Question Period-Hansard excerpts- June 13/05

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed last week's health care decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It did not question the public health care system in our country. However, it did question how the government has managed that system. In particular, it has pointed out that the health care wait times are at an all-time high under the Liberal government.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why, after 12 years in office, there are no national benchmarks for wait times in the country?
+-

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a realization which the government expressed to the Canadian people during the election campaign. It is a realization which the hon. member opposite did not seem to understand at the time.

This is why we convened the federal-provincial conference in September. This is why we set out an accelerated plan to deal with the issue of wait times, along with the provinces.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has finally come to the understanding of what the situation is. This is the issue. How do we reduce wait times? That is why we set out the plan. That is why we are working with the provinces.

* * *
+-Sponsorship Program
+-

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will wonder why there were no wait times standards all those years the government claimed it was defending the system.

[Translation]

On May 31 and June 1, the government categorically denied in the House that it had concluded a secret agreement with Mr. Chrétien. However, the day before, the government had in fact signed a written, official and secret arrangement with Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.

Why did the Prime Minister allow his government to mislead this House?

[English]
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There was no offer, no arrangement and no deal made between Mr. Chrétien and the Government of Canada.

There was a letter from lawyer to lawyer that simply restated the law and described how the law applied in this case. The letter reaffirms Mr. Chrétien's right as an individual to bring action forward based on perceived bias if he chooses.

Let us be clear. The Government of Canada has consistently supported the work of Justice Gomery and will continue to support the work of Justice Gomery.
+-

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the minister denied there was any arrangement of any kind between Mr. Chrétien and the government.

Now he admits, because we have all got it, that an exchange of letters between lawyers has taken place that does constitute an arrangement, an arrangement that Justice Gomery was apparently unaware of and is quite concerned about.

Why did the public works minister not divulge the details of this when he was asked about it? Why did he cover it up?
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter from lawyer to lawyer states the fact that Mr. Chrétien has a right as an individual to pursue a course of action as an individual.

The Government of Canada also has the right and has made the decision to consistently support the work of Justice Gomery. We will continue to do exactly that.

[Translation]
+-

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Mr. Chrétien concluded a secret agreement with the government, under which the government would not oppose a right to a future challenge to Justice Gomery. In fact, another challenge could delay the Gomery commission.

Why did the government sign an agreement that could delay the tabling of Justice Gomery's final report and the election promised by the Prime Minister for months?

¸ +-(1420)

[English]
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the letter from lawyer to lawyer simply states the legal fact that Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual to pursue a course of action to defend himself as an individual. Beyond that we have acted consistently in defence of Justice Gomery.

The only party that I am aware of that sought to delay the work of Justice Gomery by trying to change his mandate in the final days of testimony was the Conservative Party with its opposition day motion which would have delayed and destroyed much of the work and progress made by Justice Gomery.

This is why no other party in the House supported that ridiculous, poorly worded, poorly thought out motion.
+-

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a paint salesman, the member obviously would not understand the legal implications of the arrangement discussed in the letter.

The government denied that anything of the sort even existed. Now we know there was a secret deal, including a commitment that the federal government would not oppose a right to a future challenge by Mr. Chrétien to Justice Gomery.

The Gomery report is due in December. The Prime Minister promised an election 30 days after. Another judicial challenge to Justice Gomery will delay that final report. Is this the Prime Minister's secret agenda to get out of his post-Gomery election commitment?
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I understand the law of the land. It is unfortunate that a lawyer like the member for Central Nova does not understand the law of the land.

Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual to pursue a course of action. The government and the Prime Minister have consistently supported the work of Justice Gomery because we want to ensure that the report is there.

As a business person, I signed contracts with individuals. I always kept those contracts and did not rip them up like the hon. member did with his contract with David Orchard.

[Translation]
+-

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 4, as Jean Chrétien again went after the head of Mr. Justice Gomery, the Prime Minister said he was prepared to go to court so the commissioner could complete his inquiry.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: They are still shouting, and then they will take offence.

How does the Prime Minister, who said he would go the whole way, now explain his about face in concluding a secret agreement to facilitate the work of Jean Chrétien and his clan?
+-

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement; there was nothing secret. There was an exchange of correspondence. The government's position is very clear. Not only is Judge Gomery not partial, but we will oppose any attempt to delay the report.

