Debates of April 3rd, 2001

Pay Equity

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the special report tabled in the House by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in February strongly criticized the federal government for its inaction regarding pay equity.

The approach based on the filing of complaints does not at all promote pay equity within reasonable timeframes and it generates multiple legal proceedings, which are complex and sometimes are stalling tactics.

Bell Canada telephone operators are a good example of this. Nothing has been solved since the initial complaints were filed, back in 1988.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to implement the five guiding principles mentioned in the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to truly target the social injustice created by not recognizing the true value of the work done primarily by women.

They can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will continue to fight against this social injustice and to ensure that the House adopts a truly proactive policy on pay equity.

Vaisakhi

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this month the Sikh community in Canada and around the world is celebrating Vaisakhi , the 302nd anniversary of the Sikh nation.

I wish to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister for his continued support of the Vaisakhi celebration on Parliament Hill for the past eight years and for his support of the Canadian postage stamp depicting the Sikh symbol of the khanda sahib , which recognizes and honours the contribution of the Sikh community to Canadian society.

I invite all members of the House to congratulate Sikh Canadians on this occasion by attending a Vaisakhi celebration today in the Commonwealth room after question period.

Canadian Cancer Society

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian Cancer Society chose both April and daffodils as its campaign symbols, it recognized the importance of a positive attitude in the fight against cancer.

This April the Canadian Cancer Society and its thousands of volunteers will knock on doors and organize special events in communities across Canada to reach their fundraising goal of $19 million. Last year the society contributed over $41 million to its research partner, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, which distributes the funds to a broad range of projects.

The society is a national community based organization involved in cancer research, education and patient services and is a strong advocate for healthy public policy.

On behalf of all members, I extend sincere thanks to all volunteers at the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Economy

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a few Quebec separatists, never have I met an individual so loose with his facts as the finance critic of the Canadian Alliance.

According to him, our foreign debt and our government debt rank second among OECD countries. Again, this is false.

The fact of the matter is that our foreign debt is lower than it has been in 50 years. The fact of the matter is that our government debt fell by more than that of any OECD country in the last five years.

To put the icing on the cake, he says that our income tax is higher than at any time in our history. That is utterly impossible when we cut taxes on January 1.

The member should refrain from trashing the Canadian economy with statements that are utterly false.

National Revenue

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government knows no bounds in its binge to co-opt the privacy of Canadians.

In March, in questioning from me, the Minister of National Revenue confirmed that his officials were not only opening Canadians' mail but opening privileged mail between lawyers and clients, photocopying it in an indiscriminate way and then keeping a secret database akin to the one we had last year in the human resources scandal.

Not satisfied with just intercepting and opening incoming mail of Canadians, the stealthy Liberal government has used the back door approach once again and has introduced Bill S-23 in the Senate to give the government even more power to violate the privacy of Canadians.

The bill would now give the Liberal government the right to open outgoing mail of all Canadians. The Minister of National Revenue said that opening incoming mail has been profitable. If he is so proud of his achievements, why is he using the unelected Senate to hide his tracks?

It takes a search warrant to listen to a phone call. It should take a search warrant to look at privileged mail between lawyers and their clients. The bill is undemocratic. It should have been brought to the House. It should be amended drastically before it ever passes into law in the country.

Prime Minister

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would first like to acknowledge the Minister of Health today and wish him a good return and good recovery.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to cover up Shawinigate by trying to make us believe that there are no financial connections between the auberge and the golf club, his friend, Yvon Duhaime, confirmed under oath that “agreements, deposits and contracts have been arranged between the auberge and these customers”.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to admit that there are indeed financial connections between the auberge and the Grand-Mère golf club?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is not what he said.

In any case, the truth is very simple. On November 1, 1993, I sold my interest in the golf club. I had sold the interest that we had in the auberge the previous February. Since then, and this has clearly been confirmed, as asked by the opposition, which said “Table the contract” and it has been tabled, since 1993, I have had no interest in either one of these ventures.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I point out that the ethics counsellor himself said that all the relevant documents have not been tabled and that a very significant one, one that could show whose names are on the registry, is in fact having some changes made to it before it is release.

With all these and so many other contradictions, why will the Prime Minister not simply allow this to go to an independent public inquiry?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in his first question referred to business links between the golf course and the hotel and then extrapolated his version of what was actually said.

Let me read the verbatim quote in translation. It said:

Many wedding receptions, evening meals after golf tournaments, wedding anniversaries, graduation dances and conventions have, for the most part, been reserved for more than a year. Agreements, deposits and contracts have been arranged between the Auberge and these customers.

