Debates of May 19th, 2005

National Defence

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree. That is a complete misrepresentation of what took place. This was a matter that occurred 45 years ago on a base where nobody understood at that time what the consequences were.

We have been learning now how members might have been affected by it in parts of the base, but we did not know exactly which parts were affected and who had gone through. These are circumstances that are very complicated.

We take this very seriously. I can promise the hon. member, who says he was at Gagetown, that we are working with our forces and we will make sure that anybody who is affected by this will be compensated. My colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has already done it.

Agriculture

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, the Quebec Union des producteurs agricoles reminded us that the mad cow crisis has had serious consequences and, to date, producers in Quebec have lost $280 million, losses that existing programs have not compensated.

Why is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food not amending existing programs to bring them more in line with the reality facing Quebec producers?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of measures in order to assist producers in Quebec and indeed right across Canada.

As I mentioned in an answer to a previous question, we have been able to increase slaughter capacity in this country by nearly 30%. We have provided income support of well over $1 billion to producers. We have intervened in the marketplace through our set-aside programs to see a recovery in the price.

There is additional work that needs to be done, as the hon. member has pointed out, and we will move in that respect as we go forward.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government has already done its part to secure financing for the Colbex abattoir. The federal government must do its share to ensure that producers get a floor price for their cull cows.

Why is the minister not announcing the federal contribution to this financing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear on several occasions in talking to the UPA in respect of the slaughter capacity in Quebec that if there is any proposal to increase that slaughter capacity, we have programming to assist in that respect.

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works refuses to attend the government operations and estimates committee to be held accountable on the 2005-06 spending estimates for his department. This committee has twice scheduled meetings with the minister and twice the minister has refused to attend.

With regard to the committee's agenda, would the chair of the government operations and estimates committee explain to the House and Canadians the minister's absence from this committee?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the public works minister has shown contempt for this committee of the House of Commons by not fulfilling his basic responsibility to come to the committee and answer the questions that the committee may have about his department.

In fact, he has twice now agreed to come to our committee and has both times broken his word. He is hiding from the questions the committee should ask of him. It seems clear to me that the Minister of Public Works has a hidden agenda that he desperately wants--

[The Speaker]

I see that the hon. member for Vegreville--Wainwright has the next question. I trust it is not to himself.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works often says that he is open and accountable, but his actions say he is not. We just cannot trust what he says.

The truth is that the public works minister has shown contempt for the government operations and estimates committee by not fulfilling his most basic responsibility of appearing before the committee to answer the questions it has about his department. Twice now he has agreed to come and both times has broken his word.

Why is the minister showing such contempt for the committee and for the Canadian public?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that my office has been working with the chairman's office to schedule times. This was complicated somewhat by the fact that the Conservative members of that committee and the Bloc members of that committee decided to take a holiday that week instead of working. In fact, my office offered to meet with the committee tomorrow as well, but those members over there believe in a four day work week.

Let me say that Liberal members of Parliament are working five days a week and seven days a week in the interests of Canada. We do not believe in four day work weeks. We do not believe in taking time off and voting ourselves days off.

Infrastructure

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, many roads in our rural regions need to be repaired in order to allow our individual and commercial traffic access to the highways. This will facilitate connections between the regions, thereby contributing to tourism and trade while also ensuring the safety of our drivers.

In my riding and in the riding of my colleague from Beauséjour, the need to repair some roads, for example, highways 11 and 17 in New Brunswick, is becoming increasingly urgent.

On behalf of the citizens of Madawaska—Restigouche, I would like to know the status of this matter. Could the minister give us an update on the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the provinces?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and for his tireless work in connection with highways 11 and 17.

We are currently in discussion with the provinces. My colleagues, the provincial transport ministers, and I need to implement phase two of the national highway system, which would fund the work on highways 11 and 17.

Accordingly, over the next few weeks, we can certainly ensure that officials will be working together so that the ministers can give their approval for the repairs to highways 11 and 17 to be subsidized by the Government of Canada.

Sponsorship Program

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

By the way, Mr. Speaker, last Friday 99% of Conservative MPs were in the House and only 45% of Liberal MPs, so who showed up for work?

The public works minister said the other day that $750,000, a fraction of the dirty money received by the Liberal Party, had already been placed in an account. It turns out that was not true. Then he said it would be placed in an account in a few months. We do not know if that is true. Today he said “in a few days”.

Can the minister consult with himself to get his story straight so that Canadian taxpayers know when the Liberal Party's dirty money is going to be set aside so it cannot run a fourth campaign on it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear. The fact is that the Liberal Party has established a trust fund and will be placing $750,000 in that trust fund. That is the right thing to do. In fact, it is an interim step that demonstrates good faith, but the most important commitment is that of returning any funds received inappropriately to the Canadian taxpayers.

