Hansard: May 18, 2005 -- What Liberals Hope You Forget While Watching Belinda & Peter

Trust Fund for Dirty Sponsorship Money, Gomery: Clause K, Politicized Court Appointments, Sudan: Darfur, Brison Won't Attend Committee: Why? Clothing and Textile Industry, Liberal MP on Traditional Marriage

Hansard May 18, 2005

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government lost a vote which obliged it to create a trust fund for the dirty sponsorship money. So far, it has not done so. Elections Canada is now preparing to pay $2 million back to the government.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he is going to put that dirty money into a trust account, or fund a fourth election campaign with it?

The Speaker: I have the same reservations on this question as on the previous one. The question must be asked in other terms. [. . . . ]

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, while I did ask if they would return it as a government, the Liberals have rigged every rule in the book to benefit themselves. They have laundered thousands if not millions for ad scam. They rewrote election financing laws to get millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

The only way Canadians can be sure the Liberals are not campaigning with dirty money is to put the Elections Canada subsidy in trust. Maybe it is their intention to buy another election campaign using that dirty money.

[. . . . ] Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to suggest that things must wait for the Gomery report before people can make up their minds about ad scam wrongdoing. Clause k of Gomery's mandate prevents him from telling who is responsible.

Yesterday government bureaucrats admitted they were not waiting for Judge Gomery's report to implement reforms to the system. Why should Canadians have to wait to make a political judgment on the government?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, [. . . . ]

We are doing the right thing by taking action and changing our processes to ensure better value for Canadian taxpayers, more open and competitive processes and accountable and transparent ones.

[. . . . ]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): [. . . . ] The Prime Minister told Canadians on national TV that only Gomery could tell who was responsible for the organized ad scam scandal, but all the while he knew that clause k explicitly prevented Gomery from naming names.

Day after day televised evidence leaves no doubt that the stain on our nation's honour was put there by the Liberal Party. Gomery's report will just be a summary of facts we already know.

Is it not true that the government is just inventing excuses to hold off the day of reckoning? [. . . . ]

---

Justice

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal has given sworn testimony at the Gomery commission that many court appointments in Canada have been based on political consideration and merit plays a secondary role. As long as the Liberal government controls the process, the political pedigree of any candidate will be the overriding consideration.

The Minister of Justice has stubbornly refused to turn the matter over to an independent body for examination when he knows Gomery has no jurisdiction. What is he afraid it will uncover?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the body is not controlled by the Liberals. It is an independent body. It was the same body that the hon. member presided over. It was good enough for him when he was the attorney general of Manitoba and it is good enough for us when we are the Government of Canada.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister understands perfectly well the distinction between an independent body and the body that controls federal judicial appointments. The denials of the minister are simply not enough. An independent investigation is needed to clear the air. It is more than a coincidence that predominantly Liberal Party loyalists get appointed to the bench, including the minister's former chief of staff.

Why does the minister refuse to put into place a transparent public process that actually limits political patronage?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member earlier referenced Gomery and the work of Justice Gomery. It is important to realize that recently constituents of the hon. member started receiving householders that he sent out. In that householder he said: [. . . . ]
(1435)

---

Sudan

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unilateral action is not the way to resolve the crisis in Darfur. Last week the Prime Minister did not consult with African Union leaders, NATO leaders or even the head of the Sudanese government before rushing to make an announcement that he was sending Canadian military into Darfur without our allies, without the Sudanese government knowing, and without even the means to protect themselves.

Helping people in Darfur is too important to ignore these things. Why did he not at least warn the African Union leaders that he was about to take unilateral action in Darfur?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. There have been the appropriate consultations. The Prime Minister and I have conducted consultations with the government in Iran, the United Nations, the African Union and the government of Sudan.

[. . . . ] Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not catalytic leadership; it is catatonic leadership.

I have a statement which was released today by the leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea. They said that they reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem. Today in Brussels the African Union president, Alpha Konare, said that there will be no troops on the ground unless they are exclusively African. The Sudanese ambassador to Canada said that her country will not allow Canadian military into Darfur. [. . . . ]

---

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works [Scott Brison] often says he is open and accountable, but his actions say he is not. We just cannot trust what he says. The truth is that he refuses to attend the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to be held accountable on the 2005-06 spending estimates for his department. [. . . . ]

---

Clothing and Textile Industry

Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the textile plants that remain continue to shut down, in Huntingdon and elsewhere in Quebec. This clearly shows that, in its present form, the government's improvised rescue plan cannot solve the crisis.

In light of the mediocre results of its plan, what is the government waiting for to put forward a true plan that would include, among other measures, safeguards, a program for older workers, and a program to support the modernization of the clothing and textile sectors?

Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, long before plants began shutting down, we had the pleasure, through the Suroît-Sud renewal committee, of meeting with municipal and local economic stakeholders. We were involved in the renewal plan. Through the Canadian Apparel and Textile Industries Program, or CATIP, and then through the Canadian Textiles Program, or CANtex, we offered funding to industry members, but they did not avail themselves of those funds. We are still there. [. . . . ]

---

PETITIONS

Marriage

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a number of petitions which include several thousands of names of residents who draw to the attention of the House the issue that the moral good of society be protected as we elected officials make judgments in the House and as we pass laws.

The petitioners believe that the defence of traditional marriage as the bond between one man and one woman is a serious moral good. They also believe that marriage is the lasting union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others, and cannot and should not be modified by a legislative act or court of law.

The petitioners request that Parliament take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law and perpetuity, and to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.

---