Debates of June 14th, 2005

Main Estimates, 2005-06

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that this is the new Conservative Party of Canada. I got involved in politics in a party that was called the Reform Party because I wanted to be involved in a party that would change the system. Certainly, we recognized from many different governments that it is systemic change that is needed.

I am not going to stand here tonight and defend a man whom I have not met. I am not going to accuse him. In fact, I would encourage the member to step outside and make some of those allegations. It is awfully easy to make allegations inside this House when he has government immunity, but he should step outside the House and make them.

I do know that the Auditor General, an independent individual, stepped forward, went through the books and found the scandal. She said it was the mother of all scandals in the history of our country. The member stood in the House and said, yes, it was a scandal but was it as bad as that scandal? I think that is a shame. It is a shame that he goes to his notes and pulls out war room talking points. How are the Liberals going to damage control the war room, the fact that they take another $1 million out of public funds and put it into spin doctoring to help bail out a Liberal Party that is in drastic trouble?

Tonight we are dealing with the estimates. We are dealing with budgets and the priorities of the government. He talked about what the Prime Minister did in setting up the Gomery commission. I want to remind the member that in the midst of this biggest scandal in Canadian history dealing with $250 million, the Prime Minister was the finance minister and he said that he had no idea that it was going on. He was the finance minister when there was $100 million going to Liberal ad agencies that were shooting the money back into the Liberal Party of Canada, and he did not know it was going on. He is either completely missing the boat with his job or is negligent at doing the work that he should have been doing, or he was indeed complicit in it. That is what Mr. Gomery is going to decide.

Mr. Gomery is going to decide who was involved, who knew, how much they knew and when they knew. I look forward to waiting for Mr. Gomery to report. I wish that the government would recognize that it should let him report. Perhaps what the government should say is that if it is going to have spin doctoring and damage control, maybe the Liberal Party of Canada should be paying for it.

The taxpayers in the riding of Crowfoot, the taxpayers in Alberta and the taxpayers across the land are sick and tired of paying for damage control to a corrupt government.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this assembly to speak to the opposed vote calling on the government to remove $1 million-plus from the Privy Council budget. If nothing else, this is a symbolic move to try and tell Canadians that what the government did in setting up this Gomery war room was wrong. We have heard time and time again tonight that the sole purpose of that war room was to do damage control, to spin a message so that Canadians would be confused over what really happened in the sponsorship scandal.

Before I go on, my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright spoke earlier this afternoon. He said that he recalled a pop tune from years past. He said it had similarities to what was happening here. He said the name of the tune was Turn! Turn! Turn! and that this was like spin, spin, spin. My colleague could not recall the name of the group. For the record I want to help out my colleague and say that song was sung by a group called The Byrds. The song was composed and penned by Bob Dylan.

I raise that because that got me thinking. A very good friend of mine back in Regina Beach by the name of Butch Lasek and I many times talk about songs late into the evening. One of the amazing attributes that Butch Lasek has, and he has many, is he can recall the words to every obscure pop tune ever recorded. What is even more amazing is that the later at night it gets, the more words he can recall.

I raise this because it reminded me of another obscure pop tune that to me shows the similarity between the song and the relationship between the Canadian voter and the Liberal Party of Canada. The name of the song from back in the 1970s is The Snake . It tells the story of a woman who was walking in the countryside late one winter evening and came upon a poor frozen snake that was obviously dying. The woman, being a caring and loving person, picked up the snake, wrapped it in her scarf, took the snake back to her home, nurtured it, fed it, took care of it, kept it warm and eventually nursed the snake back to health.

One day when she was tending to the snake again, the snake now in full health, rose up and bit the woman. It was a poisonous snake. All of a sudden the woman fell back and said to the snake, “Why did you do that? Why did you bite me? I am surely going to die because your bite is poisonous. After all the time I have taken to take care of you and nurse you back to health, you have bitten me”. The snake said, “Well really, stupid woman, it is your own fault. You knew I was a snake when you took me in”.

If most Canadians can see the relationship between the Canadian voter and the Liberal Party, they might understand the words to the song. If they do not, I can have them phone my friend Butch who will explain it to them in clear and uncut terms. But I digress. I can see we do not have many music fans across the way, although we do have one on this side and I appreciate that.

