Debates of April 22nd, 2005

Order in Council Appointments

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

Committees of the House

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the fifth report adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, urging the government to send a monitoring team to Ethiopia to observe and report on the general elections taking place on May 15, 2005.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on an amendment to the Standing Orders.

Criminal Code

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the Criminal Code (legal duty outside Canada).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code, legal duty outside Canada.

The bill is about the health and safety of workers employed by Canadian companies outside of our country. It would internationalize the present Westray bill and extend to foreign workers of Canadian companies the same health and safety protections that are guaranteed to their workers in Canada.

Essentially, when it comes to health and safety, companies and their directors would no longer be able to do abroad what they are not permitted to do on Canadian soil.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, December 20, 2004, be concurred in.

I want to state at the outset of the debate today on this concurrence motion that I am very pleased to split my time with my leader, the leader of the official opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest.

Since it has become a national story, despite the poor performance, I would like to begin by making a few comments about the Prime Minister's pitiful performance last night. He confused a crisis in the Liberal Party of Canada with a national crisis. He abused the office of Prime Minister to have a national television event, which normally would be reserved for times of crisis for the nation when the prime minister, the leader of a nation, would have to communicate very clearly to the people, in both official languages, on something that would threaten the very survival of the nation. That is not the case.

We are talking about is a scandal, the worst in Canadian history, that threatens the very existence of the Liberal Party of Canada.

He has said and has maintained that we should cut him some slack because he is the one who launched the Gomery inquiry. I think it is obvious to all Canadians that he had no choice in launching the Gomery inquiry. We need to be very clear about this.

The current Prime Minister wanted to have an election last year, early in his mandate as Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to get his own fresh mandate. He knew the only way he could go to the people of Canada last year in an election was if he called that inquiry. It was his only defence. Therefore, he called it. He set it up and then he determined that he would have to circumvent it.

There was an inquiry taking place at the public accounts committee, as we all know, it was televised, but he shut that down. He had his members on that committee shut down the only inquiry that was ongoing. Then he went to the people last May and June in an election campaign without waiting for one witness to appear before the Gomery inquiry. Very clearly, he had to do that. It was his only defence in the election campaign that he knew he would call.

The other reason he wanted to call it is he wanted to get even with the former prime minister of this country. He wanted to seek revenge when the former prime minister happened to time his retirement just before the final report of the Auditor General. He left the whole mess for the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister decided that a good way to get even with the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, was to call an inquiry and point the figure.

However, last night we found out the truth about one thing at least. He finally accepted the responsibility that he was negligent as finance minister in not watching over the public purse. He had to know what was going on and he chose to look the other way.

He finally admitted last night to the Canadian people that he should have been more vigilant. Therefore, I would as the question. If he should have been more vigilant when he was number two man, when he was finance minister, in watching over the public purse, why in heaven's name would Canadians want to wait eight more months for that Prime Minister when he is in control of the federal treasury? Imagine how much money will be wasted in the next eight months?

People say that we should not have an election right now. It might cost $250 million to $280 million. How many billions will the Liberal government blow over the next eight months if Canadians were to let it stay in power?

The last point I want to very quickly make is a reality. It is how this place has become dysfunctional and who is to blame.

As House leader for the opposition, I can say we have acted responsibly. We have tried to make this Parliament work. The leader of the official opposition took the unprecedented step of having the official opposition in this Parliament abstain on the budget to ensure the survival of this Parliament. That had never been done in history. Our leader did that because he wanted to try everything possible to make this Parliament work.

What do we get for it in return? On Monday night the government House leader cancelled opposition day motions, one of the basic tenets of democracy in this place. The basic tenet of democracy is opposition parties having the opportunity of holding the government accountable, and the government cancelled those days.

As we move forward, let us ensure that Canadians clearly understand who is to blame for this place being dysfunctional.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a remarkable week that began with an unprecedented decision by the government to cancel opposition days, one of the fundamental rights in this House. During the rest of the week, we hardly saw the Prime Minister, here or in public. Last night, the Prime Minister delivered a public address, as if in a national crisis, but it was solely for partisan reasons. It was a partisan speech broadcast on television to the entire country.

It is remarkable when the Prime Minister does not appear here in the House or in public and communicates with the public only via a tape recording. It is incredible.

