Debates of April 25th, 2002

Ethics Counsellor

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the truth. We learned through access to information that the finance minister may have never consulted with the ethics counsellor about his department's relationship with Jim Palmer, his Alberta bagman.

The ethics counsellor told us that he has no record of the minister asking for his advice on Mr. Palmer. The Prime Minister said that the case was closed. The finance minister invoked the ethics counsellor as his defence, yet the ethics counsellor, in a letter we received from him today, told us that he has no records on the matter.

Is anyone over there being honest on this issue?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested to read the letter.

[An hon. member]

Say when.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Well pass it over.

Mr. Wilson has made public statements regarding his review of the questions but the Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to see rules for these campaigns and we will do it.

However the opposite side of the House went through a leadership campaign which had no transparency and none of the contributors' names listed and they claim to want to be the next government. Who are they fooling?

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we requested from the ethics counsellor was a copy of the report prepared by the office of the ethics counsellor regarding the Minister of Finance and his Calgary lawyer, Jim Palmer.

The answer we received back from the ethics counsellor was “We have no records of any such transaction”.

My question is very straightforward. The finance minister defended himself by saying that he had been in touch with the ethics counsellor. Where are those records?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the ethics counsellor himself responded publicly to some of these allegations but the result is that we are no further ahead.

The issue really becomes: What declarations should there be of financial contributions. The Prime Minister has indicated that he believes there should be public declaration.

The party opposite claims that it wants to be in government. Who funded its leadership candidates? Does it believe in public disclosure? Does it believe in transparency or does it not?

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I simply ran for the leadership. What I did was step down from my position. I did not stay in a position of trust. That is ethics.

All we ask is that if anybody enters a leadership campaign he or she should step down as a cabinet minister. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that as the ethical standard?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, either the hon. member is declaring today that he never wishes to be a minister of the crown or he should perhaps disclose where his contributions came from. It is about transparency and openness and either the Alliance members believe in it or they do not.

Furthermore, the real issue here becomes: Why do they want to make accusations when they have no evidence of any personal wrongdoings. They are trumping things up for pure and simple political purposes.

Microbreweries

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

Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly legal for the husband of the member for London West to lobby for the major breweries. Generally speaking, it is equally acceptable for the member to chair the Standing Committee on Finance, except when a matter discussed has a direct impact on her husband's interests and on those of the industry he represents.

The member for London West should have withdrawn, as the Minister of Finance does when cabinet discusses shipbuilding, in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Could the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the guideline which applies to the Minister of Finance also applies to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the committee's legal counsel said that, unfortunately, beer was not included in the bill. That was the decision.

There is a procedure whereby a committee may raise a question concerning one of its decisions. They did not avail themselves of it.

This sort of attack on the personal integrity of the committee chair is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is shameful is pretending not to know that amendments were put forward so that beer could be considered in connection with the review of Bill C-47. But these amendments were rejected by the chair herself. That is what has us worried.

By using this twisted logic, is the government not taking the side of the big breweries to the detriment of microbreweries, when the person representing the former is the husband of the committee chair?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

All that happened was that a ruling was made. It was a legal matter. The committee clerk said that it was not votable. That was the decision. They may raise the issue and present their arguments. However, attacking the personal integrity of the chair is shameful.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's comments are totally, and I mean totally, unacceptable.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, using her authority as chair, dismissed all of the amendments that dealt with microbreweries. As such, she settled the big breweries' problem.

In leaving out microbreweries, was the committee chair not in a total conflict of interest when she used her authority to solve the problem of the big breweries, for whom her husband works as a lobbyist?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, we have already learned that this was the opinion of the committee clerk. This was a legal opinion on an issue involving the bill. It is perfectly simple.

What is not acceptable is the member for Roberval's idea that a woman is the property of her husband.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in making such a statement, the Deputy Prime Minister just stooped to an intellectual level that I shall not describe.

What I said yesterday, and what I maintain today, is that when a person with parliamentary authority makes decisions that help the group for which her husband is a lobbyist, it is a conflict of interest. That is what I said, and I stand by that statement.

I dare him to rise and repeat what he just said.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, a passage from Macbeth applies here: “full of sound and fury signifying nothing”.

It is simply wrong. There is no conflict of interest. This is a political attack against the integrity of the committee chair, despite the legal opinion of the clerk.

The Environment

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and it has to do with the way in which the government's message on Kyoto has mutated from several months ago when it assured us that it would ratify and implement Kyoto. Now the government is offering a number of reasons why it cannot ratify Kyoto unless it has provincial permission.

Given the fact that we have an excellent study called the “ Bottom Line on Kyoto: Economic Benefits of Canadian Action”, why is the Government of Canada appearing to allow the government of Alberta and Premier Klein to veto the Kyoto accord? Who is running the country here?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question of any provincial premier vetoing the decision of the federal government with respect to the ratification of any international agreements.

The report referred to by the hon. member is a very useful part of the discussion on the issue of ratification and on the benefits that could occur through ratification and through taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but that was not a Government of Canada study. We are awaiting the federal-provincial-territorial working group, which is expected to report early next month.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of the Environment feels that the Kyoto accord is of such benefit why is the government not prepared to do this despite what the government of Alberta thinks?

With respect to another province, the province of Ontario and the privatization of Ontario Hydro, what is the government's view of the effect that this privatization might have on keeping commitments like the Kyoto accord; the temptation to burn coal, for instance, because it is cheaper on the part of the private sector?

Are there any studies that the federal government has done on the privatization of Ontario Hydro and what is the government's position on the privatization of Ontario Hydro?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the ownership of any facility producing power, the ownership is not the issue for the Government of Canada. The issue is whether or not they meet the requirements of the agreements that we have with respect to pollution or emissions.

With respect to Ontario, I can repeat that while we were pleased with the decision by the Ontario government to make some reductions on the emissions from the power plants owned by the Ontario government, they do not achieve the goals that we have set. We expect the Ontario power plants, regardless of who owns them, to go further in terms of reducing emissions.

National Defence

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has called the leaks and dents on the used submarines a minor problem. Also, the minister has stated that the subs were inspected before they were purchased and that he will table any such inspection reports in the House.

Could the minister inform the House today whether he is aware of any other serious technical or physical problems with these four submarines the government has purchased?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to express appreciation to all members of the House for the approval of the motion from the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton with respect to an annual Canadian forces day.

With respect to the specific question, as I indicated yesterday, what information is appropriate to file we will file. The leak has been fixed. The dent is a minor matter. It will in fact be fixed.

The inspections were carried out initially by the royal navy when it took possession of the submarines and subsequently by both of our navies when they were put back in service.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it will cost millions and millions of dollars to fix the dent.

Could the minister confirm that every single hull valve on the HMCS Victoria may have to be replaced, costing millions and millions of dollars? Furthermore, it has come to my attention just this week that at least three of the four subs have potential metal fatigue which could cause catastrophic flooding.

Did the British advise the government of these problems? Could the minister also tell us what the total cost will be?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the dent, the hon. member continues to exaggerate. She says that it will cost millions and millions of dollars. It is estimated at less than $400,000. If in fact it turns out to be something we inherited when the boats were turned over to us, then of course we will put in an appropriate claim.

Leadership Campaigns

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, where is transparency when we need it?

Joe Thornley owns a company that has a standard contract to provide communications advice to Heritage Canada. Now Joe Thornley is organizing fundraising events for the heritage minister's leadership bid.

If this is not improper use of public funds, if this is not government corruption, what is?