Debates of March 1st, 2001

Ethics Counsellor

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected as Prime Minister in 1993. It was only after the Prime Minister contacted the ethics counsellor on January 27, 1996, that he began to lobby for loans and grants for the neighbouring Auberge Grand-Mère.

The Prime Minister ensured that the hotel got loans from the BDC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, immigrant investors, and grants from human resources.

Was the Prime Minister not acting more like a businessperson concerned about his assets than he was like a normal, ordinary member of parliament?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a responsible member of parliament. There was a riding with 19% unemployment and the Prime Minister, as the member for Saint-Maurice, had the duty to make sure that any project creating jobs would receive the grants that were available to any other business in any other riding.

I have done my job as a member of parliament. I have done it for 38 years and I will keep fighting for the interests of the people of my riding.

Free Trade Area Of The Americas

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reacted to the comments made by Louise Beaudoin, the Quebec minister of international relations, by saying that Quebec had the constitutional right to not implement certain provisions of a future treaty on a free trade area of the Americas.

Since the federal government knows that Quebec will not feel bound by commitments made by Canada without prior approval from the province, would it not be more advisable to proceed with a true consultation, instead of being arrogant?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces are being consulted in certain areas. I am even told that it is a former deputy minister of education in Quebec who is in charge of the negotiations. Everyone is involved, but when it comes to international relations, it is the federal government that represents all Canadians.

Of course, the provincial government is free to walk out and reject free trade in provincial jurisdictions.

But that would be surprising, since the Bloc Quebecois has been saying for years that free trade is the solution to every problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, this takes some nerve. The Prime Minister campaigned against free trade and now he is extolling the virtues of free trade.

His minister is describing us, and describing the Government of Quebec as irresponsible.

But who is irresponsible? The government that protects its jurisdictions and wants to be directly involved in negotiations that will affect it, or the one that negotiates without a mandate in jurisdictions that are not its own, without any transparency, without a democratic process and in secrecy? Which one is irresponsible?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member alluded to the election campaign on free trade. I was not a candidate at the 1988 election. I did not take part in that election.

Now, with any treaty, the process is exactly the same as the one that was followed when we negotiated the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States.

Whenever we enter into had agreements with the governments of other countries, we have always followed the same process is always the same. Once a treaty has been approved, if a province does not want to bring it into force implement it, it does not do so, and everyone—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we used one system for the free trade agreement with the United States or Mexico does not mean that the system was a good one.

Discussions prior to negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas have got underway very badly, because the Government of Quebec, among others, is strongly critical of the fact that the consultations are nothing more than briefings, too short to be effective.

How can the government claim to be speaking on behalf of us all? How can it intimate that the agreement to be negotiated will be implemented by the provinces, since a number of its clauses will inevitably refer to exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces in which the federal government has absolutely no business?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in this federation, which has been very decentralized—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. minister.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1930, under constitutional jurisprudence, a province may choose not to implement an international treaty in its area of jurisdiction.

Where Ms. Beaudoin is acting irresponsibly is by saying that, if she is not sufficiently consulted, she will not implement the agreement.

First, she was consulted fully. Second, an agreement is implemented if it is good for Quebecers. If it is good for Quebecers, she will implement it, of course.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the premiers, including Quebec's, have demanded a formal agreement from the government on the role of the provinces in the negotiations.

Even the current Minister of Industry, while he was the Premier of Newfoundland, shared this opinion.

Is it not true that all the provinces are demanding they be truly involved and not just be given short briefing sessions as is currently the case?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces are being fully consulted—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

—to the point that the Government of Quebec was unable to identify one area of fundamental disagreement between it and the Minister for International Trade, who represents our government.

Agriculture

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, following the disappointing and even pathetic response on the farm crisis that was just announced an hour ago.

Canadian farmers are saying to the government that in 1993 when the government had a deficit problem they were there for the government and accepted huge cuts. Now, when they have a problem, there is no meaningful help forthcoming from the government.

Why does the government continue to ignore the reality that there is a huge farm crisis and fail to do anything about it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government said it would be there for farmers and that it was not done yet.

I just announced a few minutes ago another half a billion dollars. That is the 60% federal portion. When the provinces put their 40% with it, that will be $830 million.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that outburst may help to make up for the lack of applause that the minister received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Today's one time announcement of $500 million was exactly what the province of Saskatchewan was asking for them, not for the entire country. It works out to about $2.30 an acre. That is 30 times less than what some farmers were saying was required.

My question is for the Prime Minister as leader of the government. Will he not return to the drawing board and design a real program for Canadian farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he go home on the weekend and tell the minister in his province that it should put some money in because it has indicated to me that it will not even put 40 cents in.

The province of Saskatchewan has indicated that it does not want to support its farmers any more than it is now. The federal government will if it does. If it does not, we will not.

Ethics Counsellor

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who cannot blame his trustee. When the Prime Minister was sworn in as Prime Minister in 1993, the guidelines that were in place at that time required him to file a formal report of all assets that are not exempt assets. Under the law an account receivable in not an exempt asset. It is required to be formally reported.

In his first filing as Prime Minister, why did the Prime Minister not report the account receivable respecting the Grand-Mère Golf Club shares? Why did he not follow the rules of the land?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

For the billionth time, Mr. Speaker, I followed all the rules that were demanded at that time by the ethics counsellor. The trustee did her job as did every other member. We had to do it and we have done it.

I received a letter in return from Mr. Wilson that I have complied with all the rules that existed at that date in November 1992.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated that Mr. Jean Carle was not involved in any way in the auberge file. Then he changed his story.

He said he declared the assets of the money owed on his golf course club shares. The ethics counsellor has a different version. He said he did not hide anything from anyone, yet he did not tell the ethics counsellor that he twice phoned the president of the bank and then summoned him to 24 Sussex Drive.

It is time to clear the reputation of the Prime Minister. Will he agree to name Mr. Justice Ted Hughes to examine all the evidence to determine if there has been a conflict of interest and then to report to the House of Commons?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the fifth party said last week that he had no proof of anything. He invited Canadians to give him some information.

He said to reporters that he was going fishing, and for five weeks he has gone fishing and has caught nothing. He should be ashamed today to be in the House defending the former president of the bank who tried to increase his pension from $170,000 to $460,000 and was caught by the auditor general.