What we are talking about is the fact that once again this government has taken in secret over $1 million of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to fund an operation, not to benefit Canadians, but to spin the truth about what happened at Gomery.

The ironic thing about this as I see it is that the government did not come forward and tell Canadians or tell this House what it was doing. It took an access to information request by the Ottawa Citizen to find out what was happening. Even with that request we still do not know everything. A lot of the information on the transcripts was blanked out. Client-solicitor confidentiality and that type of thing was cited.

We really do not know a lot of the information that was going on in that war room, but we do know a couple of things.

Number one, we know it was a secret operation. No one on the Liberal side announced the Liberals' intention to do this. If it was as open and above board and in the normal course of action as the members opposite suggest, why did they keep it under wraps?

The real irony is that they, being the Liberal Party of Canada, are basically on trial. Justice Gomery is trying to get to the bottom of what happened to $250 million that was stolen from taxpayers, or perhaps it was only $100 million. Let me correct myself: $250 million was the cost of the sponsorship program, but there is $100 million in question that was apparently stolen from taxpayers and funneled back to the Liberal Party of Canada.

We would not have known about that had there not been an access to information request by a member of the media, who later relayed that to the Auditor General, who began her investigation which eventually uncovered what had been happening.

The government keeps saying that it wants to get to the bottom of it, yet it is doing the same thing with this war room. It took an access to information request to find out what it was doing with the war room. Does the government not learn lessons? Apparently not. It continues to do the same thing that got it into trouble in the first place, and that is to misuse taxpayers' dollars.

I will not stand in this House and say that the million dollars that were budgeted to the Privy Council for these war room operations were stolen from the taxpayers, but clearly there is an ethical question. The use of taxpayers' dollars to benefit the government of the day, to limit the damage coming out of Gomery, is something that no Canadian, certainly no Canadian taxpayer, should accept. It is totally unacceptable. What we need, in the essence of true openness and transparency, is a government that merely lets Gomery do his work, as the Liberals continually say to do.

How in the world are we to believe that this was a relevant use of taxpayers' dollars when the intent of the use of the taxpayers' dollars in this war room was to coach witnesses appearing before Gomery? Why could the witnesses not merely go before Justice Gomery and tell the truth? Why did they have to be coached? Why did they have to be prepped? There is only one reason. It is because the Liberal machine, and again as one of my colleagues said earlier this evening, is a great spin machine and I give them full credit for that. The Liberals wanted to make sure that only their message was coming out on a daily basis. They wanted to make sure that no witness who appeared before Gomery would say anything untoward that might get them in further trouble with Justice Gomery and the Canadian public.

What did they do? They took $1 million of Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money and said, “Here are your lines for today. When questioned, here is how you respond”. Part of the money apparently was also to prepare answers in question period. What answers do they need? We heard consistently, day after day, week after week, month after month from the public works minister, “Let Justice Gomery do his work. I cannot comment on daily testimony because testimony one day may be contradicted by testimony the second day”. We paid $1 million to hear that?

Never did we hear a clear answer from any minister on the opposite side of the House to direct testimony. I must say again, going back to some of the drivel that we heard from members opposite during question period, when they say that testimony one day is going to be contradicted the next, that they are only allegations, as we have said time and time again, much of the sworn testimony that we heard during Gomery were not allegations. They were confessions.

These were individuals who, through their sworn testimony, were implicating themselves. Why would they do that if it was not true? Because it was true. These were confessions under oath of misuse of an orchestrated and systematic method over a 10 year period of taking money from the sponsorship program, taxpayers' dollars, funneling it through friendly Liberal ad agencies and then pumping that money back into the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec to fight elections. These were not allegations. They were confessions. Yet that whole operation, rather than allow Justice Gomery to do his work, as the members opposite say they wished, they set up a war room to control the message.

