Debates of April 6th, 2005

The Environment

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Bloc Québécois disagrees with the voluntary agreement so much that it would make such statements. The Sierra Club Washington, D.C. based environmental group praised this agreement as a breakthrough because it would both cut global warming emissions in Canada and set the stage for a similar reduction in the United States.

John Bennett, the Sierra Club advisor to Canada, said:

--Canadian reductions are similar to the 2001 California Clean Car Bill, which requires auto makers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their vehicles by 30% between 2009 and 2016.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister read only half the article, because Greenpeace and the Québec vert Kyoto coalition have described the agreement as disappointing and timid.

In February, the Minister of the Environment came back enthused from his trip to California, where automobile pollution policies are much more restrictive. That was the way to go, he suggested at the time.

Will he admit that his agreement with the automotive industry is a personal failure and that the government showed no backbone, seeing as the major manufacturers have imposed their own terms on the government?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is mistaken. In fact, the agreement we have just signed with the Canadian auto industry is more demanding and will produce results more quickly than what the Californians hope to get by regulating.

I must remind him that California tried first to reach an agreement. Only when it failed to get this agreement did it turn to regulation. We would have done so too, but we are very happy to have an agreement with the Canadian automakers that will mean a 5.3 megaton reduction for Canada by 2010.

Sponsorship Program

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I note the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to the founder of the Bloc Québécois, was the finance minister during the entire time that the sponsorship program was operating.

We know from the testimony and from the admission of Alain Renaud that $100,000 went through Groupaction to the Parti Québécois. That happened on his watch as finance minister. Did he approve of that transaction of money that went to the separatists?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, members of the Conservative Party, like the members in its sister party, the Bloc Québécois, are commenting on allegations not facts. For a party that is opposed to same sex marriage, I am surprised that its leader would be so quick to jump in the bed of the leader of the Bloc Québécois on an issue of national unity.

Passports

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I note the public works minister is not quoting from the National Post today.

Yesterday the Auditor General was scathing in her condemnation of the security practices at the Passport Office. She said it is struggling to meet security expectations and demands for service. This is not the first time this has been mentioned by the Auditor General. American officials are also concerned. Witness yesterday's announcement that they are now requiring Canadians to carry passports when they enter the U.S.

It has been four years since 9/11. Why the delay in action and what assurances are being given to the Americans that all necessary security measures will be completed prior to the issuance of any passport?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the American demand of a passport is on its own citizens and not specifically on Canadian citizens. The Americans will treat Canadian citizens as they treat American citizens. It has nothing to do with yesterday's Auditor General's report, who has acknowledged that our Passport Office, and I quote from her very report:

The Passport Office has improved its recording and sharing of information on lost and stolen passports...The Passport Office has made significant progress.

I have another quote and I could go on because there are lots, but I can tell the House that we have done our work and the Auditor General--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

Finance

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's dishonesty with money seems to know no bounds. Yesterday, thanks to the finance committee initiative, four independent experts revealed that the government once again lowballed the size of this year's surplus announced in the budget just six weeks ago by over $3 billion.

Why does the government persist in attempting to mislead the public about the size of the surplus? Why the habitual dishonesty over there?

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat knows that suggesting that members are dishonest is not in accordance with the practice in the House. He may have skated on thin ice the first time because he referred to the government, but now he is saying “over there”. If he was pointing in a particular direction, and I am afraid I did not get to see which direction he was pointing in, it appears it was at someone in the House. It may have been heavenward, but I cannot imagine that the hon. member for Medicine Hat would go that far. I feel that perhaps he will want to withdraw the word dishonest at the end of question period.

In the meantime, if the Minister of Finance wishes to reply to the question he can do so.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the various forecasters that comment on projections with respect to the economy and the fiscal situation offer a broad range of views, some of them very conservative, some of them quite aggressive.

The end result is we can, if we like, like the opposition, pick a favourite economist and go to one extreme or the other. Or we can develop a consensus view that averages all of those points of view and come up with a reasonable position in the middle. That approach has produced for Canada the best fiscal position in the G-7 and the best fiscal record since 1867.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker,--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

I said we would deal with it after question period. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has the floor.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that approach has allowed the government to mislead Canadians about the size of surpluses to the tune of $80 billion. That is the level of this government's dishonesty. What an incredible--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that does not accuse people. It is designed to make Canada better.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about Canadian milk producers who want better controls on imports of dairy ingredients.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I notice the Conservatives are not interested about agriculture.

Two weeks ago the Canadian International Trade Tribunal reclassified milk protein products from tariff rate quotas to tariff free and that threatens the Canadian dairy industry.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House how the Government of Canada intends to support supply management in the face of what has now happened as a result of the action of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party very much supports the supply managed system. It is a very effective system. It gives a fair return to producers and provides consumers with an assurance of supply and a quality of supply.

That is why, through the WTO negotiations, we are insisting that there has to be an appreciation and a recognition of sensitive products. Individual countries must have the flexibility to deal with those products in the ways that makes most sense for individual countries.

Sponsorship Program

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I need to get something clear. All of us in this country need to get something clear.

The Minister of Public Works just said a moment ago that if we are attacking Liberal corruption, we are undermining federalism. We need to know from the Prime Minister whether he is able to separate the understanding of the Liberal Party from the country?

Does the Prime Minister understand that public money is not Liberal money? Will he dissociate himself from the position of the Minister of Public Works and do it now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the leader of the NDP to check Hansard . In fact, what I said and what I stand by is that the Bloc, by commenting on allegations as opposed to waiting for Justice Gomery to report, is actually damaging federalist prospects in the province of Quebec.

What the leader of the NDP should do, as someone who I still believe believes in Canada, is to wait until we have a report and not play the separatist game by commenting on daily testimony. He should instead wait for a report that will give Canadians the truth that they desire and that this government and this party stands for.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Party is trying to drape itself in the Canadian flag once again. We have seen what happened with that one before. The Liberals need to understand--

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has the floor. We will have a little order so I can hear the question.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he stop playing games with this country and allow us to get to the bottom of corruption? Fighting corruption is not about fighting. It is about fighting for Canada. It is not about dealing with separatists. Will the Prime Minister stand up and dissociate himself from those remarks?