Stephen Harper

[Natural Resources, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we know that was done just before question period. The minister should have the courtesy to have both governments here today.

On June 5 the Prime Minister made a deal with Premier Williams. Now he is trying to get out of it. Premier Williams said the obvious which is that this thing with Nova Scotia is just an attempt to divide and conquer, which the minister found out is not going to work.

Rather than trying to divide and conquer, would it not be easier for the government to just implement its agreement and the Prime Minister to keep his word?

[Natural Resources, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister's spokesman threatened Newfoundland and Labrador because Premier Williams would not go along with the broken agreement on the offshore. Scott Reid said that Williams would pay for it.

Today the Prime Minister invited Nova Scotia to town to talk, but left Newfoundland and Labrador out in the cold. Is this not just an example of the government's threat coming true?

[Israel, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada has been very supportive of the state of Israel and its right to security.

We believe that Canada and Israel share common values of freedom and democracy, as well as common interests in defeating global terrorism.

Like all Canadians, Conservatives favour peaceful negotiations to resolve the issue of disputed territories, understanding that this can only be achieved by renouncing terrorism against Israel and dismantling the infrastructure that supports it.

In Parliament, Conservatives have been at the forefront of encouraging Canada to take a stronger position in the fight against global terrorism. It was only due to unrelenting pressure from this party that the Liberal government finally and reluctantly moved to outlaw Hezbollah and Hamas.

We will continue to ensure that Canada does not support terrorism or anti-Semitism with Canadian aid money. We will continue to stand with Israel as our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations and to push the government to ensure that Canada pulls its weight militarily, diplomatically and politically in the global war against terrorism.

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week we all heard the Prime Minister say that the reason he wrote a letter, which he wrote on behalf of Serge Savard, and the reason he was in touch on the sponsorship program was that he did this for constituents.

If he is not a constituent, he should answer this. Why was the Prime Minister trying to get a favourable quarter million dollar sponsorship decision for his friend, Serge Savard?

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the House will note the Prime Minister had a chance to correct the record, say the premiers were telling the truth, and he refused to do so.

The Prime Minister also continues to stonewall on the sponsorship scandal in the House, except that outside he is prepared to give answers that do not turn out to be true. Last week he admitted that his office helped in getting hundreds of thousands in sponsorship money for his Liberal fundraiser Serge Savard because he said that he was a constituent. We know that Savard was not a constituent. His company was not located in the Prime Minister's riding.

Why did the Prime Minister say Serge Savard was a constituent when he was not?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what becomes more and more evident is that that party distorts my words because it will not keep its own words.

The Prime Minister promised the same deal on offshore royalties to Nova Scotia during the election. He said, “If we do a deal with Newfoundland and Labrador, that same proposal ought to be made to Nova Scotia”. When the Prime Minister made that commitment, there was no mention of a time limit and the Premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador say no such agreement was made.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that on the time limit issue, Premier Hamm and Premier Williams are telling the truth?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make sure it happens.

On June 5 the Prime Minister said publicly that he had committed to a deal with Newfoundland and Labrador. He said the following, “I have made it very clear that the proposal that he has put forth is a proposal that we accept”. The premier said that the deal that he put forward did not include a cap on revenues.

Will the Prime Minister confirm, on the capping issue, that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is telling the truth?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, through his official spokesman, has accused the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador of lying. He said the following, “The problem that the premier will have eventually is that the truth will get out”.

Will the Prime Minister unequivocally retract these statements and confirm for the House that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is telling the truth?

[Sponsorship Program, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have heard enough of, “I feel your pain”. They want the Prime Minister to fulfill his commitments.

On March 10 of this year, the Prime Minister told the House and the member for Roberval in response to a question about the national unity fund, “Mr. Speaker, first, the answer to the question is: none. I have not used it”. Now we know he did use it. In fact we know he wrote a letter related to a contract of $50,000 under the fund to Claude Boulay and Groupe Everest.

Could the Prime Minister explain on this why he so flagrantly misled the House on the facts?

[Natural Resources, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there should be no hedging. The Prime Minister said that it was the premier's deal he had accepted, and he should accept it today. Even provincial Liberals have supported Premier Williams on this and do not believe the Prime Minister.

Former Liberal Premier Grimes said the following, “Get it in writing because the federal track record is promise and not do it at all or find some way to do it differently.”

Once again, if members of the Prime Minister's own party do not believe him, why should anyone else believe him? Why does he not sign the deal that he promised on June 5, today?