Debates of April 3rd, 2001

Supply

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

As the member correctly points out, there is no such position. I am wonder why the NDP leader could not get her facts straight. What other facts did she provide the House for which maybe she did not use due care to get them correct?

I listened to the leader of the Conservatives and its House leader. They talked about the bill of sale and said that it looked like it was done with crayon on a napkin, that it was not witnessed, that the province was not there and that there were no witnesses. The bill of sale is a document which represents an agreement between two people. What they did not do was to comment on whether or not it was a legal agreement. All of the other information corroborates that that was the deal and that the agreement was signed by two parties.

In our system of law even oral contracts, simply the undertaking by two people to each other, is enforceable in law. We do not have a witness. We do not have signatures. We do not even have a piece of paper. It is the word of those people.

The Conservatives will not even accept the fact that there was a sale, notwithstanding the facts.

The leader of the Alliance spoke this morning and reviewed a number of the facts. I asked if could he confirm certain facts about the amount of the loan to the application of the Auberge Grand-Mère request to the BDC. He absolutely refused to answer the question. He refused to acknowledge even basic facts.

The motion before the House is basically to set up an inquiry with the broadest possible terms so that we can continue to go in all different directions. However, the opposition has demonstrated very clearly to the House that it is not prepared to accept the word or any fact that is presented in this place or is stated by a member. That is what the crux of this issue. To me the crux is whether or not, as the member for Calgary—Nose Hill stated in her speech, trust is what makes parliamentary institutions work. We have to have trust and we expect trust.

When I became a member of parliament it struck me that we were always referred to as all hon. members. The Speaker often reminds members that we take members at their word. When they say things that they believe to be true we accept that. That is part of the point the member for Calgary—Nose Hill was trying to make, and I agree with her.

How does this place work if we do not have trust? If the Prime Minister of Canada rises in this place, which he has done many times, and says he sold his shares November 1, 1993, will we believe him or are we going to by suggestion, innuendo, smearing or condemnation not trust what was said? It is certainly an easy way to continue the dialogue, but when do we trust what someone says?

I submit that if a member stands in this place and makes a representation I, as a member of parliament, accept that person at his or her word. I am not going to take the tact, which is been taken now, that somehow we can say people are guilty until they prove they are innocent. Let us table all the documents.

The press has a lot to do with this. The hypothesis was that the opposition was not doing its job so the press had to stand in and do the job for it. Opposition members find that difficult to accept, but the fact is the media tend to spur on some of the debate. We could see the questioning by some of the Alliance coming directly from quotes in the newspaper.

We came to Ottawa this week to see the headline that the first priority for members of parliament was another week's vacation. Is that in fact a fair representation of the facts? Of course not. Members said they would like to spend a week with their family during the March break and asked if there was some way to rejig the schedule to come back a week earlier so they could take off the week during March break to spend some time with their families. How did the press report it? Members' first priority was another week's vacation. The representative of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was smearing us because we wanted another week of vacation.

Why is it that the press gets away with this nonsense? Maybe to quote the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, how does it get away with this crap? That is exactly what it is. It is not a fair representation.

If we get drawn into this matter then we will be drawn into other things like the representation with regard to Mr. Duhaime's comments in a Quebec proceeding with regard to a liquor licence. The media described it as newly revealed testimony by the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère. Was it newly revealed? Of course it was not. It was from last November. Was it private? No, it was a public proceeding. There were transcripts.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Was it contrary to what the Prime Minister said?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The member asked was it contradictory, of course it was. Mr. Duhaime said that he had a hotel that depended on the golf course in which the Prime Minister was a part owner. Last November the Prime Minister was not a part owner of a golf course. He sold his shares in 1993. There is a contradiction by Mr. Duhaime, and members are arguing whether Mr. Prince or Mr. Duhaime are saying things. If they have a problem with the facts that are represented by others not in this place, maybe they should go to them.

I would like to close on what I think is happening. I believe that in this matter the opposition has repeatedly used the House of Commons as a shelter to make baseless allegations, spread outrageous innuendo and smear the reputations of, not only the Prime Minister but his family and anyone else who happens to disagree with their opinion.