Why do they need to control the message if we are really looking for the truth? The truth speaks for itself. It always has and it always will, but if they are controlling the information, if they are controlling the message, clearly the only conclusion that any Canadian can come to is that there is something to hide, and we know the government is hiding. We know the government hid the sponsorship scandal and the impact of that money. We know it is trying to hide the truth behind the Gomery commission. We know it is trying to shut down the Gomery commission before Justice Gomery has an opportunity to come to his conclusions.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the speech of my colleague and to ask some questions.

I was most interested to hear him share his views on the PCO's Gomery war room, as it is called, the four or five person swat team within the PCO in charge of damage control to ensure the public only hears what they want it to hear about the Gomery commission and the information associated with it.

My view is if the primary function of this million dollar Gomery damage control war room is to coach witnesses, and this is what we heard in testimony, how is that different from tampering with witnesses? How is witness coaching different from witness interference? Would he not agree with me that the only coaching one should need to give witnesses is to advise them to tell the truth, to tell say what they know about the corruption in the civil service or wherever else they may have found? Would he agree with me that the Gomery war room is a travesty, that it is an insult to the intelligence of all Canadians and that it undermines the integrity of the Gomery commission to have a Gomery war room for coaching witnesses?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right on point. Why does one need to coach someone to tell the truth? If someone wants to give me a million dollars to tell somebody to tell the truth, I could be done in five seconds. However, this was set up over a two-year period, not only to coach and prepare witnesses, but to get the Liberal message out through the witnesses.

The member opposite says that it is an insult to the intelligence of Canadian people when the Liberals say that this is normal procedure. Absolutely. However, not only is it an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian taxpayer, it is an affront to the Canadian taxpayer. This is our money.

I know the member opposite has been very active over the years in the House trying to ensure that things like access to information and legitimacy of government operations to protect taxpayer dollars are paramount. The member has spent his career trying to ensure that things like Gomery are done above board and in a correct fashion.

I can only imagine what he must be feeling when he takes a look at what happened in this war room and the amount of money that was spent to coach and prepare witnesses, when all anyone had to say was to tell the truth. All the Prime Minister needed say to every public servant who was going to be called before Gomery, “My advice to you is tell the truth”. However, he spends a million dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money, not to tell the public servants that simple message, but to coach and prepare the witnesses. This is shameful. It is an absolute affront to the Canadian taxpayer.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we have had witnesses before the Standing Committee on Government Operations on estimates on this matter and we have dealt with all the questions that have been raised. The member should maybe apologize to the House for his language. “Coaching witnesses” is to imply that somehow there is some secretive war room coaching witnesses on what to say and not say.

The preparation of witnesses was paid for by this coordinating group out of the Privy Council Office. The preparation of witnesses was not done by that office. It was done by the counsel for the government who would advise them of their rights. He also would provide them with the binders that would be referred to during questioning. This so-called coaching seems to imply leading or influencing what witnesses would say, and that is not the case. It is ensuring that the witnesses are prepared to participate in the cross-examination and examination by government counsel and other counsel. It is nice to use the word, but the member has misled the House in that matter.

Did the member also know that half the budget of the coordinating group out of PCO was for providing copies of documentation to the commission, as well as for providing translation services and for providing for the legal fees for his party?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again in reference to one of the earlier comments of the member opposite about someone making an apology to the House, it is the Liberal Party of Canada that should apologize to all Canadians for what it did in the sponsorship scandal. It should be making the apology, yet we have heard nothing for the last two years. Not one member opposite has ever stood up and said, “I am sorry. We did wrong and I apologize to the Canadian public”. That party should apologize, not anyone from this side of the House.

This whole thing is an extension. The $1 million Gomery war room, as identified by members opposite, is merely an extension of the problems that occur when we have government that is corrupt, arrogant and does not fear the voter. This is a government that has for 12 years consistently said, “We can do whatever we want and we can get away with it”. Finally, there will come a day when Canadians will say it cannot get away with it and that day is coming soon.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this evening on the main estimates for the Privy Council Office.

For fiscal year 2005-06, the Privy Council Office has allocated $125 million for program spending. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has moved a motion to cut $1 million from vote 1, under operating expenditures for the Privy Council Office.

So I wanted to speak today on the government's behalf on the motion to support the main estimates for the PCO and, consequently, the main estimates for Intergovernmental Affairs, which I have the pleasure of heading.

