TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, May 6, 1994
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 3983
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3983
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3991
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 3993
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 3993
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3995
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3995
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3996
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3996
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3996
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3996
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3996
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3996
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3997
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3997
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3998
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3998
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3998
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3998
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3999
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3999
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4001
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4002
Bill C-246. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4002
Bill C-247. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4003
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4003
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and of amendment. 4004
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4012
Consideration resumed of motion 4015
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4019
3983
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 6, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning
the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester
B. Pearson International Airport be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to begin by
giving a short preamble to our viewers who are watching and
wondering why we are working on this amendment. I think it is
appropriate to read from Hansard the opposition amendment.
The Bloc amendment effectively states that this House should
decline to give second reading to Bill C-22, an act respecting
certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation
of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport,
because the principle of the bill is flawed due to the fact that it
contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by
lobbyists more transparent.
I will go right to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-22. Under the
heading ``No Compensation'', clause 9 states:
No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with
the coming into force of this act.
(1005)
Clause 10(2)(a) and (b) states:
No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in
relation to
(a) any loss of profit, or
(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the
meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act.
I do not think it could have been stated any more clearly that
any activity related to the lobbying on the Pearson airport
contract will not have any remuneration at all.
The Bloc motion also calls for an inquiry which is a delay
tactic. It is not going to put this file to rest and will not allow us
to deal with the real problems at the airport in Toronto.
First, Canadians clearly know that we in the government, we
in the Liberal Party did not support the Pearson development
contract. It was cancelled immediately. However because we
cancelled that contract, it does not mean we are opposed to
redeveloping and reworking the Pearson International Airport.
Going back over the last 10 years, we were dealing with a
Conservative government that had this ideological thrust to
dismantle everything around here. It offloaded to the provinces;
it offloaded to the private sector. The last 10 years was like fire
sale city. This was that government's last attempt to have a fire
sale of the most profitable organization in the Government of
Canada, the Pearson International Airport.
Much of the good work the management of Pearson airport
accomplished over the years was tainted by this whole exercise.
We want to put this file to rest now so that we can come back at it
from square one. Does that mean we are going to go out and do
the same deal over again with a different set of lobbyists? No.
In fact there are Bloc members over there who have suggested
from time to time that there were Liberal lobbyists involved in
this transaction. That is a fact.
It is a well known fact that all the lobby firms in Ottawa do not
have just Conservative lobbyists. They have Conservatives,
Liberals and NDP. In fact they even have a couple of lobbyists
who work on the Reform Party, but I do not know about the Bloc.
An hon. member: No lobbyists for the Reform Party.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): No lobbyists for the
Reform Party. Okay.
The Deputy Speaker: As the hon. parliamentary secretary
knows very well, we were supposed to avoid these kinds of
across the floor sword waving. If the member would please put
his remarks to the Chair, it will avoid getting blood on the rug, so
to speak.
3984
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, my
humble apologies. It must be Friday morning. I think the House
is getting to me this week, but I will be going home to my
constituency soon.
(1010 )
The problem in the Toronto area is that we have about 600,000
people out of work. It is serious because Toronto has never
before been on its economic knees the way it has been in the last
two years.
I am speaking on behalf of all members from Toronto at this
moment. We talk among ourselves and we rack our brains on
how we can get our city going again. Toronto has always been
generous to every region in Canada and is happy to do it.
Do not think for a second that a lot of us were not tempted to
move ahead with this project because it created a lot of jobs. We
knew however that the contract the Conservatives had was not in
the best interests of all of Canada. A lot of the money that was
made at the Pearson International Airport, unlike other airports
in Canada, was used to subsidize the smaller regions of Canada
where the little local airports could not stand on their own two
feet.
It is very important when we look at Toronto that we do not
compare it to the local airport authority in Vancouver. This is a
national airport. The profits and the cash flow from this airport
service the country.
There was a lot of temptation for us to say: ``Wow, this is
about a job creation project for 2,000 people'', but in the
interests of Canada we said no. The Prime Minister, the caucus
and the cabinet said we are not striking this deal.
What do we have to do now? We have to revitalize that airport.
It invites tourists here, trade shows, people that want to invest
not just in Toronto but in every region of our country and we
must revitalize it. We have to get it going, but we have to get it
going in the interests not just of a handful of developers, and not
just in the interests of a few lobbyists.
By the way, I have a lot of friends who are in the lobby
business. Yes, I do. I can tell you there have been many times
when we have had tough debates on this, but I have always been
consistent. I believe in a strong national government.
We have to put this piece of legislation to bed. We have to
finish it off. Then we can put people who look at the macro
picture of Canada in place to start revitalizing this airport.
I appeal to all members. If you want a good discussion on
lobbyists then stand by and wait for the lobbyists registration
act. It is going to be coming before this House in the not too
distant future. It will be in committee and we can have a good
solid constructive debate.
Do not think for a second that we on this side of the House do
not share a lot of your views on the way the lobby industry went
up by 10,000 per cent in the last 10 years. Many of us who were
MPs in the last government felt that the lobbyists around this
town had more influence and more power than even the cabinet.
If you think for a second that all of a sudden we are going to look
the other way, we are going to have a very transparent
constructive piece of lobbyists registration legislation.
Everyone knows I have always been emphatic about the fact
that tourism is one of the greatest job creators in this country.
Linked to tourism is the fact that our transportation instruments
must be healthy and must represent the type of community and
country we have. Nowhere is Pearson more important than in the
tourism industry. Therefore I am asking members from all
regions to put this bill through the next phases quickly so we can
get on with the business of revitalizing the Toronto market.
(1015)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me real pleasure today to speak to the issue of Bill C-22 on
behalf of the Reform Party of Canada. I am pleased because it is
always a pleasure to expose the facts about a bad deal, but also
because it gives me an opportunity to show how the Reform
Party presents a better option for Canadian voters than the old
line parties, the Liberals and Conservatives.
I want to describe something for my attentive audience in the
Chamber today and those across the nation who are listening in.
I want to tell my audience about one aspect of how a political
party is organized and the major problems that this sometimes
engenders.
The old line parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, are
nearly as old as Canada itself. Even before 1867 they were loose
political alliances based on culture and other associations.
When we look at the ideology of the two main parties they
believe much the same things.
Both parties believe in the great concepts of democracy, the
rule of law, the parliamentary system and the general viability of
the free enterprise system. Both parties, at least until a few
months ago, were national parties. Both have elected English
and French Canadian Prime Ministers. In fact there are so many
likenesses that a person not acquainted with this country might
ask what makes them different.
There is one telling difference. I would describe a political
party as a circle of friends committed to a common political
purpose. People who are not friends will not be able to work
together to achieve this purpose and a group of friends not
committed to the political purpose will of course accomplish
almost nothing. Both elements must exist in order for an
effective political party to exist; a group of friends and a
common political purpose.
3985
When we consider this definition the difference between the
Liberals and Conservatives becomes crystal clear. They are
simply different circles of friends. The Conservative Party is
just such a circle of people bound together by common
association, bearing allegiance to one another within the party
because of generations of common involvement and
association. I say generations because this is the case of the old
line parties. The Conservatives have been around for over a
century. Today's young Conservative might say: ``My father
was a Conservative, and my grandfather. I am going to vote
Conservative''.
Imagine how deep party roots go; old friendships, old
acquaintances, old loyalties, old trusts and yes, old favours and
old debts. The bad goes with the good. Where there are common
political commitments there are inevitable favours that go back
a long time, and how are these favours repaid? Sometimes they
are paid by patronage, sometimes by prestige, sometimes by
simple influence and sometimes by money.
When I began my talk today I noted that a political party must
have two elements, a circle of friends and a common political
purpose. Over generations of political life the purpose begins to
waver. Because the political direction seems secure people lose
sight of the great political purpose for which they were bound
together in the first place and the circle of friends becomes ever
more important.
In time unfortunately the circle of friends can completely
overshadow the political purpose and the friendships take over.
The public interest becomes lost somewhere between the shuffle
of favour after favour and the public interest begins to suffer.
This is how political corruption develops. This is exactly how
the Conservative Party of Canada has corrupted itself in this
Pearson airport deal; a tight circle of friends, bound together no
longer by common political purpose but by using their political
associations to benefit financially from the public purse.
This is why I believe Canada needs the Reform Party. Canada
needs a new circle of friends, people who feel a deeper
friendship for the people of Canada and their interests than with
each other; a circle of reform minded friends who are joined in a
passionate, idealistic political purpose, Canadians for whom
that common political purposes stands far above any of these
associations for personal gain.
After developing the background in this way, let us now turn
to the bill before us. The media did a fine job of exposing the
corruption inherent in the Pearson airport contract, the
Conservative circle of friends who were benefiting very
handsomely from their political friendships in the dying days of
the Tory administration.
The Liberals did a fine thing, the right thing, when they
promised during the election campaign to stop the deal on behalf
of all Canadians. It is not unethical to scrap a contract that was
corrupt in the very first place.
The Reform Party of Canada does not oppose the broad
outlines of this bill. We agree with its general concept and we
agree especially on section 9 of the bill which reads: ``No one is
entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection
with the coming into force of this act''.
(1020 )
If the contract was a corruption on the bidding process in the
first place so the parameters of the tender were written to suit
just one bid then the entire process is rightly null and void. No
compensation should be owed by the crown to these people.
Unfortunately while the Liberals were making a political
promise during the election there was a fly in the ointment.
Amid the good things that are being done, toward the end of
Bill C-22 in clause 10 there is a statement which causes us to
stop short: ``If the minister considers it appropriate to do so, the
minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council,
enter into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for
the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers
appropriate''.
The intention of the act is to right a wrong. It is to stop
corruption. It is to reverse a deal which benefited a circle of
friends in an unethical way. The government declared rightly
when it said that it owed no compensation to anyone.
Why then does the act contain a clause which allows the
minister to make any payment he chooses, only needing the
approval of cabinet which makes its decisions behind closed
doors?
After trumpeting self-righteously about the evils of the deal,
the minister now gives himself and the cabinet the authority to
make a secret deal with the old Conservatives instead of being
up front with the people of Canada. Why would that be? Instead
of Conservative friends, it could be that there are Liberal friends
who took part in this deal whom the minister has not forgotten.
After publicly exposing and denouncing the corruption
inherent in the Conservative deal are the Liberals now having
the same thing to do with their Liberal circle of friends?
I would note for the public record, and not particularly with
glee but with sadness, that there are also many Liberals involved
in the contract. Claridge Properties is a company heavily
involved. It is controlled by a prominent Liberal Party supporter
and fundraiser. There is a Liberal senator involved, a Liberal
organizer and a lobbyist. And of course Liberal veteran Bob
Nixon was coincidentally named to investigate all the factors in
this organization.
3986
Where there is smoke there is fire and the smokescreen that
surrounds this thing is starting to get thicker and thicker. Might
there be a possibility that there are prominent Liberals and
others we do not even know about who are directly or indirectly
involved in this and will be entitled to some compensation?
In order to keep the public interest on centre stage and to take
the political favours off the scene altogether the minister should
not be making these decisions about compensation. The
decisions should be made in public on a non-partisan basis by
the Standing Committee on Transport in which all members of
all political parties can have a say and invite witnesses to come
before it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Strahl: This is where everything related to the deal will
be made public. If real economic losses have been suffered by
innocent parties the committee will make a joint decision in
front of the television cameras, in front of the Canadian people
to show that no political influence peddling has been involved.
The Reform Party does not believe that it is cost effective to
go to the length of having a royal commission on this. We do not
think that is necessary. However, we would prefer to see the
issue discussed openly before the standing committee with a
good number of guest speakers and all willing witnesses coming
forward to give their perspectives on the issues.
This royal commission, despite all of the other Pearson flaws,
would be like using a hammer to kill a fly and would
undoubtedly become a prime example of yet more millions
spent uselessly. Therefore, it is becoming more and more
obvious that the old line parties are no longer focusing. They
need to focus on the public interest rather than on the political
interest or the line of friendship that I talked about earlier.
Even when they try to address political corruption they are no
longer able to act without making sure that their friends are
being taken care of, or at least that impression may be given.
Section 9 is claiming no compensation is owed but it is already
mitigated and contradicted by section 10 which says that the
minister, if he feels so inclined, may give any compensation he
feels fit to give.
This whole issue highlights the crying need for change in
Canada's political system. It is time for a new political
association to wipe the old ones off the map for a while, to erase
the old blackboard covered thick with old IOUs. It is time to
start with a clean political slate. I would suggest it is time to
start with the Reform Party of Canada.
(1025)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. I would also like to acknowledge all those taking
part in this debate. I understand that we do not all share the same
views. I would also like to remind those listening to us that it
was two weeks ago that the Official Opposition undertook to
shed some light on the now unfortunate tale of Pearson Airport.
The more we debate this issue, the more this sad tale reminds
us of how the traditional political parties equate politics with
favouritism and lobbying. Indeed, lobbying, favouritism and
politics are often viewed as one and the same thing. That is why
the Official Opposition, being the responsible group that it is,
wanted to shed some light on this transaction. Surely you have
never doubted that we are a responsible party because we have
never acted other than responsibly since being elected to sit as
the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, could you ask the hon. members to applaud my
comments?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ménard: We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that
this is a serious issue. Since my hon. colleague is speaking about
facts, it would be a good idea to remind him that as we speak, the
Liberal government has yet to make the details of this deal
public. Yet, we are discussing a transaction that has major
financial implications. Our listeners should know that we are
conducting this debate without the actual contract in hand,
without knowing in detail the contractual obligations which
bound the former government to the consortium in question.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to review some of the events
leading up to this transaction. They clearly show that in our
political system, until such time as we have lobbying legislation
with teeth, it will always be possible for a government to indulge
in favouritism.
The following question arises then. How is it that this
government, when in opposition, stressed many times the need
to review the lobbying legislation and even made this issue a
priority? And how is it that six months after coming to power, it
still has made no attempt to conduct such a review? We are
critical of the government for its failure to act on this matter.
While we may agree with its decision to cancel the
Conservative deal, we can only wonder why it did not see things
through to their logical conclusion. Since the two parties are in
agreement, something that does not happen often during the life
of a Parliament, why will the government not attack the root of
the problem by urgently introducing legislation here in the
House to deal with the explosive issue of lobbying? Both the
Reform Party and the Official Opposition would be ready to
move on this matter immediately and would make themselves
available.
3987
There would have been no question of an agenda or of a
timetable. We would have devoted all of our energies and
efforts to studying this legislation as quickly as possible.
It so happens that, like the Conservatives, the Liberals have
their political friends. Therefore, they are duty bound to support
them. When you have a national party like the Liberal Party and
you are looking for financial backup like they do, it is
understandable that you be bound by the election fund that
allows you to be in politics.
Of course, we, in Quebec, have freed ourselves from such a
thing. This is part of René Levesque's legacy, this great political
figure Félix Leclerc said was part of a much too short list of
liberators of the people. The main thing we have inherited from
the Levesque era was this piece of legislation he gave the
National Assembly, one of the very first ones introduced in the
Parti Quebecois government's mandate. Those were the days,
the early days of the Parti Quebecois government, days that will
come back though!
(1030)
You are aware of the political situation. I will not elaborate on
the subject, but some optimism is permitted on this side of the
House. The reason we are in this predicament is because we do
not have legislation ``that has teeth'' respecting lobbyists.
So, in March 1992, the government called for tenders-also
known as bids in government language-for the privatization of
Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson Airport.
If you were the least bit concerned by the issue, you were
already wondering: Why privatize Pearson Airport? In terms of
public facilities, can you think of something more common,
more public than an airport? Why privatize Pearson Airport
then, if for one thing, it was the main airport in Canada and, for
another, it was profitable? This was an airport that actually
showed profits on its books, an airport that did not carry losses.
Already, people were wondering: why privatize a piece of our
national heritage which is crucial to the Ontario economy, as we
know, when it showed profits?
You will tell me this is typical of the silly way of thinking of a
Conservative government in bed with-and almost incestuously
so-the private sector. That is what the ideological motivation
was.
In the end, in June 1992, two bids were received. Strangely
enough, the public tendering process on such a major public
stake had produced only two bids, both bidders already having
ties with the airport administration. And, let us not forget the
time limit potential suppliers were given to submit tenders; the
entire process lasted but 90 days. That was the first technical
irregularity. Every member who knows anything about
administrative law knows, for instance, that the labour
standards committee gives 90 days to initiate whatever
collective agreement grievance, even for matters much less
binding. That is the minimum time allotted in the notice of
dispute.
Yet, it was decided to apply this minimum time limit to
something as major as a multimillion privatization process. So,
that was the first irregularity, and observers did not fail to point
it out. That is the crux of the controversy and this is where we
really get the feeling of doing our job as the opposition, by
raising these facts.
Who were these bidders? Who are they? Paxport is a
consortium controlled by Don Matthews group. Don Matthews
was president of Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign in
1983. My apologies to Joe Clark for saying this, but Don
Matthews was president of Brian Mulroney's leadership
campaign. This man is part of the Conservative Party
machinery. He is so much a part of it that he was the mastermind
behind four or five national fund-raising campaigns. And you
know that Tory national fund-raising campaigns generally
involve several zeros and that most of the money comes from
private enterprise.
So the first bidder is directly linked to this great Tory family,
now a kind of nuclear family, we agree, but once a little more
extended than it is now.
An hon. member: Almost a single-parent family.
Mr. Ménard: Almost a single-parent family, I am told, Mr.
Speaker.
The second bidder, Claridge Properties Inc., is a company
owned by Charles Bronfman, who is not exactly the most
destitute of Canadians or the closest to the Optimist Club or the
Salvation Army. He is, however, quite close to the Liberal Prime
Minister. And we saw during the campaign the tenuous
cocktail-circuit links connecting Charles Bronfman to this
Liberal family he is still a part of.
