House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was consultation.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the cabinet is proud to be meeting in Quebec City, the historic capital. In my opinion, Quebec has been part of Canada since the beginning and will be part of Canada in the future. The leader of the Bloc is asking this question to avoid the real question. Will his ally, Mr. Boisclair, hold a referendum on Quebec's future?
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that he will hold one. We will face each other in that referendum.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
That said, I am well aware that Quebec is part of Canada at present, although I hope it will become a country one day. Acadia is part of Canada, yet the Acadians are recognized as a nation. The first nations are part of Canada, yet the federal government recognizes that they are nations.
Even though Quebec is part of Canada, nothing prevents the Prime Minister from recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation, just as Acadians and aboriginal peoples do.
Quebeckers form a nation. Could he say that?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that Canada is a strong, united, independent, free country that includes a confident, united, autonomous, proud Quebec. I say it again.
The Bloc Québécois leader might want to hold a referendum to create a new country, but Jean Charest does not want another referendum, Mario Dumont does not want another referendum and the people of Quebec do not want another referendum.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might try to convince Quebeckers that he respects the Quebec nation by showing up at the Fête nationale in Quebec City tomorrow.
If he truly does respect the Quebec nation, how can the Prime Minister justify ignoring the unanimous vote in the Quebec National Assembly urging him to respect the Kyoto protocol, an agreement Quebec strongly supports?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about something the member did yesterday in the environment committee. If the Bloc wants to go to an election and cause an election on the environment, I say bring it on. Our record in four months is miles better than the 13 year Liberal record and the non-record of the Bloc. It will never be in power. It will never be able to represent the interests of Quebeckers. It will never be able to what is right for Quebeckers on the environment.
Already in four months, the government has passed pollution laws to ensure that we address health issues like blindness, asthma and cancer. Those things are important to Canadians and to Quebeckers.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister and his government seem more inclined to meet the demands of the oil companies—who do not want anything to do with the Kyoto protocol—than those of Quebeckers.
How can he and his government explain to Quebeckers that they are rejecting the Kyoto protocol when over three-quarters of Quebeckers consider it one of their top priorities?
It would be hard to be more disconnected than that. This government is very disconnected from Quebeckers.
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I think the member is disconnected from his headset. If he had listened to the things that have been going on in the House for the last four months, he would know that the government has never rejected Kyoto. The Conservatives have never pulled out of Kyoto. We are working within the Kyoto protocol.
We are putting a reasonable, achievable, affordable domestic plan in place that will ensure that the mess the Liberals made out of Kyoto over the last 13 years will be addressed. We will make a success of our made in Canada plan.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians approach the next smog season and as this session comes to a close, Canadians are asking themselves how bad it is going to be. How many Canadians, for how many days, are going to be locked inside because of bad air outside? How many seniors and children and people with health problems are going to end up in the emergency wards because of smog?
Despite assurances to the contrary, the government has given us no smog reduction plan, no clean air plan, no green investment plan, no green jobs plan.
How many more months is it going to take before we have a plan from the Prime Minister and the government and when are we going to get a competent minister to implement it?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member has taken the entire spring to talk about Kyoto. If Kyoto were fully implemented by all the countries of the world tomorrow, it would do absolutely nothing to control smog, which is one of the reasons the government and the environment minister have been working hard to develop a plan to deal with just that.
The Minister of the Environment, who is a young, dynamic, energetic woman, will be here pushing forward environmental issues long after the career of the member for Toronto—Danforth is over.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the air may be bad out there, but the Prime Minister should not hold his breath on that prediction.
If the government or, for that matter, the part time official opposition over there have no plan to deal with climate change, we have a plan. We have tabled a five part plan that will clean up our environment and exceed the Kyoto targets.
I invite the Prime Minister, by the way, to give us his scientific briefing notes on climate change versus smog because his science is all washed up.
Will the Prime Minister take some of our good ideas?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, in terms of my prediction, I notice the Liberal Party once again could not make up its mind whether it was for that prediction or not.
The NDP has long supported measures to move forward on these fronts. We are pleased, after all these years, that this month it has tabled some ideas, and we will be carefully considering those ideas.
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, of the five upcoming purchase projects for the military, the Minister of National Defence has a potential or perceived conflict of interest in three of them. Of the $15 billion in purchases proposed, $8 billion will be directly tainted by the minister's lobbying past.
I have one question for the minister. Will the minister recuse himself or will the minister resign?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, although the government is still in the process of finalizing its procurement plans, let me be absolutely clear.
This government, in our campaign, laid out that we would correct 13 years of Liberal neglect, that we would move forward with major military purchases, including new supply ships, new trucks, new helicopters, and strategic and tactical airlift.
I can tell the House that I do not care whether that party opposite does not support our military. This party does, and we will have a strong military for a strong country.
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is not about the military. This is about the minister, who refuses to answer the questions about his lobbying past.
The fact is, I know that in the military generals do not have to answer questions. In this House, they have to answer to the Canadian people. Will the minister recuse himself or will he resign?
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition for all that clapping.
As usual, the member opposite is chasing a mirage. Why those members are chasing a mirage is that they are against the accountability act, which is going to bring in new rules to control lobbying and funding. The prime example of lobbying is that the previous prime minister used a whole room of lobbyists to select his cabinet. His cabinet was selected by lobbyists. We are going to prevent that kind of thing in the future.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are not impressed.
The Minister of National Defence has misled the House by declaring that no decision had been made with regard to purchasing military equipment , particularly the much talked-about C-17s, the new Conservative toy that will cost Canadian taxpayers $4 billion rather than leasing them for $42 million. Even General Hillier agrees with that. Now we have learned that next week they will go on a $15 billion spending spree as well as announcing its new toy, the Boeing C-17.
Why are they being so secretive and hasty in this matter. What are they hiding when the Minister of Industry secretly goes to Washington on his knees—
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague from the opposition that any decision by the government regarding the purchase of military equipment will be made according to a clear, transparent and fair process. It will be in the best interests of the military, Canadians and the aeronautical industry because there will be economic benefits for Canada.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, a transparent process does not include secret meetings, negotiations and politicking when there has been a procurement policy in place for 30 years. If we wish to show respect for Canadians, we must follow the process.
The current minister is a lobbyist and general. Of his $15 billion purchases, $8 billion worth are being bought from former clients.
Will he recuse himself or has the Prime Minister set aside some money for legal challenges that will cost an arm and a leg?
Maxime Bernier ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, this new government does not need any lessons on managing public moneys, accountability, political practices or procurement of military equipment. In this new government, we stand firm for the military and for Canadians. We are proud of what we are doing for Canada. That is why we were elected.
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance said this about securities, “—the issue is not whether this falls under provincial jurisdiction. The important thing is the best interest of Canadians, who must be protected in our securities markets”.
How can the Prime Minister allow his Finance Minister to ignore the provisions in Canada's Constitution so he can do what he wants and centralize the securities sector in Toronto?
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hon. member has her facts wrong on this issue. No such thing is happening.
The member will know that discussions are taking place on these and related issues over the summer. I know that her province will be active in these discussions. I believe that the resolution will be very acceptable to the province of Quebec.
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, unless the Prime Minister wants to start a round of constitutional negotiations, will he remind his Minister of Finance that it is not up to him to decide whether or not the government will respect the Constitution as regards the securities sector? In other words, will he bring his minister back into line immediately?