In the 2004 throne speech, the government introduced an ambitious program in order to put our country on a track that would allow Canadians to unite their efforts in order to achieve their objectives and their collective goals. Canadians have hopes and are entitled to a country with a solid social foundation, where all citizens are treated with dignity, receive assistance in times of need and where no one falls through the cracks.

We want a strong economy able to generate highly paid and interesting jobs and an economy with a solid financial foundation that is prepared to reap the rewards of technological innovations. Canadians also want a country that can play an influential role in the world, make our voice heard, defend our interests and highlight our Canadian values in order to try to solve the many problems in today's world.

Canadians want a government in which they can trust and have faith, a government that is more transparent, that adheres to higher ethical standards and that has achieved a high level of financial responsibility.

The mission of the PCO is to provide non-partisan advice and support, to the best of its abilities, to the Prime Minister, ministers within the Prime Minister's portfolio and cabinet. In order to do this, it focusses on four main objectives. First, it is responsible for administering the decisions made by cabinet. It must, then, examine and coordinate strategic proposals by departments, analyze policies and act as the secretariat for cabinet committees.

Second, it is responsible for conducting research on medium and long term policy issues of importance to Canada.

Third, it must articulate and support the government's policy agenda and cooperate with other departments as well as other levels of government and external stakeholders to advance this agenda. I will elaborate on that later on when I talk about my responsibilities as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Finally, the role of the Privy Council is also to help foster a strong public service for the 21st century, one that is values-based, high performing and accountable.

In describing these roles, one realizes that the Privy Council Office is a unique and privileged entity within the federal government in that it acts as secretariat to the cabinet and as adviser to the Prime Minister on a wide range of policy and operational issues related to the management of the federation. In carrying out its mandate, it must take into account a multitude of external factors and public interest issues.

For example, the Privy Council Office must take into consideration demographic changes, including increased diversity, the aging of the population and urbanization. It must also take into consideration the state of the economy, including our economic performance at all levels and our capacity to adapt to an increasingly competitive global economy.

It must also take into account the values and priorities of Canadians, in particular in relation to health services and national security; the state of the federation and intergovernmental affairs, the role played by Canada in a constantly evolving geopolitical context and its place in that context; and lastly the socio-economic issues that impact on certain large segments of our society, including aboriginal people, children and the elderly.

The PCO must therefore be constantly able to adapt in order to provide reliable, informed and timely advice on major issues, be they regional, national or international. It plays an important and unique role though its government-wide approach to policy development and issue management.

The Privy Council Office delivers a wide variety of services in fulfilling its essential duties. With an ongoing concern for professionalism and impartiality, it provides strategic advice and efficient support to both the Prime Minister and the ministers reporting to him. There are a number of us who make up the Prime Minister's portfolio along with the Privy Council. These are: the Deputy Prime Minister, myself of course, as President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the government House leader, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is also the Minister responsible for Official Languages.

So the Privy Council's mandate is to oversee the smooth operation of the cabinet decision making process, while adhering to the principles of responsible government and the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

This means in practice that the PCO facilitates discussions during regular cabinet meetings as well as throughout the periodic planning sessions for the government's program. It defines key objectives and priorities and ensures that established policies comply with the government's program.

It facilitates the discussion of initiatives, programs or strategic changes that are put forward during cabinet committee meetings and one-time and informal meetings of ministers.

In addition, the Privy Council Office oversees the development of departmental initiatives that will be presented for cabinet approval. It makes sure all proposals are based on a thorough analysis, that the intergovernmental consultations that were required have been made, and that the proposals fit in with the broad government priorities.

In this regard, the Privy Council Office plays an important role by examining the policies that departments put forward. The ministers determine and present priorities and initiatives from the perspective of their own department and other responsibilities. They are supported by experts and the action of specialized organizations in each department.

The Privy Council Office works closely with the Department of Finance et and the Secretariat of the Treasury Board to make sure the proposed policies are in tune with the agenda and other priorities of the government and that the whole impact on resources has been factored in.

