House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sex.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, Michel Robert, made an unacceptable statement last week on the political opinions of federal judicial appointees.
How could the Minister of Justice not vigorously condemn, here in the House, the chief justice, who has clearly crossed the line separating the legislative and judicial branches with his totally unacceptable remarks?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said last week. The independence and integrity of the judiciary must not be undermined for partisan purposes, above all, to insinuate its guilt by association. It is extremely important for us to respect our judiciary's international reputation for excellence.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is Chief Justice Robert and the Minister of Justice, who refuses to condemn him, who are tarnishing the reputation of the Canadian judiciary.
Michel Robert, the chief justice of Quebec's Court of Appeal, has made a mockery of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by condoning discrimination on the basis of political opinion.
How can the Minister of Justice, who claims to be the great defender of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not support my call to remove this judge, who has crossed the line between the judicial and legislative branches?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I want no part in tarnishing the reputation of the judiciary. I have heard that the member has filed a complaint with the Canadian judicial council. We will await the results of this complaint. However, I do not want to take part in sullying our judiciary's reputation for excellence.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party ignores the unemployed since there is nothing on employment insurance. In so doing, the Prime Minister is continuing down the same path that led him to vote against the Bloc Québécois amendment to the budget on overhauling the system.
How can the Prime Minister brush off improvements to the employment insurance system when he has proven beyond a doubt that he has the necessary financial means to make those changes?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, in any event, the Bloc Québécois is against the budget, regardless of all its good measures, including those to help our workers.
The primary goal is to provide employment for all our workers in Canada. That is why it is perfectly normal to put more money into providing proper training for people to get competitive jobs in Canada.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister should get her facts straight. The Prime Minister has been cutting employment insurance since 1994 when he was Minister of Finance. He was at the heart of this operation and continues to be now that he is Prime Minister.
How could the Prime Minister make promises directly to the unemployed during the past election campaigns when in reality, he never had any intention of keeping his promises?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is against the current budget, yet there are four measures in it specifically to help workers. The Prime Minister said the employment insurance program needed to be adjusted and that is precisely what we are doing.
Naturally, the Bloc Québécois could never accept the budget even though there are some very good measures in it for our workers, including in Quebec.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, Art Eggleton was removed from cabinet for giving his girlfriend a questionable contract.
After losing his cabinet position, and then his seat in the House of Commons, Eggleton is now being rewarded with a comfy seat in the Senate.
Could this Prime Minister's ethics actually be worse than those of his predecessor?
How can we trust this Prime Minister to clean up the sponsorship scandal, if he continues to reward Liberals who break the rules?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the method for appointing senators is well known; it is a prerogative of the Prime Minister. The last time appointments were made to the Senate, they were made on the basis of merit.
In fact, for the first time, members of the Senate were appointed from opposition parties, such as the Conservatives and the NDP. I would therefore suggest that my hon. friends welcome their new colleagues as we did, with open arms.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal definition of marriage is different from any I have ever heard.
The biggest difference between the Prime Minister and his predecessor is that the Prime Minister sends disgraced cabinet ministers to the Senate instead of Denmark.
He has endlessly been saying that Liberals implicated in the sponsorship scandal will be punished. If the Prime Minister awards Art Eggleton with a Senate appointment, is that the kind of punishment Liberal sponsorship offenders can look forward to?
How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to deal with sponsorship wrongdoing when he rewards those who break the rules?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing. The prerogative of appointing senators belongs to the Prime Minister. Appointments are done on merit.
In the recent series of appointments, members were appointed from the party opposite as well as the NDP.
I would suggest to the members that they welcome the new members, as we have welcomed them, with open arms.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, a lease contract between Liberal Senator Paul Massicotte and the Liberal government once again turned into a taxpayers' nightmare.
I am trying to understand the logic. The government paid Senator Massicotte's company $10 million over one year for a building that was serving no purpose, except perhaps that of squandering public funds.
Why did this government pay millions of dollars to the Liberal senator's company to rent a vacant building for no apparent reason?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the lease contract was awarded under a fair and open tender process and was overseen by a fairness monitor, KPMG. The winner of the competitive contract on the basis of the least cost was the firm of Alexis Nihon, which is a large, publicly traded firm that owns over 50 commercial properties across Canada.
Occupation of the building took time because of the amalgamation of the National Archives and the National Library into one entity. Because of the fit up requirements to meet specialized technical requirements it did take longer.
However I am pleased to say that the building is 70% occupied and will be 100% occupied by July.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, where I come from people start paying rent when they move into the place.
The government has been paying half a million dollars per month to the company of a Quebec Liberal senator for a building that was totally empty for an entire year, and half empty for the last six months. Only in Liberal wonderland would that be considered a good deal.
Will the Prime Minister stand in the House and explain to us why Canadians paid nearly $10 million to rent a vacant building from one of his Liberal friends in the Liberal Senate?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is referring to the fact that the building is located in Quebec. It is interesting that he should do that given that his riding is on the border on the Ottawa side, but perhaps it speaks to his opposition to the 75:25 rule where we are working to ensure that 25% of the employees of the federal government are in Quebec.
Why is he attacking our efforts to ensure equity in the national capital region? Why is he playing petty politics with a genuine effort by the federal government to ensure equity within the national capital region and that Quebec is treated fairly on this issue?
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, in May of last year the Government of Canada in collaboration with the province of Nova Scotia allocated $400 million for the remediation of the Sydney tar ponds. In the past year a project description has been developed and presented by the province. Today in Sydney it was announced that a full panel review would take place to assess the cleanup process.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will today's announcement in Sydney make certain that the people of Cape Breton will finally see this project proceed in a safe and expedient manner?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to be in Cape Breton and Sydney this morning with my colleagues, the Minister of Public Works and the members of Parliament for Sydney--Victoria and Cape Breton--Canso, to announce that the environmental assessment of the remediation of the tar ponds and coke oven sites will be referred to a full panel for review. The panel will report no later than June of next year.
I want to thank the population of Cape Breton and the two members of Parliament.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, this weekend the health minister warned Canadians about a hidden agenda for health care, but the only agenda we really have to worry about is the Liberal agenda.
The government waited years to provide provinces with adequate health funding. Meanwhile, privatization exploded under the Liberal watch. In fact, Nova Scotia just announced the opening of a new private clinic. Now the health minister is promising action on user fees.
After 12 years of broken promises, why should Canada believe anything that a Liberal health minister has to say?
Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are enforcing the Canada Health Act across the country. We started the process with respect to New Brunswick. I have written to the other ministers of health across the country on this issue.
Our differences are not with the NDP on this issue. Our differences are with the opposition when the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition House leader are bent upon privatizing health care in Canada, which we will not let happen.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of talk but very little action. We are talking letters here and not concrete action.
On this side of the House we have been demanding accountability for health funding to ensure public health dollars were not paying for private clinics. Now, after the agreement with first ministers has been signed, the health minister is committing to publicly funded and publicly delivered systems.
I want to know, how will the Liberals ensure that the $41 billion will actually be spent on public health care?
Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that $41 billion has been provided to the provinces over the next 10 years to make sure we have public health care in Canada with public delivery of that health care. The real danger to health care is from the opposition benches where they want to privatize health care American style.
Norman Doyle Conservative St. John's North, NL
Mr. Speaker, I recently wrote the Prime Minister asking for a separate bill on the Atlantic accord. The Prime Minister wrote me back of course refusing my request.
The Prime Minister was willing to cut a deal with the NDP to save his own job and to put his corporate tax cuts in a stand-alone bill. Why will the Prime Minister not bring in a new bill on the Atlantic accord? Why is he holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador hostage to his budget requests?
