House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, all the programs she referred to are public programs and are applied to all ridings. I have nothing to add beyond what I have always said, which is that I had absolutely no conflict of interest. I sold my 25% interest in the golf club in 1993 before I became Prime Minister. My assets were then given to a trustee to be managed.
As members of cabinet when our assets are in the hands of the managers we do not have any right to intervene any more.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the case of CINAR, the minister told us that the voluntary disclosure program resulted in an agreement between his department and CINAR. He told the House, and I quote:
Access to this voluntary disclosure program requires exactly that: voluntary disclosure.
This seems logical.
What we saw in the case of CINAR was not a voluntary disclosure but the result of complaints and investigations into serious allegations of fraud.
Without going into the details of the affair, can the minister tell us what mechanism was used to reach an agreement with CINAR, because one such mechanism could be a discriminatory decision by the minister?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, one of the fundamental principles, one of the cornerstones, of the Income Tax Act is the confidentiality that must be observed by the minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, myself in this case, and the opposition is perfectly aware of this.
It will be understood that when there is a reference to a particular case in the House, I am bound by this duty of confidentiality, which is fundamental and which has the support not just of the House, but of all Canadians.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if such an agreement was reached between CINAR and the department—and we know that one was—this agreement is based on figures submitted by CINAR.
But CINAR's financial statements have been questioned by the accounting firm engaged by CINAR, Ernst & Young, which has refused to endorse them, saying that they did not give a faithful and accurate representation of the situation.
How can the minister stand by while his department concludes an agreement over something that does not even have the backing of the accounting firm engaged by the company?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, very generally speaking, I must say that the Minister of National Revenue would often like to be able to comment on certain cases. Unfortunately, and still generally speaking, I am bound by the duty of confidentiality.
Again generally speaking, and with reference to no particular case, I must also say that investigations are conducted internally by officers of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, without any interference. They are conducted by individuals with solid expertise who, in my view, do an excellent job.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. In the CINAR affair, the company apparently obtained millions of dollars fraudulently.
An agreement was reached with public servants, and these same public servants have refused to co-operate with the RCMP. It seems there will be no court case and the minister tells us that he cannot make any comment, that everything was done properly. And he asks us to trust him.
What we want to know, however, is quite simple. Without going into detail, under what provisions of the Income Tax Act was the agreement with CINAR entered into?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the opposition to trust me as a minister. Essentially, what I am asking it to do is respect the underlying principles of the Income Tax Act, in this specific case those set out in section 241.
I would also like to make the general comment, with no reference to any particular matter, that it is a regular occurrence when the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is working on a case—and I am not in the least involved in such things—for it to also co-operate with provincial administrations.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, of course we have nothing but trust in the minister's answer.
The agreement between CINAR and the Minister of National Revenue represents millions of dollars. Can the minister tell us whether he gave approval to this agreement between his department and CINAR?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, I have always been told I was pretty clear.
First, section 241 of the Income Tax Act says that there can be no disclosure. It is very simple; we have a duty of confidentiality, and this goes for all files.
Second, I would also like to point out that, when the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency carries out an investigation, the minister is not the one who intervenes to terminate it. The minister does not intervene in any of the agency's investigations.
This is all done by a department made up of experts, and they do an excellent job.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. yesterday announced they are proceeding with another missile defence test.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the pros and cons of the American nuclear missile defence system but not a lot about Canada's position. In fact, the purpose of my question is to find out if Canada has a position.
Clearly Canada faces a choice, a choice between bowing to Bush and supporting the American position or standing against the spread of nuclear weapons.
My question to the Prime Minister is, which will it be?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when we discuss this problem with the Americans we say that we are listening to what they have to say.
When I talked with the president I made sure that before the system proceeded there would be consultations with all concerned citizens in Canada. We have to make sure that NATO will be well protected.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, and as I have said to the president, this system has to be developed in a way that will not be offensive to the Russians and the Chinese. They know this and they said that they will take the time to do the proper consultation before they proceed. I know it will take some time before—
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know about the government's position. A wise person recently said about Canada's non-position on the nuclear missile defence system “it is not something you can duck much further”.
The person who said that is the former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy. His position is clear: Canada should reject the American missile defence system. Now Canadians want to know the current government's position. Does it support the American nuclear missile defence system? Yes or no.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the decision has not been made. The technology is not finished yet. It is a bit difficult for us to come to a conclusion before we know exactly what will be the system.
I had a discussion with the president on that and he confirmed to me that some of the tests which occurred last summer did not produce good results. I insisted that if they wanted to do that they should have discussions with all the affected people including Canada and all NATO members.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In a letter to me dated November 21, 2000, the ethics counsellor noted that the involvement of ministers with crown corporations was not dealt with when the guidelines affecting him were first written. He went on to say that he intended to “undertake a review of this issue in the coming weeks”.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House if recommendations on potential conflict of interest guidelines for ministers and crown corporations have been received from the ethics counsellor and if so, will he table them in the House?
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, was that one no or two? When he gets it, will he table it in the House of Commons or will he keep us in the dark?
My supplementary question relates to answers given by the Deputy Prime Minister to me, who took as notice my question on whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in the Auberge Grand-Mère file, either during his tenure in the Prime Minister's Office or in his work with the Business Development Bank.
As well, I asked the Prime Minister, and the answer was fobbed off by one minister earlier, if Cedric Ritchie had been briefed on the auberge file before he assumed his position as chair of the board—
Ethics CounsellorOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am afraid the hon. member has run out of time.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the first answer is no; the second is no; and the third is no.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, we should remind the House that on January 27, 1996, the Prime Minister called the ethics counsellor to tell him that the sale of shares in the Grand-Mère Golf Course had fallen through. In other words, he still owned the shares. This is an important point.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister tried to leave the impression that immigrant investor money was not going into the Grand-Mère Hotel, not one cent. Now we discover he hosted meetings at 24 Sussex that resulted in $2.35 million going into the Grand-Mère.
Why did the Prime Minister try to hide his lobbying activities on behalf—
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, first, I just explained that some people come to visit me in my office at three o'clock. I do this every afternoon with members of parliament from all parties.
Second, I never discussed this problem.
Third, the immigration fund is managed by the provincial government of Quebec. I was not aware because it does not come under federal jurisdiction.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Prime Minister owned shares in the golf course that bordered the Grand-Mère Hotel.
If that hotel had gone down the tubes, so would the value of the Grand-Mère Golf Course. Is that not the real reason the Prime Minister used the power and the trappings of his office to pour money into the Grand-Mère Hotel?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have explained many times, and the ethics counsellor has looked into it, that I sold my shares before I became Prime Minister.
Not only that. The hotel was not owned by the golf course. It was only a lease and it was taken over six months before I became Prime Minister and four months before the start of my political campaign.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general is criticizing the government for the partisan nature of appointments to the boards of crown corporations. He points out a total lack of expertise in business management. In short, the auditor general confirms that it is “buddies” first and foremost. As for ability, it is a plus if there is some.
Has the Prime Minister not taken partisanship too far when he puts the management of $129 billion of public money at risk?