House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was forward.
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, once again, I reiterate the same comment that I made a couple of moments ago. We will have to wait for the Minister of Finance to table his budget. We will know at that moment the answers and responses.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, although the Prime Minister is wrong to mimic President Bush by refusing to allow media coverage of the repatriation of the fallen soldiers in Afghanistan, when it comes to the price of gas he should follow the U.S. president's lead and limit the gasoline price hikes. The Prime Minister can and must take action.
Does he realize he does not have to right to stand idly by and leave citizens at the mercy of the oil companies, which he is doing by refusing to take action?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the government has assured the public of its intention to reduce consumption tax immediately by $5 billion. The public voted for that and we will deliver.
I hope the Bloc will support this assistance for consumers in Canada and Quebec.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, two cents a litre when oil companies are making exorbitant profits at the refineries is unacceptable.
The government is standing by while taxi drivers, truck drivers and farmers are all hurting. It remains indifferent to the thousands of manufacturing jobs that are at stake.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he can choose to lead a government that serves the public or a government that serves the oil companies? Which option has he chosen?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was clear: we want to reduce the tax burden on all Canadians by reducing the GST immediately. That was our election promise and that is what we intend to do. It is very clear.
All Canadians and all fuel consumers will benefit.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, Frank Dottori, formerly with Tembec, confirms that the lumber industry has everything to lose by being forced to negotiate with the Americans under unnecessarily tight deadlines. Michel Vincent, of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, has stated that Quebec producers will accept nothing less than full repayment of countervailing duties illegally collected by the Americans. Clearly, the industry is very concerned.
Can the Minister of International Trade guarantee that he and his government will absolutely not negotiate a watered-down agreement with the Americans at the expense of the Quebec and Canadian softwood lumber industry?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have committed to try and see if there is a resolution to the softwood lumber dispute. There have been many discussions going on. These discussions have been into the complex issues that affect every company in this country that is involved in softwood lumber.
I can honestly say that at this stage there is not an agreement yet on the softwood lumber dispute and its resolution.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister realize that if the softwood lumber industry feels so vulnerable and concerned it is because the previous government refused to take action and provide loan guarantees to this industry, as it had requested, and that this government is doing exactly the same thing, that is abandoning our Canadian and Quebec softwood lumber industry?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, we wish to arrive at a final and long-term solution to the softwood lumber issue. The loan guarantees were an election promise. In due course, and if necessary, there will be a program on the table.
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, we all know about the negative impacts of climate change. We see it every day. Yet, the government continues to gut the programs that are designed to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.
Regrettably, as evidenced by the throne speech, the environment is not a priority for the Prime Minister. Can we anticipate that he will flip-flop on this issue, and put in a concrete and specific plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from Canada? We need a made in Canada solution not a made in U.S.A. solution.
Gary Lunn ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and I are working very much on this issue.
I would remind the hon. member that yes, we have cut some programs which were deemed ineffective and not in the taxpayers' interests and received failing grades. I want to remind the hon. member that under the previous government greenhouse gases went up to 30%.
You might want to look at the programs you created and actually see if they were working. This government is committed to real change.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The hon. minister was not suggesting the Speaker had a program. The hon. member for Etobicoke North has the floor. I remind hon. members to address the Chair.
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would table all the analysis. We on this side know that many of the programs that worked are being gutted.
Let me be specific. Last year we introduced a program that would reduce the energy costs of seniors and low income Canadians by $500 this year, next year and every year thereafter. The government is gutting that program. Why?
Gary Lunn ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that there was an independent review that was actually initiated by the old government. Its programs received failing grades. We decided that they were not effective for taxpayers and not effective in cutting greenhouse gases. Our party will not continue to fund programs that do not work.
The numbers speak for themselves. Greenhouse gases went up each and every single year that the old government was in office. This government is working to bring about real change for Canadians and the environment.
Jean Lapierre Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Conservative government is currently negotiating the future of the forestry industry in Washington without consulting it, behind its back and in secret. Worse still, the government has put the $5.3 billion that belongs to the Canadian industry on the table.
Is the government grovelling so low before the Americans that it puts the United States ahead of the principle stakeholders affected by these negotiations?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion and consultation with provincial governments, industries and companies. All kinds of issues are in play as the hon. member knows. It is a highly complex issue. The discussions are more broad-ranging than they have ever been in the past. No agreement has been reached at this time.
Jean Lapierre Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, this minister announced measures he described as urgent to help the industry, communities and workers.
What has gone on in his head that the matter is no longer urgent, that there is no longer a need for loan guarantees, help to workers and help to communities? What has changed? Is it his changing sides?
David Emerson ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that everybody in the industry wants this dispute resolved. They want the dispute resolved more than they want loan guarantees. If the dispute is not resolved, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have indicated that a loan guarantee program will be given consideration. At this time, the priority is on a resolution of the dispute, if that is possible.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, on the very day that Canadians were turfing out a corrupt Liberal government, Reg Alcock, a defeated Liberal cabinet minister and former president of the Treasury Board, approved $40,000 to pay Jean Pelletier's lawyer at the Gomery inquiry. This is additional money above and beyond that which had already been paid, and this was paid to a Liberal friend.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why are Canadian taxpayers still on the hook for this money paid out by a Liberal cabinet minister?
John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, when he sought a judicial review, said that he would not be looking to the taxpayers of Canada to fund his legal fees. The then Treasury Board president said that funding for this type of activity would be over. We learned in the dying hours of the previous regime that the Liberal Party felt the need to have one more flypast over the gravy train. It is regrettable and it is unfortunate.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, we are also horrified that in the last twilight moments, as the helicopters were airlifting the final evacuees from the Treasury Board, its president was sitting there cutting a big fat cheque to one of his Liberal cronies. Were there any others? Did the Liberal largesse go beyond just Jean Pelletier? Did it in fact go to other people who were fingered by the Gomery Commission?
John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Justice Gomery found evidence within the Liberal government of kickback schemes and corruption. The people of Canada, through their members of Parliament, threw the Liberals out of office by defeating them.
Minutes, even hours, before the people of Canada turfed the government out of office, the former government was stepping up to the plate to give a $40,000 payment to a former senior Liberal. It is regrettable and unfortunate, and it was not in the public interest. This government will always act in the public interest.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, that does not really answer my question.
I want the President of the Treasury Board to tell us here, within the privilege of the House, whether there were any other people fingered by the Gomery Commission? Were people like Alfonso Gagliano, Ran Quail, Chuck Guité, Benoit Corbeîl, Jacques Corriveau, Jean-Marc Bard, any of these guys, given money for their additional legal expenses? Is anybody fingered in the Gomery Commission still enjoying the Liberal largesse as they appeal being named in the Gomery Commission?
John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, with respect to any other Liberals from the former government who might be lining up for money to go to a judicial review to fight the charges of kickbacks and corruption, I can confirm to the member opposite that any such requests landing on the desk of this Treasury Board President will be dead on arrival.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government has remained silent on the most pressing economic issues, which the country must attend to. There was nothing in the throne speech on innovation, nothing on competitiveness, nothing on research and development and nothing on productivity.
How can Canada prosper if the Prime Minister lacks the political will to do something about the upcoming economic challenges?