(1035)
The two bidders are going to merge and, whether Tory or
Liberal, it all amounts to the same thing. Our two bidders are
going to merge into T1 T2 Limited Partnership, which will be
the new company responsible for privatizing Terminals 1 and 2.
It reeks of scandal, patronage, nepotism. That is why the
Official Opposition thinks we must shed light on this issue. And
to do it as expeditiously as the government wants-a
government that has still not made public the legal text of this
privatization deal-we say a commission of enquiry is needed to
deal with this blot on, this breach of democracy.
This case reminds us that the federal administration will be
faced with this kind of situation until we have, as demanded by
the Official Opposition and the Reform Party, a lobbyists law
with teeth. The government must resolve the issue.
3988
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I too would
like to take part in the discussion on the cancellation of the
contract to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson
International Airport in Toronto, a very profitable airport. The
former Conservative government concluded these agreements
only two and a half weeks before the election of October 25,
1993. They would have turned over to private sector interests
for a 60-year period the development and operation of
terminals 1 and 2 at the largest airport in Canada.
In the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to cancel
this outrageous contract that by all appearances was a case of
patronage and end-of-mandate political manipulation. Clearly,
this questionable transaction is contrary to the public interest
and the Conservative government's only purpose was to enrich
its fund-raisers.
Some provisions of Bill C-22 are contradictory and
controversial; for example, clause 9, which says that in principle
the government will not have to compensate the parties
concerned. However, further on, the bill gives the Minister of
Transport full discretion to conclude agreements on payment of
money, to pay these same parties the amount he deems
appropriate under this law. I think that no compensation should
be paid in this case. This latter provision is disturbing. It leaves
the way open for lobbyists involved with the Liberal Party and
the Conservative Party to obtain the compensation they want.
Furthermore, I very strongly support the proposal of the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean, the Leader of the Official
Opposition, to create a royal commission of inquiry to get to the
bottom of one of the biggest scandals I have seen in Canadian
public life and politics since coming to this country in 1974.
Obviously, there was no openness in this affair.
(1040)
Even the investigator appointed by Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Nixon,
says that: ``The public should have the right to know the full
details of the agreement''. Besides examining this questionable
transaction, this commission should also deal with the
administration of all federal airports in Canada.
This transaction that the Conservative Party wanted to put
through was condemned at the time by the labour movement,
especially by my old union, the National Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of
Canada (CAW), by the Canadian Union of Public Employees
(CUPE) and by the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers. These unions also represent the employees
of Pearson Airport.
Consequently, I want to pay tribute to the union movement for
its clear and firm position against the privatization of that
airport, and in particular to CAW president, my former
colleague Basil ``Buzz'' Hargrove, as well as to Cheryl
Kryzaniwsky, president of local 2213 of the same union, which
represents 8,000 workers from that industry. I spent the last two
days in Banff, close to your riding. I met with over 100 delegates
from this local chapter representing airline industry employees.
These people passed excellent resolutions to face the current
crisis in this industry.
These unions opposed policies to privatize and regulate their
sector of operation at any cost. For example, they opposed the
privatization of Air Canada. Indeed, as a consequence of these
policies, several Canadian and Quebec companies have gone
bankrupt, thousands of jobs have been lost, and big American
carriers are now exerting greater control over those companies
which are still in operation.
I want to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the
fact that TAP-Air Portugal will stop flying to Canada, that is to
Montreal and Toronto, after doing so for 25 years. I was
informed of that decision in the last couple of days by the CAW
union, which represents employees of that company in Canada,
and also by the Portuguese community, which is one of the
largest ethnic communities in Canada with close to 500,000
members who reside mostly in Ontario and Quebec. Its leaders
have formed a coalition and unanimously oppose that decision.
I therefore ask the Canadian government to make
representations to the Portuguese government and to the
management of TAP-Air Portugal, to have that decision
reversed, because it could have a very negative impact for the
travel industry between the two countries, and it will result in
the loss of numerous jobs.
At Pearson Airport alone, 56,000 workers depend on direct
and indirect airport activities. The annual total payroll for these
workers is $1.9 billion, an amount which greatly contributes to
the economy of the Greater Toronto Area, including the $630
million in taxes paid to the three levels of government. This
gives an idea of the impact of that industry on Canada's
economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that any agreement of
any nature must have, as one of its primary objectives, the
protection of the rights and interests of workers.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I want to review
some of the red book promises this morning.
The red book promised more integrity in government, it
promised frugality, it promised to reduce perks and modify the
MP pension plan, and change some of the Order in Council
appointments. It talked about transparency in appointments.
Appointments would be made to highly qualified people only. It
talked about cleaning up patronage.
3989
(1045)
The third issue was changing the way committees worked.
There would be more consultation, earlier consultation and
more power to make changes in the committee structure.
I thought I would review how I think the government is doing
on these issue. Polls say that the Prime Minister's popularity is
excellent. Politicians have risen in public estimation. They are
no longer lower than a rattlesnake's belly in some people's
estimation. I hope that is true. I would have to say then that the
mark for more integrity in government is quite acceptable on
these issues.
Integrity is somewhat fragile, however. There are watchful
eyes looking for lapses in integrity: the watchful eyes of the
media, the watchful eyes of the public and the watchful eyes of
opposition parties. One thing we are ordered to do in opposition
is to watch for breaches and lack of integrity.
I thought I might mention some of the stumbles that the
government may have made in these issues. NAFTA was
promised in the election campaign a very specific review; it was
signed pretty much as is. Cruise missile testing, something the
Liberals had consistently talked against, has been passed.
On the Ginn takeover, a tiny odour settles around that
takeover. The issue of election boundary revision is an issue that
has a slight odour to it. I picked up a couple of little items from
recent news clips. One is entitled ``Pork barrel grows larger''. In
his ongoing investigation of patronage in federal advertising
contracts, Greg Weston reports that the ad industry in Toronto is
abuzz with rumours that some cabinet ministers are hoping to
influence contracting by crown corporations. Such agencies are
supposed to be run as independent businesses on behalf of
taxpayers, with no patronage.
I refer to little item in the Ottawa Sun. It reports that a junior
cabinet minister has been using a chauffeur driven limousine,
unauthorized by the Prime Minister. There is a tiny odour in
those issues.
I do not want to be overly critical. As I said before the marks
on integrity given to the Liberal government at this stage of the
game are quite acceptable, but if principles are solid integrity
will follow meekly behind. If I could rephrase that, one does not
have to work hard at maintaining integrity if one's principles are
founded upon a granite base.
Bill C-22 has also a very slight or faint odour about it. It is a
faint odour but a definite odour. The cancellation was correct.
The desire for fair compensation is correct. However the
government needs to bring the bills for fair compensation to the
transport committee, have them reviewed in public, and there
would be no odour or taint about the cancellation at all. Those
bills need scrutiny. They need open review and there would be
no problem with cancelling the Pearson airport deal.
There is no room for ministerial approval. There is no need for
backroom deals. On this issue integrity is not difficult at all.
For example, in my young life I did some mountaineering. We
went on an expedition to Gondeau Traverse which was
technically very difficult. We had fixed pitons in place. We
hooked up our carabiners and were able to make this traverse
with technical difficulties. We took our less talented friends
along to show our prowess. When we got to the middle of
Gondeau Traverse we had to rappel straight down an
unclimbable cliff.
(1050)
Without failure, when pulling our rope down from Gondeau
Traverse it would hook on a large rock above. A friend of mine, a
good chum, had done this traverse numerous times. I must say
we were showing off when we did it. We thought we were
excellent mountaineers. The last time we did Gondeau Traverse
we pulled the rope and the huge rock above us came loose. A
2,000-pound granite chunk fell. The two of us scattered and
were very lucky to survive. The rock crashed on the ledge below
us and ruined the climbing rope. We both looked upon that as a
close miss.
I believe the faint odour that relates to Bill C-22 may just
simply be the rope hooking on the rock above the government.
There is no need for this to happen. It is completely avoidable.
Why would the Reform Party be so free with this advice to
prevent the taint on this issue? I say very plainly that it is
because the Reform Party frankly would like the Liberal
government to be a success. That may be an issue that some
would laugh at. I am particularly keen to see the government
bring Canada back to its senses and not stumble on issues where
there is no need to stumble. I give this advice freely and openly.
There is no need to have the taint on Bill C-22.
An example of how keen we are to see the government
succeed as a party is when our leader during comments on ``The
House'' was asked if he were disappointed there was no tax
revolt after the finance minister made his budgetary statements.
His answer was very revealing. He said to the interviewer: ``My
desire is not to have a tax revolt. My desire is not to see the
budget fail. My desire is to see Canada function at the highest
level''.
He was saying with those comments that his desire was to see
the government succeed. We will stand as reminders to the
government if it makes mistakes. In my view it is making a
mistake with the bill by not having an open, transparent process
as it promised. There is no need for a big review. There is no
need for a fancy royal commission. There is a need for
transparency.
3990
I say for my children's sake: ``Don't do this with a taint, don't
do this with an odour, don't have the rope hang up on the rock
above. It is easy to make this transparent, and I beg you to do
that''.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-22 before the House today aims at cancelling
the privatization of the Pearson Airport, and the government, by
introducing this piece of legislation, wants to fulfil the
commitment it made during the election campaign.
This morning, my colleagues reviewed in detail all the
process surrounding the negotiations of this privatization deal,
and the Reform member who spoke first this morning mentioned
that Conservative as well as Liberal lobbyists were involved in
this deal since the very beginning.
In his report, ordered by the government, Mr. Nixon
concluded that this contract had to be cancelled, and I quote:
``My review left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place
an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process
and under the shadow of possible political manipulation in
unacceptable. I recommend that the contract be cancelled''. Of
course, in such circumstances, the Bloc also agrees that the
contract must be cancelled.
(1055)
But today, we are addressing the issue of political
manipulation, the transparency of these contracts and the
involvement of lobbyists, people close to the government and
the friends of the big political parties.
Let me remind you that the Nixon report, as my colleague
mentioned briefly, also made the following recommendation:
``Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in
this agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably
raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada
proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency
should be the order of the day''. He adds what has already been
quoted: ``The public should have the right to know the full
details of this agreement''. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is
requesting a public inquiry on this matter, on this contract which
we never saw.
With this bill, the government wants not only to cancel the
privatization of the Pearson Airport, but also to leave it to the
minister to settle all of the financial problems related to this
agreement. All of these details will be up to the minister. We ask
that the amounts and the names be made public and that there be
real openness.
We remember that, according to the red book, which the
government delights in quoting more and more in this House,
the Liberals were probably elected on the promise of
wall-to-wall openness. We know quite well that people
everywhere in Canada and in Quebec are starting-I dare
say-to be fed up with politicians with a tight-lip policy.
If the Liberals were lucky enough to be elected, it was
especially on their promise of openness. But what is the reality?
When we ask for an inquiry and for the documents on the issue
of privatization of Pearson Airport to be tabled, we do not nor
will we get anything. The answer is no.
Ever since the beginning of this 35th Parliament, in January,
we have been asking the government to open its books to the
public and to examine one by one all items of public spending,
including tax expenditures. The answer is no. The Prime
Minister said recently in the House that if we wanted details on
government spending, we only had to ask the committees, since
their mandate is to study these expenditures. The Bloc
Quebecois asked all committees that sit and the answer was no.
In the case of the Hibernia Project, which is now losing
billions of dollars, I for one asked the Committee on Natural
Resources to let me see the Hibernia original contract. The
answer was no.
This afternoon, we will resume debate on a motion by the hon.
member for Richelieu regarding the funding of political parties
by individuals. When this motion was first moved, we could see
right away that members of the Liberal government were against
it. Again, they refuse to make things more transparent.
Meanwhile, the situation is very bad in Canada. According to
some figures reported last week, there are 790,000 welfare
recipients and 400,000 unemployed in Quebec. We heard this
morning that the number of unemployed in Canada grew by
65,000 in the month of April, an increase of 1 per cent in some
areas. These unemployed people are concentrated in three
provinces: Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia.
Faced with this situation, the government cannot find
anything to say other than it is the unemployed who are the
problem, they are a bunch of beer-drinking couch potatoes. That
is why things are going bad in Canada. Also, and this is again
related to the policy of transparency, when things are going bad,
there has to be a reason. If the government cannot be
transparent, it has to find a scapegoat. When things are going
bad in Canada, we hear that it is because Quebec is too
demanding. We all know that since the beginning of the
Canadian Confederation, the whole history of this country could
be described-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He
still has a fair amount of time left for his speech. When we
resume debate around noon, he will have the floor.
3991
[English]
It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members,
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
3991
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
(1100)
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, for
several years now we have seen unrelenting images of
destruction from the former Yugoslavia. Canadian peacekeepers
have been deployed to protect innocent civilians. Parliament has
debated our role there and even the possibility of air strikes. But
the war continues and so does the suffering of innocent children.
This morning a press conference was held in honour of some
very special children who have been brought to Parliament Hill
by the Basic family of St. Catharines, Ontario. Saban and Fatima
Basic established Bosnian Children Relief in 1992 to aid the
most helpless victims of the Bosnian war, the young.
The Basics have travelled to Bosnian refugee camps several
times to help provide food and shelter to orphans of the war
regardless of their ethnic origin.
These children remind us of the bloodshed and terror they
have endured in their homeland, but they also bear a message of
hope. Let us congratulate their courage. Let us support their
mission and let us all pray for peace on Bosnia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, Westinghouse,
now known as
Eaton Yale Limitée, has announced that it will
shut down its plant in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, on
August 31, 1994, throwing 175 people out of work.
As a former union representative with Westinghouse, I am
deeply troubled by this announcement, particularly since
Saint-Jean is still reeling from the decision to close the military
college.
I call upon the federal government to take action to prevent
the shutdown of this plant and the loss of hundreds of jobs.
Westinghouse is a supplier of electrical equipment. From now
on, the U.S. division of Westinghouse will supply the Canadian
and Quebec markets. If the government, which has made job
creation its top priority, wishes to be consistent, it will not allow
any further erosion of the manufacturing sector which employs
thousands of workers.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker,
Sunday is Mother's Day and I would like to give my best wishes
to all mothers across Canada.
All of my colleagues I am sure have a special lady in their
lives. The special lady in my life disciplined me for lighting
matches in the woods many years ago in Lakeside, Nova Scotia.
What she did not know is that I put comic books down the back
of my pants and I did not feel that stern hand upon my backside. I
even acted out a five minute crying spree, a skill I am finding
quite useful in the House of Commons today. While trying to
keep one step ahead of my mother was exciting, I now know she
was three steps ahead of me.
Whatever we are in Canada today is a reflection of what our
mothers taught us to be. It is Mother's Day this Sunday but let us
not wait until then to tell our mothers how proud we are of them.
Happy Mother's Day, mom.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak today about Mother's Day which we
will be celebrating this coming Sunday, May 8. Across Canada,
tributes will be paid to mothers for the invaluable contribution
they have made to our lives.
[English]
As a mother I know that no sacrifice can be too great for one's
children and that no joy can be greater than seeing your children
grow to be healthy, happy and responsible members of Canadian
society.
I wish to extend my very special thanks and love to the
mothers in the riding of Saint-Denis and across Canada and
finally to my mother for her unabiding love, her countless
sacrifices and for standing by me so that today I can sit in this
House.
Happy Mother's Day. Joyeuse Fête des mères.
* * *
.[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
this week a historic agreement was signed in Cairo between
Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Israeli troops are now free to pull out of the Gaza strip and the
west bank. After 27 years of strife peace in the Middle East is at
last at hand.
3992
A few weeks ago the children of Beth Jacob Hebrew School
in my riding gave me a poem they had written. I would like
to share their words:
Peace is special, it means love
The symbol of peace is the dove
Peace means to hope and care
And make new friends everywhere
There has been a lot of wars
We don't need this anymore
Enough of all the fighting, killing
Too much blood is all we are spilling.
The prayer of these children, all between 10 and 11 years old,
has been answered. The dove of peace flies over Jerusalem.
* * *
(1105)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the
deplorable situation of children living in war torn regions
around the world has been condemned by several members of
this House.
Whether it be the situation in Rwanda or the situation in
Bosnia, we have all witnessed the senseless slaughter of human
life. We have mourned such waste and violence.
What is most unfortunate is that innocent children are caught
in the middle of such violence between the bullets, the bombs
and the carnage-
[Translation]
-and must suffer the consequences and be the victims of the
foolish actions of adults. I applaud those European countries
which have opened their hearts to these children and I hope that
Canada, a just and humanitarian nation, will see fit to do
likewise.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, in view of
the government's inability to check unemployment, Quebec's
major central labour bodies must be praised for their show of
social understanding this past week in taking new steps forward
in restoring hope to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed
Quebecers who, needless to say, did not choose to be out of
work. By coming up with new ideas like eliminating overtime
and dual employment, the CNTU, CEQ and FTQ are leading the
way to a better distribution of collective wealth.
I urge all the people of Quebec, employers and workers, to
seek concrete solutions to a difficult problem: lack of jobs. What
is at stake is the social and economic well-being of our society, a
society which has to come to the rescue of a generation of
sacrificial victims: youth. Our young people can only gain from
initiatives taken by local stakeholders who must take over for an
overliberal government.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, Dr. Arnold Smith is
a well known professional and public spirited citizen from High
River, Alberta.
He came to practise dentistry in 1956 and has just retired after
a very distinguished career. His wife and three children now
wonder whether he will be busy enough. I know that he will.
He has served his community with distinction in Rotary, town
council, the recreation board, the memorial centre board, the
library board, the development appeal board and the Otter's
swim club.
I recognize Arnold Smith as a proud contributor to his
community and wish him well in his retirement.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, for the past 27 years I have worked in the psychiatric
mental health field. It gives me great pleasure to rise today to
inform my colleagues that this past week was National Mental
Health Week.