It contributes to a better coordination between various governmental organizations that are crucial to the design and implementation of governmental policies. This coordination helps make sure that the new proposed policies complement the existing ones and that they fit in with the broad objectives of the government.

The PCO plays a very important management role in terms of the public service reform initiatives. It works closely with the other central agencies so that the efforts to modernize the public service continually aim at establishing policies and methods that improve management of human resources.

The advantages Canadians can draw from improved performance by the PCO are clear. It ensures the functioning of government operations and the precise formulation of its objectives.

Very regularly, when we speak with the public in our ridings or meet individuals and talk to them about the Canadian government's PCO, they wonder what the office does, exactly. Its name sometimes raises questions. People are more used to the names of departments, which set out their responsibility clearly. For example, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development looks after human resources; the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, agriculture. However, people wonder about the role of the PCO.

In the course of my parliamentary and government experience, I have realized the importance of the Government of Canada's central agencies. I am thinking specifically of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office. These are three bodies with a truly government wide view. They observe government action everywhere and try to bring much more consistency to our government policies, so that the public receiving services can understand better what the government as a whole is trying to provide.

The PCO therefore plays a fundamental role. I might be allowed to wonder about the intention of opposing the votes allocated the PCO, when it is so essential to the operation and decisions of the government.

In short, it is a little like the department of the Prime Minister, which manages all of government. It therefore needs a specialized, trained and competent team around it to advise it and Cabinet on the decisions to make.

I have the honour of working on this portfolio, the Prime Minister's portfolio, in other words, the Privy Council, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I have the opportunity to experience from the inside what the Privy Council can do for the entire government. I can assure you that its advice can be quite judicious. The final decision always falls on the ministers and the Prime Minister, with his cabinet, but we are supported by very knowledgeable people around us.

Allow me to elaborate more specifically on my responsibilities as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, which is one of the very important aspects of the role of the Privy Council Office.

Intergovernmental Affairs is an integral part of the Privy Council Office. It supports the Prime Minister and cabinet in policies and communication in areas such as federal-provincial-territorial relations, aboriginal affairs, evolution of the federation and Canadian unity.

Intergovernmental Affairs provides analyses, advice, liaison and strategic planning. It follows issues concerning major intergovernmental elements, assesses federal, provincial and territorial priorities, works together with the federal departments and with the provincial and territorial governments. It also handles constitutional and legal issues related to the evolution of the federation and Canadian unity.

We live in a federal system. We live in a federation. When we look at our country's vast diversity, culturally, linguistically or otherwise, we understand why the fathers of Canadian confederation chose the federal model over a unitary one. In this great diverse country of ours, the federal system suits the needs of the public very well.

In a federation, one of the basic rules is that the partners of the federation have to work together with a view to meeting the needs of their constituents. To do so, we need to have harmonious intergovernmental relations.

Our Prime Minister, since he became the Prime Minister of Canada, has said loud and clear that he wanted these intergovernmental relations to be more energetic and harmonious. In 2004 alone, there were three first ministers' meetings in this country. When government leaders meet, it is really to discuss issues facing our country and to find ways to better respond to people's needs.

At that time, my staff and I, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, help the Prime Minister of Canada in preparing for these meetings with his counterparts. Let us examine the experiences that we had in 2004. There was the first ministers' meeting on health. How many individuals and, sometimes, opposition members were saying that we would have trouble reaching a consensus on an issue that is so dear to Canadians? Yet, our government leaders, with the Prime Minister of Canada, were successful in reaching a very important agreement for the future of health care.

It was the same when all first ministers met to discuss equalization. That is another fundamental feature of our federation. Indeed, equalization is an important value to all Canadians. Why? Because it is a shared value in this Canadian federation.

We can see how important intergovernmental relations have become. We are indeed dealing with increasingly complex issues in the environment in which we now live, even internationally. In that context, the provincial, territorial and Canadian governments have to work harder and harder at meeting these needs of our population.

In its various dimensions, be it intergovernmental affairs or in connection with official languages, which are so important to our country—that is another important Canadian value—the Privy Council Office is involved on the pan-government level to try and ensure that all departments make the best decisions.

