House of Commons Hansard #121 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-48.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates adopted a motion forcing the government to impose fines in connection with the rental scandal. The Liberals broke the law by paying millions of dollars in rent for an empty building.
Is the Prime Minister going to force his Liberal buddy to pay up or is he going to sweep one more Liberal scandal under the rug?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again Alexis Nihon provided the building as per contract, on time and within budget. Beyond that, my department wrote to Alexis Nihon recently stating, “Please inform us what corrective measures you have taken to arrange your affairs in such a way that you are not in breach of section 25(10) of the lease”.
Furthermore, section 25(10) of the lease referred to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Also, section 14 has been replaced by the Senate code of ethics, which was approved by this House in 2003. Currently, the Senate ethics officer is reviewing this issue. We look forward to his response. He is the person who is qualified and entitled to respond appropriately to this issue.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, that same public works minister admitted that his Liberal friend broke the law. He admitted it twice even though he does not admit it now.
Now our Commons committee wants that law enforced and wants those fines paid. The only question that remains here is whether the government is going to cover up this scandal or whether it is going to enforce the law and ensure that Liberal lawbreaker pays his fines.
Government ContractsOral Question Period
The Speaker
I only heard the tail end of the hon. member's question, but I have warned him before about being very careful in speaking about members of the other place in a disrespectful way. If his question said what I thought I heard at the end, he is going to have some difficulty after question period in dealing with me, but the Minister of Public Works and Government Services can answer the question now.
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again, the discussion is now before the Senate ethics officer. He is the individual who is obligated, entitled and ought to be looking at this. I would urge the committee and the hon. member to respect the role of the Senate ethics officer and to let him do his work.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Lanark, ON
Mr. Speaker, the primary function of the military ombudsman is to protect and defend the individual against any unfair treatment from the Department of National Defence.
When the minister selects an individual for the position of ombudsman, that person must be prepared to fight the system. However, the minister's hand-picked choice, Mr. Côté, does not appear to fulfill this requirement. He is a classic organization man always having defended the government, not the individual.
Does the minister intend to carry on with this appointment in spite of the committee's decision to reject him?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I can assure members of the House that the selection of Mr. Côté was made after a fair and open process. Applicants were heard and we selected, in our view, absolutely the best applicant.
I have heard the objections of the members of the committee and I will consider them. However, I have to tell members of the House that this is a gentleman who has served Canada well and who has been an exemplary public servant.
I do not think it helps either what we are trying to do as a government or what we are doing in the House to attack him for his personal qualifications, which I suggest are quite impeccable as a public servant of our country.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Lanark, ON
Mr. Speaker, so much for the respect of Parliament.
The government set up a process to choose the military ombudsman that guarantees the selection of an advocate for the organization rather than the soldier. Representatives from the highest levels of government, including the PCO, DND and the PMO, were all involved in the selection process.
To exacerbate the problem, the questions used by the selection committee were vetted by the JAG, the organization which its main job is to protect the interests of the department.
Why does the minister persist in using a selection process that is so biased against the needs of the individual soldier, sailor and aviator?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the selection process was open, transparent and fair. Everybody who wanted to apply was able to apply and we selected the best person we could.
Having the people who know something about the system comment on what they think is a good way to get the best possible result. We do not necessarily have to follow all advice. However, I ask the hon. member not to ask the government to ignore the advice of people who know what they are talking about in order to get some blind decision that does not respond to reality.
Marc Boulianne Bloc Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry made a decidedly odd statement, “the last people in the world who should be trying to figure out what a competitive market looks like are politicians”.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that, by refusing to investigate, by refusing to give the Competition Act more teeth, he is siding with the gas and oil companies, and that in the end it is partly his fault if we are forced to pay more than a dollar a litre for gas?
David Emerson LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just demonstrating that he is another one of the neanderthals who think that every time the price of oil goes up there is an international conspiracy to fix prices.
What about when the price of oil goes down? I was referring to the politicians opposite, not the members of this party.