I had the opportunity to attend the kick-off events earlier this
week in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. The focus of the
week has been on the need to place greater emphasis on the
integration of physical and mental health in our society.
Groups and individuals must work together to promote
greater awareness of the mental health issues and to decrease the
stigma often involved with mental health care.
I ask all members of this House to join me in praising the work
of the thousands of professionals and volunteers in the field. Let
none of us leave this important work to someone else, but rather
join all Canadians in promoting active and healthy lives.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Federation of Labour is completing its national convention in
Ottawa today based on the theme building Canada's future.
This organization has developed Working Ventures, a capital
fund with nearly $300 million. This fund is used to start and
expand businesses to create jobs to get Canadians working.
The Canadian Federation of Labour is to be applauded for
developing good labour relations and eliminating the
adversarial system of confrontations. As well, it is very
approachable because of its non-affiliation to any political
party.
3993
The key to a prosperous and united Canada is co-operation
which is being demonstrated by the Canadian Federation of
Labour. We should all follow its example.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
City is about to present a bid to host the 2002 Olympic Games. If
its bid is successful, investments totalling hundreds of millions
of dollars will be required from the various levels of
government, including the government of Canada.
The mayor of Quebec City should be required to commit to
investing or spending 20 per cent of the olympic budget in rural
areas of Quebec.
(1110)
For example, men's and women's downhill racing events
should be held in the Gaspé Peninsula, because the railway and
airport facilities required to welcome athletes and visitors are
already in place.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Gagnon: Go ahead. Laugh. We are the only defenders of
the regions, you know.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gagnon: Quebec 2002 is the perfect opportunity to
revitalize regional economies and will provide a forum to
promote these areas of Quebec throughout the world. We
demand nothing less than a fair distribution of the Olympics'
spin-offs between Quebec City and the surrounding areas.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, today saw the inauguration of the tunnel under the
English Channel which will join Great Britain and France via
high-speed train. This train will cross the border of these two
sovereign countries with the speed for which it is known. The
borders of sovereign countries do not stop trains or
communication lines.
So how can the Liberal government still drag its feet on the
Quebec City-Windsor high-speed train? This project will be
good for the economy, whatever Quebec decides about
sovereignty.
The high-speed train must not become a political football;
rather, it must be seen as an economic issue that could create
thousands of jobs.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I wrote
this because of the plight and tragedy of Bosnian children and I
wrote this because I am a mother. It is called ``Picture This'':
Picture this
Little stories, horror of the war zone
on the late night news.
Picture this
Bosnia's joyless children,
a reminder of war's human face.
Picture this
Small sad voices surge to wild cries
exploding in a rush of flesh and steel and bone.
Picture this
Pillows wet with acid tears,
cameos of babyhood, a grieving reminder.
Picture this
Tiny broken bodies languish in therapy
crippled limbs, mindless thoughts, blistered experience.
Picture this
The sweet and precious face of your child
and surely we all wanted to help
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak
of a serious concern in the minds of many Canadians, namely the
often inadequate protection of society from some of the
criminals who fall within the terms of the Young Offenders Act.
Under the present legislation these individuals may commit
serious violent crimes and subsequently not be profoundly
inconvenienced by the response of the criminal justice system.
The Young Offenders Act needs to be revisited in the light of
10 years of experience and the results thereof which are often
not laudable when dealing with crimes of a violent nature.
Later today I will be presenting a petition which thousands of
Canadians have signed throwing their support behind the Pinard
and Racine families in their crusade to have youths convicted of
serious crimes severely punished and kept in custody longer
than they are at present.
The Pinard family lost its eldest daughter, Carrie, to senseless
violence on August 10, 1992 in a Toronto apartment building. A
companion, Cheryl Racine, was scarred for life both physically
and mentally. This tragedy is an example of our inability to
eradicate the use of guns in our society and to control violent
behaviour in general, especially among our youth. We have yet
to find the balance between protecting our society and helping
our troubled youth. At present neither benefits.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I was honoured to be part of the Canadian election
observer team in South Africa for two weeks under the very able
leadership of the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa.
3994
We were treated to a rare and historic opportunity to watch
the peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa as the
black majority got the right to vote for the first time.
The warmth of the welcome for us, the enthusiasm of the
voters and the great goodwill exhibited by all of South Africa's
citizens toward one another were an inspiration for each one of
us.
We were all satisfied that the election was free and fair,
notwithstanding numerous delays and poor organization in some
areas.
We were all optimistic that with continued goodwill South
Africans can work together to forge a new, prosperous,
multiracial and multilingual South Africa that will be an
example for all peoples of the earth.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, just days ago the
government was celebrating six months in office and toasting its
achievements in reducing unemployment. Well, the party is
over. Cork up the champagne bottles; today's unemployment
figures represent a growing hangover for this government.
(1115)
Unemployment is up and the hardest hit are Canadian young
people. This is before the job market is flooded with college and
university students.
In spite of the election promise of jobs, the reality is that the
job future looks bleak as Canadians wait for the Liberal
government to deliver on its job creation promises. The Prime
Minister said that job prospects were improving. Everyone
wanted to believe him and hoped he was right but unfortunately
he was not.
It is interesting to note that the bright light in the job creating
area of Canada is in the province of Ontario, where the
government has created an economic atmosphere which saw
49,000 jobs created in the past three months.
I urge the Prime Minister to get beyond Peter Pan economics,
get real and take action on jobs now.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, as we
approach Mother's Day it is appropriate that I stand in
recognition of a member of my constituency, Jocelyne Fleurant,
a proud mother of a Canadian peacekeeper in the former
Yugoslavia.
Mrs. Fleurant began a nation-wide campaign of support for
our men and women serving overseas after her son left CFB
Chilliwack for his first tour of duty in Croatia during the spring
of last year.
Symbolizing this support for our Canadian peacekeepers
abroad, Mrs. Fleurant has made and distributed thousands of
hand-made UN beret blue ribbons secured by a small Canadian
flag pin.
I commend the tireless efforts of this mother to remind
Canadians of the need to keep up the morale of our Canadian
peacekeepers. Her commitment should be and is an inspiration
to us all.
_____________________________________________
3994
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This month, unemployment statistics were not deliberately
leaked by the government because, unlike the March ones, they
show that the unemployment rate went up by 0.5 per cent to
reach 11 per cent. In Quebec alone, the situation is a lot worse
with an unemployment rate which went from 11.7 per cent in
March to 12.6 per cent in April.
Is it not time for the Liberal government to implement
concrete and structuring initiatives to deal with unemployment,
instead of sitting tight on the record of its first six months in
office?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we
are not pleased with these numbers, not so much because of the
numbers per se, but because they are a blow to the unemployed.
However, it is interesting to note that if there are 65,000 more
people looking for a job this month, it is because they believe
that the economic indicators are favourable. For instance, house
sales have gone up by 30 per cent, consumer confidence is up by
13 per cent. People are regaining hope in increasing numbers
and we are hoping that, as our economic recovery program is
taking hold, the unemployed will keep on finding jobs.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
taking into account the population growth, does the Deputy
Prime Minister realize that to get back to pre-recession
employment levels, I do not mean full employment, just
pre-recession employment levels, more that 900,000 jobs would
have to be created in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, since the month of February
we have created 115,000 jobs. In the province of Quebec since
last August there have been 74,000 jobs created.
3995
[Translation]
That is 74,000 jobs in Quebec alone. We are not satisfied. We
tried to do something in the first six months. We presented the
Budget, we have the infrastructure program, and we are trying to
do better than that.
The good thing though, if you can look at these statistics in a
positive light, is that Canadians and Quebecers are now starting
to look for a job because they feel better about the economy as a
whole. That is why 65,000 more people have joined the labour
force this month when they realized that there was work to be
had.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
with rising unemployment rates and the arrival, in April, of
66,000 new workers on the job market, does the Deputy Prime
Minister not agree that the first six months of Liberal
government are a failure, a deplorable and appalling failure
when it comes to job creation?
(1120)
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it has not been a failure. In
fact since the month of February, we have created 115,000 jobs.
We do not think enough has been done but we do feel that with
the signing of the infrastructure programs and with the budget of
the Minister of Finance, we are on the right track.
This month 65,000 Canadians thought that the job prospects
were getting good enough that they decided to get back into the
market. We see consumer confidence on the rise. We see the sale
of houses up over 30 per cent.
We are on the right track but we are not going to solve the
problems in six short months. We need more time and we need
continued consumer confidence, something that we see as the
bright light at the end of a very long tunnel for a lot of
unemployed people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Deputy
Prime Minister. It is said in the Liberal Party's red book that a
Liberal government will implement a conversion program to
transform defence industries into civilian ones. However, the
Minister of Industry quite surprisingly said yesterday that the
government will not invest in such a conversion. In that sector,
more than 10,000 high-technology jobs have disappeared since
1988.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister, who would do me honour
if she would listen to my question, how can she reconcile the
commitment of her party and the amazing declaration of the
Minister of Industry who said during debate yesterday that it is
the responsibility of the management and shareholders of those
companies to solve their own problems?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is only quoting part
of what the Minister of Industry said yesterday in the debate.
He did say that we would want to look to industry to make sure
all of its strategic plans were being redesigned and reinvented in
light of a very tough fiscal framework. He also said that in the
budget we were redesigning DIPP so there would be less giving
of cheques and grants but more of a situation where there would
be loans for those industries that qualified and ones that were
especially sensitive to conversion to peacetime activity.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, before I address my supplementary to the Minister of
Finance who, I can tell, is dying to participate in this debate, I
would like to mention to my hon. colleague that one of the
headlines in this morning's papers said: ``Ottawa will not
finance the conversion of defence industries''.
The Speaker: Order please! Members are not to show papers
or documents of any kind during question period. The member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will put his question.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of
Finance how he can accept such a turnabout on the part of his
colleague the Minister of Industry when he knows perfectly well
that if nothing is done in a very near future, thousands of jobs
will be lost in the defence industry. Does he accept the
declaration, does he agree with the Minister of Industry's
statement?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to
have understood the point I was making in my first answer.
We are working very hard to assist corporations which are in
the process of conversion. It is just that the approach and the
design of DIPP is going to be different from what it was in the
past. Part of that has to do with the fact that we have a very tough
fiscal framework within which we are dealing.
The hon. member should also know there are many examples
of good solid success stories. People with their own expertise
are using other resources like the Export Development
Corporation and the banks which have been more progressive in
the last little while as well as enhanced marketing. These are all
new approaches that help bridge this period of conversion.
3996
As we redesign DIPP eventually this will deal with this issue
in a way that will satisfy most of these industries.
* * *
(1125)
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
The budget presented yesterday in the province of Ontario is
evidence that the provinces and the federal government can no
longer operate in budget isolation of each other.
This government is initiating through the Minister of Human
Resources Development a national strategy on social reform.
The Prime Minister is chairing a national forum on health care.
Is it not time for the federal government in consultation with the
provinces to initiate a national strategy on deficit reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, certainly the thrust of the hon.
member's question is one we would agree with completely.
As the member knows, at the first federal-provincial finance
ministers meeting we discussed that very subject and at the
second meeting in Halifax we put a great deal of meat on the
bones. In fact we want to develop a common effort between us
toward reducing the terrible burden of deficit and debt that the
nation suffers from.
We recognize very clearly that there really is only one
taxpayer. There is one Canadian who shoulders the burden of
federal, provincial and municipal debts. We intend to deal with
it jointly.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, in light of the
hon. minister's answer, I ask the minister the following:
First of all, what are the targets and objectives that the
minister is establishing for the federal government along with
the provinces in terms of a deficit reduction strategy?
Second, in co-ordination with that question, is the minister
prepared to make this the number one item on the agenda of the
finance ministers meeting in June? Out of that meeting will
there come specific targets and objectives not only for the
federal government but the provinces as well?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the federal
government's point of view is that we have explicit deficit
reduction targets.
We are certainly prepared, as we have done at the previous
two meetings, to have that on the agenda. I can assure him it will
be on the agenda for the meeting that will be held in June.
Depending upon those discussions, if we are able to come up
with national objectives, this is one Minister of Finance who
would certainly support the concept.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, in the
government's plan for deficit reduction one of the objects is to
reduce the transfer payments to provinces. The minister knows
the consequences of doing that.
First of all, we offload part of the federal deficit problem on
the provinces. Second, by removing funding from the provinces
in terms of transfers without easing the obligation in terms of
funding services, we create a problem for the provinces.
Will the minister deal with that question in full co-operation
and full discussion with the provinces so that the provinces
know what the actions of the federal government will be? They
could therefore plan on a longer term basis their deficit
reduction programs in co-operation with the federal
government.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did at the
January meeting. It is precisely what we did in the budget.
At the January meeting I notified the provinces that we would
not be unilaterally shifting debt on to them as previous
governments had done simply in advance of their budgets.
We told them there would be a moratorium of two years under
which we would attempt through the good auspices of the
Minister of Human Resources Development to renegotiate the
whole fabric of our social programs. Therefore what we would
really end up with would be more efficient programs, more cost
effective programs. These programs in the end would not only
save the federal government money, but would save the
provincial governments money because they would be far more
efficient.
In other words, our goal is not to shift the burden on to the
provinces; it is to give Canadians better service at a better price.
* * *
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Transport.
3997
The General Investment Corporation, the main shareholder
of MIL Davie, yesterday approved the firm's business plan,
which was also forwarded to the federal government. The
General Investment Corporation said it would be willing to add
$135 million to help revive MIL Davie.
Will the minister admit that by postponing his decision, the
way he has done for the last six months, on the construction of a
ferry for the Magdalen Islands and on the development of the
smart ship, he is also postponing this shipyard's recovery and
putting in jeopardy thousands of jobs in the Quebec City area?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I find it rather strange that in the same question the hon. member
can say that the business plan of MIL Davie was given to us
yesterday and then accuse me of having delayed my decision six
months. Please, let us be serious.
The reason why the decision on the ferry has not been
announced yet, and why the Minister of Transport is waiting, is
that we want to act in the best interest of the Magdalen Islanders.
We want to provide them with a ferry service between the
islands and Prince Edward Island which would be adequate,
effective and safe. To that end, we are trying to negotiate a
solution with MIL Davie.
You should learn to be fair and to react positively to
government initiatives taken precisely with a view to help you.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, the minister should
remember that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff saw the
business plan before and during the election campaign. Now that
he has everything in front of him, now that all the interested
groups-the unions and the Conseil du patronat-in the Quebec
City area are in agreement, what he is waiting for before
deciding?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
since this matter is of great interest to the people who use the
ferry, I will try to be as objective as possible.
To suggest that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff had
the business plan during the election campaign, after saying it
was handed to us yesterday, this is assuming that we are damn
stupid.
The Speaker: I would ask the minister to talk to the Chair.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the service between Prince Edward
Island and the Magdalen Islands is absolutely essential and part
of my responsibilities as Minister of Transport. We would have
liked to have been able to answer months ago the legitimate
request, made years ago, to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery.
Now that a business plan has been made public, I am sure that
with Minister Tremblay from Quebec, whom I met this week
with my colleague the Minister of Industry, we will take all the
necessary means to find a solution, not only for the people who
need a ferry, but also for the workers of MIL Davie. It would
help if hon. members knew the case a little better.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the government House leader. In spite of twice
trying, the government House leader has been unable to
persuade the Senate to pass Bill C-18 and stop electoral
redistribution.
Yesterday a Senate committee passed substantial amendments
to the bill. Will the government give serious consideration to
these amendments, or better yet, withdraw its support for Bill
C-18 and stop the waste of Parliament's time and money on this
legislation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, it is the government's intention with Bill C-18 not to
stop redistribution but to give the House an opportunity to
review and update the process which has not been reviewed fully
since it came into effect in 1964.
Second, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on a
report of the other place. The other place as a whole has not yet
dealt in a final way with Bill C-18. When it does we here will
have to take into consideration the final decision of the Senate
and I am sure we will do that very actively.
(1135)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that Bill C-18 in its present form will stop
redistribution until after the next election.
[Translation]
My supplementary is for the same minister. The readjustment
process has reached a point where, even if public hearings were
cancelled, not a penny will be saved.
Is the government ready to accept the Senate Committee
recommendations and allow the public hearings to go on in order
that the commissions may submit their reports without
undemocratic and unconstitutional intervention called for in
Bill C-18?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): First, Mr.
Speaker, the government's position is that the bill is totally
constitutional. It bears the certificate of the law officers of the
3998
crown that it meets the requirements of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Furthermore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on
the activities of a committee of the other place before the other
place has even made a final decision.
If the hon. member is concerned about this matter he should
reflect on why, when this bill was before the House, he was
indicating that if it only capped the number of seats at the
present level he and his party were ready to support it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, we heard this morning that Indian Affairs was
about to intervene in order to prevent the Quebec Department of
Revenue from revoking the license of 12 aboriginal service
stations owing $3.8 million to Quebec Revenue. Indian Affairs
was also rumoured to have accepted that an equivalent amount
of $3.8 million of transfer money granted to the band council be
used to pay the amounts owed.
Can the Minister for Indian Affairs confirm that his
department is about to take extraordinary steps to prevent
Revenue Quebec from revoking the licenses of 12 service
stations at fault?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that
this is not true. Yesterday and this morning I talked with Mr.
Christos Sirros about the service stations. There is a problem,
but there is no agreement between us. Even if I had the money I
would not do it.
[English]
Our problem is with 12 stations, private businesses, and we
have the band year. I am a fiduciary and the government's
fiduciary of the funds that belong to the band. Not only can I not
do this, I would not use band moneys to solve a government tax
problem between basically private enterprise and the
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, since the Minister confirms that there is no such
transaction or dealings between the Quebec government, his
department and the band council, what guarantee does he have
that the funds granted to the band council will not be used for
that purpose?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, there are two guarantees: my word
and the law. The hon. member can rely on both.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who said in the House
just a few minutes ago that 115,000 new jobs were created since
February. She also indicated that 74,000 of these jobs were
created in Quebec. That is about 64 per cent of these jobs.
