Val Meredith

[Ethics Counsellor, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry told me that consent of the golf club partners to release their letter was given only at 4.30 p.m., after Mr. Wilson had finished testifying on the golf club.

The law firm has confirmed to us that it sent the letter to Industry Canada earlier in the morning and were only called back for permission to release the letter at three o'clock. That permission was granted no later than 3.40 p.m., before the questioning on the Grand-Mère had begun.

Why was this evidence withheld by the Minister of Industry and the ethics counsellor in the committee?

[Ethics Counsellor, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party did not have to pay Mulroney's lawyers $2 million.

The conflict of interest code is clear. A public office holder cannot even participate in a discussion about his blind trust until after the ethics counsellor has been consulted. Yet in January 1996 it was the Prime Minister who phoned the ethics counsellor to inform him that the sale had fallen through.

How was it possible for the Prime Minister to know that the sale of the shares had fallen through without being in violation of the conflict of interest code?

[Ethics Counsellor, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why there were cheap theatrics last night when the minister tried to interrupt and disrupt the voting for this letter.

I would like to know how it was possible for this letter to be translated and for copies to be made if it was received in the timeframe the minister gave us.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ethics counsellor received clearance, as he put it, to release the letter from the lawyer, coincidentally right at the end of the meeting yesterday.

However he had the letter in hand during the meeting. He even had time to have it translated and have copies made. How convenient that the ethics counsellor was instructed to release the letter at the end of the meeting. Was the tabling of the letter orchestrated by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Industry?

[Softwood Lumber, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who has led the attack on the Canadian softwood lumber industry, now claims that lax Canadian forestry practices and environmental protection amount to a subsidy for Canadian producers.

Canada does not have to take a back seat to anyone in the world in forest management. Unlike their American counterparts, our foresters can actually light a controlled fire without burning the entire state of New Mexico. Did anyone hear Senator Baucus object when imported Canadian firefighters spent last summer saving the forests in his home state?

As for the environment, not only does British Columbia contain designated parkland that is almost the size of the entire state of Montana, we have many species of wildlife, which have been driven to extinction in the American west. If Senator Baucus is truly concerned about endangered species, perhaps he should try—

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of over 600 parents from across Canada who are concerned with the extreme violence and sexual content that is on television.

The petitioners are asking parliament to urge the media and CRTC to act the same as parents and representatives of parents to reduce the sexual and violent content contained in the media.

[Criminal Code, March 2nd, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife).

Madam Speaker, this bill is an attempt to make the killing or capturing of wildlife and wildlife parts an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

I want to make it clear that the bill would not apply to acts carried out with a licence, permit or exemption order. The bill is not meant to replace provincial wildlife laws but rather to complement them.

I see the bill as dealing only with the most serious offences in the same manner that the criminal code is used for the most serious driving offences. It has become apparent that provincial laws are not a sufficient deterrent to deal with the multimillion dollar illegal trade in animal parts.

The bill would give provincial wildlife authorities and crown counsel the option to proceed by way of provincial wildlife legislation or the new section of the criminal code. Anyone who is convicted of an offence under this section would be guilty of an indictable offence and subject to a maximum two year sentence for a first offence and three years of incarceration for a subsequent offence. If the animal in question is a threatened or endangered species, the maximum sentence is four years for a first offence and eight years for subsequent offences.

The legislation would include such activity as an enterprise crime so it would be subject to the proceeds of crime section of the code.

It is very important that we make every effort to protect endangered species and animals from the misuse and abuse of hunting and fishing as we know it. People are making extremely large amounts of money by poaching and by illegally killing or capturing species that are sometimes endangered. We need to do more to see that it stops.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Ethics Counsellor, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that we ask harder questions than the lapdog of the Prime Minister.

It is interesting how things have changed over the last 15 years. Fifteen years ago members of this cabinet were jumping and leaping over tables to enforce the conflict of interest rules. Now they think it is okay to ignore them.

The Prime Minister obviously involved himself in discussions about his blind trust, which is a clear violation of the code. The Liberals over there think that is just fine.

I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister—

[Ethics Counsellor, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we can read the conflict of interest code. It is quite clear to us. Let me quote from it. The conflict of interest code states:

The public office holder cannot—participate in any discussion—that may particularly or significantly affect the assets that are subject to the agreement.

How is it possible that the Prime Minister even knew that the shares in his golf course had reverted back to him if he had not participated in a discussion about them?

[Ethics Counsellor, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed that he had followed all of the conflict of interest rules and turned everything over to his trustee.

However, on January 27, 1996, it was not the trustee who contacted the ethics counsellor, as it should have been, it was the Prime Minister himself.

Under the terms of the blind trust agreement, the Prime Minister should not even have known about the problem with his shares.

Why was the Prime Minister involving himself with his blind trust, in direct violation of the conflict of interest code?