Let us be clear. There are allegations against the Conservatives. There are allegations against the Bloc.

There is only one leader of any federal political party, and that is our Prime Minister, with our Liberal Party, who is doing the right thing to get to the bottom of this issue and ensure that Canadian taxpayers are treated fairly.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine that member talking about good faith.

Let us be clear. They are not allegations about Liberal corruption. They are admissions under sworn testimony before a quasi-judicial inquiry, not allegations but confessions. Now we know that millions were received by organs of the Liberal Party illicitly. We know that close supporters of the Prime Minister received that money. We know that not one red cent has been put aside.

When exactly does the Liberal Party plan to set aside that money? Or does the government plan to go into the next election for a fourth time with taxpayers' stolen money?

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

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago that hon. member stood in the House and quoted something that I supposedly said. In fact, it turned out that somebody else had said it and he has refused to apologize to the House for misleading the House at that time. He demonstrates that he does not deserve the respect this House ought to provide to members when he refuses to actually retract that which is not true.

Beyond that, he is the hon. member who said that the only person who believes Chuck Guité is Chuck Guité and then a few weeks later was saying that Chuck Guité's testimony was sacrosanct. He has no credibility.

Public Safety

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a student in my riding has missed out on a great opportunity to work for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the summer, because of the RCMP's inability to process fingerprinting requests expeditiously.

Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell us why an agronomy student needs to provide fingerprints and undergo a detailed security clearance in order to take a summer job as an assistant in a soil and field crop research centre?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably aware, public employees of the Government of Canada do need to be security cleared. That is a requirement. I would be amazed if anybody were to suggest otherwise.

However, the point she raises is an important one in that we need to make sure when we do these security clearances that we are able to do them in an effective and efficient way. In fact, this issue was raised with me at main estimates at committee earlier this week. I have promised to take up this matter and see if we can expedite this security clearance system, at least for summer employees.

Social Development

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative-Bloc alliance members are threatening to bring down the government tonight by voting together to kill the federal budget.

Could the Minister of Social Development inform the House of how this will affect the implementation of the early learning child care initiative that the federal government has already signed with Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, Minister of Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, 12 months ago in this country, as the Canadian public knows, nothing ambitious was happening in the area of early learning and child care on a broad scale. There was nothing in that regard.

Then there was the campaign commitment. Then there was the delivery in terms of the budget. Now there are five agreements with five different provinces. This year there is $700 million and there will be $5 billion over five years. A commitment to create a national early learning and child care system: that is what is at stake.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly why we would ask the Thursday question this Thursday because we fully expect that Parliament is going to end here in a couple of hours.

Nevertheless, just in case something mysteriously happens and the Liberals manage to bribe another vote or two, and Parliament survives for another day, I wonder if the House Leader--

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. opposition House leader is trying to be helpful, but it is the Thursday question he is putting, not a speech. The hon. member will want to constrain himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, if Parliament does survive, I wonder whether the government has a plan for what its agenda is for tomorrow and the week following the break week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was attempting to show some civility. He has great difficulty in doing that.

After completing the debate on the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, the House will take up third reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; Bill C-23, the human resources legislation; Bill C-22, the social development bill; and Bill C-26, the border services legislation.

We would also like to deal with the census bill, Bill S-18 and the RADARSAT bill, Bill C-25. If there is time, we would start Bill C-46, the corrections and conditional release bill; Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill; and Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

This list of legislation will carry the House well into the week of May 30, the week in which we return from the break.

In addition, three days that week shall be allotted days, namely May 31, June 2 and June 3. On May 31 the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Social Development.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House because I know, and all members know, it is in the interests of Canadians to get this Parliament working on the issues that are important to them.

Points of Order

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very excited in recent days and weeks, but I am truly concerned that Parliament maintain the strength of the Standing Orders and I know you are very interested in that.

I was surprised last week that you did not rule on it, but I noticed again today that the opposition used the Standing Order which allows a question to be posed to the chair of a standing committee.

This is a relatively obscure but extremely important Standing Order. It is a Standing Order which gives strength to committees. It gives the committee chairs some stature in the House.

I would argue that in both cases the opposition abused that privilege. Mr. Speaker, if you read the Standing Orders, and I know you have the Standing Orders memorized, you will note that yes, a question can be posed to the chair of a standing committee, but the chair of the standing committee can only reply with respect to the organization of the committee and its agenda. The chair cannot comment on the work of the committee and certainly cannot criticize the work of the committee or anything of that sort.

I would argue that if you, Mr. Speaker, leave the question that was posed by the Leader of the Opposition last week with respect to public accounts and the question that was posed today to the chair of the government operations committee hanging, you will have weakened permanently the Standing Orders of the House and weakened the status of standing committees of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to look into both of those questions and rule, as I think you will, that those questions were an abuse of a very valuable Standing Order.