Now that unemployment is up to 11 per cent from 10.6 per
cent, what has the government done with its infrastructure
programs? What has the red book done? What has the sunny sky
scenario done for Newfoundland, for P.E.I., for British
Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the member should
be very careful about characterizing the issue of employment or
unemployment as a Quebec versus Canada issue.
If he will review what I answered, what I said was that there
were 115,000 new jobs created since February across the
country and that in the province of Quebec since August of 1993
there were 74,000 jobs created. Those numbers are not for the
same period: 74,000 jobs in Quebec since August 1993; 115,000
jobs created across the country by the government since
February. That is what I said. That is what I stand by.
(1140)
Unfortunately the member continues this vicious attack on
unemployed people, whether they be in Quebec or any other part
of the country. We want to find jobs for every unemployed
Canadian.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister has no idea what a vicious attack is.
Quite frankly the government has talked about infrastructure
programs, about red book programs. What it has delivered in the
House of Commons, to the country, is an unemployment rate
that is increasing.
What is the Deputy Prime Minister's forecast for next month?
Perhaps in June she will know what an attack is if those numbers
go up again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, order. If the Deputy Prime Minister
would care to answer the question I will permit it. But forecasts,
unless we have crystal balls, are a little bit difficult.
I will permit the Deputy Prime Minister to answer.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that for
probably the sixth or seventh time in the last six months the
Reform Party has actually stood to ask a question about
unemployed people. We are not happy with the statistics.
3999
However, what we hear every day from the members of the
Reform Party is that we are supposed to cut back on support
for the unemployed, cut back on programs for medicare, cut
back on payments for senior citizens.
The member should join us in a solid attack on unemployment
and help create jobs for Canadians through small business,
through wise investments, through government getting its act in
order. We are on the right track. We are not where we want to be
and we are going to keep working.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Transportation
deregulation in Canada has had a negative impact in that it
brought down the level of service and made it more expensive to
travel to remote areas. The Minister of Transport talked with
fervour of action and co-operation. I should remind him that he
was asked three times by Rural Dignity of Canada to hold public
hearings on regional transportation.
My question is quite simple: When will the minister take
action on the request of Rural Dignity and hold public hearings
on transportation in remote areas?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
coming as I do from the northern part of New Brunswick, I can
tell the hon. member I am quite familiar with the challenges the
transportation network in Canada must meet. Over the years,
public consultations in which many members took part were
held about all issues concerning VIA Rail.
There is a national consensus on the need for a national
highway network throughout Canada. But all those
consultations and all the findings always come up against the
same problem. I would be ready to hold public hearings to look
for ways and means to finance the transportation services that
are needed. We did identify problems, we did listen to people,
and we continue to do so. We have consultations with provinces
and interest groups, but the big problem nobody has ever found a
way to solve is the financial problem.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister admits there is a serious problem, how does he
intend to solve it since the cost of regional transportation is
rising at the expense of citizens? And how does he intend to
solve this problem and help people find solutions?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): It is a very
good question, Mr. Speaker.
The need to find solutions and to prepare proposals that we
can present to the House and to the people of Canada are what we
are working on every day.
(1145)
We expect to come before the House to present what we
consider to be alternatives to existing situations, but I want to
point out that the fundamental problem does not change. It is
how to finance an efficient national transportation system that
includes road, rail, maritime and air.
No one professes, and certainly not the Minister of Transport,
to have the answer to all those problems. We have studied the
problems to death. We know the solutions rest entirely on our
ability to pay for that affordable integrated national
transportation system. That is what we will try to present to the
people of Canada and to the House as soon as we can.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, my
question today is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Given the frugal style of our current Prime Minister and
members of Parliament, with no Cadillacs, no massive
redecorating and no Gucci shoes, what plan does the minister
have to review the printing budgets of various crown
corporations and government agencies so that the publications
reflect this image, particularly with respect to cutbacks in the
costs of producing flashy annual reports?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for bringing the matter to the
attention of the House both in the question today and in the
member's statement a few days ago.
Crown corporations operate independently. They make their
own decisions about their annual reports. Indeed their annual
reports are frequently used as sales tools in advertising and
promotion of their products or services.
I appreciate the point the hon. member makes. Frugality is a
style of the government. I will bring that to the attention of
crown corporations and ask that they look at the cost factor in
what they are putting together and look at the recyclable aspect
of the paper they are using.
I invite the ministers to whom many of these crown
corporations report to join me in bringing it to their attention
and asking them to review it.
4000
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of aboriginal affairs.
On April 30, Phil Fontaine, Grand Chief for the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, said:
Aboriginal self-government includes gaining jurisdiction over everything
governments now do for First Nations, including control of lands, health care,
justice, education and other areas which now constitutionally belong under
provincial jurisdiction.
Does the minister agree with Mr. Fontaine's definition?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, under the Tory regime, as the hon.
member knows, gaming was transferred to the provinces.
Several of the provinces are putting up gaming regimes and are
dealing with aboriginal people.
For instance, the best example I can give is in the province of
Saskatchewan where an agreement was worked out with the
FSIN for two casinos, one in Saskatoon and one in Regina, and
there will be a split on income.
If the provinces decide to proceed to move jurisdiction over to
the aboriginal people, to share jurisdiction or to have
co-management, I think it would be a favourable result. As far
as whether it is part of the self-government negotiations, it is
not as far as federal government is concerned.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
my question was answered. My question was not on jurisdiction
over gaming. My question was on jurisdiction over health care,
justice, education and lands. Perhaps the minister could answer
my question.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I apologize; I did not hear the
subjects.
In Manitoba right now there are four subject matters being
negotiated. I think the hon. member is familiar with them. We
will be negotiating health, education, fire and police protection,
and aboriginal courts. At least 10 subject matters will be
negotiated with aboriginal people that will eventually define
self-government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Government of Alberta appealed a decision
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual
orientation and an Ontario court refused to recognize the rights
of same-sex couples, invoking the definitions of marital and
spousal status contained in the Ontario's Charter of Human
Rights.
(1150)
What is the government waiting for to present in this House a
bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, we have the intention of
bringing forward an amendment to the Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation this
year, probably in the fall.
That is a commitment we made during the campaign which
was repeated in the Throne Speech. It is a course to which we are
committed.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister agree then that it is urgent to legislate on this in order to
prevent the legal battle which seems to be starting on this
question?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): As I said, Mr. Speaker, our timetable
contemplates introduction of the legislation probably in the fall.
Speaking for myself, I do not think matters of public policy
should be determined in the courts. It is expensive for the
litigants, and one ends up with a patchwork of public policy that
is not always in the interest of Canada.
We are going to approach it with legislation. The amendment
to the Human Rights Act will be introduced here. The House has
our commitment in that regard and the House can expect to see
the legislation the year.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One week ago today she told the House that Hillary Clinton
asked her how the Americans could put in place a health care
system which would mirror or be similar to the system we have
in Canada. However American media reports yesterday,
including the Wall Street Journal, indicated:
Mrs. Clinton is telling Americans just the opposite, that she wouldn't dream
of proposing the Canadian system for Americans.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain the contradiction
between her remarks and what the American media is widely
quoting the President's wife as saying?
4001
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with
Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Clinton expressed broad support for the
approach that Canada has taken in ensuring that universal
health care is a cornerstone of public policy in this country.
As a result of that conversation we have agreed to share
information. I have been in discussions with our Minister of
Health. In fact I am receiving from Mrs. Clinton some good
ideas about how their operations are going to work once they are
able to break through the kinds of logjams of lobbies that have
unfortunately stymied the American health system to date.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
believe some day the government will learn that Canadians are
more impressed by and more desirous of an efficient,
compassionate health care system than they are with a name
dropping Deputy Prime Minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will want to put his
question.
Mr. Strahl: My supplementary question is for the Minister of
Health.
In June the Prime Minister will be chairing a national forum
on health care. At that time will the Minister of Health be
prepared to open the Canada Health Act and amend it if the
forum says it is necessary?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
have just spent the last months meeting with ministers of health
from across the country. At no time has one minister of health
asked me specifically to reopen the Canada Health Act. As a
matter of fact I have actually been asked to strengthen it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.
For some time, the minister has been negotiating with
provinces to harmonize the implementation of the regulations in
the pulp and paper industry. Can the minister give the House a
status report on that very important issue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to
announce that I signed with my Quebec counterpart, the
Minister of Environment and Wildlife, the first agreement in
Canada to bring regulations on the pulp and paper industry
together in one place.
(1155)
But harmonization does not limit itself to the province of
Quebec. We expect to sign a similar agreement with all the
Atlantic provinces at the end of May. Negotiations with Ontario,
British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are
going well and we expect to have a similar agreement with these
provinces within the next two months.
* * *
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the minister of National Defence. A $365 million contract for
the procurement of heavy logistic vehicles ending in 1995 has
been entered into with UTDC providing that this company
guarantee economic spin-off estimated at 156,6 million dollars.
However, when the last vehicle was delivered, in May 1992,
only $16,7 million had accrued to the government.
Since that contract is almost over, could the minister of
National Defence tell us why that company has not met the
federal government requirements with respect to the $156,6
million economic spin-off that had been promised?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat amused the Bloc Quebecois, a party that campaigned
in the federal election campaign for reduction of defence
expenditures by 25 per cent, is so preoccupied with defence
contract matters.
With respect to the specific question the hon. member raises, I
should tell him that about 50,000 contracts are let at national
defence. There are about $2 billion to $3 billion worth of
acquisitions on the go at any one time.
I do not have the details to answer the hon. member's
question, but I am sure like many of the questions that party has
posed in the House it is based on false premises. However I will
get the answer to satisfy him.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, since the minister
of National Defence is not able to answer my question today,
could he tell us when a report on the nature of the economic
spin-off will be available?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, again
I will get that information for the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of National Revenue.
4002
Recently we learned that the overseas tax credit, a tax
initiative for Canadians working abroad, is not applicable to
Canadians who work for foreign based companies. This tax
credit allowed foreign companies to hire qualified Canadians,
thus providing us with jobs and foreign income that was spent
in Canada.
Could the minister explain why he did not grant an exemption
to foreign companies already receiving the credit so that they
could maintain foreign income, Canadian jobs, and that the
revenue and jobs would not be lost?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand the law that would be beyond my
powers.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, that is a very hard
answer or non-answer to take.
While jobs have been lost, while investment has been lost and
now because the department is going back to 1991, people are
actually going to lose their homes. It is very difficult to
understand why the minister cannot explain his policy. I would
ask him to examine this again and come back to the House with
an answer.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly accept the suggestion of the hon.
member to re-examine the case. As I explained in my response
to the first question, I understand this is in fact something that is
beyond my powers because the law is written in a certain way.
As members of the House know, the Minister of National
Revenue is very circumscribed in what he can do by laws made
by Parliament.
I do feel, however, that it does show a substantive difference
between the attitude of the two parties, ours and theirs. On this
side we definitely believe that laws should be followed by
ministers as well as by other people.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Amend the law, change the
law.
Mr. Anderson: On the other side I have been urged to ignore
the law. I find that to be a significant difference between our two
parties.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The
minister recently came back from an economic mission in Asia.
Can he tell us what the positive economic benefits will be for
the Canadian farming industry following his visit to China, in
particular?
(1200)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the diplomatic and trade mission that
has just been concluded to Japan, Korea, China and Hong Kong
involving the Governor General, myself and a number of
Canadian agri-food business leaders was a significant success
for Canada.
We were able to conclude certain transactions during the
course of our travels. More important than that, we have laid
significant foundations and opened some new doors for future
business and trade for Canada in the Asia-Pacific region which
is the fastest growing economic zone on the face of the earth.
The opportunities include obviously the grain trade, wheat,
barley and malt, canola, alfalfa, livestock, animal genetics,
animal husbandry, livestock feeds, agriculture technology,
education and training, potash, fertilizer, value added in the
food-
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of the Hon. Pierre Paradis, Minister of
Environment and Wildlife of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4002
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to certain
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-246, an act respecting National
Adoption Awareness Month.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
present to this House a bill to recognize November as National
Adoption Awareness Month.
November has traditionally been recognized as National
Adoption Awareness Month even though this has not been the
case in legislation. Furthermore the province of British
Columbia by proclamation of the premier does recognize
November as being Adoption Awareness Month.
4003
I am pleased to present this bill today. I am pleased to
indicate that this bill is presented with the support of the
Adoption Council of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-247, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care
expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to try and
correct an injustice we found through the Income Tax Act in its
efforts to drive and dictate social policies.
The Income Tax Act currently discriminates against stay at
home parents because the child care expense deduction is only
available to families who pay institutions to look after their
children. Because stay at home parents are not a ``discreet and
insular minority'' the courts have ruled they do not qualify for a
child care expense deduction.
(1205)
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to
allow parents to choose the method of child care and allow the
deduction of a fixed amount as child care expenses of $5,000 up
to age 7 or $3,000 between ages 8 and 14, regardless of the
income of the parents and of the amount of child care expenses
actually incurred.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That, on Tuesday, May 10, 1994, the House shall continue to sit after 6.30
p.m. for the purpose of considering government business Motion No. 12 in the
name of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, provided that the Chair
shall not receive any dilatory motions or quorum calls and that, when no
additional member wishes to speak, but in any case no later than 10 o'clock
p.m., the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the next sitting day.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you also will find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the sitting of the House on June 6,
1994 shall commence at two o'clock p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition
from constituents of mine requesting that section 745 of the
Criminal Code of Canada be repealed. I would like to table this
pursuant to Standing Order 36. I do concur completely with the
petition.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, today I have the
solemn responsibility pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table a
certified petition.
The petition prays for more severe penalties for those
convicted of violent offences, the release of names of those
young offenders convicted of murder, sex crimes and other
violent assaults and the automatic transfer to adult court for
those young offenders charged with sex crimes and murder.
The petition results from the fatal shooting of Carrie Lynn
Pinard in the summer of 1992. The Pinard and Racine families of
Welland who are with us today in the gallery have worked hard
to bring this issue and this petition to the government's
attention.
It is sad that such a petition has to be brought to the attention
of the House. It is significant that over 54,000 people have
signed it.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions identical in form today both asking that
section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed by this Parliament.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty pursuant to Standing
Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of numerous residents of
my constituency.
They join many others in Canada in urging the Government of
Canada to make definite changes to the Young Offenders Act in
order to prevent more serious crimes from happening and to
provide the protection for the innocent persons of this country.
(1210 )
The petition is motivated by the tragic murder earlier this year
of Mr. John Jarvis of Whitehead, Nova Scotia. The first
signature on the petition is that of his widow, Mrs. Reta Jarvis,
who herself was shot during the same incident.
4004
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4004
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and
amendment.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, before the break in the question period, like all of my
colleagues present here today, including the Reform Party
members, I mentioned the non-transparency of the government
in the cancellation of the Pearson Airport privatization.
Afterwards, I spoke of the general lack of transparency on the
part of the government each time they are asked to open the
books to the public whether in the House or in committee.
Added to that is the fact that when there is no transparency,
someone has to be blamed for the way things are going. So they
talked about welfare recipients and the unemployed. I heard the
Deputy Prime Minister say this morning, in reply to a Reform
Party question, that the question was a vicious attack on the
unemployed when in fact it was absolutely reasonable.
I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the
most vicious attack against the unemployed and welfare
recipients was made by her own government and the Prime
Minister himself when he accused all the unemployed of being
beer-guzzling couch potatoes.
Then they tried to blame the whole thing on Quebec's whims.
If everything is going wrong in Canada, it is due to some passing
fancy of that province. But it is a well-known fact that all of
Canada's history can be reduced to Quebec's attempt to obtain
real powers within Confederation. We only have to remember
the various commissions that followed one after the other and
that cost an enormous amount of money: Laurendeau-Dunton,
Pépin-Robarts, Spicer, Beaudoin-Dobbie, Castonguay-Dobbie,
Dobbie-Dobbie, and so on ad infinitum, up until the Meech
Lake and Charlottetown Accord failures.
Non-transparency also in the way the facts are presented.
Another issue was raised this morning. Another 65,000
Canadians have joined the ranks of the unemployed. When the
Deputy Prime Minister was asked how she could explain this,
she told us that these 65,000 people had regained hope at last. In
reality, these 65,000 people have lost their jobs, so we have
non-transparency in the way the facts are presented.
They suggested that if things were not going well in the
country, it was because of separatists, when we know full well
that the Moody's credit-rating agency has just issued a warning
to the government. If things are not going well in Canada, it is
not because of separatists, it is because we owe $500 billion to
our bankers, because we are unable to pay them and because we
swear to them that in three years we will owe them $600 billion.
That is serious.
As far as separatists are concerned, I remind this hon. House
that Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been around for a while, said
that Quebec sovereignty would not be a problem, that they could
live with it. If Quebec opted for sovereignty, Americans would
not have a problem with that.
And this too is part of the non-transparency. I remember the
Prime Minister jokingly indicated to this House that
construction of a high-speed train could not be seriously
contemplated because there could be a border between Quebec
and Ontario. In fact, there has been a statement on this subject
today. In Europe, high-speed trains run across all the countries
and nobody seems to have a problem with that. A high-speed
train running through the recently opened Chunnel will link two
countries and that does not seem to cause any problems.
(1215)
Every day, hundreds of trains circulate freely between the
United States and Canada, and that does not appear to create any
problem. Yet, there seems to be difficulties when trains travel
between Quebec and Ontario. Therefore, I think that the facts
are totally misrepresented. The presentation of those facts lacks
transparency.
It is also suggested-again by the Prime Minister-that we
are afraid of him coming to Quebec during the next election or
referendum campaign. Indeed, I must recognize that we are
afraid, but we are afraid that he might not come.
