House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was representation.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, what trust can we put in the comments of the Minister for International Trade when he tells us in the House that it is impossible for us, as parliamentarians, to have access to the texts of that agreement because, as he puts it, our partners are opposed to that? We assume leadership when it comes to transparency. We are clear.
The U.S. congress is no Mickey Mouse institution; its members have access to these documents. How can we find the minister credible?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, we were the first country to make our negotiating mandate public. The Canadian positions were the first ones available on the Internet for all Canadians to see.
We have offered leadership to the countries of the hemispheres at the meeting in Toronto, at the last meeting of trade ministers, and we will continue to take steps in that direction, but also in the respect of our partners, contrary to what Bloc Quebecois members are requesting.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, that is the website that has no position for Canada on services. In the rush to give market access to multinational health corporations, the federal government is recklessly abandoning our universal health care system.
When the U.S. wants to protect something it values like its national security measures, it demands a general exception as a condition of signing any trade deal. Surely health care for Canadians deserves similar safeguards.
Instead of recklessly abandoning it, will the government make a clear exception for health care a condition of signing any trade deal?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that the health care system will not be affected at all by any negotiation in relation to a trade agreement with the Americas.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, maybe we should see that on the website where there is no position set out now. The auto pact was supposed to be safe and yesterday it died a permanent death. Our environment was supposed to be safe and yet yesterday citizens and the government had to go to court to fight a NAFTA tribunal decision to let polluters pollute.
Canadians want trade deals and trade rules that safeguard what they value most. Will the government refuse to sign any GATS deal that fails to safeguard such priorities as health, environment and decent jobs?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have established rules clearly on the question of the environment and, as I mentioned clearly, on the question of health that cannot be affected by NAFTA or by the trade agreements we are having with the Americas.
It is also not against GATS to have medicare in Canada. On the environment, we signed international agreements and we respect them. Sometimes there are appeals in front of the NAFTA or GATS panels and we defend our interests there, as any other country has the right to do.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would confirm that a memorandum was prepared in the spring of 1999 by officials in the Prime Minister's office and delivered by Mr. Jean Carle through the office of the president of the Business Development Bank proposing answers to inquiries about the Prime Minister's intervention in the Yvon Duhaime and Auberge Grand-Mère file.
Business Development BankOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I think most members of the House, in light of the very clear and definitive statement yesterday by the RCMP, would have expected the right hon. gentleman to stand today and apologize to the Prime Minister of Canada.
I say with respect that this Joe runs the risk of going from Joe who to Joe McCarthy if he does not stop this kind of politics.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from that memorandum to the president of the Business Development Bank.
The memo reads:
Jean Carle gave us the questions and answers that the Prime Minister's office had prepared on the Duhaime file.
This memo confirms the direct involvement of Mr. Jean Carle. Why did the Prime Minister tell the House so categorically on February 7 that Mr. Carle had no involvement in any way in the Auberge Grand-Mère file?
Business Development BankOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, we have a definitive statement from the ethics counsellor saying that this matter has been investigated and there is no basis for the allegations being made.
Yesterday we had an RCMP statement saying that the matter raised by the member has been investigated and that there is no basis for any further investigation.
What we have is a stubborn leader of a party in the far shadows of the Commons that cannot accept the right and decent way to proceed and to apologize to the Prime Minister for his behaviour.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, while it is no bombshell, it is no secret that the Prime Minister has been propping up the Auberge Grand-Mère for years. By coincidence, of course, the better the hotel did the better the golf course did next door.
There are a couple of competing hotels in town: the Prime Minister's favourite, the Auberge Grand-Mère, and of course the Gouverneur. The Gouverneur is close to the Prime Minister's constituency office and the Grand-Mère is across town. Can anyone guess where his staff stayed, though, to the tune of $33,000? It was at the Grand-Mère, of course. Over at the Gouverneur less than $300 was spent, although it was far more convenient for them.
