Lost his last election, in 2008, with 16% of the vote.
Trade February 26th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister.
We are hearing all sorts of things about what triggered this trade dispute between Canada and Brazil. During the three weeks spent in Brazil, did anyone ask the Brazilians why they omitted or refused to complete the questionnaire that the Government of Canada needed? Is there an answer to that question?
Trade February 26th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a few hours after the United States lifted its ban on Brazilian beef imports, Canada decided to do the same.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell the House if, at that time, he had received all the answers to the infamous questionnaire that triggered this quasi trade war between Brazil and Canada?
Business Development Bank Of Canada February 13th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is up to his neck in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
He made improper use of his prerogative as Prime Minister by intervening directly with the federal Business Development Bank of Canada. He made improper use of his prerogative as Prime Minister by intervening to change the head of the BDC. He made improper use of his prerogative as Prime Minister by intervening directly in a matter that was indirectly in his own personal interest. He made improper use of his prerogative as Prime Minister by not ensuring that the shares he held until 1999 were put in trust. Why?
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the person appointed be independent from the House.
We cannot bet on that, but unfortunately I am sure that, having acted like he did since 1993, the Prime Minister will not put his head on the log by appointing an independent ethics counsellor not reporting to his office.
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and congratulate him for having a nice mother-in-law. That being said, I want to point out that the Prime Minister is not just another member of parliament, and nor should he be.
As a member of parliament I cannot designate my chief of operations as the new vice-president of the Business Development Bank of Canada. I cannot call Jean Carle, who has worked in my office for some time and tell him that I have made him the new vice-president of the Business Development Bank of Canada. I cannot do that.
Even with all the credibility a Conservative member has, I cannot call the president of the BDC and tell him “I want to see you at my place, at 206 Brault Street, in Asbestos”. I do not think he would show up. It is not the same thing.
Of course it is quite an honour to have a premier or a Prime Minister as the member of parliament for one's riding. Does it come with some perks? The Prime Minister should be clear on this issue.
A certain amount of reserve should be exercised. If we look at the way the Prime Minister has been acting since 1993, we see that he has appointed a number of his friends to key positions. He has acted on his own. He will then be able to tell them what to do. That is what is going on.
This is why it is so important to have an independent ethics counsellor. There is a cloud hovering over the Prime Minister Office because of his involvement in crown corporations, federal programs, and so on, which is why we need an independent person to investigate.
Some may argue that an opposition member may not be fair enough to pass judgment on a prime minister, and they may be right. However an ethics counsellor appointed by the House and accountable to the House will be independent enough to clarify the whole issue.
The Prime Minister is not just another member of parliament. Unfortunately our current Prime Minister is nothing like the prime ministers we had before him.
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
I will start by making a few brief comments. Following the government House leader's procedural stunt, the debate seemed to cool down, except perhaps that our colleague from the New Democratic Party managed to heat it up a bit.
We got tripped up by procedural considerations on the appropriateness of an amendment and an amendment to an amendment. In my humble opinion, we are ignoring the purpose of the motion under consideration.
Of course, we can talk about the promise broken by the Liberals in 1993. We are used to that. However, the real reason we have this motion before us today is because of the Auberge Grand-Mère issue. Nor must we must dismiss the Canadian Alliance's desire to bring forward a motion about the ethics counsellor, because the Auberge Grand-Mère affair is a case in point.
The real debate must be centred on the Prime Minister, the ethics counsellor and a specific affair or affairs that have led to this debate.
When we look at the facts, we are told “You know, the Prime Minister did his job as an MP”. There is a big difference between the prerogatives of a Prime Minister and those of an ordinary MP. It is not the same thing at all.
Finally, what we want today is to know exactly what happened. We only get snippets of information about what the Prime Minister did in this affair.
When the Prime Minister called the president of the Business Development Bank and told him “Drop by 24 Sussex; we have to talk”, it was clearly not to congratulate him. Then he told the president “Look here, there is a loan application. You have to see to it. Understood?” Suddenly the loan is approved. Soon after there is a default of payment. Something is wrong.
The president of the bank says “Listen, we must call in the loan”. He gets a phone call from the Prime Minister who asks “What is going on?” He replies “They are not making any payments, so I have to call in the loan”. It is a Business Development Bank policy, but this is not how it worked.
A little while later, Mr. Beaudoin was moved out of the Business Development Bank. He got pushed out and the loan was not called in.
I hope the Prime Minister does take care of his riding. However, at one point, the prerogative of a Prime Minister should implicitly and explicitly require a certain amount of reserve, beyond what would be required of an ordinary member. I am not the Prime Minister, but he acted wrongly in this case, he acted very wrongly. That is what we say when we blame the Prime Minister.
