Debates of June 19th, 2008

Boundary Waters

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

Mr. Speaker, first it was ecologists, the city of Montreal, the ports of Montreal and Trois-Rivières, shipowners and the Bloc Québécois, and now it is the turn of the Government of Quebec to speak out against the International Joint Commission's new plan for managing water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence. After the two days of consultation in Montreal and Sorel, the consensus in Quebec is clear: the commission must maintain the status quo.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs intervene to stop the commission from adopting its draft order?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the IJC is in the middle of a consultative process on this very issue. It is receiving submissions from different local and provincial governments. When it has all the information in, it will produce a recommendation. When it produces a recommendation, we will look at it and we will respond in the way which we think best reflects the national interest.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question on this subject, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “whatever we do will be in the national interest.”

What national interest is the minister referring to? The Canadian nation or the Quebec nation? Will he unduly favour Lake Ontario at the risk of completely depleting Lac Saint-Pierre?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows this probably is not an issue that is of great concern in British Columbia. It is an issue that seems to be focused on the border areas between Ontario and Quebec. I am sure the IJC will come up with the wisdom of Solomon and produce a recommendation that will be good for both Quebec and Ontario.

Government Appointments

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, usually, when ministers refuse to answer a clear question, it is because they are afraid of telling the truth. I would like to give the leader of the government one last chance today to correct the negative impression he has made in the last few days.

Did the member from Beauce withdraw from the cabinet meeting, as is customary according to ethical guidelines, when the mother of his partner was being appointed chair of the Saint-Jérôme board of referees, yes or no?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it clear that the nomination of Madame Bellemare was the product of her having applied through a process that human resources has.

Having been through interviews, having satisfied criteria, having then been recommended by the department and the minister responsible, the minister responsible being the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, that then goes on to cabinet, which makes the ultimate appointment.

Public Safety

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he is really afraid of the truth.

The Conservative Party submitted a list of potential witnesses to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the Couillard affair, including the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Our leader has indicated that he would agree to appear and testify.

Will the Prime Minister do as much and agree to testify? Will he do the honourable thing and have the integrity to appear before the committee?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we acted quickly in regard to the question of the classified documents, which is the important public policy issue.

The Prime Minister, on the recommendation of the former foreign affairs minister, asked the foreign affairs department to conduct a full review.

That is a responsible process. I am not sure that the legislative process will come up with any better results than many of the other circuses that the opposition hold at those legislative committees. So far they have not really turned up anything too interesting.

However, we will focus on the serious review from foreign affairs that will produce the serious results on which the government can act.

National Security

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are at least four federal departments implicated in the scandal surrounding the ex-foreign affairs minister and Ms. Couillard. There are secret documents, multi-million dollars contracts, patronage appointments and the infiltration of government by organized crime.

Therefore, it is easy to see why an internal review by foreign affairs is just a diversion and a whitewash.

Will the government stop this cover-up and call a public inquiry today?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, let us remind Canadians what it is that the member for Vancouver South is afraid is being covered up, the thing on which he wants to hear a public inquiry. He said on CBC and in the Ottawa Citizen about Ms. Couillard, “Who else does she have relationships with? I would like to know”.

However curious he may be about those questions, we do not think that is a matter of important public policy that justifies a public inquiry, although I am sure he would rather be talking about that this summer than the carbon tax his leader announced today.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Couillard certainly had relationships with organized crime.

Experts have testified before the public safety committee that a foreign affairs review is absolutely inadequate and that it simply will not do the job.

The major players in this matter, the Prime Minister's office, the PCO, the RCMP, CSIS and the national security advisor have been incompetent, muzzled or both.

It is time to end the cover-up. It is time for a public inquiry. Will the government finally act and do it today?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to act today. We acted some time ago when we asked foreign affairs to conduct a review and draw on the resources available to do it.

I know the member has a different agenda. He wants to know who has been sleeping with whom. He thinks that is interesting. He thinks it is important public policy.

A former prime minister had a different view. Jean Chrétien's view on privacy was that the marriages, sexual orientation or other private matters of cabinet ministers and prospective cabinet ministers had no bearing on a minister's ability to serve the public well and that he did not think it was any of his business.

However, those matters are apparently the business of the member for Vancouver South.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the report of the NAFTA-gate leak was a whitewash.

The CTV reporter who spoke to the Prime Minister's chief of staff was never interviewed. Americans with access to the leaked report were never spoken to. The Associated Press who received the leaked memo never even received a call.

