Ralph Goodale

[Government Contracts, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the question is utter nonsense. The fact of the matter is that every expenditure was duly included in the fiscal framework, duly included in the estimates, and duly included in the public accounts.

It is the obligation of every member of Parliament to review the public accounts and the estimates. It is all there.

[Government Contracts, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the particular project had to do with information pertaining to the five year tax reduction plan that was introduced by the government.

Generally, it had the impact of reducing taxes for Canadians in the range of 20% to 27%. This was a major improvement in our tax system and it was important for Canadians to know about it.

[Government Contracts, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister has not said that he was unaware of the fiscal reserve for purposes related to unity and the well-being of the nation.

He said that the actual use of such a reserve was determined, not by the finance department, but quite properly by the PCO and by the former Prime Minister.

[Foreign Affairs, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is on the job every day defending and promoting the interests of Canadians. On occasion, that means going abroad and visiting foreign leaders in foreign capitals. I am very pleased to say that Canadians are extraordinarily proud of the Prime Minister on the international stage advancing the interests of Canada in the most dignified of manners.

[Agriculture, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position is that the science is clear. The regulatory process has been fully and conscientiously completed by Canada. We have complied with all of the international standards. We believe the border for our beef and our live cattle should be open, period, 100%.

[Agriculture, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be dealing with a broad range of issues with the President. Those directly involving the trade position between Canada and the United States, that trade is worth something in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion per day flowing back and forth across the border. It is hugely important on both sides.

The hon. member may rest assured that the Prime Minister has the entire spectrum of Canadian interests in mind, and I am very pleased to see that agriculture is very high on his agenda.

[Finance, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this matter is one of serious concern to Canadians. I will not comment on the difficulties or travails of one particular company. However, I would note that over the course of the last couple of years, among the Government of Canada, the provinces, the securities commissions and the stock exchanges, a broad variety of initiatives have in fact been put in place in terms of better accounting, better auditing practices, overall governance and surveillance practices and greater transparency.

The Government of Canada, with all of its partners, is indeed moving forward on this file in the interests of Canadians.

[National Security, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. gentleman is way off base. The Deputy Prime Minister, in releasing the security policy earlier this week, indicated that the government was taking a number of steps forward in advancing the safety and security of Canadians. We have provided the funding for that in the order of $700 million.

I am very pleased to note that most of the experts in this field, apart from those who would like to be experts in the opposition, have said that indeed this policy is directly on track.

[Government Grants, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again, given this pattern of questions from the opposition members, obviously designed to sling as much mud against the fan as they possibly can, there is absolutely nothing in the allegations or in the facts of this matter that indicate anything untoward took place, nothing.

[Government Grants, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the hon. gentleman's question that indicates anything that was untoward or contrary to the rules. I take it he is arguing against government support for the forest industry in Canada.