There are many issues which require greater transparency,
and there are many people in Quebec who have very specific
questions to ask to the Prime Minister on these issues, including
his role in the decision to impose the War Measures Act in
Quebec, which resulted in hundreds of people being beaten up,
imprisoned and deprived of their rights. In fact, all Quebecers
were deprived of their rights. Yet, the facts clearly demonstrated
later that there was no justification for such action.
Quebecers also have questions to ask the Prime Minister
regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution,
a decision which was unanimously rejected by Quebec's
Nation-
4005
al Assembly. They have questions to ask him about the night
those long knives were planted in Mr. René Lévesque's back.
They also have questions regarding the kiss to Clyde Wells,
when the Meech Lake Accord failed, and when, unfortunately,
the Quebec Premier was on his knees, and even crawling, to get a
minimum minimorum for our province.
The major issue which will have to be debated in a few months
with absolute transparency, although I am not sure that we can
trust the government to do that, is this: Why should Quebec keep
25 per cent of the voting shares of a country which is literally
going bankrupt?
To conclude, I believe that greater transparency is required on
the government's part and we will monitor its actions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: We are getting into bad habits.
Members who wish to speak have to stand if they want to be
recognized.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought we agreed
this morning that there would only be 10-minute speeches, with
no question or comment period.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair is partly to blame, but
you have to remember that, in practice, members of all parties
can rise if they want to carry on with the debate. That is why
when I rise and see that no one wants to take the floor, I feel kind
of compelled to ask the question. I will now recognize the hon.
member for Brome-Missisquoi.
Mr. Péloquin: We should follow the right order, Mr. Speaker,
if you do not mind. According to the list, I think you should
recognize the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry accused the official opposition of using stalling tactics
to delay the passage of Bill C-22.
I want to tell the hon. member that he is absolutely right. By
opposing this piece of legislation, we are delaying
compensation payments the government cannot wait to pay to its
friends, under section 11 of Bill C-22.
The Bloc Quebecois put forward an amendment to Bill C-22
respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment
and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson
International Airport, which gives me the opportunity to
complete the picture I began to draw last week. In fact, I began
to compare the situation at airports in various cities with the
situation at the Jean-Lesage Airport, in my riding.
I wanted to demonstrate how unfairly the Quebec airport was
being treated, by raising a number of issues, including the areas
occupied by airports in several provincial capitals. As you will
remember, Mr. Speaker, except for the airports in St. John's,
Newfoundland, and in Charlottetown, Regina, Yellowknife and
Whitehorse, airports in every other capital city occupied larger
areas than the airport in Quebec City. I also provided data on the
terminal facilities themselves. You will remember that airports
in Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax and Edmonton have no cause to
envy the Jean-Lesage International Airport, quite the contrary
since they all have a greater surface area, that is an additional
6,000, 12,000 and 24,000 square metres respectively.
(1220)
The demonstration I made last week also showed that,
between 1988 and 1992, transborder and international flights
have increased much more at the Quebec airport, at an average
ratio of 10 to 1 compared to other airports.
After that speech, instead of being outraged at such an
injustice towards the people of the Quebec City area, a member
opposite said my evidence was ``bordering on slander''. Let me
remind this House that the data supporting my demonstration all
come from Transport Canada reports. In these days when
communication techniques have improved by leaps and bounds,
such abysmal ignorance is totally inadmissible, even more so
for a member of the House.
Therefore, I wish all members of the government, instead of
refusing to admit reality and resorting to insults, would examine
quite objectively the motivations supporting Quebecers' desire
to leave the Canadian federation; they are simply convinced that
it is not beneficial for them and that it cannot be improved.
Last October 25, Quebec elected 54 members from the Bloc
Quebecois because voters were convinced that the defence of
Quebec's interests could not be left to the two big national
parties, both of which having centralizing tendencies. It is
therefore in keeping with my mandate to defend Quebec's
interests that I pursue in the same vein as last week.
We see the same unfairness in the area of research and
development applied to transport. According to the
Transportation Research and Development Board, Quebec had
45 per cent of the research capability in 1987 and 55 per cent in
1989; however, it only got a few crumbs as far as investment is
concerned: 19 per cent from 1983 to 1986; 16 per cent from 1986
to 1991; and 12.3 per cent in 1991.
Therefore, the more research and development capability we
had in the transportation sector, the less money we were getting.
It is like trying to square the circle. You probably have to be
federalist to understand. When confidence is lost, the
responsibility for restoring it does not rest with the one who lost
it.
4006
I will continue to accumulate proofs that Quebec City airport
is being treated unfairly. In the summer of 1993, the federal
government, to try and woo some voters, gave Quebec City
airport international status. Considering how antiquated and
small the terminal is, a promise of modernization should have
been made at the same time. But it was not forthcoming, Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary.
Since then, Transport Canada is continuing its demolition
derby at the Quebec City Airport. Despite all attempts by
economists and politicians from the area, it is sticking with its
plan of shutting down the radar air and traffic control room. On
April 1st, the security services normally provided by the RCMP
were withdrawn. It is important to note that out of the eight
airports affected by this mean decision, Quebec City airport is
by far the most important.
To be convinced of this, suffice it to name the other airports
affected by this decision: St. John's, Newfoundland, Moncton,
Windsor, London, Regina, Saskatoon and Victoria.
But the carelessness and lack of responsibility of Transport
Canada did not stop there. Against its own safety rules,
Transport Canada is poised to reduce the fire fighting service at
Quebec City airport. According to Transport Canada this airport
belongs to group 6. In an international airport of this category,
the fire department must be operational 24 hours a day;
however, at the Quebec City airport, there is no service between
1 a.m. and 7 a.m.
At the Quebec City airport, the category 6 rescue service is
geared to handle planes measuring a maximum of 128 feet in
length. However the Air Canada Boeing 767 which serves
Quebec City three times a week is 160 feet long; the Air Transat
and Royal Lockheed 1011s, which use Quebec City airport
several times a week, are 180 feet long; the Air Transat Boeings,
which land regularly in Quebec City, are 155 feet long.
(1225)
Far be it from me to prevent these planes from coming to
Quebec City; it is up to Transport Canada to make its fire
department comply with its own regulations and not to air
carriers to abandon a lucrative market.
The Minister of Transport, who can only talk about safety
when asked questions in this House, is poised to eliminate one
fire truck and to lay-off one fireman. Because of this decision,
Transport Canada will probably have to downgrade the status of
the Jean-Lesage Airport. This is how it develops air
transportation in Quebec, and prepares for Quebec 2002 and the
increasing needs for efficient and modern means of
transportation. If the federal government wanted to make sure
that Quebecers would vote in favour of sovereignty at the next
referendum, it could not do any better than this.
Let us now compare Toronto airport with Montreal airports.
When the government decided to privatize major Canadian
airports, Transport Canada turned over the most profitable one,
the Toronto airport, to the private sector, and Montreal airport to
a non-profit corporation. This is much to the credit of
stakeholders in Montreal, but the same cannot be said of those in
Toronto.
As if this picture of political power at work in Canada were
not bleak enough already, in Transport Canada's newsletters for
February and April, you can read about investments the
department plans to make in construction projects in Canadian
airports. In Thunder Bay, construction from January to October;
in Toronto, from April to December; In Ottawa, from May to
December; in Lac-du-Bonnet, Manitoba, from May to August;
in Saskatoon, from June to August; in Vancouver, from June
1994 to June 1995. And back in Ontario, from May to October,
construction in the Hamilton, Oshawa, London, Muskoka,
Sault-Ste. Marie, Timmins and Windsor airports. In Quebec,
sweet nothing!
To conclude, I would like to quote remarks from the Minister
of Transport himself, as reported in a press release from
Transport Canada dated February 10, 1994: ``The federal
government will not patch up Lester B. Pearson International
Airport. Decisions regarding development plans will be tied
directly to those regarding the administrative structure of the
airport. I am anxious to hear what all the federal members of
Parliament from the greater Toronto area, members who are here
to represent the interests of their constituents, will have to say
on the subject. I am confident they will reflect faithfully the
majority opinion of their communities. If they can achieve a
consensus on the future of number one airport in Canada, the
government will comply with their recommendations''.
That is precisely the attitude the Quebec City region is asking
from the Minister of Transport, because a consensus has existed
for quite a while in our region to keep the terminal control unit,
build a new control tower as well as expand and modernize the
Jean-Lesage International Airport.
As for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry's agog over the delays caused by this debate on
investments to be made at the Toronto airport, it leaves me cold
as a January morning.
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-22 is a perfect example of these ``scorpio'' bills to which
the Liberal Party has accustomed us. Innocuous at first sight, it
can become disastrous if one is not careful. Bill C-22 is only
four pages long and contains only twelve short sections. But
beware! The fatal sting is in clause 10, which provides that
developers who lose a deal as a result of public pressure may be
entitled to compensation. Liberals could not really drop their
4007
old friends. They found there a particularly deceptive way of
giving them satisfaction.
(1230)
By introducing Bill C-22, the Liberal government gives even
more strength to the Bloc Quebecois' campaign slogan which
roughly translates as: ``Giving ourselves real power''. Indeed,
last october 25, Quebecers gave themselves real power in
Ottawa. Not the power to favour friends of the government, not
the power to grant lucrative contracts to companies that gave
money to the party or are able to hire the services of large
lobbyists firms. No, Mr. Speaker, real power! The power to
defend the interests of real people, the interests of all those who
are indignant about questionable initiatives such as Bill C-22.
It is no wonder that some members opposite question the
legitimacy of the Bloc Quebecois. It is difficult for them to
accept the presence, in this House, of members whose party did
not get any financial support from large corporations. It is not
necessarily because of ideological or political differences that
the financial establishment did not support the Bloc Quebecois
during the electoral campaign. In fact, several companies have
clearly expressed their support to the Bloc and wanted to give it
funds. Our party simply refused to play the games of the
lobbyists. Our legitimacy rests on people, not on corporations.
As you know, when a company or an association asks to meet
a member of the Official Opposition, that member does not have
to follow the same ritual than a Liberal member. It is not
necessary to look on the electoral list to decide upon the length
of the interview or the interest that must be given to it. The only
criterion which is used to determine the political agenda of a
member from the Bloc Quebecois is the defence of the interests
of the people from Quebec. Do the Liberal members really think
that people are stupid enough as to believe that a person who
contributed five dollars to the Liberal Party fund is going to get
the same attention as a multinational which contributed
$100,000?
I would like to clarify one thing just to make sure I am not
going to be misunderstood here. I am not saying that the
ministers and government members who received contributions
from companies are all corrupt and ill-intentioned. Not at all! I
rather look at those poor Liberal or Conservative members as
victims. They are the victims of a legislative tradition that
allowed the institutionalization of a patronage system in which
only the rich can be heard. The only way to restore the system
would be to eliminate the donations companies make to political
parties by amending the legislation.
The old parties reject such a measure. According to them,
there is no need to amend the federal legislation on political
financing which is so beneficial to them. If people want to be
heard, they can turn to a lobbyist firm. This mentality is so
deeply entrenched in Canadian political habits that the
government members feel they have to do things as usual in
order to be true to tradition. I can understand that, but I do not
understand why they refuse to amend the rules that force them to
figure out all kinds of schemes to please their generous donors.
(1235)
As our dauntless Prime Minister often says, it is a question of
dignity. I would even say it is a question of public morality. Not
an obtuse and puritan kind of morality, but one that is based on
honour and respect for the most fundamental principles of a
democracy such as ours.
By giving compensation to those who tried to swindle the
country, Bill C-22 confirms the opinion of some who are
increasingly convinced that the House of Commons is there to
defend the interests of the rich like Power Corporation and
Seagram's and not those of the ordinary people.
If the original sale of Pearson International Airport was a
flagrant mistake on the part of the Tory government, the
compensations provided for in Bill C-22 are nothing short of
criminal. As the member for York South-Weston rightly said in
this House, it is a sting of the worst kind. I say to the government
it should be careful because, as dangerous as it might be, a
scorpion can always be crushed. As we have seen on last October
25, Quebec's population knows very well where to stomp.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, you will
remember that in the last election campaign, the Liberal Party
and its leader kept on saying that if elected, they intended to lead
this country with honesty, integrity and openness and that they
wanted to consult the people and Parliament, either in this
House or in various committees.
However, I think that we can question this government's real
desire to really consult and to be open. Yes, we have had some
debates in this House that are rather unique in Canadian history,
debates on fundamental issues like the presence of Canadian UN
troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Croatia, and on cruise
missile testing on Canadian territory.
But often we feel that we are involved in these debates in a
very symbolic way, since we sense that the debates are being
used to legitimize decisions that have already been made by the
government. One reason that I think we can question the
government's real desire to listen to what is going on in this
House is Bill C-22. For two weeks, my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois and in the Reform Party have spoken in this House to
explain why we think this bill is unfair and unacceptable, but the
government seems to pay no attention to what we say in this
House.
4008
Liberal members rise one after another to defend this bill
which we think is completely unacceptable. We think that the
very principle of privatizing Pearson Airport is questionable.
The unethical nature of this affair and the shady dealings
surrounding the signing of the contract to privatize Pearson
Airport have been brought to light. My colleague from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve this morning raised a very
interesting question: why were they so keen on privatizing
Pearson Airport?
It was and still is the most profitable airport in Canada. In
1993, it generated profits of about $23 million, according to
what we were told. So why privatize it, especially since the
approach proposed by the Conservative government at the time
was to entrust airport administration to local authorities, to turn
the administration of airports over to those people who were
most aware of the needs of the region. Even so, and in spite of its
own airport management policy, the government decided to go
ahead and privatize Pearson Airport.
(1240)
We saw how swiftly they proceeded with the privatization of
Pearson Airport, and called for tenders within 90 days for the
contracts to manage Terminals 1 and 2. As of 1992, only two
bids had been received, one from Paxport and the other from
Claridge, which already managed Terminal 3. The government
awarded the contract to Paxport, without even bothering to
check the financial stability of the company.
What happened next? Paxport was forced to merge with
Claridge. Yet, Paxport had been the preferred choice precisely
so that Claridge would not have a monopoly over the
management of the three terminals. Finally, the two companies
merged under the name of Pearson Development Corporation,
and a contract with the consortium was concluded within one
day, at the very end of the election campaign. Up to then, the
Liberal Party had kept relatively quiet about the deal.
Considering the public's reaction, the Liberal Party promised
to cancel the contract as soon as it took over the reins of
government.
There was then some consensus among the public, the media,
the Liberal Party, the Ontario Government and the Bloc
Quebecois that this deal, which was especially profitable for the
parties concerned and especially harmful to passengers, had to
be cancelled. It was said that the Pearson Development
Corporation intended to raise passenger fees from $2 to $7,
which would have generated additional revenues of $100
million.
The first logical thing for the government to do would
naturally have been to cancel this deal without any
compensation whatsoever and to undertake a serious,
independent and open public inquiry into the circumstances of
this deal and into the role played by lobbyists. Such an inquiry
could have helped to distinguish stakeholders who acted in good
faith from those who did not. And it could have allowed us to
eventually compensate, if need be, parties who are entitled to
compensation and to do so according to a public and open
process.
The government might also have ensured that this never
happens again by amending the Lobbyists Registration Act, thus
allowing greater control of lobbyists. It might also, as the Bloc
Quebecois keeps proposing in this House even if its proposition
is never taken up by the government, have passed an act on the
funding of political parties similar to the one in Quebec, which
stipulates, first, that only voters have a right to contribute
money to political parties, second, that there is a maximum
contribution not to be exceeded and, also, that any donation in
the amount of $100 or more must be made public.
Of course, such an act would prevent any suspicious collusion
between major corporations and old federal political parties.
Any new attempt on the part of the government to interfere in the
Pearson Airport situation should be based upon openness,
integrity and co-operation between all three levels of
government and the various local groups involved.
(1245)
Instead, after the election, the government decided to proceed
with an internal inquiry, led by a former treasurer of Ontario,
Mr. Robert Nixon, a very respectable man, I agree, who came to
some very harsh conclusions about this famous contract signed
by the previous government. Despite all of this, the government
introduced Bill C-22, which leads us to believe that it is payback
time for its old political friends.
Clause 9 of Bill C-22 states that there will be no
compensation for any loss of profit or any fee paid for the
purpose of lobbying. But in clause 10, the Minister of Transport
is given the authority to provide, as he sees it, any compensation
he considers appropriate to businesses he feels are entitled to be
compensated.
In conclusion, I just want to add that section 8.6.3 of the
request for proposal clearly stated that the companies would not
be compensated. It said that all costs and expenditures incurred
by the bidders for the preparation of the proposals are payable
by the bidders. The government will not be obliged to cover
these costs and expenditures, or to reimburse or compensate
promoters, under any circumstances, including the refusal of the
proposal and the cancellation of the project.
If those companies were aware, at the time of the tendering
process, that they could not be compensated, why are they now
expecting compensation from the government? This is
unacceptable, and we will continue to oppose this measure and
to use all our allotted time to stop this bill from being passed and
get to the bottom of this.
4009
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the next speaker,
I want to apologize to the hon. member for not warning him
that his time was almost up.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I want to
discuss the privatization of Pearson Airport, in Toronto, from
the perspective of a resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean.
What does a resident of Jonquière or Saint-Félicien see when he
watches TV and hears about this project? He sees that the
privatization of Pearson Airport was quickly and hastily decided
during the last election campaign. Pearson Airport is not a lame
duck; it is not a venture in deficit. It is profitable airport; in fact,
it is one of the most profitable airports in Canada. Some civil
servants in Ontario claimed that this privatization would cost
somewhere between $140 million and $240 million annually.
The resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean who is watching
sees hundreds of millions go by. However, behind the scenes he
also sees lobbyists who are friends of the government. He sees
Conservatives, Liberals, former deputy ministers and senior
civil servants hired by lobbies, and businesspeople used to
getting lucrative government contracts and attending
Conservative and Liberal fund raising dinners at $1,000 a plate.
The resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean then compares
this situation to the needs of his region, which are important
needs. The history of our region goes back 150 years. It is a
region with a glorious industrial past. Our region's development
was based on natural resources: our forests provided paper,
while lumber and hydro-electricity were used for primary
aluminum.
In my riding, Alcan's Arvida plant was at one time the world's
largest aluminum plant. Back in 1943, the Shipshaw hydro
station in my riding generated the most hydroelectric power in
the world. That is what I mean when I refer to our glorious past.
(1250)
As for the present, the region is still fairing relatively well. It
is home to seven pulp and paper plants and to four primary
aluminium plants. However, it is also experiencing major
economic problems. In the past few months, the official
unemployment rate-not the unofficial, but the official rate-in
the greater Chicoutimi-Jonquière region was the highest in
Canada. The rate is unbelievably high. For a region that lived
through the golden age of industry, this situation raises a number
of questions.
We all know the reasons for this situation and we have
analyzed them on different occasions in the region. One reason
cited is technological conversion, the fact that our major
industries have modernized their operations. That is quite
normal. Another reason is globalization. A company like Alcan
is investing around the world. Finally, the region's economic
woes can also be attributed to the fact that more money is
flowing out of, instead of into, the region. The Health and Social
Services Board produced a study which found that our region
experienced an annual shortfall of more than $100 million.
Imagine what could be accomplished with an extra $100 million
in a region such as the Saguenay-Lac-Saint Jean, considering
its needs and its population of roughly 300,000 people.
Regional development policies have also been ill-conceived.
Both the federal and the provincial governments have resorted
to the old trick of divide and conquer. Year after year, the region
is given several million dollars and left to decide how to allocate
the funds. It is somewhat like throwing a bone to a pack of dogs
and watching them fight over it.
Meanwhile, no new regional development policies
specifically geared to a region such as ours have been
formulated. This too raises some questions.
Despite everything, the region's future still seems bright. I
can say this because residents are resisting the exodus of young
people, the loss of jobs in our major industries and the rise in
unemployment. At the Abitibi-Price and Alcan plants, the
unions have taken steps, in co-operation with the different
companies, to increase production and performance levels.
Their actions are supported by the politicians.
At the Vaudreuil plant, in Arvida, a plant providing
employment to about 1,200 people, the union asked Alcan to
make investments in order to make that plant even more
profitable than it is now. The 54 Bloc Quebecois even supported
in a petition the Vaudreuil plant workers who are asking for
investments.
Politicians then, particularly in the sphere of influence of both
the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, are doing all they
can to get new investments for the region.
As people from the region, we are also asking for
multinationals to re-invest locally some of the profits they
derive from the development of our natural resources. Natural
resources have been leased to big companies, whether it be
Alcan or Price. Since these companies have been granted access
to our resources, people ask that more substantial spin-offs
benefit the region.
(1255)
This happened last year, when Alcan sold to Hydro-Quebec
tens of millions of dollars in surplus electricity. This money was
probably invested abroad or went to shareholders. If Alcan was
allowed to develop our rivers, it is because it promoted job
creation and not dividends to its shareholders.
We ask that these funds be reinvested in the region. I would
even go so far, Mr. Speaker, as to ask that an investment funds be
set up with the money generated from these surpluses in order to
promote the development of small and medium-sized business
in that area.
4010
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what we really need are the tools
for our development: a radical decentralization and the powers
required to make our decisions. In the same way that Quebec
wants to acquire these powers by becoming a sovereign State,
at the regional level, we want to have a say in the
decision-making process.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have been hearing for several days now what
members opposite are saying about this Bill C-22 and I note the
interest that my speech seems to generate. Several members are
getting ready to listen carefully to what I have to say. I can feel
it, Mr. Speaker.
You see, members opposite are telling us, by way of an
amendment, and I will read it:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, An Act respecting
certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1
and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport-
and please take note of this,
-because the principle of the Bill is flawed due to the fact that it contains no
provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent.
In other words, according to them, legislation to amend the
Lobbyist Registration Act should be part of Bill C-22. I think
that someone just said yes.
Mr. Speaker, if the government had dared to amend public
morality legislation, such as the acts on lobbyists or conflicts of
interest, without the prior consent of the House, and had
introduced it as a government bill, can you imagine what the
members opposite would have said?
I have worked on several occasions in the past on bills dealing
with public morality. You will recall, I am sure, the bill of 1987,
which came after the unanimous report of a parliamentary
committee. I recall that members from all sides of the House
were saying: ``Finally, we will have legislation on lobbyists
because we worked together and not because the government
dictated it, since a public morality matter must be part of a
consensus''.
[English]
All right. Then had we today introduced as a government
without consultation with the opposition an amendment to the
Lobbyist Registration Act inside a bill for the Toronto
international airport, first of all we would have likely been out
of order because that would have been an omnibus bill with no
binding provisions in it to join the bill together. The Reform
Party member across will know that is a prerequisite. In other
words, there must be a mechanism to hold those two things
together. If they were inside a bill there clearly would not have
been then, and so it would have been out of order.
Second, in the unlikely event that the bill would have been in
order, those people across the way would have been the same
ones to pooh-pooh-not to use any other words that would be
unparliamentary-the efforts of the government because they
would have said this is not the way to introduce a lobbyist
registration bill.
An hon. member: Oh, yes.
Mr. Boudria: It is the way, says the member across the way. I
think he had better make up his mind. I am looking forward to
his speeches. How do they expect us to introduce those
amendments to the LRA, the Lobbyist Registration Act?
[Translation]
It was an honour for me to work on two parliamentary
committees dealing with lobbyist registration. Because of the
defeat in the last election of certain members of other parties, I
am the only member in this House left among those who worked
on that issue.
(1300)
[English]
We as a government have promised in the red book on page 94
that we would amend the lobbyists-
An hon. member: Read the red book.
Mr. Boudria: My colleague challenges me to read the red
book. I will read from the red book, page 94. All members must
pay attention to this, it is very important-lobbying reform:
The lobbying industry has expanded enormously in Canada during the nine
years of Conservative government. The integrity of government is put into
question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists-
Serious concerns have been raised in the minds of Canadians-
It goes on to say that a Liberal government will move
decisively to address these concerns. We will produce
amendments to the Lobbyist Registration Act based on the
report of the committee, the report that I have here. That is what
we are going to do. That is what the opposition says it wants.
Except that today it is asking us to put these amendments inside
a bill for an airport. Is that a way to propose a bill involving
public morality? I say no.
My learned colleague from Moncton, learned in the law, says
no. All my colleagues who know far better about these things
say no. I am sure the members across say no.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: I say to the hon. members, why do they not just
withdraw this superfluous and trivial amendment? It has nothing
to do with the subject that we are talking about. It is there to
delay the passage of a bill, a bill that was promised as part of our
commitment to the people of Canada that we would stop the
nonsense that the Conservatives got into which was the giving
away of one of our largest national assets, the Toronto
international airport, more commonly known now as the
Pearson airport.
4011
[Translation]
I have here the June 1993 Holtmann report to amend the
Lobbyists Act. In its red book, the Liberal Party promises to
enact the amendments proposed in this report.
Mr. Bergeron: When will Bill C-22 be passed?
Mr. Boudria: Soon, dear friends opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I bet you that the day the bill is brought before
this House, the members opposite will tell us that it should not
be passed right away, that there must be a consensus, that it must
be referred to a parliamentary committee, that hearings must be
held. That is what they will tell us. And rightly so-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Boudria: -because it is a matter of public morality. That
is the way it should be examined and not the opposite as
proposed in today's motion.
You see, they said yes to a bill with consensus, in-depth study
and everything, but at the same time they tell us to hurry up and
put it in an amendment to the bill before us. Make up your
minds, ladies and gentlemen. You cannot have it both ways.
It is one of our commitments to the Canadian people. We will
honour this commitment despite the efforts of members
opposite to prevent us from delivering on our promise to the
people. We will do as we promised. We were elected on this
commitment, and Liberals, as you know full well, always keep
their promises.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22
proposed by the federal government is flawed since it contains
no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more
transparent.
This bill just cancels one of the most important political
scandals concocted by political friends and well-connected
lobbyists. The government simply wants to put out the fire
without anyone knowing how it was started in the first place.
(1305)
Moreover, Liberals do not want to lift the veil on the whole
issue of lobbying. If they are behaving in such a way, it is
because they want to spare the people around them and not
smear anyone, since they too are stuck with some powerful
friends in the Pearson affair. And yet, the Prime Minister had
promised to get right to the bottom of the circumstances
surrounding the negotiation and agreement on the airport
privatization.
The results coming out of that promise are very small: a mere
study done by a former Ontario Liberal minister behind closed
doors and explaining to us that the political staff and lobbyists
played an uncommon role in that affair. If the government wants
to show that it is clean and transparent, it should order a public
inquiry in the Pearson matter.
I remind you that several Liberal members of the Toronto
caucus were in favour of such an inquiry. But after realizing that
the interests of some friends of the party were at stake, and not
only of the Conservative Party, the government, or I should say
the Prime Minister unenthusiastically fell back on a mere report
produced behind closed doors, that is the Nixon report.
When going through the list of people involved, one can
easily make a close connection between these friends and
lobbyists, and the previous Conservative administration and the
present Liberal one.
I would like to name a few actors that took part in the deal: Pat
MacAdam, Conservative lobbyist and schoolmate of Brian
Mulroney; Bill Fox, a crafty fox of lobbying and a Conservative,
ex-media relations officer and personal friend of Brian
Mulroney; Harry Near, lobbyist for the Conservatives and an old
member of the party. Also, Hugh Riopelle, lobbyist and
strong-man of the Mulroney cabinet; Fred Doucet, always
closely or remotely tied to that party that was almost wiped out
of this House. There is also John Llegate, a good friend of
Michael Wilson. And finally Don Matthews who is the king of
the ex: ex-president of the nomination campaign of Brian
Mulroney in 1983, ex-president of the Conservative Party and
ex-president of the fund-raising campaign for the same party.
All those people gave a helping hand to cook the biggest Tory
pie in the history of Canada. But with pies, it is the same as with
puddings: the proof is in the eating. We did not swallow that.
However all those Tory angels, who always considered public
interest as a priority, were not alone in the kitchen of the Pearson
Airport.
There were also Liberal angels and that is probably where the
shoe pinches. It is surely for that reason that the royal
commission of inquiry suddenly became the Nixon study.
Transparency went out of the door. There were a few actors,
namely senator Leo Kolber who is the specialist of private
dinners at $1,000 a plate. For that price you can shake hands
with the present Prime Minister. There must have been more
than bread and butter served to guests on that evening, among
whom was Charles Bronfman, also part of the Pearson deal.
Bread, butter, dignity, pride, openness-all words used to
excess by the people opposite. Come on! Let us have a bit of
decency and respect for the low-income people of our society.
Those people have a clear eye and know pretty well what friends
discuss about during picnics at $1,000 a plate.
In the Liberal group there was also Herb Metcalfe, a lobbyist
for Capital Hill, representative of Claridge Properties and
former organizer of the present Prime Minister. Ramsay
Whitters, a Liberal lobbyist closely related to the Prime
Minister. A
4012
pretty nice bunch! A bunch of heavies exerting undue influence
on the government decision-makers in an unspeakable manner.
Their domination puts our institutions in danger. It produces
harmful effects on decision-makers who see and rub shoulders
only with one reality, the reality of rich people and large firms.
That is very disturbing for ordinary people because
decision-makers get disconnected from real social and
economic problems that affect the poorest.
The social and human issues are over-shadowed by financial
and economic interest linked to profit. All those ex-friends and
lobbyists wandering around government offices are looking for
profits and they have exceptional tools and means to reach that
goal. They can easily open all the doors that give access to
ministers and senior officials, and it is not to discuss the
weather. All the pressure and influence peddling often gives
good results. Decision-makers yield to the requests of friends
and lobbyists who are often working for firms that will not
hesitate to contribute to the old parties' election funds.
(1310)
What becomes of ordinary citizens in that system? What
becomes of those thousands of organizations without money
that are working to improve the well-being of groups and
individuals? Do ordinary citizens and those organizations have
the same powers, the same access and the same opportunities as
those who use their considerable means to influence
decision-makers? I do not think so. Certain results are very
revealing. The poor and people living in difficult conditions are
increasingly forgotten. There are more unemployed workers and
more people on social welfare. There are more people who are
hungry, more children living in unacceptable conditions and
more elderly living alone and receiving less treatment.
As a matter of fact, there are more poor people. And the poor
are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer! Is that the kind
of society that we want? Do we want a society increasingly
divided into categories? That is what is happening on the field.
Figures and statistics are clear. Decision-makers must
absolutely come back to reality and try to ensure a better
distribution of disposable income between social classes, and
they must find a solution to all those excruciating problems. I do
not believe that ex-friends and lobbyists can be trusted to see to
that. As regards the airport and big profits, I agree they do an
excellent job; but when it comes to social problems, we should
look elsewhere.
It is urgent that the government establish strict rules for
lobbyists. The population has the right, and it is essential, to be
informed of all activities pertaining to public administration.
The population has that right because at the end of the day it is
the one who pays.
Those rules must allow us to know everything about
lobbyists. Who are they? Who hires them? Who pays them?
What are the goals and results of their activity? Whom do they
meet? Actually they should be X-rayed and they should be
followed around by a little bird so that we can know everything
they do. If the government does not address that problem, the
confidence of the population in its elected officials and in our
institutions will continue to deteriorate even more rapidly.
I ask the people opposite to wake up because the population is
awakening and it is getting fed up with favouritism, bribing on
the part of the friends of the party and lobbying of the rich at the
expense of the ordinary citizens.
You have denounced for years the absence of openness. I think
time has come for you to act.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell decided to go to lunch right
when I was going to tell him why the Bloc Quebecois had moved
in this House the motion that we have been debating. I see that
he is back. I would not want to paraphrase the minister of
Transport who said in this House, this morning, about us, the
members from the Bloc, that we thought he was stupid because
we did not seem to understand his answers. I think that my
colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has the same
resentment towards us.
I am going to read again the motion moved by the Bloc. It is
important to understand the meaning of it. The motion asks that
the motion be amended by striking all the words after the word
``That'' and substituting the following:
``this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, An Act respecting
certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1
and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, because the principle of the Bill
is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at making the work
done by lobbyists more transparent''.
(1315)
It sounds clear to me. The member said that the Bloc would
have wanted that bill to settle the case of lobbyists. I think that
we might as well specify something for the member without
necessarily writing it down. We are talking about the lobbyists
who were involved in the Pearson deal, not about the lobbyists
who, day after day, stick around the Liberal Party to get favours.
It is crystal clear. Those who reject that motion must not
understand its relevance. The motion says that the bill contains
no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more
transparent. We are talking about those numerous lobbyists that
can be found sometimes on the side of the Liberal Party,
sometimes on the side of the Conservative Party but, at all times,
on the side of the government. We want to know about that, and
that is why we are asking for a royal commission of inquiry.
4013
Of course the Bloc would like the government to present a
bill on lobbyists; we will support any measure that would
determine the scope of their work. Contrary to what the member
for Broadview-Greenwood said this morning about there
being Bloc lobbyists one day, Quebecers elected 54 lobbyists
and they are all here in the House defending the interests of
Quebec, day after day, openly and publicly. That is
transparency.
Besides, several members from the other side tend to agree
with Bloc Quebecois members on that point. I will even mention
one, and I am sure the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will appreciate that greatly; I am
talking of course about the member for York South-Weston
who said repeatedly in this House during this debate that, and I
quote: ``There were a lot of backroom negotiations and much
manipulation. There were a lot of payoffs''. It is in Hansard. I
am sure my colleague will consult it the minute I finish my
speech.
He added: ``It takes a lot of audacity on the part of Mr.
Bronfman and other principals in the Pearson Development
Corporation to put forward a claim of close to $200 million for
compensation after all of the shenanigans that took place''.
Finally, he said: ``One could almost conclude that the activity
bordered on the criminal. I have considerable respect for M.
Nixon, but he conducted his investigation and prepared his
report in private''. There you have it! That is why the Bloc has
presented this amendment; its purpose is to shed light on the role
played by lobbyists in this issue and not to settle the case of
lobbying in Canada once and for all.
Therefore, as I said last week, it is very disturbing to see not
only that this bill does not clarify the lobbyists' role, but also
that it hints that there is a deal somewhere. As colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party have said, there is an obvious
contradiction between clauses 7 and 10. I repeat it for the
information of my colleague who was not here last week when I
made my remarks. Clause 7 states that no proceedings for
damages can be instituted against the government or its
representatives concerning Pearson airport. Clause 10 specifies
that if the minister considers it appropriate to do so, the
Governor in Council may enter into an agreement recommended
by the Minister of Transport. Paragraph 10(3) specifies that such
an agreement must be concluded within a month after passage of
the bill.
(1320)
What I explained last week, and I will conclude with that, is
that people involved in that scheme are told not to worry, that
they will not have to litigate and pay legal costs because the bill
prohibits legal proceedings. On the other hand, they are told
they only have to go to the Minister of Transport right away,
make a deal with him, and Cabinet will ratify the deal. But they
have to move fast because everything must be done within a
month.
If the government took such care to include so many details in
the bill, surely a deal has already been made. Otherwise, there
would be no need to say it must be settled within a month. The
evidence speaks for itself.
If we want to go to the bottom of this issue, and know once and
for all what happened with these dealings, we need a royal
commission of inquiry. I will repeat for the information of
members opposite, we need it in order to know about the work of
lobbyists involved in this scheme. Of course, this will teach a
lesson to the government, at least we hope so, but we will also
get relevant information that will enable us, in the near future, to
pass satisfactory legislation to restrict and control lobbying.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was
told that there was another speaker before me.
