Debates of March 22nd, 2001

L`Auberge Grand-Mère

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again on March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister indicated that he had had nothing to do after 1993 with the operators of the golf club.

How could the Prime Minister have intervened directly in the negotiations, as his own ethics counsellor said, without having had something to do with those involved in the negotiations?

Is this not another flagrant contradiction with what he said in this House on March 23, 1999?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat with pleasure that I spoke to only two people in 1996. I spoke to my trustee and to my ethics counsellor.

These are the only two people I had contact with. I spoke to neither the former owners nor the stockholders of the company in 1996, or before or after.

Summit Of The Americas

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is not about the Grand-Mère. It is about the Prime Minister's concept of citizenship.

Yesterday in the House, in defending the corporate sponsorship program for the FTAA, he said that they were just inviting Canadian business people who have major interests in all these countries to show them that they are good Canadian citizens.

Why does the Prime Minister think these people are particularly good Canadian citizens? Why are citizens from across Canada coming to Quebec to show their disagreement with government policy and exercising their citizenship being treated as dangerous citizens rather than good citizens?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when large enterprises sell products in the Americas made by Canadian workers, I feel these people who are creating jobs in Canada and selling Canadian products and Canadian technology abroad are good Canadian citizens because they take care of people who need jobs in Canada.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question about why people coming to Quebec City to disagree are being treated as dangerous citizens.

Perhaps while he is answering that question he could explain why, if the government is so proud of the corporate sponsorship issue, the message we referred to yesterday on the government website is gone when we try to pull it up today.

Is the government ashamed of this corporate sponsorship? Does the Prime Minister not see that this amounts to the commercialization of everything? Pretty soon we will not be able to do anything without a corporate logo staring us in the face.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the hon. member to understand, first, that our practice with respect to sponsorship at Quebec City is consistent with international practice. It is consistent with previous summits of the Americas held in Miami and in Santiago.

Second, the sponsors do not obtain any particular access to heads of state or heads of government who are there. The truth is that the New Democratic Party is not in favour of the summit taking place at all. It is not in favour of developing countries in the hemisphere obtaining access to markets and is not in favour of supporting Canadian firms in their efforts to sell Canadian goods and products throughout the hemisphere.

Ethics Counsellor

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The ethics counsellor cannot say who owned the missing shares in the Grand-Mère Golf Club between 1993 and 1999. The golf club itself does not know.

Could the minister tell the House if the Shawinigan tax centre just down the street from the auberge golf club has a record of who owned the shares during this period?

I am not asking the minister to breach any taxpayer's privacy. The question is simple. Was the disposition of these mysterious shares declared on income tax records, or was no tax paid, or—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member should know the Income Tax Act much better than that.

The cornerstone of the act is the question of confidentiality. Each and every time we refer to a specific question on a specific taxpayer, a corporation or an individual, section 241 applies. He should know much better than that.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could obviously waive that. Here is another pebble for the Prime Minister's princely feet.

In the much celebrated Paquette letter, the mother of all letters, the Prime Minister's pardon contains false information. It refers to a date on the calendar that does not even exist.

The devil is in the detail. If there is to be any credibility or closure on this issue, will the Prime Minister tell the House if any of his associates, his lawyer Debbie Weinstein or a member of her firm, ever owned or controlled the shares in the Grand-Mère prior to 1999?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, they never owned the shares. When I hear the fifth party talking about it I would like to say to the leader that despite the leader's pension of $85,000 a year and a $10 million party debt, he demanded another $200,000 from his party on becoming the leader.

He got the lowest popular vote in the party's history and decreased its seats from 20 to 12 but still demanded a $160,000 top-up to his $130,000 House of Commons salary. I guess the reason he does not want to be the prime minister is because of the pay cut.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party did not have to pay Mulroney's lawyers $2 million.

The conflict of interest code is clear. A public office holder cannot even participate in a discussion about his blind trust until after the ethics counsellor has been consulted. Yet in January 1996 it was the Prime Minister who phoned the ethics counsellor to inform him that the sale had fallen through.

How was it possible for the Prime Minister to know that the sale of the shares had fallen through without being in violation of the conflict of interest code?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, because at that time according to the rules that existed a debt did not have to be reported. The ethics counsellor said that very clearly.

Since that time we have changed the rules and a debt in the future will have to be reported. The ethics counsellor explained it very clearly when he testified in front of the committee.

The debt was owed to me. I guess I needed the money because I am not making as much as the leader of the fifth party and I wanted to be paid.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry told me that consent of the golf club partners to release their letter was given only at 4.30 p.m., after Mr. Wilson had finished testifying on the golf club.

The law firm has confirmed to us that it sent the letter to Industry Canada earlier in the morning and were only called back for permission to release the letter at three o'clock. That permission was granted no later than 3.40 p.m., before the questioning on the Grand-Mère had begun.

Why was this evidence withheld by the Minister of Industry and the ethics counsellor in the committee?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the conclusion on which the hon. member bases her question is totally wrong. There was no withholding of evidence.

The ethics commissioner disclosed the letter before the committee as soon as he received in his own hands confirmation that the person who had written the letter was willing to have it disclosed.

To the hon. member, if she wants to be fair, it is about time for her to withdraw her unfounded allegations.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a statement here in the House on March 23, the Prime Minister stated that his interest in the Grand-Mère golf course had been placed in a blind trust.

The ethics counsellor has told us “Yes, the Prime Minister was involved in negotiations to obtain payment”. This is my question for the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his intervention, his personal intervention in negotiations to sell his shares, is contrary to the very nature of a blind trust, and thus gives a serious appearance of conflict of interest?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the ethics counsellor. If he had told me I was in conflict of interest, he would have told me “I cannot talk to you”.

There was money owing to me, and I needed that money. As I have already said, as Prime Minister, I probably earn $150,000 less than the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. So I needed the money.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not justify his actions in connection with the Auberge Grand-Mère by telling us he does not earn enough money. We do not want to hear about his salary now, we can deal with that another time.

My question is this: why has the ethics counsellor obliged the Minister of Finance to put his assets into a blind trust and forbid him from even taking part in discussions on shipbuilding, when the Prime Minister himself does not comply with the same standards?

He intervenes, and then he gets his money. He does everything possible in his own case.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before—and now repeat—the ethics counsellor did not, according to the rules put in place by the Conservative government, require the debt to be put into a trust, because it had been contracted before I became Prime Minister.

At a certain point, I needed money. I wanted to find out whether the debt had been paid. It had not, so I called the ethics counsellor. He told me that this was not something I had to declare and that I had declared.

Multiculturalism

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism recklessly and mercilessly compared my hometown of Prince George to apartheid in South Africa and Kosovo. She claimed racism was rampant in British Columbia and that indeed crosses were being burned on lawns in Prince George.

This we knew was false yesterday and we know it is false today. Her half-hearted attempt at an apology this morning, hidden selectively in some well rehearsed, feel good phrases, is not enough. I ask for an unequivocal apology to the people of Prince George and for her resignation.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made a very clear apology in the House of Commons.

Only a few days ago we had a member from the other side who had done something that was completely unacceptable. He apologized to the House. On this side of the House, when members offer an apology in the tradition of parliament, we accept the apology of ministers and of members of parliament.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, her apology was not an apology. She still indicated that perhaps racism and hate activities were going on in Prince George, even though not the specific ones she mentioned the day before.

This is yet another smear on the people of Prince George. The minister has to do the right thing. If she will not resign herself, will the Prime Minister fire her today?

[Some hon. members]

Go, go.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Prime Minister has the floor.