Debates of June 1st, 1999

Government Grants

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the office of Prime Minister is more important than the person who occupies it and the integrity of that office is more important still. Serious allegations have come to light surrounding this Prime Minister's use of public funds particularly in his own riding: grants announced before they were awarded; a personal aide under investigation for influence peddling; contracts awarded to political contributors.

Does the member for Saint-Maurice believe that these actions enhance the integrity of the office of Prime Minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the words used by the Leader of the Opposition are not at all factual. He refers to aides and so on. What I have done is what every member of parliament has an obligation to do and that is to make sure that the programs that apply to the constituents under the job creation program apply to the people who voted for the member for Saint-Maurice just as the programs apply to the members for Prince George—Peace River, Kootenay—Columbia, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Dauphin—Swan River, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Cariboo—Chilcotin, and so on.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tries to excuse these shady activities by saying he is only doing what other MPs are doing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to be very judicious in his choice of words.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no other MP has arranged a loan and a grant for someone who just bought a hotel from them. That is the Prime Minister's speciality. If it is jobs the Prime Minister wants, why does he not cut taxes in his riding?

Will the Prime Minister not admit that these activities are inexcusable for any member of parliament but particularly for a Prime Minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate that he is left with nothing except to try and attack the personal integrity of a member of parliament who is working for his constituents. I have done this for 36 years. With great pride I stand here and say I will always defend the best interests of my constituents so they can have a good living in the great country that is Canada.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this is not just petty patronage and petty abuses of power. This is patronage and abuse of power connected with the office of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised he would be different yet he slipped into a pattern of patronage and cover-up and abuse of power that makes his predecessor look like a saint.

In light of what has now happened, what is the Prime Minister going to do to clear the air?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is standing in this House and he is very clear on what happened. I have helped my electors. If anybody can prove anything, they should have the guts to make an accusation to say that I have benefited personally from any of the things I have done to make sure that my electors were treated like the electors of any riding in Canada.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he has helped his electors. He sure has helped a couple of them anyway.

Mr. Gauthier got a $6.3 million CIDA contract. That was after donating more than $43,000 to the Liberal Party, $10,000 of which went to the Prime Minister's own campaign for goodness' sake. We also know that Gauthier paid $525,000 for an undeveloped piece of land from a company in which the Prime Minister has a financial interest.

Why is the Prime Minister sullying the position and reputation of the office of the Prime Minister this way?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just made an accusation that is untrue.

I sold the shares of this company before I became Prime Minister in the fall of 1993. It is very clear that I did this. The ethics counsellor said that to the House of Commons.

I know that Reform members are so desperate that they only get pleasure when they are very deep in mud.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, deep in mud is one thing the Prime Minister ought to know because he is right there right now.

The Prime Minister promised that things would be different when he was Prime Minister. Well he was right. They are worse. They are different all right.

The Prime Minister bent all the rules in announcing a grant before the government department announced it. We know that. He made sure a CIDA contract was awarded to one of his cronies who then turned around and bought a real good deal on land.

Does the Prime Minister not think that the reputation of his office is more important than feathering the nests of his—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again accusations.

The minister can give the information about the case. There was a bid. He was the lowest bidder. He put $2.5 million on the table. The second bidder was $2.5 million above the bid he made. This is a company that has done business with Hydro-Québec, many other corporations and the federal government over the last 20 years.

They can make all the accusations they want, but if they look at the facts they will recognize that it is the lowest bidder who got the contract as is required by the rules of the administration of the Canadian—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Asbestos

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

Mr. Speaker, as was recently the case in cultural matters, the federal government has yet again cavalierly dismissed a request by the Government of Quebec to be in attendance at the defence of the asbestos issue before the World Trade Organization.

Asbestos is produced in Quebec, and all Quebecers consider that their government in Quebec City is directly affected by the decision that will be made by the WTO.

How does the Prime Minister explain to Quebecers the federal government's refusal to allow the Government of Quebec to be present while it defends Quebec's position before the WTO?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I disagree with the premise of his question.

In fact, I was in a meeting with the hon. member's minister of trade who said to our Minister for International Trade that he was very pleased with the assistance of the Canadian government in this matter and other trade matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has probably not been very well informed by his minister, since the Minister for International Trade received a letter from Bernard Landry asking to be present at the defence of asbestos before the WTO. He also called the Minister for International Trade, who rejected the request.

I would like to know how the Canadian federation would be weakened and threatened by the presence of the Government of Quebec in the Canadian delegation at the WTO?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister for International Trade in fact has been waiting for such a letter and has not received one.

The hon. member should also know that this is a French regulation. As such the Government of Canada has taken time, has spoken with the industry in Quebec, has spoken with the Government of Quebec and has worked with all the stakeholders to make sure that the strongest possible position is being put forward at the WTO by this government.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for everyone, including the federal government, the expert on asbestos is Quebec. This is so true that federal officials were constantly drawing on this expertise as they prepared the file.

How does the Prime Minister explain the need to draw on Quebec resources in the preparation of the file, but the fact that their presence at the WTO is considered to serve no purpose? Would it not be a further guarantee of success?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as the trade critic, the hon. member should know that the Government of Canada invites provinces to the table when their specific provincial program is being challenged by another country. In this case it is the Government of France's program that is being challenged by Canada. Through that process the Government of Canada has spoken very closely with all the stakeholders including the Government of Quebec to get all the information it needs to present a very strong case.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true but it is an on-site presence we want.

Whether it be the presence of British Columbia to defend the case of Pacific salmon or that of Quebec to defend asbestos, does the federal government not understand that its chances of success increase considerably with the co-operation of those who are really concerned and best informed in the matter?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the hon. member and his leader, the co-operation with the Government of Quebec, as said by its own minister, has been exemplary. He told the Minister for International Trade at a meeting of all the trade ministers that in fact the co-operation was very good.

I will tell the hon. member again, it is the position of the Government of Canada when it is a challenge of a provincial regulation, then the provinces are at the table. In this case it is a challenge of a French government regulation. In fact, it was the Government of Canada, not the Government of Quebec which first took this issue on on behalf of—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

Electoral Reform

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

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

More and more Canadians are growing dissatisfied with the way our electoral system works. They want a system that encourages them to vote their values. They want a system that encourages them to vote for what they want instead of what they do not want and they want more representative results.

With that in mind, I ask the Prime Minister this. The first past the post system does not do this and lately has tended to regionalize our political parties in parliament. Would the Prime Minister consider establishing an all party committee in the fall to look at electoral reform?