Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Building Contracts

[The Speaker]

Order. Put the question right now.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is it about this Prime Minister's character that makes him run away from responsibility, from his own unethical behaviour?

[Some hon. members]

Out of order.

[The Speaker]

Order. The words are now getting a little bit closer. The questioning of a member's character is not permissible. I am going to permit the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer the question.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have served my riding for 36 years. My personal integrity has never been questioned in this House but by this member. I saw that again yesterday. Reformers make accusations like that, but when they go out into the corridor they do not use the same words because they are just a bunch of chickens.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Order. Again my colleagues, no one's courage is being questioned in this House and I wish we would leave words like that out of it.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not appear to realize that the Duhaime affair raises some very serious questions. The Prime Minister used his office to secure huge grants, not for just any constituent, but for someone who had done him the favour of taking a money-losing hotel off his hands. But that is not all. The Prime Minister also has a financial interest in a nearby golf course. Is it not true that grant money pumped into Duhaime's hotel also increases the value of the Prime Minister's golf course shares?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I sold my shares in 1993, so the opposition is only six years late. I do not have a share in that golf course. I sold my shares because I did not want to keep them and because I did not want to have any conflict of interest. That is all.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will have to refresh the Prime Minister's memory. On January 28, 1999, the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor wrote a memo in which he said: “In January 1996, he (the Prime Minister) informed the Ethics Counsellor that he had not been paid” for his shares in the golf course “and wanted to know what his options were. He was told that the Code permitted him to resume ownership or if he wished, he could of course, sell these shares”.

Clearly the Prime Minister was told by the ethics counsellor that he still owned these shares in the golf course. This is exactly the kind of question a conflict of interest raises. When will this be cleared up for Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, never have the shares come back to me, so I do not have a share.

I would like to quote a member of the National Assembly. On March 23, 1999 the Parti Quebecois member for Saint-Maurice, Claude Pinard, said “I don't see why it's a mortal sin for the Prime Minister of Canada to be interested as well in his own riding. I find it deplorable that they are throwing rocks at the Prime Minister for having worked within government programs”.

We are working, provincial and federal ministers of government, for the well-being of Quebeckers from that part of Quebec in Canada.

Employment Insurance

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the National Post revealed today that the surplus in the employment insurance fund will reach $26 billion in the coming year.

However, according to the Minister of Human Resources Development, this surplus is virtual, it has disappeared. The money has been spent.

Since the money has been spent, since there is no more money in the employment insurance fund, will the Minister of Finance, the person primarily responsible for this misappropriation of funds, explain what he would do should, unfortunately, a recession occur? Would he increase contributions? Would he reduce benefits further? Or would he be obliged to present a deficit budget?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the member that the Government of Canada guarantees employment insurance contributions.

We are a long way from a recession. Should one by misfortune ever occur, the contributions are at an appropriate level. There would be no need to increase them.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the chief actuary of the employment insurance fund has already indicated that a reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion would be enough to handle a recession, should one unfortunately occur.

However, the funds the minister has siphoned off from the employment insurance fund represent about twice this figure.

Given the opinion of the chief actuary, and the fact that he has already taken $26 billion from the employment insurance fund, does the Minister of Finance realize that his behaviour is not only indecent and immoral but also illegal?

[The Speaker]

Words are becoming a little too strong. I will permit the minister to respond, but a term such as “illegal” is out of order.

The Minister of Finance.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, not only is it out of order, it is totally ridiculous.

I would say to the hon. member that the three commissioners, unanimously, recommended contributions be at the level of $2.55, which the government accepted.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is swimming in money, thousands of people are drowning in poverty, having reached that period in the year known as the spring gap, a situation made worse by the Liberal government's EI reforms.

What has the Minister of Human Resources Development got to say to the people who, for periods of from six weeks to two months, find themselves with no money to live on or feed their families, and who see their premiums being siphoned off by the Minister of Finance to pay down Canada's debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken to the House about how we sympathize with workers in difficulty. And when we changed the EI system, we knew that we were going to be making things difficult for certain regions and for certain workers.

That is why we have made other tools available to these workers, so that more jobs will be created in the areas of highest unemployment. The goal is longer lasting jobs, so that their standard of living will be improved.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, in a large number of seasonal industries such as tourism and forestry, the minister's active measures do nothing to help thousands of people who find themselves with no income for two months.

Will the minister put aside his rhetoric, come down from his ivory tower, and take an honest look at how his reforms have hurt real people?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because we care about these people that we want to help them create jobs in the regions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to show people that you care about them is to give them work, not to keep them unemployed, as the Bloc Quebecois wants to do.

What is the Bloc Quebecois asking us to do? Bring back the 10-42 system. The Bloc Quebecois is calling on us to bring back the system of ten weeks of work for 42 weeks of EI.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Even last Saturday's Le Devoir urged us not to bring back the earlier system, as the Bloc Quebecois would have us do.

Nuclear Waste

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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

Three months ago the House foreign affairs committee strongly and unanimously rejected the idea of burning plutonium based MOX fuel in Canadian reactors, saying that it is totally infeasible.

Why is the Prime Minister writing this month to U.S. President Bill Clinton, offering to consider using U.S. and Russian plutonium in Canada? Does this Prime Minister not understand that Canadians do not want our country to become a dumping ground for the world's cold war plutonium?