The question is, what could it be that draws the staff of the Prime Minister over to the Grand-Mère?
The Prime MinisterOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the member would be amazed by the fact that after visiting the riding and doing all of the work, the total payout was only half as much as the payout to the Alliance Party from a law firm that benefited by some $300,000 from the taxpayers of Alberta to cover the last bit of slander coming from that party.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I guess we could spend the next 40 minutes apologizing back and forth across the aisle. However, from 1999 until 2001—
The Prime MinisterOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the question. It is very important that we all hear the questions and the answers. The hon. member for Edmonton North has the floor.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, from 1999 to 2001 the Prime Minister's staff spent a grand total of 330 nights and $33,000 at the Auberge Grand-Mère. By stark contrast, they spent exactly three nights and less than $300 at the Gouverneur. The Grand-Mère is clear across town and the Gouverneur is practically next door. Was it official policy that they would stay at the Auberge Grand-Mère or just a subtle—
The Prime MinisterOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, having the member stand and explain why the Prime Minister got such a big majority because he visited his riding quite often over the last number of years is frankly something we appreciate. However, trying to turn that into something suspect or questionable should be beneath the member. Sadly it is not.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, problems like those currently being experienced in relation to negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas have already arisen, when the multilateral agreement on investment was being negotiated. Why? Because of the same desire as today to keep everything secret.
When the government was asked what was going on, its answer to us was “Everything is fine. Trust us. There is no reason to be afraid”.
When the texts became known, we realized that we were headed for catastrophe and that a good portion of what is known as the Quebec model would have been passed over.
Are we to understand today that the minister is again asking us to place blind trust in him as far as the free trade area of the Americas is concerned? Is this what we are to understand?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, what we have undertaken to negotiate is on the Internet. We have made our position absolutely public in the tables available there.
The mandate entrusted to me by the Canadian government is known. The positions have been discussed with the provinces. Each province has access to the Internet site in question and is providing us with its position on each of the points.
We held a federal-provincial conference here on February 5, and there were discussions precisely on this matter. I can assure the House that Canada is going to play an important role in Buenos Aires.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, what the minister appears not to understand is that the Canadian positions cannot be evaluated if we do not know the positions that are on the table being negotiated.
Does the minister understand that more and more bodies in civil society, in all communities throughout Canada and Quebec, are mobilizing against this negotiation? Does the minister not recognize that his lack of transparency and his close-mouthed attitude are responsible for this mounting public opposition?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, we are going to respect our partners in the hemispheres of the Americas. We are going to continue to ask them to be so kind as to make these texts public, because they should be and we want them to be. Canada will not do so unilaterally, however, out of respect for the other countries with whom we are in negotiation.
Rob Anders Canadian Alliance Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence tried to pretend that Canada's coastal defence is not compromised despite the cut in Aurora flying hours to 8,000. His air force chief disagrees. We have a document signed by General Campbell warning that any cut of Aurora flying hours below 11,500 would seriously impair the ability of the air force to protect Canadian sovereignty.
Given this warning from a soldier who ought to know, why has the minister pushed for these cuts?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, this is in fact what General Campbell and the air force staff have recommended. They are saying that because we can invest more in upgrading our equipment and putting better technology into the equipment so that we can get more efficiency out of it, we will get a better quality product and be able to do just as much patrolling as we were been able to do before.
Where they will save money and time is in the fact that they will do more on land simulation to train people in terms of flying. This will cut down on the number of hours that the aircraft are needed in the air.
Rob Anders Canadian Alliance Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the document right here. They are either in the air or they are not.
When the Liberals took office in 1993 annual Aurora flying hours were 19,200. Now the minister wants only 8,000 hours. Yesterday the minister denied these numbers but we have the proof right here. General Campbell thinks this 58% cut will have an unacceptable impact “on border protection”.
Why should we trust a career politician instead of the expertise of a career soldier?