Debates of June 3rd, 2010

G8 and G20 Summits

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, they were frothing with outrage over the G7 in Halifax. Of course, we know what they think of Atlantic Canadians over there. The now minister said then that the government “should have chosen a location which wouldn't cost that kind of money”. It was $28 million for everything. Now it is spending $20 million on dancers, flowers and meals alone as part of this $1 billion-plus spendapalooza in Toronto.

With poverty rates rising and food bank usage skyrocketing, how can that morally corrupt government justify over $1 billion on this summit?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is doing something that is really unprecedented. We are hosting two major international world summits back to back. The costs for the security of these summits are in line with what has happened at previous events. There will be 8,000 delegates, more than 3,000 media and literally thousands of others attending these important summits. We will spend what is necessary and nothing more.

Committees of the House

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, is still refusing to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, even though the committee clerk has sent him a subpoena. What is even more shocking is that the Prime Minister himself, in a letter to the clerk, supported his press secretary's refusal to appear. Any person is required by law to testify before a parliamentary committee when subpoenaed.

Does the government realize that it is giving the Prime Minister's press secretary permission to flout the law?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on this. It is ministers who have the responsibility to be held accountable for the actions not only of their staff, but also of their departments. Therefore, the ministers themselves will continue to appear before committees and answer questions, as they did as recently as yesterday.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that everyone must obey the law, even the Conservatives, even the Prime Minister. But what the parliamentary secretary just told us is that he could not care less about the law and that he will not appear even if he is subpoenaed. This government tells us to respect law and order, yet it is doing just the opposite.

Can he tell me from his seat that he is asking all employees to defy the law and not answer subpoenas? If so, then he is not worthy to sit here.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. colleague's question, no, I cannot answer his question from my seat. I have to stand in the chamber to do that.

The reality is that we have been extremely clear about this. When we talk about the law, the law is very clear. It is called ministerial accountability. It is the ministers' responsibility to be accountable for their staff. That is what we will continue to do.

While I am on my feet, I would urge all opposition chairs of these committees, rather than conduct kangaroo courts as they have been doing to actually learn the rules.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of April 27, 2010, you said, “The Senate and House of Commons have the right...to summon and compel the attendance of all persons...as witnesses”. But the government is already challenging that ruling by prevent ministers' political staff from testifying in committee.

Why is the government, led by the Prime Minister, trying to restrict committees' power of inquiry when that power was reaffirmed a little more than a month ago by the Speaker of the House of Commons?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what is inappropriate and completely unacceptable not only to this government but to parliaments in the past is the tyranny of the majority; in this case, the coalition majority of the three opposition parties that have control of all the standing committees by virtue of the fact that they have the most numbers.

The fact is that we have no intention of allowing our junior staff, our political staff, to be dragged before these committees and these kangaroo courts and subjected to the type of abuse that anybody who views these committee operations can see.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by preventing his director of communications from testifying before a committee and trying to restrict parliamentary committees' power of inquiry, the Prime Minister is once again running the risk of being found in contempt of Parliament, because he is refusing to obey the law, as you said in your ruling.

Why is the government refusing to work with the parliamentary committees, at the risk of being found in contempt of Parliament? We knew the Conservatives had problems with democracy, but now we have proof.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, in fact, three of my ministerial colleagues appeared yesterday at the government operations committee and after a dispute, they were queried on questions and they answered all the questions that were put to them. Not one, not two, but three ministers appeared at committee to answer the questions, be held accountable to that standing committee and reveal information that the standing committee was requesting. I do not know how we can be more democratic, more accountable, more responsible than that.

Offshore Drilling

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in an astonishing move, the Conservative government is stating that it is not legally bound to a moratorium on oil drilling off the B.C. coast. Tanker traffic is also prohibited from the B.C. northern coast, but apparently not according to the Conservatives. These moratoriums were put in place in 1972 to protect this pristine part of Canada.

Why is the federal government lifting the freeze on drilling for the big oil companies? Why would the Conservatives put at risk that pristine part of the country?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, there is a moratorium with respect to oil and gas exploration in the British Columbia offshore and there is no plan to change this.