It has been a remarkable week. Even more remarkable were some of the things in the Prime Minister's speech last night. The Prime Minister effectively went on the air to give a partisan speech and to launch an election campaign. It is a campaign which he says he wants to set for some 10 months out, if I calculate correctly, that is if the Gomery report is ever tabled, since half of the Liberal Party is going to be before the federal courts trying to quash the Gomery report within the next month.

We have a Prime Minister who has already decided we should have an election at a time of extremely unusual choosing, a Prime Minister who has acknowledged corruption in his own party. The question that we face as the official opposition, the question that all Canadians face, is can a corrupt party remain in power while all this is going on? Can it remain in power month after month? The question we have to face as the official opposition is, can we prop up that party in power? Can we prop up a corrupt party at this time, particularly when, as my colleague the House leader has pointed out, that the two other opposition parties have already voted non-confidence in the government?

I do not use the term “corruption” lightly. What we are hearing at the Gomery inquiry is sworn testimony, in many cases sworn unrefuted testimony that certainly points to widespread corruption, but we have incidents outside of the Gomery inquiry that are not even subject to the Gomery inquiry. We have illegal lobbying done by the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant. We heard once again evasive answers today. There was improper contracting done by the Prime Minister's campaign manager at Earnscliffe. The campaign manager and the chief of staff just happen to be common law partners. We have investigations going on into that. We have the accusations, allegations of the partisan use of judicial appointments.

I would point out that a Liberal member said to me that people do not believe it. Virtually all of these allegations are coming from senior members of the Liberal Party. I repeat what I said earlier this week. If each group of Liberals says that the other group of Liberals is a group of crooks and liars, what does it really matter which group we choose to believe?

We have a principle in our parliamentary system. That principle is that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office.

We all know what the supply day manoeuvre was about earlier this week. Late last week the government removed Bill C-43, the budget bill, from the notice paper. I smelled right away an attempt to avoid a confidence motion at all costs, so I moved that our supply motion would make sure supply days would exist. That is what the government cancelled. Clearly the government has in mind, and it will do more manoeuvres, to avoid any kind of confidence motion in the next month.

This is not an option. This is a violation of the principle of our democratic system. If the government cannot maintain the confidence of the House, it must seek the confidence of Canadians. It cannot circumvent this fundamental principle through procedural manoeuvres. We will do whatever we can to ensure that when we return and have heard from the population of Canada that all options are available to us.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

The 3rd report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in,

But that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The debate is on the amendment.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to something that was said by the member for Calgary Southeast during question period in which he alleged that I had compared the Prime Minister to Osama bin Laden.

In fact we were able to find the National Post piece by Paul Wells from 2003 in which Paul Wells referred to a release of a tape to Al Jazeera. It was not me. In fact I did not have any recollection of having said it. I knew I did not say it. When we researched it, in fact it was Paul Wells who said it. Both the member for Calgary Southeast and the member for Central Nova said in this House that I had said it and they said that this was in the National Post .

I would urge them to apologize for having said that and for having the gall to refer to that article when in fact they knew full well that I had never said that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the minister for that clarification.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Committees of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the amendment that the hon. leader has just moved. I have not seen it and I am sure I will in due course, but I believe the gist of it is to say that there were some recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance having to do with the budget that the government did not implement, and the Leader of the Opposition takes exception to that.

In fact in the preparation of the budget, I went through one by one all of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance. I found, given the rather raucous nature of the committee, that sometimes the recommendations made by the NDP were not consistent with the recommendations made by the Conservatives. Some of the recommendations made by the Conservatives did not match the recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois. Sometimes the government and opposition parties agreed. Sometimes they disagreed. There was quite a potpourri of recommendations from the finance committee. Quite frankly, it would be absolutely impossible for this government or any government to implement all of the recommendations of the finance committee without totally contradicting themselves.

I would say that the work of the finance committee was very helpful. Indeed the majority of the recommendations made by the committee, at least where there was a consensus among the political parties, were in fact implemented in the budget. Therefore the factual basis for the hon. gentleman's motion is simply not in existence.

Let me take a moment or two to address the broader context in which this motion is made and the context that was described by the Leader of the Opposition and by the House leader for the opposition in putting this motion on the floor. It has to do with the current political environment and the issues that preoccupied us in question period a few moments ago and indeed for much of the last several weeks.