We cannot support Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain
agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of
Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
Even if the purpose of this bill is to cancel an inadequate
contract which, as Mr. Robert Nixon noted in his report to Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien, was ``arrived at with such a flawed
process and under the shadow of possible political
manipulation'', it sets cancellation conditions which, in our
opinion, are just as irregular and make us think that they are the
result of more political manipulation to protect friends of the
party in power.
We must first ask the following questions: Why did the
government want to change the management framework of
Lester B. Pearson Airport? Was the airport losing money? On
the contrary, in 1993, this airport made a profit of $23 million,
excluding revenues from renting Terminal 3. Did the
government believe that the new consortium would offer
customers better services at a lower cost? On the contrary, since
the deal provides that, for air carriers, the costs would be raised
from $2 per passenger now to $7 at the end of construction. And
we know that carriers pass their costs on to passengers.
(1325)
There was only one acceptable reason, and it was the
implementation of the new policy on the future framework for
the management of airports in Canada that was published by the
Conservative government in April 1987. But there again, the
Conservative government at the time departed from its own
policy by entrusting the modernization of Terminals 1 and 2 of
Lester B. Pearson Airport to a private consortium.
Indeed, the new policy on the future framework for the
management of airports in Canada called for the implementation
of the new approach chosen by Transport Canada; one of its two
main thrusts was to emphasize the commercial orientation of
airports, their possible contribution to economic development
and their taking into account of local concerns and interests.
4014
That approach called for private sector involvement, especially
in traditional or innovative airport services as much as possible.
Instead of delegating the management of Pearson Airport to a
local public authority similar to the ones in place in Montreal,
Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, the government decided to
favour a private consortium, thus going directly against its
general policies.
It has not been proven that the decision to change the
management framework of Lester B. Pearson Airport was made
according to generally recognized principles of good public
management. One has to look elsewhere to find the real reasons
that prompted the Conservative government to sign in a rush, in
the middle of an election campaign, the October 7, 1993
agreement.
We would have more luck finding the real motives behind this
transaction if the present Liberal government appointed a royal
commission of inquiry. We would get answers to some troubling
questions. On June 22, 1987, the Conservative government
selected Airport Development Corporation to build and operate
terminal 3 at Pearson. Airport Development Corporation and
Claridge Properties Inc. are essentially the same corporate
entity. What do we know about Claridge Properties Inc.? It is a
real estate company owned by Charles Bronfman, who is
associated with the Liberal Party of Canada. The key people in
the company are: Peter Coughlin, the president; Senator Léo
Kolber, the manager of Claridge Properties; Herb Metcalfe, a
lobbyist representing Claridge Properties and a former
organizer for Jean Chrétien; and Ray Hession, an influential
former deputy minister who had recently been appointed to the
board of Paxport.
On December 7, 1992, Paxport's proposal for the
privatization of terminals 1 and 2 was accepted. There were only
two proposals, the other one being the one made by Claridge
Properties. The companies had only 90 days to submit their bids.
Paxport was then given two months to demonstrate the
financial viability of its proposal. That condition was never met.
What then do we know about Paxport Inc.? It is another
consortium made up of six companies associated with the
Conservative Party through some key people, and I will name a
few: Don Matthews, president of Paxport Inc, the former
chairman of Brian Mulroney's nomination campaign in 1983
and former president of the Conservative Party; Otto Jelinek, a
former Conservative minister, now a member of Paxport's board
of directors; Fred Doucet, who was mentioned earlier, a lobbyist
representing Paxport and long-time friend of Brian Mulroney;
Bill Neville, another lobbyist representing Paxport, the former
chief of staff of former Prime Minister Joe Clark and a member
of the privileged transition team of former Prime Minister Kim
Campbell.
What happened next? On February 1, 1993, having been
unable to demonstrate the financial viability of its proposal and
experiencing some difficulties, Paxport merged with Claridge
under the name T1 T2 Limited Partnership. Again, T1 T2 is
made up of the same companies: Claridge Properties, Paxport
Inc. and the Allders Group.
All of these people have ties to either the Liberal Party or the
Conservative Party.
(1330)
In short, Mr. Speaker, during the whole process, the whole
time these transactions were prepared, the present Prime
Minister never complained and never said anything about what
was going on in this matter.
It was only a few days after the announcement of the general
election that the Prime Minister opposed the way it was done.
For these reasons, I ask the Liberal Party and some of its
supporters why they are afraid of revealing the hidden aspects of
this privatization?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. You have three minutes left
for next time.
[English]
Colleagues, I have received written notice from the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway that he is unable to move his
motion during private members' hour on Monday, May 9. The
member's office, I am told, indicated yesterday that he would
not be in Ottawa on Monday and could thus not proceed with his
matter on that day.
[Translation]
Since it was not possible to arrange for an exchange in the
order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a), I ask
the Clerk to drop the order to the bottom of the order of
precedence.
[English]
It seems proper to add in the interests of all private members
in the House that this is unfortunately the fourth time this has
happened since Private Members' Business began on March
14th.
[Translation]
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business will consequently be suspended. Pursuant to Standing
Order 99(2), the House shall meet at 11.00 a.m. for the
consideration of Government Orders.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has the floor on a point of
order, but very briefly, since it is now time for private members'
business.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for
Joliette could conclude his remarks. He is almost done, with two
minutes left. I am sure he will get unanimous consent to finish
his speech.
4015
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to let the
member finish?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed. The member for Joliette has
again the floor.
Mr. Laurin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had reached August
30, 1993, when the Minister of Transport in the Conservative
government announced that a general agreement had been
reached with the Pearson Development Corporation concerning
the management of all three terminals at the Lester B. Pearson
Airport. What is Pearson Development Corporation?
It is a corporation specially created to manage the three
terminals and that incorporated all the activities of T1 T2
Limited Partnership. This new company was also controlled at
about 17 per cent by the Matthews Group-Matthews being the
chairman of Paxport-at 66 per cent by Claridge Properties,
allied to Mr. Bronfman, and at 17 per cent by public companies
which were to provide conventional airport services.
You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this structure
closely resembles the one of T1 T2 Limited Partnership. On
September 8, as we all know, a general election was called by the
Government of Canada.
It is then, and only then, that Mr. Jean Chrétien, the Prime
Minister to be, warned that he would not hesitate, once in office,
to cancel that deal if completed. Following this statement, the
chief negotiator requested written instruction to sign the
contract and, on October 7, Prime Minister Campbell demanded
that the legal privatization document be signed that very day.
Three days after the general election, on October 28, the
Prime Minister appointed Robert Nixon as special investigator
to scrutinize the privatization of the Pearson terminals.
At this point, we should note that Robert Nixon was Treasurer
of Ontario in the Liberal government of Premier Peterson, and
had been leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.
On November 29, Mr. Nixon delivered the report on his
findings, opinions and recommendations to the Prime Minister
who decided to cancel the privatization deal on December 5.
The government may want to show its good will by passing
Bill C-22 which cancels the deal, but how is it that the Liberal
Party never denounced the situation while they were in
opposition, and while all these dubious dealings were unfolding
before their eyes? Why did the Liberal Party not denounce its
political friends and those of the Conservative Party who were
gearing up for such favouritism?
Why is the Liberal Party still seeking today to protect its
political friends by closing this case in such a way that it will
punish the bad Tories who were party to these transactions, but
compensate its good Liberal friends who were involved to the
same degree in this murky deal?
Why are the Liberal Party and its financial supporters afraid
of revealing the hidden side of this privatization?
Why is the Prime Minister still refusing to order a royal
commission, the only way to get to the bottom of things?
If such an inquiry is not called, the Bloc Quebecois will not
side with the Liberal government and will not support this bill
which is as unacceptable as the airport privatization deal itself.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
[Translation]
It is understood that the debates will be prolonged by four or
five minutes.
_____________________________________________
4015
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the
motion.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to support this motion which states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should bring in legislation
limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and
restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Richelieu for bringing
such an important issue to the attention of the House.
This is a two-part motion in which both parts play very
important roles because of the significant changes each will
bring to the existing system.
The first part, as it eliminates donations to individuals only
immediately eliminates any group of individuals from donating.
I use the word group here in its broadest sense; that is, groups
ranging from large corporations of individuals united under a
common banner, be it a corporation, a union or an association, to
the duo team of the Mr. and Mrs. group.
4016
On the second part of the motion, individual donations
limited to a maximum $5,000 a year, I reflect for a moment on
the figure of $5,000 and admit that the reasoning for this
particular figure versus any other tends to allude me at this
time. If it is representative of a certain percentage of the
average Canadian income I think it is a little on the high side.
On the other hand I am very pleased to see that it does not relate
to the amount allowed for an income tax deduction because I
anticipate, quite strongly actually, that the present income tax
system will itself be remodelled during the next decade.
The concept of identifying a maximum amount for an annual
donation is a good one. It creates the need for a candidate and his
or her team to go directly to the grassroots, to the individuals
involved in the election process to raise the funds needed to
facilitate their campaign in getting their message across to as
many more voters as possible. It will also reduce any undue
influence that wealthy individuals or groups of individuals such
as corporations, unions, associations, et cetera may have on the
political process.
Some people may criticize this analysis, especially the second
reason about the undue influence. They will possibly criticize
this as being too cynical or for downplaying the role of public
policy in an election. In fact this has already been done.
When the motion was first debated in this House, my
colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, was
portrayed by the members opposite as believing that ``all those
who contribute to a political system expect something in
return''. That is from the March 18 Hansard, somewhere around
page 2510.
(1340)
At the same time members opposite use the standard line of
many politicians contending that people donate money to
political parties based on altruistic principles. That is, people
contribute toward a process because they want good
government.
I do indeed accept that many people donate for better
government. It is certainly true and I wish to state unequivocally
that individuals, corporations, unions, et cetera, do in fact
donate to political parties and/or individual candidates for the
purpose of good government and good representation.
However, as my colleague tried to point out on March 18, it is
also certainly true that some donations are made in the political
process for the purpose of influence. How else does one explain
the fact that many groups, corporations, et cetera, donate money
to two different parties? Do they believe that both parties have
equally good policies? Or is it more realistic to believe that they
want to retain influence in both parties so that whichever one
forms the government they can point out later their financial
support?
Another observation along this line would be the movement
of some corporations, associations, et cetera, of their donations
from probable losers to probable winners as the election
campaign progresses. This does not mean we believe that every
individual or group that contributes toward the political process
is expecting something other than good government in return.
However, it does point out there are other possible reasons for
donating.
The Reform Party does not have a problem with private
citizens spending their hard earned money toward achieving
good or better government. What the Reform Party does have a
problem with is large corporations, unions, special interest
groups, et cetera, donating large amounts of money. I am not
talking about $100, $1,000 or $2,000 here, but donating large
amounts of money to certain candidates or parties because they
may see this as a way to control the political process and to
influence or dominate a government's agenda.
That is precisely what this motion is seeking to prevent. We
are all aware it is a basic reality of politics that for an individual
or a party to get elected it requires funding. As an American
legislator once remarked, money is the mother's milk of
politics.
That is not to say those with the most money to spend on
campaigns necessarily win. That was demonstrated in the
results of this last election. However, we in the House must
recognize that small donations made by individual citizens are
the best way of funding of politics in Canada. It broadens the
support needed by candidates to get elected. It also removes the
opportunity for undue influence of wealthy individuals, groups,
associations, et cetera, on the political process.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, before delving
into the substantive issues raised by this motion I would like to
make a couple of general observations.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Richelieu chose in
presenting his motion to make some disparaging remarks about
the integrity of those who participate actively in the political
process. For example, he made several references to greed, pay
backs, conflict of interest, connections, access to the inner
sanctum, smoke and mirrors, et cetera.
He also claimed that Canadian chartered banks ``run political
parties behind the scenes''. Judging from the record and
observation of the Canadian banks in the last few years, they
have had enough problems running their own affairs without
trying to run the political parties of this country as well.
Throwing aspersions on political parties, on members of
Parliament and on those who make contributions to campaign
funds does not advance the purpose of this debate. In fact such
imprudent accusations reflect badly on the legitimacy and
integrity of the House and its members, including the hon.
member for Richelieu and the members of his party.
4017
(1345)
With respect to the issues raised in the course of the previous
debate, I note that in presenting his motion the hon. member
claimed that the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and
Party Financing, known as the Lortie commission, hardly
touched on the question of party financing.
It is important to set the record straight. The Lortie
commission did look into all the issues raised in election
financing. It looked into the question of financing registered
political parties, limits on election expenses, public funding of
election participants, disclosure of political contributions,
political contributions and undue influence.
Three in depth studies were commissioned and published
entitled ``Money in Politics'', ``Provincial Party and Election
Finance in Canada'' and ``Comparative Issues in Party and
Election Finance''.
The Lortie commission, therefore, was very well informed
when it made the following recommendations: first, that there
be no ban on political contributions from business, trade unions
or other organizations except for political contributions from
foreign sources.
In arriving at this conclusion the commission paid particular
attention to the historical significance and importance of
organizations such as unions and business in Canadian politics
and to the danger of diverting funds from political parties to
third parties. We have seen in previous elections where vast
expenses were made by non-political parties in the political
process.
Second, it pointed to the possible problem of charter
challenges to such restrictions.
Third, the Lortie commission recommended that there be no
limits on the size of contributions to registered political parties.
In deciding this the Lortie commission found that there was ``an
absence of any compelling evidence that the number and value
of large contributions to federal parties and candidates raise
serious concerns about undue influence''.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for
Surrey North. I am sure she was inspired by a sincere desire and
interest in the political system. However, I suggest that a
thorough examination of this subject by an independent inquiry
looked into the matter and found there was no suggestion of the
influence that seemed to trouble the last speaker in the House.
Further, the Lortie commission concluded that it would be very
difficult to enforce such limits.
We have seen other jurisdictions where such unenforceable or
difficult to enforce limits run into problems and bring the whole
of the political system into disrepute.
[Translation]
I am sure that Bloc members are aware of the problem in
France arising from the funding of policical parties. Limits were
set, but no pertinent regulations were adopted. It is very
important to analyse limits on contributions to ensure they are
practical and applicable to individual cases.
[English]
During the last Parliament a special committee on electoral
reform was struck to consider the Lortie commission's
proposals. In the end the committee did not recommend limits
on who could make donations and the maximum amount of such
donations. I agree with the final decisions of the Lortie
commission and the special committee.
The Canada Elections Act, as it stands, provides the necessary
mechanisms to ensure that our electoral system is fair and
equitable. Notably there are controls on election expenditures.
The transparency of political donations is assured in that
registered political parties must provide an annual report setting
out the amount of money received and the name of each donor
who contributed more than $100.
I am of the view that these measures are more than sufficient
to protect the integrity of the electoral system. We have a saying
that it does no good to throw the baby out with the dirty bath
water. There is no question there are problems with electoral
financing as there are problems with every aspect of the
electoral system of the country.
These problems deserve careful, mature examination and
reflection before coming to conclusions. I find that the
conclusions in the Lortie commission respect those criteria. It is
for that reason I cannot support the motion before the House.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to continue the debate in this House this afternoon on
the motion of my hon. colleague from Richelieu concerning
financial contributions to political parties.
Mr. Speaker, we all know how important the financing of
political parties is when elections come. Clearly, an election
campaign takes money. But do we really have to let just anyone
or anything finance our political parties? Canada's electoral
system has serious shortcomings that allow multinationals, even
American ones, to meddle in Canadian public affairs. If this
electoral system does not soon acquire strict rules on the
financing of political parties, it is in great danger of no longer
being representative.
The Bloc Quebecois, which applied Quebec's rules on public
financing during the last election campaign, is the only federal
political party represented in this House which can boast that its
election expenses were financed solely by individuals and that
4018
it is accountable only to these same people. Not to interest
groups, not to corporations or multinational conglomerates, but
only to the people whom it proudly represents. We are dealing
with the very principle of democracy today. But what do the
members opposite fear?
When the Parti Quebecois introduced the legislation on
political party financing in 1977, some feared that the Quebec
Liberal Party would not recover. The party was cut off from
most of its financing sources and had to make some adjustments.
It had always depended on large corporations to fund its
political activities. The party's financial position, although
weakened at first, adapted to the change and is doing very well
today, relying exclusively on private donations. Political parties
in Quebec can survive without corporate financing, and it is
much better this way.
What did happen for individuals to start making small
donations to their favourite political party? It is simply that,
once private donations were accepted, individuals slowly
regained confidence in their elected representatives. Voters
realize now that their 10 $ or 20 $ donations can make a
difference. Quebecers know that election results and
government decisions no longer depend on the mood of large
corporations. The average Canadian, such as the one that we
should be representing as parliamentarians, knows that he has a
say in the state's business.
When in their ridings, members of the Bloc Quebecois are not
afraid of being asked THE question so feared by members of
other parties, which is the following: ``Whose interests are you
promoting in the House of Commons?'' the Bloc Quebecois
members simply answer: ``The only interests that we promote
are those of Quebecers''. The least we can say is that the answer
from Liberal Party members is likely much more complicated. If
you look closely at who funded their election campaign, you
soon realize that they are accountable not only to the people, but
to others as well.
(1355)
To find out whom the Liberals are indebted to, one only has to
look at Elections Canada's report, which reveals that in
1991-92, nearly 50 per cent of contributions to the Liberal Party
of Canada's election fund came from businesses and from
various commercial and other organizations. How can Liberal
Party members say they protect people's interests when half
their funds come from companies? Let us not delude ourselves:
these big corporations do not give tens and hundreds of
thousands of dollars to that party just because of its great
democratic values.
French-Canadians used to say, ``No taxation without
representation.'' The Liberals and the Tories have made a few
changes to this famous sentence over the years. Today their
slogan would be: ``No representation without contribution''.
