House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, the federal environment minister has already shared his dream of seeing a hydroelectric transmission line stretch from east to west in Canada.
Can the Minister of the Environment guarantee that in no way will he make Hydro-Quebec sell its electricity elsewhere in Canada at a lower rate than it could get in international markets?
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has made it very clear that we would like to work with the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba with regard to a transmission line. It is good for Canadians, it is good for Quebec, it is good for Ontario and it is good for Manitoba.
Clearly we want to make sure that this valuable source of energy is useful for everyone. The member is suggesting that we would do a disadvantage to Hydro-Québec. I suggest the member should look in the mirror and look at what disadvantage he is doing to Quebec for not supporting the climate change plan.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, can the government promise that it absolutely will not require Hydro-Quebec to transmit any electricity through Quebec territory without a formal agreement from Quebec?
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we are not at the stage where we are signing any agreements. The fact is the minister is being proactive. The Minister of the Environment has made it very clear that he will work with his provincial counterparts.
The sad part is when they claim the minister does not work with his provincial counterparts, they complain. When he does work with his provincial counterparts, they complain. I wish they would get their act together and decide on which side of the issue they are.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, this government has launched a number of inquiries, but put a stop to them when it did not like the truth.
The inquiry on the APEC summit was stopped without any reason, because Jean Carle's name was surfacing too often. There is also the Somalia inquiry. Now, the Minister of Transport is using the same technique as his Liberal buddy, Jean Chrétien, to abolish the Gomery commission.
How does the Prime Minister explain his party's obsession with stopping inquiries that will further tarnish its reputation?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, first, our Prime Minister ended the sponsorship program. He established the Gomery commission. We continue to support the Gomery commission. We believe its work should continue to proceed. The position of the Prime Minister and our government is that the work of Justice Gomery is important to the country, that it should proceed, that Canadians deserve to have the report from Justice Gomery and that they deserve to have the truth and his analysis in its entirety before there is a general election.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should talk to the transport minister.
Let us look at the government's track record and its disrespect for the inquiry process when the truth appears to implicate it.
The APEC inquiry was shut down when Jean Carle's name came up too often. The Somalia inquiry was shut down as well. The Krever commission was prevented from naming names. Now the Minister of Transport appears to have joined Jean Chrétien's campaign to shut down the Gomery commission.
Why does the Liberal Party push around commissions of inquiry with threats that they be may be shut down when the going starts to get rough?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take yes for an answer because the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada support the work of Justice Gomery. We want to see Justice Gomery report to the Canadian people before an election.
According to the Globe and Mail this morning, “Canadians would rather wait for the publication of the Gomery report before judging the government on the sponsorship issue. This is a sensible position if only for the reasons of elementary fairness. Contrary to the regular courts, where testimony is framed by rules that protect individuals and guarantee the due process of law, commissions of inquiry are verbal free-for-alls”. That is right. That is why we need Justice Gomery's report.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a growing credibility deficit with respect to ad scam. He promised to be the wire brush to clean up Liberal corruption, but then he cheered on Jean Chrétien's contempt of the Gomery commission.
He says that we have to wait for Gomery to finish his report before an election, but he called one before Gomery had begun his work last year. He now denies any involvement in contracts, but his close personal assistant intervened to get a contract for his million dollar fundraiser, Mr. Savard. Now he denies any meaningful relationship with Claude Boulay, which turns out to be complete and utter nonsense.
Why does the Prime Minister have so much trouble telling the whole truth about the Liberal ad scam?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, the Prime Minister has no difficulty with the truth. In fact, he stands with Canadians who want the truth. That is why he established Justice Gomery. That is why our government supports the work. He continues to support Justice Gomery because we want Canadians to have the truth. We are not afraid of that truth.
They can quote from individual testimony, and sometimes questionable testimony at that. It is testimony that is contradicted by other days' testimony in some cases. They can quote selectively to make their argument. Frankly, that is the dishonesty, when one picks selectively from individual specious testimony instead of waiting for the truth from Justice Gomery. That is the dishonest party over there.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have quoted from the questionable testimony of the Prime Minister where he denied any meaningful knowledge of or relationship with Claude Boulay and his wife. The Prime Minister said that it was just a passing acquaintance, that it was a short term relationship that really finished way back in 1990.
Why then did he write this personal, intimate letter commenting to Mr. Boulay on the good looks of his wife, joking about fine wines and golf games, if the Prime Minister really did not have a friendship?
