Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2002

Solicitor General of Canada

[The Speaker]

The right Hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to the report of the ethics counsellor. Would he, following the practices of the House, table that report in the House of Commons?

Would he also undertake to ask the Auditor General to conduct a full forensic audit of the activities that have been discussed in the House relating to the solicitor general and his behaviour which has led to the report by the ethics counsellor and led to his resignation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said in my reply to the solicitor general that I agreed with him, that he had done absolutely nothing wrong and that he had defended the people of P.E.I. He defended the interests of the people of this little province who needed help from the federal government, but in the interest of good governance, he did not want to create the impression that he was fighting for his seat. He will be fighting for his honour. He has been a great minister and I am proud that he served in my cabinet.

The Environment

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the environment commissioner said in a report today about contaminated sites, and I quote, “This government does not have the firm commitment and leadership, and an action plan essential to timely clean up of high-risk contaminated sites”.

The government has been judged and been found wanting. Why should Canadians give the government a blank cheque for Kyoto when it has been proven incompetent at cleaning up real environmental problems?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that the problem of climate change is a real environmental problem. It is true it is a long term issue but it is a very important one.

I would suggest to him also that he read the Speech from the Throne in which it is clearly indicated that the government intends to have new initiatives to deal with contaminated sites, and I welcome his party's willingness to ensure that funds are available for that purpose.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is great on words but little on action. That is really what the commissioner said today.

The environment commissioner said that she has huge concerns that we have a huge environmental deficit which we are leaving for future generations. The deficit is resulting in declining fish stocks, polluted air sheds, contaminated sites and the mishandling of toxic substances.

Kyoto will not address any one of these problems and any of the others today. Why is the government about to ratify Kyoto when it has failed miserably on environmental issues which are affecting the health of Canadians today?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, once more I suggest that the hon. member consider some of the short term issues and some of the long term issues. The fact is that climate change is a fundamental long term issue on such things as fish stocks. I would point this out to him.

I would also point out to him that, while we accept and appreciate the work of the commissioner, the fact is that the world economic council sustainability index on quality of the environment, air, water, biodiversity and land, puts Canada number one in the world.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs recognized that Algeria was still an unsafe country, yet the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that the lifting of the moratorium on deportations:

--reflects the conclusions of our assessment that there is no risk to citizens of Algeria who are removed.

Will the Prime Minister tell us which of these positions most closely reflects his policy: that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Who is right?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the assessment that was done was based on an in-depth study. Incidentally, Canada is not the only country to have lifted its moratorium in the case of Algeria; so have France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister decided to intervene in the Seddiki case in Montreal and to suspend the deportation order, preferring, apparently, a case-by-case approach.

What we are looking for from the minister is consistency. On the one hand, the government is saying that a Canadian child of Algerian parents should avoid the country, yet it is saying the opposite to the parents by deporting them.

Does this example of inconsistency not justify reimposing the moratorium as soon as possible?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be extremely cautious in my comments on this case.

First, from the outset, I have said that our role is to stabilize the system, to find the right balance between openness and vigilance.

We want to take the case-by-case approach because we are against a blanket amnesty, but we are also against blanket deportation. However, we will study each case individually. Based on information I have received, I feel that I should look into this further. When the time is right, we will provide the needed information.

Solicitor General of Canada

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we just had the highly unusual exercise of being informed indirectly about the resignation of a minister, a minister we are now told was the greatest and most honest minister--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We have to be able to hear the question and somebody has to be able to answer it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor. We will want to hear the question.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

We would think, Mr. Speaker, if they had a ministerial resignation to announce, it would be announced, not heard back in the lobby on Newsworld .

My question is simple. Since this is, according to the Prime Minister, the most honest minister in cabinet, would he agree to table the report on the former solicitor general's activities by the ethics counsellor?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to say that I am not public when I come in and announce it in the House of Commons. I should be appreciated for that. I was waiting for a question and they were not preoccupied with that.

We have made public the letter that was sent to me and my reply, and the correspondence between him and the ethics counsellor. I received the report from the ethics counsellor. He is a counsellor to me. When he is advising me, the ministers, the members of parliament or bureaucrats, these communications are privileged between the adviser and the Prime Minister.

Ethics

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we are establishing a new tradition that the members of cabinet remain secret unless we ask about the latest changes.

This scandal dragged on for three weeks with considerable damage to the government. Does the Prime Minister admit that we could avoid this kind of thing in the future if he would agree to the opposition's longstanding demands, to his own 1993 election promise, and agree to have a fully independent ethics commissioner?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year I announced in the House of Commons in a speech that I was proceeding with a package on ethics. It will be introduced tomorrow in the House of Commons by the Deputy Prime Minister.

We have worked on it during the summer and in the last weeks. We are ready, and tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister will introduce it in the House of Commons.

Taxation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's mismanagement in the matter of the mistake at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will cost Quebec nearly $500 million this year, and in excess of $2 billion over the next decade. While Ontario will refund only part of the overpayment over a 10-year period starting only in 2005, Quebec must pay back immediately.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to reconsider his decision in this matter, and does he intend to show Quebec the same flexibility he showed Ontario regarding the overpayment refund?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have a procedure for these kinds of situations, so that all the provinces are treated in a fair and equitable manner. Where Quebec is concerned, they do not have a single cent to pay back; so, it is not much of a problem for them.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister of Finance explain this different treatment for the various provinces when it was his government's mistake? The government is the one responsible for the problem.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there was an error. It was identified by the Auditor General. Where Quebec is concerned, however, instead of asking for $600 million to be paid back, we found a way not to ask the Province of Quebec for a single penny. It can therefore take 10 years, if it so desires, to pay back not a single cent.

Government Contracts

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister justified swiftly dumping the former defence minister by saying he could not give contracts to his friends. Obviously it pays to be a political ally of the Prime Minister. The former solicitor general did exactly that. He awarded a $140,000 contract to a friend, and yet the Prime Minister stands in the House and defends the former solicitor general.

What is the difference between what the former defence minister did and what the former solicitor general did?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. The contract was with the former deputy minister, Mr. Nicholson. It was done according to all Treasury Board requirements. The ethics counsellor said that nothing at all in this transaction was against the rules or in conflict of interest.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stood in the House and suggested that the former solicitor general was the most honest of all the cabinet ministers on the front row. That is a sad commentary on the front row of this Liberal government.

When can the Canadian public expect then further resignations or, at least, when can we expect the Prime Minister to table the report of the ethics counsellor report here in Parliament?