As far as the ethics counsellor is concerned, we would like to know what data, what discussion, what evidence brought him to absolve the Prime Minister. Whom did he speak to? Over a two day period, he did not have time to meet with too many people. What evidence was his decision based on? Is he well informed about the whole issue? Did he speak with the representatives of the Business Development Bank? The answer is no.
After two days, he replied: “Everything is fine. I am reacting rapidly because this is an urgent matter. The urgency justifies a thorough analysis of the issue”.
We are asking for the truth, the whole truth. Did the ethics counsellor do his job properly in this case? This is an important case, because the office of Prime Minister deserves respect.
However, if we are to respect the person who holds that office, we must have reasons to do so.
We are told that we keep accusing the Prime Minister. Give us good reasons not to do so, and we will stop. Let the Prime Minister have the ethics counsellor meet with members of parliament. Let him have a good talk with the elected representatives of the Canadians. That is not too much to ask. Does he need the permission of the big boss? Let the big boss tell him to meet members on both sides of the House. We will ask him with whom he had discussions on this issue. Will his answer be “The Prime Minister? I had coffee with him”. That is not good enough. We must go deeper than that.
Once again, the reason we are having this debate today is the questionable conduct of the Prime Minister, who, among other things, approached directly the president of a bank. It is cloudy, and this had nothing to do with the storm that is coming tomorrow.
It is getting quite cloudy on the government's side, concerning the role of the Prime Minister. The best way out of these problems, the best way to bring sunshine back in the Prime Minister's Office and his function is to free from political limitations the person whose role it is to check the conduct of elected officials, Prime Minister included, and let the ethics counsellor be more open.
The ethics counsellor is a good guy, but François Beaudoin, of the Business Development Bank, is a good guy too. Unfortunately he did not do exactly as told by the Prime Minister's Office, so he is gone.
The ethics counsellor must like his work, and I can understand. He probably does not want to frustrate his big boss. That is why we are asking that the counsellor's code of ethics be improved. He should be made independent. The only way for him to be totally independent is to report to parliament as a whole, and not to a group, a party or an individual. That is the way things should be.
The Auberge Grand-Mère issue will no go away as long as the Prime Minister refuses to be more open. It will not go away until the Prime Minister allows the ethics counsellor to meet with us.
Let us not delude ourselves. Something fishy has prompted today's opposition day motion. Parliament should take all action necessary to ensure that the positions of Prime Minister and ethics counsellor are respectable and respected ones.
Human Resources Development February 7th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember certain facts concerning the Prime Minister and Auberge Grand-Mère.
In 1996-97, the Prime Minister made representations to the Federal Business Development Bank on behalf of Yvon Duhaime. The application for the initial $3.5 million loan had been rejected. Later, following the meeting held at 24 Sussex Drive between the Prime Minister and the president of the bank, the loan was approved.
In September 1999, François Beaudoin, the president of the bank, left his position. During the course of legal proceedings, he admitted to having been forced to resign, following his suggestion that the loan granted to Auberge Grand-Mère be recalled.
The Progressive Conservative Party will not be muzzled. The Prime Minister and his government are asking us not to point the finger.
If the Prime Minister conducted himself properly, he will show transparency and ask, among other things, the ethics counsellor to table in the House a complete report on how he conducted his investigation regarding this issue, before drafting his findings.
Asbestos Industry February 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election as Speaker of the House. I also want to thank the residents of Richmond—Arthabaska for having made history in their own way.
That said, the asbestos industry has often been denigrated, usually in an exaggerated way.
Government standards for the chrysotile asbestos industry are not strict, consistent and accurate enough. For example, the 0.1% standard for construction work is neither measurable nor scientifically verifiable. This creates a problem for those who work in that industry.
Simply put, the regulatory provisions generate confusion and are harmful to the asbestos industry. Let us look at what is being done on the Hill with regard to buildings.
The federal government, which is a great protector of the asbestos industry on the international scene, would greatly improve its credibility if it became a facilitator, along with its provincial partners, to implement scientific methods of analysis to determine the standards relating to the use of chrysotile asbestos.
It is with the hope of seeing a true desire on the government's part to protect the interests of the asbestos industry that I join the provincial MNA for Richmond, Yvon Vallières, in asking my government to make representations to its provincial partners so as to arrive at an agreement establishing realistic standards.
Human Resources Development January 31st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister explain to this House the link between the suspicious circumstances surrounding the loan to Auberge Grand-Mère, an issue with which he is very familiar, and the fact that the Federal Business Development Bank has had three different chairmen over an 18 month period, which is also something the Prime Minister is well aware of?
