Debates of March 20th, 2001

The Economy

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the consequences of the Prime Minister's economic policy. That economic policy, the highest income taxes in the G-7, the highest corporate income taxes in the OECD and the second highest debt in the developed world, has led to a 64 cent dollar which may be going to 60 cents, and he said it is irresponsible. What is irresponsible is an economic policy which is impoverishing Canadians and diminishing our standard of living.

When will the government finally get its fundamentals right so that we can have a currency we are proud of which increases and does not decrease our standard of living?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, impoverishing Canadians is what the finance critic for the Alliance said. There are twice the number of jobs over the last eight months in Canada as compared to the United States.

Our current account surplus hit record levels in the fourth quarter of 2000. Our investment in machinery and equipment was up 19% last year. Today Canada announced the highest monthly trade surplus in its history.

Auberge Grand-Mère

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

Mr. Speaker, in defence of his actions in the Grand-Mère golf course affair, the Prime Minister says that his shares were sold in 1993.

But the ethics counsellor said “In January 1996, we both discussed this, because at that time he was not receiving any money and wanted to know what his options were”.

How does the Prime Minister explain that, in January 1996, he was looking at his options in connection with the golf course, and that, four months later, he contacted the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada so that a loan would be approved for the Auberge Grand-Mère?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said ten or fifteen times since November 1, 1993, I sold my shares.

Since that time, neither I nor the company in which I had an interest have— These shares were disposed of. They were acquired by a third party, and I have not been part of that company since November 1, 1993.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Prime Minister told us that he sold his shares in 1993. However, he had not yet been paid in 1996, and in 1999 he was negotiating. If someone is selling something and has not been paid, the sale has not been completed.

If he had made the deed of sale public, things would be a little clearer. I hope that he is going to do some explaining to the House because, according to the ethics counsellor himself, the Prime Minister, who had not been paid in 1996, was still looking at his options in the matter.

Is there not a direct link between the Prime Minister wondering about his options and the lobbying of the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I quote from the words of the ethics counsellor who appeared on CBC on Friday of last week:

I have access to all of the documents. I have seen all of the documents. I've been able to examine them. They are personal information to the parties, including some other citizens other than Mr. Chrétien, but I have been able to confirm to my entire satisfaction, that these shares were sold in 1993 and never returned to his possession.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister telephoned the president of the Development Bank on April 12, 1996. He invited him to his residence on May 29, 1996. He called him again on February 20, 1997, and the loan was granted on May 6.

Here is my question. How can the Prime Minister claim that he had no interest in the arrangements to save the Auberge Grand-Mère, when he was still waiting to be paid for his shares and, according to the ethics counsellor, whom they quote abundantly, the Prime Minister was trying to discover his options?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote further from the ethics counsellor on Friday of last week with respect to this matter:

This is neither as complicated nor as mysterious as some would make it out. Mr. Chrétien ceased to be a shareholder in 1993.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is basing his defence on the fact that his assets were administered by a blind trust and that this trust was responsible for recovering his money in the Auberge Grand-Mère matter.

If a blind trust did look after his shares, why did the ethics counsellor say that the Prime Minister himself had decided to hold negotiations in order to resell his shares in 1999 and finally recover his money?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Here is a member who yesterday had so much courage, the courage of his convictions, that he dared not say outside the House what he said inside the House. This is an attempt at a smear campaign and it is beneath this member. He should know better.

Summit Of The Americas

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today we learned that Scotiabank, Alcan and other corporate executives would buy direct preferential access to world leaders at the Quebec summit of the Americas. Trade bureaucrats say it is just business as usual. For a mere half a million dollars corporations can pole vault right over the three metre high chain link fence.

Has the Prime Minister no understanding of why ordinary citizens find this unsettling? Does the Prime Minister have no problem with corporations buying political access at the Quebec summit?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, every time we have had summits in Canada we have always invited corporations in Canada to help the government offer the best reception possible. Everyone does it on a voluntary basis.

