House of Commons Hansard #174 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firearms.
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member says, this government made all provinces better off by the changes to equalization. In fact, we went to a 10 province formula. We had other measures that were recommended by the expert panel.
What does the member have against making his province better off? I would like to know that.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Very good, Mr. Speaker, and if we do not believe that from the government, it will sue us. How about that?
By imposing a fiscal cap, the government is breaking its own election promise in addition to changing the spirit of the accords. The minister's own Conservative colleagues from Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan have said publicly that yes, they did break the promise. Even the minister from Nova Scotia says that “we are still negotiating”, whatever that means.
Why does the Minister of Finance continue to think that he is so right when his Conservative colleagues think he is so wrong?
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, let me quote a Conservative, the Newfoundland finance minister, Mr. Tom Marshall, who said:
There is a plethora of numbers and there is a plethora of assumptions that one would have to make to do these calculations....We are going to get caught in a debate involving the minutiae of our assumptions.
Let us talk about the real numbers. The real numbers say that Newfoundland and Labrador is millions of dollars better off because of the formula that was put in place by this government.
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has confirmed that the government's unilateral gutting of equalization hammers New Brunswick just as brutally as it does Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
This Conservative government is robbing New Brunswick of more than $1 billion, and it has broken the trust of Canadians everywhere.
Will the Prime Minister get off his sanctimonious perch, stop his bullying and stop treating the Atlantic provinces as afterthoughts of Confederation?
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals never saw a pot they did not want to stir.
The APEC report said—
Equalization FormulaOral Questions
The Speaker Peter Milliken
Order. We will have some decrease in the talk for now. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has the floor and all members want to be able to hear her answer.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, APEC itself said that its figures are “not definitive”. APEC said that they are based on “estimates, simulations and assumptions”.
Why would the hon. member just want to make trouble when he knows very well that New Brunswick did so much better from the budget?
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, in case the Prime Minister did not hear me, that was $1.1 billion, not a million, but a billion, with a capital B.
His bumbling brood has engaged in buffoonery in their brutal budget bungles and their backstabbing and betrayal by these ministers of bark and bluster.
Will the Prime Minister restore the billion dollars that he robbed from New Brunswick and become a partner in our drive to self-sufficiency, or will he give us more “boonrush”?
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given a new definition to bluster, and something else that starts with a B, I might add.
The facts are that this year New Brunswick received $200 million more than it received under the last Liberal budget, and $100 million more this year than it did last year under our budget. That is pretty good for a province with a population of less than 800 thousand. That is a pretty good pay increase.
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, a Conservative member said that it was an affront to Parliament for the Bloc Québécois member to call for the former Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec to appear in order to answer for her misspending. Later on, we were accused of lese-majesty. The old monarchist reflexes are never far away.
Does the Prime Minister also think that the Bloc Québécois' request to have Ms. Thibault appear is an affront to Parliament?
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday when the same question was asked, the committee is free to call whoever it would like to call at its own discretion following proper process.
I reiterate that we have met with the Quebec government and the Quebec minister and have agreed to work together to address full accountability and transparency in providing the necessary resources to all of our lieutenant governors.
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec took only two days to decide to have the Lieutenant-Governor appear every year to justify his or her expenses.
By refusing to act, is the Prime Minister not trying to protect the monarchy and to put his representatives in a class that cannot be questioned about spending?
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, in my meeting with the minister from Quebec, he did reveal his plans. We are taking them into consideration.
As I say, we are working together to ensure going forward that we have full accountability, transparency and responsible use by lieutenant governors in meeting their responsibilities.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow the Minister of Finance and his counterparts from Quebec and the provinces will meet to discuss establishing a pan-Canadian securities commission. The Quebec Minister of Finance has stated, and I quote, “There is no proof that it would be less expensive or more efficient and it would create too large a monopoly in Toronto”. Only Ontario wants such an arrangement.
Why does the minister insist on ignoring the will of the majority in order to please Ontario and his Bay Street friends?
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense.
In fact, there is a growing consensus across this country that a common regulator used among all the provinces will greatly benefit the efficiency of Canada's market. It will greatly benefit the province of Quebec and it will greatly increase the number of jobs in Quebec. I do not know what the member's problem is.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is turning a blind eye to Ontario's centralizing grasp and that is what is dangerous.
Does the minister realize that he should respect the will of Quebec and the provinces and put pressure on Ontario to adhere to the passport system rather than ignore the will of Quebec and the provinces?
Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the IMF in its last report on Canada made it very clear that one of the things Canada needs to improve is to introduce a common securities regulator.
The benefits of a common regulator would include clearer accountability, more responsive decision making, stronger enforcement and a more prominent international voice. That benefits all provinces, including the province of Quebec.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government's own investigator calls the RCMP “horribly broken”, “a breach of fundamental trust”, says David Brown. What is the Conservative response? “Another insider RCMP fix” says the Edmonton Journal.
When it comes to bringing so-called accountability and transparency to the RCMP, why did this Conservative government settle for a top secret, closed door task force? Where is the transparency?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to want to delay the process of seeing important changes coming to the RCMP. After seven different types of investigations, they now want a full inquest that could take years and would cost millions of dollars.
We have already done an independent investigation. We have a way forward to appoint a task force to look at a new governance structure. All of that will be public.
In terms of the areas of criminality, we have asked for another look at the areas of criminality by the Ontario police service.
We are fixing the problem. The Liberals did nothing when they had the opportunity.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, David Brown indicted the culture of secrecy in the RCMP, but the truth is he could just as well have been talking about the Conservative Party.
Who is going to sit on this task force of so-called experts? How is a problem made by insiders going to be solved by insiders?
The minister said that there are fresh breezes blowing through the RCMP. It sounds like the minister is blowing smoke.
Why did the government invent a review panel with no transparency to fix an RCMP suffering from exactly the same disease?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, talk about not respecting the presumption of innocence. The task force has not even been named and already the member is condemning its members as being ineffective.
I believe this task force will be very effective. Mr. Brown as the investigator has recommended that there be some people who know what it is as a police officer to be effective. We also have people from the general population.
I am so open minded I am even willing to take suggestions from the member opposite on who would be good on this board, but do not condemn these people before we even announce them.
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the RCMP pension scandal the minister talks about “fresh breezes blowing”, but all Canadians get is the sour scent of Conservative incompetence.
“Closed door task force” says the Globe and Mail. Score one for the insiders. The public interest loses again.
Why did this Conservative minister choose a closed door task force to fix a scandal born behind closed doors, in secret, exactly the same situation as the minister's so-called solution?
Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, really those members should talk to their question period scriptwriters. We have not even named the members of the task force yet and already those members are condemning them. I continue to ask a question about one thing that came out of the investigator's report was that my predecessor, the former minister of public safety, was informed of this problem in 2003 and she did not even talk to the commissioner about it. What kind of performance is that?
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, it is pretty clear that Canadians will not accuse that minister of being transparent. The minister wants to believe all of his problems walked out the door with the last commissioner, but what am I reading in the Edmonton Journal? It said that the minister believes that the best cure for the RCMP's “culture of secrecy” is “another hefty dose”.
When this issue is so crucial to the public interest and to the rank and file, how can the minister justify a closed door process to fix a problem where those closed doors themselves in part are part of the problem?