Brian Pallister

[The Environment, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday in the House the environment minister claimed that he had told Mayor Andy Wells of St. John's how to get money to clean up Canada's dirtiest harbour.

What he actually told the mayor was that the environment ministry had no money, but he should try the Canada infrastructure program. Mayor Wells did. There was no money there either.

Meanwhile the environment minister just announced funding to clean up a harbour. Guess where? It is in his own riding. When will these ministers start working for all Canadians, not just themselves?

[The Environment, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today at a press conference the mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland, released a letter to the industry minister declaring the mistruth of what the member opposite just said and asking for the support of the industry minister, something that has not been forthcoming.

The issue of dealing fairly with taxpayer money has to be addressed by members opposite. The issue of patronage and the excessive use of patronage in defiance of the fairness Canadians want has to be addressed by members opposite.

The industry minister went to St. John's, Newfoundland, during the election and claimed that they would get help if they voted Liberal. They did not. They elected PC—

[The Environment, April 24th, 2001]

Not true, Mr. Speaker. Today the mayor of St. John's—

[The Environment, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a leading environmental group has called the harbour in St. John's, Newfoundland, the most polluted in Canada and a national disgrace.

At the recent meeting of the big city mayors in Ottawa, the environment minister told the mayor of St. John's that there was no funding available for harbour clean up. Then in a surprise reversal on April 11 he announced millions of dollars in additional funding to clean up, not the harbour in St. John's but the harbour in his riding.

How could the minister explain the availability of funding for his own riding but not for the most polluted harbour in Canada?

[Multiculturalism, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's comments continue what seems to be a growing trend among Liberal ministers.

When the heritage minister makes hurtful comments, the Prime Minister says nothing. When the immigration minister sneers and makes intolerant comments toward Canadians, nothing is said and nothing is done. The Prime Minister remains silent and, in his silence, he condones the conduct of these ministers and encourages it to continue.

It is time to put an end to this dangerous trend by members of that party and that front bench. The member is totally unfit for her duties. I ask the Prime Minister to demand her resignation immediately.

[Multiculturalism, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women made divisive, malicious and false comments in the House.

First, the comments were rehearsed. The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women maligned the people of Prince George. She maligned thinking Canadians. She maligned tolerant Canadians with her comments and by her conduct.

Today she offered a halfhearted statement that did not undo in any way the damage and hurt she caused yesterday. An intolerant minister's divided—

[Petitions, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition on behalf of the organization of rural route postal providers and service contractors in regard to the matter that two of my colleagues have also presented petitions on today, that is, postal services and postal service providers in rural areas.

[Industry Canada, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if that was the case, then why did the industry minister preside over such an occurrence? We have in fact transported jobs from Manitoba in Canada to Fargo in North Dakota. We have assured it happening by our taxpayers' $32 million funding that transfer.

I ask the minister again to demonstrate he has some understanding of his own department as much as he has of many of the other members' departments in the House. The fact remains that Canadian taxpayers should not be fleeced to bolster the United States economy. The fact remains that $32 million is a lot of cross border shopping.

I again ask the minister why it is that Canadian people should be paying taxes to create jobs in North Dakota?

[Industry Canada, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, just last summer Industry Canada renegotiated a sweetheart loan for $32 million to Buhler Industries in Winnipeg with no strings attached.

This week, after less than eight months, Buhler Industries announced the closure of their Winnipeg plant and its relocation to Fargo, North Dakota, guaranteeing the loss of over 200 jobs.

Would the industry minister explain to the House how creating jobs in North Dakota is a benefit to Canadian taxpayers?

[Finance, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know the industry minister is having an influence over there.

Before meeting with his cabinet colleagues last week the industry minister announced to the media that he intended to raise the equalization issue. In that way he ensured he would get credit for any agreement on equalization which came out of that meeting or any subsequent meeting.

Could the finance minister, who still will not address the problems with the equalization formula promptly and properly, assure us in the House that he is able to set aside his eroding leadership aspirations, in spite of the credit the industry minister may get, and deal with the issue properly?