Nothing in political life is more important than the public's trust. To me, and I am sure to the Prime Minister, to all members of the cabinet and to all members of the government, earning and keeping that trust is now and always has been our first and most basic principle. I share completely the concerns of the vast majority of decent Canadians upon hearing the various descriptions of events, some of them contradictory, all of them, to date at least, uncorroborated, coming from the various witnesses appearing before the Gomery commission.

The commission, as all Canadians know, is conducting a transparent and comprehensive judicial investigation into certain publicity activities of the previous government prior to the year 2002. Where such activities crossed legal or ethical boundaries, they must be exposed, condemned and punished to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no defence of the indefensible.

The trail does have to be followed wherever it may lead. Any and all wrongdoers must suffer the full consequences of their misconduct, whoever they may be. That is why Judge Gomery must finish his entire inquiry and reach his final conclusions about exactly what happened and who carries the responsibility. A partial story is not good enough. The judge's mandate is to get to the whole unvarnished truth. Nothing less will do.

While this work is ongoing, it is significant to note that the Gomery commission was launched by the Prime Minister himself, voluntarily and very quickly upon coming into office. That in itself is a strong indication of two key points.

First of all, the Prime Minister has nothing to fear and nothing to hide from this inquiry. The issues under investigation are not ones that he created.

The Prime Minister is a man of principle and conscience who is determined, and his actions prove this, to root out these problems regardless of the political consequences. The Prime Minister is also the one who cancelled the impugned sponsorship program and eliminated the agency that ran it.

In an unprecedented move to help investigators, he ordered the release of more than 12 million pages of normally confidential internal documentation from within the Privy Council. He launched 19 legal actions to recover any public money that was improperly spent.

The Prime Minister also ordered the independent forensic examinations of the financial records of the Liberal Party, the results of which are now available to the public on the Internet. He strengthened the rules on the ethical standards expected of cabinet ministers and public officials. He provided the independent ethics commissioner with more clout. He restored the office of the Comptroller General of Canada. He bolstered government-wide internal audits. He provided automatic public disclosure of government contracts.

I hear the deputy leader of the opposition once again interrupting rather than participating constructively in the debate. I would point out that in his last intervention he said that it was the Liberal Party that took away the office of the Comptroller General. I would remind him that the initiative to eliminate the office of the Comptroller General was introduced by the previous Kim Campbell government.

It was the Prime Minister and the government that terminated a number of crown corporation CEOs and implemented tough new standards of governance. All of that is a clear reflection of the Prime Minister's respect for the public trust and his absolute determination to safeguard the public interest ahead of all personal or partisan considerations.

Last evening in his address to the country, I believe the Prime Minister made a very compelling argument. He spoke directly and honestly to Canadians about the crucial work of the Gomery Commission which he himself created. He spoke about political responsibility and political accountability. He spoke about calling a national election quickly upon the publication of Judge Gomery's report.

I think Canadians will find the Prime Minister's case to be both reasonable and convincing, based upon the complete and unvarnished truth.

In sampling public opinion, I know that political parties like to revel in the outcomes of public opinion polls, which vary. They go up, they go down and they change from time to time. I have had a sampling of the opinion of prominent Canadian journalists over the course of the last couple of weeks while these issues have been very prominent in the media. Let me just put a few of those views of people who watch the political process on a daily basis and who have some background and knowledge in these matters, on the record.

There was an article not long ago by Mr. James McNulty in the Vancouver Province. The headline on that article was “Early election call will snub public opinion; opposition should heed public support for Gomery inquiry to finish”. About the same time there was an article in the Calgary Herald that said “Canadians may well get to the bottom of the scandal, just as Martin promised”. Third, from the

Regina Leader Post:

There was an election only last year and we detect no public appetite for another so soon. We believe that in the real world, a majority of Canadians want the government to get on with running the country, the opposition parties to hold them to account on their policies and Justice Gomery to complete his work and report his findings.

Then there was this commentary from University Dean William Neville appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press. He said:

--it would not be entirely unprecedented to have a verdict first and a trial afterwards. It happened, after all, in Alice in Wonderland.

