Debates of April 5th, 2001

Prime Minister

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

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister ordered Liberal MPs to vote against the wishes of the majority of their constituents, and vote against an independent inquiry. He has also declared open season on directors of public commissions. A few weeks ago he actually ordered his MPs to vote against their own promise in terms of voting against having an ethics commissioner.

The very checks and balances that are needed to maintain democracy are constantly being subdued by the Prime Minister. Will he not do the right thing and, in spite of the forced vote last night, ask for an independent inquiry and restore the faith—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is absolutely tired of the personal attacks from the opposition. They want the opposition to start dealing with the real business of the nation.

Members of my caucus voted yesterday as members of a caucus. I was not present because I wanted them to express their personal views. I am very grateful they all voted the way they did on the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, he said that he did not want to have anything to do with it and that he wanted his MPs to express their own views. Is he telling us that nobody from his office or the whip's office communicated to the MPs at all in terms of telling them to vote against the majority of their constituents last night? Yes or no. He had nothing to do, the whip had nothing to do and nobody told MPs how to vote. Is that true?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my MPs and I am the leader of a party of which I am very proud.

The one thing I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition is that when a member calls the Prime Minister of Canada, Milosevic, and is backed by the member's leader, it is the most disgraceful thing I have ever heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, if that is where he wants to go, he did not answer, yes or no, so that was very instructive to Canadians. He did not answer again.

It was the former Clerk of the Privy Council who served under Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Gordon Robertson, who literally wrote the book on ethics. He recently said that the Prime Minister had lowered the bar.

Now, with the quashing of a public inquiry and these constant orders to their MPs to vote against their constituents, he has dropped the bar even farther. We are wondering how far this Liberal limbo will go.

The Prime Minister has lowered the bar on public ethics. Is this the legacy that he is happy about leaving to Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, because the Leader of the Opposition had foot in mouth disease he forced taxpayers of Alberta to pay $700,000. After that there was a payback to his party by the law firm of $70,000. Two months after this action by the law firm, it cooked the books to pretend that one individual, two months after the election, willingly gave $70,000 to a losing leader and a losing party. It is absolutely unbelievable and probably scandalous.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not to mention the $2.5 million the taxpayers kicked in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the question. The hon. member for Edmonton North has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, what about the $2.5 million for airbus and $45 million for Pearson? That is quite a chunk of change.

Yesterday we asked the industry minister a question about Jonas Prince. It involved his legal responsibility for the Business Development Bank and the Export Development Corporation.

Today I would like an answer to my question. Has Mr. Prince or any of his companies received any direct or indirect funding from Industry Canada, the Business Development Bank or the Export Development Corporation?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to look into the question that has been raised and report back to the House at the first opportunity.

Let me say to the member opposite that everybody in Canada is waiting for the Leader of the Opposition and for the foreign affairs critic to issue an apology for comparing the Prime Minister of Canada to the butcher of the Balkans. This is lower than low. It demands an apology and it should be issued without delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister to stay tuned.

The question was very simple and it concerned Mr. Prince or any of his companies. The minister said that he would look into it. He has had 24 hours to look into it. This same question was raised yesterday.

Again, there could be some link. We do not know that but we want the minister to look into it. We are not asking for the release of any information. We just want the minister to tell us whether Jonas Prince or his companies received any direct or indirect government funding.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, today at the Museum of Civilization an expedition has been mounted. It is a very important one. It covers the fishery of Canada. A particular segment of it has been dedicated to the greatest fishing expedition ever in the history of this country that turned up nothing. It is dedicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, another contradiction cropped up yesterday in the Grand-Mère golf club and Auberge Grand-Mère affair.

The Prime Minister claimed in this House that he had not read the September 1999 agreement until last week. Yet when the ethics counsellor—or the so-called ethics counsellor—testified before the standing committee on industry, his reply to my question as to whether the Prime Minister was directly involved in the negotiation was “Oh yes, he was directly involved in the negotiation”.

I would like to know whom we are to believe, the Prime Minister who tells us he was not aware, or the ethics counsellor who says “Oh yes, he was directly involved in the negotiation”.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have said it clearly and I repeat: I saw the document in question only last week.

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

So, Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has, I take it, not exactly told us the truth.

In actual fact, however, whether the Prime Minister read the document or did not read the document makes no difference. The document exists and is signed by his company. In this document we find that the Prime Minister renounces all ownership rights which means he had such rights. Also, that he offers a seller's guarantee which means he had something to sell. What is more, he makes a commitment to pay the legal costs of the purchaser, Michaud. What big-heartedness.

If all this is not a conflict of interest, what is it?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what it is is the tabling of a document. That document is the contract of a sale that took place on November 1, 1993. And after that date I was no longer the owner of the shares. I no longer had any interest whatsoever in the golf club.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not admit that it is rather odd, for those watching in the habit of doing transactions, to have a person who sold property in 1993 end up six years later a signatory to a document giving the vendor's guarantee, promising to assume the legal costs and transferring his property rights.

How does he explain that?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the most surprising thing is that the opposition has absolutely nothing to say about the administration of this government.

I signed a contract on November 1, 1993 and I disposed of my shares.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is setting himself up as judge and jury in this matter. He is deciding on his own that there is no problem, that the opposition need not get in a state.

I put the following question to him. When the opposition has documents, including a contract signed in 1999 which incriminates him up to here, how can the Prime Minister think there are matters more important than the integrity of the Prime Minister to all those watching?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know very well the Prime Minister of Canada. Next week will mark 38 years I have served this country as an MP.

It was in fact to avoid any conflict of interest that I sold my shares before becoming Prime Minister, that is, a few days before I was sworn in on November 1, 1993.

The Environment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, Canada was a world leader on environmental issues.

But yesterday, the Minister of the Environment more or less confirmed that Canada will not be ratifying the Kyoto accord because of NAFTA and its trade relationship with the United States.

Will the Prime Minister explain to us why Canada has changed its position on the Kyoto accord?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is absolutely clear. We intend to implement the Kyoto accord and we hope that all countries in the world, including the United States, will respect the agreement which was reached.

For our part, we believe that Canada is entitled to count on so-called sinks in the Kyoto accord and also to be given credit for the fact that we are a very large exporter of non-polluting resources vis-à-vis the United States. We want these credits to be recognized for Canada, but we intend to respect the Kyoto accord.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians recognize backtracking and waffling when they see it. They are concerned about it with respect to Kyoto and with respect to the protection of our water.

In the last parliament, government members actually voted for a ban on the export of bulk water. Yesterday the Prime Minister opened the door on the very opposite.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister to explain. Why has he flip-flopped on something as fundamentally important to Canadians as our water?