In this context, we have to support this evening the operating budget provided for the Privy Council Office to carry out this central responsibility in our government, to help make better decisions for the Canadian public as a whole.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support the motion to adopt the main estimates for the Privy Council Office.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member. I was listening very intently to the speech. It was very interesting to hear about the Privy Council Office and the functions that happen within that office. I was quite taken with three things the hon. member said. The Privy Council Office sets up, according to members opposite, a government that they can trust, a government that has transparency and a government that will have fiscal responsibility.

In the description of all the departments and the description of the intent of the Privy Council Office, it was good to hear that those were the kinds of things that were supposed to be set up.

Here is my question for the member opposite. With all these grand descriptions of the Privy Council Office, how can the hon. member square that with the fact that our nation has seen one of the largest scandals in the history of our nation, with the government taking money from taxpayers and now paying $32 million for the Gomery commission to get to the bottom of this scandal, which was and is a Liberal scandal? As well, now we discover that a war room was set up with a $1 million price tag.

We hear about the Privy Council Office and all the people who are giving advice to the Prime Minister and how the Prime Minister wants to set up the sort of government that has transparency and fiscal responsibility. Can the hon. member please answer the question of how this can happen when clearly there is no accountability or transparency in the Privy Council Office?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problems that we experienced recently regarding sponsorship activities were recognized by everyone in this House, and first and foremost by our government.

Our government, through the Prime Minister, took concrete action as soon as the issue surfaced. This is what is most important. When there is a problem in the government, it is important to have the means necessary to determine what occurred and what mistakes were made, to go to the bottom of things, to look at what happened, and to take corrective action.

In this case, the problems were such that the Prime Minister of Canada himself decided to set up a commission of inquiry to go to the bottom of things. The seriousness of this situation is reflected by the fact that it was dealt with directly by our Prime Minister.

When a problem of such magnitude surfaces, it is only normal that the Privy Council Office would set up a group to help the government make decisions.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that we decided to have a group to support cabinet and the Prime Minister shows precisely that we recognized the seriousness of the problem. I think it was perfectly appropriate to set up this group, which provides very sound advice to the government, so that we can take proper measures to ensure that this problem does not occur again in the future.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the hon. minister.

I want to correct something that the member from the other side mentioned on the accountability issue and which is probably not well known by her, that is, the government put forth a comptroller system, which is absolutely essential in producing extra accountability for the expenditure of other people's money. That is what we did.

On top of that, we also put forth an external expenditure abuse system, which is another check and balance. It is very exciting to see what that does. We are actually making sure that every single minister and every single ministry will be looking at expenditures, taking out the bottom 15% and ensuring that those moneys are put into the highest priorities of the people of Canada. I think it is an innovative thing that this government has done. It is not well known by the public, but I think that perhaps it is something we should be talking about more.

I do have a question for the hon. member. We have a complex federation. One of the challenges of any government is to make sure that we work with the provinces as one country but respect the jurisdiction of each province in various areas such as health care, education and welfare. How is the hon. member strengthening the federation? How is she working with her provincial counterparts to make sure that the needs of Canadians are met from coast to coast in our country?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could have a debate on that question. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear from all parliamentarians.

Living in a federation as we are demands mutual respect between all partners as the first basic principle. We must strictly respect the role of each partner but work together to best serve the citizens.

In the present circumstances the solutions to our citizens' problems require simultaneous action in different areas of jurisdiction. That requires all levels of government to work together. I would not say that this is always easy. In a federation, there are always tensions but they can be turned into positive tensions if we really want to try to develop better services for the population.

It is in that context that Intergovernmental Affairs tries to support all departments with a view to improving dialogue with our friends in the provinces, finding solutions, reaching consensus, in short, mediating while not losing sight of the fact that our main objective is to better serve our fellow citizens. Mutual respect, cooperation and partnership are key to successful intergovernmental relations. That is how we find solutions for Canadians as a whole.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to debates attentively for two hours. I must tell you that it has been a most amazing example of a special presentation of the two solitudes at their very best.