Now, I would like to quote the letter: “—one of the arguments we had put forward with respect to your client's—Mr. Chrétien's—request for a judicial review is the fact that we consider it premature and inadmissible until after the commission's report is released”.
+-

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am having a hard time understanding. If there was no secret agreement, there was still a letter. That is undeniable. The government has in fact just confirmed it. They could have told us in the House that there was such a letter.

The letter as much as says to the Chrétien clan: “It was a bit premature. It would have been a waste of time. Could you arrange things so it would take longer once the report has been tabled so that we do not have to decide about an election?” Is that not the bottom line?
+-

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to table the letter in the House. It says very clearly what we said in the lawyers' factum, which is that we fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report. After that, Mr. Chrétien can exercise his rights.

I would also like to mention that the leader of the Bloc has chosen Canada. I hope he will make the same recommendation to Quebeckers.

¸ +-(1425)

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. First we hear his chief of staff say he can interfere in the work of the ethics commissioner. Now we hear that he and Jean Chrétien have concluded an agreement to attack Judge Gomery.

If such an agreement did not exist, why did the government lawyer write this letter? Why such a letter? This is my first question to the Prime Minister.
+-

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason for the letter is very clear when you read it. It is because we fiercely opposed anything that might delay Judge Gomery's report. We want that report out.

Mr. Chrétien has his rights. It is not up to us to interfere with his rights. Clearly we want Judge Gomery to have all the time he needs to complete his report and absolutely nothing to delay him.

[English]
+-

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again my question is for the Prime Minister. It is clear then that this letter was not required to be written. It amounts to an insurance policy. What has been reported, is serious. The Liberals just do not seem to let public inquiries go if they are going to expose any fault of the Liberal Party: Somalia, APEC, Maher Arar. It is a consistent practice and that is our concern.

People do not want Jean Chrétien and the Prime Minister to team up once again. The last time that happened we had the sponsorship scandal. Why are the Prime Minister and Jean Chrétien teaming up once again to attack--
+-

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is the government and the Prime Minister not only appointed Justice Gomery but provided exceptional support to the work of Justice Gomery, providing over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents, and beyond that providing millions of dollars worth of resources, full transparency, accountability and openness and a complete focus on ensuring Justice Gomery completes his work.

This party, this government and this Prime Minister are changing the culture of government for generations of Canadians. This is worth any short term pain that is involved. We are doing the right thing, not simply the partisan thing.
+-

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just offered, very generously, to table the letter, which was leaked, between justice department lawyers and Mr. Chrétien. How kind of him. The question is this. Why did he or his government not table that letter two weeks ago in this place when we asked about it and his public works minister denied it existed?

Why did the public works minister, rather than tabling the document, say that the allegations of its existence were false and ridiculous? Why did he not tell the House the truth?

¸ +-(1430)
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public works minister was correct when he said several weeks ago that there was no agreement made by the Government of Canada with Mr. Chrétien. The fact is the letter does not say that there was an agreement made with Mr. Chrétien. The letter simply restates the obvious legal fact that Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual to pursue a course of action before an independent judicial inquiry.

Beyond that, what is clear is, through the actions of the government, the Prime Minister and the government consistently support and will continue to support the work of Justice Gomery.
+-

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is now referring to himself in the third person. I guess it has not gone to his head.

We want to know why the Prime Minister is offering to table the document that was leaked to the press today? When we asked about it two weeks ago, on two consecutive days, in six questions, the government denied it existed. The Prime Minister knew about it all along, sat in his place and did nothing to correct the record.

Why did he allow his public works minister to do something other than tell the truth to the House? Why did he not stand and offer to table the document two weeks ago when he should have?
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has said things in the House that have been patently false and he has refused to withdraw those statements. Beyond that, I notice on an ongoing basis the hon. member asks me these questions in the House. I continue to spank him on the floor of the House of Commons. By the fact that he comes back with the same types of ridiculous questions, one can only assume that he is enjoying the spankings he is receiving here on the floor of the House of Commons......