Those who want their voices to be heard in Parliament should
realize that they must make substantial contributions to the
election fund or else their demands will disappear under the
millions of dollars given to the national political parties by the
big corporations. So much for the great democratic principles
Canada is so proud of.
Some companies do not take any chances, like CN, which
gave tens of thousands of dollars to each of the two big parties
last year. They expect something in return, such as favours,
contracts or legislative amendments favouring them. We should
not think that these companies, which are not used to spending
their money needlessly, are motivated solely by noble
intentions. If we let these corporations influence through their
donations the results of elections in this country, the decisions
our governments will make may be biased by their debts, moral
or otherwise, to these very companies.
The political parties taking office in Ottawa are supposed to
represent the Canadian people, but until the federal government
amends, as Quebec did over 15 years ago, its legislation on
political party funding, people will always wonder whose
interests the government in office is trying to protect. Quebecers
have understood the meaning of the word ``democracy'' for a
long time. Today, the federal government has an opportunity to
show us it understands it too. It is up to it to seize this
opportunity offered by the Official Opposition to restore the
democratic reputation of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to participate in the debate on this motion on party
financing put forward by the hon. member for Richelieu.
One of the speakers opposite referred to the Lortie
Commission, a commission which has investigated extensively
and heard the testimonies of numerous witnesses who wanted to
voice their opinions on political financing. At the time, I had
seized the opportunity to very humbly submit a brief on party
financing because this is a subject I have been interested in for
many years, even before I had the privilege of representing the
people of the riding of Papineau at the National Assembly. All
this to say that my main concern was with the way political
parties were funded. I maintain, and I am not the only one, that
the way political parties are funded leaves much to be desired. I
have read extensively on the subject and I have come across a
solution I consider very practical, yet revolutionary. It is from a
professor at the University of New Brunswick who was
completing a doctorate, and the subject of his thesis was party
financing in Canada.
(1400)
In this thesis, it was demonstrated that indeed, the easiest and
most democratic way of financing political parties would be to
eliminate all contributions from companies, labour and other
organizations and allow only individuals to make donations or
contributions to political parties. No companies, no legal,
architectural or engineering firms. We all know the gamut of
contributors to party funds. There is no need to elaborate. I do
4019
not think that large contributions are made out of love for
democracy. We must absolutely look at this issue.
I say this as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. I have had
many discussions on this with my fellow citizens and they fully
support the opinion which I have always expressed, not only in
this House, but also in Quebec's National Assembly and before
the Lortie Commission, to the effect that changes must be made.
If we believe that we are a democratic society, then we must
make changes to the financing of political parties.
I want to go back to the New Brunswick professor. I discussed
this issue with him and, in fact, I had a question put on the Order
Paper to get information to help him in his work. That person
claims that only a citizen of Canada should make a donation and
that the maximum allowed should be one dollar. One might say:
How are we going to finance political parties? It is very simple.
We are here to represent all Canadians; consequently, we should
be elected only by individual Canadians and not by lobbies, law
firms or engineering companies. Our fellow citizens should be
the only ones allowed to financially help us get elected.
So, that person suggests a one-dollar limit. How would that
be done? It is very easy. For all intents and purposes, one dollar
per Canadian amounts to $25 million. That $25 million would be
divided each year between the political parties. I will not get
into technicalities here, but it would not be complicated.
According to the professor, the procedure would be very
simple-it only takes two pages-and the distribution would be
done very democratically, thus ensuring that political parties
would have the necessary monies to conduct their activities.
Subsequent to the conversations I had with this professor, I
learned about the amount of tax refunds the governement of
Canada grants to people who donated to a political party. You
have all heard about tax credits and other such things. I do not
have to get technical and go into details. Suffice it to say that
such contributions entitle to tax credits. In 1990, in particular,
these tax credits reached $20 million. And this does not take into
account the management of the system, etc. In other words, it
would almost amount to an economy for the state if people were
contributing the funds needed to operate democratically the
political parties of Canada.
This idea is very attractive and deserves careful thought. I
submitted it to the Lortie Commission, which found it very
interesting, but the opinion is divided on this issue. The
principle is very simple.
(1405)
If we believe in a democratic society and if we believe that
one could represent people in this House without having to
accept contributions from anyone, this would be the ideal
situation. That is the goal aimed for in our society, because we
know human nature. There is nothing illegal involved, but such
is human nature. There are people making contributions who are
very sincere in their contributions to a party or a candidate.
However, we have to take into account that we always have to
find means to keep it as democratic as possible. I personally felt
that this professor from the University of New Brunswick had a
magic solution to this problem.
We do not have all the data, but we could have a closer look at
it. I would have liked to speak longer, but the principle, the
notion is very clear that only individuals, the people, our fellow
citizens, should finance our election to this House.
In concluding, I would like to put forward the following
amendment:
That the motion be amended by substituting to the figure of ``$5,000'' the
figure of ``$1''.
The Deputy Speaker: We have already dealt with the content
of that amendment and it was considered in order. The clerk
gave me that assurance. Is there an hon. member who wishes to
second the motion? The hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth is seconding the motion.
Debate on the amendment.
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for
my lack of experience, but could you explain to us the
implication of this amendment on the unfolding of the debate? I
would also like to know whether the mover of the motion, the
hon. member for Richelieu, has been informed of the intent of
our hon. colleague.
The Deputy Speaker: Good question. In theory, the debate is
on the amendment. Actually, it is on the motion and the
amendment to the amendment. At the end of the proceedings
today, that is at 2:30 p.m., we will still have one hour left when
we resume debate next time. In theory, the amendment to the
amendment can be adopted with unanimous consent, or
members can vote it down. The decision is up to the hon.
members. So, we will proceed with the debate on the matter
before us. I hope I made myself clear.
The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has
the floor.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, I am here to stay. I am very pleased to take part in
this debate. I know that we are now debating the amendment of
the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre, but I would also like to
mention that I totally agree with the motion of the member for
Richelieu in its present form. Consequently, even though I
endorse most of the comments made by the member for
4020
Gatineau-La Lièvre, I am not in favour of the $1 limit. I will
explain why later on.
Before I do that, however, I would like to indicate why I
wished to speak in this debate. There are three main reasons: the
first is that, being a long time member and militant of the Parti
Quebecois, it was an honour, naturally, for me to see that the
first thing the Parti Quebecois, under the leadership of René
Lévesque, did when it was elected in 1976, was to pass a law on
political party financing. Mr. Lévesque and his government
wanted to solve this thorny problem at the time because integrity
was at stake. They enacted such legislation, and I believe it is a
fundamental reason, to control the financing of political parties
in order to ensure that the people would be able to believe in
their elected representatives.
(1410)
Everybody knows, and I will not elaborate further on this,
how much the credibility of elected representatives is in
question, for all sorts of reasons. They wanted to assure the
people, in this regard at least, that elected representatives were
democratically elected and that they did not have special ties
with any group of society, be it business people, unions or
professional corporations. That is the first reason why I wanted
to speak in this debate.
The second has to do with François Gérin, my predecessor in
this House as member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
who proposed the idea of popular financing to the Conservative
Party. Unfortunately, in spite of all its promises, the
Conservative government never delivered the goods.
I would, however, like to underscore the considerable efforts
of the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead at the time
and recall the words spoken by Mr. Gérin when he appeared
before the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party
Financing, the Lortie Commission mentioned a few moments
ago by the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. Mr. Gérin stated
the following: ``Limiting donations to individuals will restrict
the number of bagmen, the real political parasites who wield a
disproportionate amount of influence within their party''. He
also had this to say: ``Canadians now demand more transparency
from their government and morals standards that are beyond
reproach''.
``The lure of a reward is undoubtedly a very human reflect,
but it is inconsistent with the political ideal of serving the
common good''. Lastly, he stated: ``Companies do not vote.
Neither do associations nor labour unions. There is no longer
any reason for these groups to have a dominant role in our
electoral or political system by virtue of the fact they fund more
than half of the activities of Canadian political parties''. This is
how the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
appearing before the royal commission in 1990, justified the
need to move as quickly as possible to a system whereby
political parties are funded by individuals.
As I mentioned earlier, this funding method was adopted
nearly twenty years ago in Quebec. It is well known and enjoys
widespread support from all sides, not only from members of the
public, the vast majority of whom support this approach, but
also from businesses. Oddly enough, a survey conducted in 1988
by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which had
over 80,000 members at the time, showed that a majority of
directors of companies and small and medium-sized businesses
were also in favour of this type of reform. And, like all the
members of this House and even people outside this place, the
majority of editorial writers who comment on the political arena
have spoken most highly and favourably of such reform.
(1415)
Just a word on the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre. As I said earlier, I think his colleagues
from the Liberal Party should read his remarks over carefully,
draw inspiration from them and make them their motto, their
theme with regard to party financing in the months to come.
I have a small problem however with the $1 limit on
contributions. I think it comes from the right place, but the
bottom line for these democratic bodies known as political
parties would be near-paralysis.
Obviously, our electoral legislation-the hon. member for
Rosedale referred to it earlier-both federally and in the various
provinces, already provides for using public funds to refund in
part the expenses incurred by candidates or political parties
which have presented a number of candidates with a minimum
of success. And that is perfectly all right.
However, political parties must continue to function between
elections. They must be able to operate, consult their
membership to seek advice on the general business of
government and, to do so, naturally, they need money. So if we
put a $1 limit on individual financing, it would be very difficult,
in my opinion, to support an organization efficiently.
I think what the point of the motion tabled by the hon. member
for Richelieu-and on this I agree with the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre-is that political parties must be financed
by individuals and not by corporate entities such as companies,
unions and professional corporations of all kinds. We already
allow a democratization of political party funding.
I am proud to repeat this since I feel I was part of this effort,
the example that the Parti Quebecois always gives, the fact that
all political parties in Quebec are now financed by individuals in
a popular and democratic fashion because of the law passed at
the beginning of 1977 by the Lévesque government, speaks for
itself.
4021
I heard a Conservative senator who used to be a Liberal,
Senator Rivest, if I may give his name, Mr. Speaker, say in an
interview on political party funding: ``It is quite remarkable
that since this legislation was passed in Quebec, no significant
case of patronage linked to corporate or other contributions has
come to light either in the Parti Quebecois government or the
Liberal government''.
So the results speak for themselves and clearly demonstrate
that individual financing of political parties has improved our
political ethics. That is what we want to bring in at the federal
level.
(1420)
I will conclude because I am told that I have about a minute
left. When the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead
waged this fierce battle for popular financing within his own
party, he obtained an agreement from the leader of the
government at that time, Prime Minister Mulroney, who made a
formal commitment before the 1988 election to present a bill on
the financing of political parties once the House returned, which
he never did, as everyone knows. We know what happened to
that government, which is represented here in this House by just
a captain and one foot soldier.
Mr. Speaker, there is a message in that for the government
opposite, an important message, and I say that without
partisanship. We must start work now on passing a bill on the
financing of political parties along the lines of the motion of the
member for Richelieu.
Mr. Speaker, I also say, and this is a point that was raised by
the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, that
such legislation must be completely non-partisan. It must have
the unanimous agreement of members of this House. Through
the motion of the member for Richelieu, we in the Bloc
Quebecois reach out to the government and say to it that we are
ready to proceed as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
briefly, I must say that I have great sympathy with this motion.
However, it is a little disconcerting that the members opposite
assume that someone like myself had large corporate donations
to my campaign. I would like to set the record straight.
My total personal election spending contributions totalled
$17,000. The largest contribution I received was $1,000. I
received absolutely no money from the Liberal Party, it was all
obtained from individuals. Also all the money was obtained
during the election campaign. They were donations from
individuals. I held a barbecue and did the customary things.
I find myself in sympathy because I feel it is right and proper
that MPs who represent the people should be supported
primarily by the people rather than by corporations. I want the
members opposite to know that the Bloc and the Reform have no
monopoly on receiving donations only from individuals rather
than from large corporations. I did not enjoy that either.
I support the amendment, however, because the total amount
of donations that I received only amounted to $17,000. If I had
received a donation of $5,000 it would have been significant,
almost one-third of what I had available to spend. I would be
afraid in such a situation that the person giving me the $5,000
donation, whether an individual or corporation would expect
some sort of favour in return. They certainly would have
expected some sort of influence.
I find that the original motion has a weakness in stipulating a
sum as high as $5,000. By supporting the amendment I believe
we offer the government an alternative. The motion is flawed
not because of any lack of proper motive on the part of those who
have moved the motion but because it is something that requires
very careful consideration by the government.
If I have a minute or two more, I would like to add to the
debate an anecdote which may be of interest to members. When I
was campaigning I had the pleasure of being accompanied at one
point by an American television crew from the
``MacNeil-Lehrer Show''. They had come up to my riding of
Hamilton-Wentworth because it was seen as a bellwether
riding in the election. It had been a Tory riding for 22 years and
they were very interested to see what would happen. The camera
crew followed me as I went from door to door, as I am sure all
members of this House did during the election. I would knock on
the door, shake hands and go on.
(1425)
Driving back at the end of the day the producer of this crew
asked me how much I expected to spend in total in the election. I
said I thought it would be at best about $30,000. I was counting
the amount of money I had raised by donations and the matching
money that would come as a consequence. He said: ``That is just
amazing because in the United States a congressman running for
election would expect to spend at least $180,000''. When I asked
why he said it was because they would have to spend money on
radio and television advertising and that kind of thing.
I hate to say this but he told me that is one of the reasons
American politics has such difficulty with corruption and
influence peddling. It is because the average individual cannot
possibly run for Congress without substantial financial support
from corporations and special interest groups.
I asked why they needed all that money. He said: ``Because we
as Americans cannot do what you as Canadians can do. We
cannot go door to door as we saw you doing today. The simple
4022
reason is that in the United States, in my Detroit, if we went
door to door like that on a campaign, we would be shot and killed
or attacked''.
I leave that thought with you. No matter what we do as MPs,
we do live in a democratic society and a political environment
that is absolutely second to none.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I guess things are
not going my way this afternoon. I think there is not enough time
for me to make my 10-minute speech. First, I want to comment
briefly the amendment to the motion, which was put forward by
a member opposite a few minutes ago and which would limit the
contribution to a political party to $1 per individual.
At first glance, this may seem like a very interesting
amendment. For example, there were 85,000 voters in my riding
during the last election. With a budget of $1 per voter or
$85,000, I would have had a lot more money than the law
allowed me to spend. I would have had something like $20,000
more money, without having to do anything, no door-to-door
campaigning, no electoral committee, no solicitation for
volunteers to work for me. In fact, without leaving my house, I
would have been able to receive $85,000 from all Canadians for
my election campaign, just like my opponent. And since I had
four opponents, all five of us would have received $85,000, at $1
per voter.
This may seem interesting compared to the tax refunds the
State has to grant to people who donated to a political party. I
know that the tax refunds reached $20 million, at some point in
the last few years, but if the federal government has to reimburse
$20 million, that means that some voters decided, of their own
free will, to donate about $6 million to $7 million. What is at the
root of this action and very important for the preservation of our
democracy is that, when, as an individual, I decide to donate
even only $1 to a political party, I get at least the chance to pick
the party I want to support.
(1430)
The effect of the proposed formula will be that I will give one
dollar to my own party and one dollar to every other party. I will
have no other choice but to finance all political parties, whether
I like it or not, whether their philosophy is compatible with my
own beliefs or not. It would not matter anymore, everybody
would be entitled to some degree of financing.
I do not believe that it is the way to build a democracy.
Democracy is based first and foremost on a personal
commitment, a personnel decision to support one ideology
rather than another. I would hate to see legislation giving the
government the authority to take my tax dollars to finance
anyone who would feel like entering politics. Although
appealing at first, this measure appears rather antidemocratic
and would, in the short and medium term, cause people to lose
interest in politics since they would be inclined to believe that it
is no longer their business. They no longer would have to get
involved. All those who would want to enter politics would have
the money to do it anyway and to say what they want, whenever
they want and to whomever they want, and they could stay
quietly at home.
I am afraid that this is not the way to lay the foundation of a
sound democracy, a democracy on the move.
To have to raise money during an election campaign has its
positive sides too. The objective of today's motion is not to
prevent people from giving money to political parties. Not at all.
On the contrary, it is to allow private individuals to contribute,
but to a reasonable level. The objective is to make sure that when
individuals join a political party they can, irrespective of their
wealth, express their free opinion, exercise their choice and be
recognized.
We do not want any involvement of companies, unions and
interest groups which exist for predetermined reasons.
Companies, when they request a charter, state their objectives.
Unions do the same, as well as professional associations. When
they ask for a charter establishing their existence, they state
their objectives, and what goals they aim for by forming an
association. Most unions, most professional associations would
say: to defend the interests or our members. It is not necessarily
for the interests of the community, and not necessarily for the
interests of Canadians in general, on the contrary. It is to protect
the interests of their members. When they do, they do it well.
We should not allow these organizations, these corporations,
these special interest groups to have disproportionate influence
because of their financial means, in relation to the private
citizen who, without a fortune, cannot have his opinion
expressed and recognized by his peers in a democratic assembly
because he has less influence, not having had the means to
contribute as much.
Democracy is based primarily on respect of individuals. If we
want to motivate people to work for our election, we should not
do it only by asking them for money but also by giving them
responsibilities.
It is when people take the time to work for a good cause that
they get together and get involved in the political aspect of every
day life. In this way, they take an interest in the operations of the
organization not only during an election but in between
campaigns.
This is a very good way for a political party to survive and to
support itself, just as any good parent would find the money to
support his or her family. Any political party should also have
the decency and the ability to generate its own revenues so that it
be truly democratic and allow its members to participate fully.
4023
Naturally, I will vote against the proposed amendment while
supporting the main motion as is.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.35 p.m.)