The government has no plans to reopen the voluntary tanker traffic exclusion zone either.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Is that so, Mr. Speaker? Enbridge is planning to build two pipelines to carry oil from Edmonton to Kitimat. Here is what the company says:

Both the federal and provincial governments, and their respective departments have confirmed that there is no legislated moratorium on oil tankers entering B.C. ports.

Despite the government's position, what we have here is Enbridge's plan setting up probably for a major and costly legal challenge and for ultimate damage to B.C.'s ecosystem.

Why is the government running this risk? Why does it not put legislation in place to ensure that that moratorium is respected?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I just said there is a moratorium with respect to oil and gas exploration in the British Columbia offshore and there is no plan to change this.

The government has no plans to reopen the voluntary tanker traffic exclusion zone.

The Minister of the Environment has referred the northern gateway pipeline project to a joint review panel. A decision on the proposed project will not be made until the joint review panel completes its review.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a moratorium should not be voluntary; it should be compulsory in law.

Under the Conservatives, Natural Resources Canada changed its mind and issued a memo stating that the moratorium on the west coast does not apply to the oil companies.

Worse yet, Natural Resources Canada confirmed that the orders in council have expired, and that the door is wide open to exploration and extraction.

When will the minister introduce a bill to make the moratorium official? It is absolutely necessary.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, while he was in government in British Columbia, this NDP member did not introduce such a bill. I repeat, there is a moratorium with respect to oil and gas exploration in the British Columbia offshore. There is no plan to change this. The government has no plans to reopen the voluntary tanker traffic exclusion zone either.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney was repeatedly asked under oath, “Did you maintain contact with Schreiber after you ceased being prime minister?” Each time he failed to disclose the cash payments he received from Schreiber.

The attorney general of the day told a House of Commons committee that if the government had known about these payments, it would have had a tremendous impact on the civil litigation and the resulting $2.1 million settlement.

Why are Conservatives still defending Brian Mulroney and not getting Canadians back their money?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we just received the report of Justice Oliphant and as you know, a great deal of work went into that. It covers hundreds of pages. Interestingly enough, it was opposition parties that called for a public inquiry. I thought they were very supportive of that.

Those recommendations are now being reviewed by proper authorities and the government will act on those recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know the Department of Justice was studying legal avenues to get the $2.1 million back when it first learned of the payments from Schreiber, but someone shut down the department. The government has had only two ministers of justice: the former PC minister from Manitoba and the former PC minister who was a member of Mulroney's caucus for nine years. Which one of those two shut down the Department of Justice to prevent Canadians from getting back their money?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, again, the government has taken a very responsible position on this. There has been a very extensive study done by Justice Oliphant. I point out to the hon. member and to the House that the questions Justice Oliphant studied, had a look at and made recommendations on were devised by an independent individual. Again, those recommendations are now with the appropriate authorities.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after denying it for months, the former public works minister finally admitted yesterday that he fast-tracked a request for funding from his friend Rahim Jaffer after speaking to him on a cell phone. Within minutes, his staff set to work to organize a meeting with Jaffer and fast-track his request for funding.

Would the minister give his cell phone number to all Canadians, so they may have the same privileged access to him as Rahim Jaffer?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I say very directly to the member opposite, nothing was fast-tracked and no funding was given to any of these projects. The government acted responsibly and it reacted well.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Act prohibits public office holders from using their position to further the private interests of a friend. However, the former minister of public works admitted that he discussed his friend Rahim Jaffer's business proposal which the department then fast-tracked. Compliance with the act is a condition of a person's employment as a public office holder.

Will the Prime Minister explain the consequences for his minister's serious ethics violation?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member is making totally outrageous allegations. Let me be very clear. Nothing was fast-tracked and no funding was given to any of the projects in question.

Securities

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not have the support for the securities issue that he claims to have.

In Quebec, the Bloc's position on this has the support of the National Assembly, the Conseil du patronat, the labour funds, Molson, Canam, Cascades, Couche-Tard, Jean Coutu, Power Corporation, Quebecor, Transat, Transcontinental, Industrielle Alliance, the SSQ and La Capitale.

Why destroy a system that, in the words of Michael Sabia, president and CEO of the Caisse de dépôt, is working quite well?

If it is not broken, why fix it?