The government asserts that this was out of its jurisdiction. Did it call our American allies and ask for help? No.

Is the Prime Minister not concerned that he never found out who leaked the memo?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we are back to that regular Liberal theme of the past year: false Liberal accusations. These are false Liberal accusations where the people involved have been cleared in every case.

In this NAFTA matter, we have already had a review of the matter by the Clerk of the Privy Council and the people were cleared.

Today we saw another false Liberal accusation. It was a false accusation that the Liberals had a green plan, which they released. However, in it there was not one criteria, target or number that related to greenhouse gas reductions. That is another false Liberal accusation.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader can try to hide behind the flawed Lynch report but there is still a leak in the government.

Today the Prime Minister's chief of staff refused to tell the committee the identities of the mysterious PMO officials who had the report a full day before he did. Like him, they are political staff with the same motives for leaking the information.

Why will the government not reveal these names? How many other PMO staffers are in the witness protection program?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we had a thorough review by the Clerk of the Privy Council and he cleared everyone of the false Liberal accusations in this case.

In terms of the witness protection program, I look across the benches and it looks like half of them have voted with their feet to go into the witness protection program after today's carbon tax announcement. I can understand why. It is because when it comes to false Liberal accusations, the leader said today that the Liberal carbon tax plan would be revenue neutral.

What does the Canadian Federation of Independent Business say? It says, “We do not believe that carbon taxes can be truly revenue neutral”. The revenue neutrality claim is another false Liberal accusation.

The Environment

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “the plan I will reveal soon to decrease Canada's greenhouse gases will not include a carbon tax”, so said the Liberal leader just one year ago and yet today he introduced his plan for a carbon tax, revealing his secret agenda and exposing just a monumental flip-flop.

After breaking this promise, Canadians should not and will not believe his claim that this tax shaft will not affect gas and energy prices or hurt the economy.

Could the government clarify for the Liberal leader and all Canadians just how a carbon tax would impact every Canadian?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)]

Mr. Speaker, it would have an impact on the price of goods at the grocery stores. People would be paying higher prices for groceries because of the new diesel tax on the truckers who bring in those products. People who use electricity would pay more for electricity. The Liberal answer for the poor folks at Air Canada who will be losing their jobs because of high jet fuel prices is that it will be raising fuel prices even further.

It is understandable that the Liberal leader was opposed to a carbon tax, but the strange thing is that so were all of his Liberal leadership contenders: the members for Willowdale, Kings—Hants, Vancouver Centre, Vaughan, Eglinton—Lawrence and Toronto Centre.

Copyright Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's made in the U.S.A. copyright legislation actually represents a radical rewriting of Canadian copyright policy because the absolute legal protections for digital locks deliberately blurs the distinction between private use and counterfeit.

From here on in, the only consumer rights we will have are the ones the U.S. industry gives us. If we try to protect our rights, it will come after us. It will be legal to back up a movie to VHS but not to a video iPod.

How many 10-year-olds go around with a VHS recorder in their backpack? They are not criminals. Why has the government declared war on Canadian consumers?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth than the assertions my friend makes. If he took the time to read the bill he would see that the educational exemptions, the format shifting exemptions, the time shifting exemptions, the private copying of music exemptions and the provisions relating to statutory damages are all made in Canada.

All of these provisions of the bill are uniquely Canadian. My friend's comments about the U.S.A. DMCA are NDP BS.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I could not follow all those letters but the last two did not sound polite and I hope the hon. member did not say what I thought I heard because that would not be proper.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister for eight tracks needs better speaking notes from the U.S. ambassador because he was speaking about the digital law provisions that are leaving average Canadians open to predatory legal action.

Let us look at the American record: lawsuits against 10-year-olds; subpoenas delivered at schools, against stroke victims and against dead people. We cannot put locks on citizens.

The New Democratic Party will fight every step of the way to protect innovators, consumers and artists from this predatory bill and the provisions that are within it.

If the minister will not stand up for Canada, why does he continue to act like a private butler to Ambassador Wilkins?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair for the hon. member to point out that in terms of protecting consumers, this government is protecting consumers. For the first time in Canadian law, format shifting, time shifting and the private copying of music will be permitted. All of that favours the consumers, contrary to what my friend said.

Court Challenges Program

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after depriving minorities of the court challenges program for more than 16 months, the government is now announcing that the new program will apply only to linguistic minorities. Once again, the government is showing that it does not really care about minority language communities and would rather use them for political purposes.

Why has this government chosen to politicize a program that is so important to minorities in Canada?