even stronger Canada, but Ontario now ranks 10th out of 10 provinces in university spending and 9th out of 10 provinces in federal funding for health care.

We cannot allow the fiscal imbalance to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. When will the Prime Minister sit down with the premier of Ontario to negotiate a fairer and more equitable arrangement for the taxpayers of Ontario?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, a large portion of federal tax revenue flows from Ontario because Ontario very positively has the largest provincial economy in Canada and the largest number of successful upper income Canadian taxpayers, both in the corporate sector and in the personal sector.

In terms of the transfers from the Government of Canada for things like the CHT, the CST, infrastructure and housing, they are indeed based upon a per capita system, and when we include the tax transfers and the cash transfers they are exactly per capita.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the federal immigration minister across the floor met with Ontario Liberal finance minister Greg Sorbara earlier this week, he puffed like a penguin and claimed to reach a series of deals. Sorbara disputed that claim, saying there are no agreements and the minister's account of the meeting is “absolutely wrong”.

The reality is that the government across the way denies the fiscal imbalance in Ontario and across this country. Instead it relies on phantom deals and bogus arrangements. Why should Canadians give it any trust?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in our relationship with the provinces, the transfer of $41 billion is no phantom deal. It is no bogus arrangement. The transfer of $33 billion for equalization is not bogus.

The transfer of money for housing, the transfer of money for immigration, the transfer of money for infrastructure and the transfer of money for science and technology are all real dollars from the Government of Canada to the provinces of Canada and the territories of Canada to build a stronger country.

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister proclaims to all and sundry his desire to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal and the awarding of contracts to friends of the regime.

How can the Prime Minister, with this claim of transparency and a desire to get to the bottom of things, explain that the Liberals on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts voted against the motion to hear witnesses in connection with the behaviour of the Minister of Finance and of Earnscliffe?

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members of the committee cooperated fully because they wanted to get to the truth. It was opposition members who actually in the end scuttled the ability of the committee to submit an important report, an interim report that would have given Canadians some insight into the issue at an appropriate time.

Liberal members of this House are totally committed to getting to the bottom of this issue.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has played back the wrong stock answer. What I am referring to is this week's events in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

How can the Prime Minister explain that the people working for him, his henchmen, refused to appear voluntarily before the public accounts committee and needed to be subpoenaed?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a committee can ask any witness to appear before it. I understand from the media reports that in fact all potential witnesses have been in communication with the clerk of the committee.

I think what is clear is that the opposition is playing nothing more than partisan politics with an issue that the Auditor General examined some 13 months ago. She stated, “Overall, public opinion research was managed transparently, with roles and responsibilities clearly defined”.

All I can surmise from the line of questioning is that it is nothing more than partisan politics.

That is why we set up the Gomery commission. That is the way Canadians will get to the truth and that in fact is why they should wait for Gomery to report.

Agriculture

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, all day today we have heard about broken Liberal promises. I want to deal with another one. The CAIS program is such a disaster that two weeks ago the government was forced to make an announcement in which it pretended it was going to give new money to agriculture. That was not true.

We find out now that much of it is just going to offset CAIS payments that farmers were already receiving. How much of the promised money will be clawed back through lowered CAIS payments?