Then there was a comment from CanWest Global in the National Post not long ago where this was said:

At the time the Prime Minister created the Gomery inquiry, he knew a feeding frenzy like this might result. And so you have to give him a good deal of credit for ignoring the politics and doing the right thing.

Then we have an editorial today in the Globe and Mail that makes the case for hearing everything that Judge Gomery has to say when his report is finalized.

Even earlier the Globe and Mail said this:

Whoever pulls the plug has to have a good reason to put the country to the expense and disruption of another election only one year after the last. If the most compelling reason is political opportunism, and if the voters sense they are being summoned to the polls prematurely, they may not reward the perpetrator.

Let me also refer to the Ottawa Citizen and an article that was written not long ago by Susan Riley. She noted she was no particular friend of the government or the Prime Minister, but this is what she had to say:

What is going on is hysteria, a lynch-mob mentality, a potent mixture of genuine public outrage and political opportunism that threatens to derail the disinterested pursuit of justice and the whole truth.

Then there is the Montreal Gazette which not long ago had this to say:

The election buzz is largely a media invention, rather than a measure of reality. The public has no interest in a quick election; we had one just 10 months ago.

Let me refer to the Halifax Chronicle Herald . The Halifax newspaper had this to say:

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...

Right across the country there is consistent editorial opinion that simply says as a matter of fairness and justice, as a matter of letting the whole truth be known, that the proper course of action here is to allow Judge Gomery to finish his inquiry, to find the facts, to make his recommendations and on the basis of those recommendations, then all of us will have both the information and the obligation to act and to act appropriately. That is essentially what the Prime Minister said last evening.

There is another reason why it would be appropriate, I believe, for this Parliament to take a more considered course, as we approach the days and weeks immediately ahead, rather than some blind and irrational rush to judgment, and that is because the House has before it some very important business. I know various ministers want to sponsor and promote their portfolios of activities.

I would simply refer to the budget. It is a budget that provides $5 billion for cities and communities to build the healthy infrastructures that they need for the future. It is a budget that puts in $5 billion--

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Not this year.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Yes, indeed this year if the people across the way have the capacity to pass the budget bill.

We have heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have heard from Saskatchewan municipalities. We have heard from British Columbia municipalities. We have heard from Quebec municipalities. They say that they want the budget passed. They want the new deal for cities and communities and they want it now. We have signed one agreement with British Columbia. British Columbia wants that program, nearly $700 million, if my memory serves me correctly.

This Parliament will have lots of time to debate the hot political points that flow back and forth across the floor, but now is the time to deal with the budget, now is the time to ensure that money flows to the cities and communities across this country.

There is more in the budget. There is child care, establishing a $5 billion program to ensure that there is early learning and quality child care across this country, child care that is high quality, that is universal, that is affordable and accessible and that is developmental, not just a form of babysitting or storage, but that brings education and life skills development to the youngest of our citizens.

I would encourage members of the House to listen to the child care advocates, to listen to the social service groups across the country, to listen to provincial governments. The Hon. Joanne Crofford, who is the minister of social services in the province of Saskatchewan, has said that the child care initiative is bold, innovative, and exactly what Saskatchewan needs, and she wants to see it passed.

Then there are provisions for senior citizens. These are extremely important. We have undertaken to increase the guaranteed income supplement. That will be worth $2.7 billion to senior citizens over this next five year period, as we implement it in the next two years and then the flow of funding over the following three years, to the oldest and the poorest people in the country.

We also have provisions in the budget for the disabled to try to improve the credits and the benefits that flow to those who want to be more self-sufficient, to find their way into the workplace, to have a more comfortable and high quality of life. That is one of the things in the budget that ought to be passed.

There is also a provision to double the credits available to the caregivers of seniors and disabled Canadians. We want to give those caregivers some recognition of the benefit and the value of the huge supports that they provide to those in their families who need that kind of assistance.

There is also $1.4 billion in the budget for measures dealing with aboriginal Canadians. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has pursued an ambitious program over the course of the last number of months and it has some further months to run. The minister will be consulting with aboriginal Canadians, with all ministers of the cabinet and with the provinces.

There will be a retreat toward the end of May, where a number of bold new ideas will come together about how to rebuild and re-establish a better relationship between aboriginal Canadians, the Government of Canada and all Canadians.

