House of Commons Hansard #236 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention and that of the House, to remind everyone, to the fact that the Prime Minister is in the House a lot more than the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Government ContractsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that we do not refer either to the presence or the absence of any members in the House.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, no one has ever accused the Leader of the Opposition of letting an untendered government contract to a campaign contributor and a business partner. No one has ever accused the Leader of the Opposition of doing business with convicted criminals and benefiting from it.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, seeing as the man in his stead is not here, how can he—
Government ContractsOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week in Bonn the U.S. defence secretary and four of his European counterparts met secretly to discuss a possible ground war in Kosovo.
Canada was excluded from this meeting. Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence did not even know who had attended the meeting and what was said.
What explanation can the Minister of National Defence offer for the way in which Canada was left out of discussions that could ultimately involve the lives of our troops?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said a number of times. We are not a member of the European Union. This was the defence ministers of the European Union getting together as they regularly do. On the side of that meeting there was an informal ad hoc meeting of three or four of those ministers plus Secretary Cohen of the United States. This was not a decision making meeting because decisions are made at NATO and we are a full participant of NATO.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the U.S. was there, as well as four major European nations, not necessarily members of the European Union. Not all members of the European Union were there.
Is the fact that the Minister of National Defence was excluded even from the informal meeting not proof that this government is considered second rate, and that is exactly what other countries think of this minister? When he is called, it is to inform him of decisions already taken, but not to consult him.
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I had a bilateral meeting with Secretary Cohen by telephone today. I have had numerous meetings with him. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, met last week with the Secretary of State for the United States, Madam Albright. We did not receive any complaints from the Europeans because we had these informal bilateral meetings. It is part of the ongoing process of keeping each other informed.
However, when it comes to deciding what needs to be done, when it comes to mapping out the plans for NATO, that is being done in Brussels with the full NATO council of which we are a full participating member, and we will continue to be a full participating member in this fashion.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister's numbered company that owned the Grand-Mère golf course when Monsieur Gauthier bought the half million dollars worth of land. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he believed he had sold those shares, but—and this is critically important—the sale of those shares never went through. In other words, the shares returned to the Prime Minister and they are now in the hands of his own solicitor.
How can the Prime Minister claim that there is no conflict of interest when he had a financial stake in a company that stood to benefit from this deal?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I recall hearing the Prime Minister say in this House more than once that he has no financial interest in the company in question and that the shares were not returned to him.
The unwarranted allegations of the Reform Party show the truth of the adage, especially when we look at how it has fallen in the polls, that when the Reform Party throws mud, it loses ground.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, when the ethics counsellor appeared before the standing committee he admitted that those shares had not been paid for. In fact they were searching for a new buyer for those shares. They are held by the solicitor of the Prime Minister. In other words, he had an interest in the company. Mr. Gauthier then bought some land from him. He then got a big contract from CIDA. He then gave a $10,000 donation to the Prime Minister's personal campaign.
The Prime Minister benefited electorally from that donation and I assume that he also benefited from the sale of that land. How much did he benefit from the sale of that land to Mr. Gauthier?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister played no role in the granting of the contract through CIDA to carry out work in Mali. It was done by an outside committee.
The Prime Minister has said over and over again that he has no interest in the company in question.
The hon. members are in breach of a basic principle of Canadian and British justice, that he who asserts must prove. They have not brought any evidence. They have not proven anything. All they have proven is why they are trying to deflect attention from their own disintegration and their own self-destruction.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
By saying in response to Quebec Minister Joseph Facal that Bill C-54 did not call into question “the principles of Quebec civil law” the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is showing that he is sadly ignorant of the subject.
Is the minister not aware that Minister Facal's position is the same as that of the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Québec Interprofessional Council, among others?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I quote witness Jacques Frémont of the University of Montreal, who said “I have been saying for a while that there is a legitimate federal presence”.
He also said that the federal government could get involved and that it would be entirely constitutional to regulate exchanges of data for the protection of personal lives in all areas of interprovincial and international trade.
We will protect, with the Government of Quebec, the privacy of all citizens of Quebec and Canada.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, the same Jacques Frémont said, the same day, “It is a constitutional blow”.
How can the minister say his government is acting totally within the Constitution when, with Bill C-54, his government is usurping the right to decide whether a law in Quebec, in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction, applies or not? This is not federalism, it is trusteeship.
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that it is not solely the responsibility of the provincial government. It is the responsibility of both levels of government. The same Jacques Frémont said “Bill C-54 is a good idea, a very good idea”.
That is enough for me, because the people of Quebec have an advantage. They have a provincial bill on privacy protection as well. This was a bill of the former government of Daniel Johnson, which gives them, with Bill C-54, the best protection in Canada. Now, that is a good idea.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back for the great things he has done in the riding of Saint-Maurice, unemployment in that region is as high as when he was elected in 1993. Yet he continues to use the money of Canadian taxpayers under the pretext of creating jobs in order to pay back his buddies.
It is obvious that this money is not increasing employment. Only are increasing donations to the Liberal Party slush fund.
How can he justify being the Prime Minister of the people when the only people he is helping are his friends?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the projects in the riding of Shawinigan were no different than job creation projects approved in the Reform Party held ridings of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for the West Coast Trail Hotel, Cariboo—Chilcotin for the Wells Hotel expansion project and, listen to this one, West Kootenay—Okanagan for the Halycon Health Spa.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the government line, but—
Government GrantsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the government line, but what the minister appears to be forgetting is that the Prime Minister announced contracts in his riding even before the ink was dry.
It is pure coincidence, I am sure, but how can he explain that a high proportion of the contracts awarded in his riding have links leading directly to him or his office?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he has no personal interest whatsoever in this matter, despite the constantly repeated allegations to the contrary. He has been very clear on that.