House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.

Topics

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I tried to help the hon. member out, but we will now move on to the next question.

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

HealthOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister would not answer a simple, straightforward question about lunch with an ad executive. Instead, he tried to pretend that he was defending against the privatization of health care, after 12 years of Liberals allowing privatization to expand.

I will ask a very simple question. Why is the Prime Minister's personal physician allowed to operate and expand a chain of private clinics, or does the Prime Minister not care to know about that?

HealthOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be providing an additional $41 billion to the provinces over the next 10 years. The Prime Minister has said, as I have been saying for months, that we are going to enforce the Canada Health Act from coast to coast to coast.

Liberal Party of CanadaOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will try another simple and straightforward question.

It turns out that a member of Parliament who steps on a George Bush doll is kicked out of the caucus. We have now learned that there is a member of Parliament who thinks we should use the notwithstanding clause to strip away rights in the charter. This same member of Parliament called a woman MP, and I quote, “a dumb blonde bimbo”.

Someone who attacks George Bush is kicked out, but someone who attacks women and equality is allowed in. Where are the standards of that party? Will the Prime Minister kick that member of Parliament out right now?

Liberal Party of CanadaOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, first of all the member of Parliament apologized for making the statement, and that is what is important. The statement was simply unacceptable and the member of Parliament recognized that.

In terms of the use of the notwithstanding clause, while I disagree with him, the hon. member was very honest in his position, unlike those of the official opposition who refuse to accept the fact that the only way a decision of the courts could be reversed is by the use of the notwithstanding clause. If what the member wants to do is talk about what is ethical behaviour in Parliament, it is in fact to tell Canadians the truth about the policies one has.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a real credibility problem.

On Monday the government told the House there was “a full audit of the books of the Liberal Party” and that “audited information has been given to Gomery”. One of Canada's top forensic accountants dismissed these documents as “half-baked” and said the Liberals are “pulling the wool over taxpayers' eyes”. The documents themselves state flat out this does not constitute an audit.

Why did the government mislead the House?

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has cooperated fully with Justice Gomery and continues to cooperate. It was the Liberal Party that actually engaged the auditors to conduct these reviews and provided the information to Justice Gomery. We continue to work with the auditors who are working with Justice Gomery because we want to get to the truth.

I expect she is referring to the commentary from Mr. Al Rosen of Rosen & Associates. I expect that may be the same Rosen & Associates that gave a fairly significant contribution to the Canadian alliance party in 2000.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is an indication of his good judgment.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Order. We will have a little order. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill has the floor now and she is going to ask a question.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, the expert said the so-called Liberal audit was “not comprehensive enough to detect any scams or any form of dirty money transactions”. He also said, “Trying to use these reports to claim that everything is fine within the party is completely inappropriate.”

The government knew when it told the House that there was “a full audit” that it was no such thing.

How can the Prime Minister cling to the pretense that he has the moral authority to govern when he tries to mislead Canadians so badly?

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, how can the member stand in the House and give that kind of diatribe without fulfilling her responsibility to inform the House that Mr. Rosen was a significant supporter of the Canadian Alliance party and that he has a bias when he gives that kind of information or perspective?

This is what Deloitte said:

We made sure to obtain detailed supporting documents for every amount deposited in this [Liberal Party] account during the period covered by this mandate. We also traced every other transaction appearing on this statement, notably all transfers towards all other bank accounts.

In fact, the accountant who conducted the review said that the Liberal Party provided all the information requested within the scope of the review.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rahim Jaffer Conservative Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rosen did not rip off taxpayers to make his contribution, I will say that.

When the auditors cannot reach a clear conclusion about the financial statements, then something is not being admitted. What the Liberal Party is not admitting is that it did everything it could to cover its tracks. Even auditor Al Rosen has said so.

Will the government admit that what it absolutely does not want is to find any traces of the dirty money, and that it has no intention of paying back the Canadian taxpayers?

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, Deloitte and the accountant who conducted the review said that “the Liberal Party provided all the information requested within the scope of the review and were fully cooperative throughout the process”.

What is more important is what the Toronto Star is saying. It is saying that “the Prime Minister is acting honestly”. It goes on to say:

No other federal party chief has faced such a leadership test so openly. Fairness demands this be recognized... But [the Prime Minister's] agenda is an ambitious and positive one for a minority government. It compares favourably with the Tories' tired call for tax cuts, more power to the provinces and their disdain for Kyoto and same-sex marriage. [The Prime Minister's] program promises to do more good for more people.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rahim Jaffer Conservative Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it seems it was a selective Liberal scope.

Forensic auditor and corporate fraud expert Al Rosen has damned the Liberal Party review as nothing more than “wishy-washy and useless”. The public works minister tried to pass them off as audits. Mr. Rosen's response to this was that the minister's reviews were “half-baked”.

The books were cooked, the reviews were half-baked and Canadians got burned.

Is the real reason the books were cooked so that the Liberals could use the dirty money for their fourth election campaign?

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty flowery language for an accountant. That sounds more like a partisan to me.

The fact is that today's Chronicle-Herald said:

The case [the Prime Minister] laid out in his own defence is stronger than any case mounted against him. He is the one who cancelled the sponsorship program on Day 1 of his tenure. He is the one who set up the Gomery inquiry, who fired those whose fingerprints were on this fiasco, and who is taking steps to recover misspent money. What more could the opposition reasonably expect him to do that he has not already done?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Simard Bloc Beauport, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has tabled his plan for achieving the Kyoto targets and the least we can say—

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Simard Bloc Beauport, QC

When we are 28% behind on the targets, there is no reason to applaud.

The least that we can say is this plan is totally unacceptable to the Quebec government. Minister Mulclair said, “It is much biased in favour of western Canada and Quebec will be penalized”. He is a federalist. He is not a member of the Parti Québécois. He is Quebec's Liberal environment minister.

How can the federal Minister of the Environment justify that he has produced a plan that is so unfavourable to Quebec?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, this plan will allow us to work hand in hand with the Government of Quebec. We must do great things in Quebec to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to make Quebec's economy more competitive in the sustainable economy and to decrease polluting emissions from other sources, like mercury, for example.

We will have a partnership fund that will allow us to rely greatly on hydroelectricity. Hydro-Québec is one of the champions in the world. Canada is very proud to have so much ability in the province of Quebec.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Simard Bloc Beauport, QC

Mr. Speaker, these are fine words, but there is no action. Minister Mulcair also said that, by producing half as much greenhouse gas emissions as other Canadians, Quebeckers are helping lower the Canadian average, but are not compensated for that.

What does the Minister of the Environment have to say to his Quebec counterpart, who says that his approach is unfair and completely ignores Quebec's efforts in the area of greenhouse gas emissions?

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the plan is very fair. Hydroelectricity will play a major role in it. Hydro-Québec has just begun looking into wind power. We will rely heavily on this new direction to improve the opportunity to have more and more renewable energies.

Since I first became the Minister of the Environment, I have received many projects, innovations and inventions from Quebec. Quebeckers will play a major role to help their country, Canada, achieve the Kyoto objectives.

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that big polluters account for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, the plan presented by the Minister of the Environment only bills them for 13% of the costs involved.

Why did the minister not adopt the polluter pay principle, which respects the equity principle, instead of the polluter paid principle, which is unfair since it does not force big polluters to do their fair share when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?