Debates of March 28th, 2001
House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was new.
Topics
- Canadian Cancer Society
- Transportation
- Canadian Cancer Society
- American Bar Association
- Ara Sarafian
- Agriculture
- Canadian Ski Championships
- Social Housing
- Outaouais Tourist Industry
- Taxation
- Nunavut
- Freshwater Exports
- Organized Crime
- Arts And Culture
- Softwood Lumber
- Prime Minister
- Trade
- Prime Minister
- Ethics Counsellor
- Multiculturalism
- Employment
- Prime Minister
- Foreign Affairs
- Prime Minister
- Multiculturalism
- Ethics Counsellor
- Multiculturalism
- Health
- Multiculturalism
- Code Of Ethics
- Privilege
- Points Of Order
- Government Response To Petitions
- Food And Drugs Act
- National Horse Of Canada Act
- Statistics Act
- Treaties Act
- Tabling Of Treaties Act
- Treaty Approval Act
- Treaty Publication Act
- Conclusion Of Treaties Act
- Fuel Price Posting Act
- Canada Elections Act
- Income Tax Act
- Farm Income Protection Act
- Petitions
- Questions On The Order Paper
- Motions For Papers
- Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act
- Points Of Order
- Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act
- Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
- Financial Consumer Agency Act
- Division No. 39
- Division No. 47
- Division No. 40
- Division No. 41
- Division No. 42
- Division No. 43
- Division No. 52
- Division No. 44
- Division No. 53
- Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act
- Division No. 54
- Division No. 58
- Division No. 59
- Education
Prime Minister
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception
Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the member who just asked the question. Two days ago he said:
—the Prime Minister could have put this matter to rest a long time ago by providing definitively that he did not stand to gain himself by his actions by tabling a document that would lay out the details of a sales agreement he had with an individual named Jonas Prince.
That is exactly what the Prime Minister did yesterday.
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Gurmant Grewal Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that anyone who communicates statements in a public place inciting hatred against any identifiable group where it is likely to breach the peace is guilty, including cabinet ministers.
Since it appears that the junior multiculturalism minister has broken this law by inciting hatred against the people of Prince George and Kamloops, how can the Prime Minister continue to insist that she not step down?
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Saint-Maurice
Québec
Liberal
Jean Chrétien Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, she got up in the House. She said “I made a mistake and I apologize”.
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Chrétien Saint-Maurice, QC
The minister has devoted many years working very hard to build understanding among Canadians.
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sheila Copps Hamilton East, ON
Exactly. If you know anything about Christians, you should change your tone.
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Chrétien Saint-Maurice, QC
Of course she said she made a mistake and she apologized. We have accepted the apology.
When a member of parliament on the other side made a much worse offence, he rose and said “I am sorry, I would like to make an apology”. We are people who respect the tradition of the House and we have accepted his apology, but I know that type of—
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
The Speaker
The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Gurmant Grewal Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not holding his minister accountable under the hate laws. His government vows to combat exactly these kinds of slurs. That is what the hate laws are for.
The only apology acceptable is for the minister to resign. Will she resign today?
Multiculturalism
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Saint-Maurice
Québec
Liberal
Ethics Counsellor
Oral Question Period
March 28th, 2001 / 2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Brien Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor said that the documents for the period from 1993 to 1999 were not released because they were not relevant.
Yet, there must be documents from those years that would tell us why the Prime Minister got involved in the 1999 transaction, when he claims to have sold his shares in 1993.
I am asking the Prime Minister how the ethics counsellor can justify his decision not to release the documents for the 1993-1999 period, when it is precisely during that time that the Prime Minister put himself in a conflict of interest.
Ethics Counsellor
Oral Question Period
2:55 p.m.
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception
Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period a member opposite asked whether or not we in this party had discussed this matter today in caucus. I should not talk about caucus but I will tell the member that we did.
I will sat what members told the Prime Minister. They said to the Prime Minister “You have gone above and beyond the call of duty. You have answered all the questions. We on this side think you should now tell them enough is enough”.
I say to the Prime Minister that we on this side have it. We will stand with you right to the wall on this issue.
Ethics Counsellor
Oral Question Period
2:55 p.m.
The Speaker
Order, please. I hope it is not necessary to continually remind the House that members must always address the Chair and not one another.
Ethics Counsellor
Oral Question Period
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Brien Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. The Prime Minister does have his back to the wall right now. He does indeed.
How could the ethics counsellor, who admitted that he is not an expert in corporate law, arrive at these conclusions? How can we be sure that his decision does not yet again serve the sole purpose of protecting the Prime Minister, his boss, his employer?