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services gave the following answer in the House to a question by a Conservative MP:

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member's question and assertion are totally false. There was no deal—

However, at the same time, the government and Jean Chrétien's lawyers had signed a letter.

Why then did the Minister of Public Works and Government Services hide this information from the House by pretending that this letter was not a deal, not an agreement? Was it not his duty to clarify the situation, as we had asked him to do here in the House?

¸ +-(1435)

[English]
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation is clarified when I state repeatedly that there was no agreement. The fact is the letter simply states that Mr. Chrétien has the right before the law as an individual to pursue a course of action. Let us be clear. The government made a decision in response to Mr. Chrétien's action to support the work of Justice Gomery and will continue to do so. There is no contradiction. We are doing the right thing and we are supporting the work of Justice Gomery.

[Translation]
+-

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services failed to tell the House that this letter of agreement between the government and Jean Chrétien's lawyers did, in fact, exist, and all he told the MP was that her statements were false.

I ask the minister this: is failing to mention an agreement that did exist, that had been signed the day before, that dealt precisely with the member's question and that referred to a relationship, an agreement between the government and Jean Chrétien, not wilfully misleading the House?

[English]
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will say to that hon. member that he is wrong as well. There is no agreement. There never was an agreement. The fact is there is a letter between lawyers that confirms that Mr. Chrétien has the right as an individual before the law to pursue a course of action in defence of himself before a judicial inquiry. Our actions as a government speak louder than any words by the fact that we consistently have supported and will support the work of Justice Gomery.

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from his seat here in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister has stated that a Conservative MP had solicited an offer. This is an offence under section 119 of the Criminal Code. That statement by the Prime Minister concerning the solicitation of an offer can be found in the official report of the Debates of the House of Commons.

When was the Prime Minister informed of this approach by the member? Was it during the negotiations or after they were all over?

[English]
+-

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said often in the House, the Prime Minister said he was informed that the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said no offer was to be made. No offer was made.

I understand that the Bloc has contacted the RCMP regarding this matter. If the member has any further information, she should provide it to the RCMP.

[Translation]
+-

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister refusing to answer this simple question? Is it to save the skin of his chief of staff or is it more simply to save his own skin, since he would appear to have participated in the commission of a crime?

[English]
+-

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the hon. member and her party continue to ask these questions when they have asked the RCMP themselves to see whether an investigation is warranted.

I say again, if the hon. member does have information, she should provide it to the RCMP so the RCMP can decide whether an investigation is warranted.....Access to Information
+-

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Information Commissioner made it clear the Liberal government is “seized with a culture of distrust and secrecy”. He slammed the justice minister's attempt to create a law that, had it been in place just a few years ago, would have prevented the sponsorship scandal from ever becoming public.

All three opposition parties want to reappoint official whistleblower John Reid. Will the Prime Minister admit that in refusing to reappoint Mr. Reid, he is breaking his commitment to “openness and transparency”?
+-

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, I reject the preamble that was made. In fact the powers that the individual is talking about--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
+-

The Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. President of the Treasury Board appreciates the enthusiastic response this question is generating in the House, but we have to be able to hear the answer. With the problems that seem to be caused by his answer, we will want to hear it.

I would urge hon. members to constrain themselves and listen very attentively to what the President of the Treasury Board has to say.
+-

Hon. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that very important advice.

The item that is referenced, the powers that are referenced in the bill, are exactly the same powers given to every other investigative body. They are done to make the whistleblowing bill stronger and the protection of public servants better.
+-

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly does not understand what he is talking about.

The Prime Minister told us a year ago, “the change in culture, in the way things are done, will be the yardstick against which our success will be measured”. Yet, according to the Information Commissioner, there has never been “an organization that has been so viciously attacked” as his office by the Liberal administration.

Using the Prime Minister's own yardstick, it is clear that he has been measured and has been found wanting. Will he measure up and reappoint John Reid?
+-

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that same Information Commissioner went on at some length about the very proactive decisions that had been made at Treasury Board under the guidance of the Prime Minister, the proactive disclosure policy which puts information online so all Canadians can judge our actions.

In fact, the government is actively and aggressively opening up, not the opposite.



+