Peacekeeping October 17th, 2000
Madam Speaker, this evening, two ministers started off this debate, and I would like to pay tribute to the tenacity of the Minister of National Defence, who has remained with us. It is greatly appreciated.
This evening we are to debate and vote on the deployment of troops with our allies from the Netherlands to a corner of the world we rarely hear about, except from journalists who are braving the war to show it to us in the papers and on television. There were over 100,000 dead in two years.
It took some marketing and publicity to get the nations of the world to deal with this war. It is true that not all problems can be resolved; still, there are 100,000 dead.
There were one or two UN resolutions. Yet there are 100,000 dead. Why did intervention not come as quickly as in the case of Kosovo, for example? Was it because no aggressor could be identified? No one wanted to take sides. One hundred thousand dead. What lesson did we take from Rwanda in this? None. We have let things be. Men, women and children killed, massacred and tortured: 100,000 dead and we did not intervene.
I do not blame this government. I believe that all of parliament, all of Canada and all of the world must share the blame. But 100,000 dead, that is unbelievable. We moved more quickly in Kosovo. Why? Was it because economic interests justified a western presence there, while Canada has virtually no economic ties to that part of the African continent? Who knows?
I congratulate the government, however. My colleague from Saint John has always been ready to support any peacekeeping initiative by the government in power, while pointing out the budgetary complications.
I trust that the prayers of my colleague from Saint John for the men and women over there will be granted. I hope that the wishes of the Minister of National Defence will also come true: to get the funding necessary to really have a quality military force over there. That is our wish as well.
What I would like to point out is that there has not been enough said about this. No aggressor has been identified.
When I look at the various UN resolutions, whether it be 1312 or earlier ones, what I conclude is that as of July 31 the decision was made to send people to set up a human rights unit. There is a co-ordinator, and he or she—I do not know which—is going to look into the charges of atrocities, abuses, by either side. I think that is a good thing, to be honest.
When we send our men and women from Canada and from the Netherlands to that part of the world, there will also be people over there who will have to look into the charges and prepare files on them.
My question is this: are there going to be charges? Canada is a leader in international law. There has been Louise Arbour, and Canada has done a great deal. Yet the fact remains that 100,000 persons were killed over a two year period. Will charges be laid? My prediction is that, unfortunately, no charges will be laid.
If charges are laid on one side rather than the other, people will refuse to let the international community get involved. Who will deal with those who killed 100,000 men and women? A report will be prepared, but it will be hidden away, because those involved will feel that it is better not to accuse anyone than to resume the war.
It is like some bargaining negotiations that fail. They break everything in sight—I am not naming anyone—and then they say it is all right, as long as the strike comes to an end.
But here we are talking about human lives. I know that the government, parliament and all Canadians are receptive to that. We are leaders. If one commits a crime, there should be no haven for that person.
There are no havens, except that unfortunately in this specific case, those responsible for these atrocities will probably not be charged by the international criminal tribunal. It is not the fault of the Department of National Defence, not at all. I do not put the blame on the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. I cannot do that. It is a joint responsibility.
I hope the government will continue to exert proper pressure. I know the limitations of international diplomacy. I know that when we sign a treaty or a peace agreement, we must make sacrifices.
Under international law, will rounding up those responsible for atrocities be part of the peace negotiations? If so, all of the work Canada, other countries and Madam Justice Arbour have done will be for naught. It is said that 100,000 people were massacred in this war between two countries alone. Millions and millions of people have been massacred and mutilated in Africa, and the west has done nothing. I am not talking about the rest of the world; I am talking about the African continent. To get something done, journalists equipped with cameras would have to be sent to every corner of every country on the African continent.
That said, I draw attention to the efforts by the minister of defence. However, it is said that there can be no negotiation with terrorists. But sometimes, negotiation is necessary. Should we negotiate with the people responsible for the massacres? For peace, perhaps.
If we say perhaps, we scrap all the efforts at ensuring accountability in international law. I know that the people in the government know this. They know very well that the people in this party also know about the basic right that applies to the world as a whole, which is the right to life. When this right is taken away, international law must come into play.
I join with my colleague from Saint John in the hope that the men and women who will be there will be absolutely safe and that the six month mandate is a success. It will probably be renewed with other countries. Canada has a truly magnificent international reputation.
On this side of the House, in this party, we support this initiative of the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the government to have Canada maintain and in fact increase its credibility and not simply observe massacres or the aftermath of war and indeed be a country that ensures peace ahead of any armed conflict.