Jean Chrétien

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, they are all over the place. Last week the big problem was the Minister of Industry, and it was a question with the Irvings. Now it is with Paul Zed.

I find it absolutely incredible that a member of Parliament, who is no longer a member of Parliament, who has made friends with people in this House, should not talk with his former colleagues. I think it is stretching this thing quite far.

For a long time in this House there was a sense of dignity and respect for the honesty of the people. Now it is always the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.

[Quebec, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, people can always resort to word games. I have a clear recollection of the day I took them at their word. I asked them to vote in favour of the distinct society and they voted against it. Everyone will remember that. It was the embarrassment of the year. They are resorting to word games because they do not really want to talk about the nation's real problems.

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I can comprehend the frustration of a person who will not be the leader of his party for even one year. He is already on death row, and the other one in front of me is the interim leader.

They just talk about little things because they have no policy to offer to Canadians. They are a completely empty bunch of people who do not care about the real problems of the nation.

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that he still has the gall to get up in the House and talk about ethics is beyond comprehension. He is the leader of that little party because one man made a deal with him. Within months he double-crossed him. He now gets up to complain because somebody slept one night in a lodge where they do not serve alcohol, which is why the Minister of Fisheries stayed there only one day.

This is the big problem of the opposition. It is a compliment because it is a sign that we have a--

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development went with a colleague from the House of Commons, Mr. Zed, who was a member here and who, like her, has a family. They met one evening at a house. This is an example of accepting hospitality, which is perfectly reasonable.

The opposition has nothing better to talk about. There are problems in this country, yet all the members across the way are doing is trying to destroy reputations and throw mud. As Mr. Pearson once said:

“Those who throw mud lose ground”.

[Ethics, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister never resigned. He was minister of public works but I decided I would have a shuffle. He was a very good House leader and he became the House leader.

They keep playing their games but we have a nation to run. The only thing they think of is to destroy the character of members of Parliament and ministers. It is the only goal they have and that says something about them.

The members of the House on all sides are very honourable people but they try to paint members of the House as a bunch of crooks, and that reflects on their poor judgment. The people in this House represent their ridings--

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, it was his organization that accepted the money, not him personally. Secondly, starting next year, this type of contribution will no longer be possible. The maximum will be $5,000 based on the legislation passed by the House of Commons a few months ago, which will come into effect on January 1.

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, political contributions are known and made public and are used for election campaigns. Everything is done out in the open.

[Ethics, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a process on that. I do not know if it has been filed. Every one has been reported and every one will be reported. I do not know if there are some lagging in time, but if they arrive there is a person in my office who takes care of that. I do not do the filing myself.

[International Aid, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a complicated file. There is some work to be done and if it can be done before we adjourn, it will be done. If not, it will be done early in the next year.