That is exactly what is happening here. As for the press, who have no ethical standards themselves, no ethics commissioner or counsellor and no rules of the game except to sell as many papers as they want, let them report on the facts and let us judge the media on how they report the baseless allegations of the opposition.

The opposition has asked in the motion today to establish a judicial inquiry with the broadest possible terms. It has asked for a licence to go wherever it wants, when in fact the issue here clearly is whether there was a conflict of interest during the tenure of the Prime Minister. The facts are clear that the shares were sold on November 1, 1993. The only interest at all that the Prime Minister carried after that time was the fact that moneys were owed to him by Mr. Jonas Prince.

Mr. Jonas Prince and the Prime Minister's consulting firm, his company, were the only two parties to this. There was nothing that could happen subsequent to that, no loan amount, no effort, nothing else, that could change the amount that he was owed. There was nothing he could do and nothing he could say. Therefore, there is no ongoing financial interest with regard to the golf course or the hotel.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I found the last set of comments rather interesting. I have known the hon. member for quite some time and I am very surprised at the nature of his comments, because it seems to me that the Prime Minister at one time made the statement here in the House that he was just an ordinary MP doing what an ordinary MP would do to help his constituents.

Yes, an MP is to look after the interests of his constituents and to make representations, but the Prime Minister claimed that he was just an ordinary MP. The Prime Minister is anything but an ordinary MP. The Prime Minister is the chief official of the country and of the government, who has power and authority over the hon. member and can tell the hon. member whether he can stay in caucus or not. He can tell the hon. member whether he is going to continue to be a member of the Liberal Party. He can tell the hon. member how to vote in the House. Yet the Prime Minister himself says that he is just an ordinary MP.

The hon. member is an ordinary MP but not the Prime Minister, so I ask the hon. member, how big does a lie have to be to be a lie?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Excuse me. Before the hon. member answers, the word lie has been used quite frequently in the last few minutes. I would ask the hon. members to be very careful in their choice of words, please. I will permit the hon. member to answer the question.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, what just transpired here is a classic example of exactly what has been going on. I do not think it merits a response.

What does, I believe, merit some further comment is the fundamental issue. The Prime Minister represented to this place and to all Canadians that he sold his shares on November 1, 1993. The amount owing to him, the party, the date, et cetera, were specified and are known to members. As a result of that transaction prior to the Prime Minister in fact becoming a prime minister, that meant the investment in those shares no longer existed and therefore was not reportable.

There is another fact that has to do with the receivable of the Prime Minister with regard to the proceeds on the sale. Members have said that this represents the ongoing financial interest. First, the receivable for the shares is from a Mr. Jonas Prince, through his company. It is his company. There is an agreement of purchase and sale between those two parties for $300,000.

Nothing will change the amount that the Prime Minister ultimately could recover. He is entitled to only $300,000. Nothing could happen in terms of the operations of the hotel or golf course that will change whether or not he will get more or less than $300,000. The only thing that affects how much the Prime Minister recovers on that receivable is the transaction he has with the third party, Mr. Jonas Prince.

[An hon. member]

How come he lost $50,000 then?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asks how come he lost $50,000. The member should know that the amount the Prime Minister lost is not relative to the $300,000. It is relative to how much he paid initially for the shares, and I do not think the member knows how much was paid. When we file a tax return and declare our gain or loss on shares, it is not how much was the selling price but how much our proceeds are relative to our initial cost plus the cost of disposition.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough continues to make the point, which I wish he would clarify, that there is a financial relationship between Jonas Prince and the Prime Minister that is clear in terms of its amount and that there is nothing that can affect it which has anything to do with the golf course or with the hotel.

The Prime Minister, if he gets less than $300,000 in proceeds, could sue Mr. Prince for the balance. It is a legal contract. The member knows that. If Mr. Prince honours the whole deal there is interest as well. They may later come to an agreement which will change that subsequently, as the member well knows.

Are we as a parliament to get involved in the financial dealings of two persons unrelated to the activities or operations of the Grand-Mère hotel or the golf course? I suggest that it is none of our business.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased to rise on debate today, but it is not a very pretty topic, is it?

It is something I think Canadians are concerned about. We hear people on the street asking why we should be consumed with this. They ask why this is important enough to take up the time of the House. Some people even say that we need to get on to the nation's business.

