Debates of March 30th, 2001

Auditor General

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the department saved $2 million for the public.

Seven companies were proposed to the minister and three went to bid. Transelec's bid was 30% below bid and $2 million was saved to taxpayers.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 15 of this year the minister stated that the auditor general was wrong and CIDA was right.

Questions asked of the minister soon after the release of the auditor general's report again gave the minister the opportunity to admit her mistake. She did not.

Why did the minister send her official to do what she should have done herself and take the blame for her department's $6.3 million mistake?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, first, I said no such thing. Second, as I said, this contract saved taxpayers $2 million. The bid was 30% below every other bidder. It was a properly bidded contract. That is exactly what I said then and that is what I am saying now.

Prime Minister

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for the government, a question the Prime Minister has refused to answer all week.

Article 3.6 of the agreement the Prime Minister signed in September 1999 provides that, if there is an investigation into this matter, the Prime Minister must assume the legal costs of Louis Michaud, the purchaser of his shares.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the Prime Minister has a financial interest in there not being an investigation or a committee looking into his transactions in the matter of the Grand-Mère golf club? Will he recognize this once and for all?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, no.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us on what interests the Prime Minister is basing his decision to reject an inquiry?

Are they those of a Prime Minister who must ensure the integrity of his government or the financial interests of a Prime Minister who knows he is in conflict of interest?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason, there is no basis for an inquiry. The RCMP said there was no reason to continue these inquiries. The ethics counsellor confirmed that there was no conflict of interest. Most importantly, the documents tabled in the House of Commons show once again, clearly, that there is no conflict of interest.

I think we can ask the member why, once again, he is contradicting his own House leader and calling for an inquiry following the tabling of the record of sale.

Multiculturalism

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, late yesterday afternoon the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism reluctantly faxed a qualified apology for her inflammatory comments about make-believe racist activities in Kamloops. However, her foolish comments have completely destroyed her credibility as a fighter against racism.

The Prime Minister said that we should respect House tradition. He and his minister should respect cabinet tradition: When one misleads the House, one resigns. Will the minister stand in her place today and resign from cabinet?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has shown why the Alliance Party has been running out of steam. It is the same old stuff, in spite of the clear answers that I have given and I repeat. The hon. secretary of state recognized she made a mistake. She then apologized to the House.

If the hon. member and her party were serious about respecting the House and treating it seriously themselves, they would accept the apology and get back to their job as the opposition of asking questions of importance to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister for multiculturalism wanted to stand but the Deputy Prime Minister beat her to it.

The junior minister for multiculturalism fabricated a story about Kamloops. She fabricated a story about Prince George. She fabricated the story about her staff never calling police officials.

She remembered all that, but yesterday when the member for Edmonton North brought up an incident that really did happen, she had no idea of it despite the fact it was a story in a major—

[The Speaker]

I do not know that there is a question there. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Natural Resources

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as Californians prepare for more periodic blackouts the Bush administration is talking about an energy crisis and the need for a North American energy policy to address this problem.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House if there is an energy crisis in Canada. Could he expand further on the position being taken in response to the U.S. point of view?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, there is no energy crisis in Canada. We are blessed with enormous assets: conventional fossil fuels, hydro power, heavy oil, the oil sands, new frontiers in the north Atlantic and in the Arctic, plus nuclear, plus a growing portfolio of renewable and alternative fuels, new technologies like fuel cells, and the best energy brain power in the world.

We do not have a crisis but we do have an enormous opportunity to seize that opportunity. We are not pursuing a North American energy policy. We are pursuing the expansion and successful functioning of energy markets in the Canadian interest.

Kyoto Protocol

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while Quebec has made considerable efforts to meet its objectives for decreased greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is dragging its feet, and this affects Quebec as well. Yesterday, the United States decided not to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and this too is likely to affect Quebec and Canada.

Since the beginning of this week, the government keeps on telling us it wants to get back to real business. If this is so, can the Minister of the Environment explain his lack of reaction to the American decision?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is very seriously pursuing its international obligations. We negotiated with respect to the Kyoto protocol. We have been very active in the years since Kyoto in not only elaborating upon the international implementation mechanisms but taking action at home in Canada.

Last year in the budget of February and the mini budget in October we committed $1.1 billion over the next five years, which will eliminate 65 megatons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the question.

Yesterday, the minister said “We are going to ask them what can work for them, if this does not”. The minister appears to be giving up on the Kyoto protocol, while because of our geography the American decision will inevitably impact upon Quebec and Canada.

If the government was serious about wanting to deal with real problems ought it not to be fighting for the Kyoto protocol instead of just throwing up its hands?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks us to do something about Kyoto. In fact we are. We are investing over $1.1 billion in climate change solutions.

We will also continue to work with all our international partners to put together an international arrangement that works. We obviously disagree with President Bush's decision and we will work very hard to obtain an international consensus to bring down greenhouse gases and mitigate the problem of climate change.

Multiculturalism

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on top of the Prince George cross burning smear, on top of the Kamloops smear, on top of the fictitious letter defence, on top of all we have heard, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism admitted to the House yesterday that she has not been doing her job in policing and shaming a real cross burning that happened in Montreal last year.

She has misused her office on one hand and has been absent and irresponsible on the other. Will the secretary of state do herself, her government, her department and her constituents a big favour and the honourable thing and just resign?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, following question period I asked my department to follow up on the question by the hon. member for Edmonton North.

My department assures me that it did not fund this activity. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, I certainly do not condone that type of behaviour.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing we want to hear from the minister and it is the two words: I resign.

The people from Prince George are demanding accountability. The citizens of Canada are demanding she should be held accountable. Even some of her own Liberal colleagues are suggesting that she should resign.

The Prime Minister talks a lot about parliament's tradition of accepting a member's apology. Why does the Prime Minister not follow the time honoured tradition of ministerial accountability and fire his junior minister of multiculturalism?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Kamloops, according to a press report in the Calgary Herald , speaking of the secretary of state with respect to Kamloops, said:

—she says she's sorry, and let's move on—I accept it as a full and unequivocal apology.

If the mayor of Kamloops under these circumstances is willing to accept what the secretary of state has said, the full and unequivocal apology, why is the hon. member and his party not big enough to act with the same degree of class? What is wrong with him?

Trade

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The minister's trade policy is coming under increasing attack with the Council of Canadians and CUPW this week launching a constitutional challenge of chapter 11 of NAFTA and the respected group, Rights and Democracy, urging that any free trade of the Americas agreement must clearly give primacy to international human rights treaties.

Will the minister tell his colleagues in Buenos Aires next week that Canada will not sign any FTAA treaty that does not put universal human rights, workers rights and the environment ahead—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister for International Trade.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance, are all working very hard with their counterparts in the Americas to make sure that on the trade front and on every front we make progress in our hemisphere.

We have been making remarkable progress in the last 20 years. There is a lot more democracy in the Americas than there was 20 years ago. There is a lot more respect for human rights in our hemisphere, and I think trade that leads to development has contributed a great deal to that progress.

Natural Resources

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since we cannot seem to get an answer from the Minister of Natural Resources, let me address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Environment ministers and leaders from around the world have been vocal in their condemnation of the U.S. for its repudiation of Kyoto, yet our environment minister and our Prime Minister remain silent.

Will the Canadian government join the international community, repudiate the American rejection of Kyoto and commit to a 2002 ratification of an effective protocol? Yes or no.