Will the government not admit that the Prime Minister at best stretched the truth, under oath, in front of Gomery?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, based on that letter, the only thing the Prime Minister is guilty of is graciousness and bad writing. The fact is a letter sent to constituents or a letter to individuals is something politicians do quite frequently.
I would like to raise one issue. A few months ago, the hon. member said in an interview that there were forms of just discrimination. Throughout history, minorities have heard that kind of rationalization of discrimination, that there are just forms of discrimination.
I am proud to be part of a party, the Liberal Party of Canada, that does not believe discrimination is just, and not sit with that member over there who believes there are just--
David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Cities and Municipalities late last week announced an agreement between British Columbia and Canada on financial support for municipalities.
I would like to ask the minister what guarantees are included to prevent a province from reducing its own support for municipalities by the amount of the federal contribution?
John Godfrey LiberalMinister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to confirm the new deal on gas tax money which was signed on Friday with British Columbia for a total of $635 million. This is part of our $5 billion investment over five years in cities and communities across the country.
We got in that deal and shall get in all other deals an iron clad guarantee that there shall be no clawback. This contrasts vividly with the policy of the party opposite, which would have us give no money to municipalities. Members opposite voted on that in their policy convention in March.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is the 20th anniversary of section 15 of the charter that guarantees equality rights for all Canadians. The Prime Minister celebrated by making a backroom deal with a Liberal MP who wanted to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent same sex couples from marrying.
Why did the Prime Minister choose this time to tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others and why did he not ask the MP to leave the Liberal caucus?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any backroom deal. I only know the answer I gave to a question asked by the hon. member in the House, to which the hon. member referred.
I said that any special legislative committee that was set up would address this bill in hearings as it did any other bill.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, that sounds like another non-answer. It is just another example of lip service to equality.
Let me get this straight. When a Liberal member criticizes George Bush and says sorry, the member is booted from the party. When a Liberal member offends women, gays and lesbians, the member gets a secret deal and a handshake.
Why did the Prime Minister not see that an assault on the charter was wrong? Why does he keep an MP in the Liberal caucus who thinks it is a good idea to overrule the courts and invade the private lives of Canadians?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, our response with respect to the equality rights provision, section 15, which was stated inside and outside the House, was that we regarded section 15 as having been a transformative act in giving all Canadians, individuals and groups, a panoply of rights and remedies that had never existed before.
We trust this will continue in the march toward equality.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, let us follow the comments by the Minister of Public Works about just discrimination. Canadians of every ethnic background were horrified to hear the anti-Semitic comments of Liberal organizer Chief Nelson of Manitoba.
Anti-Semitic comments are not simply the concern of Jewish Canadians, they are a slur against all Canadians.
Chief Nelson has now apologized. Why has the government chosen to say nothing about the comments of Liberal organizer Chief Nelson? Is this just a just discrimination because Chief Nelson is a Liberal?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I have condemned racism, hate speech and hate crime, including anti-Semitism, in the House and outside the House.
I join with Chief Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations in his rebuke to Chief Nelson and in his expression that we condemn all racist hate speech against any identifiable group, be they aboriginal people, be they racial or religious minorities, be they Muslims, Jews, gays or lesbians.
As I said, we envisage a country in which there is no sanctuary for hate and no refuge for bigotry.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians welcome those comments.
The government has failed to speak out on Chief Nelson's comments, despite his active role in Liberal politics in Manitoba. It simply wanted to ignore it. A clear government statement a week ago could have done more to tell Canadians about human rights than any hate crimes prosecution in the country.
I want to compliment the minister for his comments today, but why so late?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, they are not so late or so little. The hon. member opposite is just not listening to the other comments I have been making on this issue and on other issues.
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week former Liberal organizer Beryl Wajsman wrote that the party used ethnic minorities “as campaign slaves and to buy tickets”, without ever giving them meaningful positions.
Liberal politicians use words like “tolerance” and “diversity”, but their actions speak of bigotry. This is typical Liberal hypocrisy. Is it not true that Mr. Wajsman's statement reveals the real Liberal attitude toward cultural communities?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, that statement reveals a statement made by Mr. Wajsman, not by anybody in the Liberal Party.
I just want to state one thing. Mr. Wajsman was in my employ for less than a year. I want to put it on the record that I bear no responsibility for any statements that he has made or any alleged conduct that he has engaged in after he left my employ, just as no member in the House would bear any responsibility for anything that any person did after they left their employ.