It began with some hon. members, some of the best, from the NDP. They were boasting, to the point of bursting, like the frog in the fable of The Frog and the Ox , that they had negotiated improvements to the Liberal budget on behalf of the people. Did they bother about people from Quebec on whose backs this sponsorship scandal was initiated? Conservative colleagues did denounce this loathsome corruption, but did they bother learning why this sponsorship scandal had been initiated in the first place?

If our colleague from the Privy Council were still here, I would ask her who, in the Privy Council, knew what Chuck Guité was up to? They are the ones who organize the fight between Canada's national sovereignty and that of Quebec. Who apologized to the Quebec nation for what the sponsorship scandal represented? Who?

We are a people and a nation. As long as you do not recognize that, you are bound to have problems. In 1867, a confederation was created.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Would you please restore order, Mr. Speaker?

Fortunately, in Canada, there are people who are beginning to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want at least to be respected. We never hid the fact that we want to attain sovereignty through pacific and democratic means. Sponsorships are not an honest means. Some Canadians are starting to realize that, in this so-called fight for national unity, they are loosing their soul. Corruption is meaningless. Turpitude in the name of national unity is meaningless. Our means are democracy, openness and transparency.

In the rest of Canada, people are starting to understand some things about the future. You have probably noticed that Paul Jackson and Richard Gwyn, two Canadian thinkers, now say that it is pointless to try to prevent Quebec from becoming a sovereign nation. They say Canada should let Quebeckers do it if they want, and the two nations should preserve their friendship.

The future of Canadians and Quebeckers depends on their will to work together, to cooperate with each other. You will not make us disappear by trying to silence us, to hide things from us, to buy us or to threaten us. We will be here!

Again, there are Canadians who see in this national fight, with the means used, including sponsorships, corruption, lying and “whatever”, that they are losing their soul and heading down an extremely slippery and dangerous slope.

It would have been possible in this budget to address the most crucial issue for all the provinces, that of the fiscal imbalance. The government wanted nothing to do with it. The NDP, having obtained a little negotiating power because of the Liberals' desire to buy belated virginity, did not even care about doing anything about either the fiscal imbalance or employment insurance.

Canada is paying and will pay a high price for nation building on the back of the Quebec nation. Indeed, the Canada of others, even the Canada that Trudeau wanted to build, is not a country built on corruption. The aim of the corruption was to buy Quebeckers not only physically but spiritually and mentally. It did not succeed; quite the contrary.

At some point, we will have to talk to one another and they will have to accept that we are here to stay. And like two free countries, brothers and friends, we will both be the strongest and most able to influence the world.

In fact, Canada, which is looking to be a leader in some field, could do so if it could show it could honestly and openly settle with Quebec, without corruption, the problem of recognizing its nationhood and identity.

On that, I wish us a good vote.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of heckling tonight.

I have a question for the member from the Bloc Québécois. What does she think about our ancestors' history? It is not about only her ancestors, but mine, ours, the first Canadians, the first French settlers who were called Canadiens. The others, they were called Englishmen.

Our ancestors did not stay for long in one place. They travelled through this great, large country, they opened it, they discovered it and participated in its life. It is a beautiful country. We are proud to be Canadians in this country.

I do not understand how the Bloc Québécois can forget this history that we share, as Francophones and Canadians. Why is this hockey team called The Montreal Canadiens? It is because the players were Francophone Canadians.

I am fed up with those comments. Because I was born in Ontario, just like my parents and my grand-parents, does that mean I have no part in the history of this country. I am sorry, but this is my history and this is our history.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois and I have an infinite respect for all those Canadians from the French parts of Canada, who made their contribution in building the country for French and English Canadians.

Nevertheless, my colleague will understand what others understood before, including Daniel Johnson senior. He was the first one to ask for equality or independence, even though his grandfather was Irish and did not speak French. He understood that Quebec would be the homeland — such was the expression used at the time — of French Canadians.

We have nothing against French Canadians who settled in other parts of Canada. To the contrary, we recognize their accomplishments. But we cannot use their presence in the rest of Canada as an excuse to deny the people of Quebec, a multi-ethnic nation, the right to claim its place in history, alongside Canadians and Americans.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 9:59 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 9, 2005, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Edmonton--Spruce Grove relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.