Of course the answer to those questions is the issue of the integrity of the Prime Minister's Office. If that ain't the nation's business, I do not know what is.

The fact is that around $160 billion comes funnelling into this place and then gets distributed and dispersed across the country over any fiscal year. It is an unbelievable pile of cash. I think Canadians on the street are saying that if there is any cloud of doubt about the Shawinigate deal, then how big is the cloud of doubt about the guy at the top who dishes out the money and disperses it through the finance minister and cabinet?

Those are the kinds of things that make this issue one of utter importance to every Canadian. Surely if this is the place and the seat of government, the fellow who sits in the top seat must not only be seen to be clean. At the very appearance of any Shawinigate scandal, it seems to me, he should be the first one saying he needs to make sure that this is right out in the open and before all Canadian people.

We have seen a number of contradictions in the facts. The Prime Minister directly contradicted himself. He said there were no links between the golf course and the hotel. I guess it is a cute pun and I suppose he is good at humour.

On November 2 the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère, Yvon Duhaime, said under oath, as said the member who was just speaking about it a few minutes ago, that agreements, accounts and contracts were made between the auberge and the golf course's clients. We can understand that this represents a major part of the auberge's receipts.

I just think this is unbelievable, because the Prime Minister said there was no connection whatsoever. I am sure you have seen, Madam Speaker, if you have not driven there yourself, that the signs are one and the same. The sign says to go this way for the Auberge Grand-Mère and that way for the golf course. I was on the show counterSpin , when Peter Blaikie said he was not a great golfer but he could hit a golf ball from the golf course right into the bar at the Auberge Grand-Mère. They were linked together.

For the Prime Minister to brush it off and say that there was absolutely no connection whatsoever simply is not true. I think parliament needs to get to the bottom of that.

I would be very pleased as a member of the official opposition to suggest we get this out of the hands of politicians. We should get it right out of parliament. This should be taken to an independent judicial inquiry where someone will take a little heftier look at this than the ethics counsellor, the guy who gets paid by the Prime Minister, remember.

In the red book, which was campaigned on in 1993, as I recall, there was to be an ethics commissioner reporting to parliament, not just to the Prime Minister. Yet here we are this many years later. In fact the ethics counsellor has contradicted himself any number of times. I may get to some his contradictory statements in a moment. However he then had coffee with the Prime Minister and said everything was okay. There is no credibility in that whatsoever.

Let us make sure that we get an ethics counsellor who becomes an ethics commissioner, who has real teeth and will be able to say that something smells and we had better do something about it. As we know it has taken up an unbelievable amount of time in the House. As well it taints every decision the government makes because people want to make sure that there is integrity in government. When people come here, I am sure not just for my speech but for question period, they want to be able to trust the people in the House.

The member from Toronto asked a couple of minutes ago before my speech how this place works if we do not have trust. That is a really excellent question. The real question is: How will this place ever work if we do not earn trust? Trust needs to be earned. It is not having someone show up and say “Trust me”. We have had that happen before any number of times in government.

We need the Canadian public to see that elected officials earn the trust of the Canadian public. Frankly the Prime Minister has done himself a lot of damage because there really is no trust. He has not earned it. This affair has gone on for so long that it seems to me it is getting a little out of control.

I see more contradictions. The Prime Minister said he sold his one-quarter share. In fact we are not sure whether it is 25% or 22%, but it is roughly a one-quarter share in the Grand-Mère golf course. The Prime Minister swears up and down, and the troops parrot the line, that he sold those shares on November 1, 1993, to wealthy Toronto real estate developer Jonas Prince for $300,000 plus interest.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order and my question is actually for you. I wonder if it is possible for the Speaker to rule on having an inquiry, which is requested by me, regarding the opposition party leader's deal with the then member of parliament, Jim Hart, to pay him $50,000 to resign his seat so he could run in that riding. I wonder if this is a subject for inquiry.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Edmonton North.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess we could say nice try. Being a member of the government, surely he could bring that in as a bill himself one day. He does not need a supply day for it.

