Hansard exerpts-Question period- Oct 18,2005

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary is really saying is the returns were too good, so they want to clamp down on them.

Just to draw the contrast, yesterday the government said that it would deduct any improper payments from the severance it wanted to pay the Prime Minister's friend David Dingwall. We know that David Dingwall already improperly received $350,000 from Technology Partnerships.

Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will deduct that $350,000 from any payment to David Dingwall?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the agreement with the government is with the company and we have recovered that money. Therefore, if the company chooses to go after Mr. Dingwall, that is the business of the company, not the Government of Canada. We are recovering all taxpayer money. We have done so and we will continue to do so.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): What we know, Mr. Speaker, is that David Dingwall is not entitled to another dime of taxpayer money.

I want to ask the Prime Minister again because this was his idea. This is the man he called the Saint David of public service here on the House of Commons floor. Once again, will he assure us that he will not pay David Dingwall a cent when he already owes $350,000 back to the government?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I am always keen to get information publicly as quickly as possible. Having been led to believe that the results of the audit would be available tomorrow, I said so in question period. However, at 6 p.m. I learned that the audit results would not be available until a week from tomorrow. I immediately reported this in the House at 6:20 p.m. or so yesterday. While I regret having inadvertently given wrong information, those are the facts.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like the government, the minister runs faster backwards than forward. We all know that Dingwall could not possibly have been off side because there were no lines on the ice. Section 7.5 of the Mint's travel policy says, “Exceptions to this policy will require the approval of the President”. There also are exceptions in the Mint's hospitality policy for, guess who, the president.

These rules were written after the sponsorship scandal, after Ouellet, after Radwanski and after the Prime Minister came into office. Why has he done nothing? How many Liberal red flags does the Prime Minister need?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two points of which the hon. member should be aware. First, expenses are not approved by the president. Expenses are approved by the board of directors of the Royal Canadian Mint.

Second, as I announced yesterday, the appropriateness of those rules will itself be examined by a well known expert in corporate governance called Peter Dey. Mr. Dey will be examining the appropriateness of all those rules and making recommendations for potential improvement to the Mint.

* * *
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs told Canadians that his gag order contract with Totem Hill Inc. protected sensitive personal information.

I have the contract. It is not a contract about sensitive personnel information. The contract relates to the audit and management structures of the department. It relates to whether or not his department is meeting its constitutional, legal and treaty obligations to aboriginal Canadians. It relates to how DIAND measures the health of aboriginal communities and their quality of life. This is not a personnel matter.

Why did the minister mislead the House?

The Speaker: We had difficulties with that kind of question about a week and a half ago and I have indicated my dissatisfaction with that kind of question. Inviting a minister to answer one question is one thing. Inviting him to explain why the House may have misconstrued his remarks is another. We will not have this. I am warning that the next time I will rule the question out of order. We will proceed and if the minister is willing to answer he may do so.

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday regarding the aspect of the contract that involved personnel matters, we asked for that to be done in an oral presentation. On the balance, there is a contract, there is a statement of work and there is a clear audit trail which shows the department received what it paid for.

[Translation]

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the contract; it is not a personnel matter. Everyone knows that the minister is trying to gag his consultants. He does not want Canadians to find out that every social indicator shows that the quality of life of aboriginals is deteriorating. He does not want them to know that he and the Prime Minister are responsible for this mess.

Is that not why the minister is stifling his consultants?

¸ (1435)

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are getting to the bottom of the audit and evaluation branch. That is what this exercise was about. It was intended to get that kind of information. There was sensitive personnel information that we wanted to protect. It was a small part of a contract. There is a contract and there was a clear audit trail.

The Economy

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a new Conference Board report reveals that Canada's world economics performance at the hands of the Liberals has slipped from third to twelfth in just two years. We see it every day actually in layoffs in the manufacturing sector around this country.

Anne Golden of the Conference Board of Canada today called the government's recent economic initiatives “foolhardy”.

Why should Canadians settle for foolhardy Liberal policies that are clobbering our economic performance?

Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada at this point is enjoying a very prosperous period of time in its history. Inflation is between 1% and 3%. We enjoy historically low interest rates. The government books are balanced. We have paid down $60 billion in debt. Family incomes are up 8% between 1993 and now. After tax income is up 11% in the same period of time.

When the Conservatives were involved in government in a period of time, incomes actually declined 16%. I would ask the hon. member to review the report and point to the last and concluding thought which says “Canada remains--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

* * *
Income Trusts

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there they are whistling through the graveyard again.

Today the Canadian Association of Retired Persons wrote the finance minister to tell him that he had it all wrong on income trusts. CARP says that “seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for essentials of daily living”.

We know that a senior Liberal is quoted as saying that income trust investors do not count politically. Maybe it was the parliamentary secretary. Is that why the parliamentary secretary and the government are attacking the retirement savings of seniors?

Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member to be an intelligent individual, however—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: I know this kind of compliment can provoke disorder but the parliamentary secretary has the floor.

Hon. John McKay: And it appears, Mr. Speaker, that he has had a lapse from that usual level of intelligence.

This is an area of complex public policy in which the rights of all Canadians, including the rights to set aside sufficient funding for their retirement, needs to be protected.

I would ask the hon. member to contemplate the productivity agenda that is presently before the finance committee and include in that productivity agenda his concern about the way in which income trusts need to be treated.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans rack up expenditures of $42 million on travel and hospitality, services to fishermen are being eroded.

Recently it took the search and rescue chopper more than two hours to get off the ground when a distress call was received from the fishing boat, Melina & Keith II, which had overturned and four lives were lost.

Could the minister tell us where his priorities lie: searching for fishermen in distress or for employees who have gone AWOL?

Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate my sympathies to the families of those who lost their lives in that incident. Obviously that is very disturbing.

I want to point out that this audit was initiated and done by our department. It was our audit and it is posted on our website. The audit shows that our department has reduced its expenditures in the areas of hospitality and travel by nearly 20% over the past two years. That is money that can be used for the priorities of the department, such as the priorities my friend talks about.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is avoiding the real issue. The distress signal from the Melina & Keith II was received before the crew left its regular shift.

While DFO officials can spend over $5,000 above the regular fare on flights, the search and rescue crew could not be kept back for a few minutes of overtime until it determined the location of the tragedy.

Why was the search and rescue chopper not available immediately once the location was determined?

Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that our staff with the Coast Guard and search and rescue do an excellent job, work very hard and are very dedicated.

He also knows my department has over 10,000 employees working in every province of this country, including remote coastal communities where they respond to these kinds of distress calls. In fact, 87% of our employees work outside the national capital region. We have scientists conducting world class field research. We have officers conducting fisheries patrols. We have engineers ensuring the safety of wharves and harbours. By their very nature, travel is required.

* * *
Ethics

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in November last year the multiculturalism minister was the owner of a school in China. By April of this year he was not. In the interim, he went on a Team Canada mission to China, accompanied by the two people who had purchased the company. This could be construed as an effort to use an official trade mission to boost the value of the company, either before or after the sale, to ensure a higher sale value.

Yesterday the minister refused to answer my questions on this matter, so I ask him again: Is there an innocent explanation for his conduct, and if so, what is it?

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question was answered fully yesterday.

The minister, upon being invited by the Prime Minister to join cabinet, went to consult the Ethics Commissioner who recommended that he dispose of the shares. In December 2004 the minister did exactly as was suggested. Therefore, he is not in a conflict of interest situation.

I would invite the member, before casting aspersions on people in the House, to do better homework than he has done so far.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the minister divested. The question is whether he divested in a manner that represents a conflict of interest.

The question is whether, a month after selling the business, the minister took the current owners on a trade mission to sign a contract with Beijing University as a way of boosting the value of his school and thereby raising the price that they would have been willing to pay for the school. If so, he was enriching himself at the public expense.

Surely the minister can speak for himself and demonstrate to Canadians that this was not the case.

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is verging on the despicable here. We have a minister who did exactly what the ethics adviser suggested he do, which is to divest himself of all interest. That was done in December 2004 before any trip that the member mentioned, so the minister was not in any conflict of interest.

To keep on asking questions when the member well knows the answer is not doing justice to the House.

I invite the member to do his homework and find out that indeed the minister divested himself of all shares before any such trip took place. Therefore, there is no conflict.

* * *
Justice

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning Ontario police chiefs identified the government's laws, including house arrest and early parole, as obstructing their fight against crime and strangling the justice system. The police chiefs told us the parole board has been giving weekend passes to convicted murderers and sex offenders so they can attend local theme parks.

Could the minister explain to wondering Canadians why convicted murderers and sex offenders should be given weekend passes to children's amusement parks?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the purpose of the parole system has to be to ensure the public safety. That is why I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to review both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the parole system to determine whether we have the balance right.

The specific incidents which the hon. member referred to I am not aware of. I was made aware of the allegations by the Ontario Police Association just a few minutes ago. I will undertake to investigate whether or not any federal prisoners were sent to any amusement park anywhere.

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the Vancouver Board of Trade announced that crime is skyrocketing in Vancouver. The Vancouver crime rate is almost the worst in the country and is destroying the quality of life. The board says that the answer is stiffer sentences for repeat offenders involved in the drug trade and auto theft.

After 12 years of failed Liberal justice policies, Lower Mainland Liberal MPs still deny there is a problem. When will they get their heads out of the sand and institute mandatory minimum sentences that will keep violent criminals behind bars and citizens safe on our streets?

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, the protection of public safety and the safety of our citizens is a priority for the government.

In fact, if the member would check, he would see within the Criminal Code that other than murder, there are 10 offences where they are committed with a gun and carry a minimum mandatory penalty of four years. I think the member needs to pay attention. It is there. It just needs to be enforced.

¸ (1455)

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last Friday a sexual offender with 42 prior convictions was set free to roam the streets and parks of Merritt, British Columbia. Authorities have also labelled him as a high risk to reoffend. They have also commented that he can legally have relations with children as young as 14 because the Liberals refused to raise the age of sexual consent between adults and minors from 14 to 16.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister in his heart really supports perverse laws that wind up protecting the predators. Why will he not announce that the laws are going to be changed and we are going to start protecting children?

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question when it comes to the protection of children that the opposition has anything on us.

We believe the priority of children is important. We have taken Bill C-2, our first bill in this session of Parliament, and brought it forward for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

We believe in the protection of children. We believe that Bill C-2, when it comes into force, will meet that challenge.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will not see to it because they will not change the law.

Over the weekend the same predator with 42 prior convictions and a high risk to reoffend turned himself in to the local RCMP detachment saying that he was bringing a risk to the community. That mirrors recent comments by the serial rapist Larry Fisher, who said that he himself was surprised that he got out of jail so quickly after so many rapes. While he was out on parole he raped and murdered.

When are the laws going to change? The Prime Minister refuses to listen to citizens who want the laws changed. Will the Prime Minister start listening to the criminals themselves who are saying that these Liberal laws are dangerous?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, obviously the first and paramount purpose of a corrections and parole system is the protection and safety of the public. That is why I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to look at our parole system.

In fact, I am open to the fact and I have said that we may need to rebalance that system. That is why I am seeking the advice of all parties in the form of a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I would just ask that the members get to work.

* * *