Most of these people have interests in Latin America. As they are all coming to town they want to show that they are good citizens of Canada like they are good citizens of these countries. None of these corporations will have a chance to have privileged access to the leaders during all the meetings. They will be present with hundreds and hundreds of other people at receptions.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first we hear that it is about extending hospitality, then about saving money. What on earth is next? Will the Prime Minister pull the maple leaf down from the peace tower and replace it with a McDonald's flag?

This has nothing to do with saving money. It has everything to do with giving corporations preferential access. Half a million dollars and one is in: no problem, instant access. No money, stay behind the chain link fence. Is the real reason the Prime Minister is ignoring his critics that they do not have half a million dollars to put their message on a tote bag?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear. We have done this all the time. We ask corporations that have interests in Canada to show to the visitors who are coming that they are good citizens of Canada just like they are good citizens of their countries.

We did it at la Francophonie summit in Moncton. I remember very well a company from Vancouver made a contribution to the good of Canada. It was the biggest contributor to la Francophonie summit in Moncton.

Ethics Counsellor

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Prime Minister.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House if there was any consultation by any member of the Prime Minister's office or any member of the privy council office with the ethics counsellor relating to the attendance of the ethics counsellor at the industry committee meeting today?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor reports through Industry Canada. I want to assure the leader of the Conservative Party that the ethics counsellor is quite free to testify in any way he wants before the committee. More to the point, members of parliament on all sides, but notably members of the Liberal Party, are quite free to ask whatever questions they want as he appears before that committee.

Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister.

The government has denied the premier of Quebec, the host province for the summit, a speaking role at the summit of the Americas. At the same time the government has offered to any corporation prepared to spend $500,000 what the government's own document describes as “a potential speaking opportunity during the world leaders' welcome reception”.

How can the government justify that double standard? If the premier of Quebec were a company would he be able to buy his way in?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the process that has been followed for the premier of Quebec is the same process that we follow for all the summits that we have, including the one by the Conservatives when the leader of the fifth party was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When the Conservative government had the summit in Toronto it did not invite the premier of Ontario to make a speech to the leaders.

Organized Crime

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, projections now indicate that the Minister of Justice will spend another $1 billion over the next 10 years on a long gun registry that everyone, including the minister, knows will not work.

Why does the minister not give these resources to front line police officers who daily demonstrate their work in this country's fight against organized crime?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before in the House, our gun control program is about public safety. It is about a commitment to Canadians that we will not see the pictures on our television screens that tragically are seen night after night in the United States of America.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime, according to the RCMP continues to expand while this minister chases sportsmen and hunters. Organized crime has unlimited cash available for the best technology. Our police are handcuffed by ineffective laws and ineffective programs.

Why does the minister not support our police and Canadians by putting resources back into front line policing?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that the government has taken many steps to fight organized crime. We have put $1.5 billion into the public safety envelope in the last budget. We have 13 proceeds of crime units across the country to take proceeds out of organized crime.

Lumber

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the softwood lumber issue yesterday, the Minister for International Trade said that Ottawa would, ultimately, bow to the wishes of the industry. Yet there are persistent rumours that the producers in British Columbia are not opposed, apparently, to the imposition of a voluntary tax by Canada.

Can the minister tell us whether he sanctions this approach of some producers in British Columbia, and can he assure us that he is not in the process of negotiating an agreement that would be contrary to free trade?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that the Government of Canada will bow to the industry's wishes. What I did say was that our government is open to hearing what the industry's needs are and will most certainly meet with industry leaders if they request it.

This morning I had the opportunity to meet with British Columbia producers. The industry in British Columbia did not ask me to impose an export tax. They were far more prudent than that. They asked whether the suggestion made in this connection by Mr. Zoellick might prove useful at some point. They did not, however, make the suggestion attributed to them by the hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister says he is prepared to examine any option except free trade for softwood lumber, does he not realize he is giving the Americans the impression that Canada is prepared to give in, contrary to the interests of the industry in Quebec and in Canada?