Debates of Feb. 18th, 1998

Education

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is putting more and more energy into promoting his millennium scholarship fund, which he wants to turn into the symbol of Canada's entry into the 21st century.

The Prime Minister claims to be ensuring compliance with Canada's Constitution in his reference to the Supreme Court, so why he is incapable of complying with another clear provision of the Constitution, which is that education is exclusively a provincial matter?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Canada is not meddling in education, because we are the federal government.

However, financial aid to students has always been a shared responsibility, and I know of no federal government in the world in a developed country that is not involved in helping its people have access to educational institutions. Canadians are entitled to receive aid from their federal government.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, so they are breaking up the best system of loans and grants in Canada to create another through duplication.

Does the minister realize that his project simply ensures political visibility but does not resolve the problem of student debt? This is why people in both Quebec and Canada are criticizing the government so vigorously.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that is another question. Clearly in this federation, which we have considerably improved in recent years, there is no question of creating overlap. We will always work together with the provinces, especially in areas where Canadians have to count on help from both governments.

National Defence

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 this Liberal defence minister announced a $500 million emergency campaign to clothe our soldiers.

Yet recently an advertisement appeared in the Plainsman newspaper requesting forces personnel to return all combat shirts and pants which are not being used to the clothing stores so that they could be redistributed to the second rotation of soldiers going to Bosnia.

Will the Minister of National Defence explain to the men and women in our forces why $500 million cannot even buy them proper pants? Why is the government turning the Canadian army into the Salvation Army?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is always looking at information that is quite old.

The clothe the soldier program, which is what he is referring to, is in fact moving on. Funds are being provided all the time to increase the amount of new clothing and new equipment, the latest up to date equipment and clothing for our soldiers.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact this recent ad appeared in the Plainsman and it reads:

Request and appeal to all military personnel at 15 Wing who presently hold combat shirts and trousers that are not being used for Operational reasons to please return to Clothing Stores so that these items may go back into the system to properly kit Roto 2 of OP Palladium.

Does the minister think it is good for morale to turn the Canadian army into the Salvation Army?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

It sounds like the same question again, Mr. Speaker.

In the process of providing for this new clothing there has been a period of time when there has been a shortage. That shortage is coming to an end and all our troops will get the proper clothing and will not have to go through that kind of procedure.

Bill C-28

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government's ethics counsellor said and put in writing that, because of Bill C-28, the Minister of Finance had placed himself in an apparent conflict of interest situation.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister again prepared to stand in his place and say that there is no problem and that his shipowner minister has broken none of the rules in the June 1994 code of conduct?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: the allegations are completely unfounded. Yesterday, Howard Wilson said: “Mr. Martin is not in a conflict of interest situation”.

It is absolutely clear that he is not in conflict of interest and I stand by what I have always said, which is that the minister behaved with complete propriety and that he took all the necessary steps so as not to be in any real or apparent conflict of interest.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the following appears in the code of conduct, and I quote: “On appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising”.

Is it not clear to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Finance placed himself in an apparent conflict of interest situation that is completely unacceptable and at odds with the spirit and the letter of his own code of conduct?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. Everyone in Canada knows that our Minister of Finance and his family are owners of a very large shipping company. Everyone knows this.

Immediately on becoming Minister of Finance, he took the necessary steps to ensure that he was not in a conflict of interest situation or in an apparent conflict of interest situation. That is why he asked the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions to look after this particular problem, rather than doing so himself.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the owner of Canada Steamship Lines, one of the country's largest shipping companies.

It just so happens the same finance minister sponsored tax legislation that could potentially save millions of dollars in taxes for companies such as his own.

Why is the finance minister allowed to bring in legislation that could potentially profit him personally to the tune of millions of dollars? Why is he allowed to do that?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have replied to this question time and time again.

This piece of legislation was handled by the Secretary of State for Finance. According to the arrangement made by the Minister of Finance when he became Minister of Finance—everybody knew that he was in that business—he made a disposition to make sure that he was not to be in a conflict of interest. And so said Mr. Howard Wilson yesterday in front of the committee.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely wrong. This bill was sponsored by the finance minister himself. He himself stands to profit from this legislation.

The ethics counsellor did not even know about this until he read about it in the newspaper. Then this farce of an investigation was to call up the minister's company, which said oh no, Mr. ethics counsellor, there has not been any wrongdoing. You can trust us. That was his investigation.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What is the use of an ethics counsellor if he approves unethical behaviour?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I say again that out of about 350 clauses of the bill, there was this clause that related to an industry that is very important in Canada, and this was handled by the secretary of state for finance. For me it is very clear.

I have no doubt that the people of Canada agree with me that the Minister of Finance is a man of integrity and honesty, and he has shown it to the Canadian people.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government's ethics commissioner acknowledged that the measures intended to eliminate any whisper of conflict of interest in the story of the ship-owning minister's sponsorship of Bill C-28 were not implemented.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Since the ethic's commissioner's statement proves that there is an apparent conflict of interest and the 1994 code of ethics states that ministers must not find themselves in such situations, what does the Prime Minister intend to do about his minister-cum-shipowner-cum-legislator?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have been answering that question for two weeks now. The Minister of Finance has taken all of the necessary steps—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

—to ensure that he was not in a conflict of interest, either real or apparent. That is why he handed the matter over to the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions. It is clear cut.

Since the Minister's very first day in this House as an MP, everyone has known he was a highly successful businessman in that industry. He has always been able to play his role as an MP and as a minister without any conflict whatsoever with his family's interests.

Ice Storm

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the President of the Treasury Board announced a compensation program yesterday for part time farmers in Quebec who suffered losses in the ice storm.

My riding also suffered losses and we appreciated the Salvation Army, unlike the Reform.

Can the minister of agriculture give this House his assurance that part time farmers in Ontario will receive similar consideration?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can give that assurance. We were in Saint-Hyacinthe yesterday and announced the ice storm recovery program for part time farmers in Quebec, a $50 million program.

The minister of defence, the House leader and I will be in Kemptville in eastern Ontario tonight to have similar consultations with the farmers in eastern Ontario on the same issue.

Bill C-28

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's department has clearly broken ethical standards by having, first, the minister himself sponsoring a tax bill, potentially saving his company millions of dollars, then hiding this clear violation from the ethics commissioner.

How does this minister expect Canadians to believe his next piece of legislation will not have another sweetheart deal?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will stand up in the House next Tuesday and will prove again that he is an excellent Minister of Finance who works diligently for the interests of all Canadians, that he is very honest and that he is a man whom we shall all respect because he deserves it.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The finance minister sponsored a bill through which his company made profit. The ethics watchdog was called in a day late and a dollar short to cover up this clear violation. His entire investigation was kept in house.

Given these facts, why does the Prime Minister put the finance minister's personal gain ahead of government ethics?