There will be a first ministers meeting in the fall of this year, where governments can specifically lay their plans to move this important file forward. In the meantime, the budget provided $1.4 billion to begin on issues such as housing, the care of children and education to move the files forward. That too should be passed at the earliest possible date.

Then there is what we had to say about the environment. I was rather pleased when the Coalition for Clean Air and Renewable Energy made the comment that it thought the only thing wrong with the budget was the date. It was in February. They said that it should have been on March 17, on St. Patrick's Day, because it was the greenest budget in Canadian history.

All together there is about $7.5 billion in the budget directed toward environmental issues. It is very important that those proceed, not necessarily to satisfy the technical requirements of some international treaty, as important as that is, but to ensure that Canadians have clean air and clean water and a high quality of life for them, their children and their grandchildren.

The budget also dealt with foreign affairs and with foreign aid. The budget dealt with the Canadian Forces. It contained the biggest investment in the Canadian Forces in 20 years, $13 billion to rebuild and refurbish the Canadian Forces.

Then we have the measures on productivity, workforce training, immigrant settlement, training and skills and literacy. We have the innovation agenda, $1 billion for science and technology and to ensure that Canada stays in the forefront of the knowledge based technology driven and highly skilled world of the 21st century.

The budget brings forward tax reductions to try to ensure that Canadians are fully competitive with the forces of competition that they have to face from around the world.

There were reductions in personal taxes. Especially there, the government will take 860,000 of the lowest income Canadians off the tax rolls all together, a quarter of them, 250,000, are senior citizens and most of them are women. That is a very progressive measure and it needs to be implemented.

For all of these reasons, as well as the importance of the Gomery commission, there is no need in the House for a rush to judgment. It is time to do serious work on behalf of serious Canadians who do not particularly appreciate the heckling and the hullabaloo that comes across the way. They want to see respect, they want to see civility and they want to see a Parliament that works. We are dedicated to that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I move to questions and comments, I have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. Minister of Public Works.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is with regard to a statement made by the member for Calgary Southeast during question period. He attributed words to me that I had not said and that in fact were said by a journalist, Paul Wells. He was absolutely wrong. He was attributing words to me that I have never said and he violated my privilege as a member of Parliament.

I would urge him to be a little less repressed with the truth in this case and to actually provide to Canadians the dignity of the House that they deserve and retract what he said because he knows full well that he misled the House when he said that.

Paul Wells said, referring to the Prime Minister, “who is said to have released a new tape to Al-Jazeera”. That is what the journalist said. It is not what I said and the hon. member knows that he intentionally misled the House during question period and tried to smear my reputation with that intervention.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was marvellous coming from the man that the former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Hal Jackman, refers to as “an utter disgrace to Canadian politics”.

I stand by exactly what I said. I did in fact cite words precisely used by that member in the House of Commons in 1998, where he referred to the current Prime Minister as “Genghis Khan”.

Perhaps he would like to retract that. And further, I stand by the comments in the 2003 article in the National Post which refer to this hon. member having said that the current Prime Minister was sending tapes out to Al-Jazeera. A very clear reference to the one and only, Mr. bin Laden. Therefore, I would further ask the member who is known to be--

[An hon. member]

Sit down.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I know the member has only been here for eight years and does not understand procedure, but he cannot interrupt a point of privilege.

I would further submit that it is unparliamentary for the member to accuse a member of having deliberately misled the House. I know that he will retract that.

I clearly stand behind my words. Should a prima facie case of privilege be found, I am sure we would all be interested to hear Mr. Wells' recollection of what the minister said to him.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to table the article from the National Post , where I was quoted saying what he said I said. I would ask him to table that document. If in fact he were to read that document, he, as someone who is supposedly at least somewhat learned, would understand that I did not say that and that in fact a journalist said that. He owes me an apology because he has violated my privilege as a member of the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Again, briefly from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document that the hon. member has refused to table because he knows what that document says. I would like to table the document in which I did not say what the hon. member accuses me of saying. I would like to table the document--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am going to deal with the point of privilege in just a moment. The minister can certainly table a document at his leisure. I encourage him to do that.

As for the point of privilege itself, as members know, I was not here during question period. I will review the record. I will take under advisement the interventions here today. I would ask members to examine the record and think about this perhaps over the weekend and if necessary, I will return to the House to deal with this when the House resumes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.