Stephen Harper

[UNESCO, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister invited Quebec to participate in UNESCO. And the Government of Quebec signed an agreement with us to do so. We have a historic agreement. The problem is that Quebec does not need the Bloc Québécois to participate in UNESCO.

[UNESCO, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem here. The problem is that the Government of Canada, this Prime Minister—

[UNESCO, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. We work together. That is not like the Liberals. That centralizing party refused to conclude such an agreement. For the first time, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada have concluded an agreement to give Quebec a voice and full participation in UNESCO. It is a historic triumph.

[UNESCO, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for a federal government to prevent a province from expressing its position in a matter of public policy.

However, I can say that the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada have reached an agreement to work in harmony and full cooperation. That is natural for two governments that both favour a stronger Quebec within a united Canada.

[Justice, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister cannot force a committee chairman to resign. That falls within the authority of the committee. However, I would like to say that the statements of the leader of the opposition are entirely false. It is not the position of this government. The member withdrew his remarks. It is now up to the Liberal Party to withdraw its remarks which are far worse than those of the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

[Justice, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one day the Leader of the Opposition says I should not appoint committee chairs. Now he is telling me I should say who can and cannot be a committee chair. I wish he would get his story straight.

The fact of the matter is that if that party and that member oppose these kinds of comments, then they should withdraw the comments they have made, which are far worse than anything the member Saskatoon—Wanuskewin said.

[Justice, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will admit no such thing. Not only has the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin said that his remarks do not represent the position of the government, he has withdrawn some of those remarks, as the Leader of the Opposition knows.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood, one of the senior critics in the party opposite, said the following in the Ottawa Citizen on March 18, “What is the Supreme Court but a priesthood served by acolytes in black robes?”

If that is not a description of a religion, I do not know what is. I would like to know if that is really the position of the Liberal Party.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, of course not. I met with Premier McGuinty on Thursday. We had a good meeting. He had reasonably positive comments toward our budget, unlike the party opposite.

I think it is the party opposite that may have the real trouble with Mr. McGuinty. Let me quote the member for Etobicoke North, who said in talking about Premier McGuinty:

I just resent...I expect that from the Bloc Québécois, I don’t expect that from the premier of Ontario.

The member for Markham compared the Premier of Ontario to a separatist. That is not the position of the government. That party has some explaining to do over there.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House will be surprised to learn that John Tory is a very good friend of mine. He is a great Ontarian and Canadian, and he and I have campaigned together in the past. I do not think that is any surprise to the House. However, it would be a surprise if the party opposite were to say it would not in fact campaign or work with its provincial cousins. That would be a surprise.

[Government of Canada, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be amazed that the leader of the Conservative Party would attend a cocktail party where there were several hundred members of the Conservative Party.

I had a good meeting with Mr. McGuinty on Friday. We have his support and we hope to have the support of his federal cousins for our work on the softwood lumber agreement.

As usual, when it comes to Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Luntz and everything else, the member has all his facts wrong.