John Manley

[Shipyards, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty convoluted question.

Let us understand one thing. The situation that we faced, certainly when I was the industry minister, was that we were simply not succeeding on a competitive basis in that industry. We had a very modern yard and well-trained workers in Saint John with no work.

As a result of decisions taken in this year's budget we hope we will see productive labour return to the site of the Saint John yard. That will benefit greatly the people of that region.

[Taxation, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the boundary line for the northern deduction is one that was arrived at as a result of work that was done by committees that reviewed everything.

Of course any time a line is drawn somebody will be on one side of it and somebody will be on another side of it. I understand that all the factors of remoteness and isolation were taken into account in determining where the line should be drawn.

I am always open to submissions that can be passed on concerning factors that may influence the location of the line.

[Ethics, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has already been agreed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the right to visit people in his riding. Does the hon. member believe that it is unacceptable for a minister, who is also a member of Parliament, to visit anyone who is a shareholder in his riding? Some constituents are also important employees.

[Health, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member was asleep when the agreement was signed, because it was an agreement with a conditional commitment. That means there is a condition. The condition relates to the state of our finances in January 2004. Today is only October 24; it is not January yet.

[Health, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is rather complicated for many people.

However, the surplus we announced was for last year. The conditional commitment was tied to a surplus in the current year. In January we will calculate the expected size of the surplus and then we will make a decision on the basis of the conditions under which the commitment was made.

[Government Appointments, October 24th, 2003]

I think it requires some continuing work, Mr. Speaker. What we are seeing now in a series of questions is a trivializing of issues that could be important instead of looking at things of serious importance.

The hon. member says that corruption is not important. Corruption is important. These people have so debased the currency of that word that they would not recognize corruption if they ever did see it.

[Ethics, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the government House leader is still in cabinet. He is sitting right beside me.

This kind of question has trivialized important matters of ethics. It has debased the currency to the extent that nobody can take any of those members' allegations seriously any longer.

[Ethics, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is a sawmill in the minister's riding that he visits in order to observe the operations is not inconsistent with complying with the regulations. The ethics counsellor has made it clear that he accepts that.

This is another example of those members dredging for minor things in order simply to throw mud. It brings the whole system into disrepute. They should think about that.

[Equalization Payments, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, do all representatives of the ten provinces share that opinion? They have all accepted the idea of having a little reassurance, if possible, of the federal government's ability to make payments starting in early April 2004. It is simple, in my opinion. It is possible to make the changes and renew equalization payments before the start of the next year, but it is not necessary to do away with that assurance.

[Equalization Payments, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when I met with the finance ministers on October 10, I proposed such a bill to them, and they were in agreement. There have been requests for changes to the formula, but there is no agreement among the provinces on these. Quebec, for instance, wants changes British Columbia does not find acceptable, so the Quebec minister has proposed that he could perhaps take the time to hold discussions himself with the B.C. representatives. This would take time, so—