Are wedding receptions, graduations and evening meals after golf tournaments evidence of a—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, before he says, “I do”, I should also say that on that website it talks about bed and breakfast golf packages with the golf course. He should read the whole thing when he reads it out.

We have heard Liberal members of parliament, the members from Oshawa, Guelph and Vaudreuil, all say that they would like to see this go to an independent public inquiry. We would be interested to see them have a free vote on this. I would be interested to see how the Minister of Finance would vote freely on this.

In light of the fact that just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister forced his members of parliament to vote against their own promise and their own word, why does he not make it up to them now and allow them to vote freely on the question of whether this should go to an independent and public inquiry?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back and point out again that this so-called evidence that is being cited by the Leader of the Opposition includes graduation dances, conventions, wedding anniversaries, wedding receptions and people who may go to eat after golf.

There is not a golf course or a hotel in the country that does not advertise in whatever way they can to bring business to their doors during the busy tourism season. Surely there is no conspiracy there. It is simple marketing.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a Shawinigan courtroom, two of the Prime Minister's Liberal backers appeared on charges of fraud and theft of up to $300,000 of HRDC money from the Groupe Force regional development fund. In 1997 they also channelled $200,000 in loans from the fund to the Auberge Grand-Mère.

Did the Prime Minister or anyone on his staff have any discussions with Pépin and Lemire about directing Groupe Force money to the auberge?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.

I want to repeat, for the information of the House, what the hon. member for Edmonton North said in the House on March 15, 2001. She said:

The Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just tabling his bill of sale for those shares in 1993.

I have done that, and 81% of the Canadian people want the opposition to move on to something else. However, it will not because it has no policy and it is offering nothing to the Canadian people as an alternative government.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that might have been true had there been an actual final bill of sale. Since there was not, it did not clear up much, did it?

Mr. Pépin and Mr. Lemire were both directors of the federally funded Groupe Force in Shawinigan which gave two loans totalling $200,000 to the Auberge Grand-Mère. Today, those same men are standing trial for fraud and theft of federal grants.

I ask the Prime Minister directly, did he at any time influence or attempt to influence the loans from the Groupe Force to the Auberge Grand-Mère?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I need to inform the House of Commons that if those two people are before the court it is because my own office advised the police after it heard some rumours.

I should also say that when there was rumour of wrongdoing, it was my office, not the auditors nor the opposition, that faced the responsibility and called the police.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a flagrant contradiction between the Prime Minister's statements and those of the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère, Yvon Duhaime.

In a letter to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Prime Minister said that the golf club is a competitor for the auberge, while Yvon Duhaime stated under oath that the golf club and the auberge share many of the same clients.

How does the Prime Minister explain that the auberge's owner has stated under oath that there is indeed a financial link between the golf club and his establishment, showing a conflict of interest, while he, the Prime Minister, is claiming the contrary?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said and that is that, without an auberge, all the clients would hang around the golf club's 19th hole, and everyone knows what that means.

The clients who head out to play golf are the ones who are not having a second or third beer at the 19th hole. I think that he knows that. Not many people would put up with a golf club telling them to have their drinks elsewhere when they could have them on the premises.

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

Mr. Speaker, nor are there many shareholders, particularly prime ministers, who think that a boarded-up, bankrupt auberge is a good thing for an adjacent golf club. Everyone understands this. That is why people want a public inquiry. It is clear from the polls that that is what they want.

Is the fact that there has been no public inquiry not because the Prime Minister advised Mr. Michaud in a contract in 1999 that, if there were one, his, the Prime Minister's, company, would pay legal costs? Is he generous—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have answered all these questions. Once again, probably for the seventh or eighth time this afternoon, the ethics counsellor is going to answer. He clearly said that there had been no conflict of interest. He said this in 1999. Since then, the opposition has persisted, and it was the member for Roberval who said, on March 15 of this year: “Does he not understand that the only way to settle this matter ...the only way, there are not 50 of them, only one—is to provide us with the record of sale—”

That is precisely what we have done. We have gone along with all the opposition's requests. The RCMP looked into the matter—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the documents tabled were to dissipate all doubt in this matter. Instead, they have added to its obscurity.

According to the polls, nearly 60% of people want an inquiry into the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, and even 54% of the Liberal electors questioned want an inquiry as well.

The Prime Minister has repeated on a number of occasions that he has built his career on integrity. Does the Prime Minister not realize now that by rejecting an inquiry into the matter in which he is personally involved he is destroying all he has claimed to have built?