Debates of Feb. 19th, 1998

Bill C-28

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again, the ethics commissioner clearly said there was no conflict of interest. That is clear to me. All Canadians know that the finance minister's family owns ships. Everyone knows that. It is no secret. It is public knowledge.

Opposition members are trying to discredit the Minister of Finance because he is hurting them by bringing down good budgets and by ensuring that our fiscal house is in order.

Youth Employment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

Today the government announced the student summer jobs program with not one dollar more than last year. Worse, the program promises young people 10,000 fewer jobs than last year.

Remarkably the government had no trouble finding funds for a new promotion program. Is this glitzy promotion package, with its whiz-bang, high tech, all plastic ballpoint pens, in the Prime Minister's view any substitute for real investment in desperately needed jobs for young Canadians?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that we have actually doubled this year, for the second year in a row, the program available to students.

By doubling that number we are very pleased that it will help over 60,000 students in Canada to get a job and 350,000 more to have the right information about the job market. This is very good news.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government's press release shows that it is aiming for 10,000 fewer jobs than were created by the program last year.

Roughly one in every five students in Canada cannot find a summer job and 48,000 fewer young people are working than just two years ago.

Is this warmed over, recycled program an indication of how the Prime Minister intends to eliminate the human deficit that his policies have created? How does a goal of 10,000 fewer jobs help us to eliminate the human deficit?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we have a youth employment strategy that is working. Last year with a budget of $120 million, which we doubled for the student summer jobs program, we were able to get to 70,000. I am confident we will get to 70,000 again this year.

The government likes to deliver on its promises. I am guaranteeing over 60,000 and hopefully that number will reach 70,000.

The government has created more than a million jobs in Canada, which will benefit the young as well as the whole Canadian population.

Salmon Fishery

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canada's chief negotiator, Yves Fortier, resigned because the government has no political will to resolve the Pacific salmon dispute.

When President Clinton called the Prime Minister to discuss Canada's support in Iraq, did the Prime Minister ask President Clinton to get involved in resolving the Pacific salmon dispute?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, whenever I talk with the president I always refer to this problem. I hope the American government will be able to help us find a solution.

Canada is willing and was willing to make an agreement. The problem is that there are something like 25 different groups in the United States that have to approve the agreement. That is why it cannot put forward a solution.

We appointed two people to negotiate among themselves. They have made recommendations which we are working on. I hope this will result in an agreement. The president told me that it is his desire to have an agreement, just as it is mine.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific salmon fishery dispute has caused great hardship for many west coast salmon fishermen. Canada has a very reasonable and defensible position on the Pacific salmon dispute that recognizes the principles of equity and conservation.

In 1996 New Zealand Ambassador Beeby indicated in a report that Canada's position was very defensible. He supported Canada's position.

Has the Prime Minister considered going to international arbitration to settle the Pacific salmon dispute?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one of the misunderstandings in the preamble to the hon. member's first question.

Yves Fortier was our negotiator on this file for four years. We had full confidence in him, confidence which was repeatedly expressed. When he wrote his letters which were tabled in the House a little more than a week ago, it was clear from his letters that he supported our position and vice versa.

With respect to the issue of binding arbitration, we would be very pleased to have binding arbitration. I welcome the Conservative Party's support for that position. But it takes two people to agree to binding arbitration and we have not had that agreement from our American friends.

Finally, I would add that deputy minister—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Bill C-28

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

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the owner of Canada Steamship Lines. The more money it makes, the more money he makes. It is therefore completely unethical for the finance minister to have sponsored Bill C-28, which could see him personally profit millions of dollars.

My question to the Prime Minister—

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I ask you to be very judicious in your choice of words. I would like the hon. member to go right to the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is why was the finance minister allowed to sponsor this bill.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning the minister who acted on this file was the Secretary of State for Finance. It is very clear. The minister was not involved according to the rules that were established when he became Minister of Finance. Everybody knows that.

If the hon. member wants to say that the Minister of Finance is making a profit from it, rather than use the immunity of the House of the Commons, he should go in front of the camera outside and live with the consequences.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is twisting the facts. Here are the facts that Canadians know.

The finance minister improperly sponsored a bill that would benefit him personally. The ethics counsellor did not find out about it until he read it in the newspaper. Yesterday the ethics counsellor said “I was not informed and I should have been”.

Why did the finance minister compound his unethical behaviour by hiding it from the ethics counsellor?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said from the beginning that according to the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the ethics counsellor the procedures were followed. The file was given to the Secretary of State for Finance. At no time did the Minister of Finance participate in any discussion on this file.

If the hon. member accuses the Minister of Finance of benefiting from this action, again he should have the guts to make the accusation in front of the camera outside.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister first defended the Minister of Finance by saying that it was the secretary of state who sponsored Bill C-28. They then said he had sponsored clause 241.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us how the individual he identifies as the sponsor of clause 241, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions, has never defended this clause, which he supposedly sponsored, in the House or in committee?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Because the hon. member did not put a single question to anybody, Mr. Speaker.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one sponsoring the bill. According to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions is. Let him ask his secretary of state.

Since the answer the Prime Minister has given no longer stands up, as it is obviously not the secretary of state, who has nothing to do with clause 241, what does the Prime Minister have to say now in defence of his finance minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, since the bills at the Department of Finance are very complex—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

—everything is done to help the House of Commons examine them fully. There was an omnibus bill that included this clause. It is an omnibus bill. This is a practice that has been around for a very long time.

I was once Minister of Finance as well and the procedure was the same. In money bills, a number of elements are always incorporated and a bill is put together so that the House of Commons can examine all the problems at the same time.

In this particular case—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when he finally heard about the finance minister's conflict of interest he did not call any tax experts. No, he called the companies themselves. Surprise, surprise, the finance minister's own company exonerated itself.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is the real use of an ethics counsellor if he really approves unethical behaviour.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is nothing unethical about it and so said the commissioner in charge of this file. He said that very clearly in front of the committee.

Again, because the finance minister is presenting a budget and it is going to be a good budget, they are completely desperate on the other side and just want to hit below the belt.

That will neither affect the Minister of Finance nor the Canadian public. The Minister of Finance is a man of honesty, integrity and competence and will deliver his budget next Tuesday.