I was mentioning before I was interrupted, certainly pleasantly and not rudely, that the Prime Minister said he sold his shares on November 1—

[The Speaker]

I do regret to interrupt the hon. member for Edmonton North, but as she knows at this time of day we have to move to statements by members. We are about to do that, but I want to assure her that she will have three and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks when the debate resumes at the conclusion of question period later this day. I know we all look forward to hearing from the hon. member for Edmonton North.

Robert Gauthier

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Gauthier, the most illustrious educator in French Ontario, died on March 25, 2001. He was in his 99th year. Mr. Gauthier spent his life promoting education in French in Ontario, at a time when the schools that had survived the infamous Regulation 17 had to start all over again.

A graduate of the universities of Ottawa, Laval, Montreal and Toronto, Mr. Gauthier became a school inspector at age 25 and went on to become Ontario's first provincial director of French education.

Robert Gauthier launched the provincial French competition, the Olympiade de la langue française. He created the Association des enseignants franco-ontariens, and he developed kindergartens, integrated schools and the TAN-GAU method to teach a second language.

The future of French in Ontario was his passion. For Robert Gauthier, it was “a matter of language, a matter of pride”.

Official Languages Act

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that Liberal intolerance and discrimination are not restricted to the actions and statements of the junior minister for multiculturalism. Yes, she openly promotes race based hiring programs, and yes, she is well known for fabricating stories that actually promote racism, but intolerance and discrimination are also the hallmarks of Liberal government language laws.

The current application of official bilingualism is unnecessarily costly, inherently discriminatory and a source of national divisiveness.

That is why I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-286, which would bring common sense to the Official Languages Act and end the inherent discrimination of official bilingualism.

Predictably, Liberal members have engaged in personal attacks against me in an attempt to distract attention from the issue. I wish to inform the House that I accept the challenge of the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I take him up on his offer to assist me in bringing this issue before the House of Commons for a debate and a vote.

Prix Mercador

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, for the third consecutive year, the Comité Export Laval awarded the Prix MercadOr to nine Laval businesses.

This award is a recognition of the efforts made by new exporters on international markets. It is a tribute to the contribution of these Laval businesses to our region's economic development.

I join residents of Laval to highlight the exceptional involvement of these local businesses to the economic development of the community of Laval.

Economic Development

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of mayors, municipal officials and people responsible for the economic development of the Outaouais, Lanaudière, Mauricie and Laurentides regions are in Ottawa today to take part in an international day similar to what I have held in the past for the mayors of Brome—Missisquoi.

I thank them for turning out in such large numbers. Their presence confirms their ongoing interest in developing new avenues for their towns and municipalities.

As we enter the era of globalization, it is becoming urgent to inform people, to give them the necessary tools and support to face the new challenges of this millennium while not losing touch with the public.

Our local communities will be increasingly called upon to take their place internationally. That is why we have prepared workshops for them on free trade, Contracts Canada, the infrastructure program, cultural and academic programs and, finally, agricultural export strategies.

I thank my colleagues who supported my efforts and I thank municipal officials and those responsible for economic development for their enthusiastic contribution and their common desire to ensure that our regions continue to grow.

École Polymécanique De Laval

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Laval East, I congratulate the Laval school board's École polymécanique, which has just received an award from the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

This award was presented for the exceptional quality of the school's interior and exterior design. The École polymécanique de Laval received the second international award for an outstanding educational institution. It was competing with 54 other institutions worldwide.

Studies have shown that the quality of a school's interior and exterior design have a beneficial effect on student learning. It is therefore a cause for celebration that the students of the École polymécanique de Laval have such an ideal setting in which to study.

I also wish to congratulate Viau Bergeron, a Laval firm of architects, on its work, and the school's management on its vision for the future.

Health

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, foot and mouth disease is one of the most serious threats this country has faced in the past 50 years. It is serious for cattlemen, hog producers, elk ranchers and others.

It is also serious for all taxpayers, who could be asked to pay up to $20 billion to cover the losses, and to thousands who could lose their jobs as a result of this infection.

The government is not doing enough to prevent this potential disaster. People and meat products are still arriving unchecked into this country from infected areas. This must stop. Inspections must be improved.

It is a very real possibility that this devastating disease will infect Canadian herds, yet no plan of action has been presented by the government. It is time now for the government to make public a comprehensive plan for minimizing the damage so that all involved are ready to act should the worst happen.

