Debates of Feb. 13th, 2001

Ethics Counsellor

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader's assertion is completely wrong. Mr. Wilson made some comments about hypothetical situations but he continued to reiterate that he had looked into the matter fully and he found that the Prime Minister had acted totally properly and within the rules, and that he did not own shares at any relevant time.

I suggest, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw his assertion because he is only sinking deeper into the mud every time he opens his mouth about this topic.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor finally confirmed that the Prime Minister had a personal interest in the value of the Auberge Grand-Mère remaining high.

Rather than treating taxpayers like so much baggage, why is the Prime Minister not acknowledging that the whole Auberge Grand-Mère is nothing less than a conflict of interest?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has maintained on several occasions that the Prime Minister was not in conflict of interest in this matter. He noted this in writing a few weeks ago to the leader. He confirmed it in interviews and maintains his position that the Prime Minister had no conflict of interest in this matter.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, he should consult yesterday's and today's confirmation from the ethics counsellor.

The official opposition continues to bring forward ideas that will bring democracy and freedom to the House of Commons which will be good for all Canadians.

Tonight there will be a vote on a motion that I tabled last week, a vote asking for support for a promise from the red book that we would have an ethics counsellor who reports to this House. That was a Liberal promise, but we understand that the Liberal members of parliament will be whipped into opposing their own promise.

What is it about this motion that the Prime Minister thinks will hurt the country?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor did not confirm that the Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest. The Leader of the Opposition is completely wrong in saying that.

I also want to say that what the Leader of the Opposition is asking members to do is nothing more than simply attack the Prime Minister for acting on undertakings he made to create an ethics counsellor position which did not exist before the 1993 election.

The ethics counsellor reports to the Prime Minister who reports to parliament and that is why we should vote against the opposition motion. It has no basis in reality.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sort of thought the question was: Is the Liberal government going to carry through on its promises in the red book? It was pretty simple.

I first asked questions of the Prime Minister's interest for the Auberge Grand-Mère on February—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair wishes to hear the question being posed by the hon. member for Edmonton North and I am sure other hon. members also wish to hear the question.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I first asked a question about the Auberge Grand-Mère on February 1, 1999, two years ago. The Prime Minister and his ethics guard dog have pretended that the Prime Minister had no financial interest in the Auberge Grand-Mère. Now the Prime Minister takes off to China and his ethics counsellor cracks. He now admits that the Prime Minister in fact did have a financial interest.

The question is, why the two year cover-up?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as she is every day, is completely wrong in this. The ethics counsellor has not changed his position. The ethics counsellor has carried out his responsibilities for which he was praised by opposition parties. He is doing his job on an independent basis and should be praised for that.

Speaking of cover-up, how long did the hon. member cover up her intention to take her pension?

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they try to deflect it, but the issue is that the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton North has the floor. We will hear her question.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister called the ethics counsellor in January 1996 he warned him that the sale of his shares had fallen through. Until those shares were finally sold in 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister said no relevant time. There is nothing more relevant than the fact that the ethics counsellor is now condemning the Prime Minister. After that, $3.4 million started flowing into the Auberge Grand-Mère. If that hotel had been allowed to go belly up, the golf course obviously would have been worth less, and the ethics counsellor has now confirmed that.

The question is, why was taxpayer money used to prop up the Prime Minister's personal investments?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the flow of funds, the member will have to direct her question to the Quebec government. This was done under a Quebec provincial program.

The Prime Minister's position, as stated by the ethics counsellor to the Standing Committee on Industry, is that “the Prime Minister doesn't own the shares and has not owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which is the only important issue”. These were the words of the ethics counsellor before a committee of the House.

I am not trying to deflect anything. When it comes to answering the deputy leader with respect to her pension, it is not a deflection, it is a direct hit and she has taken it on the chin.

Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food told us that the ban on Brazilian beef was necessary because Brazil had failed to complete a questionnaire and public health was at stake.

Recently, we learned that Canada knowingly continued to import meat from Great Britain, Spain, France and several other European Union countries, even after the risks of mad cow disease had become known. I would remind members that these imports were still going on last year.

Will the minister explain to the House how Brazilian beef would be a greater threat to public health than the thousands of kilos of meat from the European Union?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has not been importing beef from countries known to have BSE for many decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, but that is what Statistics Canada documents show.

I know that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food claims that Statistics Canada's documents and figures are not reliable. Since on this occasion we do not have the best system in the world, I imagine that Statistics Canada and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food are having talks.

I would remind the minister that Brazil is a member of Mercosur, a free trade association which includes such countries as Uruguay and Argentina. Knowing that Brazilian beef can move between these two countries, what guarantee does the minister have that Brazilian beef is not entering Canada through Argentina and Uruguay?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the type of reason that we are doing the risk assessment on what has been happening to the cattle that Brazil has been importing over the last number of years. We need to know that Brazil has had the capability to ascertain where these animals have ended up, are ending up and will end up, and whether they are ending up in the food chain. That is why the risk assessment is being done.

On the other information, the hon. member should get his facts straight. The numbers and references to Statistics Canada are referring to the World Health Organization risk material coming in from the European Union, and we have not brought in any.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to justify his embargo on Brazilian beef, the minister mentioned a questionnaire that was apparently not completed by Brazilian authorities.

Has the minister seen the questionnaire and can he tell the House if he found anything out of the ordinary that would justify his fears and his embargo?

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

Mr. Speaker, this questionnaire was put together by the NAFTA partners, Canada, the United States and Mexico. In 1998 those three countries decided which countries they would send the questionnaire to and that when the results were received, they would jointly assess the information that came back.

Brazil did not send its information back until a week ago last Friday and at that time it was not complete. Technicians are going there today to follow up on that information.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is using the fact that Brazil was late in returning its questionnaire to justify its embargo. We now know that the questionnaire has been received. I imagine that, in the meantime, the government has reviewed the questionnaire completed by Brazilian authorities.

Can the minister tell us whether there are significant differences between the answers on this questionnaire and those on the questionnaires completed by Argentina and Uruguay and, if so, what they are? Do these differences justify a total ban on Brazilian beef?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not questioning the safety of the health of Canadians.

I will repeat again that Brazil has not yet provided all of the information to the technicians. However, a technical team from Canada, Mexico and the United States will be going to Brazil later today so that they can be there tomorrow to work in co-operation with the Brazilian officials in order to do the risk assessment.

Human Rights

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this picture? The Prime Minister goes to China. He says that Canada wants China—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.