Marc Boulianne Bloc Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, we see that not only are the minister's statements odd, they are also very surprising.
This laid-back attitude by the minister and the government is, moreover, shared by the Minister of Transport, who wants to leave it up to market forces. What kind of signal is an attitude like this sending the oil companies other than they can do whatever they like, and the government will not do anything about it?
David Emerson LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, we have a very good Competition Bureau in our country which is rated among the top four in the world. It has investigated the oil and gas industry five times since 1990 and found no anti-competitive conduct.
The hon. member can blather on all he likes. The facts are the facts.
Greg Thompson Conservative St. Croix—Belleisle, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence continues to deny any link between agent orange and cancer related diseases. I refer to yesterday's testimony by his officials. In fact, they dismiss medical evidence from the United States and other jurisdictions which acknowledge that link.
Having awarded two compensation packages in at least two cases, the Minister of Veterans Affairs recognizes that link. Why does the Minister of National Defence continually deny that link? Why is there the disagreement between the two ministers?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we are not denying the link. What we are trying to do, despite the efforts of the hon. member, is to get some facts into this debate so we can understand exactly what happened some 40 years ago.
We know there was a limited amount of testing over seven days, over the course of two years, in certain areas within Gagetown. We are seeking to find out exactly all those who were exposed.
As the hon. member said, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has ensured that anyone who shows their exposure has been compensated with pensions. We are working on this. We do not minimize anything. We will find solutions and we will work with everyone to find the proper solution.
Greg Thompson Conservative St. Croix—Belleisle, NB
Mr. Speaker, the minister still denies the cause and effect. In fact, he ignores his own information. The record will show that 300,000 gallons of defoliant were sprayed on Camp Gagetown in the period of which we are speaking. He continues to ignore medical evidence.
They are suggesting that in the new studies they are going to come up with, these ongoing studies, nothing new is going to be found. How can he ignore medical science, especially medical science that comes from the United States on this issue? The minister is not making himself very clear.
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, my precise point is that we are not ignoring medical science as I have assured the House. The hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs has ensured that her department is examining carefully anyone who was exposed to agent orange. In those cases where that has been proven, pensions have been awarded.
We treat this very seriously. Our officials will be down there now explaining to the local population that we want to get to the facts. I can assure the hon. member we are not minimizing it. We will give those people who have been affected by agent orange what they need and what they require and that--
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, co-operative housing is an important part of the housing continuum. It provides a secure, affordable option for low and moderate income Canadians. However, in recent months many federally administered co-ops funded under section 95 of the National Housing Act faced a subsidy shortfall when their mortgages came up for renewal. This problem was threatening the financial viability of many projects.
Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell the House what he has done to fix the problem and to assist the people in that situation?
Joe Fontana LiberalMinister of Labour and Housing
Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaches—East York, as well as the Liberal caucus, has been very supportive of co-operative housing. In fact, as I committed in April and delivered in Edmonton this past Saturday, for those co-ops that have suffered the negative impacts of reduced interest rates on subsidies, we have committed dollar for dollar $72 million over the next five years to fix this problem.
It is a commitment made and a promise kept. We also have waived the insurance premiums and we will do more for cooperatives--
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, school boards in Ontario and Quebec took the Liberal government to court to prove they should be exempt from GST on the cost of transporting our children. The courts agreed and a final settlement was made, and all sides accepted it.
Guess what? The Minister of Finance then retroactively changed the law and now refuses to respect the ruling of the courts.
Why is the minister playing games with the rules of law in the country instead of paying the school boards of Ontario and Quebec what the government owes them?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the costs of education are paid for in a variety of ways across the country. The Government of Canada assists in a number of ways through transfers to provinces. Quite frankly, it is our view that systems of direct support are better than those other kinds that the hon. gentleman is suggesting through the tax system.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, the school boards in my region and in Quebec are the victims of fiscal injustice.
Despite the favourable and final judgment they have obtained, Revenue Canada is demanding millions of dollars in GST.
When will the Minister of National Revenue return to money that is owed to the students of Quebec and Ontario?