Sporthèque De Hull

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the year 2001 marks the 20th anniversary of a business that is solidly entrenched in Hull, the Sporthèque.

The Sporthèque employs 125 people and has a membership of over 5,400, as well as another 2,000 participants in its various programs.

Larry Greene, its CEO and co-owner, has a knack for surrounding himself with a highly professional team, and has also always made it a priority to ensure that the Sporthèque de Hull is an exemplary corporate citizen.

In addition to its role in making members of the community more fit, Mr. Greene has ensured that the Sporthèque played a role in helping a number of community organizations in the Outaouais region.

My best wishes for a long life to the Sporthèque de Hull, as well as to Larry Greene, who incidentally was named March personality of the month by the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de l'Outaouais.

Invisible Work

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the initiative of the AFEAS, April 3 will from now on be la Journée de travail invisible, in other words, a day to celebrate all the unsung and unseen work done in the home and volunteer work done in the community by anyone, regardless of status: those working at home, whether male or female, those out in the workforce, students, job seekers or the retired.

Why should these invisible workers be counted in? Out of fairness to the women who are the main ones involved in this work; to recognize and lend greater worth to the people involved; to respond to the specific needs of those who provide assistance to caregivers or who make it possible for parents to reconcile family and work; to make unpaid work visible by integrating it with the gross domestic product, and above all, to do away with poverty among women.

Even invisible work counts.

4-H Council

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to our nation's capital the 55 delegates and their chaperons from the 4-H Council who are here for the National 4-H Citizenship Seminar.

The 4-H Council is an international youth organization involving more than seven million members in 80 countries around the world. The historical roots of the 4-H are solidly grounded in rural Canada. The program originated for the purposes of improving agriculture, increasing production and enriching rural life.

The group here today comes from all different parts of Canada. This week, in between seminars, they will be touring the House of Commons and the supreme court and attending a parliamentary luncheon, as well as participating in a mock debate at the House of Commons.

The 4-H Council is an excellent organization, dedicated to the growth and development of all rural youth.

I had the pleasure this morning of visiting with these young students and I have to say that the 4-H certainly does focus on developing well-rounded, responsible and independent citizens. These youth are the leaders of our future.

Softwood Lumber

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this past Saturday night the softwood lumber agreement expired. Yesterday the U.S. government took action against Canadian producers.

We are now faced with duties that could reach as high as 76%, to be imposed retroactively. This could mean the death of the Canadian lumber industry. Canadians need a national solution to this problem before major shutdowns and layoffs occur across the country.

The Liberal government has dragged its heels long enough. It is time to get to the negotiating table with the Americans to start to do some serious work on the issue.

In a few days the governments of all the Americas will be working on the FTAA. How can we consider entering into this hemispheric free trade agreement when we cannot even be sure the NAFTA rules will ever be followed with the U.S. on softwood lumber?

When will the government get to work on this matter of extreme importance?

Richmond Hill

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the budget team of the town of Richmond Hill for receiving, for the second year in a row, the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.

The finance department team has fulfilled nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. I would like to congratulate former commissioner Steve Zorbas, acting commissioner Steve Fairweather and each team member for this achievement. I hold their skills and abilities, to not just crunch the numbers but to also easily and effectively communicate and dialogue with stakeholders, including local citizens and council members, in very high regard.

I would like to offer the town staff my personal congratulations on a job well done.

Bell Canada

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in April 2001 and women still have to protest for something as basic as pay equity.

That is what Bell operators had to do today. Ten years they have been at it, ten years of fighting for justice and ten years of trying to resolve a pay equity dispute with Bell Canada.

It has been a decade since Bell Canada has been creating obstacles to avoid paying Bell Canada operators what they are owed. Most of them are women and many are single mothers.

Now the company's actions have frustrated the whole human rights process, effectively derailing hundreds of efforts to seek redress for discrimination.

Do the stalling tactics of Bell Canada sound familiar? They should. They have been the practice, the habit and the pattern of operation of the Liberal Government of Canada. It has done a great disservice to the women of the country.

The concept is simple. It is about equal pay for work of equal value. Let us get on with the job at hand. Let us see some leadership from the government.