House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rural.

Topics

TradeOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The right hon. Prime Minister.

TradeOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we have not flip-flopped. We have signed the NAFTA and it has been in operation for seven years. As the minister said earlier, it has been very good for Canada. It has helped Canada to create more than 2.1 million jobs since 1994. It is certainly not a bad deal.

What did all the other leaders want to do over the weekend? They just wanted to join us in what we are doing with the Americans and the Mexicans, because they all understand that if there is more trade between the nations there will be more wealth and there will be a better chance to redistribute the wealth.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, Lancaster Aviation received the sole source contract to sell eight DND surplus Challenger jets. These airplanes are well maintained and advertised as being in superior shape by the government but were sold for more than $25 million below market value.

Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House why Lancaster Aviation received the sole source contract, what it was paid to sell these jets and why the Canadian public, the taxpayer, should be expected to absorb this enormous loss?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, they were sold at fair market value for what they were worth. We entered into a contract that came out of a competition. It was not sole source; it came out of a competition. In fact it was all reasonably handled.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong on both counts. The aim of the disposal project was to obtain a maximum return from the sale of these surplus aerospace assets. This obviously did not happen.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that both the Department of Public Works, audit section, and the RCMP are investigating Lancaster Aviation?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, these were sold for somewhere over $5 million each. In fact it was fair market value. There was a competition.

There were five other companies that competed because they wanted to be a part of selling these. This was all done within the rules in a reasonable way and it gained fair market value for the used aircraft.

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed a document that the BDC claims is a forgery regarding the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. However, if the document footnote is not a forgery, it appears that $23,000 of the BDC loan went directly to J&AC, the Prime Minister's own company.

Did the Prime Minister's company receive any part of the loan from the BDC?

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, at the rate at which false accusations are being made and being refuted, there is soon to be nobody left on the front bench to ask questions about at all.

This document is a forged document. It has been turned over to the RCMP. The RCMP is doing its job. Members would be wise to respect the process and allow the police to complete its investigations.

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member and the BDC claim that this footnote is a forgery. No other specific part of the document has been questioned. This state of affairs clearly calls for an independent inquiry.

Rather than threatening to sue Canadians who are concerned about this issue, will the Prime Minister finally agree to open his company books to an independent judicial inquiry?

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite, in the light of what is happening today with respect to parliamentary presence in the House of Commons, has any idea just how surreal that question sounds to most common sense Canadians.

The fact of the matter is that the RCMP, which is independent, is dealing with this matter. When the RCMP is finished its investigation, it will report on this matter. Most Canadians accept the professionalism and the independence of the RCMP, and so should the member.

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said in this House that there was no connection between the Grand-Mère golf course and the Auberge Grand-Mère, and that they were instead competitors. He even wrote this to the leader of the Conservatives. However once again new documents have come along to undermine the Prime Minister's credibility.

How can the Prime Minister make such statements when a ten year lease dated 1988 indicates a financial connection between the golf course and the Auberge Grand-Mère?

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the information just conveyed to the House by the member is false. The member knows it is false.

The real source of investigation here is into who forged this material. That is being handled by the RCMP. I think we should all have confidence in the RCMP.

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister for Industry is referring to the wrong thing. We are not talking of the National Post documents but of a lease.

In the Shawinigan property registry there is nothing to indicate that the ten year lease has been cancelled. This means, therefore, that there was a financial connection between the auberge and the golf course when the Prime Minister approached the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Is the Prime Minister going to at last acknowledge that he was in a flagrant conflict of interest situation when he intervened with the bank?

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has reviewed the matter and come to the conclusion there is no conflict. The RCMP, on the request of two party leaders, has reviewed this question and has closed the file.

The blunt reality is that there is no issue of conflict of interest here on the part of the Prime Minister. The blunt reality is that Canadians would like parliament to go back to work on issues of real concern to the people of the country.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The government said concerning the Divorce Act and children:

“The Government of Canada accepts the committee's recommendations that the terms “custody” and “access” should be replaced. Moreover, the term “shared parenting” has the advantage of placing an emphasis on parental responsibilities rather than on various sets of rights.

Five hundred and twenty witnesses later, 55 hearings and $500,000 later the minister is consulting again because she did not like the evidence. Will the minister table a bill that reflects all party recommendations in the “For the Sake of the Children” report?

JusticeOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, our family law system is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government.

In fact, what we are doing right now is working with the provinces. We are holding joint federal and provincial consultations with Canadians all over the country. We are consulting on specific recommendations for reform.

I find it shocking that the party which talks about grassroots participation would not want the federal and provincial governments working together to consult with Canadians on these important matters.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, things are always complex for the minister when she cannot or she will not. The parliamentary evidence has sat on her desk now for two and a half years. Children are suffering greatly while the minister avoids. Parents and relatives are bruised by a family law system that should not further hurt when families turn for help.

When will the minister gather the courage, lead the provinces and give children and families shared parenting, legal protection in family law, the help they so clearly need?

JusticeOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, I said I would report back to the House not only on the recommendations in the report “For the Sake of the Children”, but also on our child support guidelines no later than May 2002.

I come back to the fact that family law is a shared jurisdiction. I find it hard to believe that the Alliance Party would suggest that we in the federal government should do anything in an area of shared jurisdiction without consulting the provinces.

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

April 24th, 2001 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister categorically denied that Yvon Duhaime owed the Prime Minister's business money.

Yvon Duhaime's version reported in the National Post is rather ambiguous on the subject. The Prime Minister's answers in this matter are contradicted with each new document that becomes available.

Does the Prime Minister not consider that the burden of proof is on him when he denies the existence of Yvon Duhaime's debt with him?

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said clearly yesterday that there was no debt and that the reference in the document was passed on to the police because it was a fraud.

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, 56% of people in Quebec believe the Prime Minister is in conflict of interest in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair and the documents that could reveal everything can be released only in a public inquiry.

Is this not additional evidence that things have reached such a point that only a public inquiry will shed light on this nebulous business of the Auberge Grand-Mère?

Prime MinisterOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister divested of his shares in the golf course in November 1993. The matter has been looked at by every independent authority that could look at this question.

The simple fact of the matter is this issue is not one that concerns the people of Quebec or the people of Canada. They are more concerned about the economy and the future of the country, and I have great confidence in the leadership the Prime Minister is giving us in that regard.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has just become the champion of consultation with the provinces. It is interesting she did not consult very much on gun control with the provinces.

On the issue of joint parenting, this is the opportunity for the minister to stand and say what is her personal position on joint parenting.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the government responded to the report “For the Sake of the Children”.

We indicated that we accept the fact that custody and access are difficult issues for many families who are in the process of separation and divorce. There are not easy solutions to these questions.

The hon. member should understand that the Divorce Act does not even apply upon separation. That is provincial family law. That is why we have to work with the provinces to make sure we continue to have a seamless family law system.

JusticeOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, commentators will note that the minister did not tell us what is her personal position. Interestingly, before coming to parliament the justice minister wrote:

An increasing number of commentators now suggest that joint custody may simply perpetuate the influence and domination of men over women.

Is that the reason the minister will not state her personal position on joint custody?